Modernity and Authority in Max Weber

Preparation

Do the following prior to the next class meeting (in the recommended order).

Come to class Monday prepared to discuss the important issues covered by Weber in Science as a Vocation.

If you find Science as a Vocation difficult going, you may instead watch this lecture from Emory University:

Even better, do the reading and also watch the lecture.

Mariel Osetinsky, The Modernism Lab, Yale University:

Weber’s astute observations of the scientist’s struggle with the bureaucratic system and of the internal struggle of the scientist in an effort to realize the meaning of his or her work, reveal Weber’s “Science as a Vocation” as a truly modernist work.

Karl Löwith’s contemporary response to Science as a Vocation, quoted by Frank Lechner, Professor of Sociology, February 7, 2018 (see above).

“In this state of dissolution of all inner and outer stability … there was only one man in Germany whose words truly spoke to us: Max Weber … He spoke without notes and without pause… The impact was stunning. The experience and knowledge of a lifetime were condensed into these sentences. Everything came directly from within, thought through with the most critical reason, which forcefully impressed itself upon us through the sheer humane power that his personality lent it. The acuteness of the questions he posed corresponded with this refusal to offer any cheap solutions. He tore down the veils from desirable objects, yet everyone none the less sensed that the heart of this clear-thinking intellect was profoundly humane. After the innumerable revolutionary speeches by the literary activists, Weber’s words were like a salvation.” Karl Löwith’s contemporary response to Science as a Vocation, quoted by Frank Lechner, Professor of Sociology, February 7, 2018 (see YouTube lecture below)

Discussion

We talked about what the operation of the class has implicitly been suggesting regarding How to Think / What to Think.

We then discussed at some length the following passages from Science as a Vocation, what Max Weber meant, and whether or not we agreed.

Passages from Science as a Vocation by Max Weber

Natural
 science
 gives
 us
 an
 answer
 to
 the
 question
 of
 what
 we
 must
 do
 if
 we
 wish
 to
 master
 life
 technically.
 It
 leaves
 quite
 aside,
 or
 assumes
 for
 its
 purposes,
 whether
 we
 should
 and
 do
 wish
 to
 master
 life
 technically
 and
 whether 
it 
ultimately
 makes
 sense
 to 
do
 so.
 

The
 task
 of
 the
 teacher
 is
 to
 serve
 the
 students
 with
 his
 knowledge
 and
 scientific
 experience
 and
 not
 to
 imprint
 upon
 them 
his 
personal 
political 
views.
 

Scientific
 progress
 is
 a
 fraction,
 the
 most
 important
 fraction,
 of
 the
 process
 of
 intellectualization
 which
 we
 have
 been
 undergoing
 for
 thousands
 of
 years
 and
 which
 nowadays 
is
 usually 
judged
 in
 such 
an
 extremely
 negative
 way. 
[This process of ] rationalization,
 created
 by
 science
 and
 by
 scientifically
 oriented
 technology,
 [does not in practical terms] indicate 
an
 increased 
and 
general 
knowledge 
of 
the 
conditions
 under 
which 
one 
lives.
 
 It
 means
 something
 else,
 namely,
 the
 knowledge
 or
 belief
 that
 if
 one
 but
 wished
 one
 could
 learn
 it
 at
 any
 time.
 Hence,
 it
 means
 that
 principally
 there
 are
 no
 mysterious
 incalculable
 forces
 that
 come
 into
 play,
 but
 rather
 that
 one
 can,
 in
 principle,
 master
 all
 things
 by
 calculation.
 This
 means
 that
 the
 world
 is
 disenchanted.
 One
 need
 no
 longer
 have
 recourse
 to
 magical
 means
 in
 order
 to
 master
 or
 implore
 the
 spirits,
 as
 did
 the
 savage,
 for
 whom
 such
 mysterious
 powers
 existed.
 Technical
 means
 and
 calculations
 perform
 the
 service.
 This
 above 
all 
is
 what
 intellectualization
 means.
 

Today
 one
 usually
 speaks
 of
 science
 as
 ‘free
 from
 presuppositions.’
 Is
 there
 such 
a
 thing? 
It
 depends
 upon
 what
 one
 understands
 thereby.
 All
 scientific
 work
 presupposes
 that
 the
 rules
 of
 logic
 and
 method
 are
 valid;
 these
 are
 the
 general
 foundations
 of
 our
 orientation
 in
 the
 world….
 Science
 further
 presupposes
 that
 what
 is
 yielded
 by
 scientific
 work
 is
 important
 in
 the
 sense
 that
 it
 is
 ‘worth
 being
 known.’
 In
 this,
 obviously,
 are
 contained
 all
 our
 problems.
 For
 this
 presupposition
 cannot
 be
 proved
 by
 scientific
 means.
 It
 can
 only
 be
 interpreted
 with
 reference
 to
 its
 ultimate
 meaning,
 which
 we
 must
 reject
 or
 accept
 according
 to
 our 
ultimate
 position
 towards 
life.
 

The
 grandiose
 rationalism
 of
 an
 ethical
 and
 methodical
 conduct
 of
 life
 that
 flows
 from
 every
 religious
 prophecy
 has
 dethroned
 this
 polytheism
 in
 favor
 of
 the
 ‘one
 thing
 that
 is
 needful.’
 Faced
 with
 the
 realities
 of
 outer
 and
 inner
 life,
 Christianity
 has
 deemed
 it
 necessary
 to
 make
 those
 compromises
 and
 relative
 judgments,
 which
 we
 all
 know
 from
 its
 history.
 Today
 the
 routines
 of
 everyday
 life
 challenge
 religion.
 Many
 old
 gods
 ascend
 from
 their
 graves;
 they
 are
 disenchanted
 and
 hence
 take
 the
 form
 of
 impersonal
 forces.
 They
 strive
 to
 gain
 power
 over
 our
 lives
 and
 again
 they
 resume
 their
 eternal
 struggle
 with
 one
 another.
 What
 is
 hard
 for
 modern
 man,
 and
 especially
 for
 the
 younger
 generation,
 is
 to
 measure
 up
 to
 workaday
 existence.

 

What
 man
 will
 take
 upon
 himself
 the
 attempt
 to
 ‘refute
 scientifically’
 the
 ethic
 of
 the
 Sermon
 on
 the
 Mount?
 For
 instance,
 the
 sentence,
 ‘resist
 no
 evil,’
 or
 the
 image
 of
 turning
 the
 other
 cheek?
 And
 yet
 it
 is
 clear,
 in
 mundane
 perspective,
 that
 this
 is
 an
 ethic
 of
 undignified
 conduct;
 one 
has 
to 
choose 
between 
the
 religious 
dignity 
that
 this 
ethic 
confers
 and
 the
 dignity
 of
 manly
 conduct
 which
 preaches
 something
 quite
 different;
 ‘resist
 evil ‐ lest
 you
 be
 responsible
 for 
an
 overpowering
 evil.’
 According
 to
 our 
ultimate
 standpoint,
 the 
one 
is 
the 
devil 
and
 the 
other 
the 
God, 
and
 the
 individual
 has 
to 
decide 
which 
is 
God 
for
 him
 and
 which 
is 
the
 devil. 
And
 so
 it
 goes 
throughout
 all 
the 
orders
 of
 life.
 

Those
 of
 our
 youth
 are
 in
 error
 who
 react
 to
 all
 this
 by
 saying,
 ‘Yes,
 but
 we
 happen
 to
 come
 to
 lectures
 in
 order
 to
 experience
 something
 more
 than
 mere
 analyses
 and
 statements
 of
 fact.’
 The
 error
 is
 that
 they
 seek
 in
 the
 professor
 something
 different
 from
 what
 stands
 before
 them.
 They
 crave
 a
 leader
 and
 not
 a
 teacher.
 But
 we
 are
 placed
 upon
 the
 platform
 solely
 as
 teachers.
 And
 these
 are
 two
 different
 things,
 as
 one
 can
 readily
 see.


The
 American’s
 conception 
of 
the 
teacher 
who
 faces 
him
 is: 
he 
sells 
me
 his 
knowledge
 and
 his
 methods
 for
 my
 father’s
 money,
 just
 as
 the
 greengrocer
 sells
 my
 mother
 cabbage.
 And
 that 
is 
all. 
To 
be 
sure, 
if 
the 
teacher 
happens 
to 
be 
a 
football 
coach, 
then, 
in 
this 
field, 
he
 is
 a
 leader.
 But
 if
 he
 is
 not
 this
 (or
 something
 similar
 in
 a
 different
 field
 of
 sports),
 he
 is
 simply
 a
 teacher
 and
 nothing
 more.
 And
 no
 young
 American
 would
 think
 of
 having
 the
 teacher
 sell
 him
 a
 Weltanschauung
 [worldview] or
 a
 code
 of
 conduct.
  

Finally,
 you
 will
 put
 the
 question:
 ‘If
 this
 is
 so,
 what
 then
 does
 science
 actually
 and
 positively
 contribute
 to
 practical
 and
 personal
 “life”?’
 Therewith
 we
 are
 back
 again
 at
 the
 problem
 of
 science
 as
 a 
’vocation.’
 

(1) Science
 contributes
 to
 the
 technology
 of
 controlling
 life
 by
 calculating
 external
 objects
 as
 well
 as
 man’s
 activities.
 Well,
 you
 will
 say,
 that,
 after
 all,
 amounts
 to
 no
 more 
than 
the 
green grocer 
of 
the
 American
 boy. 
 I 
fully 
agree.
 

(2) Science
 can
 contribute
 something
 that
 the
 greengrocer
 cannot:
 methods
 of
 thinking,
 the
 tools
 and
 the
 training
 for
 thought.
 Perhaps
 you
 will
 say:
 well,
 that
 is
 no
 vegetable,
 but
 it
 amounts
 to
 no
 more
 than
 the
 means
 for
 procuring
 vegetables.
 Well
 and
 good, 
let 
us 
leave 
it 
at 
that 
for 
today.
 

(3a) Science
 does
 not
 reach
 its
 limit
 with
 this.
 [Teachers] are
 in
 a
 position
 to
 help
 you
 to
 a
 third 
objective:
 to 
gain 
clarity. 
Of 
course, 
it 
is 
presupposed
 that
 we
 ourselves
 possess
 clarity.
 As
 far
 as
 this
 is
 the
 case,
 we
 can
 make
 clear
 to
 you
 the
 following:
 

(3b) In
 practice, 
you
 can
 take
 this 
or 
that 
position
 when
 concerned 
with 
a 
problem
 of
 value
…. [The teacher can point out that] if 
you
 take
 such
 and
 such
 a
 stand,
 then,
 according
 to
 scientific
 experience,
 you
 have
 to
 use
 such
 and
 such
 a
 means
 in
 order
 to
 carry 
out 
your 
conviction
practically. 
Now, 
these 
means 
are 
perhaps 
such 
that 
you
 believe
 you
 must
 reject
 them.
 Then
 you
 simply
 must
 choose
 between
 the
 end
 and
 the
 inevitable 
means. 
Does
 the 
end 
’justify’ 
the 
means?
 Or
 does 
it 
not? 
The 
teacher 
can 
confront
 you
 with
 the
 necessity
 of
 this
 choice.
 He
 cannot
 do
 more,
 so
 long
 as
 he
 wishes
 to
 remain
 a
 teacher
 and
 not
 to
 become
 a
 demagogue.



(3c) [A teacher] can,
 of
 course,
 also
 tell
 you
 that
 if
 you
 want
 such
 and
 such
 an
 end,
 then
 you
 must
 take
 into
 the
 bargain
 the
 subsidiary
 consequences
 that 
according
 to 
all 
experience 
will 
occur. 
Again 
we 
find
 ourselves 
in 
the 
same 
situation
 as
 before.
 These
 are
 still
 problems
 that
 can
 also
 emerge
 for
 the
 technician,
 who
 in
 numerous
 instances
 has
 to
 make
 decisions
 according
 to
 the
 principle
 of
 the
 lesser
 evil
 or
 of
 the
 relatively 
best.
 Only 
to 
him
 one
 thing, 
the 
main 
thing, 
is 
usually 
given,
 namely, 
the 
end. 
But
 as 
soon
 as 
truly 
’ultimate’ 
problems 
are 
at 
stake 
for 
us 
this 
is 
not
 the
 case.


(3d) [A teacher also can and] should
 state:
 In
 terms
 of
 its
 meaning,
 such
 and
 such
 a
 practical
 stand
 can 
be
 derived 
with 
inner 
consistency, 
and 
hence 
integrity, 
from
 this 
or 
that 
ultimate
 weltanschauliche
 [ideological] position.
 Perhaps
 it
 can
 only
 be
 derived
 from
 one
 such
 fundamental
 position,
 or
 maybe
 from
 several,
 but
 it
 cannot
 be
 derived
 from
 these
 or
 those
 other
 positions. 
Figuratively 
speaking, 
you 
serve 
this
 god 
and
 you 
offend 
the 
other 
god 
when
 you
 decide 
to 
adhere 
to 
this 
position.
 And
 if 
you
 remain
 faithful 
to 
yourself, 
you 
will 
necessarily
 come
 to
 certain
 final
 conclusions
 that
 subjectively
 make
 sense.
 This
 much,
 in
 principle
 at
 least,
 can
 be
 accomplished.
 … 
Thus, 
if
 we
 are
 competent
 in
 our
 pursuit
 (which
 must
 be
 presupposed
 here)
 we
 can
 force
 the
 individual,
 or
 at 
least 
we
 can
 help 
him,
 to
 give
 himself 
an
 account
 of
 the
 ultimate
 meaning 
of
 his
 own
 conduct.
 This
 appears
 to
 me
 as
 not
 so
 trifling
 a
 thing
 to
 do,
 even
 for
 one’s
 own
 personal 
life. 


(3e) Again, 
I
 am
 tempted 
to
 say 
of 
 a 
teacher 
who 
succeeds 
in 
this: 
he 
stands 
in 
the
 service 
of 
’moral’ 
forces; 
he 
fullfils
 the 
duty
 of
bringing
 about
 self‐clarification
 and
 a
 sense
 of
 responsibility.
 And
 I
 believe
 he
 will
 be
 the
 more
 able
 to
 accomplish
 this,
 the
 more
 conscientiously
 he
 avoids
 the
 desire
 personally
 to
 impose
 upon
 or
 suggest
 to
 his
 audience
 his
 own
 stand.
 

This
 proposition,
 which
 I
 present
 here,
 always
 takes
 its
 point
 of
 departure
 from
 the
 one
 fundamental 
fact, 
that 
so 
long 
as 
life 
remains 
immanent
 and
 is 
interpreted
 in
 its
 own
 terms,
 it 
knows
 only
 of
 an 
unceasing 
struggle
 of
 these 
gods
 with 
one 
another. 
Or 
speaking 
directly,
 the 
ultimately 
possible 
attitudes 
toward 
life 
are 
irreconcilable, 
and 
hence 
their 
struggle
 can
 never
 be
 brought
 to
 a
 final
 conclusion.
 Thus
 it
 is
 necessary
 to
 make
 a
 decisive
 choice.
 Whether,
 under
 such
 conditions,
 science
 is
 a
 worthwhile
 ‘vocation’
 for
 somebody,
 and
 whether
 science
 itself
 has
 an
 objectively
 valuable
 ‘vocation’
 are
 again
 value
 judgments
 about
 which
 nothing
 can
 be
 said
 in
 the
 lecture room.
 To
 affirm
 the
 value
 of
 science
 is
 a
 presupposition
 for
 teaching
 there.


Science
 today
 is
 a
 ‘vocation’
 organized
 in
 special
 disciplines
 in
 the
 service
 of
 self‐clarification
 and
 knowledge
 of
 interrelated
 facts.
 It
 is
 not
 the
 gift
 of
 grace
 of
 seers
 and
 prophets
 dispensing
 sacred
 values
 and
 revelations,
 nor
 does
 it
 partake
 of
 the
 contemplation
 of
 sages
 and
 philosophers
 about
 the
 meaning
 of
 the
 universe.
 This,
 to
 be
 sure,
 is
 the
 inescapable
 condition
 of
 our
 historical
 situation.
 We
 cannot
 evade
 it
 so
 long
 as
 we
 remain
 true
 to
 ourselves.
 

The
 fate
 of
 our
 times
 is
 characterized
 by
 rationalization
 and
 intellectualization
 and,
 above
 all,
 by
 the
 ‘disenchantment
 of
 the
 world.’
 Precisely
 the
 ultimate
 and
 most
 sublime
 values
 have 
retreated 
from
 public 
life 
either 
into
 the
 transcendental
 realm 
of 
mystic 
life 
or 
into
 the
 brotherliness
 of
 direct
 and
 personal
 human
 relations 

Further Reading

The Science as a Vocation Reading is from Max Weber, Charisma and Disenchantment: The Vocation Lectures. Edited by Paul Reitter and Chad Wellmon.  Translated from the German by Damion Searls. New York Review of Books.