Definition of Industrial Sociology

1. 'Industrial sociology is the application of sociological approach to the reality and problems of industry'. -P. Gisbert.

2. "Industrial sociology centres its attention on social organization of factory, the store, and the office. This focus includes not only the interactions of people playing roles in these organizations but also the ways in which their work roles are interrelated with other aspects of their life" -Charles B. Spaulding.

3. Industrial sociology is the sociology of industrial relations and industrial activities of man.

Introduction of Industrial Sociology

The Industrial Revolution that took place in England in the 18th century changed the course of human society. The revolution, through essentially took place in economic field, its effects were never confined to the economic field alone. It brought down the cost of production, improved quality and maximised output. More than that, it changed the pattern of human relations. It eased human life, and proved more comforts and luxuries to man. At the same time, it altered human outlook and attitudes. It brought about radical changes in the very structure of the society.

Industrial revolution, in course of time resulted in the continuous process of industrialisation. Industrialisation is a phenomenon of world significance today. Development in the field of science and technology further added to the volume and speed of the process. Agricultural economy turned into industrial economy. Industrial area developed into towns and cities. The process of urbanisation began. People from rural areas started to flocking towards cities. Capitalist economy was born. Social classes with class-hatreds emerged. Social institutions and values underwent changes. New problems and new fears and new anxieties were invariably the result of it. The very face of the society changed. These developments necessitated the birth of a new branch of sociology called "Industrial Sociology" which essentially deals with the industrial society with all its complexities.

Importance of Rural Sociology

The practical value of the study of rural sociology is widely recognised today. As long as the villages and the rural society assume importance, the rural sociology shall continue to acquire importance. The value of rural sociology can be understood by the following points:

1. Rural Population is in Majority: The world's is more rural than urban. More than two-third of people of the world live in villages. It is the village that forms the basis of society. Rural sociology is inevitable for the study of the majority of the population.

2.Intimate Relationship between the Land and Man: Man is born out of land and his entire culture depends on it. Land has been the part of and parcel of human life. Progress starts from the village. The type of land partially conditions the type of society and the opportunities for human development. This close relationship between man and land has also been recognised by economists and political scientists.

3. Villages and Rural Life from the Source of Population: Cities normally grow out of towns and villages. No city can come into existence all of a sudden without having a rural background. A village, when improved and thickly populated, becomes a town or city. Thus it is the village population that forms the source of urban life.

4. Psychological Approach to the Rural Life: Rural progress, rural reconstruction or improvement of rural societies is possible only when the people have correct idea about the rural way of life and problems. Rural sociology touches upon the rural psychology and provides a good understanding of the rural people and their society.

Scope or Subject-Matter of Rural Sociology

The scope or subject-matter of rural sociology is basically the study of rural society with all its complexities. According to Lawry and Nelson, 'The subject-matter of rural sociology is the description and analysis of the progress of various groups as they exist in the rural environment.'

The main tasks of rural sociology can be mentioned here. They are as follows,

1. Rural Community and Rural Problems.

This includes the characteristics and nature of rural community and its problems.

2. Rural Social Life.
This includes various aspects of the rural people.

3. Rural Social Organization.

This includes the study of various rural social organizations and institutions including family and marriage.

4. Rural Social Institutions and Structure.

This includes the study of dogmas, customs, traditions, morals, conventions, practices and various political, economic, religious and cultural institutions

5. Rural Planning and Reconstruction.

Rural sociology has great practical applications. Hence rural planning and reconstruction are also the main tasks of rural sociology to be be dealt with.

6. Social Change and Social Control in Rural Social Setup: It is here we study the impact of city on rural life. The mechanisms of social control of the rural society are also examined here.

7. Religion and Culture in Rural Society.

Religion plays an important role in the rural set up. Culture of rural society exhibits striking peculiarities. These come within the domain of rural sociology.

8. Rural Social Processes.

Different social processes such as cooperation, competition, integration, differentiation, isolation etc., that take place in rural society are also studied in rural sociology.

9. Differences between Urban and Rural Society.

The study of rural society includes the differences between urban and rural society also.

Origin of Rural Sociology

Rural Sociology is comparatively a new branch of sociology. It was first originated in the United States of America. It has taken more than half a century to become established as a distinct academic field or professional study. The main contributors to the development of rural sociology are-Charles Sanderson, Burtherfield, Ernast Burnholme, John Morris Gillin, Franklin H. Giddings and Thomas Nixon Carver. It was President Roosevelt who, through the appointment of 'Country Life Commission' gave a good encouragement to the development to the rural sociology in 1908. The report of this Commission encouraged the studies of rural society.

In 1917 the Department of Rural Sociology was set up by the American Sociological Society. In 1919, a 'Rural Sociology Department' was established under the chairmanship of Dr. C. J. Galpin. The Great Depression of 1930 provided another stimulus to the growth of rural sociology. In 1937, 'Rural Sociological Society' was formed. It started publishing a professional journal 'Rural Sociology' containing results of rural sociological research. C. J. Galpin of University of Wisconsin developed techniques for defining and delimiting the rural community. His approach is still popular today.

The Great Second World War gave yet another fillip to the growth of rural sociology. The destruction caused by the war demanded reconstruction. The reconstruction work brought further encouragement to the science. By 1958 there were about 1000 professional rural sociologists in America. Rural sociology crossed the boundaries of America and became popular in Europe. A European Society for Rural Sociology was formed in 1957, and a similar organisation was started in Japan also. In developing countries, the role of the rural sociologists is primarily in the applied field of more effective planning and operation of rural community development programmes.

Definition of Rural Sociology

Different sociologists have defined rural sociology in different ways. A few definitions may be examined here.

1. Sanderson says that "Rural sociology is the sociology of rural life in the rural environment".

2. Bertand says that in its broadest sense, "Rural sociology is that study of human relationships in rural environment".

3. F. Stuard Chapin defines rural sociology as follows: "The sociology of rural life is a study of the rural population, rural social organisation and the social processes comparative, in rural society".

4. A. R. Desai says that "Rural sociology is the science of rural society...It is the science of laws of the development of rural society".

It is clear from the above mentioned definitions that rural sociology studies the social interactions, institutions and activities and social changes that take place in the rural society. It studies the rural social organisations, structure and set up. It provides us that knowledge about the rural social phenomena.

Introduction of Rural Sociology

Rural Sociology is a specialised field of sociology. As the name indicates, it deals with the society of village or rural society. It is a systematic and scientific study of rural society. The majority of the people on the earth live in villages and rural areas. They follow patterns of occupation and life, and beliefs are conditioned and deeply influenced by their rural environment. A specialised branch of sociology called, Rural Sociology, has therefore, emerged to study the rural society

Sociology of Religion

The phenomenon of religion attracted the attention of the sociologists because of its great human importance. No society is free from the influence of religion. In established societies, religion is one of the most important institutional structures making up the total social system. A special branch of sociology has now emerged in order to analyze the religious behavior of men from a sociological point of view. "The sociology of religion is but one aspect of the study of the relationship between ideas and ideals embodied in movements and institutions, and the social situations of their origin, development, flourishing and decline" Thomas F. O' Dea.

The early sociological studies of religion had three distinctive methodological characterisristics-Evolutionist, Positivist and Psychological. Ex: The works of Comte, Tylor and Spencer. But Emile Durkheim is his "Elementary Forms of the Religious Life", 1912, made a different approach to the study of religion. He argued that in all societies, a distinction is made between the "sacred" and "profane". He emphasized the collective aspects of religion. He was of the opinion that the function of religious rituals is to affirm the moral superiority of the society over its individual members and thus to maintain the solidarity of the society. Durkheim's emphasis on ritual as against belief, later influences many anthropologists to undertake functionalist investigations of religion. B. Malinowski and A. R. Rascliffe-Brown and other anthropologists were also influenced by the views of Durkheim.

In the study of religion in civilized societies, Durkheim's theory has proved less useful. Here, religion not only unites people but also divides. In modern societies, beliefs and doctrines have more importance than ritual. Here, the sociological study of religion differs from that anthropology. It is more influenced by the ethical doctrines of the world religions. This approach can be witnessed in the works of L.T. Hobhouse and Max Weber. Hobhouse, in discussing religion in his major work "Morals in Evolution",-1907, gave more importance to moral codes of the major religions and particularly of Christianity.

Max Weber's treatment of religious beliefs differs in important respects. Firstly, it is not based on an evolutionary scheme. Secondly, it is mainly concerned with one major aspect religious ethics. That is, he wanted to examine the influence of particular religious doctrines upon economic behavior; and the relations between the position of groups in the economic order and types of religious beliefs. He is less concerned with ethical doctrines as such. His famous work, "The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism" is an example of such an approach.

Comparatively, nothing more has been added to the theoretical development of a Sociology of Religion since the works of Weber and Durkheim. Weber's influence has contributed to two main lines of study; (i) The characteristics, doctrines and social significance of religious sects, and (ii) the interlink between social classes and religious sects. Ernst Troeltsch's "The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches", 1912, H. R. Niebuhr's "The Social Sources of Denominationalism", 1929; and Brian Wilson's "Sects and Society", 1961, can be mentioned here as examples carrying weber's influence.

The Sociology of Religion seeks to offer a scientific explanation to religion. As Kingsley Davis says this "Task is not easy. No societal phenomenon is more resistant than religion to scientific explanation". Two factors seem to be responsible for this-first an emotional and second a 'rational bias'. "The emotional bias springs from the fact that religion by its very nature involves ultimate values, making it almost impossible to view with a disintersted attitude". The 'rational bias' would also create problems. Religion which involves transcendental ends, strong sentiments, deep-rooted beliefs, and symbolic instruments may appear to be fallacious to "rationalist". He may attribute religion simply to ignorance and error and assume that when these are removed there will emerged the completely 'rational' man. Some hold that religion is an expression of instinctive emotions. These views are equally false, "The very non-rationality of religious behaviour is the thing that gives religion its vitality in human life".

Sociology of Occupations

'Sociology of Occupations is one of the new branches of sociology. It deals with the problem of examining how the occupational structure and particular occupations associate with other segments of society like the family, the economy, the educational system, the political system and the system of social stratification. Its investigations concentrate upon the following themes: (i) the division of labor, its causes and consequences, (ii) The study of specific occupations of the people like the prostitute, the dockworkers, the clerk, the architect, the physician, etc. (iii) The function and meaning of work and related phenomena such as leisure, unemployment and retirement. (vi) Researches are also undertaken on such topics as the amount and method of remuneration, recruitment and training, career patterns, conflicts inherent in role, the relation between personality and occupation, interpersonal relations at work, the public image of occupation, and distribution of power and prestige within the occupation, etc.

Political Sociology

Ever science the Aristotle, thinkers have been making systematic study of concrete political phenomena. They have been observing how political phenomena influence and get influences by the rest of the social structure and culture. In this regard, Aristotle's 'Politics" may be taken as a work of political sociology. Ferguson, Montesquieu and Tocqueville were all engaged in what today would be called political sociology. The classical sociologists like Weber (in his essay "Politics as Vocation) and Pareto (his work "The Mind and Society') were pioneers in including a political sociology in their work. Further, Karl Marx in Germany, Mosca in Italy and Graham Wallas in England advanced so essentially sociology theories of political elites and of the processes of consensus and dissent. Also Andre Siegfried of pre-1914 France made a details study of this social group and interests in voting behavior. The phrase 'Political Sociology' to describe this tradition only came into general use after 1945.

Ever since the birth of sociology, the analysis of political processes and institutions has been one of its most important concerns. Sociologists argue and many political scientists agree that it is difficult to study political processes expect as special cases of more general psychological and sociological relationships. The term "Political Sociology" has come to be accepted both within sociology and political science as encompassing the overlap between two sciences. However, the political scientist is primarily concerned with the dimension of power and factors affecting its distribution. The sociologist, on other hand, is more concerned with social control, with the way in which the values and norms of a society regulate relations. His emphasis is on social ties, rather than on formal structures and legal definitions.

As Smelser N. J. says, "Political Sociology can be defined as the study of the interrelationship between society and polity, between social structures and political institutions". Political sociology is not solely the study of the social factors condition the political order.

Political sociology employs the methods of sociological research, including those of attitude research to investigate the content of political behavior. It treats political institutions, both formal or constitutional and informal, as parts of the social system. It has concentrated attention on 'elites and their membership, on the expression and regulation of conflict, on formal pressure groups, on the formation of political opinion. Political sociologists have been concerned with political parties as social institutions and with the phenomena of despotic and totalitarian regimes. It is an integral part of sociology which has progressively transformed political science in the direction of a wider attention to empirical reality.

Sociology of Education

Sociology of education is one of the specialised fields of social inquiry. It analyses the institutions and organisations of education. It studies the functional relationship between education and the other great institutional orders of society such as the economy, the polity, religion and kinship. It concentrates on educational system or subsystem or individual school or college.

'Sociology of education' studies 'education' as an agent of transmission of culture. It studies the functional importance of education also. It makes studies of school organisation and the relation between schools and social structure, especially social class, family and neighbourhood. The interaction of these social forces with the internal organisation of school is explored in order to find out the social determines of educability. Studies have shown that social class and its correlates have a systematic effect on educability and educational selection. For example, in Britain, the chances of achieving a university degree are six times better for a middle class than for a working-class child. The social deteminates of academic success remain powerful even in modern educational systems in spite of provision of equal opportunities for all. The theoretical notion of "meritocracy", i.e., rule by the educated and talented persons, has to be understood within this context. Sociological studies of higher education have increased since 1950.

Sociology of education stresses upon the social importance of education. The social importance of education is widely recognised today, especially in modern industrialised societies. In such societies education has become one of the means of acquiring social and technical skills. Education has become to be not only a way of training people to work in different fields but also a qualification for jobs in certain fields. It fits people for increasingly specialised roles.

More than that, education has become an essential need today to register progress in scientific and technological fields. As such, it is a means of promoting economic prosperity. Education, as a means of bringing about social change, is no less significant. It promotes social mobility, that is, movement of people from one social status to another. It influences social stratification. Education is often made of in totalitarian and communist countries as an instrument to propagate some chauvinist and communist ideologies.

The famous writer Newman said that the main practical purpose of university is to produce socially responsible people. President Truman of America, stressing the importance of education, once remarked that with wide experience, practical vision of things, intellectual depth and capacity to take decisions at right time should be given the reins of administration to rule the country. Dr S. Radhakrishnan said that the main objective of education is to give training to students to undertake occupations effectively and to become proper leaders in various social fields in which they happen to work.

Social or Human Ecology

Ecology is a branch of biology and has been largely concerned with the environment of the lower animals and plants. It refers to the influence of the environment upon animal ecology. The sociologists who adopted the approach of these natural scientists in their field as "human ecology" or "social ecology". The botanists also supplied the sociologists with fundamental principles, concepts and terminology.

The study of human ecology is nothing but the logical extension of the ecological point of view. Human ecology is that part of sociology which studies human beings' adjustments to their environments which include not only the physical conditions of their geographic environment but also other organisms such as other fellow human beings, plants and animals. Man, the subject of human ecology is less restricted by his physical environment. With the help of culture that man possesses, he can live almost anywhere on the planet. He can grow and produce different kinds of food, wear clothing's of various types, construct houses, bridges and dams, create tools and implements which have different uses, kill beasts that are dangerous, destroy harmful insects with pesticides and so on.

social ecologists have focused their attention on the community. The ecological factors can more easy and more productively be studied when the community is the unit of observation. Ecology studies community in relation to environment. Culture modifies the influence of natural environment, and as culture changes, communities change.

The Ecological Approach: The ecological approach to the study of communities had been used, so far, mainly by American sociologists. Park and Burgess were the pioneers in the study of human ecology. They and their student Mackenzie formulated its basic principles. They made it a field of study within sociology. Later this approach was very usefully employed by sociologists other than those of the "Chicago School".

Sociologists who study communities from the ecological point of view consider a village town or city sociological rather than a legal or an administrative unit. It needs not confine itself to the boundaries set by law. "A community, from the ecological point of view, includes a focal area plus the surrounding territory. Its size is determined by the extent of its economic and social influence". This ecological conception is used by the sociologists in their study of the community. Even economists, social workers, businessmen, and social planning agencies make use of this approach.

Sociology of Law

'Sociology of Law' looks at law and legal systems as a part of society and also as social institutions related to other institutions and changing with them. It regards law as one means of social control. Hence law is often made to be related to a moral order, to a body off customs and ideas about society. From this point of view, sociology of law is itself related to jurisprudence. Still it is not like jurisprudence. Sociology of law requires an understanding of the system of law no doubt. But it is still wider in scope. It seeks "perceive the relationship of systems of law to other social sub systems like economy, the nature and distribution of authority, and the structure of family and kinship relationships". In Britain, some social anthropologists have examined the systems of law and courts in relatively simple societies and tried to determine their relationships to other aspects of social system.

The study of "Sociology of Law" is well known in Europe but not in America and Britain. In fact, sociologists have hardly turned their attention towards sociology of law in modern societies. Previously, Durkheim (through his classification of law into retributive and restitutive) and Max Weber (through his "Law in Economy and Society" - Translated work) had made some initial studies in the field. Austrian scholar E. Ehrlich published one of the most outstanding works on sociology of law in 1913 which was translated into English under the title "Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law" in 1936. Another famous work is that of Georges Gurvitch's 'Sociology of Law' 1942. Due to the work of some jurists in America considerable interest is now being shown to sociology of law. Due to this growing interest only a number of sociologists and lawyers have made a joint venture to produce an interesting work entitled "Sociology and the Law; New meanings for an old Profession" 1962.

Sociology of Knowledge

'Sociology of Knowledge' is one of the recently emerged branches of sociology. This branch pre-supposes the idea "that our knowledge is in some measure a social product." Thinkers had recognized long back the importance of economic, religious, political and other interests in shaping human beliefs and ideas. Of late, the view that even human society and its vert structure can influence knowledge, gained sufficient recognition. The history of Greece and Rome in particular has strongly supported this view. In his book "New Science" (1725) Vico tried to show how heroic literature constituted the thought mode of a specific kind of society.

The promlem of the relationship between society and knowledge has been raised by Marxnism, and it has offered a solution to it also. "According to Marx and Engels, all knowledge has been distorted, directed and conditioned by interests conscious and unconscious, of conflicting exploited and exploiting classes". In the light of contemporary sociological information, this view is found to be untenable as a total sociology of knowledge.

Durkheim tried to approach this problem in his own way. In "Elementary Forms of the Religious Life" 1912 and "Sociology and Philosophy" 1952 (essays translated) he argued that our perception and experience are derived from and constitute a part of social structure. This view may be alright for simpler societies and not for complex ones. Even Comte's three stages of social evolution had been regarded as stages of forms of thought of which the last stage, that is, the positivist stage is alone objective.

The foundations of the sociology of knowledge will have to be found in Karl Manheim's "Ideology and Utopia" 1936 and "Essays on Sociology of Knowledge", 1952. Manheim tried to face "The problem of sociology of knowledge with great philosophical learning and methodological ingenuity". A number of sociologists are attracted by the subject of knowledge but the problems it raises are unsolved.

The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris

The Human Zoo is a book written by the British zoologist Desmond Morris, published in 1969. It is a follow-up to his earlier book The Naked Ape; both books examine how the biological nature of the human species has shaped the character of the cultures of the contemporary world.

The Human Zoo examines the nature of civilized society, especially in the cities. Morris compares the human inhabitants of a city to the animal inhabitants of a zoo, which have their survival needs provided for, but at the cost of living in an unnatural environment. Humans in their cities, and animals in their zoos, both have food and shelter provided for them, and have considerable free time on their hands. But they have to live in an unnatural environment, are both likely to have problems in developing healthy social relationships, both are liable to suffer from isolation and boredom, and both live in a limited amount of physical space. The book explains how the inhabitants of cities and zoos have invented ways to deal with these problems, and the consequences that follow when they fail at dealing with them.

From this point of view, Morris examines why civilized society is the way it is. He offers explanations of the best and the worst features of civilized society. He examines the magnificent achievements of civilized society, the sublime explorations that make up science and the humanities. And he also examines the horrible behaviors of this same society like war, slavery, and rape. This book, and Morris's earlier book The Naked Ape, are two of the early works in the field of sociobiology.

The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris

Every human on the planet should at one time take a look at the human species from a detached point of view: consider them from the mind of some alien species and then question if you think we’re a bit odd, predictable, or whatever descriptive word you want to use. Desmond Morris’ 1967 classic The Naked Ape does just that. No, he is not pretending to be some alien species, but he is analyzing the human as an animal, from the view of a zoologist, rather than the more common means of a psychologist or sociologist.

The Naked Ape is in fact referring to the human body — one that is “naked” in the sense of less body hair than other apes and also a stripped down (literally) examination of our animal nature. Some of the topics Morris discuses are human sex, child rearing, exploration, fighting, feeding, and comfort. He compares our habits to those of the apes, noting some of the similarities beside some of the differences.

After reading a book by Jane Goodall, in which she talks about chimpanzees' need to groom one another as a means for casual social interaction, Morris compares this behavior to our version of “grooming”, social chitchat. Humans do it when a group gathers, and as they grow more comfortable with one another, the conversational topics might delve into deeper issues, but then the chitchat, or “grooming” emerges once again when the group is parting ways.

Also, when Morris is discussing the patterns of human sexual interaction, he gives readers an entire chapter of the mechanical sexual process without a shred of eroticism. He discusses the idea of the “pair-bond” between two naked apes; how do they achieve such? Why do they engage in such a large amount of pre-copulation activity? If your first response is to answer this in reasons you’ve heard before, Morris takes it deeper as he discusses the biology behind it. Again, pretend you are some alien species and you’ll notice and recognize patterns that you might not have found otherwise.

It is important to also note that because of the year in which the book was written, some of the statistical information will not be accurate to that of today, and also some dated words are used, such as “Negro” to describe the black male. Yet this can’t be really criticism considering this was penned in 1967, and although there might be some minor differences as these, the overall text is timeless. Morris shows how since our origins, not much has changed in our behaviors.

Morris also makes an interesting observation involving young children and what their favorite animals are. When they are very young, Morris points out that children will list large animals as those they admire most (such as lions, tigers, bears, etcetera), yet as children age, their selections change to smaller animals (cats, dogs, rabbits), or in other words, animals they can physically nurture themselves, and claim the role of the “parent”. He also notes the patterns in what humans define as their least favorite animals (such as spiders and snakes) and discusses why this is the case. What is it that causes the Naked Ape, on average, to detest spiders and snakes so much? Read and find out.

I was attracted to this book after reading the interview with Desmond Morris on Cosmoetica. Morris not only addresses the many similarities we share with other apes, but also the not so obvious differences we have. For example, female naked apes are the only animal species we know that can experience an orgasm, as well as having a hymen. He also notes that our primary sexual position is face to face, and that the female breasts serve more to sexually arouse males than for mere infant suckling alone since the breast is not as conducive to infant suckling the way the breasts on other apes are. (Noting that when a human mother breastfeeds, she must be aware that the breast could literally suffocate the child if she’s not paying attention. Just as a contrast, other female ape species’ breasts consist mainly of large nipples pointed outward, making it easy for the infants to feed).

I have only touched on the very little that is contained in this book, which is a delight to read. I encourage everyone to visit and revisit The Naked Ape and remove yourself from your own species for a while. And the next time you are drying off after a shower, all this talk just might lead you to look a little longer at that Naked Ape in that mirror. (It’s ok; just don’t get caught).

Historical Sociology

Historical sociology has emerged as one of the branches of sociology. In a sense, all sociological research is historical for the sociologists normally go into the records pertaining to the events that have happened or have been observed. "The term historical sociology is, however, usually applied to the study of social facts which are more than fifty or so years old".

In actual practice, historical sociology has become a particular kind of comparative study of social groups, their composition, their inter relationships and the social conditions that support or undermine them. If the social anthropologist looks at these things in contemporary simple societies, the historical sociologist examines them in comparison with the records of earlier societies and their cultures.

Some historians such as Rostovzer, G.G. Coulton and Jacob Burkhardt, have written social history. "Social history is history which deals with human relations, social patterns, mores and customs and impotent institutions other than monarchy and army." Social history has become "The history of people with the politics left out". "It has now become the history of men and women in their social relationships and groupings".

Social history has yet to establish itself as a separate discipline only a handful of people are busy with teaching it in British Universities. On the other hand, social history has gained much acceptance by sociologists. They have become aware of the significance of the past in the interpretation of the present. Social history has been acknowledged as 'historical sociology' by sociologists. It is today one of the standard special fields of sociology. Sigmund Diamond, Robert Bellah and Norman Brinbaum may be pointed out as impotent contemporary practitioners of historical sociology.
Sociology is a fast growing discipline. Sociologist are at work to bring into its range of study almost all aspects of man's social life. Sociology has a tendency to break down into an endless list of specialists. Thus it has several specialized areas of inquiry each of which may employ its own approach and techniques. Here is a small attempt to introduce some of the main branches or specialized areas of study.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins

This is what we EHMs, (Economic Hitmen), do best: we build a global empire. We are an elite group of men and women who utilize international financial organizations to foment conditions that make other nations subservient to the corporatocracy running our biggest corporations, our government and our banks. Like our counterparts in the Mafia, EHMs provide favors. These take the form of loans to develop infrastructure, electric generating plants, highways, ports, airports, or industrial parks. A condition of such loans is that engineering and construction companies from our own country must build all these projects. In essence, most of the money never leaves the United States; it is simply transferred from banking offices in Washington to engineering offices in New York, Houston or San Francisco."

"Despite the fact that the money is returned almost immediately to corporations who are members of the corporatocracy (the creditor), the recipient country is required to pay it all back, principle plus interest. If an EHM is completely successful, the loans are so large that the debtor is forced to default on its payments after a few years. When this happens, then like the Mafia, we demand our own pound of flesh. This often includes one or more of the following: control over United Nations votes, the installation of military bases, or access to precious resources such as oil or the Panama Canal. Of course, the debtor still owes us the money and another country is added to our global empire

September 11 dramatically altered many people's perspectives on life and the world around us. The horrific events which occurred on that beautiful mid-September morning in 2001 changed John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Mr. Perkins, a highly respected economist, had once worked as chief economist at Chas. T. Main, an international consulting firm in Boston. Even though he worked for a private corporation, he was sent abroad under government contracts to convince leaders of developing countries, places of strategic importance to the US, such as Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Panama, Ecuador, etc., to accept enormous "loans" from the United States. The money would then be used to pay American companies to build local infrastructure and other projects. So while American corporations were profiting from these "loans," the countries were sinking into overwhelming debt. The poorest people, who benefited least from these projects, were the ones stuck with the responsibility for payment. These countries usually became US puppet regimes, open to American corporate manipulation. If a leader refused to play the game, the consequences could be lethal. This is blatant economic blackmail - where your best buddy turns out to be the vindictive loan shark.

Perkins resigned from the job about 20 years ago, because morally and ethically, he felt it was "wrong to play such a key role in creating an international empire at the expense of the poor and less advantaged around the world."

The author was paid extremely well to be an "economic hit man," as he describes the position. He worked alongside the heads of the IMF, World Bank, and other notable global financial institutions. Perkins began writing a book shortly after he resigned, with the working title, "Conscience of an Economic Hit Men." He wanted to dedicate the book to Jaime Roldós Aguilera, former president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos Herrera, former president of Panama. He had enormous respect for both men, held them in high esteem, and thought of the two as "kindred spirits." Unfortunately, Roldos and Torrijos had both been his clients. They both died in fiery plane crashes. According to Perkins, their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated, targets of the CIA, because they opposed the goals of corporate, government, and banking leaders, which were, and are, to build and maintain a global empire. The CIA has long assisted American corporations to remain dominant in foreign markets, by overthrowing governments hostile to unregulated capitalism.

In the early 1970s, the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department used the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to develop Saudi Arabian infrastructure, and the House of Saud agreed to maintain the price of oil at reasonable limits. In return, the US would use its resources to keep the House of Saud in power.

After attempting to implement something similar to the Saudi policy in Iraq, and failing, US industry, in concert with government, wanted to depose Saddam Hussein. Saddam did not play ball. When the "economic hit men" were not able to convince the infamous dictator to cooperate, CIA "jackals" went in to foment revolution or a coup. It was not so easy, however, to overthrow or kill Saddam. His bodyguards were too good and he used doubles. Perkins draws the conclusion, based on his experience, knowledge and hard facts, that the present Iraqi war was our next step. He cites the billions of dollars in US government contracts awarded to US corporations, like the Bechtel Group Inc., and Halliburton Company's subsidiary Kellog Brown & Root.

The author was persuaded and even bribed to refrain from writing this book about his professional experiences. And, although he began to write on various occasions over the intervening years, he did stop. World events, such as the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden, convinced him to put his manuscript aside, again and again. Perkins stated in a recent interview with Pacifica Network's Democracy Now program, "When 9/11 struck, I had a change of heart." He concluded the interview by saying, "I believe the World Bank and these other institutions can be turned around....We can change that."

Perkins' tale is a gripping one and the international and political intrigue involved gives the non-fiction book the feel of a suspense thriller. The narrative is very well written and fast-paced. I do highly recommend Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man. Whether you like Mr. Perkins or not, he has some very valuable information and insights to share. One cannot help but benefit.


In order to understand the connection between the fundamental religious ideas of ascetic Protestantism and its maxims for everyday economic conduct, it is necessary to examine with especial care such writings as have evidently been derived from ministerial practice. For in a time in which the beyond meant everything, when the social position of the Christian depended upon his admission to the communion, the clergyman, through his ministry, Church discipline, and preaching, exercised an influence (as a glance at collections of consilia, casus conscientia, etc., shows) which we modern men are entirely unable to picture. In such a time the religious forces which express themselves through such channels are the decisive influences in the formation of national character.

For the purposes of this chapter, though by no means for all purposes, we can treat ascetic Protestantism as a single whole. But since that side of English Puritanism which was derived from Calvinism gives the most consistent religious basis for the idea of the calling, we shall, following our previous method, place one of its representatives at the centre of the discussion. Richard Baxter stands out above many other writers on Puritan ethics, both because of his eminently practical and realistic attitude, and, at the same time, because of the universal recognition accorded to his works, which have gone through many new editions and translations. He was a Presbyterian and an apologist of the Westminster Synod, but at the same time, like so many of the best spirits of his time, gradually grew away from the dogmas of pure Calvinism. At heart he opposed Cromwell's usurpation as he would any revolution. He was unfavourable to the sects and the fanatical enthusiasm of the saints, but was very broadminded about external peculiarities and objective towards his opponents. He sought his field of labour most especially in the practical promo-tion of the moral life through the Church. In the pursuit of this end, as one of the most successful ministers known to history, he placed his services at the disposal of the Parliamentary Government, of Cromwell, and of the Restoration,' until he retired, from office under the last, before St. Bartholomew’s day. His Christian Directory is the most compendium of Puritan ethics, and is c adjusted to the practical experiences of his of his own ministerial activity. In comparison we shall m
Spener's Theologische Bedenken, as representative o German Pietism, Barclay's Apology for the Quakers and some other representatives of ascetic ethics, which, however, in the interest of space, will be limited as far as possible.

Now, in glancing at Baxter's Saints' Everlasting Rest, or his Christian Directory, or similar works of others,' one is struck at first glance by the emphasis placed, in the discussion of wealth and its acquisition, on the ebionitic elements of the New testament. Wealth as such is a great danger; its temptations never end and its pursuit is not only senseless as compared with the dominating importance of the Kingdom of God, but it-is morally suspect. Here asceticism seems to have turned much more sharply against the acquisition of earthly goods than it did in Calvin, who saw no hindrance to the effectiveness of the clergy in their wealth, but rather a thoroughly desirable enhancement of their prestige. Hence he permitted them to employ their means profitably. Examples of the condemnation of the pursuit of money and goods may be gathered without end from Puritan writings, and may be contrasted with the late mediaeval ethical literature , which was much more open-minded on this point. Moreover, these doubts were meant with perfect seriousness; only it is necessary to examine them somewhat more closely in order to understand their true ethical significance and implications. The real. moral objection is to relaxation in the security of possession, the enjoyment of wealth with the consequence of idleness and the temptations of the flesh, above all of distraction from the pursuit of a righteous life. In fact, it is only because possession involves this danger of relaxation that it is objectionable at all. For the saints' everlasting rest is in the next world; on earth man must, to be certain of his state of grace, "do the works of him who sent him, as long as it is yet day". Not leisure and enjoyment, but only activity serves to increase the glory of God, according to the definite manifestations of His will.

Waste of time is thus the first and in principle the deadliest of sins. The span of human life is infinitely short and precious to make sure of one's own election. Loss of time through sociability, idle talk, luxury," even more sleep than is necessary for health, six to at most eight hours, is worthy of absolute moral condemnation. It does not yet hold, with Franklin, that time is money, but the proposition is true in a certain spiritual sense. It is infinitely valuable because every hour lost is lost to labour for the glory of God. Thus inactive contemplation is also valueless, or even directly reprehensible if it is at the expense of one's daily work. For it is less pleasing to God than the active performance of His will in a calling. Besides, Sunday is provided for that, and, according to Baxter, it is always those who are not diligent in their callings who have no time for God when the occasion demands it.

Accordingly, Baxter's principal work is dominated by the continually repeated, often almost passionate preaching of hard, continuous bodily or mental labour.It is due to a combination of two different motives. Labour is, on the one hand, an approved ascetic technique, as it always has been in the Western Church, in sharp contrast not only to the Orient but to almost all monastic rules the world over. It is in particular the specific defence against all those temptations which Puritanism united under the name of the unclean life, whose role for it was by no means small. The sexual asceticism of Puritanism differs only in degree, not in fundamental principle, from that of monasticism; and on account of the Puritan conception of marriage, its practical influence is more farreaching than that of the latter. For sexual intercourse is permitted, even within marriage, only as the means willed by God for the increase of His glory according to the commandment, "Be fruitful and Multiply." Along with a moderate vegetable diet and cold baths, the same prescription is given for all sexual temptations as is used against religious doubts and a sense of moral unworthiness: "Work hard in your calling." But the most important thing was that even beyond that labour came to he considered in itself the end of life, ordained as such by God. St. Paul's "He who will not work shall not eat" holds unconditionally for every-one. Unwillingness to work is symptomatic of the lack of grace.

Here the difference from the medieval view-point becomes quite evident. Thomas Aquinas also gave an interpretation of that statement of St. Paul. But for him labour is only necessary naturali ratione for the maintenance of individual and community. Where this end is achieved, the precept ceases to have any meaning. Moreover, it holds only for the race, not for every individual. It does not apply to anyone who can live without 'labour on his possessions, and of course contemplation, as a spiritual form of action in the Kingdom of God, takes precedence over the commandment in its literal sense. Moreover, for the popular theology of the time, the highest form of monastic productivity lay in the increase of the Thesaurus ecclesie through prayer and chant.

Now only do these exceptions to the duty to labour naturally no longer hold for Baxter, but he holds most emphatically that wealth does not exempt anyone from the unconditional command. Even the wealthy shall not cat without working, for even though they do not need to labour to support their own needs, there is God's commandment which they, like the poor, must obey. For everyone without exception God's Providence has prepared a calling, which he should profess and in which he should labour. And this calling is not, as it was for the Lutheran, a fate to which he must submit and which he must make the best of, but God's commandment to the individual to work for the divine glory. This seemingly subtle difference had far-reaching psychological consequences, and became connected with a further development of the providential interpretation of the economic order which had begun in scholasticism.

The phenomenon of the division of labour and occupations in society had, among others, been interpreted by Thomas Aquinas, to whom we may most conveniently refer, as a direct consequence of the divine scheme of things. But the places assigned to each man in this cosmos follow ex causis naturalibus and are fortuitous (contingent in the Scholastic terminology). The differentiation of men into the classes and occupations established through historical development became for Luther, as we have seen, a direct result of the divine will. The perseverance of the individual in the place and within the limits which God had assigned to him was a religious duty. This was the more certainly the consequence since the relations of Lutheranism to the world were in general uncertain from the beginning and remained so. Ethical principles for the reform of the world could not be found in Luther's realm of ideas; in fact it never quite freed itself from Pauline indifference. Hence the world had to be accepted as it was, and this alone could be made a religious duty - But in the Puritan view, the providential character of the play of private economic interests takes on a somewhat different emphasis. True to the Puritan tendency to pragmatic interpretations, the providential purpose of the division of labour is to be known by its fruits. On this point Baxter expresses himself in terms which more than once directly recall Adam Smith's well-known apotheosis of the division of labour. The specialization of occupations leads, since it makes the development of skill possible, to a quantitative and qualitative improvement in production, and thus serves the common good, which is identical with the good of the greatest possible number. So far, the motivation is purely utilitarian, and is closely related to the customary view-point of much of the secular literature of the time.

But the characteristic Puritan element appears when Baxter sets at the head of his discussion the statement that "outside of a well-marked calling the accomplishments of a man are only casual and irregular, and he spends more time in idleness than at work", and when he concludes it as follows: "and he [the specialized worker) will carry out his work in order while another remains in constant confusion, and his business knows neither time nor place . . . therefore is a certain calling the best for everyone". Irregular work, which the ordinary labourer is often forced to accept, is often unavoidable, but always an unwelcome state of transition. A man without a calling thus lacks the systematic, methodical character which is, as we have seen, demanded by worldly asceticism.

The Quaker ethic also holds that a man's life in his calling is an exercise in ascetic virtue, a proof of his state of grace through his conscientiousness, which is expressed in the care and method with which he pursues his calling. What God demands is not labour in itself, but rational labour in a calling. In the Puritan concept of the calling the emphasis is always placed on this methodical character of worldly asceticism, not, as with Luther, on the acceptance of the lot which God has irretrievably assigned to man.

Hence the question whether anyone may combine several callings is answered in the affirmative, if it is useful for the common good or one's own, and not injurious to anyone, and if it does not lead to unfaithfulness in one of the callings. Even a change of calling is by no means regarded as objectionable, if it is not thoughtless and is made for the purpose of pursuing a calling more pleasing to God,which means, on general principles, one more useful.
It is true that the usefulness of a calling, and thus its favour in the sight of God, is measured primarily in moral terms, and thus in terms of the importance of the goods produced in it for the community. But a further, and, above all, in practice the most important, criterion is found in private profitableness. For if that God, whose hand the Puritan sees in all the occurrences of life, shows one of His elect a chance of profit, he must do it with a purpose. Hence the faithful Christian must follow the call by taking advantage of the opportunity. "If God show you a way in which you may lawfully get more than in another way (without wrong to your soul or to any other), if you refuse this, and choose the less gainful way, you cross one of the ends of your calling, and you refuse to be God's steward, and to accept His gifts and use them for Him, when He requireth it: you may labour to be rich for God, though not for the flesh and sin."

Wealth is thus bad ethically only in so far as it is a temptation to idleness and sinful enjoyment of life, and its acquisition is bad only when it is with the purpose of later living merrily and without care. But as a performance of duty in a calling it is not only morally permissible, but actually enjoined .The parable of the servant who was rejected because he did not increase the talent which was entrusted to him seemed to say so directly. To wish to be poor was, it was often argued, the same as wishing to be unhealthy ; it is objectionable as a glorification of works and derogatory to the glory of God. Especially begging, on the part of one able to work, is not only the sin of slothfulness, but a violation of the duty of brotherly love according to the Apostle's own word. The emphasis on the ascetic importance of a fixed calling provided an ethical justification of the modern specialized division of labour. In a similar way the providential interpretation of profitmaking justified the activities of the business man. The superior indulgence of the seigneur and the parvenu ostentation of the nouveau riche are equally detestable to asceticism.

But, on the other hand, it has the highest ethical appreciation of the sober, middle-class, self-made Man. "God blesseth His trade" is a stock remark about those good men who had successfully followed the divine hints. The whole power of the God of the Old Testament, who rewards His people for their obedience in this life, necessarily exercised a similar influence on the Puritan who, following Baxter's advice, compared his own state of grace with that of the heroes of the Bible, and in the process interpreted the statements of the Scriptures as the articles of a book of statutes.

Of course, the words of the Old Testament were not entirely without ambiguity. We have seen that Luther first used the concept of the calling in the secular sense in translating a passage from Jesus Sirach. But the book of Jesus Sirach belongs, with the whole atmosphere expressed in it, to those parts of the broadened Old Testament with distinctly traditionalistic tendency, in spite of Hellenistic influences. It is characteristic that down to the present day this book seems to enjoy a special favour among Lutheran German peasants just as the Lutheran influence in large sections of German Pietism has been expressed by a preference for Jesus Sirach.

The Puritans repudiated the Apocrypha as not inspired, consistently with their sharp distinction between things divine and things of the flesh. But among the canonical books that of Job had all the more influence. On the one hand it contained a grand conception of the absolute sovereign majesty, of God, beyond all human comprehension, which was closely related to that of Calvinism. With that, on the other hand, it combined the certainty which, though incidental for Calvin, came to be of great importance for Puritanism, that God would bless His own in this life -in the book of Job only-and also in the material sense .The Oriental quietism, which appears in several of the finest verses of the Psalms and in the Proverbs, was interpreted away, just as Baxter did with the traditionalistic tinge of the passage in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, so important for the idea of the calling.

But all the more emphasis was placed on those parts of the Old Testament which praise formal legality as a sign of conduct pleasing to God. They held the theory that the Mosaic Law had only lost its validity through Christ in so far as it contained ceremonial or purely historical precepts applying only to the Jewish people, but that otherwise it had always been valid as an expression of the natural law, and must hence be retained . This made it possible, on the one hand, to eliminate elements which could not be reconciled with modern life. But still, through its numerous related features, Old Testament morality was able to give a powerful impetus to that spirit of self-righteous and sober legality which was so characteristic of the worldly asceticism of this form of Protestantism."

Thus when authors, as was the case with several contemporaries as well as later writers, characterize the basic ethical tendency of Puritanism, especially in England, as English Hebrews they are, correctly understood, not wrong. It is necessary, however, not to think of Palestinian Judaism at the time of the writing of the Scriptures, but of Judaism as it became under the influence of many centuries of formalistic, legalistic, and Talmudic education. Even then one must be very careful in drawing parallels. The general tendency of the older Judaism toward a naive acceptance of life as such was far removed from the special characteristics of Puritanism. It was, however, just as far-and this ought not to be overlooked-from the economic ethics of mediaeval and modern Judaism, in the traits which determined the positions of both in the development of the capitalistic ethos. The Jews stood on the side of the politically and speculatively oriented adventurous capitalism; their ethos was, in a word, that of pariah-capitalism. But Puritanism carried the ethos of the rational organization of capital and labour. It took over from the Jewish ethic only what was adapted to this purpose.

To analyse the effects on the character of peoples of the penetration of life with Old Testament norms-a tempting task which, however, has not yet satisfactorily been done even for Judaism-would be impossible within the limits of this sketch. In addition to the relationships already pointed out, it is important for the general inner attitude of the Puritans, above all, that the belief that they were God's chosen people saw in them a great renaissance. Even the kindly Baxter thanked God that he was born in England, and thus in the true Church, and nowhere else. This thankfulness for one's own perfection by the grace of God penetrated the attitude toward life of the Puritan middle class, and played its part in developing that formalistic, hard, correct character which was peculiar to the men of that heroic age of capitalism.

Let us now try to clarify the points in which the Puritan idea of the calling and the premium it placed upon ascetic conduct was bound directly to influence the development of a capitalistic way of life. As we have seen, this asceticism turned with all its force against one thing: the spontaneous enjoyment of life and all it had to offer. This is perhaps most characteristically brought out in the struggle over the Book of Sports " which James I and Charles I made into law expressly as a means of counteracting Puritanism, and which the latter ordered to be read from all the pulpits. The fanatical opposition of the Puritans to the ordinances of the King, permitting certain popular amusements on Sunday outside of Church hours by law, was not only explained by the disturbance of the Sabbath rest, but also by resentment against the intentional diversion from the ordered life of the saint, which it caused. And, on his side, the King's threats of severe punishment for every attack on the legality of those sports were motivated by his purpose of breaking the anti-authoritarian ascetic tendency of Puritanism, which was so dangerous to the State. The feudal and monarchical forces protected the pleasure seekers against the rising middle-class morality and the anti-authoritarian ascetic conventicles, just as today capitalistic society tends to protect those willing to work against the class morality of the proletariat and the anti-authoritarian trade union.

As against this the Puritans upheld their decisive characteristic, the principle of ascetic conduct. For otherwise the Puritan aversion to sport, even for the Quakers, was by no means simply one of principle. Sport was accepted if it served a rational purpose, that of recreation necessary for physical efficiency. But as a means for the spontaneous expression of undisciplined impulses, it was under suspicion; and in so far as it became purely a means of enjoyment, or awakened pride, raw instincts or the irrational gambling instinct, it was of course strictly condemned. Impulsive enjoyment of life, which leads away both from work in a calling and from religion, was as such the enemy of rational asceticism, whether in the form of seigneurial sports, or the enjoyment of the dance-hall or the public--house of the common man.

Its attitude was thus suspicious and often hostile to the aspects of culture without any immediate religious value. It is not, however, true that the ideals of Puritanism implied a solemn, narrow-minded contempt of culture. Quite the contrary is the case at least for science, with the exception of the hatred of Scholasticism. Moreover, the great men of the Puritan movement were thoroughly steeped in the culture of the Renaissance. The sermons of the Presbyterian divines abound with classical allusions and even the Radicals, although they objected to it, were not ashamed to display that kind of learning in theological polemics. Perhaps no country, was ever so full of graduates as New England in the first generation of its existence. The satire of their opponents, such as, for instance, Butler's Hudibras, also attacks primarily the pedantry and highly trained dialectics of the Puritans. This is partially due to the religious valuation of knowledge which followed from their attitude to the Catholic fides implicita.

But the situation is quite different when one looks at non-scientific literature and especially the fine arts. Here asceticism descended like a frost on the life of "Merrie old England." And not only worldly merriment felt its effect. The Puritan's ferocious hatred of everything which smacked of superstition, of all survivals of magical or sacramental salvation, applied to the Christmas festivities and the May Pole and all spontaneous religious art. That there was room in Holland for a great, often uncouthly realistic art proves only how far from completely the authoritarian moral discipline of that country was able to counteract the influence of the court and the regents (a class of rentiers), and also the joy in life of the parvenu bourgeoisie, after the short supremacy of the Calvinistic theocracy had been transformed into a moderate national Church, and with it Calvinism had perceptibly lost in its power of ascetic influence.

The theatre was obnoxious to the Puritans, and with the strict exclusion of the erotic and of nudity from the realm of toleration, a radical view of either literature or art could not exist. The conceptions of idle talk, of superfluities, and of vain ostentation, all designations of an irrational attitude without objective purpose, thus not ascetic, and especially not serving the glory of God, but of man, were always at hand to serve in deciding in favour of sober utility as against any artistic tendencies. This was especially true in the case of decoration of the person, for instance clothing. That powerful tendency toward uniformity of life, which today so immensely aids the capitalistic interest in the standardization of production," had its ideal foundations in the repudiation of all idolatry of the flesh .

Of course we must not forget that Puritanism included a world of contradictions, and that the instinctive sense of eternal greatness in art was certainly stronger among its leaders than in the atmosphere of the Cavaliers. Moreover, a unique genius like Rembrandt, however little his conduct may have been acceptable to God in the eyes of the Puritans, was very strongly influenced in the character of his work by his religious environment. But that does not alter the picture as a whole. In so far as the development of the Puritan tradition could, and in part did, lead to a powerful spiritualization of personality, it was a decided benefit to literature. But for the most part that benefit only accrued to later generations.

Although we cannot here enter upon a discussion of the influence of Puritanism in all these directions, we should call attention to the fact that the toleration of pleasure in cultural goods, which contributed to purely aesthetic or athletic enjoyment, certainly always ran up against one characteristic limitation: they must not cost anything. Man is only a trustee of the goods which "have come to him through God's grace. He must, like the servant in the parable, give an account of every penny entrusted to him, and it is at least hazardous to spend any of it for a purpose which does not serve the glory of God but only one's own enjoyment. What person, who keeps his eyes open, has not met representatives of this view-point even in the present?


The idea of a man's duty to his possessions, to which he subordinates himself as an obedient steward, or even as an acquisitive machine, bears with chilling weight J. on his life. The greater the possessions the heavier, if the ascetic attitude toward life stands the test, the feeling of responsibility for them, for holding them undiminished for the glory of God and increasing them by restless effort. The origin of this type of life also extends in certain roots, like so many aspects of the spirit of capitalism, back into the Middle Ages. But it was in the ethic of ascetic Protestantism that it first r found a consistent ethical foundation. Its significance for the development of capitalism is obvious. This worldly Protestant asceticism, as we may recapitulate up to this point, acted powerfully against the spontaneous enjoyment of possessions; it restricted consumption, especially of luxuries. On the other hand, it had the psychological effect of freeing the acquisition of goods from the inhibitions of traditionalistic ethics. It broke the bonds of the impulse of acquisition in that it not only legalized it, but (in the sense discussed) looked upon it as directly willed by God. The campaign against the temptations of the flesh, and the dependence on external things, was, as besides the Puritans the great Quaker apologist Barclay expressly says, not a struggle against the rational acquisition, but against the irrational use of wealth.

But this irrational use was exemplified in the outward forms of luxury which their code condemned as idolatry of the flesh, however natural they had appeared to the feudal mind. On the other hand, they approved the rational and utilitarian uses of wealth which were willed by God for the needs of the individual and the community. They did not wish to impose mortification on the man of wealth, but the use of his means for necessary and practical things. The idea of comfort characteristically limits the extent of ethically permissible expenditures. It is naturally no accident that the development of a manner of living consistent with that idea may be observed earliest and most clearly among the most consistent representatives of this whole attitude toward life. Over against the glitter and ostentation of feudal magnificence which, resting on an unsound economic basis, prefers a sordid elegance to a sober simplicity, they set the clean and solid comfort of the middle-class home as an ideal."

On the side of the production of private wealth, asceticism condemned both dishonesty and impulsive avarice. What was condemned as covetousness, Mammonism, etc., was the pursuit of riches for their own sake. For wealth in itself was a temptation. But here asceticism was the power "which ever seeks the good but ever creates evil" what was evil in its sense was possession and its temptations. For, in conformity with the Old Testament and in analogy to the ethical valuation of good works, asceticism looked upon the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself as highly reprehensible; but the attainment of it as a fruit of labour in a calling was a sign of God's blessing. And even more important: the religious valuation of restless, continuous, systematic work in a worldly calling, a the highest means to asceticism, and at the same time the surest and most evident proof of rebirth and genuine faith, must have been the most powerful conceivable lever for the expansion of that attitude toward life which we have here called the spirit of capitalism.

When the limitation of consumption is combined with this release of acquisitive activity, the inevitable practical result is obvious: accumulation of capital through ascetic compulsion to save. The restraints which were imposed upon the consumption of wealth naturally served to increase it by making possible the productive investment of capital. How strong this influence was is not, unfortunately, susceptible o exact statistical demonstration. In New England the connection is so evident that it did not escape the eye of so discerning a historian as Doyle. But also in Holland, which was really only dominated by strict Calvinism for seven years, the greater simplicity of life in the more seriously religious circles, in combination with great wealth, led to an excessive propensity to accumulation.

That, furthermore, the tendency which has existed everywhere and at all times, being quite strong in Germany today, for middle-class fortunes to be absorbed into the nobility, was necessarily checked by the Puritan antipathy to the feudal way of life, is evident. English Mercantilist writers of the seventeenth century attributed the superiority of Dutch capital to English to the circumstance that newly acquired wealth there did not regularly seek investment in land. Also, since it is not simply a question of the purchase of land, it did not there seek to transfer itself to feudal habits of life, and thereby to remove itself from the possibility of capitalistic investment." The high esteem for agriculture as a peculiarly important branch of activity, also especially consistent with piety, which the Puritans shared, applied (for instance in Baxter) not to the landlord, but to the yeoman and farmer, in the eighteenth century not to the squire, but the rational cultivator. Through the whole of English society in the time since the seventeenth century goes the conflict between the squirearchy, the representatives of "merrie old England", and the Puritan circles of widely varying social influence. Both elements, that of an unspoiled naive joy of life, and of a strictly regulated, reserved self-control, and conventional ethical conduct are even today combined to form the English national character. Similarly, the early history of the North American Colonies is dominated by the sharp contrast of the adventurers, who wanted to set up plantations with the labour of indentured servants, and live as feudal lords, and the specifically middle-class outlook of thePuritans.

As far as the influence of the Puritan outlook extended, under all circumstances-and this is, of course, much more important than the mere encouragement of capital accumulation-it favoured the development of a rational bourgeois economic life; it was the most important, and above all the only consistent influence in the development of that life. It stood at the cradle of the modern economic man.

To be sure, these Puritanical ideals tended to give way under excessive pressure from the temptations of wealth, as the Puritans themselves knew very well. With great regularity we find the most genuine adherents of Puritanism among the classes which were rising from a lowly status, the small bourgeois and farmers, while the beati possidentes, even among Quakers, are often found tending to repudiate the old ideals. It was the same fate which again and again befell the predecessor of this worldly asceticism, the monastic asceticism of the Middle Ages. In the latter case, when rational economic activity had worked out its full effects by strict regulation of conduct and limitation of consumption, the wealth accumulated either succumbed directly to the nobility, as in the time before the Reformation, or monastic discipline threatened to break down, and one of the numerous reformations became necessary.

In fact the whole history of monasticism is in a certain sense the history of a continual struggle with the problem of the secularizing influence of wealth. The same is true on a grand scale of the worldly asceticism of Puritanism. The great revival of Methodism, which preceded the expansion of English industry toward the end of the eighteenth century, may well be compared with such a monastic reform. We may hence quote here a passage from John Wesley himself which might well serve as a motto for everything which has been said above. For it shows that the leaders of these ascetic movements understood the seemingly paradoxical relationships which we have here analysed perfectly well, and in the same sense that we have given them. He wrote:

"I fear, wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches. How then is it possible that Methodism, that is, a religion of the heart, though it flourishes now as a green bay tree, should continue in this state? For the Methodists in every place grow diligent and frugal; consequently they increase in goods. Hence they proportionately increase in pride, in anger, in the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life. So, although the form of religion remains, the spirit is swiftly vanishing away. Is there no way to prevent this-this continual decay of pure religion? We ought not to prevent people from being diligent and frugal; we must exhort all Christians to gain all they can, and to save all they can; that is, in effect, to grow rich."

There follows the advice that those who gain all they can and save all they can should also give all they can, so that they will grow in grace and lay up a treasure in heaven. It is clear that Wesley here expresses, even in detail, just what we have been trying to point out. As Wesley here says, the full economic effect of those great religious movements, whose significance for economic development lay above all in their ascetic educative influence, generally came only after the peak of the purely religious enthusiasm was past. Then the intensity of the search for the Kingdom of God commenced gradually to pass over into sober economic virtue; the religious roots died out slowly, giving way to utilitarian worldliness. Then, as Dowden puts it, as in Robinson Crusoe, the isolated economic man who carries on missionary activities on the side takes the place of the lonely spiritual search for the Kingdom of Heaven of Bunyan's pilgrim, hurrying through the market-place of Vanity. When later the principle "to make the most of both worlds" became dominant in the end, as Dowden has remarked, a good conscience simply became one of the means of enjoying a comfortable bourgeois life, as is well expressed in the German proverb about the soft pillow. What the great religious epoch of the seventeenth century bequeathed to its utilitarian successor was, however, above all an amazingly good, we may even say a pharisaically good, conscience in the acquisition of money, so long as it took place legally. Every trace of the deplacere vix potest has disappeared."'

A specifically bourgeois economic ethic had grown up. With the consciousness of standing in the fullness of God's grace and being visibly blessed by Him, the bourgeois business man, as long as he remained within the bounds of formal correctness, as long as his moral conduct was spotless and the use to which he put his wealth was not objectionable, could follow his pecuniary interests as he would and feel that he was fulfilling a duty in doing so. The power of religious asceticism provided him in addition with sober, conscientious, and unusually industrious workmen, who clung to their work as to a life purpose willed by God.

Finally, it gave him the comforting assurance that the unequal distribution of the goods of this world was a special dispensation of Divine Providence, which in these differences, as in particular grace, pursued secret ends unknown to men.Calvin himself had made the much-quoted statement that only when the people, i.e. the mass of labourers and craftsmen, were poor did they remain obedient to God. In the Netherlands (Pieter de la Court and others), that had been secularized to the effect that the mass of men only labour when necessity forces them to do so. This formulation of a leading idea of capitalistic economy later entered into the current theories of the productivity of low wages. Here also, with the dying out of the religious root, the utilitarian interpretation crept in unnoticed, in the line of development which we have again and again observed. Mediaeval ethics not only
tolerated begging but actually glorified it in the mendicant orders. Even secular beggars, since they gave theperson of means opportunity for good works through giving alms, were sometimes considered an estate and treated as such. Even the Anglican social ethic of the Stuarts was very close to this attitude. It remained for Puritan Asceticism to take part in the severe English Poor Relief Legislation which fundamentally changed the situation. And it could do that because the Protestant sects and the strict Puritan communities actually did not know any begging in their own midst.

On the other hand, seen from the side of the workers, the Zinzendorf branch of Pietism, for instance, glorified the loyal worker who did not seek acquisition, but lived according to the apostolic model, and was thus endowed with the charisma of the disciples.Similar ideas had originally been prevalent among the Baptists

Now naturally the whole ascetic literature of almost all denominations is saturated with the idea that faithful labour, even at low wages, on the part of those whom , life offers no other opportunities, is highly pleasing to God. In this respect Protestant Asceticism added in itself nothing new. But it not only deepened this idea most powerfully, it also created the force which was alone decisive for its effectiveness: the psychological sanction of it through the conception of this labour as a calling, as the best, often in the last analysis the only means of attaining certainty of grace. And on the other hand it legalized the exploitation of this specific willingness to work, in that it also interpreted the employer's business activity as a calling. It is obvious how powerfully the exclusive search for the Kingdom of God only through the fulfilment of duty in the calling, and the strict asceticism which Church discipline naturally imposed, especially on the propertyless classes, was bound to affect the productivity of labour in the capitalistic sense of the word. The treatment of labour as a calling became as characteristic of the modern worker as the corresponding attitude toward acquisition of the business man. It was a perception of this situation, new at his time, which caused so able an observer as Sir William Petty to attribute the economic power of Holland in the seventeenth century to the fact that the very numerous dissenters in that country (Calvinists and Baptists) "are for the most part thinking, sober men, and such as believe that Labour and Industry is their duty towards God".

Calvinism opposed organic social organization in the fiscal-monopolistic form which it assumed in Anglicanism under the Stuarts, especially in the conceptions of Laud, this alliance of Church and State with the monopolists on the basis of a Christian , social ethical foundation. Its leaders were universally among the most passionate opponents of this type of politically privileged commercial, putting-out, and colonial capitalism. Over against it they placed the individualistic motives of rational legal acquisition by virtue of one's own ability and initiative. And, while the politically privileged monopoly industries in England all disappeared in short order, this attitude played a large and decisive part in the development of the industries which grew up in spite of and against the authority of the State. The Puritans (Prynne, Parker) repudiated all connection with the large-scale capitalistic courtiers and projectors as an ethically suspicious class. On the other hand, they took pride in their own superior middle-class business morality, which formed the true reason for the persecutions to which they were subjected on the part of those circles. Defoe proposed to win the battle against dissent by boycotting bank credit and withdrawing deposits. The difference of the two types of capitalistic attitude went to a very large extent hand in hand with religious differences. The opponents of the Nonconformists, even in the eighteenth century, again and again ridiculed them for personifying the spirit of shopkeepers, and for having, ruined the ideals of old England. Here also lay the difference of the Puritan economic ethic from the Jewish; and contemporaries (Prynne) knew well that the former and not the latter was the bourgeois capitalistic ethic.

One of the fundamental elements of the spirit of modern capitalism, and not only of that but of all modern culture: rational conduct on the basis of the idea of the calling, was born--that is what this discussion has sought to demonstrate-from the spirit of Christian asceticism. One has only to reread the passage from Franklin, quoted at the beginning of this essay, in order to see that the essential elements of the attitude which was there called the spirit of capitalism are the same as what we have just shown to be the content of the Puritan worldly asceticism, only without the religious basis, which by Franklin's time bad died away. The idea that modern labour has an : ascetic character is of course not new. Limitation to specialized work, with a renunciation of the Faustian universality of man which it involves, is a condition of any valuable work in the modern world; hence deeds and renunciation inevitably condition each other today. This fundamentally ascetic trait of middle-class life, if it attempts to be a way of life at all, and not simply the absence of any, was what Goethe wanted to teach, at the height of his wisdom, in the Wander-jahren, and in the end which he gave to the life of his Faust . For him the realization meant a renunciation, a departure from an age of full and beautiful humanity, which can no more be repeated in the course of our cultural development than can the flower of the Athenian culture of antiquity.

The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so. For when asceticism was carried out of monastic cells into evervday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, it did its part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order. This order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt. In Baxter's view tile care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the "saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment". But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.

Since asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history. Today the spirit of religious asceticism-whether finally, who knows?-has escaped from the cage. But victorious capitalism, since it rests on mechanical foundations, needs its support no longer. The rosy blush of its laughing heir, the Enlightenment, seems also to be irretrievably fading, and the idea of duty in one's calling prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs. Where the fulfilment of the calling cannot directly be related to the highest spiritual and cultural values, or when, on the other hand, it need not be felt simply as economic compulsion, the individual generally abandons the attempt to justify it at all. In the field of its highest development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of sport.

No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development, entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For of the fast stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said:' "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved."

But this brings us to the world of judgments o value and of faith, with which this purely historical discussion need not be burdened. The next task would be rather to show the significance of ascetic rationalism which has only been touched in the foregoing sketch for the content of practical social ethics, thus for the types of organization and the functions of social groups from the conventicle to the State. Then its relations to humanistic rationalism, its ideals of life and cultural influence; further to the development of philosophical and scientific empiricism, to technical development and to spiritual ideals would have to be analysed. Then its historical development from the mediaeval beginnings of worldly asceticism to its dissolution into pure utilitarianism would have to be traced out through all the areas of ascetic religion. Only then could the quantitative cultural significance of ascetic Protestantism in its relation to the other plastic elements of modern culture be estimated.

Here we have only attempted to trace the fact and the direction of its influence to their motives in one, though a very important point. But it would also further be necessary to investigate how Protestant Asceticism was in turn influenced in its development and its character by the totality of social conditions, especially economic. The modern man is in general, even with the best will, unable to give religious ideas a significance for culture and national character which they deserve. But it is, of course, not my aim to substitute for a one-sided materialistic an equally one sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and of history. Each is equally possible, but each, if it does not serve as the preparation, but as the conclusion of an investigation, accomplish equally little in the interest of historical truth.
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here