International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1993

Salomon's Interpretation of Max Weber Stephen Kalberg Albert Salomon's three major articles on Max Weber appeared in 1934 and 1935 in Social Research. They were titled "Max Weber's Methodology," "Max Weber's Sociology," and "Max Weber's Political Ideas. ''1 Many of the themes in these studies appeared in an article published in 1926 in a German journal, Die Gesellschaft, which Salomon co-edited. This article, which was among the first general commentaries upon W e b e r in German, was titled simply "Max Weber. ''2 Salomon also contributed the " G e r m a n Sociology" chapter to Twentieth Century Sociology in 1945. 3 This article contains a seven-page segment on Weber; it includes a discussion of Weber's influence on G e r m a n sociology. Finally, Salomon reviewed, also in Die Gesellschaft in 1926, Marianne Weber's biography of Max, Ein Lebensbild, and Karl Jaspers' essay Max Weber: Eine Gedenkrede. Approximately one dozen references to W e b e r are to be found in Salomon's collection of essays, In Praise of Enlightenment. 4 Salomon described his three Social Research articles as "a general introduction to the work of Max Weber. ''5 After all, at this time very little had appeared in English either by Max W e b e r - - o n l y General Economic History, published in 1 9 2 7 6 _ or on Weber. As far as I'm able to assess, , . . . . . . 7 only Parsons article on The Protestant Ethw and the Spirit of Capuahsm and several commentaries upon Weber s Agrarverhaltmsse zm Altertum by historians of antiquity had appeared before Salomon's articles. Thus, very little was known of W e b e r and scarcely anything of W e b e r as a sociologist, and Salomon viewed his task as more one of introducing W e b e r to an American audience than as either criticism or detailed exegesis of specific points in Weber's oeuvre. For this reason, all of Salomon's writings in English on W e b e r seek to present an overview of major themes, concerns, and contributions. Further, with the exception in part of "Max Weber's Political Ideas," they are addressed specifically to sociologists and seek to render in succinct form the major axes of Weber's sociology. 585

9 1993 H u m a n Sciences Press, Inc.

586

Kalberg

One can easily imagine that Salomon, as he surveyed American Sociology, was dissatisfied with its a-theoretical character, micro and urban emphasis, reluctance to discuss methodological issues, nearly complete disregard for a macro, comparative-historical sociology, and failure to provide a general critique of the modern capitalist industrial society. Salomon held that American Sociology, by abandoning the critical stance so pivotal in the German tradition, stood in danger of becoming simply a technical enterprise. His writings on Weber were driven by the hope that Weber's sociology would awaken the American discipline, thereby elevating its theoretical and methodological sophistication. Three general comments upon Salomon's overall reading of Weber are in order. His interpretation of Weber in terms of the contemporary standards for secondary literature on Weber today will first be evaluated; the general tenor of Salomon's c o m m e n t a r y - - that is, Salomon's particular slant upon W e b e r - - w i l l then be noted; finally, the manner in which Salomon's writings are original will be discussed. First, in general his writings stand up very well against today's best scholarship on Weber. Contemporary scholars will find little to quarrel with in regard to either Salomon's rendering of the more specific aspects of Weber's sociology or his definition of the underlying dimensions of Weber's entire works. However, there are occasional problems, which should be noted: a) The discussion of "the Protestant Ethic thesis" in "Max Weber's Sociology" is foreshortened. Interestingly, Salomon's summary in his earlier article in German in Die Gesellschaft is more detailed, though also inadequate in respect to several major aspects of Weber's complex argument. 9 b) Although Salomon's articles contain extremely cogent and succinct comparisons of Weber to Marx, he exaggerates the role Marx played in Weber's sociology when he states that " W e b e r . . . became a sociologist in a long and intense dialogue with the ghost of Marx 1~ and argues that the "main purpose of Weber's Economy and Society 11 is to re-examine the Marxian sociological thesis. ''12 c) Salomon tends, in the "German Sociology" article of 1945, to exaggerate the "social routine and charisma" dualism in Weber's sociology that opposes the forces of "duration, stability, and . . . tradition" to the "dynamic element" of charisma. In Salomon's words: "The dualism between rationalism and charismatic irrationalism is [for Weber] the very dialectics of history." He argues as well that Weber sees the "nucleus of history" as the "lasting interaction between charismatic and institutional behavior. ''!3 This familiar reading leaves out too much. It tends to downplay a contextual and configurationaI dimension in Weber's comparative-historical sociology;

Salomon's Interpretation of Max Weber

587

that is, the focus upon such a dualism "flattens out" his investigations too much. Weber's texts evidence a far more conjunctural and less "patterned" view of history. 14 1 would, for the same reason, disagree with Salomon when he states that, for Weber, an "irreversible progress of rationalization [exists] in all spheres of life. ''15 It should be mentioned that Salomon does appear somewhat hesitant in this regard, for in a later summary passage he mentions a "moving kaleidoscope of conditions" and a "dynamic context of conditions. ''16 This acknowledgement, and the failure to emphasize this "dualistic philosophy of history" in either the Social Research articles of 1934 and 1935 or the Die Gesellschaft article of 1926,17 perhaps indicates that Salomon sees by 1945, when these passages on the charisma/traditionalism dualism appear, that he must accentuate these aspects of Weber's sociology if recognition of Weber by positivist American sociology is to be forthcoming. Such considerations probably stand behind the two other weaknesses in the " G e r m a n Sociology" article of 1945, namely 1) Salomon's incorrect assertion that Weber was engaged in constructing "a general theory of social action, ''18 2) his assertion that "Weber actually applies a different method where he practices his historical sociology from that which he has so carefully proposed in his methodological writings, 19 and 3) his loose usage of the phrase "external pressure of the environment." This global n o t i o n - - t h e environment (die Umwelt)--is not to be found in Weber's sociology. d) Finally, Salomon, in one of his few critical passages, notes that Weber's "sociology of religion will probably [be seen as] the weakest part of the great work. ''21 Much of the recent literature on Weber, on the contrary, views the sociology of religion as constituting an exceptional contribution, particularly The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, the chapter on "Confucianism and Puritanism" in The Religion of China volume,22 the "Social Psychology of the World Religions" and "Religious Rejections of the World" essays"23 and "The Sociology of Religion" chapter in Economy and Society.24 These works, with the exception of the "The Sociology of Religion" chapter in Economy and Society, are seldom cited by Salomon. 25 These problems notwithstanding, the overall thrust of Salomon's writings compares favorably to the best commentary available today on Max Weber. Very few specialists on Weber have acquired a comparable mastery of his works. I'll now turn to my second general comment: Even while Salomon intends mainly to offer an overview and an introduction to sociologists unacquainted with Weber, it soon becomes apparent that he reads Weber in a particular manner. There is a clear tenor to his commentary. His interpretation

588

Kalberg

stands out from most of the secondary literature on Weber for a distinct reason: the vast bulk of the commentary is extremely specialized. Interpreters have written endlessly on Weber on bureaucracy, the ideal type, the notion of Verstehen, the Protestant ethic, and the class/status distinction. Very few, however, have been concerned with the major social-philosophical questions that underlie and unite his seemingly fragmented oeuvre, indeed questions not readily visible yet ones that fully haunted Weber and lend thematic cohesion to his works. Herein lies the strength and uniqueness of Salomon's reading of Weber. Throughout the forties, fifties and sixties American as well as German commentators, with the exception of Karl L6with, Hans Gerth, and Reinhard Bendix, failed to address Weber's overarching themes and concerns. Only with the pathbreaking contributions by Wilhelm Hennis, Benjamin Nelson, Friedrich Tenbruck, and Wolfgang Schluchter in the seventies did this situation begin to change. All commentary upon particular aspects of Weber's sociology would have been improved by a prior reading of Albert Salomon's essays. Whether discussing on the one hand methodological concepts, such as the ideal type,26 value-relevance,27 or the limits of the social sciences, 28 or on the other hand the Protestant ethic thesis or the bureaucracy and bureaucratization, Salomon unfailingly locates what appear to be simply "technical" issues in a larger thematic framework. He is perpetually concerned to discuss the reasons behind Weber's focus upon a particular line of research or his emphasis upon a specific methodological point. What is this larger thematic framework? It is here that the lasting contribution of Salomon's writings on Weber are to be found. Above all, Salomon understands Weber as a sociologist who is also, concurring with Karl Jaspers, a great philosopher--at least in the sense of a "man who is swayed by an inner compulsion to grasp the meaning of life and to impart this secret to his fellow citizens. ,,29 Salomon sees clearly that man is, for Weber, a "meaning-seeking creature. ''3~ Weber translated this concern into his sociology by formulating a "science of s o c i e t y . . . [that emphasized] the problem of laying bare the qualitative existence of the concrete historical individual capable of developing some inner meanin~ . . . . . . . who ~s hwng under a particular set . of economic and social conditions. , 7 3 ] . The "crucial question," Salomon states, "of Weber's sociological inquiries [is] how m a n - - t h a t is, man conceived as molded by the passions and tensions of a lofty human s o u l - - . . , finds a place for himself in the modern world. ''32 Weber offers, according to Salomon, an analysis of the individual's fate in the modern epoch by inquiring into the manner in which, in light of real social and economic constraints, a particular meaning can be formulated.33

Salomon's Interpretation of Max Weber

589

What types of meaning can be formulated, for example, if the future of Western civilization implies the universal dominance of bureaucratic organizations and a new "Egyptianization?''34 "How will it be possible in this world to preserve those forms of life in which personal, intellectual, and spiritual realization are possible? ''35 Salomon sees just such a question as "Weber's philosophical point of departure" and as crucial for an understanding of why Weber wished to formulate a sociology rooted in the a t t e m p t by the researcher to understand the subjective meaning of individuals.36 I'll now turn to my third general comment: Even Salomon's "introductory articles" are original, and in several ways. Long before Friedrich Tenbruck's now classical article of 1975,37 Salomon noted that Weber's historical-sociological analyses are organized around a series of "life-spheres" (law, the economy, religion, domination/authority, and status groups). Each life-sphere has a "specific character" and problematic. Each of these "structured spheres of social existence develop a dynamism of their individual form." Or, more precisely: "The inner logic of the individual spheres of the social process has an autonomy of its own and is independent of the social context. ''38 This notion, noted by Tenbruck (who does not cite Salomon) in reference to an "inner logic" of development in the life-sphere of religion, set off a lasting debate and has influenced enormously the secondary literature of the last fifteen years. 39 Yet Salomon charted this central aspect of Weber's sociology much earlier. 4~ Salomon comments, also with great originality, upon Weber's insistence that the task of science is a limited one and that science cannot provide personal values and ethical instructions, nor can science inform individuals w h e t h e r they should adhere to an ethic of conviction (Gesinnungsethik) or an ethic of responsibility (Verantwortungsethik). 41 In explaining Weber's position, Salomon reconstructs his understanding of the disenchantment of the world on the one hand and his defense of the individual's autonomy against the aggrandizing scientific world view on the other hand. Salomon's commentary concludes with a passage of masterly elegance: T h e existential choice between God and devil is the only one which still ensures to m a n a s e n s e o f dignity. B u t for W e b e r a s e n s e of dignity m e a n s m a n ' s consciousness of being, in the midst of intellectual and religious chaos, the one and only stage for an activity which, through the decisions it makes, imbues existence with an awareness of ultimate values. We confer meaning on life. A n d thus, as the truly disinherited sons of God forced to struggle continuously in order to uphold this h u m a n dignity of ours, we find the guarantee of h u m a n existence only in the p o s s i b i l i t y o f b e i n g able to d e t e r m i n e o u r d e s t i n y t h r o u g h t h e a g e n c y of personality. 42

590

Kalberg

Salomon also understands, as have only a very few commentators and none as early as he, that Weber viewed conflict between values positively - - s u c h as that between Christian ethics ("turn the other cheek") and the ethos of a warrior class or the state (it is honorable to die for one's country) - - n o t because to endure such conflicts constituted simply the fate of modern man, but because the: Spiritual conflict between two hostile orders of values, the decision for or against definite norms, the service which men assumed in behalf of one or the other systems of v a l u e s - - a l l these gave man dignity and personality. Life and history [for Weber] are nothing but stages of the realization of such services for values which men assumed only to give meaning to themselves. 43

Salomon knew as well that Weber was not, in terms of his politics, another Machiavelli. Rather, he believed in a strong nation-state exclusively as a means of insuring that values toward which action could be meaningfully o r i e n t e d - in an epoch otherwise adrift in and overwhelmed by sheer means-end rational calculations--would be preserved, protected, and cultivated. 44 Finally, Salomon's articles are original in several further ways, which can only be mentioned without elaboration. He emphasized: 1) The importance for Weber of "chance." Weber repeatedly, and throughout his texts, sees "historical accident" as a significant causal factor. ~5 2) That Weber's entire sociology "operates entirely without the concept of society.''46 It substitutes instead individual meaning, ideal types, and spheres of life. 3) That conflict, especially the "warring of values," stands at the very core of Weber's sociology.47 4) The reasons why Weber, while "from his youth [fighting] for the . . . . ,,48 9 9 social and cultural uphftlng of the working classes, opposed SOClahsm, seeing in its promises only diminished technical rationalization and thus diminished standards of living, greater bureaucratization, greater status and power for administrators and functionaries, and less struggle from which dignity, personality, and self-responsibility would grow.49 5) That "rationalization" is a central theme for Weber, and that, for Weber, it unites a great many of his investigations.5~ Salomon concludes his three articles on Weber in Social Research with a majestic passage that addresses the ultimate yield of Weber's sociology: These ]works] . . . cannot provide us with either religious serenity or secure metaphysical shelter. There is no joyous promise either at the beginning or at the end of his work. The situation of his time hardly made this possible. But his existence and his work bear witness to something which, in the spiritual condition of the epoch, was more than any message. It was the fact that human greatness is not extinguished and that heroes are possible even in the gray and barren everyday

Salomon's Interpretation of Max Weber

591

existence of modern life. The figure of Weber and his work remain as a call to greatness and heroism. Not to a romantic irrational heroism which sacrifices itself amidst the delirium of self-decomposition, but a holy and sober heroism which grows out of the contradictions of life and out of the strength of knowledge of the suffering, greatness and pangs of the spirit, and which can, without illusion, understand man's existence and activity and yet not become cynical.51 The W e b e r reception generally, but especially the W e b e r reception in the United States, would have been the better off had it been informed by A l b e r t S a l o m o n ' s writings on Max W e b e r . O u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of Weber's fundamental themes and overriding questions and concerns would have b e c o m e much more clear and sociology as a discipline would have b e n e f i t e d for having read Salomon on W e b e r . Why were S a l o m o n ' s articles not a d e q u a t e l y n o t e d ? I n d e e d , it a p p e a r s they were largely neglected. Of course, one could argue that American sociologists, because the first three articles did not appear in one of sociology's major journals, were unaware of them. I seriously doubt whether this was the case. Rather, it seems more likely that American Sociology was not interested in addressing, as Salomon had hoped, Weber's larger and broader themes and his philosophy of history. These themes were viewed in the United States essentially as nineteenth century themes and as belonging to the misty realms of social philosophy or intellectual history rather than to sociology as such. Salomon, it appears, was unaware of, or simply underestimated, the depth and breadth of the positivistic thrust of mainstream American social science, The goal to adopt the methodology of the natural sciences itself pushed sociology in the United States in a direction quite antagonistic to Salomon's view of this discipline. In this sense Salomon stood squarely in a different mainstream, namely alongside the vast majority of German refugees who found American scholarship to be of another mold than they had been accustomed and essentially unreceptive to their style of scholarship and research. Although these refugees as a group undoubtedly influenced American academic life in a variety of ways, Salomon, in witnessing the rise of structural-functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and the wildfire spread of operationalizing strategies and quantitative methods in the forties and fifties, surely must have felt that his efforts to introduce Max Weber had failed.

ENDNOTES .

Max W e b e r ' s M e t h o d o l o g y , " Social Research, 1 ( M a y , 1 9 3 4 ) , pp. 147-68; "Max Weber's Sociology," Social Research, 2 (Feb., 1935),

592

Kalberg

pp. 61-73; "Max Weber's Political Ideas, Social Research, 2 (Aug., 1935), pp. 368-84. 2. Weber," Die Gesellschafi, 3 (1926), pp. 131-53. 3. "German Sociology." Pp. 586-614 in Twentieth Century Sociology, edited by Georges Gurvitch and Wilbert Moore (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945). 4. In Praise of Enlightenment (Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1962). 5. "Max Weber's Sociology," p. 72. 6. General Economic History. Translated by Frank H. Knight (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1927). 7. Parsons, Talcott, "Capitalism in Recent German Literature: Sombart and Weber," Journal of Political Economy, 36 (1928, pp. 641-44), 37 (1929, pp. 31-51). 8. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. Translated by R. I. Frank (London: New Left Books, 1976). 9. See Die Gesellschaft, 3, pp. 137-38. 10. "German Sociology," p. 596. 11. Weber, Economy and Society. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968). 12. "German Sociology," p. 596. Salomon examines Weber's relationship to Marx explicitly on several occasions. See "Max Weber's Political Ideas," pp. 368-70, 372-73; Die Gesellschaft, 3, pp. 142-44; "German Sociology~ pp. 596-600. 13. See "German Sociology," pp. 597-99; "Max Weber's Sociology," p. 72. 14. See Kalberg, Stephen, Max Weber's Comparative-Historical Sociology (Cambridge, UK: Polity/Chicago, 1993); "Culture and the Locus of W o r k in C o n t e m p o r a r y W e s t e r n G e r m a n y : a W e b e r i a n Configurational Analysis." Pp. 324-65 in Theory of Culture, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Richard Mfinch (Berkeley: The University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1992); " T h e Origins and E x p a n s i o n of Kulturpessimismus: the Relationship Between Public and Private Spheres in Early Twentieth Century Germany." Sociological Theory, 5 (1987), pp. 150-64; "Max Webers historisch-vergleichende Schriften und das 'Webersche Bild der Neuzeit': eine Gegenfiberstellung." Pp. 425-44 in Max Weber heute: Ertriige und Probleme der Forschung, edited by Johannes Weiss, (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1989). 15. "German Sociology," p. 597. 16. See ibid., p. 600. 17. Although it is noted. 18. "German Sociology," p. 600. 19. Ibid., pp. 600-01. Salomon does not develop this point further. He is the only German commentator who takes this position. It has been argued on several occasions by Anglo-Saxon interpreters. See e.g.

Salomon's Interpretation of Max Weber

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36. 37.

38.

593

John Rex, "Typology and Objectivity: a Comment on Weber's Four Sociological Methods." Pp. 17-36 in Max Weber and Modem Sociology, edited by Arun Sahay (London: Routledge, 1971). On some of the p r o b l e m s with this p o s i t i o n , see K a l b e r g , Max Weber's Comparative-Historical Sociology, chapter 1. See ibid., p. 600. The term "environmental forces" appears also in "Max Weber's Methodology," p. 153. "German Sociology," p. 600. No particular book or study is cited. Pp. 226-49 in The Religion of China (translated and edited by Hans H. Gerth). New York; The Free Press, 1951. Pp. 267-301 and 323-59 in From Max Weber, translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946). Pp. 399-639 in Economy and Society, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968). An extremely foreshortened statement ("Weber's sociology of religion revolves mainly around the problem of the relations between capitalism and evangelical Christianity" ["Max Weber's Sociology," p. 60]) seems to me not representative of his general position regarding Weber's sociology of religion. See "Max Weber's Methodology," pp. 158-62; Die Gesellschafi, 3, pp. 141-42. See "Max Weber's Methodology," pp. 158-60, 162-68. See ibid., pp. 158-65; "Max Weber's Sociology," pp. 66-67. "Max Weber's Methodology," p. 148. See also Salomon's review of Ein LebensbiM in Die GeseIlschafi, 3, p. 191. In Praise of Enlightenment, p. 393. "Max Weber's Methodology," p. 152. Ibid., p. 153. See "Max Weber's Methodology," pp. 152-53, 165-67; "Max Weber's Political Ideas," pp. 377, 379-82; and "Max Weber's Sociology," pp. 64-67. See In Praise of Enlightenment, p. 305. See also "Max Weber's Political Ideas," pp. 377-82; Die Gesellschaft, 3, pp. 146-47. In Praise of Enlightenment, p. 278. "Max Weber's Methodology," p. 153. "Das Werk Max Webers." KOlner Zeitschrift for Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 27 (December 1975), pp. 663-702. An abridged version of this article appeared in 1980. See "The Problem of Thematic Unity in the Works of Max Weber." British Journal of Sociology (xxxi, no. 3), pp. 313-51. " G e r m a n Sociology," p. 800. See also pp. 597, 599-600. The f o r m u l a t i o n at p. 597 is equally forceful: "The a u t o n o m o u s development of [the sphere of religion] takes place according to the

594

39.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Kalberg

logic that is immanent in its material principle . . . [and] the reality of the a u t o n o m o u s s p h e r e is m o r e p o w e r f u l than its social conditions." See also H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, "Introduction: the Man and His Work." Pp. 3-74 in From Max Weber, edited by Gerth and Mills (New York: Oxford, 1946; see p. 62); Stephen Kalberg, "The Rationalization of Action in Max Weber's Sociology of Religion. Sociological Theory, 8 (Spring, 1990), pp. 58-84; "Max Weber's Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History." American Journal of Sociology, 85 (March, 1980), pp. 1145-79. See, for example, Stephen Kalberg, "The Search For Thematic Orientations in a Fragmented Oeuvre: the Discussion of Max Weber in Recent German Sociological Literature." Sociology (Jan., 1979), pp. 127-39. See also "Max Weber's Sociology," pp. 69-71; Die Gesellschaft, 3, pp. 139, 144, 146. See "Max W e b e r ' s Methodology," pp. 158-68; Die Gesellschaft, pp. 148-49. See Weber, "Science as a Vocation." Pp. 129-56 in From Max Weber, edited by Gerth and Mills. "Max Weber's Methodology," pp. 166-67; see also "Max Weber's Sociology," pp. 66-67. "Max Weber's Political Ideas," p. 375. See also Die Gesellschafi, 3, pp. 150-52. See "Max Weber's Political Ideas," p. 375. See "Max Weber's Political Ideas," p. 374. Salomon also notes Weber's frequent acknowledgment of paradoxes in history. See ibid., p. 373. Just such a reading of history, as Salomon notes, also prevents W e b e r from speaking of a "meaning of history" (see e.g. ibid., pp. 374-76). See "Max Weber's Sociology," pp. 68-69, 72. See e.g. "Max Weber's Political Ideas," pp. 375-76. Ibid., p. 377. Ibid., pp. 377-81; Die Gesellschafi, 3, pp. 145, 147-48. See "Max Weber's Sociology," pp. 71, 73; Die Gesellschaft, 3, pp. 139, 145-46. Of course, the rationalization theme is related closely to the theme of "meaning" in the modern world noted above. "Max Weber's Political Ideas," p. 384.