Week 3 blog post:
I wanted to focus on the fact that Weber seemed to really overshadow all of the monumental accomplishments that the East (the fact that Weber puts countries like China and India into a category of "the East" speaks to how little credit he provides these countries) by stating that the West and only the West was able to make them better or to provide them with functionality. It is to this application of functionality that I wanted to mainly speak on. I brought this up in the breakout session during class and I wanted to talk about it a little more.
I don't think that Weber fully understands the differences between cultural ideas and beliefs that exists in countries like China and India. I am taking an intercultural communication class and we are talking about the idea behind "to do" and "to be" cultures. Places like the United States and most of Europe could be considered "to do" countries while countries like India or China could be considered "to be" countries, especially around the time that Weber was writing (1920 or so). Within "to do" countries you see a value being placed upon time and time is seen as a valuable commodity that can be earned, spent or even wasted. This value on time has made it to where the Western countries have taken inventions (like printing, or architecture) and applied a more functional purpose behind them. I don't think that they are making them "better" but from the stand point of the "to do" culture they are making them more functional. However, from the stand point of the "to be" culture the changes made to the inventions aren't necessary and perhaps the same value isn't applied to the change. This isn't a bad thing but rather due to a the fact that "to be" cultures don't focus on time as a commodity. It could be that the focus of their culture isn't possessions but rather interactions between people. For this reason capitalism wouldn't work in these countries as they don't place the same value on time and wealth as the West does.
I don't think that Weber took these cultural differences into effect when he was making his observations and suggesting that the West seemed to do everything better that the East. I feel as if trying to make those comparisons is like comparing apples and oranges. The cultural differences that exist within countries in general make it difficult to compare countries and to say that their economic systems are successful. I feel like he doesn't really understand how other cultures work and thus his explanation of why Western capitalism is successful is biased and thus is slightly flawed.
I understand this interpretation. I do not believe Weber said the "West is better" anywhere! The implication, I can understand. The point for Weber is science via the identification of a very unique trajectory (see, e.g. Weber's Politics as a Vocation where he distinguishes between science and politics), and then figuring out what was so different. In addition, there is no hard evidence that the rationalization of all things is actually "better" anyway. This *prefatory essay* is meant to elucidate the big picture.
ReplyDeleteYour second paragraph, on culture, is the very point Weber is making! I would even go so far that it is because of our emphasis of reason = good that we often interpret Weber as being a "West = best" writer, when that implication is something we might be overlaying on his text. I did not see anywhere the claim that Western capitalism is ethically/morally better. It certainly has efficiency gains because of its rationalistic foundation. This is not the same as claiming it is ethically better.