Capitalism, Rationality, and Opportunity: Do Interests Breed Ideas?

Max Weber, in his work ‘Prefatory Remarks’ to Collected Essays in the Sociology of Religion, makes a compelling case for the role of interests in influencing the behavior of actors on the world stage.  Given that we were unable to put time into discussing his piece in class, I decided it might be prudent to discuss it further in this post.  These remarks will begin by summarizing the key arguments made by Weber in his critique and then proceed by putting forward the argument that perhaps not only are interests more essential to describing actors’ behavior than ideas, but that perhaps ideas are produced by interests.

Big picture, Weber is arguing that rationalism is an idea that spawned from the West and that a few key components define this rationalism and enable it to work so very well.  Among these components is “rationality” itself, which can best be summed up based on his description of the rational “capitalist”.  Weber defines this as “action” that “is oriented to calculation” (Weber, 2002, p.153) and “economic acts based on expectation of profit” (ibid, p.152).  Rational actors, according to Weber, make decisions based upon their expectation of some form of “market reward”, which is similar to Professor Jackson’s description of motivational interests (Jackson, n.d.).

Additionally, Weber focuses on the importance of systems and “organization”.  He contends that Western capitalism has worked because of “the rational organization of industrial companies and their orientation to market opportunities” (Weber, 2002, p.156).  In order for any of this to work, he also argues that “law” and “administration” are absolutely critical (ibid, p.159).

Weber acknowledges that there is a Hobbes-like world out there where actors such as political parties are “oriented toward the acquisition of political power” (Weber, 2002, p.151) and an individual’s orientation toward the pursuit of profit.  Despite this, however, he maintains that rational capitalism counterbalances this environment and that there exists a sort of “rational tempering” (ibid, p.152) that is due in large part to the aforementioned laws or “rules” of the market.

The best quote to summarize his argument is: “The state…as a political institution operated according to a rationally enacted ‘constitution’ and rationally enacted laws, and administered by civil servants possessing specialized arenas of competence and oriented to rules and ‘laws’” (Weber, 2002, p.152).

He also implies that there are “degrees” of rationality based upon the thoroughness/quality of calculation used to determine desired outcomes, suggesting that less rational actors might use “estimations” to determine their likely outcomes (Weber, 2002, p.153). 

With all of that having been said, Weber also suggests that perhaps ideas such as capitalism exist because of the interests or “market opportunities” present around us.

To advance this idea, let’s walk through Weber’s logic behind how modern capitalism came into fruition. 

The idea of modern capitalism, he argues, “has been strongly influenced …by advances in the realm of technology”, which he asserts was made possible by the West’s being “grounded in the exactness of mathematics” (Weber, 2002, p158).

He goes on to say, “the development of these sciences, and the technology that is based upon them, acquired impulses from opportunities offered by capitalism” (Weber, 2002, p.158).  Additionally, he says, “Market opportunities, as rewards…are connected with economic applications of these technologies” (Weber, 2002, p.158).

My interpretation of what is being said here is that the development of advanced technologies drove the development of the idea of modern capitalism and these technologies were developed because of opportunities for reward that existed and that were rationally pursued.  The rational pursuit of these market rewards is at the heart of the interest-based approach and therefore seems to be an example of how interests drive the creation of ideas. 

In this example, an argument could be made that absent the potential for reward (and/or absent the expectation for a certain reward), these technologies would have never been created and had these technologies not been created, the idea of modern capitalism may never have come into fruition.

Weber describes two similar such examples in his piece.  Regarding the first, “commercialization”, he states the system “would never have unfolded to anywhere near the same proportion and dimension if…a rational organization of work had been lacking” (Weber, 2002, p.157).  The second example he mentions is socialism.  Concerning socialism, he argues, “The modern opposition between large-scale industrialists, as employers, and free workers paid a wage is completely lacking outside the West” and thus “a situation of the type known to modern socialism also could not exist” (Weber, 2002, p.157-p.158).  He is asserting that absent rational organization (remembering that rationality is contingent upon the expectation of some form of market reward), the framework for modern socialism could never have been.

This methodology could be used to break down all three of Goldstein and Keohane’s types of belief.  World views and principled beliefs are little more than the result of the structured religions (as one example) being built, as Hobbes describes, to control others and to protect their own interests by teaching that things forbidden by law are “displeasing to the Gods” and to imprint their minds a belief that those precepts which they gave concerning religion might not be thought to proceed from their own device, but from the dictates of some god or other spirit” (Hobbes, 2000, p.53). 

As for causal beliefs, the science (again, as an example),that underpins the framework for many of these beliefs was produced by a market demand that offered certain rewards for its development.   

In summary, reviewing Weber’s work on the role of rationality and interests in defining action (though approached through primarily a market-based lens), it is quite possible to make the argument that ideas are in fact the product of interests and that perhaps they are even “commodities” as described in Laffey and Weldes.  This approach requires the acceptance that individuals are operating based on the expectation of some reward when they produce ideas or innovations that ultimately result in additional ideas (ideas that can be used to better organize the world around us and ultimately produce more rewards).

What are your thoughts?  What came first, the interest or the idea?

Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. Deas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson International Relations/Readings/Goldstein - Ideas and Foreign Policy.pdf

Hobbes, T. (2000). Leviathan. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Jackson, P. (n.d.). Interests or Ideas. Lecture. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://2ir.ironline.american.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=41412

Laffey, M., & Weldes, J. (1997). Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 3:2. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson International Relations/Readings/Laffey - Beyond Belief.pdf

Weber, M. (2002). Prefatory Remarks to Collected Essays in the Sociology of Religion. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson International Relations/Readings/Weber - Prefatory Remarks.pdf