Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/322433890
CITATIONS READS
3 52,687
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
SCHOOL CLOSURES AND MERGERS: A A MULTI-STATE STUDY OF POLICY AND ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC
EDUCATION SYSTEM TELANGANA, ODISHA AND RAJASTHAN View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Srinivasa Rao on 25 February 2018.
S. Srinivasa Rao1
Smriti Singh2
Corresponding author:
S. Srinivasa Rao, Associate Professor, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, School
of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India.
E-mail: srinivas.zhces@gmail.com
74 Contemporary Education Dialogue 15(1)
social order. All three used historical and comparative methods to arrive
at an understanding of society. However, their core explanations of social
change differed from each other in distinct ways.
The classic writings of Marx, Weber and Durkheim continue to be
relevant even today in some form or the other, and each of these schools
of thought produced the next generation of Marxists, Weberians and
Durkheimians, which further spawned the third generation of neo-Marxists,
neo-Weberians and neo-Durkheimians. It is these three strands of thinking
that are invoked largely in sociology today to explain the complexities of
social structures and processes.
While it is worth engaging with the paradigmatic ideas of these three
pioneers separately, in detail, we focus here mainly on the works of Max
Weber, specifically his contribution to the study of education. Weber was
not solely or even primarily focused on education, but his examination of
education is, nevertheless, central to an understanding of his notions of
‘religion’ and ‘politics’, which, as Bendix and Roth (1971) argue, were
Weber’s dominant intellectual interests. If we look at Weber’s intellec-
tual and personal life, we find that his interest in religion was influenced
by his ascetic mother, and his interest in politics was largely driven by
his father who was an important member of the political elite of Germany.
Although Weber began his academic career with the study of law, he
soon shifted his focus to the comparative study of the transformation of
societies in both the West and the East. He had always faced a dilemma
about choosing scholarship or politics as his vocation. Finally, he decided
to dedicate himself to the vocation of scholarship. However, he did try
his hand at politics as well. He was a founding member of the German
Democratic Party and spent considerable time and energy on political
mobilisation and on propagating the party’s agenda and ideology. He ulti-
mately grew disillusioned with the kind of culture emerging in the newly
set-up political party. Some of these experiences form the basis of his
explanation of complex social phenomena such as power, authority, lead-
ership, bureaucracy, rationality and organisations, and all of these elements
also appear in his interpretation of modern educational systems as well.
Weber becomes even more explicit in his analysis of the issue of the
intricate relationship between religious affiliation and social stratifica-
tion in the paragraphs that follow. For instance, he writes:
76 Contemporary Education Dialogue 15(1)
It is only in relationship to the control of the state and its influence on the
university that he defines what he calls ‘curious concept of academic
freedom’. According to him, academic freedom (as it was) means:
(1) On admission to a chair, the professor can and should be examined not
only for his scientific qualifications, but also for his loyalty toward the current
political rulers and ecclesiastical custom.
(2) Any public protest against the prevailing political system can cost the
person occupying the chair his job.
82 Contemporary Education Dialogue 15(1)
(3) In contrast, in the lecture hall, which is closed to the public and hence
exempt from criticism, the teacher, once appointed, may express himself as
he chooses, ‘independently of all authorities’. (Weber, 2008, p. 70)
In Sum
Weber’s ideas on education highlight the relationship between power
and education. They recognise the difference between education as a
cultural value and education related to the pursuit of power, whether in
the case of capitalist society or traditional Chinese society or in the
context of his own (German) society. These ideas continue to be rele-
vant in the case of Indian society in the twenty-first century too. It is
for us as education researchers to pick up clues and seek answers from
these foundational texts of sociology to understand, to re-cast and to
re-interpret contemporary trends in society in general and in education
in particular.
(pp. 6–7): Even more striking is a fact which partly explains the smaller
proportion of Catholics among the skilled labourers of modern industry. It is
well known that the factory has taken its skilled labour to a large extent from
young men in the handicrafts; but this is much more true of Protestant than
of Catholic journeymen. Among journeymen, in other words, the Catholics
show a stronger propensity to remain in their crafts, that is[,] they more often
become master craftsmen, whereas the Protestants are attracted to a larger
extent into the factories in order to fill the ranks of skilled labour and adminis-
trative positions. The explanation of these cases is undoubtedly that the men-
tal and spiritual peculiarities acquired from the environment, here the type of
education favoured by the religious atmosphere of home community and the
parental home, have determined the choice of occupation, and through it in
the professional career.
84 Contemporary Education Dialogue 15(1)
(pp. 25–26): … the capitalism of today, which has come to dominate eco-
nomic life, educates and selects the economic subjects which it needs through
a process of economic survival of the fittest. But, here one can easily see
the limits of the concept of selection as a means of historical explanation.
In order that a manner of life so well adapted to the peculiarities of capitalism
could be selected at all, i.e. should come to dominate others, it had to origi-
nate somewhere, and not in isolated individuals alone, but as a way of life
common to [a] whole group of men …
(p. 416): For twelve centuries social rank in China has been determined more
by qualification for office than by wealth. This qualification, in turn, has been
determined by education, especially by examinations. China has made liter-
ary education the yardstick of social prestige in the most exclusive fashion,
far more exclusively than did in Europe during the period of humanists, or
as Germany has done. Even during the period of Warring States, the stratum
of aspirants for office who were educated in literature—and originally this
only meant that they had scriptural knowledge—extended through all the
individual states. Literati have been the bearers of progress toward a rational
administration and of all ‘intelligence’.
As with Brahmanism in India, in China, the literati have been the decisive expo-
nents of the unity of culture. Territories (as well as enclaves) not administered
by officials educated in literature, according to the orthodox state idea, were
considered heterodox and barbarian, in the same way as the tribal territories
that were within the territory of Hinduism but not regulated by the Brahmans,
as well as landscapes not organised as polis by the Greeks. The increasingly
Rao and Singh 85
bureaucratic structures of Chinese polities and of their careers has given to the
whole literary tradition of China its characteristic stamp. For more than two
thousand years the literati have definitely been the ruling stratum in China and
they still are. Their dominance has been interrupted, often it has been hotly
contested; but always it has been renewed and expanded …
(p. 417): In China, the literati go back, at least in the main, to the descendants,
probably the younger sons, of feudal families who had acquired a literary edu-
cation, especially the knowledge of writing, and whose social position rested
upon this knowledge of writing and of literature. A plebeian could also acquire
a knowledge of writing, although, considering the Chinese system of writing,
it was difficult. But if the plebeian succeeded, he shared the prestige of any
other scholar. Even in the feudal period, the stratum of literati was not heredi-
tary or exclusive—another contrast with the Brahmans … … The prestige of
the literati has not consisted in a charisma of magical powers of sorcery, but
rather in a knowledge of writing and of literature as such; perhaps their pres-
tige originally rested in addition upon a knowledge of astrology …
Only the adept of scriptures and of tradition has been considered competent
for correctly ordering the internal administration and the charismatically cor-
rect life conduct of the prince, ritually and politically. In sharpest contrast to the
Jewish prophets, who were essentially interested in foreign policy, the Chinese
Literati-politicians, trained in ritual, were primarily oriented toward problems of
internal administration, even if these problems involved absolute power politics,
and even though while in charge of the prince’s correspondence and of the chan-
cellery they might personally be deeply involved in the guidance of diplomacy.
(p. 419): … In their literature, the literati created the concept of ‘office’,
above all, the ethos of ‘official duty’ and of the ‘public weal’. If one may trust
the Annals, the literati, being adherents of the bureaucratic organization of the
state as a compulsory institution, were opponents of feudalism from the very
beginning. This is quite understandable because, from the standpoint of their
interests, the administrators should be only men who were personally quali-
fied by a literary education. On the other hand, they claimed for themselves to
have shown the princes the way toward autonomous administration, toward
government manufacture of arms and construction of fortifications, ways and
means by which the princes became ‘masters of their lands’…
(pp. 419–-420): … The relation of the literati to the office has changed its
nature [in the course of time]. During the Period of the Feudal States, the
various courts competed for the services of the literati, who were seeking
opportunities for power and, we must not forget, for the best chances for
income. A whole stratum of vagrant ‘sophists’ (che-she) emerged, com-
parable to the wayfaring knights and scholars of the Occidental Middle
Ages. As we shall later see, there were also Chinese literati who, in prin-
ciple, remained unattached to any office. This free and mobile stratum of
literati were carriers of philosophical schools and antagonisms, a situation
comparable to those of India, of Hellenic Antiquity, and of the Middle
Ages with its monks and scholars. Yet, the literati as such felt themselves
to be a unitary status group. They claimed common status honours and
were united in the feeling of being the sole bearers of the homogeneous
culture of China …
(pp. 422–423): During the period of the central monarchy, the mandarins
became a status group of certified claimants to office prebends. All categories
of Chinese civil servants were recruited from their midst, and their qualifica-
tions for office and rank depended upon the number of examinations they had
successfully passed.
(p. 423): These examinations consisted of three major degrees, which were
considerably augmented by intermediary, repetitive and preliminary exami-
nations as well as by numerous special conditions. For the first degree alone
there were ten types of examinations. The question usually put to a stranger
of unknown rank was how many examinations he had passed. Thus, in spite
of the ancestor cult, how many ancestors one had was not decisive for social
rank. The very reverse held: it depended upon official rank whether one was
allowed to have an ancestral temple (or a mere table of ancestors, which was
the case with illiterates). How many ancestors one was permitted to mention
was determined by official rank. Even the rank of a city god in the Pantheon
depended upon the rank of the city’s mandarin …
Rao and Singh 87
(p. 426): … We shall now discuss the position of this educational system
among great types of education. To be sure, we cannot here[,] in passing, give
a sociological typology of pedagogical ends and means, but perhaps some
comments may be in place.
Historically, the two polar opposites in the field of educational ends are: to
awaken charisma, that is, heroic qualities or magical gifts; and, to impart spe-
cialised expert training. The first type corresponds to the charismatic structure of
domination; the latter type corresponds to the rational and bureaucratic (modern)
structure of domination. The two types do not stand opposed, with no connec-
tions or transitions between them. The warrior hero or the magician needs special
training, and the expert official is generally not trained exclusively for knowl-
edge. However, they are polar opposites of types of education and they form the
most radical contrasts. Between them are found all those types which aim at cul-
tivating the pupil for a conduct of life, whether it is of a mundane or of a religious
character. In either case, the life conduct is the conduct of the status group …
Specialised and expert schooling attempts to train the pupils for practical useful-
ness for administrative purposes—in the organisation of public authorities, busi-
ness offices, workshops, scientific or industrial laboratories, disciplined armies.
In principle, this can be accomplished with anybody, though to varying extent.
(pp. 434–435): … As a status group, the literati were privileged, even those
who had only been examined but were not employed. Soon after their posi-
tion had been strengthened, the literati enjoyed status privileges. The most
important of these were: first, the freedom from the sordida munera, the
corvee; second, freedom from corporal punishment; third, prebends (stipends).
For a long time this third privilege has been rather severely reduced in bearing,
through the financial position of the state …
(p. 25): You have asked me to speak about ‘Science as a Vocation’. Now,
there is a certain pedantry about us political economists, from which I am not
exempt. It dictates that our point of departure should always be the external
88 Contemporary Education Dialogue 15(1)
(pp. 25–26): As everyone knows, here a young man who wishes to devote
himself to science as a vocation normally starts his career as a ‘Privatdozent’
(‘adjunct lecturer’) at a university. To achieve this position, he must first con-
sult with and gain the approval of the relevant subject head, and may then be
granted his Habilitation (post-doctoral lecturing qualification) at a university
on the basis of a book and an examination, which is usually little more than
a formality, in the presence of the faculty, and can now, with no remuneration
other than the lecture fees paid by the students, give lectures on topics that he
can determine himself, provided they fall within the limits of his venia legendi
[license to lecture]. In America, the equivalent career normally begins quite
differently, namely, with his appointment as ‘assistant’. This is rather similar
to the procedure customary at our large institutes of natural sciences and medi-
cine, where only a fraction of the assistants aspire to formal adjunct lecture-
ships and even then in many cases only at a late stage. By contrast, under our
system, on the whole, the career of a man of science is, in practice, constructed
on plutocratic foundations, for it is extraordinarily risky for a young scholar
with no private means to embark on an academic career under such conditions.
He must be able to sustain it for a number of years without having any way
of knowing whether or not he will eventually get the opportunity to take up a
position that will enable him to earn his keep. In the United States, on the other
hand, the bureaucratic system is the norm. There the young man receives a
salary from the beginning. True, it is modest. The pay is usually scarcely equal
to the wages of a not entirely unskilled labourer. All the same, he starts with
an apparently secure position, as he is on a fixed salary. Normally, however,
his employers have the right to dismiss him, like our assistants, and this right
is freely exercised without compunction if he fails to come up to expectations.
These expectations, however, are that he gets a ‘full house’.
This cannot happen to a German adjunct lecturer. Once you have him, you
can never get rid of him. True, he makes no ‘demands’. But he does have the
understandable idea that, if he has been working there for years, he has a kind
of moral right to be given consideration. This also applies—importantly—to
the question of the possible Habilitation of other adjunct lecturers. The ques-
tion is whether one should, as a matter of principle, grant Habilitation to every
scholar of proven worth, or, bearing in mind the ‘teaching requirements’, give
the Dozenten (lecturers) already in place a monopoly of the teaching. This is
Rao and Singh 89
an awkward dilemma and it has to do with the dual aspect of the academic
profession, which we shall soon be discussing. Usually a decision is made
in favor of the second alternative. This, however, increases the risk that the
professor of the subject in question, however subjectively conscientious he
may be, will give preference to his own students. If I may speak personally,
I have always followed the principle that a scholar who obtained his doctorate
under my supervision had to demonstrate his worth and obtain Habilitation
under someone other than me.
(p. 28): Our German university life is becoming Americanized, like our life
in general, in some very important ways, and this development, I am con-
vinced, will spread to those disciplines where, as is very largely the case
today in my own discipline, the craftsman owns his own tools (essentially, the
[private] library), very much like the old type of craftsman in the past within
his trade. This development is well under way.
The technical benefits are beyond doubt, as in all capitalist and bureaucra-
tized organizations. But the ‘spirit’ that prevails in them is different from the
atmosphere that has historically prevailed at German universities. There is an
extraordinarily wide gulf, externally and inwardly, between the boss of a large
capitalist university enterprise like this and the familiar old-style professor.
There is also a difference of inward attitude. I do not propose to elaborate on
this point here. Inwardly as much as externally, the old university constitution
has become fictitious. What has remained, however, and indeed has consider-
ably increased, is a factor peculiar to the university career. Whether or not an
adjunct lecturer, let alone an assistant, ever succeeds in achieving the position
of a full professor, let alone of a head of an institute, is a matter of pure chance.
Of course, chance is not the only factor, but it is an unusually powerful factor.
I can think of almost no other career on earth in which it has such a large part
to play. I am especially well placed to say this, as I personally owe it to a few
instances of sheer chance that at a very early age I was appointed to a full pro-
fessorship in a discipline in which at that time my contemporaries had undoubt-
edly achieved more than I had. And I feel that this experience has given me a
keener awareness of the undeserved fate of those many others whom chance
has treated unkindly and still does, and who despite all their ability failed to
reach the position they merited as a result of this mechanism of selection.
That chance rather than ability plays such an important role is not solely, and
not even chiefly, due to human factors, which of course have their part to play in
this particular selection just as much as they do in any other. It would be unjust
to hold personal failings of faculties or ministries responsible for the fact that so
many mediocrities undoubtedly figure so prominently in the universities. It is
due, rather, to the laws of human interaction, especially the interplay of several
bodies, in this case the proposing faculties and the ministries …
90 Contemporary Education Dialogue 15(1)
(pp. 30–31): I believe you now really want to hear something else from me.
You want to hear about the inward calling for science. At the present time, the
inward situation regarding the practice of science as a vocation is determined
by the fact that science has entered a phase of specialization that has never
been known before, and this will not change for the indefinite future. Not only
externally, no, especially inwardly, the situation is that the individual can only
really achieve complete success in the sphere of science under conditions of
the most rigorous specialization. Whenever we do work that crosses over into
neighbouring fields (and we often do such work—sociologists, for example, do
it constantly), we are painfully aware that at best we are introducing experts
in the field to useful problem areas that they might easily have overlooked,
and are resigned to the fact that our own work must inevitably remain imper-
fect in the extreme. Only through rigorous specialization can the scientific
worker truly gain the feeling of satisfaction, for the first and perhaps the only
time in his life, of being able to say: here I have achieved something that will
last. Today, a really final and proficient achievement is always a specialist
achievement. And anyone who does not have the ability to put on blinkers,
as it were, and to enter into the idea that the destiny of his soul depends
on his being right about this particular conjectural emendation at this point
in this manuscript, should stay well away from science. He will never have
what may be called the ‘experience’ of science. Without this strange intoxica-
tion (which appears faintly ridiculous to outsiders), without this passion, and
without this feeling that ‘thousands of years had to elapse before you entered
life, and more thousands of years are silently waiting’ to see whether or not
your conjecture will be confirmed, one has no vocation for science and should
do something different. Nothing has any value for anyone, as a human being,
that he cannot do with passion.
(pp. 69–70): … Let us consider this view in conjunction with the following
equally widely held view: On the one hand, the higher education teacher, since
he is after all an ‘official’, has to ‘exercise restraint’ in his public (as a citizen,
in elections, in statements to the press, and so on). On the other hand, he is
entitled to expect that none of his pronouncements in the lecture hall should
be disseminated in public. As we know, Professor Schmoller has successfully
prosecuted a student who passed on the content of his lectures to others. If
we accept these two principles, we arrive at the following curious concept of
‘academic freedom’: 1) On admission to a chair, the professor can and should
be examined not only for his scientific qualifications, but also for his loyalty
toward the current political rulers and ecclesiastical custom. 2) Any public
Rao and Singh 91
protest against the prevailing political system can cost the person occupying
the chair his job. 3) In contrast, in the lecture hall, which is closed to the
public and hence exempt from criticism, the teacher, once appointed, may
express himself as he chooses, ‘independently of all authorities’.
(p. 70): It is clear that this concept of academic freedom would be an ideal of
‘satisfied individuals’, of the beati possidentes [happy possessors], to whom
neither the freedom of scholarship as such, nor the rights and duties of aca-
demic teachers as citizens means anything, but who only want to be left alone
in the enjoyment of the ‘position in life’ in which they now find themselves.
And at the same time, this ‘freedom’ could, of course, serve as a fig leaf for
the maintenance, if possible, of a particular political slant to higher education
teaching in all those subjects to which such a slant can be applied. In addition,
it is scarcely necessary to mention the extent to which the character of anyone
aiming at Habilitation is endangered by this ‘freedom’ …
(p. 71): … Not only that, but even when not required to do so, the faculties
tend to act as agents of the political police. All this, it is argued, is because the
universities are subsidized and granted privileges by the state, although the
state regulates the examination of applicants for its offices in the way that it
chooses and the education provided by the university is only a precondition
of appointment (one among many) and confers no right to it. But let us leave
aside this formalist approach entirely and treat the ‘question’ as it deserves to
be treated: as a problem of culture!
The fact that, alongside education in general, higher education has also
become a state responsibility in our country is the result of a quite specific
cultural development, the consequence in particular of secularization on the
one hand, and on the other of the profound impoverishment of the nation
over the past few centuries, which militated against the rise of powerful
foundations like those that produced so many outstanding universities in the
English-speaking countries. Today this development is a fact with which we
have to reckon and to which highly significant positive values can undoubt-
edly be attributed—there is no need to explore this any further here—since
as things stand the material means needed by the university and on the scale
required could only have been provided by the state. The question of how this
development of the material bases of our university system, in the totality of
its effects, will ultimately be evaluated is, of course, still unanswered.
(pp. 71–72): If ‘the state’, i.e., the bearers of political power ruling the nation
at any particular time, were to adopt the standpoint: ‘I sing the tune of the one
whose bread I eat’, if, in other words, the power vested in its hands through the
material situation of the universities were not understood as the acceptance of
92 Contemporary Education Dialogue 15(1)
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Sriti Ganguly for reading the draft of the article and for
suggesting the title.
References
Bendix, R., & Roth, G. (1971). Scholarship and partnership: Essays on Max
Weber. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986/2004). The forms of capital. In S. J. Ball (Ed.), The
RoutledgeFalmer reader in sociology of education (pp. 15–29). London,
UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology
(With an introduction by H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Giddens, A. (1976/2005). Introduction. In M. Weber (1904–05/1930/2005),
The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (trans. T. Parsons, pp. 7–24).
London, UK: Routledge.
Tiryakian, E. A. (1975). Neither Marx nor Durkheim … perhaps Weber. American
Journal of Sociology, 81(1), 1–33.
Weber, M. (1968/1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology
(Vol. 2, G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds). Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
———. (2008). Introduction. In J. Dreijmanis (Ed.), Max Weber’s complete
writings on academic and political vocations (trans. C. G. Wells). New York,
NY: Algora Publishing.