Max Weber’s famous text The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) is surely one of the most misunderstood of all the canonical works regularly taught, mangled, and revered in universities across the globe. This is not to say that teachers and students are stupid, but that this is an exceptionally compact text that ranges across a very broad subject area, written by an out-and-out intellectual at the top of his game. He would have been dumbfounded to find that it was being used as an elementary introduction to sociology for undergraduate students, or even schoolchildren.
We use the word “capitalism” today as if its meaning were self-evident, or else as if it came from Marx, but this casualness must be set aside. “Capitalism was Weber’s own word and he defined it as he saw fit. Its most general meaning was quite simply modernity itself: Capitalism was “the most fateful power in our modern life.” More specifically, it controlled and generated “modern Kultur,” the code of values by which people lived in the 20th-century West, and now live, we may add, in much of the 21st-century globe. So the “spirit” of capitalism is also an “ethic,” though no doubt the title would have sounded a bit flat if it had been called The Protestant Ethic and the Ethic of Capitalism.
This modern “ethic” or code of values was unlike any other that had gone before. Weber supposed that all previous ethics–that is, socially accepted codes of behavior rather than the more abstract propositions made by theologians and philosophers–were religious. Religions supplied clear messages about how to behave in society in straightforward human terms, messages that were taken to be moral absolutes binding on all people. In the West this meant Christianity, and its most important social and ethical prescription came out of the Bible: “Love thy neighbor.” Weber was not against love, but his idea of love was a private one–a realm of intimacy and sexuality. As a guide to social behavior in public places “love thy neighbor” was obviously nonsense, and this was a principal reason why the claims of churches to speak to modern society in authentically religious terms were marginal. He would not have been surprised at the long innings enjoyed by the slogan “God is love” in the 20th-century West–its career was already launched in his own day–nor that its social consequences should have been so limited.
The ethic or code that dominated public life in the modern world was very different. Above all it was impersonal rather than personal: By Weber’s day, agreement on what was right and wrong for the individual was breaking down. The truths of religion–the basis of ethics–were now contested, and other time-honored norms–such as those pertaining to sexuality, marriage, and beauty–were also breaking down. (Here is a blast from the past: Who today would think to uphold a binding idea of beauty?) Values were increasingly the property of the individual, not society. So instead of humanly warm contact, based on a shared, intuitively obvious understanding of right and wrong, public behavior was cool, reserved, hard, and sober, governed by strict personal self-control. Correct behavior lay in the observance of correct procedures. Most obviously, it obeyed the letter of the law (for who could say what its spirit was?) and it was rational. It was logical, consistent, and coherent; or else it obeyed unquestioned modern realities such as the power of numbers, market forces, and technology.
There was another kind of disintegration besides that of traditional ethics. The proliferation of knowledge and reflection on knowledge had made it impossible for any one person to know and survey it all. In a world that could not be grasped as a whole, and where there were no universally shared values, most people clung to the particular niche to which they were most committed: their job or profession. They treated their work as a post-religious calling, “an absolute end in itself,” and if the modern “ethic” or “spirit” had an ultimate foundation, this was it. One of the most widespread clichés about Weber’s thought is to say that he preached a work ethic. This is a mistake. He personally saw no particular virtue in sweat–he thought his best ideas came to him when relaxing on a sofa with a cigar–and had he known he would be misunderstood in this way, he would have pointed out that a capacity for hard work was something that did not distinguish the modern West from previous societies and their value systems. However, the idea that people were being ever more defined by the blinkered focus of their employment was one he regarded as profoundly modern and characteristic.
The blinkered professional ethic was common to entrepreneurs and an increasingly high-wage, skilled labor force, and it was this combination that produced a situation where the “highest good” was the making of money and ever more money, without any limit. This is what is most readily recognizable as the “spirit” of capitalism, but it should be stressed that it was not a simple ethic of greed which, as Weber recognized, was age-old and eternal.
In fact there are two sets of ideas here, though they overlap. There is one about potentially universal rational procedures–specialization, logic, and formally consistent behavior–and another that is closer to the modern economy, of which the central part is the professional ethic. The modern situation was the product of narrow-minded adhesion to one’s particular function under a set of conditions where the attempt to understand modernity as a whole had been abandoned by most people. As a result they were not in control of their own destiny, but were governed by the set of rational and impersonal procedures that he likened to an iron cage, or “steel housing.” Given its rational and impersonal foundations, the housing fell far short of any human ideal of warmth, spontaneity, or breadth of outlook; yet rationality, technology, and legality also produced material goods for mass consumption in unprecedented amounts. For this reason, though, they could always do so if they chose to, people were unlikely to leave the housing “until the last hundredweight of fossil fuel is burned up.”
It is an extremely powerful analysis, which tells us a great deal about the 20th-century West and a set of Western ideas and priorities that the rest of the world has been increasingly happy to take up since 1945. It derives its power not simply from what it says, but because Weber sought to place understanding before judgment, and to see the world as a whole. If we wish to go beyond him, we must do the same.
Peter Ghosh is an associate professor of history and Jean Duffield fellow in modern history at St. Anne’s College, University of Oxford. He is the author of Max Weber in Context: Essays in the History of German Ideas, c. 1870–1930.
This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.