Reply to Lutz Kaelber

Abstract

Reply to Lutz Kaelber Jere Cohen Lutz Kaelber, in The Canadian Journal of Sociology, issue 28(4), wrote a review of my book, Protestantism and Capitalism: The Mechanisms of Influence, which was a critique as well as a review. I am pleased at this chance to reply to some of the points made in the critique. Professor Kaelber said that my book met one of his expectations, providing new evidence documenting ascetic Protestants' business activities in the early modern period, but not his other two, that it be attentive to, inter alia, Weber's replies to Fischer and Rachfal as well as Stephen Kalberg's (2002) new translation of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, and that it be broadly comparative like Weber's seminal study. My study was virtually completed by the time the new translations became available, but I am now familiar with Kalberg's translation and Weber's replies, and can say that they would have made little difference in my analysis. Although the Kalberg translation brings out some points, emphases, and nuances more clearly than the Parsons' version that I used, it neither adds to nor contradicts the Parsons' version. And since Kaelber calls my interpretation of Weber's argument "razor-sharp," the translation I used doesn't seem to have hurt. An advantage of the Parsons' translation is its familiarity: it is the Weber thesis that most people know and care about. Relatedly, many have a copy of it and can check my page references, whereas not so many have the Kalberg on their shelves. Weber's replies to his critics do change my reasoning on a couple of points, and I'll elaborate on that momentarily. The third expectation, that I do a comparative study, would have hurt more than it helped because it would have spread out efforts and ultimately thinned my evidence in any one area. Since Weber has already shown the comparative scope of the Protestant ethic thesis, I believe that it was better at this point to [End Page 620] analyze one key religion thoroughly than many superficially. I worked on the English Puritan case for many years, and couldn't have done the other cases, too, especially where many or most references are in languages besides English. I do consider these other cases important, though; hope someone will do Holland, the Mormons, American Puritanism, Methodism, and so on; and will not be surprised if things come out differently in these studies than in mine. For example, prima facie, Mormonism seems to fit Weber's model better than English Puritanism. Obviously, I agree with Professor Kaelber that the last word on this topic has not been spoken. Given that my analysis is essentially a case study of English Puritanism, Professor Kaelber reasons that the book's title should reflect that. However, the English Puritans are not just another case, but the one that Weber considered most important and most likely to support his theories. My findings have implications for the whole Protestantism-capitalism question. Also, some of the findings, notably concerning the work ethic, pertain to a number of Judeo-Christian religions, not just to the single Puritan case. Hence, my title places the book in its context better than the alternate proposed in the review. Kaelber also wonders why I call the book broad when it focuses mostly on one religion. The answer is that it deals with the work ethic, sect discipline, religious anxiety, the quest for certainty of salvation, the legitimation of capitalism and more, a broad survey of the mechanisms through which Protestantism might be expected to influence capitalism. I argue that we should now focus on Protestantism's early influence on the growth of capitalism rather than its influence on the spirit of capitalism. I reason that the spirit of capitalism is unproved because there never has been a valid example of it, and call for a moratorium on it until its existence can be verified. Professor Kaelber lists several examples, drawn from the research literature, which purport to have identified the spirit of capitalism, but on inspection I found no evidence in any of them for a duty to make money, acquisition...