Book Reviews 145© Max Weber Studies 2018. Sara R. Farris, Max Weber’s theory of personality: individuation, politics and orientalism in the sociology of religion. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books, xii + 228pp. Asked by Karl Jaspers why he put himself through so much as a scholar, Weber is said to have replied, ‘to see how much I can take’. We can have a debate about where he is most obviously trying to see this: in writing Economy and Society all by himself? In the long essays on the stock exchange? In the study of music? The chances are that we wouldn’t put the studies of the world religions that occupied him for much of his final fifteen years in that category, for having given the world the two long essays on the Protestant ethic in 1904/5 and replied constantly to critics, he was perhaps bound to pursue more systematically the comparative study the thesis itself demanded. The Protestant ethic was also a kind of autobiography, or the genealogy of a sensibility Weber recognized as his own. Not all scholars have seen an intimate link between the confessional and the comparative project. Sara Farris does so. The sociology of religion as a whole may be read as a comparative study not so much of the conditions for the emergence of industrial capitalism, as of the idea of personality. In this, Weber concluded that only in the West, and in the Christian West, did there emerge an idea of the personality that we associate with autonomy and the rational mastery of the external world. That personality, Farris claims, was a normative ideal for Weber, and was embodied most starkly and significantly in the member of the voluntary Puritan sect and in the figure of the ‘charismatic’ political leader. We have been here before but what is distinctive about Farris is that she frames the discussion around the idea of orientalism, in which Weber works out the world historical significance of his own ideal of personality through highly stylized and overgeneralized contrasting accounts of ‘the’ Hindu and ‘the’ Confucian mentality, or even ‘Asiatic religiosity’, as in the last chapter of the Religion of India. Or rather, she does not so much frame it this way as book-end it; for while the reader’s heart – or this reader’s heart – sinks rather at the opening gambit, which suggests a series of rather predictable postcolonial ‘readings ’, in which the Western scholar is traduced for his ignorance, the bulk of the book is made up of very careful summaries of the each of the separate studies without much reference to the specialist literature on Ancient Judaism, Hinduism, or Confucianism. As with many before her, whatever her initial assumptions may have 146 Max Weber Studies© Max Weber Studies 2018. been, indeed, whatever thesis she wants to push, Farris finds herself entering into the richness, and surprising materialism, of his historical sociology, and doing so with considerable skill and care. Only in the final chapter is the orientalism theme emphasized at any length. The result is a slightly uneasy combination of Reinhard Bendix and Edward Said, but a very readable one. There is so much after all to try to understand, and this book will provide an admirable guide for the advanced student. But it doesn’t give us the sort of sustained encounter with what Weber got right and what he got wrong, and of where his studies fall short of today’s standards, that we find in, say, Stefan Breuer’s Max Weber’s Herrschaftssoziologie. And where criticisms are offered (190) they don’t owe much in particular to the orientalism thesis. A number of questions arise. One is that, given her emphasis on the normative aspects of the Protestant personality, it is odd that Farris downplays the role of Catholicism in the list of non-Protestant confessions with which Weber compared his own commitment (90, 95). It is of course true that, with Troeltsch’s Social Teachings appearing at the same time, Weber never studied Catholicism as he did Judaism, Hinduism, and Confucianism, and also that ascetic Protestantism is unthinkable without the ascetic traditions already developed in the West. But it is also...