One of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s most profound and far reaching theological-philosophical statements, in my opinion, is contained in the following short and simple sentence: “The essence of religion consists in the feeling of an absolute dependence.”
It is important to note that although, as a Christian theologian, he puts Christianity at the top of all religions, he does not deny legitimacy to the non-Christian religions, even if he goes too far, in my view, in his religious tolerance, including polytheistic mythology and animistic worship among the legitimate religions, albeit giving them (correctly, to put it mildly) a lower standing than to the great monotheistic religions. For this reason, his reference to the essence of religion in the above quotation is definitely generalized toward all religion, rather than being limited to Christianity, or a handful of other “Jewish religions,” using Schopenhauer’s terminology.
Now, why is this important? Because it raises the most curious and challenging question in this connection: Does a sincerely religious person’s dependence on God necessarily psychologically transfer into the social sphere as a dependence on the person’s church, religious community, proceeding upwards to a dependence on a higher civil authority, namely, the State, particularly, but not necessarily, when the State professes the same religion as our religiously and socially dependent person?
Equating religion with dependence, Schleiermacher inadvertently reminds us of the natural affinity between religion and socialistic-communistic social systems, as opposed to the economic system of capitalism, where the entrepreneur seeks personal independence from the State (a natural secular-impersonal parallel to God), yet eagerly invites forced dependence of many others upon himself through the practice of employment, the concept of trickle-down, and such, thus rather sacrilegiously playing a personal substitute to God.
Such treatment of this issue may lead us to an understanding of several other things at once. Christians in capitalist societies often boast among themselves of being superior workers and employees to the secularists and the atheists. There has to be some truth in this, in so far as an acute sense of personal dependence may be naturally triggering a higher level of the person’s dependability on the job, and obedience to authority in social life.
Thus, a paradox develops in capitalistic societies. Although religious people should be more attuned, than the non-religious, to the socialistic and communistic principles of social organization, and make better citizens under socialism than the non-religious, they may feel quite all right under capitalism, even if they may not profit from it at all, just because of that propensity for dependence, which “trickles down” from allegiance to, and dependence on, God, to their allegiance to, and dependence on, the secular authority of the State and of their employer.
It is also possible that Max Weber, singling out Protestantism as the best religion for good business, ergo the most capitalism-friendly of all, does not so much imply the Protestant’s will to personal profit (this does not mean, of course, that a Protestant cannot do very well for himself and his family, far from it!), as his will to "surplus value," to use the Marxian jargon, thus making our good Protestant supremely more capable of maximizing capitalist profits, and thus producing a much better strain of capitalism, as a result.
As for Weber’s insistence on the Protestant’s independence and personal initiative, this may have something to do with the Protestant's religious separation from an outside central authority (such as, say, the Pope’s, in Roman Catholicism). In this sense, the Protestants may indeed be less “communistically-minded” than the Catholics, or the Christian Orthodox, for that matter, but wasn’t this what Nietzsche, most curiously, had explicitly said well before Weber, in Jenseits 48? (My entry Talent For Religion on this subject will be posted one of these days.)
I must say that Max Weber’s cocktail of religion and economics needs to be served with a huge rock of salt, but doesn’t every thinking person agree that the subject he raises is absolutely fascinating, and it needs to be explored far more than it has been so far, in modern scholarship? Rest assured, I intend to do it amply in my subsequent writings.
It is important to note that although, as a Christian theologian, he puts Christianity at the top of all religions, he does not deny legitimacy to the non-Christian religions, even if he goes too far, in my view, in his religious tolerance, including polytheistic mythology and animistic worship among the legitimate religions, albeit giving them (correctly, to put it mildly) a lower standing than to the great monotheistic religions. For this reason, his reference to the essence of religion in the above quotation is definitely generalized toward all religion, rather than being limited to Christianity, or a handful of other “Jewish religions,” using Schopenhauer’s terminology.
Now, why is this important? Because it raises the most curious and challenging question in this connection: Does a sincerely religious person’s dependence on God necessarily psychologically transfer into the social sphere as a dependence on the person’s church, religious community, proceeding upwards to a dependence on a higher civil authority, namely, the State, particularly, but not necessarily, when the State professes the same religion as our religiously and socially dependent person?
Equating religion with dependence, Schleiermacher inadvertently reminds us of the natural affinity between religion and socialistic-communistic social systems, as opposed to the economic system of capitalism, where the entrepreneur seeks personal independence from the State (a natural secular-impersonal parallel to God), yet eagerly invites forced dependence of many others upon himself through the practice of employment, the concept of trickle-down, and such, thus rather sacrilegiously playing a personal substitute to God.
Such treatment of this issue may lead us to an understanding of several other things at once. Christians in capitalist societies often boast among themselves of being superior workers and employees to the secularists and the atheists. There has to be some truth in this, in so far as an acute sense of personal dependence may be naturally triggering a higher level of the person’s dependability on the job, and obedience to authority in social life.
Thus, a paradox develops in capitalistic societies. Although religious people should be more attuned, than the non-religious, to the socialistic and communistic principles of social organization, and make better citizens under socialism than the non-religious, they may feel quite all right under capitalism, even if they may not profit from it at all, just because of that propensity for dependence, which “trickles down” from allegiance to, and dependence on, God, to their allegiance to, and dependence on, the secular authority of the State and of their employer.
It is also possible that Max Weber, singling out Protestantism as the best religion for good business, ergo the most capitalism-friendly of all, does not so much imply the Protestant’s will to personal profit (this does not mean, of course, that a Protestant cannot do very well for himself and his family, far from it!), as his will to "surplus value," to use the Marxian jargon, thus making our good Protestant supremely more capable of maximizing capitalist profits, and thus producing a much better strain of capitalism, as a result.
As for Weber’s insistence on the Protestant’s independence and personal initiative, this may have something to do with the Protestant's religious separation from an outside central authority (such as, say, the Pope’s, in Roman Catholicism). In this sense, the Protestants may indeed be less “communistically-minded” than the Catholics, or the Christian Orthodox, for that matter, but wasn’t this what Nietzsche, most curiously, had explicitly said well before Weber, in Jenseits 48? (My entry Talent For Religion on this subject will be posted one of these days.)
I must say that Max Weber’s cocktail of religion and economics needs to be served with a huge rock of salt, but doesn’t every thinking person agree that the subject he raises is absolutely fascinating, and it needs to be explored far more than it has been so far, in modern scholarship? Rest assured, I intend to do it amply in my subsequent writings.
No comments:
Post a Comment