The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism

Drew Boyd 10/16/2006 REL3931 Question #3
Max Weber examines religion on a largely economic basis in his book, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism." In it, he details the transition of "asceticism and methodical habits out of the monasteries" and into the service of active life in the world. In early Christianity, there were no Protestant denominations, so Catholicism was tantamount to Christianity. Within the Catholic tradition, monks would live in communes called monasteries, and dedicate themselves to a life of asceticism and ritual lifestyles. Furthermore, the scriptures of the Bible were understood primarily by priests and monks. Lay people had little access to copies of the Bible, and as a result, their system of beliefs and their lifestyles were dictated largely by priestly interpretation. The transition of the monastic asceticism into the world took place with the Protestant Reformation, and more specifically, a monk named Martin Luther.
Luther rebelled against the Catholic church, and began what is now known as the Protestant movement in Christianity, which represents a large number of denominations within its boundaries today.
According to Weber, the Catholic church gave people assurance of salvation. After the Reformation, however, that security was lost for many people. Out of confusion, many people began looking for other "signs" that they had salvation. Money quickly became one such "sign." Hence, the Protestant reformation, and therefore, Protestantism itself, began an inextricable relationship with the earning of money. The best economic system of earning money is certainly Capitalism. Therefore, according to Weber, Protestantism became married to
Capitalism.
Certainly this is not the only link between Protestantism and Capitalism. The Catholic church, with its lavish expenditures and turning the blind eye to its members who do the same, certainly encouraged the accumulation of wealth in that sense. However, it was the "Protestant Ethic," as Weber terms it, that really possessed the Spirit of Capitalism. As the scriptures became available to the common man with the Reformation, the principles of discipline and humility, meaning not being rich in the world, were paramount. Protestants saved money where Catholics would spend it. As a result, Protestants became wealthier, and learned to invest. Weber argues that Protestants tend toward jobs that pay higher, such as administrative tasks, than do Catholics, who tend toward skilled labor.
The followers of John Calvin, in particular, became the epitome of those who possessed the Spirit of Capitalism. The theological basis of predestination on which Calvinist theology is predicated encouraged the spread of Capitalism perhaps more than any other denominational theology of Protestantism. Since, according to Calvin, there are only some who are predestined to be saved, then those who subscribed to this doctrine were left to determine who was a part of the elect and who was not. One way in which many people believed the mystery could be uncovered was wealth. Those who amassed the greatest wealth clearly had the greater blessing of God, and therefore, were clearly those who were in the elect. Hence, those followers of Calvin worked very hard and invested money in order to ensure their place in the elect group who were predestined to be saved in the end.
Weber's argument is from a sociological perspective, which immediately lends itself certain strengths and weaknesses. To Weber's credit, his argument has great credibility in regards to the history of the Christian church. The idea that Calvinists were more predisposed to desire wealth correlates completely with the doctrine of predestination. I suppose that those who were most successful financially would also be able to offer a greater tithe, and thereby obtain even greater credibility as one of the "elect," since good deeds done certainly would help one achieve the desired security of salvation.
Critics of Weber offer differing interpretations of some of his quotes, such as the quote from Benjamin Franklin, and his ideas in regards to the ties between Capitalism and Protestantism. However, I have not found, of my own accord or from an outside source, a criticism that is able to disprove what Weber posited as true. Instead, critics seem to merely offer a differing possibility, which in itself is merely that, a possibility. The substance to their arguments is generally not sufficient to merit suspicion on the part of Weber's arguments. The one weakness I see in Weber's argument stems only from the basis on which it is made, and that is the basis on which his contemporaries also argued, the basis of sociology. Interpreting religion from a sociological standpoint requires that religion be confined to the borders of sociology, rather than being allowed to define itself. As a result, anything that is religious is viewed through the lens of society. Instead of promoting an understanding of faith which is true to the intention of any religious tradition, this type of study promotes a point of view that lacks any significant understanding of the tradition. In short, it is a "hands-off" approach that lacks proper grounding. While this opinion surely opposes most scholarly work in the arena of world religion, I believe it is a valid one that will, if it has not already, make a marked appearance in the study of religion.