The Fatality of Context
Weber – Reflective
Wow, first of all, I would like to thank the presenters this week for their great questions and observations of the text. It really elaborated some important points that Weber was trying to make and pointed out some important questions that the text disregarded.
So what was the whole point of the historical account of development of the state in the beginning of “Politics as a Vocation”? Why doesn’t M. Weber just say, “Politics is about force”? Even though we acknowledged these questions in class, I don’t think that we really addressed this in our discussion. Well good thing I like to avoid quantitative analysis by doing extra readings in this class, i.e. reading Kant in one night and reading the 40-page introduction to Weber. Well, David Owen and Tracy Strong, the people who wrote the introduction, can help us figure out this point. They point out “the historical context sets the terms of our fate and cannot be avoided” (xl) and that “Weber is exceptionally conscious…that is understanding must take into account and speak from his own historical situations” (xlvi). This attributes to the question at hand, the first part of Weber’s procession in “Politics as a vocation”, the elaboration of the “realities and conditions of the world as the political personage encounters it” (xlix). By discussing the present lay-out of the present scene and division of politics, the nation-state, Weber proceeds to set the scene. Why talk of political vocation in terms of a Greek polity, a pre-Westphalia system, or of political vocation in terms of an international political vocation, one that just doesn’t exist? Because that’s not how the world is operating in this period of politics. It could however transform and replace itself with a new-improved version, like science is constantly doing, like Blink points out here. Weber notes, “If there existed only societies in which violence was unknown as a means, then the concept of the “state” would disappear” (33). But fatalistically, we are in a state centric political environment. Thus a political vocation must be based on these terms. “For what is specific to the present is that all other organizations or individuals can assert the right to use physical violence only insofar as the state permits them to do so” (33).
Politics is thus spoken of in uniform terms and holds the same significance in meaning. “That is that the interests involved in the distribution or preservation of power, or shift in power, play a decisive role in resolving that question, or in influencing that decision or defining the sphere of activity of the official concerned”(33). The person(s) who strive for a vocation in politics must acknowledge this foundation of power and work within the existing framework.
So what happens if/when the framework changes? Does the foundation of power also change with it? How then can a vocation in politics be achieved?
Wow, first of all, I would like to thank the presenters this week for their great questions and observations of the text. It really elaborated some important points that Weber was trying to make and pointed out some important questions that the text disregarded.
So what was the whole point of the historical account of development of the state in the beginning of “Politics as a Vocation”? Why doesn’t M. Weber just say, “Politics is about force”? Even though we acknowledged these questions in class, I don’t think that we really addressed this in our discussion. Well good thing I like to avoid quantitative analysis by doing extra readings in this class, i.e. reading Kant in one night and reading the 40-page introduction to Weber. Well, David Owen and Tracy Strong, the people who wrote the introduction, can help us figure out this point. They point out “the historical context sets the terms of our fate and cannot be avoided” (xl) and that “Weber is exceptionally conscious…that is understanding must take into account and speak from his own historical situations” (xlvi). This attributes to the question at hand, the first part of Weber’s procession in “Politics as a vocation”, the elaboration of the “realities and conditions of the world as the political personage encounters it” (xlix). By discussing the present lay-out of the present scene and division of politics, the nation-state, Weber proceeds to set the scene. Why talk of political vocation in terms of a Greek polity, a pre-Westphalia system, or of political vocation in terms of an international political vocation, one that just doesn’t exist? Because that’s not how the world is operating in this period of politics. It could however transform and replace itself with a new-improved version, like science is constantly doing, like Blink points out here. Weber notes, “If there existed only societies in which violence was unknown as a means, then the concept of the “state” would disappear” (33). But fatalistically, we are in a state centric political environment. Thus a political vocation must be based on these terms. “For what is specific to the present is that all other organizations or individuals can assert the right to use physical violence only insofar as the state permits them to do so” (33).
Politics is thus spoken of in uniform terms and holds the same significance in meaning. “That is that the interests involved in the distribution or preservation of power, or shift in power, play a decisive role in resolving that question, or in influencing that decision or defining the sphere of activity of the official concerned”(33). The person(s) who strive for a vocation in politics must acknowledge this foundation of power and work within the existing framework.
So what happens if/when the framework changes? Does the foundation of power also change with it? How then can a vocation in politics be achieved?
posted by Holly at 9:49 PM
<< Home