Copyright Sociological Research Online,

The Protestant Ethic Debate: Max Webers Replies to his Critics, 1907-1910

Order this book

Protestantism and Capitalism: The Mechanisms of Influence

Order this book

The Protestant Ethic Debate: Approaching the Centenary

The Protestant Ethic debate shows no sign of going away. With 2004 marking the centenary of the publication of the first of Weber's two classic essays, Chalcraft's suggestion that the debate be re-designated the 'academic "Hundred Years War"' (p.1) seems appropriate. The debate has been an enduring phenomenon, and also one characterised from the outset by hostilities. That Weber did not take kindly to Fischer's and Rachfahl's critical responses to his essays on The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism is readily apparent from the tone of his replies that make up the bulk of the Chalcraft and Harrington volume. Arguably he was merely giving as good as he got. As Chalcraft notes in his useful and balanced introductory essay, 'Rachfahl and Weber both accuse each other of willful misreading, childishness, disciplinary patriotism, cliquishism, incompetence….; ignorance; dishonour; utilising strategies more suited to low-level politics, street theatre and magic shows; pedantry, hair-splitting bookishness, "Talmudism" and immature fixation on words and particular sentences' (p.9). Fischer was summarily dismissed by Weber on the grounds that he knew 'absolutely nothing about the matter in question' (p.43, emphasis in original). The characterisation of Fischer as 'an incompetent' (p.48) reflects Weber's irritation at the temerity of his critic to reply to Weber's initial response. Rachfahl was likewise accused of being 'seized by the mania of needing to be right at any price, even the price of literary honesty' (p.95). Chalcraft notes that the debate with Rachfahl was consciously framed in terms of 'the language of the duelling fraternities' (p.16), with Weber feeling 'dishonoured' (p.9) by the wrangling of 'an argumentative pugilist' (p.18). With debate conducted in such terms of either winning or losing an argument outright, it is unsurprising that common ground was hard to find. It may be wondered whether it was even being sought.

These contributions to the Protestant Ethic debate are instructive at other levels beside the vocabularies of insult on which Weber drew. In particular, they cast light on how academic misunderstanding can arise and persist, notably where participants in a debate disagree on the rules of engagement. They also reveal how these problems are compounded by translation difficulties. Weber's style was extremely convoluted in these replies, and Harrington has wisely spared readers the faithful translation that 'would have been completely unreadable' (p.22). By contrast, Cohen's style is commendably reader-friendly. He writes in short sentences and his chapters are divided into sections in a logical fashion that carries the reader along. His ambition is nothing less than to test the Weber thesis against historical data relating to the Puritans, and he sets about doing this by breaking Weber's argument down into its constituent parts. Cohen (pp.19-20) identifies nine distinct hypotheses about the relationship between Protestantism and capitalism in Weber's work, with each of these having several variations. Mindful that Weber 'conceded nothing to the critics' (p.1), Cohen is nevertheless optimistic that it is a useful exercise to examine these hypothesised 'mechanisms of influence' in the light of the records left by seventeenth- century English Puritans. His careful sifting of the available evidence, the shortcomings of which he acknowledges, allows him to conclude that Weber's case has a good deal of credibility, but that some of the criticisms of his account are valid. Rather than be forced to choose between either confirmation or refutation of one composite thesis, Cohen prefers to separate out the various hypotheses that Weber advanced and to conclude that 'the Weber thesis is partly right and partly wrong' (p.260). The explanations of why this is the case have wider relevance. Cohen argues that Weber's use of the ideal type methodology led to his identification of Puritanism as a more consistent religion than is warranted, while Weber's account of Puritanism's various incentives to act in particular ways neglected the importance of norm-governed behaviour. Hence, Cohen observes, 'it is time to put the "ethic" back into the Protestant ethic' (p.237). Cohen recognises that not all of the questions that he poses can be answered definitively, and that with other research on-going, 'The conclusions of this study may not be the final conclusions on this topic' (p.26). Research of this calibre and thoroughness demonstrates that knowledge can be advanced without the need for the sort of hostile polemic in which Weber became embroiled.

Graham Crow
University of Southampton

Copyright Sociological Research Online,