Abstract
This essay is about the roles honor, prestige, and Stand play in the organization of society. Weber wrote that prestige and the accompanying justification of Stand underpins how people organize themselves using the visible markers of rank. In the modern world, though, this can be understood only in the context of the social stratification of social class, as spread by the anonymous actions of the marketplaces. This results in an irony in the modern world, which is that while Stand is based on economic acquisition, it is also based on the pretension that naked economic power does not matter. Rather, honor, privilege, and subordination are based on ideologies about merit rooted in values emerging from within the Gemeinschaft, not the naked power of the market from which privilege actually emerges. This essay is about how this has worked throughout history, and points out bluntly that
The market does not know “honor” or “prestige” [it only knows cash], but the reverse is true for the Stand. Stratification and privileges in terms of honor and lifestyles are inherent to each Stand. Therefore, the privileged Stände are threatened at their very roots by the market and its emphasis on mere economic acquisition and naked economic power—which still bears a stigma as emerging from outside the Stand.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Translation of this essay was begun (from Weber, 1921/1956/1980) at Zeppelin University in Friedrichhafen, Germany, in spring 2008, by Dagmar Waters, Tony Waters, Elisabeth Hahnke, Maren Lippke, Eva Ludwig-Glück, Daniel Mai, Nina Ritzi-Messner, and Christina Veldhoen. Dagmar Waters, Tony Waters, and Lucas Fassnacht did the final translations and editing in summer 2008 in Auburn, California, before it was published in the Journal of Classical Sociology (see Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters (2010), “Introduction to the New Zeppelin University Translation of Max Weber’s ‘Classes, Staende, Parties,’” Journal of Classical Sociology 10(2):153–158). Revisions were made by Dagmar Waters, Benjamin Elbers, and Dagmar Waters in 2014, in order to fit the original translation into this collection.
The German “Stand” (plural “Stände”) is perhaps best translated as the French word “estate,” as it refers to feudal divisions within society, including those that are both professional, ethnic, and relational. Unfortunately the word “estate” in English has a wide range of other meanings as well and we think this translation obfuscates Weber’s original meaning. Previous translators have compromised by translating the word Stand variously as “status” or “estate” depending on the context. However, the translation of Stand into “status” is also imprecise. First, German has the same word “Status,” and Weber did not use it. We suspect he did not use it because its meaning lacks the historical content of Stand. Because of this ambiguity in meaning, as well as the fact that precision in this term is so important for this essay, we have elected to use the German term throughout this translation. For other discussions of these issues, see Max Weber (1978 [1968]), “The Distribution of Power within the Political Community: Class, Status, Party,” in Economy and Society, ed. G. Roth and C. Wittich, trans. E. Fischoff and H. Gerth et al. (Berkeley: University of California Press) and Waters and Waters (2010). Stand reflects a style of life, and an assumption about the rights that go with this status.
By the Law of Marginal Utility, Weber is referring to the Austrian School economist Eugen Böhm-Bawerk (1851–1915). See Max Weber (2001a), “Klassen, Stände, Parteien,” in Gesamtausgabe Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Band 22–1, ed. Wolfgang J. Mommsen with Michael Meyer, p.253, fn. 3.
See Bryan S. Turner (2011), “Max Weber and the Spirit of Resentment: The Nietzsche Legacy,” Journal of Classical Sociology 11::81–83. Turner (2011:82) refers to the role that dietary restrictions have on the segregation among groups that are otherwise intermingled.
The German term Beruf (literally “someone has been called”) has greater implications than the English terms “occupation” or “profession.” The Beruf is one’s calling in life and serves a greater purpose than just a “job” (i.e., the mere earning of money). In Germany, the Beruf often is crucial to one’s identity. The importance of this concept is reflected in professional associations that serve the members of one Beruf. Weber describes these associations as Stände. In the Middle Ages, the equivalent of such associations were “guilds.” For a more in-depth elaboration on this concept, see “Politics as Vocation,” pp. 144–145; and M. Weber ([1904–1905] 2009), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 4th ed., translated by Stephen Kalberg (New York: Oxford University Press).
See Weber’s own descriptions of the emergence of the Brahman caste in M. Weber, ([1978] 1968), “The Distribution of Power within the Political Community: Class, Status, Party,” in Economy and Society, ed. Roth, G. and Wittich, C., translated by Fischoff, E., Gerth H, et al. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 501–504). Also Weber 2001a, “Klassen, Stände, Parteien,” 269, fn. 33.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2015 Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Waters, T., Waters, D. (2015). The Distribution of Power Within the Gemeinschaft: Classes, Stände, Parties . In: Waters, T., Waters, D. (eds) Weber’s Rationalism and Modern Society. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137365866_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137365866_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-47664-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-36586-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)