In Webers’s discussion of the origin of the “spirit of capitalism” or
“modern spirit of capitalism”, he cloaks his own understanding from the reader
in the beginning, eluding to the fact that they are not able to comprehend it
yet without further explanation. The word “spirit” can hold many meanings such
as a religious or guiding principles. However it seems this “spirit” and its “origins”
he aims to unveil, could in some ways be viewed as the epistemology of
capitalism, which may in fact be his intent. Capitalism itself is most commonly
thought of as an economic system, or a concept which guides the western world’s
financial life, not necessarily a way of being or understanding. In his
examples of Benjamin Franklin’s writing, Weber points out how Franklin promotes
certain virtues and ethos that accompany capitalism of that time, not just a
simple drive to create more money out of money. Franklin particularly promotes the
concepts of time equating money and maintaining good credit, both of which are
still very relevant concerns in capitalism today. Employees are paid an hourly
wage and maintaining good credit is extremely important. Franklin also
justifies his ideas with religion, quoting the bible to showcase that so long
as wealth was obtained legally, its accumulation served to empower and
individual and did not break a religious tenant. Weber summaries this section
with his conclusion that these values are still present in the capitalism of today
and that they represent the basis of capitalistic culture.
· After reading the second article for this week,
I am torn between how to interpret Weber's “spirit”. In my original
interpretation, I felt he was describing it more as an epistemology, however Appaduraian,
sees it as more of a more informal overarching moral. I suppose my question to
the class may be which they feel the “spirit” more accurately translates to, or
if it fits a different interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.