Calvinism, Capitalism and Confusion:

The Weberian Thesis Revisited

Dennis P. Forcese
Carleton University

Max Weber's well-known discussion of the relationship between the

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on May 25, 2015

"Protestant ethid" and "capitalista" has occasioned a vast amount of dis-
cussion, much of it critical. Ir is our contention that the Weberian thesis
has been done an in]ustice in the course of this dialogue, for with few
exceptions the critics do not appear to have argued to the point. Weber's
intention was to demonstrate a relationship between Calvinism a n d a
peculiar forra of capitalism, not in terms of genesis, but in terms of "feed-
bacl91 Weber granted that the Protestant ethic which he described dif-
fered in forro and emphasis from that immediately following the Refor-
mation, and that it had altered in response to a developing capitalista.
But Weber sought to demonstrate that this altered ethic in turn influenced
capitalista, serving as ah impetus to its further development to a stage
characterized by what Weber called the "capitalist ethos." He by no
means imputed monocausaIity, nor did he assume that he had at all ex-
plained the origins of capitalista. Rather, he [ocused upon the institu-
tionalization of the capitalist complex, and here the effect of ideology
appeared vital.

During the years 1904 and 1905 there
appeared in print for the first time Max
Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of CapitalŸ 1 The thesis presented in
the work subsequenfly became, and re-
mains, among the most debated in his-
tory and social science.
The proliferation of written comment
that has grown up around the work has
tended to obscure the entire issue raised
by Weber, rather than clarify it. Not only
does doubt remain as to the validity of
Weber's thesis, but there is more than a
little uncertainty as to its exact nature.
In the face of this situation it certainly
1 Talcott Parsons, "Translator's Prefaee'" to
the English edition of Max Weber's The Prot-
estant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalista, New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958, p. xiii.
193
is not our ambition to resolve the issue
with one stroke. Rather, we present this
paper in an attempt to impose a little
order upon the entire issue.
WEBER'S INTENTION
Max Weber had been greatly influ-
enced by the thought of Karl Marx, as
had so many of his generation. Yet
Weber did not concur with Marx's mono-
causal interpretation of change. Eco-
nomic determinism was a gross over-
simpliflcation. The Protestant Ethic was
to represent Weber's first main chapter
in his case for the importance of ideology
a s a contributing determinant of social
structure.
The Protestant Ethic was to be the first
of an intended series of comparative
194 SlL"IOLOGICJtI, ANALYSIS
studies. Weber was convinced that as a
substitute for the controlled experiments
of the laboratory denied the social scien-
tist, extensive cross-cultural comparisons
should be resorted to.
The comparative method as Weber
used it, is the direct methodological
equivalent of experimentation in the
laboratory sciences. Only by study-
ing cases which ate similar in some
respects but different in others would
it be possible to arrive a t a judge-
ment of the causal influence of any
factor. 2
Weber had previously noted the high
frequency of Protestants among the bour-
geoisie of Europe, even in non-Protestant
nations. He thereby was Ied to the idea
of the peculiar signiflcance of the "Prot-
estant ethic" in Western civilization.
Weber hypothesized that the ethic, ide-
ally represented by Calvinism and the
Puritan sects, was the factor present in
Europe but absent elsewhere that could
at least partially account for the develop-
ment of modern capitalism. His com-
parative studies were to permit him to
fully evaluate his hypothesis.
Unfortunately Weber never completed
as extensive a series of comparisons as he
had projected. However, he did manage
to accumulate considerable data on
China, at the time dominated by Con-
fucianism, and India where the major
religion was Hinduism. Weber judged
that although conditions in a purely eco-
nomie sense appeared to be adequately
present in China and India, the singular
economic complex of capitalism had only
developed in Europe.
Although capitalist beginnings could
be observed in these other civiliza-
9 Talcott Parsons, "Max Weber's Sociologi- Economic Organizations, New York: Free Press,
cal Analysis of Capitalista and Modern Institu- 1964, Chapter 2. See also: Gerth and Mills,
tŸ in An Introduction to the History of op. cit., pp. 66-68.
Sociology, H. E. Barnes (ed.), Chieago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1948, p. 295.
tions, capitalista in the Western
sense did not emerge. Weber wished
to find those factors in other civiliza-
tions which blocked the emergence
of capitalism. 3
Tentatively, then, Weber suggested that
one sucia absent factor was a religion
amenable to capitalist development. But
although Weber suggested religion as an
Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on May 25, 2015
independent variable, it is quite clear
that he was aware of other differenti-
ating factors.
. . . Weber was not naive enough to
suppose that European and Chinese
civilizations differed only in a single
factor. In any case he had already
suggested in a study of the Western
city that the disassociation of the
city from kinship and viUage ties
and its emergence a s a confessional
association was another factor pecu-
liar to the West and one which,
along with Protestantism, played an
important part in the emergence of
Western capitalista. 4
Weber himself was quite explicit in this
regard.
9 we have no intention whatever
. .
of maintaining such a foolish and
8 H. Gerth, C. W. Mills, From Max Weber,
New York: Oxford University Press, 1958, p.
51. Weber explicitly aeknowledges such capi-
talist begirmings in bis footnotes. (Max Weber,
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capi-
talista, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1958, pp. 189-190 and pp. 199-200.) Further,
he sought to distinguish the modern eapitalist
ethos from prior capitalist forros, such as politi-
cal eapitalism, pariah capitalista, adventure
capitalism, etc. Such examples were by way of
acknowledging capitalist aetivities but not a
capitalist system such as he wished to explain.
See Max Weber, The Theory of Social and
4 John Rex, "Max Weber,'" New Society, 4
(December 3, 1964), p. 24.
 CALVmISM, cAPrr~LLSM, AND CONFUSIO~r
doctrinaire thesis as that the spirit
of capitalista . . . could only have
arisen as a result of certain effects
of the Reformation, or even that
capitalista as an economic effect is a
creation of the Reformation. In it-
self, the fact that certain important
forros of capitaIistic business organi-
zation are known to be considerably
older than the Reformation is a suffi-
cient refutation of such a claŸ On
the contrary, we only wish to ascer-
tain whether and to what extent
religious forces have taken part in
the qualitative formation and quan-
titative expansion of that spirit over
the world. ~
Weber's approach and aim, then, appear
both sensible and sophisticated. His in-
tention would seem clear. But that ap-
parently it has not been is testified by
the criticism that his work has incurred,
much of which is directed at what is
taken to be a case for the causal primacy
of ProtestantismY Other critics, some-
what more perceptive, have asserted that
Weber was attempting no such thing
and only sought to demonstrate that
Protestantism was a necessary, although
by no means sufl]cient, condition for the
development of capitalism. For example,
Parsons states of Weber:
He d i d . . . definitely maintain that
the Protestant ethic was a necessary
condition and that, without it, the
development would have been radi-
caIly dŸ r can we achieve causal explanations. It is worth
This latter interpretation would seem to
be quite reasonable. Weber sought to
determŸ what influence Protestantism
had in the development of capitalism; in
5 Max Weber, op. cit. (1958), p. 91.
6 See the valuable compendium of papers
reprinted in: Robert W. Green, Protestantism
and Capitalista: The Weber Thesis and Its
Critics, Boston: D. C. Heath & Co., 1959.
7 Talcott Parsons, op. cit., p. 294.
195
what way did religious ideology con-
tribute to capitalism's peculiar forro. We
accept Parson's interpretation with some
qualification that will become clear as we
progress.
~VEBER'S THESIS
We have presented our understanding
of Weber's intention. In now turning to
Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on May 25, 2015
his thesis, we hope to demonstrate the
essential validity of our interpretation
and to evaluate Weber's case.
Before one can even begin to under-
stand Weber's thesis, it is necessary to
ascertain precisely how he defined his
terms of reference and his concepts. Un-
fortunately this Ÿ no straighfforward
task since Weber is considerably less
than exact in this regard. This ambiguity
to a large extent accounts for his having
been so frequently misinterpreted.
The concept 8 of the "spirit of capi-
8 Weber, of course, was using ideal types.
But such types only clarified the features of
given histo¡ periods by abstracting those
features from the given situation. Contrary to
Fischoff's argument, such use of ideal types
need not invalidate bis thesis. ("The ideal-type
method neglects the time coefl]cient, or at any
rate, impairs the possibility of establishing time
sequences because Ÿ involves the telescoping
of data." Ephraim Fischoff, "The History of a
Controversy," in Green, op. cit., p. 113.) Weber
emphasizes given features to the exclusion of
others for the sake of developing bis thesis, but
they are features which existed and for wbich
a temporal sequence can be discerned. Indeed,
Weber held that only by thus being selective
repeating Raymond Aron's lucid explanation
of this view: " ' . . . it is indispensable to make
a selection among the consequences and to
limit the antecedents whieh are taken into
account. The primar), condition for establisbing
historical causality is this selection. It is impos-
sible to give an account of the whole of reality,
and a historieal cause can ordy be defined with
reference to particular aspects of a given phe-
nomenon. Thus, if one studies the origins of
capitalism, it is essential to state those aspeets
of capitalism wbich are to be taken into con-
196 SOflOLOGIr
talism" should be our initial concern. In
resorting to this "somewhat pretentious
phrase "9 Weber sought to distinguish a
spectfic form of capitalism from the bulk
of capitalistic activity. Ir is this unique
t?orm, and not capitalist activity gener-
ally, that Weber attempted to associate
with Calvinism. Vaguely, Weber sug-
gests that by "spirit of capitalism" he
refers to a specifie capitalist "ethos. "i~
Capitalista existed in China, India,
Babylon, in the classic world, and in
the Middle Ages. But in all these
cases . . . this particular ethos was
lacking, il
What precisely characterized this ethos?
9 . the ideal of the honest man of
.
recognized credit, and above aU the
idea of a duty of the individual
toward the increase of his capital,
whŸ is assumed as an end in itself.
Truly what is preached here is not
simply a means of making one's way
in the world but a peculiar ethic.
The infraction of its rules is treated
not as foolishness but as forgetful-
ness of duty. That is the essence of
the matter. Ir is not mete business
astuteness, that sort of thing is com-
m o n enough, it is ah ethos. 1~
It is this ethos which distinguishes a
peculiar form of capitalism. The capi-
talist complex is characterized by ra-
tionally organized and formally free
labor and ah unmitigated entrepreneur-
ship, justified and reinforced by an ideo-
sideration. A causal relation cannot be estab-
lished between one total situation and another,
or between one historical moment and another;
it is never more than one strand in the whole,
and it is only established by a conceptual
transformation of the crude reality." (Raymond
Aron, German Sociology, New York: Free Press,
1964, p. 79.)
9 Weber, op. cit. (1958), p. 47.
lo Ibid., p. 51.
ii Ibid., p. 52.
12 Ibid., p. 51.
ANALYFIS
logical sanction. In this the capitalist
ethos differs from all previous "tradi-
tionar' capitalist undertakings.
9 . . the central problem for us is
not . . . the development of capi-
talistic activity as such, differing in
different cultures only in forro: the
adventure-type, or capitalista in
trade, war, politics, or administra-
Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on May 25, 2015
tion as sources of gain. Ir is rather
the origin of this sober bourgeo~
capitalista with its rational organiza-
tion of free labor, i~
Weber thereby considerably narrowed
the range of his inquiry. He restricted
his discussion to a specifie phase of capi-
talist development, differentiated from
other forms essentially in its psychologi-
cal basis.
Thus, it is this peculiar ethos that
Weber must account for, and he sees it
as a product of more than a gradual
process of secularization under the im-
pact of expanding economic activity.
Weber suggests that the ethos, and
hence the unique capitalist complex asso-
ciated with it, are in some part attribut-
able to the Protestant ethic. His conten-
tion is that an ideo]ogical cmtch such as
the Protestant ethie could go a consider-
able way in consolŸ the capitalistic
economic complex. Once institutional-
ized, the capitalist structure then could
well absorb the religious ethic.
9. . the full economic effect of those
great religious movements . . . gener-
ally carne only after the peak of the
purely religious enthusiasm was
past. Then the intensity of the search
for the Kingdom of God commenced
graduaUy to pass over into sober
economic virtue; the religious roots
died out slowly, giving way to utili-
tarian worldliness. 14
18 Ibid., pp. 23-249
x4 Ibid., p. 1769
 CALVINISM~ CAPITALIS/r AND CONFUSION
This Protestant ethie, of course, emerged
from the Reformation. But Weber con-
cedes that the Reformed religions prob-
ably did not encourage capitalism ini-
tially, and indeed militated against it.
But his concern is with Protestantism's
eventual and quite latent function. What-
ever its maniIest and initial intention and
effect, the ethic nurtured capitalist de-
velopment, contends Weber.
We ate naturally not concerned with
the question of what was theoreti-
cally and officiaUy taught in the
ethical compendia of the time, how-
ever much practical signi[icance this
may have had through the influence
of Church discipline, pastoral work,
and preaching. We ate interested
rather in something entirely dif-
ferent: the influence of those psy-
chological sanctions which, origi-
nating in religious belief and the
practice of religion, gave a direction
to practical conduct and held the
individual to it. 15
Weber is cautious in speaking of Protes-
tantism and distinguishes between Prot-
estant forms. He does not attempt to
doeument the irdtuence of Protestantism
generally. For example, he largely dis-
counts Lutheranism as an obvious re-
action against the increased economie
libera]ism of the age. The heart of the
ethic rests with Calvinism and the de-
rivative Puritan sects. As Tawney was to
make c/ear in his work, there was a
considerable difference between Luther-
anism and Calvinism; Lutheranism was
reactionary and tended to appeal in rural
areas, while Calvinism appealed to the
bourgeoisie and established itself upon
an urban base. Notes Tawney:
Unlike Luther, who saw economic
life with the eyes of a peasant and a
mystic, they (the Calvinists) ap-
~5 lbid., p. 97.
197
proached it as men of affairs, dis-
posed neither to idealize the pa-
triarchal virtues of the peasant
community, nor to regard with sus-
picion the mete fact of capitalist
enterprise in commerce and ~.
flafl91237
Weber was as muela aware of this
significant distinction as was Tawney,
Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on May 25, 2015
and therefore concentrated upon Cal-
vinism since its extreme nature made
more readily apparent the process that
Weber sought to bring to light. Weber
was convinced that features of Calvinism
were admirably suited to contribute to
the current capitalist development.
First of all, there was the "calling," the
idea that it was one's duty to labor
diligently in this world without respite.
Originally cortfined to a spiritual sense,
the notion of calling very soon was ex-
tended to this worldly oceupational con-
text. x7 Also of importance was the Cal-
vinist belief in predestination. One could
not effect one's other-wordly designation,
but if one was successful in the under-
takings of this world, then one could rest
assured that one was among the Elect.
The success was not an end in itself, but
an indicator that one was assured of sal-
vation. But the Calvinists were not al-
lowed to indulge in whatever success they
might achieve. It was quite legŸ to
prosper, and to prosper without cease,
but one could not resort to frivolity in
any sense. Strict frugality was the watch-
word.
Thus, asserts Weber, once the em-
phasis passed from religious practice to
16 R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of
Capitalista, New York: New American Library,
1961, p. 92.
17 Weber explicitly, and to some length, dis-
tinguishes the Pre-Reformation sense of spir-
itual calling from that which came to pass in
the Post-Reformation period--the sense of a
secular occupational duty. (Weber, op. cit.,
pp. 207-211.)
198 SOCaOr.OGICAt..r
economic endeavor supported by reli-
gious conviction, the Calvinists enjoyed
a disfinct advantage over other Ch¡
tians in motivation. They were compelled
to economic endeavor, entrepreneur and
laborer alike, for it was their duty. Yet
they were prevented from consuming the
product of their efforts, thereby allowing
the accumulation of capital for reinvest-
ment in further economic undertakings.
This worldly Protestant asceticism
9 . . acted powerfully against the
spontaneous enioyment of posses-
sions; it restricted consumption es-
peciaUy of luxuries. On the other
hand, it had the psychological effect
of freeing the acquisition of goods
from the inhibitions of traditional-
istic ethics. It broke the bonds of the
impulse of acquŸ in that it not
only legalized it, but looked upon ir
as directly willed by God. TM
Whereas hitherto traditional capitalism
had been lŸ by a lack of mofivation
to labor beyond satisfying one's own
need, the Protestant ethic provided the
bourgeois entrepreneur a religious sane-
tion. Behavior previously only tolerated
was now ideologically iustified, a n d a
labor force acting from religious com-
pulsion was available for exploitation.
Thereby emerged the distinctive "spirit
of capitalism."
C'RITICIZING T H E C ~ C S
One of the more successful rejoinders
to the Weber thesis was that of the
British economist R. H. Tawney.
Tawney did not dispute that the Cal-
vinists and the PurŸ sects may have
contributed to capitalist development,
but he was anxious to point out that the
accord came only after the religious ethic
had been altered by an already well-
developed capitalism. But in pointing
ls Ibi~, p. 171.
this up Tawney was only making more
explicit what Weber had obviously con-
ceded and was thereby left tilting at
windmills.
Weber, in counterweight to Marx, may
have been anxious to point up that ide-
ology was a factor to be contended with,
but he never doubted the influence of
economic factors in shaping the entire
Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on May 25, 2015
social structure and its components, in-
cluding religion. Weber was as aware of
the interdependence of social items as
was Tawney, and equally aware of the
many factors contributing to capitalism.
He admitted a capitalistic form develop-
ing prior to, and after, the emergence of
Protestantism, and granted the many
factors promoting this capitalist develop-
ment, such as population increase, new
markets, colonŸ etc. Weber made
clear bis awareness that this burgeoning
capitalism influenced Protestantism, as
other religions, until it was turned from
its original emphasis to a shape that
clearly bolstered capitalist development.
Weber was not speaking of genesis,
prime cause, or any sucia thing. His in-
tention simply was to demonstrate that
at some point the religious ethic pro-
vided a sŸ impetus to capitalist
entrenchment. Whether or not Protes-
tantism itself was initially one product of
the drive to capitalism is of no matter.
The obvious point is that ah effect itself
can become a cause. Once produced,
Protestantism itself was altered by the
existing, though as yet unconsolidated,
rational-capŸ milieu, and then in
tuna influenced the change process of
economic development. Contemporary
theorists choose to refer to this process as
"feedback."
In like manner, then, Tawney's criti-
cism that Weber drew only upon later
Calvinist writings and not the earlier
ones so clearly alien to capitalism, is
quite beside the point. It is the later
writings which represent the period of
 CALVlNISM,CAPITALISl~I,AND CONFUSION
Calvinism's effect. Weber did not arbi-
trarily intersect history, nor did he
rnisapply his illustrations. He simply de-
scribed the period in which the Protes-
tant influence was rnarked, that is, the
point at whieh the feedback had estab-
lished itself.
The influence of the ethic, contends
Weber, acted to spur capitalism to a new
level, that of the capitalist ethos, and
provided an ideological sanction for its
institutionalization. Other Christian reli-
gious forms, also altered by capŸ
rnay have accornrnodated the new eco-
nomic tendency, but the mutated Cal-
vinistic and Puritan ethic prornoted and
sanctioned it. 19
Weber had decided from his compara-
tive undertakings that not iust Calvinism
and the Puritan sects, but all Christianity
was unique in that it allowed, unlike
Hinduism and Confucianisrn, capitalist
forms to emerge and develop. But Cal-
vŸ eventually did more than tolerate
and bend with the secular breeze. Tal-
cott Parsons makes the irnportant point:
. . . Weber was partŸ con-
cerned with the contrast between
"'ascetic" Protestantism and Cathol-
icism. Comparisons with the reli-
gions of China and India consider-
ably reduces the signi~cance of this
contrast. From the latter point of
19 Weber, therefore, would likely concede
that where there were insuflicient factors oper-
ating to alter the original religious teachings,
then the ethie probably would not of itself
bring about eapitalism. Such would explain
the absence of eapitalism, for example, in Pres-
byterian-dominated Scotland. Tawney had
noted that two opposing trends are available
for development in Calvinism, that of collec-
tivism, and that of individualism. (Tawney,
op. cit., p. 194.) Thus, conceivably, where the
original collectivist emphasis is not moderated
by other factors in the social environment, the
individualŸ tendency never deve|ops. Cal-
vinism's feedbaek effect upon capitalism never
comes into play.
199
view the Calvinistic pattern is to be
regarded as the most complete reali-
zation of possibilities in one par-
ticular direction. Catholicism, from
this point of view, considerably
mitigates the rigors of the Calvinist
doctrine; but, by contrast with
Confucianism and Hinduism, aU
branches of Christianity ate seen to
have much in common. 2o
Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on May 25, 2015
In the course of his comparisons, Weber
had determined that in India and China,
religion played a vital role in that it was
of such a nature as to prevent capitalist
development. In the West, in contrast,
although ostensibly opposed to forms of
capitalist enterprise, Christianity gener-
ally tolerated capitalist forms. As so
many of Weber's critics point up, Cathol-
icism rnay have frowned upon capŸ
but with a very visible wink, and often
indirect Vatican support. Therefore there
was a capitalist foothold in the West but
not in the East. Then with the Beforma-
tion, itself in large p a r t a product of
changing economic condŸ new
Christian forros emerged that eventually
not only perrnitted capitalism, but once
rnoderated by the capitalist surge of the
day, becarne propellents of the capitalist
drive. The ethic added to the common
desŸ for econornic gain a powerful and
convenient religious Ÿ That the
religious roots of the bourgeois iustifica-
tion were eventually to be lost as capi-
talisrn became firmly entrenched is of no
matter.
Weber attempted to dernonstrate,
then, that ideology is Ÿ first, in
that it may effective|y tfiwart of retard
econornie change; secondly, that it may
actively promote econornŸ change; and
thirdly, its sanction may p l a y a vital role
in the institutionalization of a new eco-
nornic complex.
2o Parsons, op. cit., pp. 297-298.
9.00 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION Weberian thesis by pointing up the other

ObvŸ Weber has not definitively factors operating in the development of
proved anything, for ah ex post facto capitalism is to mŸ the point. It is ir-
explanalŸ can never be developed that relevant to claim that other variables
is perfect and that satisfies everyone. But precipitated and propelled the change to
bis explanation of the effect of one vari- a eapitalist complex. What should be
able in a given instance of change is questioned in Weber's thesis is the degree
excellent. Unlike his critics, Weber ap- to which it can be said that the ethic
parently did not confuse genesis with played a role. Weber's verdict is that its

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on May 25, 2015

causality. role was considerable, but there is room
Certainly there are flaws in his ap- for doubt. The critie should ask how ex-
proach. Regarding his comparison, for tensive was the Calvinistie and Puritan
example, it is clear that there are many irdtuence. Again we tend to agree with
extraneous and corffoundŸ variables Weber in that the religious ethic seemed
which Weber could not control. It is to have appealed to the emerging bour-
conceivable that had the Asian condi- geoisie, thereby providing them a re-
tions in terms of economie opportunity inforcing incentive and justifieation for
been equal to that of Europe, then these their activities that had hitherto been de-
religions also might have proved more nied them. Particularly important would
congenial to capitalist development. We have been the ethie in America, where
have Weber's opinion that conditions its installation was tempered by a capi-
were approximately comparable in the talist and pioneer milieu.
three civilizations, but there would ap- In the same line, the critie should ask
pear to have been quite singular eco- to what extent is it valid to elaim that the
nomie opportunities operating in the ethie played ah irnportant tole in the
West that never were afforded the East. institutionalization of the capitalistic
Certainly, then, without perfecfly con- eomplex. Was the emerging rational-
trolling for economic variables, Weber secular philosophy in itself not enough to
cannot prove that a given religious form account for the consolidation of the new
was a vital condition for capitalism. I~ economic complex? We suggest, as prob-
we restrict ourselves to Parson's sense, ably Weber would, that not only was the
speaking of Protestantism as necessary secular philosophy insuflicient, but prob-
in that otherwise capitalism probably ably it was itself not established until
would have matured to quite a different capitalism was institutionalized and the
form, then we are somewhat more in- religious ethie had considerably dis-
clined to concur, but it still remains a appeared.
matter of considered judgement. In summary, then, the emergence of
Weber's case for feedback causation capitalism was, of course, a lengthy and
stands with the comparative method- gradual process. Weber realized the
ology which provided him his initial in- complexity of the matter and had no in-
sight. Here again there is no questŸ of tentŸ of simplification. As any process
definite proof, but as in all historical of social change, there were many con-
explanation, it is a matter of carefully tributing factors and the origins can
evaluating Weber's analysis. We believe never be precisely determined. To seareh
that his analysis is quite sound, continu- for any one prime cause is foolish and
ally keeping in mind his Iimited inten- futile. But to attempt to determine all
tion. the variables that contribute to the un-
As we have argued, criticizing the stable, changing system is the social
 CALVINIS1Vf, CAPITALISl~, AND CONFUSION
scientist's task. To reeogm'ze the change
process as eomplicated, with many vari-
ables acting upon one another, separately
and colleetively, directly and indireetly,
eontinuously and sporadicaUy, is to know
the social system for what it is. But this
is not to prevent the social scientist from
drawing attention to a contributing vari-
able that had been overlooked, as had
201
religious ideology in the flurry of Marxist
influence.
Weber's implicit use of the notion of
feedback is a sound and valuable con-
tribution. Bather than having naively
over-simplified the intricacies of a change
situation, Weber's thesis illustrated that
cause and effect cannot be neatly sepa-
rated into a unilineal causal sequence.
Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at The Univesity of Calgary on May 25, 2015