Post - class Blog
During the online class there were a number of comments about Weber indicating that he was fixated on the superiority of the West or perhaps that he was championing the development of capitalism in the West.
I am sure that I am not fully grasping all that Weber was laying out, but my take away was a bit different. It seems that Weber is providing an analysis of the West that helps to explain why it looks different than the rest of the world. What is the nature of this difference. And what structures can be examined to understand the differences. Clearly for Weber religion plays a significant role in how a society evolves, especially in regards to economics ("the influence of certain religious ideas on the origin of an "economic frame of mind," (Weber 161)
But in attempting to try to figure out how this fits into the study of IR, it is Weber's notion that,
It is necessary, in order to identify the ways in which the multiple rationalization
paths have characteristically varied according to cultural and historical factors to
assess which arenas have been rationalized and in what directions. (Weber 160)
strikes me as part of the constructivist school of thought.
Weber is not offering a judgement but an analysis. He doesn't want to "expend a single work on behalf of the relative value of the civilizations compared here." But he does want us to reflect on the civilization as we would "standing before the ocean...". What can we know of something so wide and deep as we stand on the shore?
My understanding of the constructivism is that it requires the same approach on which Weber insists. (Is this different than Post-colonial critique? I am a bit fuzzy on the differences.) We need to understand the ideas and interests of other nations/civilizations based on an understanding of their history, culture, religion, etc. "What may appear rational viewed from one angle may appear irrational when viewed from another." (Weber 160)
I agree that Weber was attempting to define more of why the West is the way it is, and unfortunately came across as West-centric. My argument to this is that I would have liked to have seen him explaining his logic through the East perspective a little more. Though I admit that this is very hard to do when you are yourself from the West, I wish he had just provided less gravitation towards the "West is the best" focus. I also like your reference to reflecting on civilization as though we are standing on the shore. This leads to the question, however, does the East shore look different than the West shore?? It may all be the same ocean, but don't we each have our own way of getting there?
ReplyDelete