Contemporary Sociological Theory. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

      Figure 5.1 Macrosocial proposition: Calvinism encourages capitalism.

      The deficiencies of this approach are among the points described earlier as favoring internal analysis. The empirical deficiencies (point I given earlier) are probably the most glaring: The societies that can be compared are few in number, and those in which capitalism developed most rapidly differed not only in religion but in many other ways as well. Statistical comparisons would be subject to many different interpretations, even if the association between Protestantism and capitalism was high.

      But Weber does not remain with this proposition alone. He examines the content of Calvinist doctrine, in particular, the kind of moral prescriptions it imposes on its adherents. Then he examines the “spirit” of modern capitalism and, using a number of other periods and other economic institutions for comparison and contrast, singles out the idea of diligence in performing one’s duty in a calling (p.54) and opposition to traditionalism (pp. 58–63) as the central elements which distinguish it. Finding the same antitraditionalist orientation and the same precept of diligence toward one’s calling in Calvinist doctrine, he uses this as evidence that the growth of this religious doctrine provided the value system which allowed capitalism to develop. This second kind of evidence allows further specification of the relation shown in Figure 5.1. The content of the Protestant ethic can be described as values deriving from the religious beliefs of a society, and the content of what Weber calls the spirit of capitalism can be described as values governing the economic activities of the society. These values are two components of the value system of a society, governing activities in two different institutional areas. […]

      Part of Weber’s discussion in support of his argument goes far beyond comparisons between nations to include comparisons between regions within nations, religious subgroups within regions, and even individuals in families (see especially his footnotes in chapter 1). For example, he quotes extensively from the writings of Benjamin Franklin to express the essence of the spirit of capitalism and points to the religioethical precepts taught to Franklin by his Calvinist father. Weber also compares the taxable wealth of Protestants and Catholics in a region in Germany.

      The use of this material raises further questions about just what kind of proposition Weber was attempting to demonstrate and, in particular, what unit or units were involved in the proposition. Did he really mean to specify the proposition at the individual level? It appears, from his use of this individual-level evidence and from some of his statements, that this is exactly what he intended. If so, then the proposition of Figure 5.1 must be revised. The single proposition breaks into three: one with an independent variable characterizing the society and a dependent variable characterizing the individual; a second with both independent and dependent variables characterizing the individual; and a third with the independent variable characterizing the individual and the dependent variable characterizing the society. Thus the proposition system begins and ends at macro levels, but in between it dips to the level of the individual. The three propositions may be put, somewhat crudely, as follows:

Figure 5.2 shows a way of diagramming such multilevel systems of propositions. The upper horizontal arrow represents the macro-level proposition. The three connected arrows―of which the first begins at the same point as the macro-level proposition and goes down to a lower level and the third goes back up to the final point of the macro-level proposition―represent the three linked propositions.