Weber and arguments for belief (Week Three Pre-class Blog)


The procession of readings this week followed a similar constructivist theme in contrast to rationalist doctrines. Rationalists focus on individual actions which constitute the basis of all decisions and solutions to problems, whereas constructivists focus on a holistic approach considering norms and, most notably within the assigned texts, ideas. While rationalists place value on coherent train of thought and accompanying consequences, Constructivists see a wider range of possibilities that influence human actions including ontological and cosmological influencers.

The Protestant Ethic and Theory of Capitalism by Max Weber served as our introduction into a theory where ideas have the capability to affect solutions within states. Weber continues to attribute the examples he gives to rational thought and rational economic processes. Does this mean he is advocating a rationalist view as described by neoliberalism or neorealism? In my reading I found no statement that would lead me to believe he favored one view over the other because this chapter seemed engrossed in the inner mechanics of Northern European exceptionalism on the capitalist arena.

Weber takes care to ascribe each civilization its due reward, but vehemently details Northern European and North American adventure capitalism as side to none in its capability to advance civilization economically. It is unique in his opinion because of how these peoples viewed their own identity and in extension their social strata. I have debated internally whether the idea of free labor would be considered a world view or a principled belief in Goldstein and Keohane’s definitions. I lean toward world view since this particular idea in Western society is deeply ingrained within the identity of our culture and not necessarily a norm which could lead to swifter policy shifts. I certainly rule out causal beliefs considering I see a lack of cause-effect relationship in the idea of free labor but would be interested to hear an argument to the contrary.

Weber begins the chapter by explaining how other societies did not come to the same capitalist conclusion as the West. The West borrowed many important innovations from these cultures, but ultimately did not grow the same economically critical middle class empowered by a free market and enabled by free labor. Mark Laffey who offers an alternative view to Goldstein and Keohane’s belief-centric theory would attribute this to his symbolic technologies. In this regard he explains that these world views actually function as social and intersubjective rather than shared systems and adamantly refutes the assimilation of beliefs as commodities. It is not a matter of whether these cultures utilized the free labor idea as a roadmap to Western style capitalism, rather it depends on the representational structure that the idea generated in their realm of influence.

Works Cited
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism. Boston University. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. Chicago, IL. 2001.

Laffey, Mark; Weldes, Jutta. Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of international Relations. European Journal of International Relations. 1997.

Goldstein, Judith; Keohane, Robert O. Ideas and Foreign Policy. Cornell University Press. 1993.

Comments

  1. EHMay 24, 2018 at 9:29 PM

    With a middle class on the rise in China, how do you think the theory of indepent ideation fits into their system of governance?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more

The Biggest Threat to the US

           The largest threat to the US depends on how you define threat. It also depends on how you define our current situation as a hegemonic power. Does a threat to the US mean that we lose influence or that our country completely implodes? Does the US need hegemonic power to stay relevant, or would a lessening of responsibilities as the "world police" lead us to a more prosperous future in the long run? I believe the greatest threat to the current status of the US is a loss of sovereignty that will ultimately benefit us.             The European Union went through a transformation decades ago much like I envision the US needing to succumb to. Great powers like Germany, the UK and France realized that they needed a stronger network to keep themselves relevant and guard their interests. The US could be close to this same deferral of sovereignty in order to combat stronger interests on the international stage. Our current pr...
Read more