Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the
American Academy of Religion.
http://www.jstor.org
AARARTICLES
Max
Love:
Weber
A
and
Look
Sociology
World-Denying
at
of
the
Historical
Religion'
RobertN. Bellah
277
278
279
and so may obscure the fact that this is a key text, perhaps thekey text in
Weber'sentirecorpus.Forthe subjectis not, or not simply,religiousrejections of the world but the differentiationof what Webercalls the value
and the increasinglyirreconcilableconflictbetween
spheres(Wertsphiiren)
them, a differentiationthat leadsto the "polytheism"of modernity,a "war
of the gods,"which is the result of the entire process of rationalization,
Weber'scentralpreoccupationduringhis last and most fruitfulperiod.
WEBER'S HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY
In order to understandthe place of world-denyinglove, Liebesakosmismus,in Weber'sthought,we must firstlook at the overallconceptionof
social developmentthat organizeshis entire sociologicalwork. Although
he rejectednineteenth-centuryevolutionism, Weber'sown comparative
historicalsociologyhas a stronglydevelopmentalframework,which could
still be called evolutionary if that word is properly construed.6In this
frameworkthe baselinefromwhich all laterdevelopmentbegins is characterizedby a social structurerooted almost entirelyin kinship and neighborhood. What is characteristicof such baseline societies, which we
might-though the term is not without ambiguities-call tribalsocieties,
is that all aspects of life are organized through kinship and local group
association.There is no differentiatedpolitical system or economic system. Hierarchyis not missingbut is organizedalmost exclusivelythrough
age and sex differences.Economic life is carriedon largelythrough kinship and neighborhood reciprocity.Religionis embeddedin the ongoing
social life of the people and is largelyorientedto immediateneeds, which
led Weberto characterizeit as magic.
In strongestcontrastto tribal societies, Webercharacterizedmodern
societiesas dividedinto a numberof competingspheres,eachwith its own
needs and values,and each increasinglyincompatiblewith other spheres.
I will illustrate extensivelywhat Weber means later in this article, but
for now let me give it a common sense interpretation.It is often said that
people today find themselves"fragmentedand exhausted."We rush from
work to family to school to recreation to church, if there is time for
church, shifting gearsand changingpersonalities,it would almost seem,
each time we move from one context to another.Lackinga close attachment to locality such as is characteristicof many tribal societies, where
6 See the discussion of this issue in Schluchter(1981) where he speaksof "Weber's
limited program in evolutionarytheory"(141). Schluchterprefersthe term "developmentalhistory,"but he takes
note of the same featuresof Weber'sthoughtto which I am callingattention.Fora qualifieduse of the
term evolution, see "ReligiousEvolution"(Bellah:20-50).RecentlySchluchter(1996) has expressed
strongerreservationsabout the relationof Weber'sdevelopmentalhistoryto neo-evolutionarytheory.
280
281
282
283
284
285
BeforelookingmorecloselyatWeber's
threearchetypal
figureswe can
their
a
sense
of
for
Weber's
idea
of
loveby
importance
get
world-denying
in
some
moments
the
lives
of
of
When
each
them.
considering
defining
the
rich
to
the
told
man
"Sell
all
have
and
to
Jesus
give
poor"
young
you
(Mk.10:21),it is clearthathe meantthosewordsto applyto himself,asis
evidentwhen elsewherehe says,"Foxeshaveholes and birdsof the air
havenests;buttheSonof Manhasnowhereto layhishead"(Mt.8:20).In
homeless.
otherwords,Jesuswasquitedeliberately
The momentin the life of the Buddhato whichI wantto point is,
of course,the momentwhenthis shelteredheirto the throneof a small
Himalayan
kingdomsaw,in spiteof his parent'seffortsto shieldhim,old
age,sickness,anddeath,andthensimplywalkedawayfromhisfatherand
mother,wifeandchild,riches,powerandpleasure,to livealoneas a begAndthe similarmomentin the
garin the forestseekingenlightenment.
life of SaintFrancisis when,in the midstof a quarrelwith his wealthy,
merchantfatherin the centralpiazzaof Assisi,he takesoff allhis clothes,
throwsthematthefeetof hisfather,andsays"nowI oweyounothing,"as
he intendshenceforthto reenactthelifeandteachingof Jesus.
Wemayconsiderin somewhatmoredetailtheexampleof theBuddha,
whois notonlyoneof Weber's
threearchetypal
figuresbutwhoemergesin
India,whichWebersaysproducedthe most consistentworld-denying
forms(weltverneinendsten
Formen)of religiousethics(1920,1:536;1946:
523).In TheReligionof IndiaWeberrepeatedlyappliesthe termLiebesaksosmismus
to Buddhism(1921,2:223,248,274;1958:208-209,
228,253,
367). The Buddha,as a resultof his enlightenmentexperience,saw
throughtheillusorynatureof the"house"of thisworld:
Allyourrafters
arebroken
Thepeakof theroofis ruined,
Themindis freedfromitsaccumulations,
Ithasreached
thecessation
of desires.'4
G. C. Pandespeaksof "thesuperhumancompassionthat bridgesthe
wisdomandthe
vastgulf betweenthe eternalsilenceof transcendental
in
of
the
truth
the
world."
He
on
to
preaching
goes
saythat,"Wisdom
alonewouldhaveled to totalsilence.It is compassionthatmadethehistoricministryof theBuddhapossible"(9).
EdwardConze,however,arguesfor the intrinsicrelationbetween
BuddhistwisdomandBuddhistcompassion:
welivein aworldof falseappearances,
whereI myselfseemto
Normally
InactualtruthI haveno self,norhave
besurrounded
byotherpersons.
14Dhammapada11.9,as quoted in Pande(9).
286
287
288
289
hard-to-date figures of Moses and Zoroasterlate in the second millennium, all the significantdevelopments,including the largerimplications
of the teachingsof Moses and Zoroaster,appearedonly in the firstmillennium B.C.E.
A social conflict or social criticism model has been developed in
severalcases. The notion that the covenant, which is the foundation of
ancientIsrael,formeda revolutionaryconfederationof marginalpeoplein
conflictwith Canaanitecity stateshas gainedconsiderablecurrency(Gottwald).'"Argumentsfor Christianityas a proto-socialistprotestmovement
go back at least to KarlKautskyin 1908,but recentlya considerablebody
of work has suggesteda linkagebetween the multiplelevelsof oppression
sufferedby JewishpeasantsunderRomanoccupationand the Jesusmovement (Kautsky;Theissen;Horsley;Oakman)."9
The Cynicsand especially
the earlyStoicshavebeen portrayedas offeringa fundamentalcriticismof
HellenisticSociety(Erskine;Dawson).ChadHansonhas suggesteda social
criticalrole and a social context in the artisanclass for the Mohist movement in WarringStatesChina.Althoughthereareproblemsof datingand
ambiguitiesin the evidence,therearea numberof recenteffortsto clarify
the social context, including elementsof social conflict and protest,from
which Buddhism and other developments in first-millennium B.C.E.
India arose. (On earlyBuddhismsee Wagle;Chakravarti.On the general
Indianbackgroundin the firstmillennium B.C.E.,see Thapar1975,1979;
Kulke;Heesterman.)
If a context of social unrest only partiallyaccountsfor the emergence
of the axial religions, can we consider the possibility that some of these
new conceptions of reality arose primarilyout of cultural reinterpretations? One possibilitymight be that the spreadof literacyin the firstmillennium B.C.E.might have made possible more systematicand abstract
reflection.Writingis olderthan the firstmillennium,and eventhen was in
most placesquite limited to priestlyor scribalgroups,but it was certainly
more widespreadthan earlier.Unfortunately,however,writing does not
appearto be decisive in many cases. Much of the speculation that led to
nection betweenSpinozaand Akhenaten,I learnedfromJanAssmann'snew book, MosestheEgyptian
(1997:143),that eighteenthand earlynineteenth-centurySpinozistswere making a connection with
Egyptianreligioneven beforethe discoveryof Akhenaten'sreligiousrevolution,a connectionthat can
be expressedas Deus sive naturasiveIsis.)But the fact that the truth of the one God, Aten, is available
only throughthe divine king, Akhenaten,is thoroughlyarchaic(Assmann 1992a, 1992b;Allen).
18Fora less scholarlybut most interestingdiscussionthat showsthe indelibleconnection of relitheory
gion and politics in earlyIsrael,see Walzer.It is remarkablehow much of this "revolutionary"
of earlyIsraelitehistoryis foreshadowedin Weber'sAncientJudaism.
19Again,it is remarkableto what degreeWeber'streatmentof Jesus,for exampletowardthe end
of the "Sociologyof Religion"section of Economyand Society(1978:632-633)foreshadowsthis contemporaryview.
290
axialbreakthroughsoccurredin purelyoraltraditions.Zoroaster'sGathas
and the BrahmanicUpanishadswere not written down for centuries,nor
were the earlyteachingsof Buddhism.20
The teachingsof Confucius,Socwere
and
transmitted
rates,
Jesus
orally,althoughprobablywritten down
within a generationof their deaths. Plato, although a superbwriter,was
famouslyskepticalof writing (SeventhLetter)and may have transmitted
his most importantteachingsorally.2'The traditionof an "inner"teaching
to be transmittedorallyappearsto surviveeven todayamongthe followers
of Leo Strauss.
But if writing is not the key factor,groups of intellectuals,clericalor
lay, with a sufficient degree of autonomy from the establishedorder to
question its assumptions,would seem to be an essentialcondition for the
axialbreakthroughs(Weber1920-21, 1978;Eisenstadt).And the capacity
to transmit, interpret, and apply complex texts, oral or written, would
be a definingtraitof such groups.The transmittersof the IranianAvestas
and the Indian Vedas,out of which came the Zoroastrianand Brahmanic
breakthroughs,and perhaps the status group to which Confucius belonged, seem to be priesthoodsof typicallyarchaictype, whose teachings
becametransformedundernew conditions. Greekphilosophyand Israelite prophecy,as well as Mohism in ancient China, appearto have derived
from groups of lay intellectuals,though some of the Hebrew prophets
may have had priestly connections. In most cases, although we have
enough evidenceto feel that a combinationof disturbedsocial conditions
and partially autonomous groups of intellectuals help account for the
emergenceof axial religions,the exact connections remainto be worked
out. In many of the cases (including India) the survivingdata will probably neverallow more than probablehypotheses.
Fromthe beginning, the heroes of world-denyinglove, the renouncers-to use Dumont'sterm-exerted intensepressureagainstthe familial,
economic, political, aesthetic,erotic, and intellectualvalue spheres.Not
surprisingly,renouncerswere alwaysproblematicfrom the point of view
of political, military,and intellectualelites, as Weber'sentire sociology of
religion repeatedlypoints out. Yet in almost all traditionalsocieties the
radicalimplications of the axial religions were moderatedby a compromise formationwhich Webercalled"theorganicsocial ethic."
The organicsocial ethic met the needs of both elites and masses.Such
a compromiseformationmade it possiblefor elitesto use religionfor "the
20 StanleyJ.Tambiah
hasdiscussedtheremarkable
capacityof theBuddhistandHindutraditions,the lattervirtuallyto this day,to transmitanddevelopteachingsof greatcomplexitypurely
orally(1986:458-465).
21Plato'sanxietyaboutthedangerof committing
themostimportant
thingsto writingmaynot
bedissimilar
to theanxietiesof someof us abouttheconsequences
of televisionandcomputers,
and
in bothcasestheanxietymayhavesomejustification.
291
in the serviceof the realizationof a condition which, in spite of its compromise nature, is pleasing to God" (1920, 1:553; 1946:338).2 That is, the
organic social ethic made it possible to include in the religious community those who, for reasons of temperamentor occupation, could not
fulfill the radicaldemandsof world-denyinglove.
Weber'stwo most frequentlycited examplesof the organicsocial ethic
are Hinduism and Catholic Christianity.Alreadyin the Brahmanismof
ancient India, although the renouncer ideal had emerged in the Upanishadsin the firsthalf of the first millennium B.C.E.,it was seen as only
one possible role, or one stage in the life cycle, of the elite classes. This
view reachedits classicalformulation for Hinduism, as Webernoted, in
the BhagavadGita,where the renouncerideal is fully articulatedwith its
accompanyingworld-denying love. Krishna tells Arjuna that the man
who is dear to him "is the same with regardto enemies and friends."He
is "withouthatredfor any creature,friendlyand compassionate,freefrom
possessivenessand egoism, indifferentto pleasure and pain, enduring"
(12.13, 18; 1994:56).YetKrishnaenjoinsArjunato fulfillhis role as a warrior,even though it meanskillinghis own relatives.As long as Arjunaacts
without attachmentto the resultsof his action, he is fulfillinghis religious
is reconciled with an organic
obligation. In this way Liebesakosmismus
ethic (Weber1921,2:200-202,367; 1958:189-191,333).
Catholicsacramentalismin a quite differentreligious context, nonethelessalso succeededin legitimatingthe renunciatoryrole of the religious
life together with the necessarilycompromised obligations of the laity,
292
293
3. The PoliticalSphere
In the political sphere it is salvation through death in war. What
Webersays is particularlypoignant since the essaywas probablywritten
duringWorldWarI and revisedshortlythereafter:
Thecommunityof thearmystandingin thefieldtodayfeelsitself-as in
the timesof the warlord'sfollowing-to be a communityunto death,
andthegreatestof itskind.Deathon thefieldof battlediffersfromdeath
thatis only man'scommonlot. ... Deathon the fieldof battlediffers
fromthismerelyunavoidable
dyingin thatin war,andin thisenormity
in
individual
can
believethathe knowshe is dying"for"
the
war,
only
something.Thewhyandthewhereforeof his facingdeathcan,asa rule,
of death
be so indubitableto him thatthe problemof the "meaning"
doesnot evenoccurto him. (1920,1:548;1946:335)
What is implicit here and becomes explicit in the treatment of the aesthetic and eroticspheresis that not only does deathin battlecompetewith
brotherlyreligion in solving the meaning of death, it is one of the few
points in our modern disenchantedworld where any meaning at all can
be found.
4. The Aesthetic Sphere
The aestheticsphereis a dangerto the religion of brotherlinessonce
form becomesan objectof cultivationindependentof content, for formal
elaboration without ethical content can only seem self-indulgent and
unbrotherlyto salvation religion. But the tension is greatlyheightened
with the developmentof "intellectualismand the rationalizationof life":
"Forunder these conditions, art becomes a cosmos of more and more
consciously graspedindependentvalues which exist in their own rights.
Art takesoverthe function of a this-worldlysalvation,no matterhow this
may be interpreted.It providesa salvationfrom the routines of everyday
life, and especiallyfrom the increasingpressuresof theoreticaland practical rationalism"(1920, 1:555;1946:342).
Weberpoints out that the tension between salvationreligion and the
aestheticand erotic spheres (as well, by the way,as warfare)is that these
spheres,while participatingin the generalprocessof intellectualiztionand
rationalization,are basicallynon-rationalor even anti-rational,and thus
servenot only as alternativesto religionbut as refugesfrom the increasing
compulsion of a market economy and a bureaucraticstate ("the iron
cage")as well as from a hypertrophiedintellectualsphere.
294
295
296
297
denyingit. (Wewill see that Weberdid, after all, reserveone placefor this
ethic today:the sphereof intimatelife.) His reasonsare implicit in what I
have said about the various spheresalready.We need not discuss further
the aestheticor the erotic spheres,or even the intellectualsphere,once we
realizethat for Webersalvationreligion inevitablyrequires"the sacrifice
of the intellect"(1920, 1:566;1946:352).'24But Weber'sargumentsfor the
incompatibilityof the modern economy and statewith an ethic of brotherlinesshaveto be takenwith the utmost seriousness.
Since Weberspent many yearsstudying economic history in relation
to religiousethics, it is not lightlythat he arguesfor their incompatibility:
elementthat existsin
Moneyis the most abstractand "impersonal"
humanlife.Themorethe worldof the moderncapitalisteconomyfollows its own immanentlaws,the less accessibleit is to anyimaginable
Themorerational,
relationshipwith a religiousethicof brotherliness.
andthusimpersonal,
becomes,themorethisis thecase.Inthe
capitalism
pastit waspossibleto regulateethicallythe personalrelationsbetween
masterandslavepreciselybecausetheywerepersonalrelations.Butit is
not possibleto regulate-atleastnot in the samesenseorwiththe same
andthe
success-the relationsbetweentheshiftingholdersof mortgages
forin thiscase,
shiftingdebtorsof thebanksthatissuethesemortgages:
no personalbondsof anysortexist.25(1920, 1:544;1946:331)
Weberfearsany effortto impose ethicalregulationon the marketbecause
of the dangerthat it would underminethe formal rationalityof the market mechanism itself. Elsewherehe writes that "in [the world of capitalism] the claimsof religiouscharityarevitiated not merelybecauseof the
refractorinessand weaknessof particularindividuals,as it happenseverywhere,but becausethey lose their meaning altogether.Religiousethics is
confrontedby a world of depersonalizedrelationshipswhich for fundamental reasonscannot submit to its primevalnorms"(1978:585).26
See the parallelassertionin "Scienceas a Vocation"(1946:155).
25In Economyand SocietyWeberspeaksof "the 'masterlessslavery'of the modern proletariat"
(1978:600).
26In Chapter7, Part2, of Economyand Society,"TheMarket,"Weberwrites:"Wherethe market
is allowedto follow its own autonomoustendencies,its participantsdo not look towardthe personsof
eachotherbut towardthe commodity;thereareno obligationsof brotherlinessor reverence,and none
of those spontaneous human relations that are sustained by personal unions. They would all just
obstructthe free developmentof the baremarketrelationship,and its specificinterestsserve,in their
turn, to weaken the sentiments on which these obstructions rest.... Such absolute depersonalizaThe "free"market,that is,
tion is contraryto all the elementaryforms of human relationship.
....of constellationsof interests
the marketwhich is not bound by ethical norms, with its exploitation
and monopoly positions and its dickering,is an abomination to every system of fraternalethics. In
sharp contrastto all other groupswhich alwayspresupposesome measureof personalfraternization
or even blood kinship, the market is fundamentallyalien to any type of fraternalrelation"(1978:
636-637).
24
298
In thinking about the meaning of these words of Weber'sin contemporaryAmerica,it would be well to rememberthatAmericanProtestantism,
and to some degreeAmericanreligion generally,is the lineal descendent
of that Puritanismthat Weberdescribesas havingso abandonedthe ethic
of brotherlinessthat it is no longer a religion of salvation. Only in this
way can religionand the capitalisteconomy be reconciled.
Weber'sdiscussionof politics and ethics is complex,and it would take
us too far from the topic of this paper to go into it in detail. But as far
as an ethic of brotherlylove is concerned,Weberhas little doubt that it is
as inapplicableto the modern state as to the modern economy.The state
is based on power and serves the interests of power,not the commands
of an ethic of conviction. Any effort to justify the coerciveactions of the
statewith ethicalor certainlywith religiouslanguageseems purelyhypocriticalto Weber."Inthe faceof this, the cleanerand only honest way may
appearto be the completeeliminationof ethics from politicalreasoning,"
he writes (1920, 1:548;1946:334).
If Weberdenies the applicabilityof the radicalethic of brotherliness
to the modern economy and state, we may be sure that he would similarlydeny the possibilitythat the organicsocial ethic could be resurrected
to meet our current need. One can imagine the skepticismwith which
he would greet the present effort in the United Statesto offer so-called
private-sectorvolunteerism, family values, and a renewal of local com-
299
300
he was rightto confine that ethic to the purelypersonalrealmin the modern world,whetherin the public world we must acceptthe sole dominion
of the "gods"of money and power unrestrainedby brotherliness,and of
science which cannot give us any answersto questions of meaning, even
the meaningof its own endeavor.To attemptan answerto the latterquestion would requireat leastanotherarticle.Tothe formerI will offera brief
response.
We might begin by askingwhetherthe subsequentcourseof historyin
the twentieth centurywould haveprovidedanybasis for Weberto change
his mind. We can imagine that much of the last eighty years of history
would only have confirmedWeberin his darkestpredictions:"Not summer'sbloom lies aheadof us, but rathera polar night of icy darknessand
hardness . . ." (1946:128). Yet we can also point to things that perhaps
Weberdid not imagine. At least in the figuresof MohandasGandhi and
Martin LutherKing, Jr.,we have seen leaders exemplifyingthe ethic of
Jesus,the Buddha,and Francison the public stageand with significant,if
not unambiguous,politicalachievements.Equallyif not more significant,
we have seen in the yearsafterWorldWarII an effort in WesternEurope,
usually under some sort of combined effort of ChristianDemocratsand
SocialDemocrats,to createwhat has come to be calleda welfarestate,one
that would embodyin impersonallegaland bureaucraticstructuressomething of the ethic of brotherlylove. Evenin the United Statestherewas a
half-heartedand inadequateeffort in this direction during the middle
yearsof this century.The impersonalityof these effortsmight makethem
appearfar from the ethic of brotherliness,but it is worth remembering
Weber'semphasis on the fact that world-denying love is alwaysimpersonal, open to all who come, "no respecterof persons."
Now, of course,that effort is everywhereunder attackon the grounds
that we can no longer "afford"the welfarestateunderthe pressureof "the
globaleconomy"-the "worlddominion of unbrotherliness"if everthere
was one. Of course it remainsto be seen whetherwe will all succumb to
this pressureand sink back into a world where only the few at the top
reallyprosperand whereeveryoneelse eitherworksto providethem with
their luxuriesor exists undercarceralconditionsprovidedfor surplusand
unneeded labor. JtirgenHabermashas argued for the "reanchoring"of
the economic and stateadministrativestructuresin the "lifeworld,"
where
an ethic of solidarityand normativestandardsof socialjusticewould take
priority over the pure incentives of profit- and power-maximization
(1987:153-197).This would requirerethinkingthe ChristianDemocratic
and Social Democratic projects under twenty-first century conditions,
a difficult but perhaps not wholly impossible project. The problems of
global political order are even more intimidating. If there is some slight
Bellah:MaxWeber
andWorld-Denying
Love
301
moderationof the purelyHobbesianplay of powerinterestson the international stage in recent years, it is even harderto see where there might
emerge an ethic of solidaritybetween rich and poor nations than it is to
see how we might revive such an ethic for all citizens within developed
societies.
Livingin a very differentculturalcontext from that of Weber,Americans, even those of us who feel that the United Statesis giving the worst
possible exampleof unbrotherlinessin its economic and politicalpolicies
today,have an inveteratehopefulnessthat leadsus to believethat an ethic
of universallove, is, after all, not irrelevantto our most urgent economic
and politicalproblems.But beyond hopefulnessthereis the realisticconsiderationthat a society in which money and powerare radicallydetached
from ethical life may undermine the conditions of its own survival.Nor
should we forget,as Weberremindedus, that the God of Jesusis not only
a God of love but also a God of judgment:"Itmust not be overlooked,as
it so often has been,"he wrote, "thatJesuscombinedworld-denyinglove
with the Jewishnotion of retribution. God alone will one day compensate, avenge, and reward"(1978:633).As the evolutionarybiologists are
warning us, if our proclivities toward uncontrolled exploitation of our
environment and of each other go on unchecked,they could lead to the
destructionof the speciesor even of life on our planet.In short, no one in
today'sworld can be surethatWeber'sfearof "thepolarnight of icy darkness and hardness"was entirelymisplaced.
REFERENCES
In Religion
Allen,JamesP. "TheNaturalPhilosophyof Akhenaten."
1992 andPhilosophy
inAncientEgypt,89-101.Ed.byWilliam
Studies3.
KellySimpson,YaleEgyptological
In Religion
Assmann,Jan "StateandReligionin the NewKingdom."
1992a andPhilosophy
inAncientEgypt,55-88.Ed.byWilliam
Studies3.
KellySimpsonYaleEgyptological
1992b "Akhanyati's
[Akhenaten's]
Theologyof Light and
ProTime."TheIsraelAcademy
ofArtsandHumanities
ceedings7/4:143-175.
302
Gita Trans.byW.J.Johnson.NewYork:OxfordUniversity
TheBhagavad
1994
Press.
Bellah:MaxWeber
andWorld-Denying
Love
303
1997
Personalcommunication.
Spinoza,Benedictde
1951
1979
304