Between the hagiographies following in the wake of Marianne Weber
Lebensbild, Mommsen’s Wegbereiter thesis, and the works of those,
indirectly writing against the first two receptions, who see in him an
insightful political scientist, Max Weber’s political thought is the object
three massively different interpretations. With the help of Pocock’s
theory of political language I intend to shed lights on the English
influences of Weber’s conception of modern politics. In this I follow the
intuitions of Günther Roth in his Work on “Weber The Would-Be Englishman”.
But where his writings are based on the economic history
of Weber’s extended family, I want to investigate the structure of his
political thoughts as to reveal how Weber’s political ideas, if often
described as unique and extraordinary in the German context of his time,
is based on interrogations and themes that would appear as common for
late-Victorians. In order to identify the common tensions upon which a
shared political language is articulated, I compare Weber writing on
politics with those of two iconic Victorian political authors, namely
Walter Bagehot and John Stuart Mill. From their (I) historiography, to
their conception of the parliamentary institutions, be it their roles as tools
of State administration (II) or in their influence on the political education
of the nation (III), or in their relation to (IV) Statesmanship, what reveal
itself is a common conception of modern politics, a common view on the
necessity of strong parliamentary institutions in modern states, and a
common adherence to the short-lived brand of agonistic liberalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment