Sociology in Germany

Front matter

SOCIOLOGY TRANSFORMED SERIES EDITORS: JOHN HOLMWOOD «STEPHEN TURNER

Sociology in Germany A History Stephan Moebius

OPENACCESS oct macmillan

Introduction

Sociology in Germany: From the Beginnings to 1945 Sociology in the German Reich Sociological Pioneers in the German Reich: Tönnies, Simmel, Weber Sociology Between Explaining and Understanding The Werturteilsstreit Social Science Infrastructure Around 1900 (Journals and Professional Organizations) The “Ideas of 1914” and World War I Sociology in the Weimar Republic Sociological Centers and Actors in the Weimar Republic Cologne Heidelberg Berlin Hamburg Leipzig Frankfurt am Main Braunschweig Institutionalization Through Sociological Journals in the Weimar Republic The Soziologentage and the Sociology of Knowledge Dispute

CONTENTS

Sociology During the Nazi Regime “Inner Emigration,” Exile, and Sociologies in the Service of National Socialism

Reconstruction and Consolidation of Sociology in West Germany from 1945 to 1967 1945-1949 Re-education and Research Institutions “Americanization”?

From Re-education to Anti-communism 1949-1958 Central Positions and “Schools”

René Konig in Cologne Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno in Frankfurt Helmut Schelsky in Hamburg and Münster Social Processes and Problems of the 1950s Sociological Reflections on Contemporary Problems The Role Debate The “Civil War” in West German Sociology 1959-1968 Positivism Dispute Generational Change The Transformation of the Sociological Field

Late Capitalism or Industrial Society?

Critical Theory and the Protests of “1968”

New Research Institutes

New Universities

The Habermas-Luhmann Debate

The Debate on Theory Comparison

Anti-sociology

Social Crises

Differentiation and New (Qualitative) Methods in the “Great Age” of Empirical Social Research

The Establishment of Women’s Research and Gender Studies

CONTENTS ix

Historical Self-reflections in the Transition from the 1970s to the 1980s 112 The Theory Boom of the 1980s 113 Processes of Differentiation and Pluralization in the Face of Social Change 119

5 Sociology in the German Democratic Republic 123 “Sociology—is that really necessary? We have excellent statistics, excellent statistics!” 127 Separation from “Bourgeois” Sociology 128 The Institutionalization of Marxist-Leninist Sociology 129 Marxist-Leninist Sociology on Its Way to a Normal Science? 133 The Characteristics and Role of Sociology in the GDR 137

6 Sociology in Germany After 1990 141 Reflections on Transformations in the Social Sciences 145 Why Do We Need Sociology Today? 150 The Gender Turn in Feminist Sociology 151 The Reception of New Theories of Capitalism 154 Key Social Problems in the Early 1990s: Unemployment, Poverty, Right-Wing Extremism, and Racism 155 The Red-Green Government and the Political Challenges Around 2000 157 Sociology and National Socialism: New Debates and New Research 162 Current Trends and Debates 163

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephan Moebius is Full Professor of Sociological Theory and Intellectual History at the University of Graz and full member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He is the speaker of the History of Sociology section of the German Sociological Association (DGS).

xi

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

This book deals with the history of sociology in Germany from late nineteenth century to the present day. Starting with the sociology in the German Reich, the processes of institutionalization in the Weimar Republic, and the deep rupture caused by National Socialism, the following history focuses especially on the period after 1945. It presents the intellectual, institutional, and conflict-laden courses and trends of the history of sociology in Germany in its economic, political, social, and cultural contexts.

However, this book presents only a brief history of sociology in Germany. Given the long, complex, and extremely influential tradition of sociology in Germany, it would actually may require a multi-volume project. Therefore, this book provides more of an introductory overview, which nevertheless deals with the most important institutional developments, controversies, actors, theories, and methods of post-war sociology in Germany. Crucially, this book does not deal with “German sociology,” a phrase used in the literature to characterize a specific kind of sociology, which has served National Socialism.

My presentation is based on the methodology for the history of sociology developed by Lothar Peter in his 2001 contribution to the Jahrbuch für Soziologiegeschichte (Yearbook on the History of Sociology). Taking Wolf Lepenies’ introduction to the four-volume edition of Geschichte der Soziologie (1981; The History of Sociology) and Dirk Kaesler’s (1984) study of early German sociology as his point of departure, Peter (2001,

© The Author(s) 2021 1 S. Moebius, Sociology in Germany, Sociology Transformed, https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71866-4_1

2015) outlined a methodological research design geared specifically to history-of-sociology analyses. At the heart of such analyses is the analytical distinction of three major dimensions of research in the history of sociology: the cognitive dimension, the social dimension, and the dimension of its history of impact and discourse. The general framework for research on the history of sociology first of all involves contextualizing, by reference to historical reality and social history, the ideas, theories, methods, instruments, institutions, actors, and history of impact to be analyzed. In other words, the object of research must first be considered in the broader context of the societal (economic, political, social, and cultural) processes at the time of its emergence. This framing is to account for the fact that ideas do not surface in a historical and social void but are historically and socially situated or, rather, because of their “existential determination” (Seinsverbundenheit, Mannheim) are only possible at a specific point in time. My own starting point is that I understand sociology as a specific modern response to social problems and crises and thus a scientific and intellectual way of perceiving, interpreting, and solving social problems. Accordingly, a study on the history of sociology or of ideas would have to take contemporary society into consideration as an essential point of reference for the concrete relevance of sociological ideas.

The cognitive dimension, as the first level of analysis, therefore consists in exposing the historical contexts of research and in an analysis of ideas, contemporary paradigms, theories, methods, empirical research, and discourses that embed the development of and provide the backdrop to what constitutes sociological thinking. Investigation of the cognitive dimension is followed by examining the social dimension. In the social dimension, Peter distinguishes between the analysis of actors and the analysis of institutional processes. The analyses of institutionalization can involve several levels: group formation, constellations, schools of thought, specialist journals, or professional organizations. Lastly, analyses at the level of the /istory of impact and discourse inquire how sociological knowledge enters into and is used in social discourse. Which position do theories, methods, controversies, and ideas occupy in sociological discourse, and what role do techniques and relations of power play? Another dimension of Peter’s methodology that is often neglected in the study of the history of sociology and closely tied to the history of discourse is sociology’s history of impact, particularly its (intended or mostly unintended) impact on the future course of the discipline, neighboring disciplines, and society in general. Investigating the impact and imprint of sociology on discourse in society would merit a study of its own. It is obvious that in a short history

1 INTRODUCTION 3 of sociology one cannot treat all dimensions exhaustively. Yet an attempt has been made to take them into account as far as possible.

According to the methodology just outlined, each chapter begins with a historical contextualization, in which the central economic, political, social, and cultural processes of German history are described. In Chap. 2 the beginnings of sociology in Germany are discussed, dealing with the pioneers, first professional organizations, and early controversies. Also, this chapter presents both the interwar period, when sociology became established at universities, and the years of National Socialism, which brought sociology as an institutionalized discipline to an end.

Chapter 3 focuses on the two decades after 1945, the period of the “post-war society” (1945-1967). After World War II Germany was undergoing a profound process of change. Just as society as a whole, sociology had to be rebuilt. Journals were refounded or newly founded, the German Sociological Association was restored and sociology was reestablished as a university subject. Different “schools” and regional centers of sociology emerged. By the end of the 1950s, an institutional and generational change can be observed. The so-called “post-war generation” assumed central positions in organizations, editorial boards of journals, and universities.

Chapter 4 discusses the ups and downs of sociology from 1968 to 1990. The student movement brought sociology into the limelight. Some sociological “schools” became closely connected with it. As a university subject, sociology gained enormously in importance, which was connected with a growing need for social reflection in all areas of life. A characteristic feature of sociology in this period was an increased differentiation into specialized subfields. The number of academic positions for sociologists and the number of students increased, partly as a result of the founding of new universities and of reforms in higher education policy. The increasing number of non-university research institutions complemented sociological research at the universities. This expansion, which came together with a highly visible public sociology, also led to counter-movements and anti-sociological effects. The “planning euphoria” of the 1960s and 1970s faded, and many looked at 1968 with disappointment and turned away from sociology. This changed a little bit in the 1980s, which was the heyday of sociological theory in Germany.

Chapter 5 takes a short look at sociology in the GDR (German Democratic Republic). GDR sociology did not emerge until the 1960s and could not develop in the same way as in West Germany, not only because it was largely overshadowed by Marxist-Leninist philosophy and political economy but also because it was in the service of economic policy. The connection to economic policy and historical materialism promoted the tendency to economic reductionism in GDR sociology. Only when the social processes and dynamics could no longer be adequately described within the conventional ideological framework did certain changes occur, as could be observed in the 1980s.

As is shown in Chap. 6, the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification shaped the development of sociology in the 1990s. The triumph of capitalist society fostered globalization theories and a brief comeback of modernization theory. But as the system change came along with severe social problems, since the mid-1990s theories and research projects focusing on social exclusion, precarious work, and xenophobia moved more and more to the center stage of sociological thinking. In addition there was a boom of gender studies and of various subfields of cultural studies. The landscape of sociological theories in Germany was changing: Whereas before grand theories were dominant, nowadays we can observe a trend toward rapidly alternating sociological diagnoses of contemporary society.

How do these presentist trends correlate with the history of sociology? Why do we need a history of sociology (cf. in general Dayé and Moebius 2015)? For reasons of identity formation (cf. Lepenies 1981)? Just to inform present and future sociology about its history and, thus, to ensure not to reinvent the wheel? In my opinion, the history of sociology is important because it is a reflection of society and an analysis of society’s professional self-descriptions (Nolte 2000, pp. 19-21, 244). It is a critical undertaking because it analyzes the social effects and developments as well as the related ideological perspectives, struggles, and antagonistic power relations within the sociological field. “In this way [...] not only the changes, progress or setbacks inherent in the discipline can be reconstructed in their significance for the further development of sociological discourse, but society itself, to which the theoretical, methodological, and empirical efforts of the discipline in the past referred, can be better recognized in its historical particularity and thus placed in plausible and comparable contexts with the present” (Peter 2001, p. 57). Reconstructing the history of sociology can, thus, “strengthen the capacity for critical sociological analysis of modern contemporary society” (Peter 2015, p. 142). In this way, the sociological analysis of the history of sociology uncovers the dynamics of the social within the science of the social and thus contributes to an increased orientation, self-reflection, and enlightening of the discipline.

1 INTRODUCTION 5

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Chapter 2

The beginning of sociological thinking in Germany can be traced back to the middle of the nineteenth century. Until then, society had primarily been understood within the framework of contract theory (Thomas Hobbes, John Locke), that is, as something that has to be constructed. Around 1850, the idea arose to characterize “society” more broadly as the “social system constituted by human coexistence” (Nolte 2000, p. 33). This conceptual shift was provoked by social processes and problems similar to those which facilitated the emergence of sociology in England (initiated by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)) and in France (initiated by Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Auguste Comte (1798-1857)). These processes and problems were: the transition from the feudal age to bourgeois society, industrialization and the drastic intensification of the division of labor, the emergence of social classes within a capitalist economic system, and the so-called social question (soziale Frage) which resulted from the tensions between the social classes.' These developments showed that “society” could no longer be thought of as a freely chosen association of independent individuals, but had to be conceived of as a structured

!In German, the term soziale Frage (“social question”) refers to the social grievances, inequalities, and problems that accompanied the transition from an agrarian to an urbanizing industrial society.

© The Author(s) 2021 7 S. Moebius, Sociology in Germany, Sociology Transformed, https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71866-4_2 entity largely determined by economic dynamics and increasingly “shaped by the political borders” (Nolte 2000, p. 32).

The “social question” was the starting point for both the materialist social theory of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) and for the first steps toward a Gesellschaftswissenschaft (the science of society) in the German-speaking world. Around 1850, the first German representatives of such a “science of society” were Lorenz von Stein (1815-1890), who based his concept of society on the analysis of social movements in France, and Robert von Mohl (1799-1875), who wanted to differentiate strictly between the new Gesellschaftswissenschaft and the already existing Staatswissenschaft (the science of the state). So far, social processes had been the object of investigation primarily in the philosophy of history and the Staatswissenschaften. In contrast to these disciplines, von Stein and von Mohl claimed that “society” has to be regarded as an independent social sphere, which has to be strictly distinguished from the state. Furthermore, in contrast to politically active socialists and communists, von Stein and von Mohl wanted to solve the “social question” in a “scientific way” (Mikl-Horke 2001, pp. 40-43).2 The new Gesellschaftswissenschaft was seen as a way to social reforms to avoid a social revolution.

The call for an independent Gesellschaftswissenschaft, however, met with little approval within the academic field and was resolutely rejected by the humanities and the Staatswissenschaften. This might explain why, some years later, German social scientists such as Ferdinand Tönnies (1855-1936), Georg Simmel (1958-1918), and Max Weber (1864-1920) avoided the notion “Gesellschaftswissenschaft.” Confronted with the powerful Staatswissenschaften and a widespread anti-sociological attitude, which mainly concerned the sociological concepts from France and England,’ the early proponents of sociology had to struggle to make their voices heard.

Unlike von Stein or von Mohl, and faced with the rapid pace of social and cultural change, extremely concentrated in large cities, the early sociologists were no longer concerned with the emergence of “society” (Nolte 2000, p. 55), but with its cohesion. They saw a particular problem

? All translations of German texts are by the author unless otherwise indicated. If there are English citations, it will be marked as “English in original.”

3 Significant critics were for example the historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896) and the philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911).

in the dissolution of traditional worldviews and cultural values. Hence, German society, so the interpretation, not only faced the “social question” but it also had to deal with a “cultural crisis” (Lichtblau 1996). Against this background, the beginning of World War I—which was interpreted as a struggle of German culture against Western civilization— was hailed as an opportunity to leave all the social cleavages, cultural tensions, all the value relativism, and political conflicts behind.

SOCIOLOGY IN THE GERMAN REICH

The economic, political, social, and cultural developments of the German Reich, which had been founded in 1871, were conducive to the emergence, establishment, and institutionalization of sociology, because the now observable dynamics and consequences of condensed and rapid processes of social differentiation, transformation, and modernization lent themselves to a broader analytic perspective—a “sociological optic” so to speak.

The lack of political modernization of the Reich was conflicting with the accelerated economic and cultural modernization. Therefore, some social scientists perceive Germany as a “belated nation” (Plessner 1959 [1935]), or they describe the German development as a “special path” (Sonderweg) (Wehler 1977, p. 11).* The central characteristics of social transformation and modernization were intense industrialization and the rise ofthe German Reich to become the second most powerful industrial nation in the world, the expansion of the monetary economy, massive arms build-up, and an imperialist policy of expansion and for certain time also of colonialism. Society was characterized by an increasing population growth, an intensification of the division of labor, and social differentiation. Rapid urbanization was accompanied by housing and poverty problems. The labor movement grew rapidly, as did the women’s movement. Tendencies toward secularization questioned the once binding power of

*For the reconstruction of the historical processes, I especially refer to Wehler (1977) and Nipperdey (1990). For the special features of the historical development of Germany see Elias (1989/1996). However, some historians contradicted the “special path” thesis, since, on the one hand, it is based on an allegedly “normal” path of other Western countries. On the other hand, with its focus on the state and the unmodern, “belated,” “pre-industrial elite,” it would neglect the central importance of the successes as well of the capitalist interests of the bourgeoisie, which were easily linked with the authoritarian state, so Blackbourn and Eley (1980); for discussion of the thesis see Kocka (1982).

10 Ss. MOEBIUS

Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant religion. New technologies and inventions such as electricity, the automobile, and the zeppelin reinforced the impression that this epoch was one of big changes. New scientific disciplines such as genetics, religious studies, and psychoanalysis emerged. The foundation of clubs (Vereine) increased and new forms of sociability such as the Lebensreform (life reform) movement were formed, which attempted to satisfy the longing for community. This was a concrete reaction to urbanization. Urbanization again facilitated mass culture, which spread through cinemas, penny novels, and the gramophone. The accompanying commercialization of culture led to a proliferation of “objective culture” (Georg Simmel) and to the growth of the advertising industry. Generally, the logic of cultural production increasingly centered on entertainment. With the growth of the social class of salaried employees, a new audience of this mass culture emerged. At the same time, cultural and social criticism was on the rise too, as evidenced by Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1844-1900) philosophy, Gerhart Hauptmann’s (1862-1946) plays, Heinrich Mann’s (1871-1950) novels, and the emergence of satirical magazines. Between 1871 and 1918, many new avant-garde movements emerged in the arts, music, literature, and architecture, often contradictory to one another, such as Impressionism, Expressionism, Futurism, or atonal music.

All these developments deeply shattered old certainties and self-evident schemes of perception, thought, and action. The rapid pace of social change, extremely concentrated in large cities, led many people to experience a kind of emotional and perceptual overload (Ullrich 1997; Radkau 1998). On a general level, this “increase in nervous life” which Georg Simmel (1995 [1903], p. 116) described in his well-known 1903 essay “Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben” (“The Metropolis and Mental Life”), was perceived by bourgeois intellectuals and scientists less as a “social” than as a profound “cultural crisis” (Drehsen and Sparn 1996; Lichtblau 1996). Hence, in their eyes, German society not only had to deal with the “social” but also—and perhaps even more so—with the “cultural question” (Bruch et al. 1989, p. 11, 14).

At the turn of the century, the social conflicts that existed in modern European societies, the socio-cultural experiences of crisis and dissolution of cultural traditions, and the mental and spiritual tensions led to the desire to explain and cope with modern life, which was experienced as fragmented and threatening. The historical situation called for sociology, one could say, even if in the scientific field it was often regarded with hostility or dismissed as an auxiliary science. Nevertheless, from the 1890s

2 SOCIOLOGY IN GERMANY: FROM THE BEGINNINGS TO 1945 ll onwards sociology began to institutionalize and to offer new and independent observations, explanations, and interpretations (cf. Kaesler 1984; Lichtblau 1996, 2018). Therefore, the establishment of sociology as a scientific discipline was the result of the increased differentiation in the academic field as well as the growing “need for the interpretation” of the rapid and far-reaching changes of the age (Rammstedt 1988, p. 283). These changes were not only understood as economic or political processes, but as genuinely social and cultural processes.

Hence, the widespread feeling of crisis at the fin de siècle stimulated classical sociological reflections and diagnoses of modernity (Frisby 1995; Lichtblau 1996).5 These attempts to analyze and to solve the perceived crisis took place in Germany in an academic field characterized by historicism on the one hand and an insistent critique of positivism, empiricism, and utilitarianism on the other (Beiser 2015). The early German sociologists like Tönnies, Simmel, and Weber, who by the way were all strongly influenced by Nietzsche (cf. Lichtblau 1996; Baier 1981; Hennis 1987; Partyga 2016; Treiber 2016; only Tönnies later became a sharp critic of Nietzsche), did not share the strong faith in progress that can be found in the writings of Saint-Simon, Herbert Spencer, or Auguste Comte. Instead, in the works of Tönnies (although his sociology was more influenced by Spencer and Comte), Simmel, and Weber we find rather “pessimistic analyses of the fundamental structural problems of modern societies” (Dahme and Rammstedt 1984, p. 459), but also, specifically in the works of Tönnies, sometimes new “utopian” ideas (Cahnman 1968; Liebersohn 1988).

Sociological Pioneers in the German Reich: Tönnies, Simmel, Weber

Ferdinand Tönnies, one of the first classic thinkers of German sociology and an internationally renowned Hobbes researcher, reacted to the transformation processes and social tensions of the age in his major work Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Community and Association, or generally translated as Community and Society), published in 1887 (Tönnies 2017 [1887] [1935]). With Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, Tonnies attempted

5 This, of course, applies not only to sociology in Germany, but also to the sociology of Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and his disciples in France, even though their sociology, in contrast to that in Germany, was far more oriented towards positivism.

to explain the social changes and struggles in the transition to modernity within an evolutionary framework. Like communitarians today he mourned the decline of community, which was in danger of disappearing in favor of capitalist market society. Although this book addressed urgent questions of the day, initially it went relatively unnoticed. This may be due to the fact that its skeptical tenor did not fit in with the economic boom that began in 1895 (Bickel 1991, p. 46). It was only a few decades later, especially in the 1920s, that Tönnies’ work became popular. This delayed reception, however, was often linked to an ideological misreading, which interpreted Tönnies’ concept of community as a romantic glorification of the community or even asa proto-fascist propagation ofa Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community). Tönnies’ intention, however, was a different one. For him, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft could serve as a basis for reform proposals to better the situation of the working class. He saw the concept of community in the light of a new society of the future, of a new “social order, one qualitatively different from modern society” (Liebersohn 1988, p. 35), a new social order in a kind of an ethical, German “socialism,” whereby Tönnies’ was not concerned with the abolition of capitalism, but with the restoring of community, “managing the production of goods,” preferably in the form of cooperatives and social democratic reforms (Tonnies 2012 [1919], pp. 215-219; Bond 2013, p. 254).

Georg Simmel devoted himself particularly to the then new phenomena and problems that accompanied the emergence of modern culture (Lichtblau 1996). Although he was also infected by contemporary cultural pessimism, he—more than his colleagues—nonetheless emphasized the ambivalent consequences of modernity. The new monetary culture for example (Simmel 1989 [1900]) provides a drastic example of the contradictory effects modern cultural dynamics can have on the individual: On the one hand, it promotes the conditions for the formation of individuality, more independent relationships, intensified subjective experience, and personal lifestyle; on the other hand, the monetary culture threatens individuality because of its levelling, reifying, and objectifying tendencies. Hence, according to Simmel (1989 [1900]), the formation of modernity results in a tension between the deindividualizing forces of modern monetary culture and the resistance of the subject to counteract these forces. Also, it induces an intensifying conflict between bourgeois culture and mass society. Both of these conflicts, Simmel claims, are linked to a still more fundamental cultural conflict of modern Vergesellschaftung

(sociation), which Simmel (1987 [1911]) pronouncedly described as the “tragedy of culture.”

For Simmel (1987 [1911]) the “tragedy of culture” consists in the contradiction between “objective” and “subjective culture.” The sense of the term “objective culture” came from his teachers Moritz Lazarus (1824-1903) and Heyman Steinthal (1823-1899) (Köhnke 1996, pp. 337-355; Klautke 2016, pp. 34-36), the inventors of the Volkerpsychologie (folk psychology). With the progressing development of modern society, “objective culture” (e.g., technology, science, rights, and scholarship, but also art works) expanded dramatically so that individuals are less and less able to subjectively appropriate its elements and creatively exploit them as a means of self-realization or for the development of individuality.

Simmel investigated this specific antinomy of modern culture in his 1900 book Die Philosophie des Geldes (The Philosophy of Money, Simmel 1989 [1900]). The book is not only an analysis of money, or of monetary culture, but also an analysis of contemporary society. In the last chapters of the book, Simmel describes the radical transformation of modern life brought about by modern monetary culture. Characteristics of this transformation are the acceleration of social life, the increasing distancing between people, and a new rhythm of work and life.

Over the years, it became increasingly clear in Simmel’s writings that, according to his educated bourgeois background and the reception of Goethe and Nietzsche, he was looking for the solution of the cultural crisis in a “law of the individual,” according to which the individual is called on to become and to realize herself/himself (Köhnke 1996, pp. 489-514).

Similar to Simmel’s analysis of the relation between subjective and objective culture and to his search for a “law of the individual” (cf. Miiller 2020, p. 410; Marty 2020), Max Weber’s major work Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (Weber 2016 [1904-1905] [1920]) (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) examined the extent to which the individual conduct of life is related to the so-called Spirit of Capitalism. Like Simmel, Weber was concerned with an analysis of the central ideas that gave rise to capitalism. The sociologist and economist Werner Sombart (1863-1941) as well as Weber’s friend and later housemate Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923) worked on these topics almost simultaneously with Weber. Similar to Weber, they also saw a close connection between religious ideas and the emergence of capitalism.

According to Weber, the conditions that supported modern capitalism’s coming into being have to be explained not only by economic factors but also by a particular “spirit of capitalism.” Weber understood “spirit” as a certain mental condition, stance, and attitude. For him, the individual mental constitution that was decisive for the formation of capitalism resulted from the “Protestant ethic.” By “Protestant ethic,” Weber means a principle of strict and godly life conduct and working ethics inspired by the Protestant faith, especially by Calvinism and Puritan sects. According to Weber, the advent of high capitalism forced by the technological transformation of the nineteenth century was accompanied by the secularization of the “Protestant ethic”: the religious component increasingly receded, while the profane, worldly side, that is, modern vocational orientation and identification with one’s work, remained and became even stronger.

From Weber’s perspective, the “Protestant ethic” is only one, albeit important, element of a much broader cultural process of rationalization that occurred in Western societies and which was understood by Weber as the “fate of our time.” The process of rationalization, according to Weber, entails a general increase in the systematization, predictability, and effectiveness of all social areas, social relations, and actions. Weber described this process of rationalization as the “disenchantment of the world.” However, similar to Simmel, he also diagnosed new aesthetic and expressive cultural movements that strived for a “re-enchantment of the world” and that were directed against the process of rationalization.°

Sociology Between Explaining and Understanding

One characteristic of sociology in Germany, as we will continue to see throughout this book, is that it is deeply influenced by philosophy. This was already the case with the founders of sociology. Tonnies’ work was deeply influenced by Hobbes and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860).

© There was also international exchange. Tönnies and Simmel had contacts to France (René Worms (1869-1926), Henri Bergson (1859-1941), Durkheim School), Simmel corresponded with Albion Small (1854-1926) and Lester F. Ward (1841-1913) (cf. Simmel 2005), some of his articles appeared in the American Journal of Sociology, he even got a call to the USA and became important for the sociology of the Chicago School (Robert Park (1864-1944) was one of his disciples). Max Weber was inspired in his analyses of capitalism by his impressions of the USA, which he collected in 1904 on the occasion of the Congress of Arts and Sciences in St. Louis (Scaff 2011).