In this blog post, we will examine Max Weber’s thoughts on the meaning of scholarship, the attitude scholars should adopt, and political responsibility, focusing on his seminal lectures “Science as a Vocation” and “The Nation-State and Economic Policy.”
What Does Scholarship Mean?
This book contains the German sociologist Max Weber’s (1864–1920) seminal lectures, “Scholarship as a Vocation (Wissenschaft als Beruf)” and “The Nation-State and Economic Policy (Der Nationalstaat und die Volkswirtschaftspolitik: Akademische Antrittsrede).” “Science as a Vocation” is a lecture Weber delivered to German university students in 1917; it offers a glimpse into his thoughts on what it means to choose academia as a vocation and what role scholarship can play in human life. In particular, Weber argues that while science and rationalization are advancing and the world is becoming increasingly desacralized, scholarship can no longer play the role of salvation or revelation as it did in the past; however, he maintains that scholarship can play a crucial role in helping people understand and judge their own lives and reality more clearly.
“The Nation-State and Economic Policy,” included as an appendix, is the lecture Weber delivered in 1895 upon assuming the professorship of economics at the University of Freiburg. In this text, Weber’s views on the economic and political situation in Germany at the time are revealed with relative clarity. He addresses a wide range of issues, starting with the peasant problem in eastern Prussia and extending to the value criteria of economic policy and the political maturity of the German people. In particular, he critically examines the Junker class, the bourgeoisie, and the working class to determine whether each class possesses the political capacity to lead Germany.
What I found interesting while reading these two essays together was that, even while discussing the distinct realms of academia and politics, Weber ultimately places great emphasis on the issue of responsibility demanded of human beings. In “Academia as a Vocation,” he soberly distinguishes between what a scholar can and cannot do, while in “The Nation-State and Economic Policy,” he discusses the sense of responsibility that a nation’s citizens and leaders must have toward history. Consequently, this book gave me the impression that it is not merely a collection of two lectures delivered long ago, but rather a work that prompts one to reflect on what it means to engage in scholarship and to fulfill one’s role in society.
“Scholarship as a Vocation” is one of Weber’s most representative lectures, alongside “Politics as a Vocation” (1919). Both lectures were part of a lecture series titled “Intellectual Work as a Vocation (Geistige Arbeit als Beruf),” organized by the Bavarian Free Students’ League. The impetus for this student organization to plan the series was an essay by Alexander Schwab, a student of sociologist Alfred Weber (1868–1958) and a leader of the Free Students’ League. In his essay “Profession and Youth” (Beruf und Jugend), Schwab argued that professional life was incompatible with the spirit of scholarship. The purpose of the lecture series was to examine whether Schwab’s assessment was correct. The lecture “Scholarship as a Profession” was the first in the series and was delivered on November 7, 1917, at the Art Hall of the Steineike Bookstore in Munich. This lecture was subsequently revised and expanded, and was first published as a pamphlet in 1919.
At the time, Germany was in the final stages of World War I (1914–1918). Although Weber had supported his country’s position during the war, he strongly opposed the intransigent stance of the German leadership revealed during the peace negotiations and strove to bring about change in their approach. The lecture took place against this socio-political backdrop in Germany. The organizers not only hoped that Weber would speak about the issue of the vocation in the narrow sense but also secretly expected him to assume the role of a prophet or preacher. However, with cool restraint, he articulated his views on the meaning and value of scholarship, as well as what scholars should and should not do.
According to Weber, the most significant intellectual developments in modern civilization are the desacralization, intellectualization, and rationalization of the world.
“First, let us clarify exactly what this intellectual-rationalization brought about by science and technology actually means. Does it mean, for example, that today we know more about the conditions of our own lives than do the Indians or the Hottentots? Hardly. None of us riding a streetcar—unless we are professional physicists—has the slightest idea how the streetcar actually moves. Nor do we need to know. As long as we can ‘rely’ on the streetcar’s movement, that is sufficient. In other words, we simply need to adjust our actions to the streetcar’s movement. But we know nothing about how the streetcar is constructed to move in that way. A primitive person, however, has an incomparably deeper understanding of his tools… Therefore, the fact that intellectualization and rationalization are on the rise does not mean that general knowledge of the living conditions in which one finds oneself is increasing. Rather, it means something else. Namely, it means that one knows—or believes—that anything can be learned and understood at any time if one so desires; therefore, no force intervening in life is, at its core, ever a mysterious or incalculable force; rather, all things can—in principle—be controlled through calculation. This, however, signifies the demystification of the world. Unlike the primitive who believed in the existence of such forces, there is no longer any need to resort to magical means to control spirits or move their will through supplication. Rather, technical means and calculation accomplish this. Above all, this signifies intellectualization itself.”
The Value of Scholarship and the Role of the Scholar
And due to this rationalization and intellectualization—especially the desacralization of the world—sublime values have receded from the public stage in our time. In such a situation, scholarship is no longer the path to true being, the path to true art, the path to true nature, or the path to true happiness. What, then, is the significance of scholarship today? In Weber’s view, scholarship can assist our practical lives in three ways. First, it provides technical knowledge that enables us to master our lives through calculation. Second, it is significant as a method or tool of thought, as well as the training required for it. Third, it can help us achieve clarity. In other words, scholarship can teach us that if we take such-and-such a position, we must use such-and-such means; or that if we wish to achieve such-and-such a goal, we must also accept such-and-such collateral consequences. Furthermore, Weber expects more from scholarship than just this technical critique. In other words, he believed that scholarship could also contribute to the dissemination of ethical beliefs regarding responsibility. Ultimately, the main point of the lecture, expressed in Weber’s own words, would be as follows.
“Scholarship today is a ‘profession’ practiced professionally to contribute to self-awareness and the recognition of facts; it is not a gift of grace received from seers or prophets who offer salvation and revelation, nor is it part of the reflections of sages and philosophers on the meaning of the world. Of course, this is an inevitable consequence of our historical circumstances, and as long as we remain true to ourselves, we cannot escape it.”
The Nation-State and Economic Policy
Turning to “The Nation-State and Economic Policy,” in September 1894, Weber was inaugurated as a full professor of economics at the University of Freiburg. In accordance with custom, on May 13 of the following year, he delivered an inaugural lecture lasting about an hour on the topic of “The Nation-State and Economic Policy.” Although he omitted the section criticizing the German Historical School of Economics during the lecture—out of consideration for the time constraints and the audience’s level of understanding—he later reinserted it when the text was published as a pamphlet. However, the title of the topic first presented in that inaugural lecture was closer to “Nationality and National Economy,” and it was subsequently changed to “The Nation-State and Economic Policy” during the publication process.
The lecture covered three main topics. The first topic was the peasant problem in eastern Prussia. Weber briefly summarized his 1892 study, “The Conditions of Agricultural Laborers in the Region East of the Elbe River,” and criticized popular materialism. In other words, while Polish and German peasants had long been subject to similar living conditions, they did not possess identical physical or mental characteristics. Weber argued that the ethnic group with greater adaptability to the given socioeconomic conditions would prevail.
The second topic concerned the value criteria of economic policy. According to Weber, the science of economic policy is a kind of political science and a handmaiden of politics. Therefore, he believed that the value criteria for German economic policy could only be German.
The third topic was the political maturity of the German people. Weber offered a political assessment of the three classes that make up the German people: the Junkers, the bourgeoisie, and the working class. First, the Junker class consisted of conservative landed aristocrats who owned large estates and had formed their own closed society. However, in Weber’s view, they were a class in decline. Weber assessed them as follows:
“It is dangerous when a class in economic decline holds political power. And if this persists for a long time, it cannot be in the interest of the people. But what is even more dangerous is when the right to political dominance, along with economic power, is shifting to a certain class, yet that class is not yet politically mature enough to lead the nation.”
Weber confessed that, as a member of the bourgeoisie, he had been educated within the ideals of that class. However, he judged that the bourgeoisie was not yet prepared to lead the nation. In other words, while Germany’s bourgeoisie was rising economically, it had not received a political education and remained politically immature due to its apolitical past. What about the working class? Economically, the upper echelons of the German working class are mature, but politically, they are infinitely immature. Therefore, Weber stated the following:
“For a great nation, there is nothing more destructive than leadership driven by politically uneducated vulgarity; and since the German proletariat has not yet shed this character, this is why we oppose the German proletariat politically.”
Political Education and Responsibility for History
What, then, must be done? A massive political education campaign must be undertaken. In other words, a sense of responsibility toward history must be instilled. Weber concluded his lecture with the following words:
“A great nation does not grow senile under the weight of its glorious history spanning thousands of years. If they possess the ability and courage to profess their faith in themselves and in the great instincts bestowed upon them, and if their leadership rises above the cold, clear atmosphere to foster the thoughtful activity of German politics—and if this activity is inspired by the most serious and glorious national sentiments—then that great nation remains young.”
It is said that the young economist’s lecture caused a great stir at the time. Weber wrote as follows:
“There were those who were horrified by my ruthless views. The most satisfied were the Catholics, because I had dealt a harsh blow to what is called ‘ethical culture.’”
While “The Nation-State and Economic Policy” is significant in that it clearly reveals Weber’s political consciousness, the lecture’s significance does not end there. Since his analysis of the relationship between the economy and politics, and between the economy and human consciousness, also contains an indirect critique of historical materialism, this lecture can be viewed as a crucial starting point in the formation of his methodology.
“Academia as a Vocation” has long been widely read and studied as a counterpart to “Politics as a Vocation.” But what if we read “Academia as a Vocation” alongside the lecture Weber delivered when he chose academia as his vocation? I believe this would provide an opportunity to appreciate his ideas in a fresh light.
