[MWS 12.2 (2012) 273-274] ISSN 1470-8078 Book Reviews Max Weber and Russia (ed. Vesa Oittinen; Jyväskylä: Aleksanterei Series 2, 2010), 198pp. ISBN 978-952-10-5154-8. €20.00. This volume with its eleven contributions goes back to an international symposium ('Max Weber. Problems of Rationality and Russia') held in May 2007 by the Alek santerei Institute in Helsinki that brought together academics from Russia, Finland and the Netherlands. The eleven contributions, of rather uneven quality, handle the influence of Weber on research into the Soviet Union (Soviet studies), the reception of Weber's work in Russia, Weber's own studies on Russia and early Soviet history, the contribution of Weberian sociology in respect of the analysis of communist and post-communist Russia, the interconnection between Weber's sociology of religion and Orthodoxy, neo-Kan danism in Russia and Germany as well as the implications of the Weberian thesis of bureaucracy and rationalism on the present business culture of Russia. What strikes one first of all is that the authors almost always prefer to cite from mostly apocryphal editions that have been produced by some publisher in whatever version after the original copyright has lapsed. Almost no-one uses the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe, which has been appearing since the beginning of the 1980s. Max Weber's writings on Russia are, in general, cited according to the shortened Eng lish edition, which to be sure is based on the Gesamtausgabe with its text-critical approach and commentary; in one case the republication of the original by a Koblenz publisher is full of printer's errors and errors of comprehension. Working with such a text would distress any philologist, but for the social scientist it is apparently a matter of indifference as to which Weber text is cited. The main thing is that Weber is in the title, and so everything will be fine. As with other greats and almost mythical figures of science one can generalize, prove and verify just about everything and nothing. Not only is one free in regard to the textual basis that is cited but also with regard to the date of composition of what ever text an author refers to. The monumental and monomanic 2005 Max Weber biography by Joachim Radkau is repeatedly referred to, where Weber's 'turn to the East' is a sudden and irrational jump into the unknown and is said to signify his 'love-hate relationship to Russia'. These statements have neither sufficient textual basis nor basis in the course of his life. Weber's interest in Russia came out of his acquaintanceship with some younger Russian academics who belonged to the Rus sian reading room in Heidelberg and his interest in questions of constitutional law which, as a jurist with a doctorate and habilitation, was a subject always close to him. The concept of 'love-hate' may be a useful concept for a practising psychotherapist, but academically it is close to nonsense.© Max Weber Studies 2012, Gifton House, 17 Malvern Road, London, E8 3LP. 274 Max Weber Studies Moreover, in none of the eleven contributions is a reference made to the almost complete edition of the private and academic correspondence of Max Weber. This is a shortcoming that remains incomprehensible because if one does pay close atten tion to the Weber correspondence there are several very important observations on his relationship to Russia and also his connections to Russian academics, who include Sergei Bulgakov, Bogdan Kistjakovski and Alexander Kaufman. On can of course, as the authors in this collection do, interpret and analyse Russia/the Soviet Union using Weberian ideas and concepts: with the sociology of domination, the concepts of charisma and bureaucracy and the rationalism thesis, or with 'ideal types' or whatever else is suggested by Weberian sociology. Thus, this is a volume about how and in what ways Weberian ideas can be applied to the analysis of the political, social and economic development of Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is a thoroughly rewarding and meaningful under taking, but this volume, unfortunately, brings forth only little or no new conclusions and knowledge. One of the basic problems becomes clear in the concluding contribution...
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 2013
O G Antonova 
Open Access
