Traditionalism

When Weber speaks about traditionalism, he says that workers only do the amount of work that is required to earn the wage that is necessary to live in the same way they have been always been living before their raise. However, do you not think that this discounts a large proportion of people who are more ambitious that strive to work just as hard or even harder in order to make savings for a better life?

Weber introduces the concept of traditionalism in order to explain what he believes to be one of the main hindrances to "the spirit of capitalism". Weber explains that a pay raise alone does not necessarily equate to more productivity among workers, as workers may work less, rather than more, and still maintain their way of living. Although I do believe that there would have been workers who would have taken advantage of the pay raise to increase their earnings, and therefore be more productive, I feel that Weber's point is that the "spirit of capitalism" has to be taught and that "by nature" most individuals would probably work less and earn the same amount if offered the ability to do so. As we now live in a highly capitalistic world, the norms that capitalism promotes have become naturalized in many ways and I feel that it is because of this that we might now believe that most people would be "naturally" driven to work just as hard or harder to make more savings for a better life.

@MadeleineWeir: When you say that one has to be "taught" to perform in the spirit of capitalism that one is not naturally born that way? And that it is only through the evolving capitalist society that people are tuned to perform in a way of maximizing profit? However, I think that we also need to take in the perspective of viewing greediness as a fundamental human nature. As a result, I believe that humans are naturally born to want to work harder in order to receive greater gains. Marx also claims that humans are born to work and it is work that is considered our species-essence. Is it not so that we want to work harder if given the opportunity to be rewarded for it?

I agree that some people are driven by “the greed for gold” to make money. For example, the entrepreneurs who work hard to gain profit may enjoy the power and prestige that accompany wealth. Weber argues that most workers have no intention to maximize their wages because of their complete lack of “coscienziosità” in the early capitalist environment. They have no thorough understanding of efficiency and obligation to their jobs, and they just earn enough wages to support their accustomed way of life. Labour is perceived as the product of “a long and arduous process of education”. If the workers do not get a good education, they will not know how to seek profit rationally. I think now people are generally aware that if they want to earn more money, they have to work harder.

I do agree with statement mentioned above about the perspective of greediness being a part of human nature. However, Weber mentions that “old leisurely and comfortable attitude toward life” as key feature when describing traditionalism and the older form of labour. This to me suggests that the workers were happy with the way things were and they focused more on their comfort and leisure, earning just enough to lead a respectable life rather than making profit or earning more. Instead, I think that the human nature of greediness rooted from entrepreneurs who made the existence of labour more frugal and competitive, not necessarily because it has always been in human’s nature to work hard and gain more.

@ MadeleineWier You have a point that capitalism can be the possible cause of the neutralization on the idea that working harder is a learned concept, however to only look at Protestantism as the key factor would seem to exclude a lot of other possible factors...such as improvement on technology and industry. Religion did play a large role in Western society, which makes it understandable that Weber related capitalism to its cause, however if you look at other countries practicing different religions there arises the question on how these countries became developed (without the help of Protestantism).

@MadeleineWier I agree completely. Weber also makes it clear within the Protestant Ethic that Protestantism is not the sole factor of modern capitalism, as the title of the book suggests, it is simply the spirit of capitalism. It is also important to remember that although Weber did support Marxism, he did not entirely agree with it, rather applying some of the Marxist concepts to his work, but not following it as a guideline. Through a Marxist perspective, one would argue that religion is a tool used by the Bourgeoisie to maintain power within a society. Weber however, would argue that religion was simply used to power modern capitalism and not maintain forms of hegemony. Other countries such as India for example that follows Hinduism experienced different economic development than in Europe as their views were more centered around escaping the material world (xiv).

I think that at most, the point is that traditionalism is the "natural state" of an individual, similar to how Marx portrays the proletariat: aiming to act such that one can provide subsistence. To say that there are people who inherently or atavistically seek to accumulate profit or wealth for whatever reason is probably beyond the scope of this topic (and this class); though to factor in what Jingjing said, I believe it is reasonable to consider that though attaining wealth may be a means to an end, the motivation or the 'end' may not be the same – for some it may be for power and prestige, while for others they may pursue a life of luxury – though accumulation of money is the medium, the desired results are different.