Max Weber, Ernst Troeltsch, Georg Jellinek as Comparative Historical Sociologists

Author(s): Benjamin Nelson

Source: Sociological Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 229-240
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3710369 .
Accessed: 15/07/2013 13:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and Association for the Sociology of Religion, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SociologicalAnalysis1975, 36, 3:229-240

Max Weber,ErnstTroeltsch,Georg Jellinek

as Comparative
Historical
Sociologists
Benjamin Nelson
GraduateFacult, New SchoolforSocial Research

The discussion byMaxWeberonchurch,sectand mysticism whichI introduced

intranslation ina recentissueofSociologicalAnalysis
(1973,34,2),isan exceptional
exampleofthedifferent waysfourofthegreatest Germansociologists relatedto
keyissuesin thedomainsofthesociology ofreligionand theformsofreligiosity.
The chiefthemesat issuein theircolloquy,thoughnotalwaysso plainlystated,
werethevariedpatterns ofrelationsofchurches, sects,mysticisms,rationalisms,
rationalizations,and secularizations
on theroadstomodernity. The main,notthe
only,participants in the colloquiumwere ErnstTroeltsch,who initiatedthe
discussion byoffering a historic
paperon Stoic-Christian naturallaw,'Ferdinand
Toennies,GeorgSimmel,and Weberhimself.(A fifthman whofiguredin the
background ofthesediscussions butwasnotnamedbyanyofthediscussants was
Weber'sclosefriend,GeorgJellinek, of whomwe shallspeakbelow.)
FirstsomewordsaboutWeber:Once againhere,as in manyotherplacesinhis
greatwork,Weberstandsoutas a pioneerin whatI havecalledthecomparative
historicaldifferential sociologyof social and culturalprocess-in civilizational
Notwithstanding
perspective. thefactthatall toofrequently Webertalksas though
hisstructural viewswereparalleltothoseofTroeltschandToennies,itprovesthat
his main emphasisis upon the analysisof variableand differential mixesof
sociocultural elementswhichoccurredwithinthe distinctively fusedwholesof
different civilizations.
Weberregularly insistedthatitwasnotpossibleto under-
standthevarietiesof religiousstructures withoutgraspingthecentralformsof
religiositywithinthe mixof all otherorientations and institutions
dominantin
different societiesand civilizational
settings.
The sociological-asdistinguished fromthehistorical-substance ofthefollow-
ing remarkson Toennies and Troeltschonlybecomesavailableif we grasp
Weber'swayof threadingformaland materialperspectives. Insteadof treating
churchas an invariant, he choosestostressthedifferences betweenthesect-types
ofWestern church-types and thesect-typesofotherchurchstructures, suchas the
Greekchurchsuffusedas it had been in acosmicmysticism. Althoughhe is too
sparinghereinhisdiscussionofthesect-types arisingoutoftheGreekchurch,he
offersverylivelypassageson thestrainsof acosmismrunningthroughRussian
literatureand lifein the 19thcentury.
Throughoutthe 19thcentury and in theearlyyearsofthe20thcentury there
wasa deep senseamongleadingRussianthinkers thattheLatinchurchwasalien

'See Troeltsch (1910) in ed. (1925) and translation(1975a).

229

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
230 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

to themand represented a totallydifferent expressionof Christianity, one that

manyorthodoxbelieversdeemedheretical.Russiantheologiansand religious
leaders,Weberremindsus,elevatedto primacy theidea ofthecommunity ofall
believersin a stateof totalundividedness, continually preserving itspurityand
wholenessthroughtheintegrity of itsfaith-actsin thenameofsubornost. In the
viewoftheSlavophiles, Weberhints,Westernorganization appearedtobe rooted
in rationalizedstructuresofruleand scholastic theologywhichwerealiento the
mostprofound intentionsof Apostolic Christianity. Moreover, Western juridicial
structuresappeared to be Roman in source and to postulatethe separateness of
distinctindividualsand egoisticwills.Westernscholastic theology appearedto be
mererationalism, thebreedinggroundoftheclaimtotheliberty ofconscience in
theProtestant Reformation and the"rationalism" of theFrenchEnlightenment
and Revolution.
Weberdoes notrefertoalltheseissuesinhisforegoing statement; however, his
references to Dostoyevsky, Khomiakov, Solovyevand othersmakeitclearthatin
Weber'sviewtherecould be littlegraspof thesestructures of church,sect,and
mysticism without a graspofthedistinctive realitieswhichoccurwithinthefused
crystallizationsof formsand contentsin diversesettings.For all of Weber's
insistenceon processing allthesevariabilities,or variationsintoformalframes, he
neverforgetshis commitment to beinga differential one who has an
sociologist,
unbelievably keeneye fordifferences in structures,differences in the mixesof
influence,differences inthemodalities offusionofdifferent principleswithin the
structures of society.For Weber,the termschurch,sect,mysticism referto
recurrent structural and orientational patternswhichariseagain and again in
historical
variedcivilizational, settings alwayswithdiversecontents
but through-
outthe19thand 20thcenturies. This stressupon the immense influence of varying
civilizationalsettingsfor the varietiesof religiousexperiences,orientations,
communities and associations constitutes one ofWeber'sgreatest contributions to
sociology,one whichdeservestobe givengreaterweightin further workdone in
thissphere.The magisterial writings whichmarkthe zenithof Weber'scareer
reveala strongstrainwhichmaytrulybe calledcivilization-analytic.
II
RegardingWeberand Troeltsch,a numberofrecentwriters3 empha-
correctly
ofsectsprecedesand yetvaries
sizethatWeber'sapproachto theunderstanding
proposed,and madefamous,byErnstTroeltsch.As we know,
fromdistinctions

2Seethediscussions byKireevsky and Khomiakov inRaeff(ed.),1966:175-207, 208,229,respectively;

Dostoyevsky, 1879-1880,TheBrothers Karamazov.
3A recentessayby StephenBerger(1971) putsespeciallystrongstresson Weber'spriority over
Troeltschin makingthechurch-sect Cf. theimportant
distinction. studiesbyEister(1972); Wilson
(1961, 1970,1971); Greeley(1972). Comparative approachesto sect-likemovements and cultsare
becoming morefrequent; cf.Eister(1972).Describingthe1910colloquiumremarks underdiscussion
hereas a laterversionoftheoriginal1906article,Hill(1973:50)remarks that"Weberbroadenedhis
perspective toincludereligionsotherthanChristianity,amongthemJudaismandBrahminism, which
wereseenas 'churches.'" A strikingstatement importance
ofthecritical forWeberofhisresearches on
American sects,moreprecisely his 1906essay,willnowbe foundinJohnTorrance'sthoughtful essay
(Torrance,1974:127-165, esp. 132-133).Torrancewrites:". . . Weber'smostdecisivemovetowards

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MAX WEBER,ERNST TROELTSCH, GEORGJELLINEK 231

Weberhimself emphasizedthespecialcaseofhisownperspective and thesis,and

theessayunderdiscussionhereexpandstheproofsand bearingsof thisdiffer-
ence. But at the same timethereis new evidencethatthe widerand largely
unnoticedlinksamongthetwomenprovidecluestoperspectives inthesociology
of religionwhichlead us to freshwaysoftalkingaboutwhatI shallherecallthe
relationsamongchurches-sects-societies-cultures
circulatory in widersocietaland
civilizational
settings.4So faras thepresentstatement is concerned,themarksof
difference betweentheemphasesofWeberand Troeltschmaybe putas follows:
Weberis alwayspossessedbytheneedtoestablishthevariablemixesofelements
operatingin diversehistories. Clearly,Weberhad no simpleviewoftherelations
of sub-structure or super-structure or theeffects
ofso-calledeconomicrelation-
shipsupon whichthecharacteristics of sectmovements depend. In thepresent
statement wefindWebertakingsharpissuewithToenniesfortreating theselinks
intoonarrowa way.Weberflatly rejectstheovergeneralizationsofToenniesthat
thekeysto theriseofsectsare tobe foundin thegeographic-economic environ-
ments,whetherurbanor rural.Weber'sanalysisof the paradigmatic sect,the
Donatistmovement, is offeredas a primeillustration
to thecontrary (see Frend,
1952).
III
In themain,butnotalways,Troeltsch'shorizonsdifferfromthoseof Weber.
Troeltsch'problematicsareessentially
concernedwiththecomplexcomminglings
of twosortsof laws-the one he describesas thesociologicalnaturallaws,and the
otherhe callsthe"idealtypesoflawspresentedbyidealizingofvariouskinds."His
pointis to makeclearthatneitherone of theseoperatesalone, thattheycon-
tinuallyinterpenetrate.
Troeltschishereessentially
talking
abouttheinterpenetra-
tionsoccurringbetweenwhatwewouldcalltodaysocial-structural or social-system
effectsand whatwe wouldcall cultural-process or cultural-system effects.His
languageisforus nowcomplextofollow, butthetruthisthathedidherehitupon
a veryessentialdistinction.5
Beyondthat,Troeltschwasalmostwhollyinterested

sociology... occurred betweenTheProtestant

Ethicand TheProtestant
Sects."He then continues: "But
thoughhedidnotpursuealltheimplications ofhisnewperceptionoftheimportance ofthesocial,that
perception wasnevertheless there.And itseemsto haveemergedaboutthetimeofWeber'svisitto
America, whichdirectly inspiredTheProtestant Sects.WeberdidnotoweittoSimmel,nortoanyother
colleagueorbook.Perhaps,likeTocquevillebeforehim,he hadbeenmadenewlyawareofa universal
dimension ofhumanlifebytheimmediate experience ofAmericansociability
andconformism, andby
thegreatertransparency of a societystillat workconstructingitselfon self-consciouslyegalitarian
principles.Certainlythisis whatone is invitedtoinfer,on internalevidence,fromtheessayitself."
Oddly,frommypointofview,a perspective whichappearstobe lackinginTorrance'sexceedingly
ambitious essayis theone particularlydiscussedhere,thecomparative historicaldifferential
sociology
-in civilizational A priceis paid by Torrancefor the omissionof thishorizon.My
perspectives.
illustrations
of theresultant breaksin thecircuitofsomeofhisextendedarguments willhavetobe
reservedforanotheroccasion.
4Anapproachtoan insight ofdynamic processes insect-church
developments willbe foundinan essay
byMauss(1968); cf.also Wilson(1971).
5In theviewof RolandRobertson (1970:117-118),Troeltschwasdrivento discussthechurch-sect-
mysticismdistinctionsbythefactsoftheReformation. Anotherviewseemstometobesuggested bythe
evidenceofkeywritings byTroeltsch, especiallytheoneonwhichWeberisherecommenting, theessay

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
232 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

in the waysin which,withinChristiancivilization and the historyof Christian

societyin Europe,certaindevelopments had occurredwhichhad thedistinctive
whichhe describesunderthe headingof church,sectand mys-
crystallizations
ticism.Atno pointin theessayon Stoic-Christian NaturalLaw does he appearto
supposethatthephenomenainvolvedoccureverywhere underdifferent guises
and in idiomaticdress.Troeltschpayslittleattention hereto thepossibility that
church-type, sect-type,and mysticism modalities
constitute whichare generalin
characterand are not merelythe outcomesof the peculiarcharacteristics of
Westerncivilization.His dominantconcernwasin thestructures ofsocialactivity
and thought whichemergedoutofan earliermatrixofStoicandChristian natural
law.Thereis no doubtthathe had madea contribution whichremainstobe fully
appreciatedbyotherthanexpertsin hiswork.However,thereis also no surprise
in the factthathis viewshave nothad theresonanceamongsociologists which
Weber'sviewshavehad. It is Weberwhodoes in factofferus evidencethatthe
structuresofchurchand sectprovetobe functions ofmorecomplexmovements
atboththesocietaland communalistic levelsofprocess.Under
orthecollectivistic
certaincircumstances, wheretheconceptofchurchisprofoundly communalistic,
as Weberproposesitwasin Russia,thereisan enormousstressupontheholiness
oftheprimalundividedcommunity, and thereistherefore a verydifferent accent
tobe foundwhenever anykindofdissension emerges,and when sectarian groups
appear on the scene. In thoseareas and at thosetimesin whichthe societal
principleshave takenhold,wheretheGesellschaft-like structures prevail,there
sectarianism willmanifest itselfverydifferently(Weber,1904-1905;1906).
It mayalso be notedthatWeberhas a wonderfully clearperception thatthere
are continuing passagesfromthesectto thechurch,fromthechurchto thesect.
There is verylittlein theviewsof Weber,or forthatmatterin Troeltsch,which
wouldrequireso manycontemporary tobe as staticas theyareintheir
sociologists
wayofconceiving therelationsofsectand church.One must,in thisconnection,
be gratefulto thoserecentresearchers, notablyBryanWilson(1970) and Roland
Robertson(1970),whohaveenrichedour appreciation oftheprocessualaspects
in thevicissitudesof sects,denominations, and so on (also P. Berger,1954).
ThereisonesenseinwhichWeberdoesnotrelatetothefullscopeofTroeltsch's
discussioninthepresentstatement. I refertothefactthatTroeltschhasa stronger
stresson thedisengagements fromthematrixofnewstructures whichareneither
churchesor sects,but which constitutenew societaland cultural entitiesthatnow
are fused in decidedly secular ways. Weber does not actually touch upon this
aspect of the subject in the contribution he makes to the very richdiscussion.
on the Stoic-ChristianNatural Law, delivered at Frankfurtin 1910; also see.the essay on "Christian
Natural Law" whichappeared in the encyclopedia,Die Religionin GeschichteundGegenwart (1stedition,
1913). The decisive phenomenon for Troeltsch, as for most other leading German theologians,
philosophers,and historiansthroughoutthe 19th and early 20th centuriesseems to have been the
institutionalizationof primitiveChristianity.These writersand thinkerswanted to know how the
charismaticfellowshipof the apostolic Church had been bureaucratized,how an otherworldly"sect"
gave rise to the Roman Church. In thisrespecttherehad been consistencyof interestfromat leastthe
18th centuryforward.The stressis already strongin Hegel's early theological writings;cf. Hegel
(1949). Others who emphasized this theme include Overbeck (1941, 1963) Harnack (1910, 1962);
Sohm (1970); Schweitzer(1956, 1960); Hatch (1957). A particularlyexcitingdispute on this issue
developed between Sohm and Harnack, for which see Harnack (1910:121-186).

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MAX WEBER,ERNST TROELTSCH, GEORGJELLINEK 233

However, it would be an oversightnot to mentionthe factthat thisapproach is

prominentin earlier treatmentsof thistheme by Weber, especiallyhisProtestant
Ethicand theSpiritofCapitalism(1904-5) and his 1906 essayon "Churchesand Sects
in America."" These observationslead us to an unduly neglected fact about a
criticalforce for all who had wider interestsin the areas under discussionhere,
thatis, the immenseinfluenceof the workof GeorgJellinek.7Weber himselftells
us that he firstcame to have a strong interestin the special features of the
influenceof the Calvinistsectsafterhaving read Jellinek'soutstandingessay on
the formationof the idea of the rightsof man. On anotheroccasion, incidentally,
Weber tellsus that it was Jellinekwho offeredhim verycriticalclues for a new
point of departure in dealing withthe differentialstructuresof authorityin his
Economy and Society (Roth in Weber, 1968 I: lxxxiii; Bendix and Roth,
1971:308-312).

IV
Withregard now to theessayitself,the main themesexplored byWeber maybe
put in the followingterse propositionsand equations:
a. The distinction
ofchurchand sectdoesnotrefertoa fixedinvariantrelationwhich
everywhere manifestsitselfin thesameformand withthesamecontent.
b. The termchurch refersto a rangeof church-types
just as thetermsectrefersto a
rangeof sect-types.
c. Everychurchwillhavethecharacteristics
ofwidersocietalandcivilizational
settings
and willprove to be an actualizationof one or anothercentralstructuralor orientational
emphasis. In this respect there is a differencebetween the Western Latin Roman
Churchand theGreekOrthodoxChurchand,indeed,thereare differences between
theLatinRomanChurchand theCalvinistChurchas churches.
d. There is nothingin principlewhichmilitatesagainstthepossibilityof sectsbeing
transformed intochurchesor denominations.
e. Each churchengendersa distinctive set of sect-types.
There is, in short,a link
betweenthechurch-type and the sect-type
as a resultof the persistences of certain
culturalorientations,
ofteninsomemoreextremeform.Moreover, therelationamong
churchand sectprovedto be a function of widersocietal,culturaland civilizational
settings.
f. The centralpatternsand outcomes of the circulatory processesthatoperate among
church,sect,society,cultureare likelyto be different,
depending upon the characterof
the mixes in these fused wholes.
g. The most criticaldeterminantin the circulatoryprocessis the openings available to
sectswithin
thesocietalorculturalstructures.
Wheretheseopeningsareconsiderable,
as
theywere in the American colonies, we have the spread throughthe wider societyof
structuresand principlesthat were initiallyhatched in the relation to church.
h. The formsand degreesofirradiation arisingfromnewculturaland socialnuclei
varynotablyin theirscope and pace as a resultof unexpectedcontext.

"Weber (1906, edition of 1956). For a reportof a talkby Weber to a Heidelberg group soon afterhis
return fromthe United States, see J. Leo in R. Koenig & J. Winckelmann(eds.), (1963). Valuable
archivalmaterialsbearingon Weber'sobservationsin America-especially his lettersto Harnack-will
be found in Mommsen's informativeessay (1971).
7For clues to Jellinek'sinfluence,see Heller (1937), 379. G. Roth in Weber (1968), I, lxxi, lxxxiii;
Honigsheim (1968), 11, 68-69, 90-91, 105, 122, 126; Bendix and Roth (1971), 380-312.

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
234 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

As we havenotedabove,thereference to churchand mysticism in Russiais a

verytellingillustrationofseveralofWeber'skeypoints:theextraordinary diver-
sityofsocialand culturalprinciples thatmayinfusedifferent frame-
institutional
works;thepowerfulinterplays ofchurch-society-"secular" lifeand culture.One
hastoreadbetweenWeber'slinestograspwhathe is tellingus about"dialectic" in
the sense of "circulatory" relationsamong church-sect-society-and culturein
Russia,the RomanCatholicculturalareas and theterritories of Lutheranand
Calviniststamp.
One mightsay,inthelanguagedevelopedinthisessay,thattheissuewhichmost
powerfully excitedvariousGermantheoristsand scholarsof the relationof
church,sectand of modernsocietywas the strongevidencethatthe sectarian
structureshad playeda verylargepartinthemodernization ortransformation of
the criticalsocietalstructuresand orientations of Englandand the American
colonies.FromtheoutsetmanynotableGermanthinkers werefascinated bythe
differences betweenthe so-called"Anglo-Saxon"stylesof lifeand the forms
withinwhichtheylivedand the formswhichtheyknew.Their sense was that
althoughGermanyhad had itsReformation and itsLutherand had itsofficial
church,it had not undergonethe degreeof permeationof the widersocietal
structuresbythesectformations and Reformation principleswhichwas to be a
markof the Calvinistculture-areas. In the so-called"Anglo-Saxon"countries
sectarianmovements and outlookshad evidently provedtobe thetransformative
influenceswhichissuedinmanyoftheforemost innovations inpoliticalstructures
and socialand religious consciousness (Weber, 1904-1905; Schulze-Gaevernitz,
1906).
WeberobservedthatJellinek wastheone whohadopenedhiseyestotheextent
oftheinfluenceoftheProtestant sectin thetransformation ofthewidersociety.
In theProtestant Ethicand theSpiritof Capitalism,Weberhappenedto place the
emphasison the extraordinary importanceof the innerworldly asceticismin
respectto thespreadof thespiritof capitalismand, indeed,intothespreadof
and habits,waysoflife,formsofconduct,thatwereinaccordwiththe
institutions
requirements ofthenewsortsofenterprises thatwerecominginto
and activities
being.He did not thereconcernhimselfnotablywiththe precisebearingsof
Jellinek's
arguments. However,inEconomyand Societythereis a deeperpenetra-
tionofJellinek's thesesand we findWeberdrawingrathermoreheavilyupon
Jellinekforexplainingthe differences in the politicalstructures of "East" and
"West"and theextentto whichpluralizations ofpolitiesand ofpoliticaloutlooks
wereenhancedbythecirculatory effectsin society.
Unhappily,Weberdoes nothere discussin anydetailthesectswhichissued
fromthe Russianchurch,society, culture,structure. Yet it is apparentthatthe
Russianchurchhad sectswhichwerewithinthespiritof thewiderRussiansocial
arrangements and culture.Russianchurchestendedtomovetowardaccentuating
theemphasison mystical fellowship, acosmiclove,and absolutecommunalism.
There did notexistthe same kindof openingof the Russiansectto thewider
society.However,theRussiansectcontinuedtobe a verysignificant influenceon

8See again Roth in Weber (1968), I, lxxxiii; Torrance (1974) now questions the actual extent of
Weber's debt to Jellinekhere.

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MAX WEBER,ERNST TROELTSCH, GEORGJELLINEK 235

Russianculturalleadersand,actually, theRussiansectwithall ofitsveryintense

concentration on unitydidhaveitseffect on theimperialcircles,and,indeed,the
Czarhimself. Butthemonocratic characterofthewidersocietyofCzaristRussia
in the19thcentury did notencouragetheemergenceofsectswhichcoulddiffuse
rationalismand notionsoftherights ofmenandcitizens through circulatoryprocess
at thesocietallevel.The newerviewshad to be borrowedor adaptedfromthe
West.
Byencouragingus to putquestionsofthisscopeand form,Weber,Troeltsch,
andJellinek haveprovidedus firmbasesforapplying comparative, and
historical,
civilizational
perspectivesforfreshlystudyingthevarietiesofpatterned relations
of societies,cultures,churches,sects,mysticisms,
rationalisms,rationalizations,
indeedall theprocesseswhichoccurin thepassagesbetweentraditionalism and
modernity.
V
It hardlyseemspossibleto end thisdiscussionwithout
relatingto twostrongly
relevantcontexts whichwillinvolveour introducingsomenotabledevelopments
and variationsof theforegoingremarksin respecttoboth"sect"and mysticism.
A.
The firstpassageinvolvestheverysubstantive analysisof "Sect,Church,and
Democracy" insection14ofChapter15ofEconomy and Society.Here Webershifts
hisperspectiveandvarieshisaccentsatseveralpointsbeforehe hascompletedthis
dense discussion.He beginsthe sectionby seemingto talkin an "essentialist
manner"abouttheprimary"sociological"senseof theword"sect."His closing
part,however,findsWeberreturningto some of Jellinek'sthemesand then
proceedingtorearon thisbasesomepowerfully stated,evenprovocative,proposi-
tions,ina mannerwhichrecallsthelastpagesofhisProtestantEthic.Limitations
of
space forbidfullreviewon thisoccasionof thedetailsofthesearguments, espe-
ciallyofthepowerful and sweepingtransitions
from Jellinek's
outlookstohisown
morehighlychargedstatements. Here it mustsufficeto citeselectedsentences
fromtheconclusionsof theremarkablesection:
Thustheconsistent sectgivesrisetoan inalienable
personalrightofthegoverned as againstany
power,whether political,hierocratic
orpatriarchal.Suchfreedomofconscience maybetheoldest
RightofMan-asJellinek has arguedconvincingly; at any rate,it is the mostbasic Rightof
Man because itcomprisesall ethicallyconditionedactionand guaranteesfreedomfrom
compulsion, especially from the power of the state. In this sense the concept was as
unknownto Antiquityand the Middle Ages as it was to Rousseau's social contractwith
its power of religiouscompulsion.The otherRightsofMan or civilrightswerejoined tothis
basicright,especiallytherightto pursue one's own economicinterests,whichincludesthe
inviolabilityof individualproperty,thefreedomof contract,and vocationalchoice. This
economic rightexistswithinthelimitsof a systemof guaranteedabstractrulesthatapply
to everybodyalike. All of theserightsfindtheirultimatejustificationin thebeliefof the
Enlightenmentin the workingsof individualreason which,ifunimpeded, would result
in theat leastrelativelybestof all worlds,byvirtueof Divine providenceand because the
individual is best qualified to know his own interests.This charismaticglorificationof
"Reason," which found a characteristicexpression in its apotheosis by Robespierre,is
the last formthatcharismahas adopted in itsfatefulhistoricalcourse.It is clearthatthese

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
236 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

postulates
offormal legalequality
andeconomicmobility ofall
pavedthewayforthedestruction
patrimonial and feudallawin favorofabstract normsand henceindirectly ofbureau-
It is also clearthattheyfacilitated
cratization. theexpansionof capitalism.The basic
RightsofManmadeitpossibleforthecapitalist justas the
touse thingsand menfreely,
this-worldlyasceticism-adopted withsomedogmaticvariations-andthespecificdis-
ciplineofthesectsbredthecapitalist spiritandtherational"professional"
(Berufsmensch)
whowasneededbycapitalism (Weber,1968,III:1209-1210).
This sectionin Economyand Societyhas the air of being as consistent,coherent,
and comprehensiveas anythingbyWeber on thesubjectof the sect.It is,however,
to be noted that its tone and character are quite differentfrom the replies to
Troeltsch and Toennies which Weber presented in the firstmeeting of the
German Societyof Sociology at Frankfurtin 1910. The turn given to Weber's
reflectionson thatoccasion do appear to representa breakthroughintocompara-
tive civilizationalhorizons which are distinctlyhis own and which poignantly
reveal Weber in another aspect of his life-longeffortto achieve a comprehensive
differentialsociologyof socioculturalprocessand human action-in comparative
historicaland civilizationalperspective.

B.
Our lastthemein thesepages relatesto Weber's treatmentof thethirdnotionin
Troeltsch'spaper, "mysticism" especiallythe notionofinnerworldlymysticismabout
which too littlehas so far been said in the literature.
Troeltschdoes not make iteasy foranyone who wishesto followthe windingsof
his thoughtin this analysis. He is hardlyclear in his passages froma structural
pointof viewto his interestin predominantlyintellectualhistory.Nonethelesswe
discover that Troeltsch is aware of the crossingsof mysticismand sect in the
late-Medievaland earlymodern era. Thus it proves thatTroeltsch does perceive
the importantrole that mysticismplayed in the passages toward the illuminous
sectariangroups and the extensionsof the notionof reason and civilliberties.In a
sense itis surprisingthatTroeltsch'sremarkson mysticism here did not appear to
prompt Weber to a larger response. One aspect of this is of some significance.
From the wider civilizationalpoint of view I have been adopting in these
remarks,strongeremphasis would need to be given to one keyfactwhichWeber
himselffailed to give due recognition.Weber was so intentupon establishingthe
unique predominance in the West of the penetrationand remakingof the world
to innerworldlyasceticismthat he failed to give enough weightto another fact
which he no less than Troeltsch implicitlyrecognized. Weber does not here or
elsewherein his worksufficiently stressthe significanceofinnerworldlymysticismas
contrasted withotherworldly
mysticisms.
9
From my own point of view it comes to be imperativeto expand and modify
Weber's formula.I would say thatonly the modern post-ReformationWest saw

91am happy toacknowledgethe suggestionshere of a stimulatingessayon innerworldlymysticism by

mystudent,David McCloskey,now completinghis doctorateat the Universityof Oregon. McCloskey
makes exceedingly livelyuse of some of my previous writings,especially those which explore the
significanceof the changed images of "conscience" fora varietyof culturaltraditionsin the modern
West.

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MAX WEBER,ERNST TROELTSCH, GEORGJELLINEK 237

the simultaneous,if conflictful, breakthroughto and legitimationof innerworldly

mysticism as well as innerworldlyasceticism.So far as I can now see, the recorded
historyof civilizationsoffersno precedent or parallel to this double and simul-
taneous breakthrough of transformativereligious orientations within the
"world." In any event,these twoorientationsto "Religion"and "World" nowhere
received the same degree of elaborationand legitimationas theydid in the West.
This factmustsurelybe an importantclue and testimonyto the restlessdynamic
characterof Westernculturaland social life.
Anothercriticalfeatureof thisdevelopmentwas thatthese two orientationsof
innerworldlyasceticism and innerworldlymysticismrecurrentlyunderwent
differentfusionsand de-fusions.Indeed, differencesin the elaborationsof the
various branches of Protestantismprove to be differencesin the ways in which
these two were related. Neitherinnerworldlyasceticismnor innerworldlymysti-
cism were as ramifiedor as articulatedin Lutheran Germanyas theywere in the
Puritanand mysticalsectarianstrainsin England and NorthAmerica.This stands
out stronglyin the materials I have gathered for the unfolding of different
stressesassociated withthe expressionof the moralconsciousnessand conscience.
As I now see it, it hardly seems possible to understand the transformations
throughwhichmodern religiousand otherculturalexpressionshave gone with-
out carefullyexploringtherelationsin theculturaltraditionsand "philosophiesof
life" of these two orientationalhorizons and commitments.
legitimationof the two orientations
Also, it is the simultaneous,if conflictful,
whichhelps us understandthatmattersneverseem to be going wellwithus in the
West when the two orientationsare radically separated from one another or
appear to work at cross purposes. Our own days are proof of this.Clearly now
thosewho are committedto followingthewaysof the"spirit"pursue innerworldly
mysticismin a great varietyof ways,rejectingall of those cultural expressions
believed to be profoundlyconnected withinnerworidly asceticism.
A word may be allowed about the differencein this regard from the pre-
Reformationera. Althougha great deal more needs to be done about exploring
the relationsof the mixes of asceticismsand mysticisms in the medieval era, it is
already apparent that the medieval church never accepted the foundation on
which the post-Reformationworld was to rest.The medieval world had various
blends of otherworldly asceticismand otherworldlymysticism.Neitherinnerworldly
asceticismnor innerworldlymysticismwere given consistentencouragementin
that era. A criticaljuncture in the medieval world comes when new strainings
towardinnerworldlymysticismand innerworldlyasceticismassertedthemselves.
One sees thisclearlyin the response of the Church to new sectsand intentional
communitieswhichcome to the forein the 13thand 14thcenturies.The Church
stronglyopposed the various formsof spiritualities.Equally strongly,it opposed
the Beguine movementwhichforeshadoweda thrustto innerworldlyasceticism.
The establishedmedievalimage of the stateof perfectionruled out the possibility
thatthe world could be the settingand arena forthe pursuitand achievementof
that state.
Elsewherein mywritingsI have soughtto surveysome of the powerfultracesof
innerworldlymysticismon modern and contemporarycultural and religious
movements.In particular,in my"Self-Imagesand Systemsof SpiritualDirection

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

intheHistory ofEuropeanCivilization," I haveattempted toillustratesomeofthe

waysin whichwhat I have theredescribedas "inner-light mysticism of the
transmoral conscience"has constituteda centralcoreofseveralofthedominant
culturaltraditions and socialdevelopments ofmodernWestern These
civilization.
developments includeilluministor"inner-light"
democracy-now and
collectivist
levelling theliberties
in stress, ofconscience, If,
revivalism. as I believe,Protestant-
ism was to witnessin different proportionsthe unleashingof innerworldly
mysticisms, we have new clues whichmayhelp us to understandthe complex
developments of thelasttwocenturies.In makingthissuggestion, I go beyond
Weber'sexpressedviews-but I ventureahead in hisspirit.'0

REFERENCES
Bendix,R. and G. Roth. 1971. Scholarshipand Partisanship: Essayson Max Weber.Berkeley,
California:University of CaliforniaPress.
Berger,Peter.1954."The sociological studyof sectarianism."SocialResearch21:467-485.
Berger,Stephen.1971."The sectsand thebreakthrough intothemodernworld:on thecentrality of
thesectsin Weber'sProtestant EthicThesis."Sociological
Quarterly12:486-499.
Eister,A. W. 1972."Anoutlineofa structural theoryofcults."Journalfor Study
theScientific ofReligion
11, 4:319-333.
Frend,W. H. 1952.The DonatistChurch:A movement ofProtestin RomanNorthAfrica.Oxford:
ClarendonPress.
Greeley,A. 1972.The Denominational Society:A SociologicalApproachto Religionin America.
Glenview, Illinois:Scott,ForesmanCompany.
Harnack,A. von. 1910.Entstehung undEntwickelung Kirchenverfassung unddes Kirchenrechts in
denzweierstenJahrhunderten. Leipzig:J.C.HinrichsBuchlandlung. theimportant
See especially
critiqueof Sohm's"Wesenund Ursprungdes Katholizismus," (121-186).
Hatch,E. 1957.The Influenceof GreekIdeas on Christianity. NewYork:Harper& Row;Harper
Torchbooks.
Hegel,G.W.F.1949.EarlyTheologicalWritings. Tr. byT.M. Knox.Introduction and Fragments of
TranslationbyRichardKroner.Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
Heller,H. 1937."Jellinek, Georg."EncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences,VII:379.
Hill,Michael.1973.A Sociologyof Religion.NewYork:Basic Books.
Holl, Karl. 1964a (1913). "Die religiosenGrundlagender russischen Kultur."Pp. 418-432in Holl,
1964b,II. Gesammelte Aufsatze zumKirchengeschichte. 3 volumes.Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Honigsheim, Paul. 1968.On Max Weber.Tr. byJoanRytina.NewYork:FreePress.
G. 1901.The DeclarationoftheRightsof Manand ofCitizens:A Contribution
Jellinek, to Modern
Constitutional History.NewYork:Holt.Tr. byMaxFarrand.(Originally publishedinGermanas
Die Erklarung der Menschen- und Burgerrechts. Munich,1885.)

'l0tisnotpossibleinthesepagestooffera neededreviewofWeber'scharacterizations ofthefuture as

he envisagedit.The following passagemayhelptosuggestan aspectofthethemeimportant forour
purposes:"The generalresultofthemodernformofthoroughly theworldand theway
rationalizing
oflife,theoretically
andpractically, manner,
ina purposive hasbeenthatreligion hasbeenshiftedinto
therealmof theirrational ... The unityof theprimitive imageof world,in whicheverything was
concrete magic,hastendedtosplitintorationalcognitionandmasteryofnature,on theonehand,and
intomystic on theother.The inexpressible
experiences, ofsuchexperiences
contents remaintheonly
possible'Beyond,'addedtothemechanism ofa worldrobbedofgods.In fact,theBeyondremainsthe
incorporealand metaphysical realmin whichindividualspossesstheholy"(Weber,1946:282).

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MAX WEBER, ERNST TROELTSCH, GEORG JELLINEK 239

1912.The Rightsof Minorities. London:P.S. Kingand Sons.

1914.Allegemeine Berlin:0. Haring.
Staatslehre.
Khomiakov, AlexseiStepanovich.1861-1873(1859). "On Humboldt."Pp. 208-229in Raeff(ed.),
1966. (Writtenin 1859; not publisheduntilfirsteditionof Khomiakov'sCompleteWorks,
1861-1873.)
Kireevsky,IvanVasil'evich.1852."On thenatureofEuropeancultureanditsrelation
tothecultureof
Russia.LettertoCountE.E. Komarovskii."Tr.byValentine
Snow.Pp. 175-207inRaeff(ed),1966.
Leo,Johannes.1963."Erinnerungen an Max Weber."Pp. 17-18in R. Koenigand J. Winckelmann
(eds.),Max WeberzumGedachtnis. farSoziologieund Sozialpsy-
KolnerZeitschrift
(Constitutes
chologie.Sonderheft 7.) Kolnand Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.
Mauss,M. 1968."Systtmereligieuxdes groupessecondaires:Les sectes(1905)." Pp. 97-100in V.
Karady(ed.), Oeuvres,Volume.I.
McCloskey, David. 1974."A noteon innerworldly Ms.
mysticisms."
Mommsen,Wolfgang J. 1971."Die VereinigtenStaatenvon Amerikaim politischenDenkenMax
Webers." Historische
Zeitschrift,
213:358-381.
Nelson,Benjamin.1964."In defenseof Max Weber.Replyto HerbertLuethy."
Encounter
Magazine
131:94-95.
1965a. "Max Weber's The SociologyofReligion:A review-essay."AmericanSociologicalReview30
4:595-599.
1965b."Self-images
and systems in thehistory
direction
ofspiritual ofEuropeancivilization."
Pp.
49-103 in S.Z. Klausner (ed.), TheQuestforSelf-Control: and Scientific
ClassicalPhilosophies Research.
New York:Free Press.
1969. "Conscience
and the makingof earlymoderncultures:The Protestant
EthicbeyondMax
Weber." Social Research36, 4:4-21.
1973a. "Civilizational
complexesand intercivilizationalencounters."Sociological
Analysis,34, 2:
79-105.
1973b"MaxWeber'sProtestant Ethic:Itsorigins,wanderings andforeseeable
futures."Pp.71-130in
C. Y. Glockand P. Hammond(eds.),Beyond theclassics?
New York: Harper& Row; Harper
Torchbooks.
1974a."Sciencesandcivilizations,
'East'and'West':JosephNeedhamand MaxWeber."Pp.225-273
in R.S. Cohen and M. Wartofsky (eds.), BostonStudiesin the Philosophyof Science,XI:
Philosophical Foundations.Dordrecht, Hollandand Boston,Massachusetts: Reidel.
1974b. "De Profundis.. .: Responses to friendsand critics."SociologicalAnalysis,35, 2:129-141.
(SpecialIssueSymposium on BenjaminNelson's"Civilizational complexesand intercivilizational
encounters.")
1975."Max Weber's'Author'sIntroduction' (1920): A masterclue to hismainaims."Sociological
Inquiry,44, 4:269-278.
Overbeck,Franz.1941.Selbstbekenntnisse. Basel: BennoSchwabe& Co. Verlag.
1963. Christentum und Kultur;Gedankenund Anmerkungen zur modernenTheologie.2nd
edition.Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche 1963.(Posthumously
Buchgesellschaft, published,191 )
Raeff,Marc(ed.). 1966.RussianIntellectual History.An Anthology. NewYork:Harcourt,Brace&
World.
Robertson,R. 1970.The SociologicalInterpretation of Religion.NewYork:Schocken.
Schulze-Gaevernitz, G. von. 1906. BritischesImperialismus und englischesFreihandel.Leipzig:
Dunckerund Humblot.
Schweitzer,Albert.1956.The Mysticism ofSt. Paul.Tr. byWilliamMontgomery. Pref.notebyF.C.
Burkitt.NewYork:Macmillan.
1960 (1957). Quest of the HistoricalJesus:A CriticalStudyof Its ProgressfromReimarusto
Wrede.Tr. byW. Montgomery. NewYork:Macmillan.(FirstGermanedition,1906).
Sohm,Rudolf.1970(1892, 1923).Kirchenrecht. 2 volumes.Berlin:Dunckerand Humblot.(original
editions,Vol. i, Leipzig,1892;Vol. ii. editedbyE. Jacobiand 0. Mayer,Munich,1923.)

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Torrance,John. 1974. "Max Weber: Methodsand the man."European Journalof SociologyXV,

1:127-165.
Troeltsch, und das moderneprofaneNaturrecht."
E. 1910."Das stoisch-christliche Deliveredat the
firstmeeting oftheDeutscheGesellschaft feirSoziologie,Frankfurt, 1910.Reprinted inTroeltsch
(1925),pp. 166-191.Tr. in Troeltsch(1975a).
1925.AufsatzezurGeistesgeschichte und Religionssoziologie. GesammelteSchriftenIV. Tubingen:
J.C.B.Mohr(Paul Siebeck).
1958(1906).Protestantism andProgress: A Historical StudyoftheRelationofProtestantism tothe
ModernWorld.Boston:Beacon.
1960(1919). The SocialTeachingof theChristian Churches.2 Volumes.Tr. by0. Wyon.New
York:HarperTorchbooks.
naturallawand modernsecularnaturallaw."Tr.byJ.L.Adams.To appear
1975a."Stoic-Christian
in Troeltsch:CollectedEssays.In preparation.
1975b."Christian naturallaw."Tr. byP. Bon and W. BensefromDie Religionin Geschichte u.
Gegenwart; Handworterbuch furTheologieu. Religionswissenschaft, 1stedition.Ms.fromJ.L.
Adams.
vonSchelting, Alexander.1948.Russlandund Europa.Bern:A. Franke.
Weber,Max. 1946(1915). "The socialpsychology oftheworldreligions." Pp. 267-301inH.H. Gerth
andC.W. Mills(eds.,Trs.),From MaxWeber: EssaysinSociology.NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press
1946(1920). "The Protestant sectsand thespiritof capitalism." Pp. 302-322in H.H. Gerth and
C.W.Mills(eds.,trs.),FromMaxWeber: EssaysinSociology.NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press.
1956(1906). "'Kirchen'und 'Sekten'im Nordamerika." Welt20:558-562and 577-583.
Christliche
Citedfrompp. 382-397ofJ. Winckelmann (ed.), (1956).
1958(1904-1905).The Protestant Ethicand theSpiritofCapitalism. Tr. byT. Parsons.Foreword
byR.H. Tawney.New York:CharlesScribner's. (Firsttranslated edition,1930.)
1968(1956)."Sect,churchand democracy." Pp. 1204-1211ofVolume3 ofC. RothandC. Wittich
(editorsand translators),
Economy and Society,3 volumes.Totowa,NewJersey:Bedminster
Press.
1973. "On church,sect and mysticism." Tr. byJ. Gittleman;intro.and ann. by B. Nelson.
SociologicalAnalysis,34, 2:140-149.
Wilson,B. 1961.Sectsand Society.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
1970.ReligiousSects.New York:McGraw-Hill.
New York:HarperTorchbooks.(Originally
(ed.). 1971 (1970). Rationality. publishedLondon:
BasilBlackwelland Mott,1970.)
Winckelmann, J. (ed.), 1956. Max Weber:Soziologie-Weltgeschichtliche Stutt-
Analysen-Politic.
gart:AlfredKroener.

Corrigenda
In the articleby Stephen G. Wieting"An Examination of IntergenerationalPatternsof Religious
Belief and Practice"(SA 1975, 36,2:137-149) the followingreferencesshould be appended: Berger,
Peter L. 1969. The Sacred Canopy. Garden City: Doubleday. Berger, Peter L. and T. Luckmann.
1966. The Social Constructionof Reality.Garden City:Doubleday. Heise, David R. 1969. "Separating
reliabilityand stabilityin test-retest SociologicalReview34:93-10 1. Holsti,Ole R.
correlation."American
1969. ContentAnalysisforthe Social Sciences. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Uspensky,B.A. 1974. "The
influenceof language on religiousconsciousness."Semiotica10:177-189. Wallace, RobertK. 1971. The
PhysiologicalEffectsof Transcendental Meditation.Los Angeles: InternationalStudent Meditation
Society. Wallace, Walter (ed.). 1969. Sociological Theory. Chicago: Aldine. Yinger,J.M. 1969. "A
structuralexamination of religion."JournalfortheScientific StudyofReligion8:88-99.

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:09:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions