The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism

By Max Weber

A review by Jeremy Bauer

In The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism, Weber attempted to the do the sacrilegious act of the time: refute the doctrine of Marx.  Refusing to accept the superstructure as epiphenomenal as Marx had posited, Weber convincingly argued that the superstructure - in this case religion- can play a part in the relations of production.  In his piece, Weber argued that the religious affiliation of social groups can influence their “zeal” for capitalism. He notes a high correlation between the great Capitalist “spirit” and individuals with Puritanical and Protestant religious backgrounds, especially those with a Calvinist background. 

Weber’s main objective is the refutation of Marx, and his case is made rather succinctly. Weber states that ideology and religion were not epiphenomenal as was predicated by Marx. Rather, elements of the superstructure can, and do enter into the relations of production. Ideology is not a mere reflection of the means or mode of production, but can play a causal role in the relationship. Effectively, this viewpoint would turn Marx and his “naïve historical materialism” on their heads, so to speak, and would open new avenues for sociological research and Neo and Structural Marxist oriented anthropological and economic research.

 Moreover, Weber’s views at that time sparked heated debate over the nature and value of labor. Traditionally, labor was seen as a necessary evil used to meet perpetual desires. Under this view “man” was seen as an economic rationalizer, working with perpetual desires and limited means.  However, when confronted with earning more money at the cost of time, most of laborers worked less to earn the same amount of money, while others (notably Protestants and Puritans) worked laboriously and rarely used their gains for material consumption. Because of this, Weber argued, and most substantivists would agree, that economic behavior is socially and culturally embedded and must first be understood from the social perspective.

In order to view economic behavior through this lens, Weber looks to social and religious history, but first he makes several points that are relevant to the argument at hand.  In order to clarify any possible confusion, he makes the distinction between the form and the motivation of the economic system. These two terms can be mutually exclusive and both are not always present in any one type of economic system or mode of production.  As a point of reference, Weber cites the spirit of capitalism or motivation that was prevalent in 18^th century America, although the form was predominantly a craft system.  On the obverse, business enterprises in 19^th century Catholic Italy were clearly working under a capitalist form of economic system, although the motivation was one of ascetic traditionalism.

The key distinction between individuals who do not possess this capitalist “spirit” and those who do is their respective ideological system. Individuals with a Puritanical or Protestant religious background tended to display a differential zeal for capitalist ventures and labor.  Weber attempts to trace the paramount factors in the rise of the capitalist zest in these religious systems by looking at key structural elements of each faith.  He identifies several key notions that instill in the followers this special quality.  The first of these notions is the Calling (or Beruf in German). This concept is inextricably intertwined with Protestant religions.  The word finds its first religious usage in the exegesis of Ecclesiasticus by Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant Reformation. It its essence, Beruf imbues individuals with a sense of meaning in the world, and makes the most mundane seem significant. It was this concept which imbued dutiful completion of secular activity with high moral authority. Catholic religions on the other hand, have no comparable concept.  Interestingly, this idea of calling, although congruent with a potential “spirit” of capitalism, was clearly an unexpected outcome of the Protestant Reformation: indeed, perhaps an unwished one, as Protestantism under Martin Luther eschewed striving for material gain which was ultimately at the expense of others.

Another key element of Protestant religions which fostered capitalist “spirit” was the concept of predestination which in many ways was tied to the notion of providence.  Under predestination, which took its most extreme form under Calvinism, the course of a disciple’s life was preordained by God and the hapless follower was forever oblivious of God’s prejudgment.  Thus, an adherent’s life was prefixed and their everyday actions were ruled by providence or God’s free decision, although the disciple lived unaware of his or her true destiny. This concept created a gulf between followers and the Godhead that resulted in tremendous inner loneliness.  The ultimate result of this predestination in Weber’s eyes was the instilment of disillusioned and pessimistic individualism. Despite the grim prospects for followers, however, there was the possibility of gaining self-assurance through tireless labor in their calling, whereas the Catholic gained self-assurance through systematic, individual actions completed to compensate for personal sins.  To Weber, this distinction was paramount.  The Catholic completed random acts when guilt compelled them, whereas the Protestant Calvinist systematically and laboriously toiled for “sanctification through works.”

The third aspect of Protestant religions that fostered a spirit of capitalism was “innerworldly asceticism.” This asceticism was the driving force behind the cultivation of economic capital.  While the Protestant and the Puritans toiled systematically for sanctification through works, they patently avoided material and physical pleasure.  This abstinence from material consumption resulted in further efforts at hard labor, and more importantly, the fruits of these labors generated capital which could later be invested in entrepreneurial endeavors.

It is through the interaction of these Protestant tenets that the capitalist spirit reached its apogee.  Protestant and Puritan religions and sects, by their very nature and ethos, imbued an attitude that was congruent with capitalist ventures and labor, thus poising them to control labor and independent business and to be active fosterers of capitalism and capitalist development.

Although his “classic” of sociology is evocative and contentious, Weber minces several key points in his argument.  The most notable is the slapdash treatment of Catholic ethos and it relation to capitalist “apathy.”  He spends a great deal of the work addressing the history and ethological development of Protestant religions and sects, but little effort on the object of his derision: Catholics and their general ennui in regards to labor and economic development. A more balanced consideration of this facet of his endeavor might have been more fruitful. Moreover, if one deciding factor in instilling this “spirit” of capitalism is asceticism, then the question begs to be answered: why are not all Protestants imbued with the capitalist ethos, and how does the Catholic asceticism not flower into full-fledged capitalist “spirit?” Although Weber makes a distinction between two types of asceticism: one associated with Catholics and the other associated with Protestants and Puritans, there is little analysis devoted to the specific mechanisms that make these two forms of asceticism diametrically opposed. The overall impression is that Weber’s intent was to prove the positive correlation between capitalist “spirit” and Protestant religions, while not concomitantly proving the purported negative association between Catholic religions and the capitalist “spirit.”