Max Weber

Maximilian Carl Emil Weber (/ˈveɪbər/; German: [maks ˈveːbɐ]; 21 April 1864 – 14 June 1920) was a German sociologist, historian, jurist, and political economist who was one of the central figures in the development of sociology and the social sciences more generally. His ideas continue to influence social theory and research.

Max Weber
Weber in 1918
Born	Maximilian Carl Emil Weber (1864-04-21)21 April 1864 Erfurt, Province of Saxony, Kingdom of Prussia
Died	14 June 1920(1920-06-14) (aged 56) Munich, Bavaria, Weimar Republic
Alma mater	Heidelberg University University of Strasbourg University of Berlin University of Göttingen
Notable work	"The 'Objectivity' of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy" The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–1905) The Economic Ethics of the World Religions (1915–1921) "Science as a Vocation" (1917) "Politics as a Vocation" (1919) The City (1921) Economy and Society (1922) General Economic History (1923)
Spouse	Marianne Schnitger ​ (m. 1893)​
School	Continental philosophy Antipositivism Liberalism
Institutions	Royal Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin University of Freiburg Heidelberg University University of Vienna Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
Theses	On the History of Commercial Partnerships in the Middle Ages, Based on Southern European Documents (1889) Roman Agrarian History and Its Significance for Public and Private Law (1891)
Doctoral advisors	Levin Goldschmidt Rudolf von Gneist August Meitzen
Main interests	History economics sociology law religion
Notable ideas	List Disenchantment Ethic of ultimate ends Ideal type Inner-worldly asceticism Iron cage Life chances Methodological individualism Monopoly on violence Protestant work ethic Rationalisation Secularisation Social action (Affectional, Traditional, Instrumental, and Value-rational) Three-component theory of stratification (Class, Party, and Status) Tripartite classification of authority (Charismatic, Rational-legal, and Traditional) Value-freedom Verstehen Weberian bureaucracy
Signature

Born in Erfurt in 1864, Weber studied law and history in Berlin, Göttingen, and Heidelberg. After earning his doctorate in law in 1889 and habilitation in 1891, he taught in Berlin, Freiburg, and Heidelberg. He married his cousin Marianne Schnitger two years later. In 1897, he had a breakdown after his father died following an argument. Weber ceased teaching and travelled until the early 1900s. He recovered and wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. During the First World War, he initially supported Germany's war effort but became critical of it and supported democratisation. He also gave the lectures "Science as a Vocation" and "Politics as a Vocation". After the war, Weber co-founded the German Democratic Party, unsuccessfully ran for office, and advised the drafting of the Weimar Constitution. Becoming frustrated with politics, he resumed teaching in Vienna and Munich. He died of pneumonia in 1920 at the age of 56, possibly as a result of the post-war Spanish flu pandemic. A book, Economy and Society, was left unfinished.

One of Weber's main intellectual concerns was in understanding the processes of rationalisation, secularisation, and disenchantment. He formulated a thesis arguing that such processes were associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity. Weber also argued that the Protestant work ethic influenced the creation of capitalism in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. It was followed by The Economic Ethics of the World Religions, where he examined the religions of China, India, and ancient Judaism. In terms of government, Weber argued that states were defined by their monopoly on violence and categorised social authority into three distinct forms: charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal. He was also a key proponent of methodological antipositivism, arguing for the study of social action through interpretive rather than purely empiricist methods. Weber made a variety of other contributions to economic sociology, political sociology, and the sociology of religion.

After his death, the rise of Weberian scholarship was slowed by the Weimar Republic's political instability and the rise of Nazi Germany. In the post-war era, organised scholarship began to appear, led by Talcott Parsons. Other American and British scholars were also involved in its development. Over the course of the twentieth century, Weber's reputation rose due to the publication of translations of his works and scholarly interpretations of his life and works. As a result of these works, he began to be regarded as a founding father of sociology, alongside Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim, and one of the central figures in the development of the social sciences more generally.

Biography

Early life and education

Maximilian Carl Emil Weber was born on 21 April 1864 in Erfurt, Province of Saxony, Kingdom of Prussia, and his family moved to Berlin in 1869. He was the oldest of Max Weber Sr. and Helene Fallenstein's eight children. Over the course of his life, Weber Sr. held posts as a lawyer, civil servant, and parliamentarian for the National Liberal Party in the Prussian Landtag and German Reichstag. His involvement in public life immersed his home in both politics and academia, as his salon welcomed scholars and public figures such as the philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey, the jurist Levin Goldschmidt, and the historian Theodor Mommsen. The young Weber and his brother Alfred, who also became a sociologist, passed their formative years in this intellectual atmosphere. Meanwhile, Fallenstein was partly descended from the French Huguenot  [de], which had obtained wealth through international commerce and the textile industry. Over time, Weber was affected by the marital and personality tensions between his father, who enjoyed material pleasures while overlooking religious and philanthropic causes, and his mother, a devout Calvinist and philanthropist.

Max Weber (left) and his brothers, Alfred (center) and Karl (right), in 1879

Weber entered the Doebbelinsche Privatschule in Charlottenburg in 1870, before attending the Kaiserin-Augusta-Gymnasium between 1872 and 1882. While in class, bored and unimpressed with his teachers, Weber secretly read all forty volumes by the writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Goethe later exerted an important influence on his thought and methodology. Before entering university, he read many other classical works, including those by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. For Christmas in 1877, a thirteen-year-old Weber gifted his parents two historical essays, entitled "About the Course of German History, with Special Reference to the Positions of the Emperor and the Pope" and "About the Roman Imperial Period from Constantine to the Migration Period". Two years later, also during Christmastime, he wrote another historical essay, "Observations on the Ethnic Character, Development, and History of the Indo-European Nations". These three essays were non-derivative contributions to the philosophy of history and were derived from Weber's reading of "numerous sources".

In 1882, Weber enrolled in Heidelberg University as a law student, later studying at the Royal Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin and the University of Göttingen. He practiced law and worked as a lecturer simultaneously with his studies. In 1886, Weber passed the Referendar examination, which was comparable to the bar association examination in the British and U.S. legal systems. Throughout the late 1880s, he continued to study law and history. Under the tutelage of Levin Goldschmidt and Rudolf von Gneist, Weber earned his law doctorate in 1889 by writing a dissertation on legal history titled Development of the Principle of Joint Liability and a Separate Fund of the General Partnership out of the Household Communities and Commercial Associations in Italian Cities. It was a part of a longer work, On the History of Commercial Partnerships in the Middle Ages, Based on Southern European Documents, which he published in the same year. In the same year, Weber began working with the statistician August Meitzen to complete his habilitation, a post-doctoral thesis, and completed it two years later. The dissertation, titled Roman Agrarian History and Its Significance for Public and Private Law, focused on the relationship between Roman surveying and Roman agrarian law. Having thus become a Privatdozent, Weber joined the faculty of the Royal Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin, lecturing, conducting research, and consulting for the government.

Weber's years as a university student were dotted with several periods of military service, the longest of which lasted between October 1883 and September 1884. During this time, he was in Strasbourg and attended classes at the University of Strasbourg that his uncle, the historian Hermann Baumgarten, taught. Weber befriended Baumgarten and he influenced Weber's growing liberalism and criticism of Otto von Bismarck's domination of German politics. He was a member of the  [de], a Studentenverbindung ("student association"), and heavily drank beer and engaged in academic fencing during his first few years in university. As a result of the latter, he obtained several duelling scars on the left side of his face. His mother was displeased by his behaviour and slapped him after he came home when his third semester ended in 1883. However, Weber matured, increasingly supported his mother in family arguments, and grew estranged from his father.

Marriage, early work, and breakdown

Max Weber and his wife Marianne in 1894

From 1887 until her declining mental health caused him to break off their relationship five years later, Weber had a relationship and semi-engagement with Emmy Baumgarten, the daughter of Hermann Baumgarten. Afterwards, he began a relationship with his distant cousin Marianne Schnitger in 1893 and married her on 20 September of that year. The marriage gave Weber financial independence, allowing him to leave his parents' household. They had no children. Marianne was a feminist activist and an author in her own right. Academically, between the completion of his dissertation and habilitation, Weber took an interest in contemporary social policy. He joined the Verein für Socialpolitik ("Association for Social Policy") in 1888. The Verein was an organisation of reformist thinkers who were generally members of the historical school of economics. He also involved himself in politics, participating in the founding of the left-leaning Evangelical Social Congress in 1890. It applied a Protestant perspective to the political debate regarding the social question. In the same year, the Verein established a research program to examine the Ostflucht, which was the western migration of ethnically German agricultural labourers from eastern Germany and the corresponding influx of Polish farm workers into it. Weber was put in charge of the study and wrote a large part of the final report, which generated considerable attention and controversy, marking the beginning of his renown as a social scientist.

From 1893 to 1899, Weber was a member of the Pan-German League (Alldeutscher Verband), an organisation that campaigned against the influx of Polish workers. The degree of his support for the Germanisation of Poles and similar nationalist policies continues to be debated by scholars. Weber and his wife moved to Freiburg in 1894, where he was appointed professor of economics at the University of Freiburg. During his tenure there, in 1895, he gave a provocative lecture titled "The Nation State and Economic Policy". In it, he criticised Polish immigration and argued that the Junkers were encouraging Slavic immigration to serve their economic interests over those of the German nation. It influenced the politician Friedrich Naumann to create the National-Social Association, which was a Christian socialist and nationalist political organisation. Weber was pessimistic regarding the association's ability to succeed, and it dissolved after winning a single seat in the Reichstag during the 1903 German federal election. In 1896, he accepted an appointment to a chair in economics and finance at Heidelberg University. There, Weber and his wife became the central figures in the eponymous Weber Circle, which included Georg Jellinek, Ernst Troeltsch, and Werner Sombart. Younger scholars, such as György Lukács and Robert Michels, also joined it.

In 1897, Weber had a severe quarrel with his father. Weber Sr. died two months later, leaving the argument unresolved. Afterwards, Weber became increasingly prone to depression, nervousness, and insomnia, which made it difficult for him to fulfill his duties as a professor. His condition forced him seek an exemption from his teaching obligations, which he was granted in 1899. He spent time in the Heilanstalt für Nervenkranke Konstanzer Hof in 1898 and in a different sanatorium in Bad Urach in 1900. Weber also travelled to Corsica and Italy between 1899 and 1903 in order to alleviate his illness. He fully withdrew from teaching in 1903 and did not return to it until 1918. Weber thoroughly described his ordeal with mental illness in a personal chronology that his widow later destroyed. Its destruction was possibly caused by Marianne's fear that his work would have been discredited by the Nazis if his experience with mental illness were widely known.

Later work

Max Weber in 1907

After recovering from his illness, Weber accepted a position as an associate editor of the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik (Archive for Social Science and Social Policy) in 1904, alongside his colleagues Edgar Jaffé and Werner Sombart. It facilitated his reintroduction to academia and became one of the most prominent social science journals as a result of his efforts. Weber published some of his most seminal works in this journal, including his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which became his most famous work and laid the foundations for his later research on the impact of religion on the development of economic systems. Also in 1904, he was invited to participate in the Congress of Arts and Sciences that was held in connection with the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis alongside his wife, Werner Sombart, Ernst Troeltsch, and other German scholars. Taking advantage of the fair, the Webers embarked on a trip that began and ended in New York City and lasted for almost three months. They travelled throughout the country, from New England to the Deep South. Different communities were visited, including German immigrant towns and African American communities.North Carolina was also visited, as some of Weber's relatives in the Fallenstein family had settled there. Weber used the trip to learn more about America's social, economic, and theological conditions and how they related to his thesis. Afterwards, he felt that he was unable to resume regular teaching and remained a private scholar, helped by an inheritance in 1907.

Shortly after returning, Weber's attention shifted to the then-recent Russian Revolution of 1905. He learned the Russian language in a few months, subscribed to Russian newspapers, and discussed Russian political and social affairs with the Russian émigré community in Heidelberg. He was personally popular in that community and twice entertained the idea of a trip to Russia. His schedule prevented it, however. While he was sceptical of the revolution's ability to succeed, Weber supported the establishment of a liberal democracy in Russia. He wrote two essays on it that were published in the Archiv. Weber interpreted the revolution as having been the result of the peasants' desire for land. He discussed the role of the obshchina, rural peasant communities, in Russian political debates. According to Weber, they were difficult for liberal agrarian reformers to abolish due to a combination of their basis in natural law and the rising kulak class manipulating them for their own gain. His general interpretation of the Russian Revolution was that it lacked a clear leader and was not based on the Russian intellectuals' goals. Instead, it was the result of the peasants' emotional passions.

In 1909, having become increasingly dissatisfied with the political conservatism and perceived lack of methodological discipline of the Verein, he co-founded the German Sociological Association (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie) and served as its first treasurer. Weber associated the society with the Verein and viewed the two organisations as not having been competitors. He unsuccessfully tried to steer the direction of the association. As part of that, Weber tried to make the Archiv its official journal. He resigned from his position as treasurer in 1912. That was caused by his support for value-freedom in the social sciences, as that was a controversial position in the association. Weber – alongside Simmel, Sombart, and Tönnies – placed an abbreviated form of it into the association's statutes, prompting criticism from its other members. In the same year, Weber and his wife befriended a former student of his, Else von Richthofen, and the pianist Mina Tobler [de]. After a failed attempt to court Richthofen, Weber began an affair with Tobler in 1911.

Political involvements

Later, during the spring of 1913, Weber holidayed in the Monte Verità community in Ascona, Switzerland. While holidaying, he was advising Frieda Gross in her custody battle for her children. He opposed Erich Mühsam's involvement because Mühsam was an anarchist. Weber argued that the case needed to be dealt with by bourgeois reformers who were not "derailed". A year later, also in spring, he again holidayed in Ascona. The community contained several different expressions of the then-contemporaneous radical political and lifestyle reform movements. They included naturism, free love, and Western esotericism, among others. Weber was critical of the anarchist and erotic movements in Ascona, as he viewed their fusion as having been politically absurd.

First World War

After the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, Weber volunteered for service and was appointed as a reserve officer in charge of organising the army hospitals in Heidelberg, a role he fulfilled until the end of 1915. His views on the war and the expansion of the German Empire changed over the course of the conflict. Early on, he supported the German war effort, with some hesitation, viewing the war as having been necessary to fulfill Germany's duty as a leading state power. In time, however, Weber became one of the most prominent critics of both German expansionism and the Kaiser's war policies. He publicly criticised Germany's potential annexation of Belgium and unrestricted submarine warfare, later supporting calls for constitutional reform, democratisation, and universal suffrage. His younger brother Karl, an architect, was killed near Brest-Litovsk in 1915 while fighting in the war. Weber had previously viewed him negatively but his death made him feel more connected to him.

Max Weber (facing right) with Ernst Toller (facing camera) during the Lauenstein Conferences in 1917

He and his wife also participated in the 1917 Lauenstein Conferences that were held at  [de] in Bavaria. These conferences were planned by the publisher Eugen Diederichs and brought together intellectuals, including Theodor Heuss, Ernst Toller, and Werner Sombart. Weber's presence elevated his profile in Germany and served to dispel some of the event's romantic atmosphere. After he spoke at the first one, he became involved in the planning for the second one, as Diederichs thought that the conferences needed someone who could serve as an oppositional figure. In this capacity, he argued against the political romanticism that Max Maurenbrecher, a former theologian, espoused. Weber also opposed what he saw as the excessive rhetoric of the youth groups and nationalists at Lauenstein, instead supporting German democratisation. For Weber and the younger participants, the conferences' romantic intent was irrelevant to the determination of Germany's future. In November, shortly after the second conference, Weber was invited by the Free Student Youth, a student organisation, to give a lecture in Munich, resulting in "Science as a Vocation". In it, he argued that an inner calling and specialisation were necessary for one to become a scholar. Weber also began a sadomasochistic affair with Else von Richthofen the next year. Meanwhile, she was simultaneously conducting an affair with his brother, Alfred. Max Weber's affairs with Richtofen and Mina Tobler lasted until his death in 1920.

Weimar Republic

After the war ended, Weber unsuccessfully ran for a seat in the Weimar National Assembly in January 1919 as a member of the liberal German Democratic Party, which he had co-founded. He also advised the National Assembly in its drafting of the Weimar Constitution. While he was campaigning for his party, Weber critiqued the left and complained about Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg who led the leftist Spartacus League. He regarded the German Revolution of 1918–1919 as having been responsible for Germany's inability to fight against Poland's claims on its eastern territories. His opposition to the revolution may have prevented Friedrich Ebert, the new president of Germany and a member of the Social Democratic Party, from appointing him as a minister or ambassador. Weber was also critical of the Treaty of Versailles, which he believed unjustly assigned war guilt to Germany. Instead, he believed that many countries were guilty of starting it, not just Germany. In making this case, Weber argued that Russia was the only great power that actually desired the war. He also regarded Germany as not having been culpable for its invasion of Belgium, viewing Belgian neutrality as having obscured an alliance with France. Overall, Weber's political efforts were largely unsuccessful, with the exception of his support for a democratically elected and strong presidency.

On 28 January 1919, after his electoral defeat, Weber delivered a lecture titled "Politics as a Vocation", which commented on the subject of politics. It was prompted by the early Weimar Republic's political turmoil and was requested by the Free Student Youth. Shortly before he left to join the delegation in Versailles on 13 May 1919, Weber used his connections with the German National People's Party's deputies to meet with Erich Ludendorff. He spent several hours unsuccessfully trying to convince Ludendorff to surrender himself to the Allies. This debate also shifted to other subjects, such as who was culpable for Germany's defeat in the war. Weber thought that the German high command had failed, while Ludendorff regarded Weber as a democrat who was partially responsible for the revolution. Weber tried to disabuse him of that notion by expressing support for a democratic system with a strong executive. Since he held Ludendorff responsible for Germany's defeat in the war and having sent many young Germans to die on the battlefield, Weber thought that he should surrender himself and become a political martyr. However, Ludendorff was not willing to do so and instead wanted to live off of his pension.

Last years

Frustrated with politics, Weber resumed teaching, first at the University of Vienna in 1918, then at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in 1919. In Vienna, Weber filled a previously vacant chair in political economy that he had been in consideration for since October 1917. Later, in Munich, he was appointed to Lujo Brentano's chair in social science, economic history, and political economy. He accepted the appointment in order to be closer to his mistress, Else von Richthofen. Responding to student requests, he gave a series of lectures on economic history. The student transcriptions of it were later edited and published as the General Economic History by  [de] and  [de] in 1923. In terms of politics, he opposed the pardoning of the Bavarian Minister-President Kurt Eisner's murderer, Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley. In response to that, right-wing students disrupted his classes and protested in front of his home.

Max Weber's grave in Heidelberg

In early 1920, Weber gave a seminar that contained a discussion of Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West. Weber respected him and privately described him as having been "a very brilliant and scholarly dilettante". That seminar provoked some of his students, who knew Spengler personally, to suggest that he debate Spengler alongside other scholars. They met in the Munich town hall and debated for two days. The audience was primarily young Germans with different political perspectives, including communists. While neither of them were able to convince the other of their points, Weber was more cautious and careful in his arguments against Spengler than the other debaters were. Afterwards, the students did not feel that the question of how to resolve Germany's post-war issues had been answered.

Lili Schäfer, one of Weber's sisters, committed suicide on 7 April 1920 after the pedagogue Paul Geheeb ended his affair with her. Weber thought positively of it, as he thought that her suicide was justified and that suicide in general could be an honourable act. Weber and his wife took in Lili's four children and planned to raise them. He was uncomfortable with his newfound role as a father figure, but he thought that Marianne was fulfilled as a woman by this event. She later formally adopted them in 1928. Weber wished for her to stay with the children in Heidelberg or move closer to Geheeb's Odenwaldschule ("Odenwald School") so that he could be alone in Munich with his mistress, Else von Richthofen. He left the decision to Marianne, but she said that only he could make the decision to leave for himself. While this was occurring, Weber began to believe that own life had reached its end.

On 4 June 1920, Weber's students were informed that he had a cold and needed to cancel classes. By 14 June 1920, the cold had turned into influenza and he died of pneumonia in Munich. He had likely contracted the Spanish flu during the post-war pandemic and been subjected to insufficient medical care. Else von Richthofen, who was present by his deathbed alongside his wife, thought that he could have survived his illness if he had been given better treatment. His body was cremated in the Munich Ostfriedhof after a secular ceremony, and the urn that contained his ashes was later buried in the Heidelberg  [de] in 1921. The funeral service was attended by his students, including  [de] and Karl Loewenstein, and fellow scholars, such as Lujo Brentano. At the time of his death, Weber had not finished writing Economy and Society, his magnum opus on sociological theory. His widow, Marianne, helped prepare it for its publication in 1922. She later published a biography of her late husband in 1926 which became one of the central historical accounts of his life.

Methodology

Weber's sociology treated social action as its central focus. He also interpreted it as having been an important part of the field's scientific nature. He divided social action into the four categories of affectional, traditional, instrumental, and value-rational action. In his methodology, he distinguished himself from Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx in that his primary focus was on individuals and culture. Whereas Durkheim focused on society, Weber concentrated on the individual and their actions. Meanwhile, compared to Marx's support for the primacy of the material world over the world of ideas, Weber valued ideas as motivating individuals' actions. He had a different perspective from the two of them regarding structure and action and macrostructure in that he was open to the idea that social phenomena could have several different causes and placed importance on social actors' interpretations of their actions.

Verstehen

The result of what has been said so far is that an "objective" treatment of cultural occurrences, in the sense that the ideal aim of scientific work would be to reduce the empirical [reality] to "laws", is absurd. Not because – as it has often been claimed – the course of cultural processes or, say, processes in the human mind would, "objectively" speaking, be less law-like, but for the following two reasons: (1) knowledge of social laws does not constitute knowledge of social reality, but is only one of the various tools that our intellect needs for that [latter] purpose; (2) knowledge of cultural occurrences is only conceivable if it takes as its point of departure the significance that the reality of life, with its always individual character, has for us in certain particular respects. No law can reveal to us in what sense and in what respects this will be the case, as that is determined by those value ideas in the light of which we look at "culture" in each individual case.

—Max Weber in "The 'Objectivity' of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy", 1904.

In terms of methodology, Weber was primarily concerned with the question of objectivity and subjectivity, distinguishing social action from social behavior and noting that social action must be understood through the subjective relationships between individuals. According to him, the study of social action through interpretive means or verstehen ("to understand") needed to be based upon understanding the subjective meaning and purpose that individuals attached to their actions. Determining an individual's interpretation of their actions required either empathically or rationally derived evidence. Weber noted that the importance of subjectivity in the social sciences made the creation of fool-proof, universal laws much more difficult than in the natural sciences and that the amount of objective knowledge that social sciences were able to create was limited. Overall, he supported objective science as a goal worth striving for but noted that it was ultimately an unreachable goal.

Weber's methodology was developed in the context of wider debates about social scientific methodology. The first of which was the Methodenstreit ("method dispute"). His position in it was close to historicism, as he thought that social actions were heavily tied to particular historical contexts. Furthermore, analysing social actions required an understanding of the relevant individuals' subjective motivations. Therefore, his methodology emphasised the use of comparative historical analysis. As such, he was more interested in explaining how a certain outcome was the result of various historical processes than in predicting those processes' outcome in the future. The second debate that shaped Weber's perspective on methodology was the Werturteilsstreit ("value-judgement dispute"). This debate was held between 1909 and 1914 on the subject of value-judgements in the social sciences. It originated with a debate in the Verein für Socialpolitik between the supporters of the idea that ethics was an important consideration in the field of economics and those who opposed it. Weber's position was that the social sciences should strive to be value-free. In his view, scholars and students needed to avoid promoting political values in the classroom. Science had no part in the choosing of values. With regards to economics, he argued that productivity was not a useful scientific concept, as it could impede the proper evaluation of economic phenomena.

Methodological individualism

The principle of methodological individualism, which holds that social scientists should seek to understand collectivities solely as the result of individual people's actions, can be traced to Weber. The term "methodological individualism" was coined in 1908 by the Austrian-American economist Joseph Schumpeter as a way of referring to Weber's views on how to explain social phenomena. While his research interests placed a strong emphasis on interpreting economic history, Weber's support of methodological individualism represented a break with the historical school and an agreement with the Austrian school's founder, Carl Menger, in the Methodenstreit. In the first chapter of Economy and Society, he argued that only individuals "can be treated as agents in a course of subjectively understandable action". Despite the term's usage of "individualism", Weber did not interpret the individual as being the true source for sociological explanations. Instead, while only individuals could engage in intentional action, they were not necessarily separate from the collective group. He interpreted methodological individualism as having had close proximity to verstehende ("interpretive") sociology, as actions could be interpreted subjectively. Similarly, it was also related to ideal types in that it involved discussions of abstract and rational models of human behaviour.

Ideal type

The ideal type was a central concept in Weber's methodology. He interpreted them as having been indispensable for it. Due their taking of meaning into account, they are unique to the social sciences. The term "ideal type" was derived from Georg Jellinek's use of it. Weber outlined it in "The 'Objectivity' of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy" and the first chapter of Economy and Society. The ideal types' three functions are the formulation of terminology, classifications, and hypotheses. The latter task was of the greatest importance of the three. In terms of their construction, an ideal type is a schematic that represents a social action and considers the role of meaning in it. By its nature, it was an exaggeration of an empirical situation through its assumption that the involved individuals were rational, had complete situational knowledge, were completely aware of the situation, were completely aware of their actions, and made no errors. This was then contrasted with empirical reality, allowing the researcher to better understand it. However, ideal types are not direct representations of reality and Weber warned against interpreting them as such. He placed no limits on what could be analysed through the use of ideal types. Since, for him, rational methodology and science were synonymous with one another, ideal types were constructed rationally.

Value-freedom

Weber believed that social scientists needed to avoid making value-judgements. Instead, he wanted social scientific research to be value-free. This would give them objectivity, but it needed to be combined with an acknowledgement that their research connected with values in different ways. As part of his support for value-freedom, Weber opposed both instructors and students promoting their political views in the classroom. He first articulated it in his writings on scientific philosophy, including "The 'Objectivity' of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy" and "Science as a Vocation". Weber was influenced by Heinrich Rickert's concept of value-relevance. Rickert used it to relate historical objects to values while maintaining objectivity through explicitly defined conceptual distinctions. However, Weber disagreed with the idea that a scholar could maintain objectivity while ascribing to a hierarchy of values in the way that Rickert did, however. His argument regarding value-freedom was connected to his involvement in the Werturteilsstreit. As part of it, he argued in favour of the idea that the social sciences needed to be value-free. During it, he unsuccessfully tried to turn the German Sociological Association into a value-free organisation. Ultimately, that prompted his resignation from it.

Theories

Rationalisation

Rationalisation was a central theme in Weber's scholarship. This theme was situated in the larger context of the relationship between psychological motivations, cultural values, cultural beliefs, and the structure of the society. Weber understood rationalisation as having resulted in increasing knowledge, growing impersonality, and the enhanced control of social and material life. He was ambivalent towards rationalisation. Weber admitted that it was responsible for many advances, particularly freeing humans from traditional, restrictive, and illogical social guidelines. However, he also criticised it for dehumanising individuals as "cogs in the machine" and curtailing their freedom, trapping them in the iron cage of rationality and bureaucracy. His studies of the subject began with The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In it, he argued that Protestantism's – particularly Calvinism's – redefinition of the connection between work and piety caused a shift towards rational efforts that were aimed at achieving economic gain. In Protestantism, piety towards God was expressed through one's secular vocation. The religious principles that influenced the creation of capitalism became unnecessary and it became able to propagate itself without them.

What Weber depicted was not only the secularisation of Western culture, but also and especially the development of modern societies from the viewpoint of rationalisation. The new structures of society were marked by the differentiation of the two functionally intermeshing systems that had taken shape around the organisational cores of the capitalist enterprise and the bureaucratic state apparatus. Weber understood this process as the institutionalisation of purposive-rational economic and administrative action. To the degree that everyday life was affected by this cultural and societal rationalisation, traditional forms of life – which in the early modern period were differentiated primarily according to one's trade – were dissolved.

—Jürgen Habermas in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, 1990.

Weber continued his investigation into this matter in later works, notably in his studies on bureaucracy and on the classification of legitimate authority into three ideal types – rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic – of which rational-legal was the dominant one in the modern world. In these works, Weber described what he saw as society's movement towards rationalisation. Bureaucratic states justified themselves through their own rationality and were supported by expert knowledge which made them rational. Rationalisation could also be seen in the economy, with the development of a highly rational and calculating capitalism. Capitalism's rationality related to its basis in calculation, which separated it from alternative forms of economic organisation. State bureaucracy and capitalism served as the twin pillars of the developing rational society. These changes eliminated the preexisting traditions that relied on the trades. Weber also saw rationalisation as one of the main factors that set the West apart from the rest of the world. He also applied rationalisation to music in his The Rational and Social Foundations of Music. In writing it, he was influenced by his affair with the pianist Mina Tobler [de] and a sense that Western music was the only type that had become harmonic, while other cultures' music was more intense and focused on hearing. Weber argued that music was becoming increasingly rational. In his view, that resulted from new developments in musical instrument construction and simultaneous socio-economic shifts of the different instruments' players.

Disenchantment

The process of disenchantment caused the world to become more explained and less mystical, moving from polytheistic religions to monotheistic ones and finally to the Godless science of modernity. Older explanations of why events occurred relied on the belief in supernatural interference in the material world. Due to disenchantment, this gave way to rational and scientific explanations for events. According to the Sociology of Religion religious activity began with actions in the material world that people associated with vague spirits and gave magical meanings to. Over time, these magical beliefs became increasingly systemised and the spirits became gods that were represented by symbols. This increasing theological systemisation resulted in polytheism and organised religion. Increasing rationality caused the development of Western monotheism, which resulted in groups focusing on specific gods for political and economic purposes, creating a universal religion. According to Weber, Protestantism encouraged an increased pursuit of rationality that led to the devaluing of itself. In turn, this devaluation led to nihilism through its destruction of unifying values.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

The development of the concept of the calling quickly gave to the modern entrepreneur a fabulously clear conscience – and also industrious workers; he gave to his employees as the wages of their ascetic devotion to the calling and of co-operation in his ruthless exploitation of them through capitalism the prospect of eternal salvation.

—Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is Weber's most famous work. It was his first work on how religions affected economic systems' development. In the book, he put forward the thesis that the Protestant work ethic, which was derived from the theological ideas of the Reformation, influenced the development of capitalism. Weber was looking for elective affinities between the Protestant work ethic and capitalism. He argued that the Puritans' religious calling to work caused them to systematically obtain wealth. They wished to prove that they were members of the elect who were destined to go to Heaven. Weber used Benjamin Franklin's personal ethic, as described in his "", as an example of the Protestant sects' economic ethic. Both rationalisation and the ideal type, concepts that later became central to his scholarship, appeared in the thesis. Rationalisation caused the West to be trapped in the stahlhartes Gehäuse ("iron cage" or "steel-hard casing") that was the modern capitalist economic order. Meanwhile, ideal types were representative figures, or case studies, that represented concepts.

Christian religious devotion was historically accompanied by the rejection of mundane affairs, including economic pursuit. Weber argued that the origin of modern capitalism was in the religious ideas of the Reformation. According to him, certain types of Protestantism – notably Calvinism – were supportive of the rational pursuit of economic gain and the worldly activities that were dedicated to it, seeing those activities as having been endowed with moral and spiritual significance. The spirit of capitalism was found in the desire to work hard in a way that pleased the worker and signified their worth and originally had a basis in theology. In particular, the Protestant work ethic motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business, and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures. Weber thought that self-restraint, hard work, and a belief that wealth could be a sign of salvation were representative of ascetic Protestantism. Ascetic Protestants practiced inner-worldly asceticism and sought to change the world to better reflect their beliefs. The notion of a religious calling, when combined with predestination, meant that each individual had to take action to prove their salvation to themselves. However, the success that these religious principles created ultimately removed them as an influence on modern capitalism as a result of its creation of a worldly perspective. As a result, the inheritors of that system were entrapped in a socioeconomic iron cage.

The Economic Ethics of the World Religions

Weber's work in the field of sociology of religion began with the book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. It continued with the book series The Economic Ethics of the World Religions, which contained The Religion of China, The Religion of India, and Ancient Judaism. However, his work was left incomplete as a result of his sudden death in 1920, which prevented him from following Ancient Judaism with studies of early Christianity and Islam. The three main themes within the books were: religious ideas' effect on economic activities, the relationship between social stratification and religious ideas, and the distinguishable characteristics of Western civilisation. His goal was to find reasons for the different developmental paths of the cultures of the Western world and the Eastern world, without making value-judgements, unlike the contemporaneous social Darwinists. Weber simply wanted to explain the distinctive elements of Western civilisation. Weber also proposed a socio-evolutionary model of religious change where societies moved from magic to ethical monotheism, with the intermediatory steps of polytheism, pantheism, and monotheism. According to him, this was the result of growing economic stability, which allowed for professionalisation and the evolution of an increasingly sophisticated priesthood. As societies grew more complex and encompassed different groups, a hierarchy of gods developed. Meanwhile, as their power became more centralised, the concept of a universal God became more popular and desirable.

The Religion of China

In The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism, Weber focused on those aspects of Chinese society that were different from those of Western Europe, especially those aspects that contrasted with Puritanism. As part of that, he questioned why capitalism had not developed in China. He focused on the issues of Chinese urban development, Chinese patrimonialism and officialdom and Chinese religion and philosophy – primarily Confucianism and Taoism – as the areas in which Chinese development significantly differed from the European route. According to Weber, Confucianism and Puritanism were superficially similar, but were actually largely different from one another. Instead, they were mutually exclusive types of rational thought, each attempting to prescribe a way of life based on religious dogma. Notably, they both valued self-control and restraint and did not oppose accumulation of wealth. However, both of those qualities were simply means to different final goals. Confucianism's goal was "a cultured status position", while Puritanism's goal was to create individuals who were "tools of God". According to Weber, the Puritans sought rational control of the world and rejected its irrationality while Confucians sought rational acceptance of that state of affairs. Therefore, he stated that it was the difference in social attitudes and mentality, shaped by the respective dominant religions, that contributed to the development of capitalism in the West and the absence of it in China.

The Religion of India

In The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, Weber dealt with the structure of Indian society, with the orthodox doctrines of Hinduism and the heterodox doctrines of Buddhism, with modifications brought by the influence of popular religiosity and finally with the impact of religious beliefs on the secular ethic of Indian society. In Weber's view, Hinduism in India, like Confucianism in China, was a barrier for capitalism. The Indian caste system, which developed in post-Classical India and served as the source for legitimate social interactions, served as a key part of that. Both Hinduism and the Brahmins' high status upheld the caste system. The Brahmins used their monopoly on education and theological authority to maintain their position, while Hinduism created a psychological justification for it in the form of the cycle of reincarnation. A person's position in the caste order was thought to have been determined by one's actions in their past life. As a result, advancement of the soul and obeying the predetermined order were more important than seeking advancement in the material world, including economic advancement.

Weber ended his research of society and religion in India by bringing in insights from his previous work on China to discuss the similarities of the Asian belief systems. He noted that these religions' believers used otherworldly mystical experiences to interpret the meaning of life. The social world was fundamentally divided between the educated elite who followed the guidance of a prophet or wise man and the uneducated masses whose beliefs are centered on magic. In Asia, there were no messianic prophecies to give both educated and uneducated followers meaning in their regular lives. Weber juxtaposed such Messianic prophecies, notably from the Near East, with the exemplary prophecies found in mainland Asia that focused more on reaching to the educated elites and enlightening them on the proper ways to live one's life, usually with little emphasis on hard work and the material world. It was those differences that prevented Western countries from following the paths of the earlier Chinese and Indian civilisations. His next work, Ancient Judaism, was an attempt to prove this theory.

Ancient Judaism

In Ancient Judaism, Weber attempted to explain the factors that resulted in the early differences between Eastern and Western religiosity. He contrasted the innerworldly asceticism developed by Western Christianity with the mystical contemplation that developed in India. Weber noted that some aspects of Christianity sought to conquer and change the world, rather than withdraw from its imperfections. This fundamental characteristic of Christianity originally stemmed from ancient Jewish prophecy. Weber classified the Jewish people as having been a pariah people, which meant that they were separated from the society that contained them. He examined the ancient Jewish people's origins and social structures. In his view, the Israelites maintained order through a covenant with the war god Yahweh and the practice of warrior asceticism. Under Solomon, that changed into a more organised and law-based society than the old confederation was. Religiously, the priests replaced the previous charismatic religious leaders. Weber thought that Elijah was the first prophet to have risen from the shepherds. Elijah promulgated political prophecies and opposed the monarchy.

Theodicy

Weber used the concept of theodicy in his interpretation of theology and religion throughout his corpus. This involved both his scholarly and personal interests in the subject. It was central to his conception of humanity, which he interpreted as having been connected with finding meaning. Theodicy was a popular subject of study amongst German scholars who sought to determine how a world created by an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being can contain suffering. As part of this tradition, Weber was careful in his study of the subject. Rather than interpreting it through a theological or ethical lens, he interpreted it through a social one. Furthermore, he incorporated Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of Ressentiment into his discussion of the topic. However, Weber disagreed with Nietzsche's emotional discussion of the topic and his interpretation of it as having been a Jewish-derived expression of slave morality.

Weber divided theodicy into three main types:

1. Persian dualism – God is not all powerful and misfortune comes from outside his power
2. Indian doctrine of karma – God is not all powerful and misfortune comes from inside oneself
3. Doctrine of predestination – Only a chosen few will be saved from damnation

Weber defined the importance of societal class within religion by examining the difference between the theodicies of fortune and misfortune and to what class structures they apply. The theodicy of fortune related to the desire of those who were successful to prove that they deserved it. They were also prone to not being satisfied with what they already had and wished to avoid the notion that they were illegitimate or sinful. Those without the work ethic believed in the theodicy of misfortune, believing wealth and happiness were granted in the afterlife. Another example of how this belief of religious theodicy influenced class was that those of lower economic status tended towards deep religiousness and faith as a way to comfort themselves and provide hope for a more prosperous future, while those of higher economic status preferred the sacraments or actions that proved their right to possess greater wealth.

The state, politics, and government

In political sociology, one of Weber's most influential contributions is his lecture "Politics as a Vocation", in which he defined the state as an entity that was "based on the legitimate use of force". Accordingly, Weber proposed that politics is the sharing of state power between various groups, whereas political leaders were those who wielded this power. He divided action into the oppositional gesinnungsethik and  [de] (the "ethic of ultimate ends" and the "ethic of responsibility"). An adherent of the verantwortungsethik justified their actions based on their consequences. Meanwhile, an adherent of the gesinnungsethik justified their actions based on their ideals. While Weber thought that both of them would ideally be present in a politician, he associated them with different types of people and mindsets. These different types of people and mindsets reflected the pacifists and those who wanted to reverse Germany's defeat in the First World War, respectively.

Weber distinguished three ideal types of legitimate authority:

1. Charismatic authority – Familial and religious
2. Traditional authority – Patriarchy, patrimonialism, feudalism
3. Rational-legal authority – Modern law and state, bureaucracy

In his view, all historical relationships between rulers and ruled contained these elements, which could be analysed on the basis of this tripartite classification of authority. Charismatic authority was held by extraordinary figures and was unstable, as it relied on the charismatic figure's success and resisted institutionalisation. It was forced to be routinised into more structured forms of authority. An administrative structure would be formed by the charismatic leader's followers. In an ideal type of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a ruler led to a "traditional revolution". Traditional authority was based on loyalty to preestablished traditions and those who were placed into authority as a result of those traditions. Rational-legal authority relied on bureaucracy and belief in both the legality of the society's rules and the legitimacy of those who were placed into power as a result of those rules. Unlike the other types of authority, it gradually developed. That was the result of legal systems ability to exist without charismatic individuals or traditions.

Bureaucracy

Weber's commentary on societal bureaucratisation is one of the most prominent parts of his work. According to him, bureaucracy was the most efficient method of societal organisation and the most formally rational system. It was necessary for modern society to function and would also be difficult to destroy. Bureaucratic officials felt superior to non-bureaucrats, had a strong sense of duty, and had fixed salaries that caused them to be disinclined to pursue monetary acquisition. Bureaucracy was less likely to be found among elected officials. Furthermore, Bureaucracy's treatment of all people without regard for individuals suited capitalism well. It was also a requirement for both modern capitalism and modern socialism to exist. This depersonalisation related to its increased efficiency. Bureaucrats could not openly make decisions arbitrarily or base them on personal favours. As the most efficient and rational way of organising, bureaucratisation was the key part of rational-legal authority. Furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalisation of Western society.

Weber listed six characteristics of an ideal type of bureaucracy:

1. It was in a fixed area that was governed by rules
2. Bureaucracies were hierarchical
3. Its actions were based on written documents
4. Expert training was required
5. Bureaucrats were completely devoted to their work
6. The system relied on basic rules that were learnable

The development of communication and transportation technologies made more efficient administration possible and popularly requested. Meanwhile, the democratisation and rationalisation of culture resulted in demands that the new system treat everyone equally. Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy was characterised by hierarchical organisation, delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity, action taken on the basis of written rules, bureaucratic officials needing expert training, rules being implemented neutrally, and career advancement depending on technical qualifications judged by organisations. While arguing that bureaucracy was the most efficient form of organisation and was indispensable for the modern state, Weber was also critical of it. In his view, an inescapable bureaucratisation of society would happen in the future. He also thought that a hypothetical victory of socialism over capitalism would have not been able to prevent that. Economic and political organisations needed entrepreneurs and politicians in order to counteract bureaucrats. Otherwise, they would be stifled by bureaucracy.

Social stratification

Weber also formulated a three-component theory of stratification that contained the conceptually distinct elements of social class, social status, and political party. This distinction was most clearly described in his essay "The Distribution of Power Within the Gemeinschaft: Classes, Stände, Parties", which was first published in his book Economy and Society. Status served as one of the central ways in which people were ranked in society. As part of it, issues of honour and prestige were important. With regards to class, the theory placed heavy emphasis on class conflict and private property as having been key to its definition. While Weber drew upon Marx's interpretation of class conflict in his definition of class, he did not see it as having defined all social relations and stratification. Political parties were not given as much attention by Weber as the other two components were, as he thought that they were not particularly effectual in their actions. Their purpose was to seek power to benefit their members materially or ideologically.

The three components of Weber's theory were:

1. Social class – Based on an economically determined relationship with the market
2. Status (Stand) – Based on non-economic qualities such as honour and prestige
3. Party – Affiliations in the political domain

This conceptualisation emerged from Weber's study of farm labour and the stock exchange, as he found social relationships that were unexplainable through economic class alone. The Junkers had social rules regarding marriage between different social levels and farm labourers had a strong sense of independence, neither of which was economically based. Weber maintained a sharp distinction between the terms "status" and "class", although non-scholars tend to use them interchangeably in casual use. Status and its focus on honour emerged from the Gemeinschaft, which denoted the part of society where loyalty originated from. Class emerged from the Gesellschaft, a subdivision of the Gemeinschaft that included rationally driven markets and legal organisation. Parties emerged from a combination of the two. Weber interpreted life chances, the opportunities to improve one's life, as having been a definitional aspect of class. It related to the differences in access to opportunities that different people might have had in their lives. The relationship between status and class was not straightforward. One of them could lead to the other, but an individual or group could have success in one but not the other.

The vocation lectures

Towards the end of his life, Weber gave two lectures, "Science as a Vocation" and "Politics as a Vocation", at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich that were on the subject of the scientific and political vocations. The Free Student Youth, a left-liberal student organisation, had  [de] invite him to give the lectures. In "Science as a Vocation", he argued that an inner calling was necessary for one to become a scholar. Weber thought that only a particular type of person was able to have an academic career. He used his own career as an example of that. Recalling his arguments regarding the Protestant work ethic, Weber stated that the path forward in scholarship required the scholar to understand the potential for a lack of success and be methodical in their research. Specialisation was also an aspect of modern scholarship that a scholar needed to engage in.Disenchantment and intellectual rationalisation were major aspects of his commentary on the scholar's role in modernity. These processes resulted in the value of scholarship being questioned. Weber argued that scholarship could provide certainty through its starting presumptions, despite its inability to give absolute answers. Meanwhile, "Politics as a Vocation" commented on the subject of politics. Weber was responding to the early Weimar Republic's political instability. He defined politics as having been divided into three aspects: passion, judgement, and responsibility. There was also a division between conviction and responsibility. While these two concepts were sharply divided, it was possible for single individual – particularly the ideal politician – to possess both of them. He also divided legitimate authority into the three categories of traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal authority. Towards the lecture's end, he described politics as having been "a slow, powerful drilling through hard boards". Ultimately, Weber thought that the political issues of his day required consistent effort to resolve, rather than the quick solutions that the students preferred.

The City

The origin of a rational and inner-worldly ethic is associated in the Occident with the appearance of thinkers and prophets … who developed in a social context that was alien to the Asiatic cultures. This context consisted of the political problems engendered by the bourgeois status-group of the city, without which neither Judaism, nor Christianity, nor the development of Hellenistic thinking are conceivable.

—Max Weber in The City, 1921.

As part of his overarching effort to understand the Western world's unique development, Weber wrote a general study of the European city and its development in antiquity and the Middle Ages titled The City. According to him, Christianity served to break the traditional bonds of kinship by causing its believers to participate in the religion as individuals. However, the institutions that formed as a result of this process were secular in nature. He also saw the rise of a unique form of non-legitimate domination in medieval European cities that successfully challenged the existing forms of legitimate domination – traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal – that had prevailed until then in the medieval world. These cities were previously under the jurisdiction of several different entities that were removed as they became autonomous. That process was caused by the granting of privileges to newer cities and the usurpation of authority in older ones.

Economics

Weber primarily regarded himself as an economist, and all of his professorial appointments were in economics, but his contributions to that field were largely overshadowed by his role as a founder of modern sociology. As a political economist and economic historian, Weber belonged to the German historical school of economics, represented by academics such as Gustav von Schmoller and his student Werner Sombart. While Weber's research interests were largely in line with this school, his views on methodology and marginal utility significantly diverged from those of the other German historicists. Instead, they were closer to those of Carl Menger and the Austrian school of economics, the traditional rivals of the historical school. The division caused by the Methodenstreit caused Weber to support a broad interpretation of economics that combined economic theory, economic history, and economic sociology in the form of  [de] ("social economics").

Economy and Society

A page from the manuscript of the sociology of law within Economy and Society

Weber's magnum opus Economy and Society is an essay collection that he was working on at the time of his death in 1920. Its text was largely unfinished, outside of the first three chapters. The first four chapters were written between 1919 and 1920, but the other chapters were generally written between 1909 and 1914. After his death, the final organisation and editing of the book fell to his widow Marianne. She was assisted by the economist  [de]. The resulting volume was published in 1922 and was titled Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. The resulting volume included a wide range of essays dealing with Weber's views regarding sociology, social philosophy, politics, social stratification, world religion, diplomacy, and other subjects. In 1956, the German jurist  [de] edited and organised a revised fourth edition of Economy and Society, later editing a fifth edition of it in 1976.Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich edited an English translation of the work in 1968. It was based on Winckelmann's 1956 edition of the text that he had revised in 1964.

Marginal utility

Unlike other historicists, Weber accepted marginal utility and taught it to his students. His overall economic sociology was based on it. In 1908, Weber published an article, "Marginal Utility Theory and 'The Fundamental Law of Psychophysics'", in which he argued that marginal utility and economics were not based on psychology. As part of that, he disputed Lujo Brentano's claim that marginal utility reflected the form of the psychological response to stimuli as described by the Weber–Fechner law. He rejected the idea that marginal utility and economics were dependent on psychophysics. In general, Weber disagreed with the idea that economics relied on another field. He also included a similar discussion of marginal utility in the second chapter of Economy and Society. Both marginal utility and declining utility's roles in his writings were implied through his usage of instrumentally rational action in that chapter.

Economic calculation

Like his colleague Werner Sombart, Weber regarded economic calculation, particularly double-entry bookkeeping, as having played a significant role in rationalisation and the development of capitalism. Weber's preoccupation with the importance of economic calculation led him to critique socialism as lacking a mechanism to efficiently allocate resources to satisfy human needs.Otto Neurath, a socialist thinker, thought that prices would not exist and central planners would use in-kind, rather than monetary, economic calculation in a completely socialised economy. According to Weber, this type of coordination was inefficient because it was incapable of solving the problem of imputation, which related to the difficulties in accurately determining the relative values of capital goods. Weber wrote that the value of goods had to be determined in a socialist economy. However, there was no clear method for doing so in that economic system. Planned economies were, therefore, irrational. At approximately the same time, Ludwig von Mises independently made the same argument against socialism. Weber himself had a significant influence on Mises, whom he had befriended when they were both at the University of Vienna in the spring of 1918. However, Mises ultimately regarded him as having been a historian, rather than an economist.

Inspirations

Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx, two of Max Weber's influences

Weber was strongly influenced by German idealism, particularly by neo-Kantianism. He was exposed to it by Heinrich Rickert, who was his professorial colleague at the University of Freiburg. The neo-Kantian belief that reality was essentially chaotic and incomprehensible, with all rational order deriving from the way the human mind focused its attention on certain aspects of reality and organised the resulting perceptions was particularly important to Weber's scholarship. His opinions regarding social scientific methodology showed parallels with the work of contemporary neo-Kantian philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel. Weber was also influenced by Kantian ethics more generally, but he came to think of it as being obsolete in a modern age that lacked religious certainties. His interpretation of Kant and neo-Kantianism was pessimistic as a result.

Weber was responding to Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy's effect on modern thought. His goal in the field of ethics was to find non-arbitrarily defined freedom in what he interpreted as having been a post-metaphysical age. That represented a division between the parts of his thought that represented Kantianism and Nietzscheanism. After his debate with Oswald Spengler in 1920, Weber said that the world was significantly intellectually influenced by Nietzsche and Marx. In The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and "Science as a Vocation", Weber negatively described "die 'letzten Menschen'" ("the 'last men'"), who were Nietzschean "specialists without spirit" who he warned about in both texts. Similarly, he also used Nietzsche's concept of ressentiment in his discussion of theodicy, but he interpreted it differently. Weber disliked Nietzsche's emotional approach to the subject and did not interpret it as having been a type of slave morality that was derived from Judaism.

While a student in Charlottenburg, Weber read all forty volumes by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who later exerted an influence over his methodology and concepts. For him, Goethe was one of the seminal figures in German history. In his writings, including The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber quoted Goethe on several occasions. His usage of "elective affinity" in his writings may have been derived from Goethe, as one of Goethe's works used it as its title. Weber was also influenced by Goethe's usage of the Greek daimon ("fate"). That concept influenced Weber's perspective that one's fate was inevitable and that one was able to use experience to create intellectual passion. He thought that Goethe, his Faust, and Nietzsche's Zarathustra were figures that represented the Übermensch and expressed the quality of human action by ceaselessly striving for knowledge.

Another major influence in Weber's life was the writings of Karl Marx and socialist thought in academia and active politics. While Weber agreed with Marx on the importance of social conflict, he did not think that it would destroy a society if the traditions that upheld it were valued more than it was. Furthermore, he thought that a social conflict would have been resolvable within the preexisting social system. Writing in 1932, Karl Löwith contrasted the work of Marx and Weber, arguing that both were interested in the causes and effects of Western capitalism, but they viewed it through different lenses. Marx viewed capitalism through the lens of alienation, while Weber used the concept of rationalisation to interpret it. Weber also expanded Marx's interpretation of alienation from the specific idea of the worker who was alienated from his work to similar situations that involved intellectuals and bureaucrats. Scholars during the Cold War frequently interpreted Weber as having been "a bourgeois answer to Marx", but he was instead responding to the issues that were relevant to the bourgeoisie in Wilhelmine Germany. In that regard, he focused on the conflict between rationality and irrationality.

Legacy

Weber's most influential work was on economic sociology, political sociology, and the sociology of religion. Along with Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim, he is commonly regarded as one of the founders of modern sociology. He was instrumental in developing an antipositivist, hermeneutic, tradition in the social sciences. Weber influenced many scholars across the political spectrum. Left-leaning social theorists – such as Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, György Lukács, and Jürgen Habermas – were influenced by his discussion of modernity and its friction with modernisation. As part of that, his analysis of modernity and rationalisation significantly influenced the Frankfurt School's critical theory. Right-leaning scholars – including Carl Schmitt, Joseph Schumpeter, Leo Strauss, Hans Morgenthau, and Raymond Aron – emphasised different elements of his thought. They placed importance on his discussion of strong leaders in democracy, political ethics' relationship with value-freedom and value-relativism, and using political action to combat bureaucracy. The scholars who have examined his works philosophically, including Strauss, Hans Henrik Bruun, and Alfred Schütz, have traditionally looked at them through the lens of Continental philosophy.

Weber studies

Weberian scholarship's beginnings were delayed by the disruption of academic life in the Weimar Republic. Hyper-inflation caused Weber's support for parliamentary democracy to be countered by the decline the respect that professors had for it. The alienation that they experienced from politics caused many of them to become pessimistic and closer to the historical viewpoints espoused by Oswald Spengler in his The Decline of the West. Furthermore, universities increasingly came under state control and influence. After the Nazi Party took power, that process accelerated. The previously dominant style of sociology, that of Alfred Vierkandt and Leopold von Wiese, was largely replaced by a sociology that was dominated by support for the Nazis. Hans Freyer and Othmar Spann were representative of that movement, while Werner Sombart began to support collectivism and Nazism. The Nazi Party's rise had relegated Weber's scholarship to a marginal position in the Germany academy. However, some Weberian scholars had left Germany while this was happening, with most of them settling in the United States and the United Kingdom.

These scholars began to involve themselves in American and British scholarship at a time when Weber's writings, such as the General Economic History, were beginning to be translated into English. Talcott Parsons, an American scholar, was influenced by his readings of Weber and Sombart as a student in Germany during the 1920s. He obtained permission from Marianne Weber to publish a translation of The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in his 1930 essay collection, the . This translated version, which was heavily edited by the publisher, was not initially successful. Parsons used this translation as part of his effort to create an academic sociology, which resulted in his 1937 book The Structure of Social Action. In it, Parsons argued that Weber and Durkheim were foundational sociologists. However, his book was not successful until after the Second World War. He then published a translation of Economy and Society as The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Parsons's increasing scholarly prominence led to this volume's own elevated influence. Other translations began to appear, including C. Wright Mills and  [de] in 1946. Their volume was a collection of excerpts from Weber's writings. In the last year of the decade, Edward Shils edited a translation of Weber's , which was published as .

As the 1940s ended, Weber's scholarly reputation rose as a result of scholarly interpretations of it through the lenses of Parsons's structural functionalism and Mills's conflict theory. Over the course of the following decades, continued publications of translated versions of Weber's works began to appear, including ones on law, religion, music, and the city. Despite the translations' flaws, it became possible to obtain a largely complete view of Weber's scholarship. That was still impeded by the unorganised publishing of the translations, which prevented scholars from knowing the connections between the different texts. In 1968, a complete translation of Marianne Weber's prepared version of Economy and Society was published. While an interpretation of Weber that was separate from Parson's structural functionalism had begun with From Max Weber, a more political and historical interpretation was forwarded by Reinhard Bendix's 1948 , Ralf Dahrendorf's 1957 , and John Rex's 1962 . Raymond Aron's interpretation of Weber in his 1965 text, , gave an alternative to Parson's perspective on the history of sociology. Weber, while still integral to it, was being framed as one of the three foundational figures, the other two were Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim. Anthony Giddens solidified that interpretation of them with the publication of his in 1971. After the end of the 1970s, more of Weber's less prominent publications were published. That effort coincided with the continued writing of critical commentaries on his works and idea, including the creation of a scholarly journal in 2000, , that is devoted to such scholarship.

Max Weber-Gesamtausgabe

The idea of publishing a collected edition of Weber's complete works was pushed forward by Horst Baier in 1972. A year later, the  [de], a multi-volume set of all of his writings, began to take shape.Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Wolfgang Schluchter,  [de], M. Rainer Lepsius, and  [de] were the initial editors. After Mommsen's death in 2004,  [de] succeeded him. Winckelmann, Lepsius, and Baier also died before the completion of the project. The writings were organised in a combination of chronological order and by subject, with the material that was not intended to be published by Weber in purely chronological order. The final editions of each text were used, with the exception of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which was published in both its first and final forms.Mohr Siebeck was selected to publish the volumes. The project was presented to the academic community in 1981 with the publication of a prospectus that was colloquially referred to as the "green brochure". It outlined the three sections of the series: "Writings and Speeches", "Letters", and "Lecture Manuscripts and Lecture Notes". Four years later, the project entered publication. It concluded in June 2020 and contains forty-seven volumes, including two index volumes.

Bibliography

See also

• Sociology of law
• Speeches of Max Weber

Citations

1. Kaesler 2014, pp. 22, 144–145; Kim 2022; Radkau 2009, p. 5.
2. Kaelber 2003, p. 38; Radkau 2009, p. 11; Kaesler 2014, pp. 148–149.
3. Kaelber 2003, p. 38; Radkau 2009, p. 5; Honigsheim 2017, p. 100.
4. Kaesler 1988, pp. 2–3, 14; Radkau 2009, pp. 91–92.
5. Kaesler 2014, pp. 68, 129–137; Radkau 2009, p. 9; Kim 2022.
6. Radkau 2009, pp. 54, 62; Kaelber 2003, pp. 38–39; Ritzer 2009, p. 32.
7. Kaesler 2014, pp. 176–178; Radkau 2009, p. 561.
8. Kaesler 1988, p. 2; McKinnon 2010, pp. 110–112; Kent 1983, pp. 297–303.
9. McKinnon 2010, pp. 110–112; Kent 1983, pp. 297–303.
10. Kaesler 1988, pp. 2–3.
11. Sica 2017, p. 24; Kaesler 2014, p. 180.
12. Radkau 2009, pp. 31–33; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 1–2.
13. Berman & Reid 2000, pp. 223–225; Allan 2005, p. 146; Honigsheim 2017, p. 101.
14. Kaelber 2003, pp. 30–33.
15. Kaelber 2003, p. 33; Honigsheim 2017, p. 239; Radkau 2009, p. 563.
16. Kaesler 2014, pp. 335–341; Radkau 2009, pp. 72–75, 563; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 1–2.
17. Kaesler 2014, p. 307; Honigsheim 2017, p. 101.
18. Kaelber 2003, p. 30; Radkau 2009, pp. 562–564.
19. Mommsen & Steinberg 1984, pp. 2–9; Kaelber 2003, p. 36; Radkau 2009, p. 23.
20. Radkau 2009, pp. 31–33; Kaesler 2014, pp. 191, 200–202.
21. Kaesler 2014, pp. 191, 207; Gordon 2020, p. 32; Radkau 2009, pp. 32–33.
22. Kaelber 2003, p. 39; Ritzer 2009, p. 32; Gordon 2020, p. 32.
23. Radkau 2009, pp. 39–40, 562; Kaelber 2003, pp. 36–38.
24. Radkau 2009, p. 564; Kaesler 2014, pp. 329–332, 362.
25. Kaelber 2003, pp. 39–40.
26. Allan 2005, p. 146; Frommer & Frommer 1993, p. 165; Radkau 2009, p. 45.
27. Kim 2022; Lengermann & Niebrugge-Brantley 1998, p. 193; Frommer & Frommer 1993, p. 165.
28. Poggi 2006, p. 5; Kaesler 2014, p. 270; Radkau 2009, p. 563.
29. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 370–371.
30. Kaesler 2014, p. 346; Radkau 2009, p. 563.
31. Kim 2022; Poggi 2006, p. 5; Radkau 2009, pp. 79–82.
32. Mommsen & Steinberg 1984, pp. 54–56; Hobsbawm 1987, p. 152; Radkau 2009, pp. 564–565.
33. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 1–2; Radkau 2009, p. 564; Honigsheim 2017, p. 239.
34. Aldenhoff-Hübinger 2004, p. 148; Craig 1988, p. 18; Mommsen & Steinberg 1984, pp. 38–39.
35. Kaesler 2014, pp. 429–431; Radkau 2009, pp. 134–135; Mommsen & Steinberg 1984, pp. 123–126.
36. Kaesler 2014, pp. 436–441; Radkau 2009, pp. 134–135, 330; Mommsen & Steinberg 1984, pp. 126–130.
37. Radkau 2009, p. 564; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 1–2; Kaesler 2014, p. 455.
38. Kim 2022; Honigsheim 2017, pp. ix–x.
39. Radkau 2009, pp. 65–66; Kim 2022; Weber 1999, p. 7.
40. Radkau 2009, pp. 65–69; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 1–2; Frommer & Frommer 1993, pp. 163–164.
41. Kaesler 2014, pp. 472, 476–477; Radkau 2009, p. 143.
42. Radkau 2009, p. 143; Kaesler 2014, p. 485; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 2–3.
43. Radkau 2009, p. 143.
44. Weber 1964, pp. 641–642; Radkau 2009, pp. 170–171.
45. Kim 2022; Roth 1976, pp. 306–318; Scott 2019, pp. 21, 41.
46. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 49–50; Weber 1999, p. 8.
47. Roth 2005, pp. 82–83; Scaff 2011, pp. 11–24; Smith 2019, p. 96.
48. Scaff 2011, pp. 11–24; Radkau 2009, pp. 296–299; Honigsheim 2017, pp. 24–25.
49. Scaff 2011, pp. 117–119; Smith 2019, pp. 96–97; Honigsheim 2017, pp. 24–25.
50. Scaff 2011, pp. 12–14; Roth 2005, pp. 82–83; Smith 2019, pp. 97–100.
51. Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 3; Radkau 2009, pp. 279–280, 566.
52. Radkau 2009, p. 233; Weber 1997, pp. 3–4; Turner 2001b, p. 16401.
53. Radkau 2009, pp. 233–234.
54. Radkau 2009, pp. 233–235.
55. Mommsen 1997, pp. 1–2; Weber 1997, p. 2.
56. Radkau 2009, pp. 234–236; Weber 1997, pp. 1–2.
57. Radkau 2009, pp. 235–236; Mommsen 1997, pp. 6–7.
58. Radkau 2009, pp. 237–239.
59. Radkau 2009, pp. 239–241.
60. Kim 2022; Radkau 2009, p. 277; Kaesler 2014, pp. 653, 654–655.
61. Kaesler 2014, pp. 653–654.
62. Swedberg & Agevall 2016; Kaesler 2014, pp. 654.
63. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 85.
64. Kim 2022; Radkau 2009, p. 277; Kaesler 2014, pp. 652–655.
65. Kaesler 2014, pp. 654–655; Turner 2001b, pp. 16401–16402.
66. Kaesler 2014, pp. 654–655.
67. Radkau 2009, pp. 343–344, 360; Lepsius 2004, pp. 11–14.
68. Whimster 2016, p. 8; Radkau 2009, pp. 358, 280; Löwy & Varikas 2022, p. 94.
69. Whimster 2016, pp. 18–20; Radkau 2009, pp. 383–385; Löwy & Varikas 2022, p. 100.
70. Whimster 2016, p. 8; Radkau 2009, pp. 358, 280–283; Löwy & Varikas 2022, p. 94.
71. Whimster 2016, pp. 8–9; Radkau 2009, pp. 358, 280–283; Löwy & Varikas 2022, p. 100.
72. Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 3; Kaesler 1988, p. 18; Radkau 2009, pp. 454–456.
73. Mommsen & Steinberg 1984, pp. 196–198; Kaesler 1988, pp. 18–19; Weber & Turner 2014, pp. 22–23.
74. Kim 2022; Bruhns 2018, pp. 37–44; Craig 1988, pp. 19–20.
75. Kim 2022; Bruhns 2018, pp. 40, 43–44; Craig 1988, p. 20.
76. Radkau 2009, pp. 527–528; Kaesler 2014, pp. 740–741.
77. Radkau 2009, pp. 527–528.
78. Radkau 2009, pp. 483–487; Levy 2016, pp. 87–89; Kaesler 2014, pp. 747–748.
79. Radkau 2009, pp. 483–486; Levy 2016, pp. 87–90; Kaesler 2014, pp. 747–748.
80. Radkau 2009, pp. 486–487; Levy 2016, pp. 90–91; Kaesler 2014, pp. 747–748.
81. Radkau 2009, pp. 485–487; Levy 2016, pp. 89–91; Kaesler 2014, pp. 749–751.
82. Radkau 2009, pp. 487–491; Weber 2004, p. xix; Gane 2002, p. 53.
83. Radkau 2009, pp. 487–491; Weber 2004, pp. xxv–xxix; Tribe 2018, pp. 130–133.
84. Demm 2017, pp. 64, 82–83; Radkau 2009, pp. 521–522.
85. Demm 2017, pp. 83–84.
86. Demm 2017, pp. 64, 82–85; Lepsius 2004, p. 21.
87. Mommsen & Steinberg 1984, pp. 303–308; Radkau 2009, pp. 513–514; Kim 2022.
88. Kaesler 2014, pp. 866–870; Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 3; Radkau 2009, pp. 511–512.
89. Radkau 2009, pp. 505–508.
90. Mommsen & Steinberg 1984, pp. 301–302; Kaesler 1988, p. 22.
91. Kaesler 2014, p. 882; Radkau 2009, pp. 500–504.
92. Waters & Waters 2015a, p. 22; Radkau 2009, pp. 500–503.
93. Waters & Waters 2015a, p. 20; Mommsen 1997, p. 16.
94. Waters & Waters 2015a, pp. 20, 22.
95. Kim 2022; Kaesler 2014, pp. 868–869; Honigsheim 2017, p. 246.
96. Weber 2004, pp. xxxiv–xxxv; Radkau 2009, pp. 514–515; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 259–260.
97. Radkau 2009, pp. 514–518; Weber 2004, pp. xxxiv–xxxviii; Gane 2002, pp. 64–65.
98. Radkau 2009, pp. 542–543; Kaesler 2014, p. 883.
99. Radkau 2009, p. 543; Kaesler 2014, pp. 884–887.
100. Kim 2022; Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 3; Radkau 2009, pp. 514, 570.
101. Radkau 2009, pp. 491–492; Kaesler 2014, pp. 761–764.
102. Radkau 2009, pp. 529, 570; Kaesler 2014, pp. 839–841.
103. Weber & Cohen 2017, pp. lxxiii–lxxvii, lxxxii; Kaesler 2014, pp. 904–906; Kim 2022.
104. Mommsen & Steinberg 1984, pp. 327–328; Radkau 2009, pp. 509–510; Kaesler 2014, pp. 893–895.
105. Kaesler 2014, pp. 906–907; Spengler & Hughes 1991, pp. xv–xvi.
106. Kaesler 2014, pp. 906–907; Farrenkopf 1992, p. 1; Spengler & Hughes 1991, pp. xv–xvi.
107. Kaesler 2014, pp. 906–907; Spengler & Hughes 1991, pp. xv–xvi; Weber 1964, pp. 554–555.
108. Kaesler 2014, pp. 921–922; Radkau 2009, pp. 539, 541–542.
109. Radkau 2009, pp. 542, 547–548; Kaesler 2014, pp. 921–923.
110. Radkau 2009, p. 544; Kaesler 2014, p. 923.
111. Radkau 2009, pp. 545–446; Hanke 2009, pp. 349–350; Honigsheim 2017, p. 239.
112. Kim 2022; Radkau 2009, pp. 545–546; Hanke 2009, pp. 349–350.
113. Kaesler 2014, pp. 16–19; Radkau 2009, pp. 549–550; Hanke 2009, pp. 349–350.
114. Roth 2016, pp. 250–253; Whimster 2023, p. 82; Hanke 2009, pp. 349–350.
115. Hanke 2009, pp. 355–357; Radkau 2009, pp. 178; Kaesler 2014, p. 40.
116. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 313; Albrow 1990, p. 137; Rhoads 2021, p. 132.
117. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 313.
118. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 313–315.
119. Sibeon 2012, pp. 37–38.
120. Sibeon 2012, pp. 37–38; Allan 2005, pp. 144–148.
121. Weber 2012, pp. 119, 138.
122. Kim 2022; Ritzer 2009, p. 31; Weber 2011, pp. 7–32.
123. Kim 2022; Heath 2024; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 356–357.
124. Kim 2022; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 356–357; Rhoads 2021, pp. 132–133.
125. Kim 2022; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 228–230.
126. Kaesler 1988, p. 187; Beiser 2011, pp. 551–552.
127. Kim 2022; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 15–16; Beiser 2011, pp. 525–528.
128. Beiser 2011, pp. 527–529, 546.
129. Allan 2005, p. 153.
130. Allan 2005, p. 148.
131. Kaesler 1988, pp. 184–187; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 365; Beiser 2011, pp. 551–552.
132. Kaesler 1988, pp. 185–189; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 365; Beiser 2011, pp. 551–552.
133. Kaesler 1988, pp. 184–187; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 364–365; Aldenhoff-Hübinger 2004, p. 144.
134. Kaesler 1988, pp. 184–187; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 364–365; Beiser 2011, pp. 551–553.
135. Heath 2024; Ritzer 2009, p. 31; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 211–212.
136. Heath 2024.
137. Maclachlan 2017, pp. 1163–1164; Callison 2022, p. 276.
138. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 211–212; Heath 2024.
139. Heath 2024; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 211.
140. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 156; Kim 2022; Kaesler 1988, p. 180.
141. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 156; Albrow 1990, p. 151.
142. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 156; Albrow 1990, p. 153.
143. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 157; Albrow 1990, p. 151.
144. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 157; Kaesler 1988, pp. 180–183.
145. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 156.
146. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 156; Kim 2022.
147. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 156; Kim 2022; Albrow 1990, p. 157.
148. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 156; Kaesler 1988, p. 182; Albrow 1990, p. 152.
149. Albrow 1990, p. 154.
150. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 364; Albrow 1990, p. 234.
151. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 364; Kaesler 1988, pp. 192–193; Albrow 1990, pp. 243–244.
152. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 364; Kaesler 1988, pp. 192–193.
153. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 364; Kaesler 1988, pp. 184–185.
154. Albrow 1990, p. 232; Kim 2022; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 367.
155. Albrow 1990, p. 232; Kim 2022.
156. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 365; Kaesler 1988, pp. 184–187; Aldenhoff-Hübinger 2004, p. 144.
157. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 365; Kaesler 2014, pp. 654–655; Kaesler 1988, pp. 188–189.
158. Kim 2022; Ritzer 2009, p. 30; Allan 2005, p. 151.
159. Kim 2022; Gane 2002, pp. 24–26; Allan 2005, p. 151.
160. Kim 2022; Ritzer 2009, pp. 38–42; Allan 2005, p. 177.
161. Radkau 2009, pp. 191–192.
162. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 57–61; Allan 2005, p. 162.
163. Allan 2005, p. 162.
164. Radkau 2009, pp. 186–190; Weber 2013, p. 124; Baehr 2001, pp. 153–154.
165. Habermas 1990, pp. 1–2.
166. Kim 2022; Weber 2004, pp. l–li; Gane 2002, pp. 23–26.
167. Kim 2022; Macionis 2012, p. 88.
168. Gane 2002, pp. 23–26.
169. Kim 2022; Radkau 2009, pp. 187–189.
170. Kim 2022; Habermas 1990, pp. 1–2.
171. Boehmer 2001, pp. 277–278; Kaesler 2014, p. 70; Radkau 2009, pp. 367–368.
172. Radkau 2009, pp. 367–368; Kaesler 2014, pp. 702–703.
173. Kaesler 2014, pp. 703–704; Boehmer 2001, pp. 277–278.
174. Kim 2022; Gane 2002, pp. 16–23.
175. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 86–87; Gane 2002, pp. 16–17.
176. Gane 2002, pp. 16–17; Allan 2005, pp. 154–156.
177. Gane 2002, pp. 16–17; Allan 2005, pp. 157–158.
178. Gane 2002, pp. 16–17; Allan 2005, pp. 151–152.
179. Gane 2002, pp. 17–23; Allan 2005, pp. 151–152; Kim 2022.
180. Gane 2002, pp. 21–23; Kim 2022; Allan 2005, pp. 151–152.
181. Weber 1999, p. 22–23; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 49–50.
182. Ritzer 2009, pp. 35–37; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 57–59.
183. Radkau 2009, pp. 96, 193; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 63–64.
184. Weber 2013, p. xviii.
185. Weber 2013, pp. xxxii–xxxiii; Turner 2001b, p. 16403.
186. Weber 2013, p. xviii; Radkau 2009, pp. 195–197.
187. Radkau 2009, pp. 191–192; Weber 2013, pp. xlvii–l; Kim 2022.
188. Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 57.
189. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 55–58; Weber 2013, p. xxviii.
190. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 60–61; Weber 2013, p. xxx.
191. Ritzer 2009, pp. 35–37; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 55–58.
192. Ritzer 2009, pp. 35–37; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 60–63.
193. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 10–12.
194. Weber 2013, pp. xviii, xxxii–xxxiii; Allan 2005, pp. 162–163; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 58–61.
195. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 49–50; Weber 1999, p. 8; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 94–96.
196. Schluchter 2018, pp. 87–89; Bellah 1999, p. 280; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 94–96.
197. Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 285; Bellah 1999, p. 280; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 94–96.
198. Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 285.
199. Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 285; Kim 2022.
200. Allan 2005, pp. 154–155.
201. Allan 2005, p. 158.
202. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 114–116; Radkau 2009, pp. 477–478; Whimster 2007, pp. 134–135, 212.
203. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 98–99; Schluchter 2014, pp. 12–13.
204. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 135–141; Whimster 2007, pp. 134–135; Schluchter 2014, p. 19.
205. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 135–141; Schluchter 2014, p. 19.
206. Ritzer 2009, pp. 37–38; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 135–141.
207. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 135–141; Schluchter 2014, p. 19; Whimster 2007, p. 188.
208. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 135–141; Schluchter 2014, pp. 23–25.
209. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 142–158; Schluchter 2018, pp. 98–99.
210. Ritzer 2009, pp. 37–38; Thapar 2018, pp. 123–125.
211. Kalberg 2017, pp. 238–240.
212. Ritzer 2009, p. 35; Gellner 1982, pp. 535–537; Kalberg 2017, p. 240.
213. Ritzer 2009, p. 35; Weber & Turner 2014, p. 396; Kalberg 2017, p. 240.
214. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 198–199; Schluchter 2018, pp. 101–102.
215. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 198–199; Schluchter 2018, pp. 92–93.
216. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 198–199.
217. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 90, 198–199; Schluchter 2018, p. 98.
218. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 198–199; Schluchter 2018, pp. 96–97; Kalberg 2017, p. 237.
219. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 200–201.
220. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 200–201; Kaesler 1988, p. 127.
221. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 204–205.
222. Kaesler 1988, p. 127; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 200–201; Radkau 2009, pp. 444–446.
223. Kaesler 1988, pp. 127–130; Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 225.
224. Adair-Toteff 2013, pp. 87–90; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 348–349; Turner 1996, p. 149.
225. Adair-Toteff 2013, pp. 87–88.
226. Adair-Toteff 2013, pp. 88–90; Turner 1996, pp. 149–158.
227. Adair-Toteff 2013, pp. 88–89; Turner 1996, p. 149; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 347.
228. Adair-Toteff 2013, pp. 99–102; Turner 1996, p. 158.
229. Adair-Toteff 2013, pp. 94–97; Turner 1996, pp. 147–148; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 347–348.
230. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 347–348; Turner 1996, pp. 163–164; Plye & Davidson 1998, pp. 498–499.
231. Turner 1996, pp. 164–165; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 347–348.
232. Plye & Davidson 1998, pp. 498–499; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 347–348; Turner 1996, pp. 163–165.
233. Weber 2004, p. 34; Warner 1991, pp. 9–10; Palonen 2011, pp. 104–105.
234. Warner 1991, pp. 9–10.
235. Weber 2004, p. xli; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 121–123; Marlin 2002, pp. 155.
236. Radkau 2009, pp. 515–516; Marlin 2002, pp. 155–156; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 121–123.
237. Radkau 2009, pp. 515–516; Marlin 2002, pp. 155–156.
238. Weber 2004, p. 34; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 294–296; Macionis 2012, p. 88.
239. Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 296; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 88.
240. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 34–35; Ritzer 2009, pp. 37–41.
241. Ritzer 2009, pp. 37–41; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 34–35.
242. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 303–305.
243. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 352–353; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 294–295.
244. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 187–188; Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 294.
245. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 387–388.
246. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 20.
247. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 20–21; Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 430.
248. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 21; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 426–427.
249. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 21.
250. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 427–428.
251. Ritzer 2009, pp. 38–42; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 18–21.
252. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 20; Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 424; Allan 2005, pp. 173–174.
253. Allan 2005, pp. 172–173.
254. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 20–21; Allan 2005, pp. 173–174; Bendix & Roth 1977, p. 424.
255. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 21–22; Ritzer 2005, p. 55.
256. Weber 2015b, pp. 37–40; Parkin 2013, p. 90.
257. Weber 2015b, pp. 37–40.
258. Weber 2015b, pp. 37–40; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 85–87; Parkin 2013, pp. 96–97.
259. Parkin 2013, pp. 91–96.
260. Weber 2015b, pp. 37–58; Parkin 2013, pp. 92–93, 98; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 85–87.
261. Parkin 2013, pp. 104–108; Weber 2015b, pp. 37–40; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 246.
262. Bendix & Roth 1977.
263. Waters & Waters 2016, pp. 1–2; Parkin 2013, pp. 96–97.
264. Waters & Waters 2016, pp. 1–2.
265. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 41–42, 192; Waters & Waters 2016, pp. 2–3.
266. Parkin 2013, pp. 104–108.
267. Weber 2004, pp. xii–xxxiii; Radkau 2009, pp. 487, 514.
268. Weber 2004, pp. xxx–xxxii; Gane 2002, pp. 45–49; Tribe 2018, pp. 131–132.
269. Weber 2004, pp. l–li; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 294–295; Macionis 2012, p. 88.
270. Weber 2004, pp. 93–94; Radkau 2009, pp. 517–518; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 259–260.
271. Radkau 2009, pp. 514–518; Weber 2004, pp. xxxiv–xxxviii.
272. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 79.
273. Zubaida 2005–2006, p. 112; Kaesler 1988, pp. 42–43; Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 70–73.
274. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 72–79; Zubaida 2005–2006, pp. 112–113.
275. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 88–89; Kaesler 1988, pp. 44–46.
276. Bendix & Roth 1977, pp. 75–76.
277. Petersen 2017, p. 29; Baehr 2002, pp. 22–23; Turner 2001b, p. 16406.
278. Swedberg 1999, pp. 561–582.
279. Beiser 2011, pp. 525–527; Maclachlan 2017, pp. 1161–1163; Radkau 2009, p. 138.
280. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 103.
281. Whimster 2023, p. 82; Roth 2016, pp. 250–253; Hanke 2009, pp. 349–350.
282. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 105–106.
283. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 105; Whimster 2023, p. 82; Hanke 2009, pp. 349–350.
284. Roth 2016, pp. 250–253; Whimster 2023, p. 82.
285. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 109, 393; Roth 2016, pp. 250–253.
286. Roth 2016, pp. 250–253; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 109.
287. Radkau 2009, p. 138; Schweitzer 1975, pp. 279–292; Swedberg 1999, pp. 564–568.
288. Parsons 2007, pp. 236–237; Honigsheim 2017, pp. 187–188.
289. Mass 2009, pp. 507–511; Swedberg 1999, p. 564.
290. Mass 2009, pp. 509–511; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 227.
291. Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 227.
292. Parsons 2007, pp. 235–238.
293. Carruthers & Espeland 1991, pp. 31–34; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 24–25.
294. Tribe 2009, pp. 157–158; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 199.
295. Tribe 2009, pp. 143–147; Cat 2023.
296. Tribe 2009, pp. 158–159; Cat 2023.
297. Callison 2022, pp. 281–282; Tribe 2009, pp. 157–159; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 199.
298. Tribe 2009, p. 142; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 199.
299. Maclachlan 2017, p. 1166; Kolev 2020, p. 44; Callison 2022, pp. 275–276.
300. Kim 2022; Barker 1980, pp. 224–225; Eliaeson 1990, pp. 17–18.
301. Kim 2022; Barker 1980, pp. 241–242.
302. Frisby 2002, p. 46.
303. Kim 2022; Turner 2011, pp. 85–86; Albrow 1990, pp. 47–50.
304. Kim 2022; Barker 1980, pp. 224–225.
305. Kim 2022.
306. Weber 1964, pp. 554–555; Turner 2011, p. 77; Radkau 2009, p. 167.
307. Turner 2011, p. 77; Kent 1983, pp. 301–302; Tribe 2018, p. 134.
308. Adair-Toteff 2013, pp. 99–102.
309. Kent 1983, pp. 301–304; McKinnon 2010, pp. 110–112.
310. McKinnon 2010, pp. 110–111; Kent 1983, p. 308.
311. Scaff 1989, pp. 68; Albrow 1990, p. 70; Sahni 2001, p. 424.
312. Kent 1983, pp. 301–304; Sahni 2001, pp. 423–424.
313. Turner 2011, p. 77; Radkau 2009, p. 167.
314. Mayer 1975, pp. 710–711.
315. Löwith & Turner 1993, p. 34.
316. Albrow 1990, p. 108.
317. Albrow 1990, pp. 106–109; Honigsheim 2017, pp. 187–188; Löwith & Turner 1993, pp. 34–35, 62.
318. Petersen 2017, p. 29; Scott 2019, pp. 183–184.
319. Rhoads 2021, p. 40; Turner 2001b, p. 16406.
320. Kim 2022; Löwy 1996, pp. 431–441; Celikates & Flynn 2023.
321. Celikates & Flynn 2023; Löwy 1996, pp. 438–439.
322. Turner 2007, p. 39.
323. Scott 2019, p. 179.
324. Scott 2019, p. 179; Turner 2001a, p. 16408.
325. Scott 2019, pp. 179–180.
326. Scott 2019, pp. 179–180; Turner 2001a, p. 16408.
327. Scott 2019, p. 180; Derman 2012, pp. 35–36; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, pp. 211–212.
328. Scott 2019, pp. 180–182; Turner 2001a, p. 16409; Oakes & Vidich 1999, pp. 404–405.
329. Scott 2019, pp. 182–183; Turner 2001a, pp. 16409–16410.
330. Scott 2019, pp. 182–183.
331. Scott 2019, pp. 182–183; Roth 2016, pp. 250–253; Swedberg & Agevall 2016, p. 109.
332. Scott 2019, pp. 183–184; Smith 2019, p. 101.
333. Hanke, Hübinger & Schwentker 2012, pp. 65–70.
334. Lichtblau 2022, pp. 74–76.
335. Lichtblau 2022, pp. 79–81.
336. Hanke, Hübinger & Schwentker 2012, pp. 77–79; Lichtblau 2022, pp. 74, 79; Adair-Toteff 2014, p. 117.
337. Hanke, Hübinger & Schwentker 2012, p. 84.
338. Hanke, Hübinger & Schwentker 2012, pp. 90–91; Lichtblau 2022, pp. 74–75; Adair-Toteff 2014, p. 113.
339. Lichtblau 2022, pp. 74–75.

General and cited sources

• Adair-Toteff, Christopher (January 2014). "Max Weber Gesamtausgabe: Interim Report and Future Volumes". Max Weber Studies. 14 (1): 113–118. doi:10.1353/max.2014.a808725. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 24579954. S2CID 154801166. Project MUSE 808725.
• Adair-Toteff, Christopher (January 2013). "'Sinn der Welt': Max Weber and the Problem of Theodicy". Max Weber Studies. 13 (1): 87–107. doi:10.1353/max.2013.a808748. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 24579967. S2CID 170944520. Project MUSE 808748.
• Albrow, Martin (1990). Max Weber's Construction of Social Theory (First ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20879-1. ISBN 978-1-349-20879-1. OCLC 21195542. S2CID 140357530.
• Aldenhoff-Hübinger, Rita (July 2004). "Max Weber's Inaugural Address of 1895 in the Context of the Contemporary Debates in Political Economy". Max Weber Studies. 4 (2): 143–156. doi:10.15543/MWS/2004/2/3. ISSN 1470-8078. S2CID 62830925.
• Allan, Kenneth D. (2005). Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press. ISBN 978-1-4129-0572-5. OCLC 1034668313.
• Baehr, Peter (2002). Founders, Classics, Canons: Modern Disputes over the Origins and Appraisal of Sociology's Heritage (First ed.). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203791615. ISBN 978-0-203-79161-5. OCLC 1306503294. S2CID 141719171.
• Baehr, Peter (2001). "The 'Iron Cage' and the 'Shell as Hard as Steel': Parsons, Weber, and the Stahlhartes Gehäuse Metaphor in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". History and Theory. 40 (2): 153–169. doi:10.1111/0018-2656.00160. ISSN 0018-2656. JSTOR 2678029. S2CID 170964674.
• Barker, Martin (June 1980). "Kant as a Problem for Weber". The British Journal of Sociology. 31 (2): 224–245. doi:10.2307/589689. ISSN 0007-1315. JSTOR 589689. S2CID 145073795.
• Beiser, Frederick C. (2011). "Max Weber and the End of the Historicist Tradition". The German Historicist Tradition. Oxford University Press. pp. 511–567. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691555.003.0014. ISBN 978-0-19-969155-5. OCLC 751726167. S2CID 171232102.
• Bellah, Robert N. (June 1999). "Max Weber and World-Denying Love: A Look at the Historical Sociology of Religion". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 67 (2): 277–304. doi:10.1093/jaarel/67.2.277. ISSN 0002-7189. JSTOR 1465738. S2CID 170701651. Archived from the original on 28 September 2021.
• Bendix, Reinhard; Roth, Guenther (1977). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-03194-4. OCLC 1150290821.
• Berman, Harold J.; Reid, Charles J. Jr. (2000). "Max Weber as Legal Historian". In Turner, Stephen (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Weber. The Cambridge Companions to Philosophy and Religion (First ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 221–239. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521561495.013. ISBN 978-0-521-56149-5. S2CID 171106362.
• Boehmer, Konrad (2001). "Weber, Max". In Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John (eds.). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Vol. 27 (Second ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 177–178. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.29991. ISBN 978-0-333-60800-5. OCLC 777335845.
• Bruhns, Hinnerk (December 2018). "Max Weber and the Problem of a 'Successful Peace'". Simmel Studies. 22 (2). Translated by Kirkbright, Suzanne: 35–70. doi:10.7202/1058557ar. ISSN 1616-2552. S2CID 186400299.
• Callison, William (April 2022). "The Politics of Rationality in Early Neoliberalism: Max Weber, Ludwig von Mises, and the Socialist Calculation Debate". Journal of the History of Ideas. 83 (2): 269–291. doi:10.1353/jhi.2022.0013. ISSN 0022-5037. PMID 35603614. S2CID 248985967.
• Carruthers, Bruce G.; Espeland, Wendy Nelson (July 1991). "Accounting for Rationality: Double-Entry Bookkeeping and the Rhetoric of Economic Rationality". American Journal of Sociology. 97 (1): 31–69. doi:10.1086/229739. ISSN 0002-9602. S2CID 144005958.
• Cat, Jordi (2023). "Otto Neurath". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. OCLC 37550526.
• Celikates, Robin; Flynn, Jeffrey (2023). "Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. OCLC 37550526.
• Craig, Gordon A. (18 February 1988). "The Kaiser and the Kritik". The New York Review of Books. Vol. 35, no. 2. pp. 17–20. ISSN 0028-7504. Archived from the original on 10 May 2021.
• Demm, Eberhard (January 2017). "Max and Alfred Weber and Their Female Entourage". Max Weber Studies. 17 (1): 64–91. doi:10.1353/max.2017.a808647. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 10.15543/maxweberstudies.17.1.64. S2CID 171435083.
• Derman, Joshua (2012). Max Weber in Politics and Social Thought: From Charisma to Canonization. Ideas in Context. Vol. 102 (First ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139198899. ISBN 978-1-139-19889-9. OCLC 793099522. S2CID 264281585.
• Eliaeson, Sven (January 1990). "Influences on Max Weber's Methodology". Acta Sociologica. 33 (1): 15–30. doi:10.1177/000169939003300102. ISSN 0001-6993. JSTOR 4200777. S2CID 144458204.
• Farrenkopf, John (October 1992). "Weber, Spengler, and the Origins, Spirit, and Development of Capitalism". Comparative Civilizations Review. 27 (27): 1–30. S2CID 55396057.
• Frisby, David (2002). Georg Simmel. Key Sociologists (Second ed.). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203520185. ISBN 978-0-415-28535-3. OCLC 83780447.
• Frommer, Jörg; Frommer, Sabine (May 1993). "Max Webers Krankheit – soziologische Aspekte der depressiven Struktur". Fortschritte der Neurologie · Psychiatrie (in German). 61 (5): 161–171. doi:10.1055/s-2007-999084. ISSN 0720-4299. PMID 8319927. S2CID 260157721.
• Gane, Nicholas (2002). Max Weber and Postmodern Theory: Rationalization versus Re-enchantment. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230502512. ISBN 978-0-333-93058-8. OCLC 48399032. S2CID 171377607.
• Gellner, David (November 1982). "Max Weber, Capitalism and the Religion of India". Sociology. 16 (4): 526–543. doi:10.1177/0038038582016004004. ISSN 0038-0385. JSTOR 42852485. S2CID 91179252.
• Gordon, Peter E. (11 June 2020). "Max the Fatalist". The New York Review of Books. Vol. 67, no. 10. pp. 32–33, 36. ISSN 0028-7504. Archived from the original on 16 June 2022.
• Habermas, Jürgen (1990). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-58102-8. OCLC 263623304.
• Hanke, Edith; Hübinger, Gangolf; Schwentker, Wolfgang (January 2012). "The Genesis of the Max Weber-Gesamtausgabe and the Contribution of Wolfgang J. Mommsen". Max Weber Studies. 12 (1): 59–94. doi:10.1353/max.2012.a808787. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 24579988. S2CID 171047848. Project MUSE 808787.
• Heath, Joseph (2024). "Methodological Individualism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. OCLC 3755052.
• Hanke, Edith (September 2009). "'Max Weber's Desk Is Now My Altar': Marianne Weber and the Intellectual Heritage of Her Husband". History of European Ideas. 35 (3). Translated by Tribe, Keith: 349–359. doi:10.1016/j.histeuroideas.2009.01.003. ISSN 0191-6599. S2CID 219564548.
• Hobsbawm, Eric (1987). The Age of Empire, 1875–1914. History of Civilization (First ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. ISBN 978-0-394-56319-0. OCLC 1024158611.
• Honigsheim, Paul (2017). Sica, Alan (ed.). The Unknown Max Weber (First ed.). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351302241. ISBN 978-1-351-30224-1. OCLC 1000454719. S2CID 143723962.
• Kaelber, Lutz (May 2003). "Max Weber's Dissertation". History of the Human Sciences. 16 (2): 27–56. doi:10.1177/0952695103016002002. ISSN 0952-6951. S2CID 143826984.
• Kaesler, Dirk (1988). Max Weber: An Introduction to His Life and Work. Translated by Hurd, Philippa. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-42560-3. OCLC 18167075. S2CID 142789327.
• Kaesler, Dirk (2014). Max Weber. Preuße, Denker, Muttersohn. Eine Biographie (in German) (First ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck. ISBN 978-3-406-66076-4. JSTOR j.ctv1168mt4. OCLC 878146290. S2CID 170890977.
• Kalberg, Stephen (July 2017). "Reconstructing Weber's Indian Rationalism: A Comparative Analysis". Max Weber Studies. 17 (2): 235–253. doi:10.1353/max.2017.a808620. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 10.15543/maxweberstudies.17.2.235. S2CID 166169850. Project MUSE 808620.
• Kent, Stephen A. (Winter 1983). "Weber, Goethe, and the Nietzschean Allusion: Capturing the Source of the 'Iron Cage' Metaphor". Sociological Analysis. 44 (4): 297–319. doi:10.2307/3711612. JSTOR 3711612. S2CID 170414384.
• Kim, Sung Ho (2022). "Max Weber". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. OCLC 37550526.
• Kolev, Stefan (March 2020). "The Legacy of Max Weber and the Early Austrians". The Review of Austrian Economics. 33 (1–2): 33–54. doi:10.1007/s11138-019-00445-0. ISSN 0889-3047. S2CID 151167378.
• Lepsius, M. Rainer (January 2004). "Mina Tobler and Max Weber: Passion Confined". Max Weber Studies. 4 (1). Translated by Whimster, Sam: 9–21. doi:10.15543/MWS/2004/1/3. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 24579657. S2CID 146542227.
• Lengermann, Patricia; Niebrugge-Brantley, Jill (1998). The Women Founders: Sociology and Social Theory, 1830–1930: A Text/Reader. Boston: McGraw Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-037169-9. OCLC 37761947.
• Levy, Carl (2016). "Max Weber, Anarchism and Libertarian Culture: Personality and Power Politics". In Whimster, Sam (ed.). Max Weber and the Culture of Anarchy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 83–109. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-27030-9_4. ISBN 978-1-349-27030-9. OCLC 37843746. S2CID 152049490.
• Lichtblau, Klaus (January 2022). "On the Conclusion of the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe: A Meta-Critical Review". Max Weber Studies. 22 (1). Translated by Whimster, Sam: 74–124. doi:10.1353/max.2022.0004. ISSN 1470-8078. S2CID 252017012. Project MUSE 862056.
• Löwith, Karl; Turner, Bryan S. (1993). Max Weber and Karl Marx. Routledge Classics in Sociology (First ed.). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203422229. ISBN 0-585-44764-0. OCLC 52423743. S2CID 142671088.
• Löwy, Michael (June 1996). "Figures of Weberian Marxism". Theory and Society. 25 (3): 431–446. doi:10.1007/BF00158264. ISSN 0304-2421. JSTOR 658052. S2CID 147323256.
• Löwy, Michael; Varikas, Eleni (July 2022). "Max Weber and Anarchism". Max Weber Studies. 22 (2): 94–109. doi:10.1353/max.2022.0011. ISSN 1470-8078. S2CID 252016939. Project MUSE 862085.
• Macionis, John J. (2012). Sociology (Fourteenth ed.). Boston: Pearson. ISBN 978-0-205-11671-3. OCLC 1024274649.
• Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-55111-376-0. OCLC 49602821.
• Mass, Harro (December 2009). "Disciplining Boundaries: Lionel Robbins, Max Weber, and the Borderlands of Economics, History, and Psychology". Journal of the History of Economic Thought. 31 (4): 500–517. doi:10.1017/S1053837209990289. S2CID 146195008.
• Mayer, Carl (Winter 1975). "Max Weber's Interpretation of Karl Marx". Social Research. 42 (4): 701–719. ISSN 0037-783X. JSTOR 41582860.
• McKinnon, Andrew M. (March 2010). "Elective Affinities of the Protestant Ethic: Weber and the Chemistry of Capitalism". Sociological Theory. 28 (1): 108–126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01367.x. hdl:2164/3035. ISSN 0735-2751. S2CID 144579790.
• Maclachlan, Fiona (July 2017). "Max Weber Within the Methodenstreit". Cambridge Journal of Economics. 41 (4): 1161–1175. doi:10.1093/cje/bew051. ISSN 0309-166X. S2CID 157572661.
• Mommsen, Wolfgang J.; Steinberg, Michael (1984). Max Weber and German Politics, 1890–1920. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-53399-5. OCLC 1150275007. S2CID 141900118.
• Mommsen, Wolfgang J. (March 1997). "Max Weber and the Regeneration of Russia". The Journal of Modern History. 69 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1086/245438. ISSN 0022-2801. JSTOR 2953430. S2CID 143563307.
• Oakes, Guy; Vidich, Arthur J. (March 1999). "Gerth, Mills, and Shils: The Origins of From Max Weber". International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society. 12 (3): 399–433. doi:10.1023/A:1025920914039. JSTOR 20019978. S2CID 140802474.
• Palonen, Kari (January 2011). "The State as a 'Chance' Concept: Max Weber's De-substantialisation and Neutralisation of the Concept". Max Weber Studies. 11 (1): 99–117. doi:10.1353/max.2011.a808798. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 24579978. S2CID 170223232. Project MUSE 808798.
• Parkin, Frank (2013). Max Weber: Revised Edition. Key Sociologists (Second ed.). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315822280. ISBN 978-1-315-82228-0. OCLC 876294052.
• Parsons, Stephen D. (July 2007). "Marginalizing Weber: A Critical Note". Max Weber Studies. 7 (2): 231–242. doi:10.1353/max.2007.a808886. ISSN 1470-8078. S2CID 73588208. Project MUSE 808886.
• Petersen, William (2017). Against the Stream: Reflections of an Unconventional Demographer (First ed.). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315082844. ISBN 978-1-315-08284-4. OCLC 994145659. S2CID 198628069.
• Plye, Ralph E.; Davidson, James D. (1998). "Stratification". In Swatos, William H. Jr. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. pp. 498–501. ISBN 978-0-7619-8956-1. OCLC 37361790. Archived from the original on 11 October 2013.
• Poggi, Gianfranco (2006). Weber: A Short Introduction. Cambridge: Polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-3489-0. OCLC 60794418. S2CID 142370875.
• Radkau, Joachim (2009). Max Weber: A Biography. Translated by Camiller, Patrick. Cambridge: Polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-4147-8. OCLC 1392375367. S2CID 170999086.
• Rhoads, John K. (2021). Critical Issues in Social Theory. University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press. doi:10.1515/9780271072470. ISBN 978-0-271-07247-0. OCLC 1162042882.
• Ritzer, George (2005). Enchanting a Disenchanted World: Revolutionizing the Means of Consumption (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press. ISBN 978-0-7619-8819-9. OCLC 654326665.
• Ritzer, George (2009). Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics (Second ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-340438-7. OCLC 555900314. S2CID 142436605.
• Roth, Guenther (September 1976). "History and Sociology in the Work of Max Weber". The British Journal of Sociology. 27 (3): 306–318. doi:10.2307/589618. ISSN 0007-1315. JSTOR 589618. S2CID 147077109.
• Roth, Guenther (July 2016). "On Behalf of Economy and Society and Himself". Max Weber Studies. 16 (2): 250–253. doi:10.1353/max.2016.a808671. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 10.15543/maxweberstudies.16.2.250. S2CID 157957640. Project MUSE 808671.
• Roth, Guenther (January 2005). "Transatlantic Connections: A Cosmopolitan Context for Max and Marianne Weber's New York Visit 1904". Max Weber Studies. 5 (1): 81–112. doi:10.1353/max.2005.a808950. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 24580001. S2CID 133330011. Project MUSE 808950.
• Sahni, Isher-Paul (May 2001). "'The Will to Act': An Analysis of Max Weber's Conceptualisation of Social Action and Political Ethics in the Light of Goethe's Fiction". Sociology. 35 (2): 421–439. doi:10.1177/S0038038501000207. ISSN 0038-0385. JSTOR 42856293. S2CID 145398251.
• Scaff, Lawrence A. (1989). Fleeing the Iron Cage: Culture, Politics, and Modernity in the Thought of Max Weber. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-06435-5. OCLC 1034677915.
• Scaff, Lawrence A. (2011). Max Weber in America. Princeton University Press. pp. 11–24. doi:10.1515/9781400836710. ISBN 978-0-691-14779-6. JSTOR j.ctt24hrqb. OCLC 845249089. S2CID 142538285. Project MUSE book 31160.
• Schluchter, Wolfgang (January 2014). "'How Ideas become Effective in History': Max Weber on Confucianism and Beyond". Max Weber Studies. 14 (1): 11–31. doi:10.1353/max.2014.a808751. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 24579948. S2CID 170089306. Project MUSE 808751.
• Schluchter, Wolfgang (January 2018). "The Two Great Heterodoxies in Ancient India: An Example of Max Weber's Anti-Hegelian Approach". Max Weber Studies. 18 (1): 87–106. doi:10.1353/max.2018.a808609. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 10.15543/maxweberstudies.18.1.87. S2CID 172040941. Project MUSE 808609.
• Schweitzer, Arthur (September 1975). "Frank Knight's Social Economics". History of Political Economy. 7 (3): 279–292. doi:10.1215/00182702-7-3-279. ISSN 0018-2702. S2CID 144698116.
• Scott, John (2019). The Emerald Guide to Max Weber. Emerald Guides to Social Thought. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. doi:10.1108/9781787691896. ISBN 978-1-78769-192-6. OCLC 1088436694. S2CID 150570462.
• Sibeon, Roger (2012). Rethinking Social Theory (First ed.). London: SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781446216989. ISBN 978-1-4462-1698-9. OCLC 646696725.
• Sica, Alan (2017). Max Weber and the New Century (First ed.). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203786079. ISBN 978-0-203-78607-9. OCLC 1004354573. S2CID 159045162.
• Smith, David Norman (October 2019). "Max Weber's Odyssey: The Wild West, the Frontier, and the Capitalist Spirit". Fast Capitalism. 16 (2): 95–105. doi:10.32855/fcapital.201902.009. ISSN 1930-014X. S2CID 213453888.
• Spengler, Oswald; Hughes, H. Stuart (1991). Werner, Helmut; Helps, Arthur (eds.). The Decline of the West: An Abridged Edition. Oxford Paperbacks. Translated by Atkinson, Charles Francis. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-506634-0. OCLC 625153554.
• Swedberg, Richard (October 1999). "Max Weber as an Economist and as a Sociologist: Towards a Fuller Understanding of Weber's View of Economics". American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 58 (4): 561–582. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1999.tb03385.x. ISSN 0002-9246. JSTOR 3487998. S2CID 142197142.
• Swedberg, Richard; Agevall, Ola (2016). The Max Weber Dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts (Second ed.). Stanford University Press. doi:10.1515/9781503600225. ISBN 978-1-5036-0022-5. OCLC 956984918.
• Thapar, Romila (January 2018). "Revisiting Max Weber's Religion of India". Max Weber Studies. 18 (1): 122–139. doi:10.1353/max.2018.a808613. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 10.15543/maxweberstudies.18.1.122. S2CID 186696069. Project MUSE 808613.
• Tribe, Keith (January–April 2018). "Max Weber's 'Science as a Vocation': Context, Genesis, Structure". Sociologica. 12 (1): 125–136. doi:10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/8432. ISSN 1971-8853. S2CID 150045429.
• Tribe, Keith (2009). Strategies of Economic Order: German Economic Discourse, 1750–1950. Ideas in Context. Vol. 33 (First ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511551529. ISBN 978-0-511-55152-9. OCLC 776964689. S2CID 161093104.
• Turner, Bryan S. (1996). For Weber: Essays on the Sociology of Fate (Second ed.). London: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-0-8039-7633-7. OCLC 47011840.
• Turner, Bryan S. (February 2011). "Max Weber and the spirit of resentment: The Nietzsche legacy". Journal of Classical Sociology. 11 (1): 75–92. doi:10.1177/1468795X10391458. ISSN 1468-795X. S2CID 145236174.
• Turner, Charles (2001a). "Weberian Social Thought, History of". In Smelser, Neil J.; Baltes, Paul B. (eds.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 24 (First ed.). Amsterdam: Elveiser. pp. 16407–16412. doi:10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/00100-5. ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8. OCLC 47869490. S2CID 140310427.
• Turner, Stephen (January 2007). "The Continued Relevance of Weber's Philosophy of Social Science". Max Weber Studies. 7 (1): 37–62. doi:10.1353/max.2007.a808884. hdl:10077/5339. ISSN 1470-8078. JSTOR 24579672. S2CID 34737021. Project MUSE 808884.
• Turner, Stephen (2001b). "Weber, Max (1864–1920)". In Smelser, Neil J.; Baltes, Paul B. (eds.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 24 (First ed.). Amsterdam: Elveiser. pp. 16401–16407. doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00348-X. ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8. OCLC 47869490.