Eisen, A. - The Meanings and Confusions of Weberian 'Rationality'

8/13/2019 Eisen, A. - The Meanings and Confusions of Weberian 'Rationality'

1/15

The Meanings and Confusions of Weberian 'Rationality'Author(s): Arnold EisenSource: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 57-70Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and PoliticalScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/589219

Accessed: 14/12/2009 13:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishingand The London School of Economics and Political Scienceare collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/589219?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/589219?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/15

Britishtournalf Sociolog)o olume9 J%umberMarch978Arnold Eisen

The meanings ndconfusionsfWeberianrationality'A B S T RA C T

Weber'subiquitoususage of the word 'rational'has been criticizedby StevenLukes,amongothers,as being'irredeemablypaqueandshifting'. n the presentessay,however, t is seen thatWeber'susageis consistent. ix interdependentlementsof the concept rationality'are dentified, achof which s intended o contributeo the concept'soverallmeaningwhenany one is employedas the locus of primarysignificance.While 'rational's thus shownto be conceptually igor-ous if at times needlessly onfusing, he distinctionbetweenformaland substantiveationalitys examinedand judgedto be both theo-reticallyconfusedandsubstantially iased,disguising he valuationsinherent n the criteriaby which formalrationalitys assessed.Thisconfusion,Weber'spersistentusage of'rational' when 'calculable'or 'systematic'wouldhave servedmuchbetter,and the implicit ron-ies of Weber'spresentation, re traced to the Puritanschemaonwhich Weberbelieved rationalconduct' o be based,one preciselyparallel o his own statement.

Max Weber'spersistent nd variegatedusageof the word 'rational' sa source of perpetualconsternation o the carefulreader, and theauthor'srepeated caveat that 'rationalisms an historical conceptwhich coversa whole world of diffierenthings'l only addresses urconfusionwithout at all alleviating t. Were Weber'swarning com-pletelytrue,he would obviouslynot bejustified n using a singlewordto describe hose 'diffierenthings', and Steven Lukeshas concludedthat he was not. Weber'susage of 'rational'and its cognates, Lukeshas argued,is 'irredeemably paque and shifting'.2Clearly, Webermust hold that, although diffierent, he historicaldevelopmentsandsocial actionswhich he labels 'rational'are integrally elated;that, inhis words, 'ultimatelythey belong inseparably ogether'.3We thusneed to knowthe forceof that 'ultimately'o discover f and how theclaim is legitimate.In the presentessay,I hope to showthat it is, in the following ense.An examination f Weber'sbasic categories f social action, set forth


3/15

58 ArnoldEisenat the start of WirtschaftndGesellschaft,nd of the historical urveywhich introduces he serieson Religionssoziologie,eveals hat the con-cept 'rationality' s composedof a half dozen componentelements,which reappear consistently n the usages of the term throughoutWeber'smonumental cholarship.Each of these nterdependent uild-ing blocks, summarized n the followingparagraphs, s intended tocontribute o the overall conceptwhen any one (or more) is used asthe locus of primarymeaning, ust as in the historicaloutline eachapplicationof the term adds its shape to the parent dea, therebyen-riching all future applications.What is lost in precision hroughuseof the single erm s repaid n addedmeaning or each application.Yet,as we shall see, the confusionwhich remains,especially n the relatedand problematicdistinctionbetweenformaland substantive ational-ity, is considerable.This confusioncasts considerabledoubt on theutility-and the value-neutrality{f Weber'sentire effort to clarifythe processof rationalization hich he identified.THE USAGES SUMMARIZEDWeberuses the conceptof rationality n the variousareasof his workin connectionwith or as a 'marker'or one or moreof the following ixcomponent lements.

I. Underlyingall rationality s purpose:he conscious ntent of theactor to achievea given end. In the relatively are occurrence f pure'value-rational' ction, only the actor's consciousend is considered,with no weighingof ends and means,but in all rationalactionthere sthe denial of arbitrariness,ecause he actoracts for a knownpurpose,and becausethis action in concertwith others ncreases or attemptsto) the extent of control exercisedover the world, and so diminishes(or attempts o) the swayof unpredictable,.e. chanceevents.4Ration-ality has alwaysexistedto some degree;the means chosen n pursuitof purposedetermine he degree.2. If meansand ends are both subject o calculation,we have zweck-rational ction, which embodies he component lementof calculability,'the basis of everything lse'5not only in economicaction but in theidea of rationalitytself.Becauseof this element,an action s said to berational f it is maximallyefiicacious i.e. proven by calculationandexperience o be so) for the achievement f a desiredresult.Action is'subjectively ational' f only believed o be most efficient, objectivelyrational' f it actually s so, in our calculated stimation.This sense, nWeber's tudy of the economyand elsewhere, s the prevalentusageof the word rational,and the key to the four usageswhich follow.Wefind that calculation s directedat certainty hrough he computationof 'chances' n a reliable (again, proven statistically n experience obe so) manner. For this reason other attemptsto achieve certainty(magicand divination, or example)are 'irrational': hey neitherem-


4/15

The meanings nd confusionsf 11;eberianrationality' 59ploy calculation, nor are they efficientin achieving the certaintysought.In daily social action, an actor who consistentlymoves to achievehis ends (rationally) hroughthe use of 'appropriatemeans' can re-liably presume to understand,and so to predict, the behaviourofanotheractorwho acts likewise,as bothmove througha seriesof stepsdictatedby their sharedrationality;an observer an understand oth.'The interpretation f such rationallypurposefulaction possesses,orthe understandingf the choice of means,the highestdegreeof verifi-able certainty.With a lower degree of certainty . . we are able tounderstand rrors.'6Chance', or Weber, s the 'incalculable'.73. Controls lessstraightforward,elatedto purposeand calculationbut diffieringn logicalstatus. t is botha means o and a goal of rationalaction. Weber can speak of'rationally controlledaction', the higherrationality of controlledlabour,8 rational ascetic self-control,and'rationalprophecy'(not dependenton intoxicants)9 ecause n eachcase a freedom romcontingency nd the unexpectedbringsa greatermeasure f predictability, nd so a greatermastery f the world.Action,therefore, s 'rational' f it is 'voluntary', .e. freely willed, and notsubjectto arbitrary xtraneousdisturbances. his usage can applytoan individual,or to free market ompetition naffectedby governmentmonopoliesor specialprivileges.Control s both meansto and end ofcalculation.In the exposition f the four typesof social action,l Weberexplainsthat affectualction shades nto wertrationalehaviourwhen it reachesthe level of consciousnesssuch 'sublimation' uts it 'well on the roadto rationalization ..'). However, it remains affectual regardlessof the 'levelof sublimation'f it satisfies need forrevenge, ensualgrat-ification,devotion,contemplative liss, or the workingoff of tensions.Weber is drawing,with what he feels is necessaryarbitrariness,heline between willedaction and unwilled action of ^rhichone is con-scious. The difference s that betweenacting and watching acting;what differentiateshem is the elementof control.Similarly,aSectualand traditionalaction shade off in the other direction (away fromrationality,towardnon-'meaningfully riented behaviour') as theyapproach 'automaticreaction to habitual stimuli' or 'uncontrolledreaction o some exceptional timulus'.Again, the decisivevariable scontrol.

4. Perhaps he everydayusage of logical that is, somethingwhich'makes ense' n termsof a given purpose,s coherentand efficacious-is the most obviousconnectionof tllis component o the others, andanother ndicationof Weber'sbeliefthat the sociologist,n formulatingrules about action and logically deducingpredictions rom them, isdoing no more than an ideal-typical, xtremelyperceptiveactordoesin everyday ife.ll The premise-conclusionelationparallels he ends/means relation, both characterizedby one state of affairsfollowing


5/15

60 ArnoldEisenineluctably romanother; his achieves deal embodimentn the tenetsof logical thought. Second, there is internalcoherence:a set of partsare logically interrelatedn our sense if they go beyond llon-contra-diction to actual interdependence nd mutual support,so that thepresenceof each adds in some sense to the others and to the edificewhich all in commonsupport.An ideal-type s meant to possess uchcoherence;a legal systemwhich has its own 'logic' and purports o be'gapless' s logicalto that extent.Weberbelieves hat such 'rationality,in the senseof logicalor teleological onsistency . . has and alwayshashad power over man'.l2 Logical coherence n both aspectsallowsforproof. Finally, Weberspeaksof the 'effectof the ratio, especiallyof ateleological eductionof practicalpostulates', nd employsrational nthe senseof elaboration f implicit consequences.Distinctness, larity,and visibility ncrease alculability, nd are demanded n logic and themanipulation f concepts.Logicalpropositions,Weber tates,offierthehighestdegreeof rationalunderstanding'.l35. There is a formalelement n logic, in that its methodholds trueno matter what the empiricalcontent in a particularcase, and thisuniversality is another omponent f rationality, ftenemployed n assess-ing the rationality f institutions.Abstractnesss most obvious n law,wheregeneralrulesapply to diverse ituationswhich they in fact helpto define (an example of 'rationalization' s constructedmeaning).Bureaucracies,ike juries, must act impersonally.Traditionalpartic-ularistbonds have over time been replacedby rationaluniversal ies,which demandno extrinsicattributes.Universality s importantovertime as well as space: in permanentmusicalnotation,writtenconsti-tutions,reproducible cientific esults,or continuous radingventures,all of them said to be rational.By contrast,meanings o particular sto be inaccessible, r actions according o criteriaso individual hatthey partakeof no shared ogic or means/endscalculus,are irrational.Understanding s possibleat all, Weberwrites,becauseof 'acceptedmodes of thinking'and 'facts . . as experiencehas accustomedus tointerpret hem' in otherwords,because he meaningsare shared.6. Last, rationalconnotes ystematic methodicalorganizationwhichrelatesparts to whole in the mannermost efficacious or the achieve-ment of desired esults,a usageespecially pplied o the studyof organ-zation, though we find t as well in Weber'sdescriptions f asceticism.It can be viewed as the material analogue to the conceptualorgan-izationof the fourthcomponent, ogic: 'an inanimatemachine,'Weberwrote, 'is mind objectified'.l4Rationalization an be an ordering, on-ceptualor actual.It is markedby specialization: wholepersonbecomea part the betterto achievea desiredwhole,whether n the factory, nscience, n bureaucracy, r in a pantheonof gods.The West'smusic,then is said to be rationalbecausemathematicalcalculation ent certaintyand permanence o harmonic cale division,in that the tones, being calculable,could be universally eproduced.


6/15

Ehemeaningsndconfusionsf Weberianrationality'Tonal materialwas unified in a systemof mathematicalrelationsgovernedby formalrules,and fixed n writingby a notationwhichinturnled to specializedmusic-creatorsnd permitted he compositionof music otherwise mpossible.l5Rationallaw, similarly,possesseslogic which both systematicallyntegratesall relevantmaterials,anditselfdefineswhat materials hall in fact be relevant(asWestern onesare chosenfroma largerrangeof possible onesused elsewhere).Lawis consciously rderedandsystematicallyet forth n abstractconceptsandformalprocedures, structurewhich attemptsuniversal copeandpromisesmpersonaludgment,a systemso calculable n its workings,saysWeberat one point, that the judgeorjurymight be compared oa machinewhichtakes n the factsat oneslot, and delivers he verdictfromanother.l6Bureaucracy,oo, compareswith less rationalmodesof organization exactly as does the machinewith non-mechanicalmodesof production.Precision, peed,unambiguity, nowledge f thefiles, continuity,discretion,unity, strict subordination, eductionoffrictionand of materialand personalcosts these are raisedto themaximum n bureaucratic rganizations.'l7Where charismatic ule isincalculableand transitory,l8 nd patrimonial ule personaland un-predictable,l9bureaucratic ule is both calculatingand calculable,systematic,a coherent assemblageof parts manned by specializedpersonnel, deally adaptedto the dominationand administration fmen and the pursuitof ends throughrulesappliedwithoutregardtopersons.20Thepresence f the component lements, nd theirbearing achuponthe others, houldbe clear.The accompanyinghartattempts o dem-onstrate hat Weber'susageof the term'rational', ar from'shifting'and 'opaque', s consistentwithin each areaof his sociology,over allareas,and throughouthe courseof his career.It is in this sense that'one may ... rationalize ife fromfundamentallydifferentpointsofview and in very differentdirections'2l nd yet still be engaged n asingle process.This is the force of Weber'sclaim that the variousde-velopmentsn Western ulture o which he pointsare in a meaningfulway one.FORMAL AND SUBSTANTIVE RATIONALITYBut while the meaningsof rationalityare consistentand conceptuallyrigorous, otso the relatednotionof formalversus ubstantiveational-ity whichWebersuperimposesn theseusages.The distinction, e tellsus, is intendedpreciselyo secure greater onsistencyn the use of thewordrational',whichhadbeen muddledat the time bypartisandebateovernationalization.22utas isso often hecasewithWeber's wn usageof the word,the formalversussubstantivedea only obfuscateswhereit is meantto clarify,and it standsas perhaps he mostconfusedandconfusing oncept n all of Weber'swork on rationalization.We need

E


7/15

X 'eber's sagesof 'ratiozlal'(Theword'rational'appearsn Webersswork n connectiollwithth

AREA PURPOSE CALCULABILITY CONTROL LOGICAL

Persuasirational(p 956)

'systemaanalyticthat theysistent,a(pp.655-Legallog

In legal author-ity, rulesareintentionallyestablished(p. 223)

Normsariseviaunconscioushabitsbecoming.consclous xpec-tations(p. 754)

Deliberateplan-ning (p-63)

Bureaucracy5smeans-endscalculus p. I002)Efficiency p. 223)Increased al-culability p. 284)

Lawincreasesprobabilitywithwhichactorcancalculateaction(p. 327)Lawa technicallyrationalnzachine;predictable(p.8I I )Irrationalgambling(p. I40)

Dominationthroughknow-ledge (p. 225)Discipline hebasisof rationalwarfare p. I I 52)

Higherration-alityof con-trolled abour(p. I37)

I. DONIINATIONsource:Economynd Society

2. LAWsource:EconomyndSociety

3. ECONOMYsource:EconomyndSociety


8/15

Indispensabilityof power of con-trol for economicaction (p. 68)

Rational sobrietyand discipline(p. I6I)

Rational pro-phecy used nointoxicants(p. 29I)

.Experlmentcontrols experi-ence (p. I4I)*

Money facili-tates planning(p. 80)Rational calcu-lation the basis

rOI eCOIlOmlCactivity (p. 67)Rational, arith-metic division oftonal materials(P 3)

Tone marationalizmusical t(P 7)

Rationaliured by srelation bGod and(p. 226)

Rationaliof need fvenge (p

'Logical s(proof) (

Violin-makinglacked rationalfoundation qual-ities of the instru-ment were un-willed (p. I IO)

4. MUSICsource:Rat. &9Soc. Fdn'sof Music

5. RELIGIONsources:Rel. China

Ancient daism

6. SCIENCEsource:Sci as Voc.

PracticalCon-fucianutili-tarianism p. 24I)

Eventsand pro-phecy not deter-mined by magicor chance (p. 3I4)Masterybycalculation((p. I39)*

Worldeventsbelieved o berational n char-acter (p. 3I4)Irrationality fworldnot org. toattain ends(p. I23)*

* QvlotationsromFromMax Weber,d. Gerthand Mills New York,OxfordUniversityPr


9/15

64 Arnold Eisenonly glance at the six elementswhich we have identified o pinpointthe sourceof the problem.A thing of process an ultimatelybe judgedefficient,purposive, r systematic nly relative o some end. The stan-dard must come from outside. Considerations f substanceare notextraneous o 'formal'ones but ratherbuilt in unavoidably.Economicformal rationality,Weber writes, represents he 'extentof quantitative alculationor accountingwhich is technicallypossibleand which is actuallyapplied'; t represents he extent to which pro-vision for needs s, and can be, expressedn calculable erms,whetherthis calculation s in money or kind. Money yields the highest ormalcalculability, s it increaseshe facilityand extentof possible alculation.Substantiverationalityrepresents he degree to which provisioningis shapedundersome criterion f values,whether his is 'ethical,polit-ical, utilitarian,hedonistic, eudal, egalitarian,or whatever'.Resultsof economicaction are assessedaccording o an extrinsic tandardofvalue-rationality, nd not merely by the instrumental-rationaltan-dardof technicallymostadequatemeans.But whereas here s only onebest means, there are 'an infinite number of possible value-scales'.Outcomes, pirit, and instruments f economicactivity may all be sojudged, and the formalrationalityof a given systemmay be deemedless importantthan or even opposed to the achievementof one oranother ubstantive nd.We see that the distinctions meantto showthe relativity f rational-ity; XVeber'semand or clarityseemsto be part of his insistence hatfactsand value udgmentsbe keptseparate.He in fact closes his partic-ular sectionwith a contentious tatementon that very point. 'There sno question n this discussionof attemptingvalue judgments n thisfield, but only of determiningand delimitingwhat is to be calledformal . n this context the concept substantive s itself formal ;that is, it is an abstract,genericconcept.'Formal, hen in one sensemeansabstractor generic,a formor pat-tern into which specificcontent (substance)may be fitted. It almostmeans heoretical s opposed o actual.Thus for Weber he substantivevalidityof money s the actualpossibility f exchangingt againstotheritems, while its formalvalidity s its theoretical r legal standingas anaccepted means of payment and (confusingly) he compulsion o toemploy t. Formal,nominalcontrolover the work-processs retainedundersome ormsof capitalism y the worker,while actual,substantivecontrol s appropriated y the owner.23This usage s relativelyuncom-plicated, houghWebermuddles t by using ormal o meanboth 'tech-nically possible'and 'actuallyapplied'.Both are forrnal elative to asubstantive nd, but they are clearlynot the same.In its other senses, hough, he word formalhas to do less with ab-straction han with an 'inside/outside'dichotomyrelatedto the issueof factsand values.A monetarypolicyoriented o substantivelyationalgoals is said to decline in formalrationality.Workerparticipationn


10/15

Themeaningsndconfusionsf Weberianrationcrliy' 65management,causing substantive ntereststo take precedenceoverformal unctioning f the enterprise, educes ts formalrationality.Or,ownership f a firm by outside nterests ttempting o maximize hort-term profitsat the expenseof the firm's ong-term iability s similarlylikely o impede romal ationality.24n all, formal ationalitys equatedwith the continued ong-term unctioningat maximumefficiencyofthe apparatusas presentlyconstituted(the 'inside' view), a processdisruptedby personspursuing ubstantive oals not consistentwith itsstatusquo operation the 'outside'view). This is the forceof Weber'scomment, n TheReligion f China,hat Confucianife too was rational,but unlike Puritanismdeterminedfrom without rather than fromwithin.25The Puritan'sGod had left the worldstage freefor whateverhumanactorsmight devise;his control, n the word'sother sense,wasformalrather han substantive.The case, lastly, is similar n law. Lawmaking nd lawfindingareeither rationalor irrational: ormally rrationalwhen normsare usedwhich 'cannot be controlledby the intellect',substantivelyrrationalwhen decisionsare 'influencedby concrete factorsof the particularcase as evaluatedupon an ethical, emotional,or political basis ratherthan by generalnorms', n other words,outside the procedure tself.Substantive ationalitymeans that decisionsare influencedby norms'different rom hoseobtained hrough ogicalgeneralization f abstractinterpretations f meaning, whether ethical imperatives,utilitarianand other expediential ules,or politicalmaxims'. t differs romsub-stantive irrationalityn that in the latter such norms nfluenceonlyparticular ases,but areapplieduniversallyn the substantivelyationalcase.26Weber's ntention n thus separating echnicalefficiency rom nor-mative measuress evident,but his distinction ffectivelyobscures herelativity of even 'formal' evaluations. Only at a general level ismonetary alculationoptimallyrationalregardless f our provisioningstandard:at a more specific evel, the particular alculationor policyused will vary in utility dependingon our specificgoals. This is evenmoreevident n otherexamples.The market, he factory, he law, servecertain nterests,which thus promote heir continued unctioning; neach case the question s whethercontrolof a mechanismworking othe benefitof certain nterestswill be appropriated y other interestswhosegoals do not coincidewith the continued, ong-term unctioningof the apparatus s it exists.Weberhimselfnotes that 'formal ustice'must 'time and againproduceconsequences hich are contrary o thesubstantivepostulatesof religiousethics or of political expediency',while benefiting omegroupsat the expenseof others.27Beetham'sclaim that through this dichotomyWeber makes sub-stantivecriticism mpossible,and leaves formalrationalityby default'the soleconsiderationn termsof whicheconomicactivity s consideredin EconomyndSociety'28s not quite accurate, forWeberhimselfobserves


11/15

66 Arnoldisenthatormaland substantiverationalityare often in conflict,29 ndattemptso evade his own trap by stating that certainfacts (e.g.exploitation)reobjectivelysubstantivelyrrational'withoutsupplyingtheecessaryubstantivetandard.30uttheissuedoesraise hequest-ionf whether he distinctionas statedis not deceptive,a matterofscientificrocedure navoidably rejudicingindings.This s Marcuse'scriticism3lndup to a pointhis caseis a strongone.Theconceptofratio,hewrites, isnotsustainedhroughoutWeber's]analysisndfailsat the decisivepoint'.The answer o 'controllingorwhat?'ointsup the limitsof formalreason,by definition he mostefficient eansto someend set fromthe outside.This end, logicallyprioro capitalistrationality,s the provisioningorhumanneedsonthebasisof privateenterprise as opposed o any otherbasissuchassocialism).he failureof capitalismo providedoesnot appear n thedefinition;he superior ationalityof a socialisteconomy s deniedonthe rounds hat separation f worker rommeansof productions atechnologicalequirementof formalrationality n that sense.Thus'the erymaterialhistoricalactofprivatecapitalist nterprise ecomes(inWeber'ssenseof the word) a formalelementof the structureofcapitalismnd of rationalconomy tself'.

If industrializations thefateof themodernworld,he continues,hequestions only:what s themostrationalmeansofcontrollingt?Thisconsideration,hichnow enters he definitionof formalrationality,sachosenend; it is substantive y Weber'sowndefinition.Weber ailstoask'whether hesenecessities rereallyand essentially technolog-ical orwhether heyarethedisguiseof specific ocial nterests . . theperfectionf technicalreasoncan verywell becomethe instrument fman'siberation'.32ut,Marcuse ontinues,technical easonas polit-icalreason s Historical'.Formaland substantive ationalityneed notconflict.HereonefeelsconstrainedodefendWeber:or f Marcuse'sational-itieswere to workhand in hand, what would now be calledformalrationality, o differentromthe previous ationality,wouldalsoservesubstantivendsandhavesubstantivemplications.t is notonlyas an'atrophiedpirit' hat 'themachine s not neutral': t is neverneutral.Formalitycan neverescapesubstance; ts formality s relative;it isalwaysmostefficientfor ome nd. t ispossiblehatat a certain evelofirony,unforgivable ecauseof the confusionwhichit engenders, hisis exactlywhatWeberwantsto tellus.Formalrationalitys notmerelyformal,butsubstantive:t has'real' mplications. ubstantiveatiollal-ity is oftenmerely ormal: t lacks real'repercussions,.e. power.Butat a deeperlevel, the formalrationalitywhichis apparently o sub-stantivemayin factlacksubstantivemplications. t maydo so in thesensethat (X)whether he apparatus ervescapitalismor socialism,tdoeswork dentically,andso (X)perhapst reallyservesno one, beingindependent f all control,a manually reatedautomatonnowcareer-


12/15

Themeaningsndconfusionsf Weberianrationality' 67ing madlyon its own power, ike the demonunleashedby the sorcerer'sapprentice.Conversely, ne senses he conviction hat the only escapefrom this 'iron cage' lies in substantive ontrolapparently ormalbutactuallythe only real control or rationality-possible: n the charis-matic hero who must dominate he bureaucracy,ead the plebiscitary-democratic tate, and introduce he new god who will dethroneersatzprophecy.The answer o Marcuse's oncludingquestion, Or was there ironyin Weber's onceptof reason ' seemsclearenough,unlike he expositionmuddled, f also deepened,by that very rony.The irrationality f whatpasses or reasonwas not just apparent o Weber,but a majorthemeof his work.Still, one is drivento inquire nto other possiblemotivations or theretentionof a terminology o misleading,even given the assumptionthat Weberwas aware of (and perhapsenjoyed) he dialectical urnssuggested bove. One possible ine of speculations that the Weberiantreatmentadhereson both its straightforwardnd ironic levels to aschemeoriginallydeveloped n Puritanism;t was afterall 'on the basisof' the Puritan dea of the calling hat 'rational onduct . . was born'.33RATIONALITY AND THE BERUFSMENSCHWe shouldnote firstof all Weber's bservationhat Puritanism ffirmedthe world as 'the theaterof God-willedactivity n one's worldlycall-ing'.34The metaphorwas significant:not only was man actor in andaudience o the dramaof divine electionunfoldingbeforehis own re-ligiouslymandated ntrospection, ut he was also actor n and audienceto the drama of worldly transformation nfolding n his religiouslysanctionedeffortto controlearthly chances.This is after all \Veber'stheme in TheProtestantthic:although entry to the afterworldsladbeen arbitrarily llotted ong beforeby the distant nscrutableGod, itwas throughsuccess n his worldly calling that a man obtainedevi-dence as to which of the two he was bound for. He was, further, eftfree to practice hat calling,to masterhis world, because he authorofthe play had left the stage, leavingbehindonly the outlinesof a scriptand the barestdirections, n the basisof which the actorswere to con-struct the play. It is precisely n this sense that each is an actor, onewho sayswordsand moves about knowingly,with purpose, n relationto otheractorswho do likewise.The 'stereotyping' hich resulted romprevioussystematicreligiousworld-viewswas replacedby innovationin the case of Puritanismbecausethe deusabsconditusad given sub-stantive(actual) controlover the world to men, retainingonly formal(nominal)controlfor himself and even this was doubted repeatedlyby Puritanswho, observing he predominance f the arbitrary n theirexperienceand even in their dogma, saw precious ittle evidenceforthe claim. An important eatureof the calling,then its mandate or a


13/15

68 ArnoldEisentheatre managedby its own actors is likewisepresent n the similarinside/outsidedistinction n rationality, hat between ormaland sub-stantivevaluations.A second mplication o be drawnat this point follows romWeber'sconclusion hat the Berufsmenscheither inquires about nor finds itnecessary o inquire about the meaning of his actual practice of avocationwithin the whole world, the total framework f which is nothis responsibility ut his god's.35 n formal rationality, oo, controlpasses to an 'inner' mechanismundisturbedby outside interference,and an inner standardmeasuring fficiencywithout regardto other,transcendent riteria.In Puritanism, f course, the outside standardremainednormativelypotent: while the world of the religiousmanbecame ncreasingly ational romhis point of view, it continued o beirrational romGod's.And becausePuritanism,imultaneously oldingto belief in an omnipotentGod and in the meaningof a recalcitrantworld far removed rom Him, could provide 'no rationalsolutionofthe problemof theodicy, t concealed he greatest ensionsbetween heworld and God, between he actuallyexistentand the ideal'.Weberargues hat the more intensethe religiousneed for meaning,the more he worldwas a problem.The more he worldwas systematic-ally organized, he sharper he tensionsbecame, especiallyas secularinstitutionswere systematized utonomously.And the sharper he ten-sion, the greater he drive to further ationalization, ntil the originalsourceof the tensionwas left far behind in an increasinglyrrelevantheaven.36Again we see that the formalmechanism,put in motionforsubstantive urposes, oon achievesa self-generatingmomentum.It is here in Weber's iew of history hat the meanings f rationaliz-ation cometogether-and splinterapart.The worldwhichwas to havebeen one in its parts became n those parts many, each with its ownrationalized laborationof meaning: separaterealmswhich only thespecialist ouldenter.Herewe perhaps indthe finalreason orWeber'spersistentusage of 'rational'on countlessoccasionswhen the relevantsynonym ('systematic', or example,or 'calculable')would far betterhave servedthe aim of clarity. The use of rationalnot only remindsus of the interlocking rocesses f historyand the unity of culture,notonly illuminates he parallel processeswhich have developedmath-ematics, aw, the sciences, he arts,each nto a separate phereof mean-ing united only by their common nherentopposition o the religious,but also attempts,by fiat as it were, to imposea unity of meaningona worldmade more united by this very act of comprehension.37Weberclosesthe 'Vocation'essaywith Isaiah ('Watchman,watch-man, what of the night?') and the essayon 'Objectivity n the SocialSciences'with Faust('I hastenon, his beamseternaldrinking . . Aboveme Heaven unfurled, he floor of waves beneathme . . .'). Perhaps tis not going too far to suggest hat the scientificBerufsmenschould beiFaustn order hat he mightbe Isaiah, hat he wouldmaster he world's


14/15

Themeaningsndconfusionsf Weberianrationslity' 69knowledge,capture its development n a single overarching heory,tllat he might live responsibly,without the narrowness f vision towhich theBerufsmenschs prone,at a timewhendoing so bringsone allthemeaning here s. If thisspeculations correct, henthe ideaof dutyin one'scalling,whichWeberbelievedCthe asis'of 'rational onduct',doesindeed'prowlabout'still, in our scienceas 'in ourlives'. It helpsus to understand ow the conceptionof rationality o far-reachingnits explanatorypowerand so consistently ppliedcan containa pre-judicialmeasure fvaluationwhichallWeber's fforts nddeclarationsto the contrary ould not, or did not, suflice o eliminate.

ArnoldEisen,B.A. B.PHIL.DanforthSentFellowHebrewUniversityOf rerusalem

NotesI. Max Weber, The Protestant thicand the Spirit of CAapitalism,r. TalcottParsonsnNew York, Charles Scribner's

Sons, I958, p. 78.2. Steven Lukes, 'Some Problemsabout Rationality', in Bryan Wilson(ed.), Rationality,ew York, Harper &Row, I97I, p. 207.3. Max Weber, From Max Weber:Essays n Sociology,d. and tr. Hans H.Gerth and C. Wright Mills, New York,Oxford University Press, I969, p. 293.4. See the opening pages of MaxWeber, EconomyndSociety:AnOutlinefInterpretiveociology,d. Guenther Rothand Claus \Vittich, New York, Bed-minster Press, I 968.5. Weber, Protestantthic,p. 22.6. The quotations in this section arefrom Weber, EconomyndSociety,p. 5-6.7. Max Weber, The Methodologyf theSocial Giences tr. and ed. Edward A.Shils and Henry A. Finch, Glencoe, TheFree Press, I949, p. II9.8. Weber, EconomyndSociety,p. I37,

34o.9. Max Weber,Ancienttudaism,r. anded. Hans H. Gerth and Oon MartindaleNew York, The E; ee Press, I 967, pp.29I 403.

I 0. Weber, Economy nd Society,p.23-5.

I I. Weber, Methodology,p. I65, I77-I 78.

I2. This and the followingquotationarefromWeber,FromMaxWebern. 324.I3. This and the quotationsin the

following section are from Weber,EconomyndSociety, p. 5-6.I4. Ibld., p. I402.I5. Max Weber, The RationalandSocial oundationsfMusic, r.anded.DonMartindale, Johannes Riedel, andGertrude Neuwirth, Southern IllinoisUniversityPress, I958, pp. XXiV, 38-4I,

844, 93-7I6. Weber, Economynd Society, p.763, I395; see also pp. 655 f., 76I f.,

8I I f.I7. Ibid.,p.973.I8. Ibid.,pp. I I I I i., especially I 2 I.I9. Ibid.,pp. IOI2 f.,especially o2g.20. Ibid., pp. 956 ff., I I I I.2I. Weber,Protestantthic,p. 78.22. This and the followingquotationsfrom Weber, Economynd Society,pp.854.23. Ibid.,pp. I5I-3, I67-24. Ibid., pp. I38, I407 I83.25. MaxWeber, TheReligion fChina,tr. anded. HansEI.Gerth,Glencoe,TheFreePress,I95I, p. 247.26. Weber, Economy and Society,pp.656-7.27. Ibid., pp. 8I2, 9I8 f.28. David Beetham,Max Weber ndthe Theory f Moderrzolitics,London,George Allen & Unwin Ltd., I974,


15/15

ArnoldLisenop. 274. A similarstatementon this issueis Peter Worsley's.He writes in TheTrumpethallSoundNewYork,SchockenBooks, s968) that 'Weber eavesout ofhisscheme,assomething xtra-scientific,the analysisof the objectivesor goals ofaction ... we can merelytake thetn asgiven, forsciencecannothelpuswhen itcomes ochoosingbetweenwhat areonlymattersof faithorarbitraryelection . .we obsese that irrationality s builtinto the whole scheme, for the entireprovinceof the ends of action is treatedas beyond hereachof science ' (p. 267).29. Weber, Economynd Society,pp.8I2, 9I8 ff.30. See ibid., pp. I40, I58, and FromMaxWeber,. 298,where heprincewho

'bestowsutilitarianand social ethicalblessingsupon his subjects'is said tointroduce 'substantive rationalization'intohis realm.3I. Herbert Marcuse, 'Industrializa-tion and Capitalistn'n Otto Stammer(ed.), Max WeberndSociolog):oday, r.Kathleen Morris,Oxford,Basil Black-well, I 97 , pp I 33-52, I 84-632 Ibid, pp. I43, I49.33. Weber,ProtestanttSzic,. I 82.3+. Weber,FromMax Weber, . 29 .35. Weber,EconomyndSociety, . 548.36 Ibid, pp. 523, 572, 578-9.37. Thisdiscussions based argelyonWeber'sessay 'ReligiousRejections ofthe Worldand theirDirections' n FromMax Weber,p. 323-59.

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	raphconcli8709
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Eisen, A. - The Meanings and Confusions of Weberian 'Rationality'

Documents