262 Max Weber Studies© Max Weber Studies 2016. Symonds’s reading is careful and convincing in drawing attention to some of the most perplexing and yet salient aspects of Weber’s work. He asserts that his commentary can be drawn from an internal reading of Weber without resort to other thinkers or to Weber’s biography, as other commentators have tended to do. When he concludes by considering some possible applications and prescriptions with respect to concerns that lie outside Weber’s immediate sphere of interest, however, he does not take the next step of turning these lessons back on how Weber’s writings themselves can be read. For example, he does not ask what the implications are of this understanding of modernity as an endless pursuit of meaning for how we understand Weber’s final reflections on the meaning of meaning itself. To take up this question would mean considering whether Weber’s interpretive method can account not just for the fateful loss of meaning in the face of death but also for its bewildering abundance and surplus under modern conditions of existence. Confronting this issue might also entail interrogating the androcentric assumptions inherent in the ethic of brotherhood as a response to the problem of suffering, despite its extra-familial direction or universalistic aspiration : for example, in the direction of an ethic of motherhood or of otherhood more generally. Finally, the hermeneutic question of the meaning of meaning might lead us to ask whether Weber’s writings themselves still have meaning and significance in a disciplinary and intellectual context where social theory no longer guides large-scale comparative and historical scholarship, and where ‘the meaning of value-freedom’ (the topic of one of his last essays) is often undermined , or even dismissed as impossible and nonsensical. It is to the credit of Symonds’s book that even when these questions are not posed directly they are often implicitly invoked. Thomas Kemple University of British Columbia Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, eds., Weber’s Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), ix + 233pp. (hbk). ISBN 978-1-137-37353-3. $100.00. Translations are a bit like buses: you wait ages for one, and then lots arrive around the same time. They are also like buses in an unregulated system, in that some are brand new, and others well past their Book Reviews 263© Max Weber Studies 2016. date with the scrapyard, sometimes re-badged in shiny new livery. Readers of this journal do not need to be reminded of Max Weber’s move from translational penury, with nothing but Julien Freund’s Le Savant et le politique in France and Parsons (and Gerth and Mills) in the Anglosphere, (and, in both countries, a selection of his methodological writings—Freund again, and Shils and Finch), to an embarras du choix today. This one is something different. Most academic translators are what are now pejoratively termed ‘lone scholars’ or linguistically complementary dyads like Gerth and Mills. This book is the result of a collaborative and pedagogic project over several years, carried out by the Waters in Germany and the United States, beginning in an academic English class in the Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen . Careful editorial control has ensured that these various Autorenkollektive did not design a camel. The four texts, three from Economy and Society (‘Klassen, Stände, Parteien’ from chapter 8, ‘Die Disziplinierung und die Versachlichung der Herrschaftsformen’ and ‘Wesen, Voraussetzungen und Entfaltung der bürokratischen Herrschaft’ from chapter 9) and finally ‘Politik als Beruf’, are well chosen to represent key themes of Weber’s sociology in formal and slightly more informal mode. All four are accompanied by an excellent apparatus of footnotes, put together partly at the initiative of Benjamin Elbers. One of these also features in the introductory ‘Translation Notes’: along with more familiar Weberian concepts, the editors select caput mortuum. This, I was glad to learn, has a concrete meaning: the dirty residue left by an alchemist , and is used by Weber to describe what they call ‘the soulless factory discipline that emerged from the discipline of the militaries’ (33). As for the translations themselves, on...
Read full abstract