Reprinted from Sacra RESEARCH, AUTUMN 1582, VoL. 49, No. 3 Reconstruction of Max Weber's oe Notion of © -—-_—. Rationality: An Immanent Model BY MAHMOUD SADRI Sher years of Weber scholarship has demonstrated, if nothing else, that Weber's work is a miniature of the world he envisioned: an infinitely rich and inexhaustible cosmos that remains open to numerous questions and interpretations on the most fundamental level. In order to make sense of it, scholars have attempted to detect either a hidden philosoph- ical framework or a thematic orientation in Weber's writings. Nor has this world lacked its sophists, who have either pro- nounced the whole to be a hopeless confusion or have dis- credited its principles by means of ironically destructive tech- niques well known since antiquity. Since the early Weber scholarship of the 1920s, there has been general agreement that the notion of rationality constitutes the core of his work. The present essay has been developed in the light of this consideration, one of the very few issues on which successive generations of Weber scholars have managed to achieve a minimal consensus.’ "For confirmation of this consensus, see for example Benjamin Neon, "Max Weber's ‘Authors Introduction’ (1920). A Master Clue vo His Main Ai," Secelopel Inquiry 44 (1974): 271: Karl Liwith, “Weber's Interpretation of the Bourgeois Capitalist World in Terms of Guiding Principles of Rationalization,” in Deonis Wrong. ed. Max Weber (Englewood Chffs, NJ: PremiceHall, 1970), p. 108,WEBER'S RATIONALITY 617 However, this same body of scholarship also demonstrates that Weber's various discussions of rationality pose extremely difficult problems that have thus far resisted solution. Weber uses the concept of rationality and its cognates for the analysis of a remarkably wide range of sociocultural and sociostruc- tural phenomena and processes that range across several thousand years of cultural history and cover the development of every civilization. Yet it is not clear in what sense, if any, these processes have any features in common. Although Weber differentiates various kinds of rationalization processes, the relationships between them are never made clear. In addi- tion, his various uses of the concept of rationality are fre- quently vague, ambiguous, or ambivalent, often creating the impression of an irredeemable imprecision or at least a highly problematic usage.* Finally, some of these uses even seem to bbe mutually inconsistent, suggesting that the concept not only lacks a central or paradigmatic import but even that it may be logically incoherent. These difficulties form the general prob- Raymond Aron, Geman Sociology (New York: Arno Press, 1979), p. 105; Wolfgang, Sehluchier and Guenther Roth, Max Web's Visor of History (Berkeley: University of (California Press, 1979), pp. 13-15; Stephen Kalberg, “Max Weber's Types of Ration- aly," Amerizan Journal of Socialogy 85 (March 1980); 1145; David Beetham. Max Weber and We Theory of Modern Poktes (New York: Allen le Unwin, 1974), p. 28; Friedrich ‘Tenbruck, “The Problem of Thematic Unicy in the Works of Max Weber," Brith Journal of Soitogy $1 (September 1980): $23: Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, eds. ‘Frem Max Weber (New York: Oxford University Pres, 1967), p. 81 "See, for example, Steven Lukes, “Some Problems about Rationality.” ‘ed, Retiomatiy (Oxford: Blachwell, 1979}, p. 207: Reinhard Beadix, "Max Webcrs Sociology Today." Iemetiona Social Science Journal 17 (1968): 21: Donald Levine, “Rationality and Freedom, Weber and Beyond.” Secbloneal Inquiry $1 (1981): 5-25: ‘Arnold Eisen, “The Meanings and Confusions of Weberian Zationaliy,” Brith Jour: al of Secaloy 29 (March 1978). 67: Gert Miller, "The Notion of Rationafity in the Work of Max Weber,” Archive evropéennes de socilone 20 (1979): 164: Léwith, “Weber's Interpretation,” p- 206: Tenbrack. “The Problem of Thematic Unity,” p. 322. To addition io an acknowledgment of confusion, some commentators hive appealed to biographical and even prvchological explanations of this ambiguity. See Benjumin Nelson, “Conscience and the Making of Early Modern Cultures,” Sera! Reanreh 86 (Spring 1969): 6: Amthony Giddens, Caprahim and Moder Socia! Theor. (Gambridge: Cambridge Univessity Pres, 1971), p. 37: Eisen, “The Meanings and ‘Confusions,” p. 67618 SOCIAL RESEARCH lem of this essay, which may be formulated as follows: Given the great variety of usages of the concept of rationality in Weber's work, the heterogeneity of the texts in which ration- ° ality is a crucial concept, and the apparent contradictions be- tween different usages, can a classification of types of ration- ality be developed which demonstrates that this plurality of uses is both internally consistent and also systematic, in the sense that it follows from his general methodological and theoretical intentions? The aim of the essay is to develop a model which reconstructs the Weberian notion of rationality in such a‘way that this problem can be solved. ‘The model proposed in the ensuing discussion summarizes the central argument of a more extended study of the prob- lem of rationality in Weber's work. That study also provides an extended analysis and critique of the scholarly literature on the problem by developing a classification of types of theories of Weberian rationality which makes it possible to assess their strengths and weaknesses systematically. Given the limits of this article, it is obviously impossible to come to terms here with these studies and the models they propose.® These mod- 2 Am outline of the general typology ef the scholars who have attempted to avoid the apparent complications in Weber’ concept of rationality ie, nevertheless, indis- [ensable. It invalves rwo major groups. Fist. proponents of an ontological solution, ‘sho hold that the ambiguities in the notion of rabionaily are not results of error oF confusion but of Weber's overarching existentaliom of other philoiophical o poliicophilosophical beliefs See, for example, Karl Jaspers, Three Euays (New York: Harcourt, Brace fe Word. 1969). pp. 241-243: Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Primacy of Prrrption (Chicago: Northwesiern University Press, 1964), pp. 200-210; Lawith, “Weber's Interpreration.”p. 68: Eisen, “The Meanings and Confusions,” p. 68. Sec ‘ond, advocates of 2 methodological solution, who entertain the possibility that certain themes sueh as rationality lend inner coherence, thematic otientation, or even the- matic unity to Webers work. They have tried to demonstrate sich trends by reducing Weber's ranonaliy 10 4 singular structure or process. See, for example, Herbert Marcuse, “On Industrakation and Capitalism.” in Otto Stammer,ed., Maz Weber a Secale Today Oxford: Blackwell, 197, p. 1848, Alto, the suggestions of Talcott Parsons, Daniel Bell Friedrich enbruch. Dennis Wrang. Car] Anton Georg Lukics, H. Lefebere, end J. Leen hase been of inav be qualified as reducuonis salnions for “Weber's natian of rationatin. or thee have ied 4 offer comprehensive casifications covering the range of meanings rationalin. assumes in Weber's work. Methods em loser to bring classificatars precision to the usage of rational twhich is abyent in the text mee) separate the adherents ims two groups: (I) Those who have used