Max Weber's Concept of Nature and the Ambivalence of Modernity

Abstract

Whoever asks for the concept of nature in modern political thought, will probably not consult Max Weber as the first choice. Until today, the concept of nature hardly plays any role in the hitherto prevailing reception of Weber. This timidity, however, is out of place. Even though Weber cannot really be counted among the prominent theorists of nature, nature nevertheless belongs to the interesting key terms in his work. In his voluminous biography, Joachim Radkau did pioneer work in this field, although mainly in biographical context. Concerning the history of ideas, Weber's perspective stands for a transformation of the thinking about nature in the 20th century, and it reveals a specific ambivalence which is representative of modern political thought. Ever since, nature has been one of the central issues of political thought. It concentrates on that question for the simple reason that all political action is subordinated to a natural order which is essential for the constitution of political orders. Furthermore, from the perspective of a normatively oriented political science, the question has to be posed of what actually is appropriate for human nature. Today, nature has become an omnipresent topic. However, the term nature can denote a great variety of phenomena: the external (non-human) nature or human nature itself, a biological disposition or an acquired 'second' nature. These various meanings make it unavoidable to draw some distinctions. In the following, I will address four questions. First, what role does nature play in Weber's work? Second, what does Weber mean by 'nature'? Third, between which types of 'nature' does he differentiate? Fourth, how his concept of nature is related to the ambivalence of modernity?