Max Weber - that quintessential German "modernist-conservative pessimist"
From: "tombot"
To: "erico"
Subject: An Excerpt from Modern Sociology Relating to Your Existential Categories
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:03:05 -0500
To: Eric O
In the midst of searching for a new topic - something worth writing about that has the aura of being "cutting edge" I chanced to stumble upon Max Weber - that quintessential German "modernist-conservative pessimist" - A very heavy label to carry around no doubt. He was someone who tried to be "radically honest" and [somewhat like Heidegger] fell into despair about our modern situation as representing a form of fate that could not be overcome. He's a very intriguing example of someone who wants to believe in something higher- but has no discernible, tangible evidence to go by. He clings to science - yet cannot help but admit its limitations as a substitute religion. He's great when it comes to talking about "all that spiritual energy out there with no place to go." I pass this on because something Weber says reminds me of your Enneagram-like schema of existential "coping-strategies". Listen to the following and tell me if it doesn't remind you of some of your categories:
"In the Zeischenbetrachtun or as it is known in t English translation, "Religious Rejections of the World and their Directions, first published in 1915 and then appended to the very end of the first volume of the Sociology of Religion, [Max] Weber begins to confront the most serious responses to the threatening constraints of the iron cage [i.e. our modern-day work environment as secular prisonhouse where vocational calling/narrow specialization= replacement for traditional salvation]. Weber provides a commentary on the relentless struggles waged by those dwelling within the different life orders and value spheres in their attempts to cope with the historically given world through adaptation, rationalization, manipulation, escape. [!!!!! HERE -- HERE -- HERE !!!!!!] Although other aspects of the text can be deciphered such as the influential typology of asceticism and mysticism or the implicit schema for understanding action orientations they are subordinate in importance to the great cultural theme ---- the enormous tensions among the various orders of life in confronting the "fate of our times." the search for replies and routes of escape from withn culture ---- that builds the groundwork for Weber's entire inquiry." - From Fleeing the Iron Cage
And here's another line that caught my attention:
""In Weber's terminology religious rejections of the world are characterized in terms of an ethic of brotherliness - which is a species of an absolutist ethic of pure intentions, conviction or ultimate ends. Although the ambiguous category ethicas cannot in itself be a sphere of value with its own lawful autonomy Weber's entire treatment of the religious sphere of action and valuation must be interpretaed as suggesting there are distinctively absolutist ethical paths [decidedly secular in content yet] sharing an affinity with the ascetic religious life, that some choose to follow as a way of counteracting the dilemmas of living in this world. With respect to action claiming political standing, notably syndicalism and some variants of socialism belonging here for Weber, they master the demands of inner-worldly existence by imaginatively replacing the present life-world with another world and above all by claiming to discipline the self. They represent what are in themselves apolitical ethical positions, thrust into the political realm and thus "political" in their effects but advanced with the aim of transforming that very realm and compelling it to be "moral." - From Fleeing the Iron Cage
Interesting -- Interesting -- I like this description of the conflict as one of either accepting and adapting to the political [Machiavelli - Political Realism] vs. seeking to engage and transform it [socialism - liberal progressivism] vs. needing to escape from it [ asceticism - other-worldly religion]. Does that cover all the bases -- and if so -- where does Christian theology come into play? Do the theologians speak to these issues in theology class? I ask you...
- T.S.
To: "erico"
Subject: An Excerpt from Modern Sociology Relating to Your Existential Categories
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:03:05 -0500
To: Eric O
In the midst of searching for a new topic - something worth writing about that has the aura of being "cutting edge" I chanced to stumble upon Max Weber - that quintessential German "modernist-conservative pessimist" - A very heavy label to carry around no doubt. He was someone who tried to be "radically honest" and [somewhat like Heidegger] fell into despair about our modern situation as representing a form of fate that could not be overcome. He's a very intriguing example of someone who wants to believe in something higher- but has no discernible, tangible evidence to go by. He clings to science - yet cannot help but admit its limitations as a substitute religion. He's great when it comes to talking about "all that spiritual energy out there with no place to go." I pass this on because something Weber says reminds me of your Enneagram-like schema of existential "coping-strategies". Listen to the following and tell me if it doesn't remind you of some of your categories:
"In the Zeischenbetrachtun or as it is known in t English translation, "Religious Rejections of the World and their Directions, first published in 1915 and then appended to the very end of the first volume of the Sociology of Religion, [Max] Weber begins to confront the most serious responses to the threatening constraints of the iron cage [i.e. our modern-day work environment as secular prisonhouse where vocational calling/narrow specialization= replacement for traditional salvation]. Weber provides a commentary on the relentless struggles waged by those dwelling within the different life orders and value spheres in their attempts to cope with the historically given world through adaptation, rationalization, manipulation, escape. [!!!!! HERE -- HERE -- HERE !!!!!!] Although other aspects of the text can be deciphered such as the influential typology of asceticism and mysticism or the implicit schema for understanding action orientations they are subordinate in importance to the great cultural theme ---- the enormous tensions among the various orders of life in confronting the "fate of our times." the search for replies and routes of escape from withn culture ---- that builds the groundwork for Weber's entire inquiry." - From Fleeing the Iron Cage
And here's another line that caught my attention:
""In Weber's terminology religious rejections of the world are characterized in terms of an ethic of brotherliness - which is a species of an absolutist ethic of pure intentions, conviction or ultimate ends. Although the ambiguous category ethicas cannot in itself be a sphere of value with its own lawful autonomy Weber's entire treatment of the religious sphere of action and valuation must be interpretaed as suggesting there are distinctively absolutist ethical paths [decidedly secular in content yet] sharing an affinity with the ascetic religious life, that some choose to follow as a way of counteracting the dilemmas of living in this world. With respect to action claiming political standing, notably syndicalism and some variants of socialism belonging here for Weber, they master the demands of inner-worldly existence by imaginatively replacing the present life-world with another world and above all by claiming to discipline the self. They represent what are in themselves apolitical ethical positions, thrust into the political realm and thus "political" in their effects but advanced with the aim of transforming that very realm and compelling it to be "moral." - From Fleeing the Iron Cage
Interesting -- Interesting -- I like this description of the conflict as one of either accepting and adapting to the political [Machiavelli - Political Realism] vs. seeking to engage and transform it [socialism - liberal progressivism] vs. needing to escape from it [ asceticism - other-worldly religion]. Does that cover all the bases -- and if so -- where does Christian theology come into play? Do the theologians speak to these issues in theology class? I ask you...
- T.S.
posted by erico at 1:41 PM
6 Comments:
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:53:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "EricO"
Subject: Re: An Excerpt from Modern Sociology Relating to Your Existential Categories
To: "Tombot"
Are we getting to the "brass tacks" of human interaction, human society, in observing the observer, the politician, the ideologue, or are we observing the ripple effects of some other motive force, while creation groans as it awaits the coming of the Lord?
It is the Marxist question of whether to put the material above the spiritual, or vice-versa. As a Christian, I say the spiritual informs the material. This can only be said in faith.
So, the faithful must allow himself to be labeled the ideologue, and to continue being faithful, and to continue being smirked and ridiculed by the politician. The Christian is not a believer in an 'ism', however, but a person, and a love, and knows humility, and poverty of spirit. Donohue is a beginner on the spiritual path, if not a caricature, not its exemplar.
This leaves the observer with his observations, and if
he asks enough questions, and has enough insights, he reaches conclusions, judgments, and he must decide, and he must act.
Do you believe in miracles? The lives of the Saints attest to them. Do you believe that the material world is held in existence by the spirit, by God Himself? We like to feel comfortable in our faith when it is touchy-feely. How about when it claims to move mountains? So the observer feels he may be accepting something, well, crazy. And yet it alone seems to make sense ...
God be with you, Thomas.
Eric
p.s. As I reread these lines I am struck by the image
of Jesus (ideologue) condemned by Pilate (politician)
and you are there, observing. Could it be this entire
triadic structure is based simply on the Passion
narrative? Or, better yet, could it be that the
Passion narrative reveals the truth of the human
condition that each of us must be confronted with and
decide about?
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:33:05 -0800 (PST)
From: "EricO
Subject: Re: An Excerpt from Modern Sociology Relating to Your Existential Categories
To: "tombot"
I realized I hadn't addressed your specific question,
do theologians address the issues of political
manipulations, adaptations, transformations or fleeing
from the world. I think Avery Dulles or a CUA
professor wrote about The Christ of culture, the
Christ against culture, can't remember the third.
It's funny, because recently I picked up a small book
of writings by Thomas Merton, whose reflections begin
in the simplicity of the person being alone with God,
in humility and poverty of spirit. Out of this
simplicity flows a multiplicity of actions (my words).
Merton, you may recall, spoke up about the possibility
of global nuclear annihilation, so though he was a
hermit, he spoke to the world, you might say
prophetically.
I tend at this point, after listening to hours of talk
radio on drives to and from work, to think both sides
are limited and define themselves in opposition to the
other, instead of positively. So, I think that in
order to inject your values into the discourse, or
into political decisions, you have to take the
discourse with a grain of salt, and judge where and
whom to support. You try to have a more heavenly
point of view, and change the course of the dialog
(social progressivism?)
Also, just yesterday, I read an article on the
lonergan institute's website, on democracy and the
pursuit of the Good. Here's the link:
http://www.lonergan.org/dialogue_partners/badini/democracy_as_a_public_method_of.htmIt's more along the lines of the Christ of culture,
where culture is seen as having its own legitimacy and
good, and how to foster it and maintain it.
Eric
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Actually - I should have originally asked about the theological specialty that deals with the intersection of politics, theology and morality (Is it referred to as political theology?) rather than asking whether theology engages the political. Of course it must. I think You're right to invoke the Marxist/Non-Marxist debate over materiality and spirituality - which to me is akin to saying Is my "perspective" a mere "product" of my material environment or does the awareness of a "strife-ridden" material world already point to some higher truth - as all-embracing spiritual vantage point? It's weird that the Marxists put their finger on a crucial set of issues --- When you say: both sides are limited and define themselves in opposition to the other, instead of positively - do you mean that the observer on some level needs the politician who in turn needs the ideologue and vice versa? I'm trying to understand this in terms of your prior categories - What I'm searching for (ala Weber) is the answer to the question: Which perspective represents the "pure attitude" - or is this notion of a "privileged perspective" a misnomer - a delusion? If so - then what happens say to Merton's prophetic-contemplative voice? Should this represent a "purer perspective" or is it so only as a result of Merton's humility - admission of one-sidedness. I hope this is still making sense - Over to you...
T.S.
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:35:38 -0800 (PST)
From: "erico"
Subject: Re: An Excerpt from Modern Sociology Relating to Your Existential Categories
To: "tombot"
I don't know if I'm bypassing your concerns to indulge
my own passing reflections, but here goes, maybe we'll
come round to them:
Suppose the real question confronting humanity is in
fact found at the foot of the cross. An innocent man
is condemned to die. More than that, the crowd calls
out for his death. They see him as the problem, and
his death as the answer. How to respond?
If you are the politician, the answer is that
regrettably he must die so that stability may be
maintained. Nothing personal.
If you are the ideologue, then you believe he needed
to die, that he was the blasphemer, the source of the
problem. You are convicted of it. Or, you think that
he was the answer, and the authorities were keeping
the people down, and had taken their future political
leader/messiah from them. The others are the enemy.
If you are the observer, you despair, with Max.
The answer to the question of 'pure intention' is only
reachable through humility and spiritual poverty.
Only then do you understand His message, only then do
you understand the mechanism that called for his
death, only then do you see 'yourself' as culpable,
because we are all involved in it, bred in it, the way
of the world, of powers and principalities.
A propos of the current debate over the Passion movie
and who is to blame for Jesus' death.
I wanted to bring it back to the cross two thousand
years ago in order to suggest that there is nothing
new under the sun, and that the same option stood
before Peter and Paul as stood before Max. Maybe
developments of thought and changes in culture made
the triadic structure more stark, but I do not
understand certain modern philosophers' positioning
themselves as standing at the end of history, in a
void heretofore unknown, in some heroic posture.
Unable to escape. If there is no higher viewpoint,
then indeed they are caught, though somehow aware
through some higher viewpoint of their being caught.
I do not know these people, but it is one thing to
become aware of the outlines of a discourse, and
another to embrace them passionately and make a career
out of it. Do you suppose they were humble?
So, perhaps I am modifying my earlier lumping of
Christians in with the Ideologue. The ideologue truly
has scales before his eyes, while the Christian has
had the scales fall from his eyes. (Of course, it
takes faith to believe this--otherwise you just lump
them together). Girard's take on the scapegoating
mechanism and his definition of the demonic obtain to
the ideologue.
At this point, you recall Augustine's distinction
between the City of God and the City of Man. How you
can't decide who is in the City of God just by who
attends church, or joins the K of C. Those who enter
in to the faith and learn humility and poverty may
enter through the narrow gate. Others who call
themselves Christians may not be known by Christ, and
may then be lumped in with the Ideologue. All of us,
as a matter of fact, have difficulty leaving the
triad, we are so born into it. Eternal life is
grafted onto us. We are so fallen. To see this is to
see our poverty, our inability to attain true
humility, which leaves us humbled.
Now I may not be making much sense anymore. But to
answer your question, yes, the nodes of the triad need
each other, they are in tension with each other. So
no there is no higher viewpoint within the triad.
There is the Christian who recognizes himself within
the triad, who cries out for the Lord, in the void.
Just as Max recalls, "All that spiritual energy with
nowhere to go." But how would we harness it? How
would we use it responsibly? We can't. Only God who
revealed Himself, and who graces us, and who Saves us,
can do the work. We can only accept our powerlessness
before God. Again, humility. I will try to find the
passage in Merton that allows me to speak as I do.
And I trust that you know me well enough by now to
know that I have only just caught sight of that about
which I speak. You do me an honor by taking my
reflections seriously. Thank you. (My honest attempt
at humility.)
Eric
p.s I suspect Lonergan's notion of Cosmopolis would
integrate theology, culture, society, morality,
economics, politics, etc. in a heirarchy of the Good.
See the subheading of lonergan.org, viz. For the Good
under construction. I do recommend the article I
linked.
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:50:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "erico"
Subject: more on Weber,
To: tombot
I am struck by several things as I re-read our
e-conversation. One, in re-reading the excerpts about
Max Weber, I appreciate the identification of a
"cross-cultural" phenomenon whereby it is noted that
both the secularists and the religious are both
engaged in some kind of coping mechanism, whether it
be to coerce, to flee, to modify the world based on
some kind of "pure intention", as they see it. I
appreciate Rene Girard in this regard because he is
able to articulate a theory about the foundation of
society that would account for both secular and
religious forms of the coping mechanism. It seems to
be "human nature", i.e. the mimetic rivalry and
scapegoating effects. All across the globe, wherever
groups of people gather, have gathered, and
civilations developed, you find evidence of
scapegoating, which is itself a coping strategy on a
social level. It also happens on an individual level.
I think he primarily studies its occurence in
religious contexts, but I believe it would also happen
in a secular context now that the West has grown
dismissive of religious belief. I am bothered by a
gnawing question of whether this theory accepts
secular principals to the detriment of the truth
revealed in and by Christ. This theory accepts
evolution of species and incorporates the
"humanization" of primordial man through this very
process of mimetic rivalry and its repercussions.
However, you then begin to wonder about whether or not
man has an eternal soul, or whether the subject, the
"I", I experience, may be reduced to the chemical
processes of the brain, giving the illusion of
consciousness of an "I". The Marxist question again.
Contrast this to Lonergan, who identifies the subject
as consciously intending to understand that which is.
A truth seeker. (I do not intend to impute any
position on consciousness to either Girard or
Lonergan, only to use them as placeholders to indicate
the two sides of an argument in my own mind).
I have doubts about Rene Girard's thought because he
began his studies as an agnostic, and it was through
his discovery of what he calls mimetic rivalry and
scapegoating that he began to interpret the God of
Israel and Jesus as bringing to light this very
mechanism, in their identification with the victim,
whereas all other religions obscure the victim and
blame the victim and call the sacrifices necessary.
Only later, during an illness, did Girard convert in a
more traditional sense. He seems to have had an
existential moment of conversion, but how does he
interpret the articles of faith? So, I do not know to
what extent he believes in the reality of the soul,
miracles, eternal life, the resurrection, etc.
If I follow his lead, am I analogously like a computer
programmer, who enters certain laws into a program,
and lets them play out, so that I am leading a
simulated faith, while understanding the laws in play
from a distance? I do not think I could lay down my
life for that.
I think that I am at a point in my life where I am
consciously looking for miracles.
Second, Max Weber is looking at historical religious
coping mechanisms, real life, so to speak. So, it
seems as if my claim that "real" Christianity rises
above the coping mechanisms may be suspect. But then
we go back to the City of God, in which we strive to
inwardly purify ourselves, humble ourselves, and the
way may very well take external forms that are at some
point transcended. Merton says the person who knows
himself first, knows some successes in the world,
gives up himself, dies to self. Realizes his
inability to be humble. But he also describes how
something positive fills up the void, how God comes to
live within. So, it becomes a question of whether
this is a subjective, existential experience of the
subject, to the exclusion of "real" miracles, or
whether that something positive is real, is God
himself, Christ himself.
Am I improperly translating all of your questions into
religious questions of my own concern? Am I not
hearing you?
Eric
Post a Comment
<< Home