Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
2014.
Sozialstaat und Gesellschaft.
p.
241.
Article contents
Conflict and Concord in Wilhelmian Social Thought
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
Extract
In 1965, Ralf Dahrendorf published his compelling work Society and Democracy in Germany. In this fruitful union of sociology and history, he argued convincingly that an overwhelming penchant for concord and synthesis has been the bane of the German mind for the past century and a half; not only in political thought but in traditional institutions such as the legal and educational systems, and ironically even in the supposedly radical Social Demorcatic Party. Everywhere in German life Dahrendorf preceived a quest for certainty—an obsessive need for some objective authority to deliver unimpeachable judgments that would find universal acceptance. More than settling disputes, such authorities were expected to obviate the need for disagreement altogether. The converse of this desire for harmony was an inability to accept conflict as normal; wherever conflict reared its ugly head, Germans sought to banish this unnatural phenomenon by appeal to a higher power. In this curious refusal to recognize ambiguity in life and society, Dahrendorf found the key to the German problem: what roadblocks the German ideology has placed in the way of development toward liberal parliamentary government.
- Type
- Suggestions and debates
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1972
References
This essay was presented as a paper at the American Historical Association meeting in Boston, December 1970.
1. Dahrendorf, Ralf, Society and Democracy in Germany (Garden City, N.Y., 1967), ch. 1. (The German edition was published in 1965.) Dahrendorf's theory of liberalism clearly owes much to interpretations of the Anglo-American experience, particularly those of Seymour Martin Lipset.Google Scholar
2. Stern, Fritz, The Politics of Cultural Despair (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961);Google ScholarKlemperer, Klemens von, Germany's New Conservatism. Its History and Dilemma in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, 1957);CrossRefGoogle ScholarSontheimer, Kurt, Antidemokratisches Denken in der Weimarer Republik (Munich, 1962).Google Scholar
3. Dahrendorf himself points out that his book could not have been written without the running commentary on German society of his English wife. Unlike most German scholars, Dahrendorf spent several years studying in a foreign country, England. Dahrendorf, pp. ix–x.
4. Naumann, Friedrich, “Die politischen Aufgaben im industriellen Zeitalter,” Werke (Cologne and Opladen, 1964), III, 2.Google Scholar
5. Weber, Max, “Was heisst Christlich-Sozial?” Christliche Welt, VIII (1894), 473.Google Scholar
6. Weber, Marianne, Max Weber. Ein Lebensbild (Tübingen, 1926), p. 416.Google Scholar See also Mommsen, Wolfgang, Max Weber und die deutsche Politik 1890–1920 (Tübingen, 1969), p. 42.Google Scholar
7. On Weber, see Mommsesn's, book cited above and his article, “Universalgeschichtliches und politisches Denken bei Max Weber,” Historische Zeitschrjft, CCI (12 1965), 557–612;Google Scholar and Bendix, Reinhard and Roth, Guenther, Scholarship and Partisanship (Berkeley, 1971).Google Scholar There is also a paper delivered by Raymond Aron at the Weber Centenary in Heidelberg, , “Max Weber und die Machtpolitik,” in Max Weber und die Soziologie heute (Tübingen, 1965),Google Scholar and Mitzman's, Arthur recent attempt at a psychological explanation of Weber's early political views, The Iron Cage. An Historical Interpretation of Max Weber (New York, 1970).Google Scholar On Naumann, see Heuss, Theodor, Friedrich Naumann. Der Mann, Das Werk, Die Zeit (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1949);Google ScholarConze, Werner, “Friedrich Naumann. Grundlagen und Ansatz seiner Politik in der nationalsozialen Zeit (1895 bis 1903),” in Schicksalswege deutscher Vergangenheit, ed. Hubatsch, W. (Düsseldorf, 1950);Google Scholar and Nürnberger, R., “Imperialismus, Sozialismus und Christentum bei Friedrich Naumann,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXX, No. 3 (1950), 525–48.Google Scholar
8. On Wagner, and Oldenberg, see my book, The Controversy over German Industrialization, 1890–1902 (Chicago, 1970), ch. 4. I have intentionally omitted the question of the socialist attitude toward the concepts of conflict and concord, a problem that warrants an article in itself.Google Scholar
9. Verhandlungen des 8. Evangelisch-Sozialen Kongresses (1897), pp. 106–13.
10. Nisbet, Robert, The Sociological Tradition (New York, 1966), p. 296. Nisbet and many other scholars have praised Weber's heroic pessimism, his unwillingness to turn to the past because of his forebodings about the future.Google Scholar
11. Weber, Verhandlungen des 8. Ev. Soz. Kong. (1897), p. 108.
12. Naumann, , “Der Christ im Zeitalter der Maschine,” Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. Vogt, Hannah (Frankfurt, 1949), p. 96.Google Scholar In the same essay Naumann praised Edison, Thomas as a man sent by God. In Demokratie und Kaisertum (Berlin, 1900), Naumann is unrestrained in his praise for the new industrial society.Google Scholar
13. Wagner, Adolf, “Die Erhöhung der Getreidezölle,” Die Woche (Mar. 2, 1901).Google Scholar For Wagner's, agrarian romanticism see Agrar- und Industriestaat (2nd ed., Jena, 1902);Google Scholar and Grundlegung der politischen Ökonomie (3rd ed., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1892–1894).Google Scholar
14. Wagner, , Die sozialen- und wirtshaftlichen Gesichtspunkte (Berlin, 1901), pp. 8, 16.Google Scholar
15. Oldenberg, Karl, Deutschland als Industriestaat (Göttingen, 1897), pp. 90–104.Google Scholar
16. Semmel, Bernard, Imperialism and Social Reform. English Social Imperial Thought 1895–1914 (London, 1960), ch. 4.Google Scholar For an indication of the effect of Chamberlain on German economists see Schmoller, Gustav, “Die Wandlungen der europäischen Handelspolitik im 19. Jahrhundert. Eine Säkularbetrachtung,” Schmollers Jahrbuch, XXIV (1900),Google Scholar and his “Die wirtschaftliche Zukunft Deutschlands und die Flottenvorlage,” Handels- und Machtpolitik (Stuttgart, 1900).Google Scholar
17. So pervasive among German academics became the idea that the three empires were dividing up the world amongst themselves to the exclusion of Germany that the liberal economist Heinrich Dietzel wrote a series of articles to question this theme. “Die Theorie von den drei Weltreichen,” Die Nation, XVII, Nos. 30–33 (Apr. 28–May 26, 1900). Weber and Naumann were merely reflecting the majority of academic opinion in holding to the threat of the three empires.
18. Mommsen, Max Weber, p. 86.
19. See Weber's response to a questionaire from the Münchener Allgemeine Zeitung in the appendix of Mommsen's Max Weber, p. 40.
20. Naumann, , Werke, V, 204–207.Google Scholar
21. Naumann, , Neudeutsche Wirtschaftspolitik (Berlin–Schöneberg, 1907), p. 366.Google Scholar
22. Oldenberg, Deutschland, p. 78; see also his article, “Über den Weizenpreis der bevorstehenden Handelsvertragsperiode,” Zeitschrift für Agrarpotitik, 1 (May 30, 1903), 271.
23. Verhandlungen des 8. Ev. Soz. Kong. (1897), p. 119. Subsequently, Wagner wrote, “Aber—auch der Ellbogenraum in der Heirnath wird immer enger und beginnt sich nicht minder draussen zu verengen. Für Auswanderer unserer Rasse ist nicht mehr allzuviel Platz. Der Kampf urn mid auf dem Weltmarkte um Absatz mid Bezug, urn die directen und indirecten Nahrungsplätze wird immer heisser.” Vom Territorialstaat zur Weltmacht (Berlin, 1900), p. 18.Google Scholar
24. Ibid., p. 27; Sozialismus, Sozialdemokratie, Kathedersozialismus und Staatssozialismus. Rede in Barmen (Berlin, 1895), pp. 16ff.;Google ScholarDie Strömungen in der Sozialpolitik und der Katheder- und Staatssozialismus (Berlin, 1912)Google Scholar; see also the relevant sections in the Grundlegung.
25. Verhandlungen des 15. Ev. Soz. Kong. (1904), p. 104.
26. Verhandlungen des 8. Ev. Soz. Kong. (1897), p. 61; see also the minutes of the 7th Congress, pp. 98–100. There Wagner defended a guild organization of society.
27. Wagner, Vom Territorialstaat, p. 27.
28. Mitzman emphasizes this point as one of the main reasons Weber scorned state socialists such as Wagner.
29. Agrar- und Industriestaat (2nd ed.), p. 159.Google Scholar
30. Verhandlungen des 8. Ev. Soz. Kong. (1897), p. 124.
31. Ibid., p. 74.
32. Wagner, , Agrar- und lndustriestaat (2nd ed.), p. 221; Vom Territorialstaat, p. 18; “Zur Frage von Industriestaat und wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung,” Der Lotse (11 17 and 24, 1900), p. 252.Google Scholar
33. Wagner, , Grundlegung, II, 456. Subsequently, he wrote, “Weil die verdrängten Elemente des Besitzes und der Bevölkerung bei uns wichtige, ja unentbehrliche Glieder des ganzen volkswirtschaftlichen Organismus, die altangesessenen, so von der Scholl vertriebenen adligen, bürgerlichen, bäuerlichen Familien wichtige Bestandteile des nationalen und sozialen Organismus sind.” Agrar- und Industriestaat, p. 116.Google Scholar
34. Comment from the floor, Verhandlungen des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, LXXVI (1897), 1, 442.
35. Oldenberg, Deutschland, p. 96: “Deutschland als Industriestaat,” Soziale Praxis, VIII, No. 28 (Apr. 13, 1899); comment from the floor, Verhandlungen des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, XCII (1901), 230.
36. Thus, at times, Wagner wrote in behalf of an increased fleet. See “Flottenverstärkung und unsere Finanzen,” Handels- und Machtpolitik (Stuttgart, 1900).Google Scholar
37. Wagner, Vom Territorialstaat, p. 32; see also his article, “Deutschland als Industriestaat,” Die Zukunft, XXV, No. 25 (1897), in which he wrote, “It remains completely true; the great independence of our domestic economy from foreign nations must be the slogan.”
38. Naumann, wrote, “Lack of a military means in reality: ruin, destruction, beggary, and war of all against all…All of our culture would go the way of Arabian culture…’ Briefe über Religion (Berlin, 1903), p. 83. Weber told Oldenberg at the Congress in 1897, “We cannot pursue a policy of national comfort but one of national greatness, and therefore must take this risk on our shoulders if we want to lead a national existence different from that of Switzerland.” Verhandlungen des 8. Ev. Soz. Kong. (1897), p. 107.Google Scholar
39. Both had joined Stöcker's Protestant Social Congress because of their sympathy for the industrial proletariat. In addition, Weber's work for both the Congress and the Verein für Sozialpolitik led him to side with the rural labor force against the Junkers. See Mitzman's early chapters for Weber's political attitudes in the early nineties.
40. I do not use the term “Social Darwinism” loosely. Naumann's writings in these years form one great eulogy to Darwin. In his Briefe über Religion he openly declared himself a Darwinist, and his frequent use of the term Kampf ums Dasein corroborates this. Two examples will suffice. “In short, I know that we all, in order to live, must accept the natural conditions of the struggle for existence as the foundation of our existence…” Briefe, p. 78; “And the left wing of liberalism has had no understanding for the power struggle of peoples amongst one another; in domestic politics it goes around politically, as it does in foreign policy, in a dream and a cloud…It has failed to think through the consequences of the teaching of the struggle for existence and the selection of the fittest.” “Der Niedergang des Liberalismus,” Werke, IV, 229. Aron and Mommsen have pointed to Weber's Social Darwinism. A good example comes from his commentary on the foundation of Naumann's National Social Party: “Whoever pursues world politics must above all be free of illusions, and recognize one fundamental fact: the unchangeable eternal struggle of men with men on the earth as it actually occurs.” Gesammelte politische Schriften (2nd ed., 1958), p. 28. Both Weber and Naumann tended to use the word “Kampf” when Oldenberg and Wagner used “Konkurrenz.” The essay of Hans-Günter Zmarzlik on Social Darwinism in Germany mentions neither Weber nor Naumann and in my opinion therefore ignores a major manifestation of the movement. “Der Sozialdarwinismus in Deutschland als geschichtliches Problem,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, XI (July 1963), 246–73.
41. Naumann, wrote, “Foreign policy is in its total course more important and imperative than internal.…one cannot call into life a great policy of social reform without an economic policy behind which there is a sword…” Demokratie und Kaisertum (Berlin, 1900), p. 178;Google Scholar also Heuss, pp. 101–102. For Weber's belief in the primacy of foreign policy, see Mommsen, p. 90.
42. Conze's article is a sweeping condemnation of Naumann which concentrates on his crude Social Darwinism. Aron's speech at the Weber Centenary pointed to the Darwinian component of Weber's inaugural lecture, and was praised by Mommsen in the subsequent discussion period. In his book, Mommsen wrote, “Max Weber approved of struggle as the basic category of human existence in general” (p. 53). For a defense of Weber against his critics, see Bendix and Roth, Scholarship and Partisanship, cited in n. 7.
43. Gesammelte politische Schriften (1st ed., Munich, 1921), p. 20.Google Scholar
44. “Die Nationalsozialen,” Werke, V, 303; see also Demokratie, p. 206.
45. Weber clearly expressed this fear in his inaugural speech. Ges. pol. Schr. (1st ed.), p. 29. He feared that neither the Junkers nor the industrial middle class had a taste for conffict and would, therefore, not see the dangers lurking on the horizon.Google Scholar
46. Naumann, , “Nationale Sozialpolitilk,” Werke, V, 236.Google Scholar
47. Naumann, , “Die Politik der Gegenwart,” Werke, IV, 48.Google Scholar
48. Naumann, , Werke, V, 208–209.Google Scholar
49. Verhandlungen des 7. Ev. Soz. Kong. (1896), p. 123. See also Mommsen, Max Weber, p. 156.
50. Mommsen mentions this possibility on p. 10 of his book.
51. In his article, Mommsen ends by declaring Weber's imperialism a logical product of his sociological theories. Aron is quite right in pointing out that Weber's sociological investigations began several years after his ideas on foreign policy had been articulated (p. 106). Weber preceded the rush in Wilhelrnian Germany to support a fleet and expansion because his paradigm of conffict led him to see its necessity before his contemporaries, who did not share his views on conflict. Weber was to modify his imperialism and his Social Darwinism after the turn of the century. The years from 1895 to 1898 are the high point in his desire for foreign expansion.
52. Mitzman argues that Weber used foreign policy as an escape hatch from the rigidifled domestic arena and to make the capitalist middle class aware of the necessity for struggle and power. When one reads Weber's comments at the 7th and 8th Protestant Social Congresses and his speech in Mannheim in 1897 as well as his reply to the query of the Munich newspaper (all cited above), one cannot escape the conclusion that it was, rather, Weber's vision of an industrial Germany in the struggle for markets and raw materials against the other world powers that led to his imperialist views.
53. Verhandlungen des 7. Ev. Soz. Kong. (1896), p. 123.
54. Naumann, Demokratie und Kaisertum, p. 178. Naumann praised Wilhelm II frequently for his modern views on the fleet and foreign policy. In his panegyric to the Kaiser, Demokratie und Kaisertum, he wrote, “In an era of trade he has attained a vision of policy for the earth's surface, while our democracy still lugs around the policy of the old Kleinstaaterei. At this point the government of Kaiser Wilhelm II is a decided step forward over the Bismarckian period” (p. 189).
55. “Die Nationalsozialen,” Werke, V, 303. This is not surprising, since Naumann had repeatedly argued the primacy of foreign policy over domestic. His main objection to German liberalism was its lack of aggressiveness in the international arena.
56. As early as 1894 Weber had argued, “The interest in the power of the national state is for no one greater than for the proletariat, when it reflects about the future.” Verhandlungen des 5. Ev. Soz. Kong. (1894), p. 81; Mommsen, ch. 4.
57. See Semmel's chapters on social imperialism. Weber and Naumann scarcely differed from British imperialists like Karl Pearson, who in the nineties wanted to unite the nation by social reform for the big push into empire.
58. Nolte, Ernst, “Max Weber vor dem Faschismus,” Der Staat, II (1963), 3–4.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by