Weber on Education

8/6/2019 Weber on Education

1/20

http://ema.sagepub.com

Administration & LeadershipEducational Management

DOI: 10.1177/0263211X0203010062002; 30; 27Educational Management Administration Leadership

Eugenie SamierRationalized World

Weber on Education and its Administration: Prospects for Leadership in a

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/1/27The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society

can be found at:Educational Management Administration & Leadershipdditional services and information for

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/30/1/27Citations

at University College on May 1, 2009http://ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.belmas.org.uk/http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/30/1/27http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/30/1/27http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.belmas.org.uk/


2/20

Weber on Education and its

AdministrationProspects for Leadership in a Rationalized World

Eugenie Samier

IntroductionMax Weber would appear to be an unproblemat ic author in administrative studies, as his

contribution, so frequently noted, is regarded as a promotional or at least uncritical

presentation of the bureaucratic model. This simple view permeates educational

administration thoroughly, with the rare exceptions of scholars like Richard Bates

(notab ly 1989), Thomas G reenfield (1975, 1976, 1979, 1991, 1993), Best et al. (1980), and

Peter R ibbins (1985), who stress Webers critique of instrumenta l or technical rationality

(or in proper Weberian terminology, legal-rationality). Typical of Webers maltreatment

is the recent contr ibution of Tony Bush to theRoutledge International Companion to Edu-

cation (2000), in which he claims for Weber a historical relevance only to an unsophisti-cated view of educational management brought into question in the last few decades by

political models, collegialism, ambiguity theory, cultural studies, and Greenfields sub-

jective, phenomenological and interactionist approaches (Bush, 2000: 2767).

A comprehensive reading of Weber would demonstrate not on ly that he rather savagely

criticized bureaucratized organization (e.g. see 1930: 182), but that he laid important foun-

dations to political and cultural studies, analysed various forms of collegiality in his

magnum opus, Economy and Society, and recognized ambiguity as fundamental to the

human condition and its manifold social constructions. The most important feature of

Webers sociological writings Bush attributes to Greenfield (1973). Greenfields theory

gives primacy to individual interpretations of events which are likely to differ accordingto participants values, experience and background. Structure is regarded as a fiction and

goals are perceived as individual rather than organisational (Bush, 2000: 277). This per-

spective Greenfield attributes to a rereading, that is a more correct reading, of Webers

subjective and valuational conception of human social action, as well as other major Euro-

pean authors. Weber outlines in considerable detail this orientation of individual social

actors in the introductory section ofEconom y and Society, and it is upon this foundation

that the subsequent sections on types of legitimate domination (or authority types) and

economic, political, religious, and legal analyses rest. It is also on this conceptual base that

his methodological essays and interpretation of historical developments are constructed.

While it is important to recapture Webers complex and interdisciplinary approach toadministration, it is equally important to integrate his discussion of education as it

27Educational Management & A dm inistration 0263-211X (200201) 30:1SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks and New D elhi)

Copyright 2002 BELMAS Vol 30(1) 2745; 020666

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.co.uk/


3/20

conditions in a valuational sense administrative and leadership qualities and practices

appropriate to it. This latter area has received no at tention in educational administration

litera ture to da te (with the exception of King, 19801), and very little in the general Weber-

ian literature.2 Weber indicated in The Religion of China, that it would be possible to con-

struct a sociological typology of pedagogical ends and means (1951: 119) as an instrument

in historical and cross-cultural comparison. One can only speculate about the reasons forthe persistent and widespread misrepresentation and under-use of Weber in educational

administrat ion, however, the manner in which his contributions have been reduced to an

efficacious support for bureaucrat ization suggests that a rationalization of scholarship in

administrat ion has produced this problem with Weberian studies. Weber has been stripped

of his most important contributions to administrative theory generally, and as a foun-

dational author to interpretive and critical analyses of education and its administration.

The writings of Max Weber have played little role in the burgeoning literature on edu-

cational leadership, except as a foil for anti-bureaucratic theories, despite some a ttent ion

to his authority typologies (often misidentified as leadership types).

It is the purpose of th is article to reclaim for Weber the higher, that is, more criticalground of administration outlined by Bush as it relates to educational institutions. This

involves reconstructing his views on education, administration, and leadership, as well as

relating them to the most significant current developments in educational change, vari-

ously called self-management, reform, restructuring, or, from a more critical perspective,

the corporatization and commercialization of education (largely a function of the

encroachment of the New Public Management in all areas of the public sector) . This neces-

sitates examining his writings on education generally, and the university in particular,

especially on the proper role of government in relation to educational organizations. It

also involves incorporat ing into an analysis of educational administrat ion and leadership

the relationships Weber saw between education and other social spheres.

The Historical Development of Education

Webers treatment of education is conditioned by his primary interest in the historical

development of the rationalized economy, and how other social spheres, such as religion,

politics, and law, either contribute to or constrain th is development.3 His extensive com-

parative writings on religious organization, The Religion of China (1951), The Religion of

India (1958),A ncient Judaism (1952), and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capital-

ism (1930),4 for example, were undertaken first to identify causal factors in the develop-

ment of modern industrial capitalism, but later broadened to demonstrate these religionsvarious ethics as a motivating or non-motivating force in the process of Occidental

rationalization. In contrast to Marxist materialism, Weber proposed a historical expla-

nation in which ideas and ideals, as well as material conditions, can act as independent

forces in bringing about socioeconomic change. Very frequently the world images that

have been created by ideas have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which

action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest (Weber, 1946: 280). His pronounce-

ment that ideas become effective forces in history (1930: 901) occasioned his use of the

concept o f elective affinity as a more appropriate not ion of historical causality. Two other

facets of the rationalization problem of interest to Weber were: the problems of reason

and ethical responsibility in the face of capitalism he termed a system of masterlessslavery; and the tension between rational and irrational process in world history (Gerth

28 E D U C A T I O NA L M A NA G E M E N T & A D M I N I ST R A T I O N 30( 1)

http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/


4/20

and Martindale, 1952: p. xi). For Hennis, one of Webers most important themes is the

possibility of personal contract and objectiveimpersonal properties that deny such possi-

bilities, or expressed as a cultural theme, the subjective part icularity of modern man ,

and the manner of h is fitting in with or adaptation to modern society (1987: 689). As

Hennis points out , Webers concern about depersonalization is located in all social sectors,

and Webers major writings, from his studies of the organization of labour, through therationalization of the state, to the modern enterprise of scientific organization (1987: 69)

bear this out.

Intellectual developments and educational practices, therefore, as they play a causal

role in rationalization and as they condition human reason and freedom, are important in

the context of Webers writings. References to education, and related topics such as intel-

lectuals, literati, and culture, are found throughout the volumes on world religions and

Econom y and Society (1968). In addition to the historical relationship between education

and the development of rationalized economics and social institutions, Weber did write

about two other aspects of modern education: short journalistic pieces on government

policy and the university in Weimar G ermany, collected and published in English asMaxWeber on Universities (1974), and on the ethics of scholarship in Science as a Vocation

(1989).

Webers sociohistorical concerns are twofold. First, central to his iron cage thesis, the

progressive disenchantment (Entzauberung) of the world through rationalization is the

problem of people finding an escape from what appears to be an inevitable permeation of

all societal sectors by bureaucratized structures and practices. Second, that the value

rationalities appropr iate to various social spheres should be maintained, par ticularly those

in the cultural sphere . Therefore, the major question or central prob lem for Weber in the

educational realm was, as Edward Shils describes in his introductory remarks to Webers

writings on the university, the complaisance of the German academic profession in itseager subservience to the authority of the state and the erosion of its moral rectitude.

This point constituted for Shils, Webers fundamental principles of the liberal conception

of university autonomy and academic freedom (Shils, 1974: 2). The implications for our

contemporary situation can be clearly and directly drawn in Commonwealth countries,

despite the temporal and cultural distance to Germany in the early 1900s. In Weberian

terms, the current corporat ization and commercialization of educational institutions is not

different in kind from the rationalization p rocess at the last fin-de-sicleposed by Weber

in Science as a Vocation as:

The fate of our age, with its characteristic rationalization and intellectualization andabove all the disenchantment of the world, is that the ultimate, most sublime values

have withdrawn from public life, either into the t ranscendenta l realm of mystical life or

into the brotherhood of immediate personal relationships between individuals. (1989:

30)

Most of Webers historical discussion of educations role in societal development is found

in the comparative volumes on world religions, devoted primarily to the role of religious

ideas in the structure and development of society. The many references to education and

intellectuals in The Religion of India primarily deal with the role education serves in sup-

porting religious goals of Hinduism (1958: 15862) and Buddhism (e.g. 1958: 225). Forexample, in the case of Hinduism, Weber examined educations role in reinforcing the

SA M I E R : W E B E R O N E D U C A T I O N A N D I T S A D M I N I ST R A T I O N 29



5/20

caste system of social ranking accompanying this belief system, particularly in legitimiz-

ing Brahminic authority through sacred law scholarship and institutions of higher learn-

ing (1958: 25, 65, 110),5 a theme discussed also inA ncient Judaism in which Levitical priests

in Deuteronomic times, as an exclusive status group, monopolized priestly teaching and

priestly positions (1952: 171, 1769).

He a lso established linkages between religion and economic classes (expanded in TheProtestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism ) where social classes are differentiated also

by religious education and affiliation (1958: 246). Education is used to reinforce related

occupational stratification in Indian literate professions of administrative officials,

scribes, learned professions (law, medicine, engineering), and journalism (1958: 756), and

in establishing the fixed system of apprenticeship for art isan castes in India (1958: 99) and

guild traditions in China (1951: 1719). In ancient Palestine, education contributed to

establishing the differentiation of status groups, especially the warrior (1952: 25, 26, 56),

artisan (1952: 289), and judicial (1952: 84, 87) classes, and served as a qualification for

military, and thereby political, status in China (1951: 37). While much detailed discussion

of education by Weber perta ins to the educational roles and practices of monks and otherreligious literati, for example the teacherdisciple relationship in China (1958: 196, 2245)

and the rabbinical tradition (1952: 3917), belief systems have a profound influence on

economic stratification in a society. For example, prohibitions of Jainism and Buddhism

prevented ent ry into many occupational areas, such as industrial trades endangering life

(1958: 199, 218), and, as was common with many intellectual strata, the prohibition of

exploiting their abilities for profit among the Nebiim, religious leaders of old peasant

communities in ancient Palestine (1952: 102). E ducational practice a lso contributed to a

dismantling of class barriers where knowledge qualifications exceed other social qualifi-

cations, as in the case of China where the rationalized examination system (see 1951:

11519; Miyazaki, 1981) allowed for recruitment from lower social classes to higher socialstrata in the mandarinate (1951: 43, 50), contribut ing to a struggle between the old nobil-

ity and the literati over the formers original monopoly of high office (1951: 446). The

high social status achieved through education also effectively prevented serious contem-

plation of increased educational standards for the masses (1951: 101).

This theme is developed in its most famous and detailed form in The Religion of China,

where the relationship between educational attainment and achievement in the bureau-

cratic hierarchy of the state administrative mandarinate is discussed (see 1951: 10741).

The relationship is complex: education derives its value in large part from its use in recruit-

ment to government office, and the mandarinate takes on its literati character from the

emphasis on classical literature (see 1951: 1635) in the educational system. The literarycharacter of intellectual life is explained by Weber as a product of an administrat ive tra-

dition based upon written documents, notably official courtly chronicalism and calendar-

making (1958: 159). The most important section on education in this text is the Literati,

and it is also one of the most important sections on administrative theory and practice

written by Weber, accompanying his writings on charismatic, traditional, and legal-

rational (i.e. bureaucratic) administrat ion inEconom y and Society. For Webers rational-

ization thesis, many features of literati education as conservatively classical are identified

for their contribution to a fundamentally traditional ethos, including the Confucian world

adjustment rationality, ultimately preventing the development of a rational economic

system, that is, modern capitalism, in contrast to the Puritan rational mastery of the worldorientation described in The Protestant Ethic. Orthodoxy was enforced through the




6/20

Academy, essentially a theocrat ic board of literati, that effectively controlled the im-

perial administration (1951: 102). What differentiated the Chinese literati as a t raditional

social force, among other societal forces, in preventing the development of modern

rationalized society, from modern German education as a prerequisite for an official

career ( typifying Occidental development ) as a contributing force to rat ionalization, is the

latters rational and specialized experttraining (1951: 1201).Weber also noted the relationship often cohering between politics and education, par-

ticularly in those cases where po litical authority att ains greater social distinction through

undergoing religious education or apprenticeship in manual construction work, as the

Babylonian princes did, thereby elevating dutiful vocational work to a high social status

(1952: 2523) and affecting the educational preferences and practices of the laity (1958:

242). Political author ity also uses religious systems in their educat ional capacity to domes-

ticate the masses (1958: 245). Political authority can be heavily influenced by an advisory

literati (1952: 197; 1951: 41): the literati can attain their power and cultural significance

through ministration to political authority (1952: 242), in the case of China, serving as a

political commodity in competition among princes (1951: 41). In China their power wassufficient politically, and their control of the administrative machinery nearly absolute

enough, to receive great deference from the pr inces (1951: 110). However, literat i can also

occupy positions of conflict with political and bureaucratic authority, as Weber notes of

the Nazarites and free Hibiim (1952: 112). He also observed, through world-historical

comparison, that acculturation of diffused elements of a rational and intellectual differ-

entiated civilization compel the old rat ionalized structures to adjust to entirely new and

relatively simple conditions where the series of ideas are not stereotyped, or sublimated,

through priestly, official, or litera ry elaboration (1952: 1267).

Religious beliefs and organization are found by Weber to affect the development of

knowledge, particularly science and mathematics as it re lates to preventing developmentof capitalist economy and the modern monocratic bureaucracy. The differentiation of

Buddhist ranks within monasteries contributed to the organization of knowledge into

faculties, and the manner in which instructional traditions developed (1958: 288). The

metaphysical presuppositions of Hinduism oriented toward achieving individual salvation

from this world also had a conditioning effect on substantive developments in education,

promoting the development of mathematics and linguistics, and a formal logic as the tech-

nology of rational proof (1958: 1467) oriented toward serving practical purposes and

supporting an other-worldly purpose th rough the technology of contemplation, thereby

constraining the development of experimental science in comparison with the Occidental

world (1958: 1612). In the opening pages ofThe Religion of India, Weber attributes thedevelopment of rational science and mathematics in India to the basic need for rational

consistency which was expressed in the most varied spheres of life (1958: 34). While this

did provide some educational support for capitalism, along with rationalized forms of

justice and occupational specialization, the religious ethic of Hinduism, and religious

educational practices derived from it, ultimately preventing the development of modern

capitalism. Buddhism in India, too, did not provide the valuational support for the

development of rationalized science, as it contributed to the maintenance of traditional-

ism in agricultural occupations and inhibited the development of industrialized practices

(1958: 2612). Modern colonial education in India, along with other social, industrial, and

economic changes, became an instrument in the modern period in undermining thistraditional social system (1958: 30), allowing for a greater access to education and




7/20

competition for positions previously not held by socially degraded or unclean castes in

the Hindu wor ld (1958: 11213). In China, systematic and natura listic thought also failed

to mature due in part to the politics of patrimonial bureaucracy (that is, traditional bureau-

cracy, as opposed to modern rat ionalized monocratic bureaucracy) and the lack of indus-

trial capitalism (1951: 1512). Chinese educational practice at all levels is compared

internat ionally by the degree to which its curriculum contained ra tional method and sub-jects, evaluated in terms of its causal contribution to calculable and abstract knowledge

necessary to social ra tionalization (1951: 1258).

The educational system, in turn, can have determining effects on religious practice,

especially if entrenched in economic or administrative institutions, as it did for Con-

fucianism through the academically organized Chinese system of study and examinations

(1958: 282). This pattern was found by Weber a lso among the ancient Palestinian admin-

istrative literati (1952: 1956). Rationalizing education practices were demonstrated to

have an effect on political and social orders, for example, the institution of rational method

of the Levites contributing to the decline of the ancient ecstaticirrational war prophets

and Nebiim of the peasant militia (1952: 1789).While the importance of educations role in these texts is relegated by Weber to an

explanatory function in determining historically why modern capitalistic development and

the political and legal institutions necessary to it did not occur in othe r areas of the world

as it did in the Occident, The Protestant Ethic essay establishes a historical development

of rat ionalized society. Distinctive educational factors Weber identifies as relevant to this

historical development are: an emphasis on a rational, systematic, and specialized pursuit

of science (1930: 1315) and its technical utilization by economic inte rests (1930: 245)

and accompanied by ra tionalized law and administration (1930: 26); an ethic peculiar to

Protestants (in contrast to Catholics) attracting them in greater numbers to positions of

ownership and management of economic concerns (1930: 378), and reinforced by thetype of education consonant with the religious ethos of family and community (1930: 39);

and an ascetic pragmatism fundamentally hostile to culture without any immediate

religious value (in Protestant t erms, detracting from an e thos oriented toward capitalist

labour) such as everything which smacked of superstition, of all survivals of magical or

sacramental salvation, applied to the Christmas festivities and the May Pole and a ll spon-

taneous religious art, everything containing the erotic or nudity, ostentat ion, and decor-

ation (1930: 1689).

Capitalism, in turn, once dominant in economic life, educates and selects the economic

subjects which it needs through a process of economic survival of the fittest (1930: 55).

Education most suitable for capitalism is described by Weber as one demonstrat ing theability of mental concentration, as well as the absolutely essential feeling of obligation to

ones job combined with a strict economy which calculates the possibility of high earn-

ings, and a cool self-control and frugality which enormously increase performance pro-

viding the most favourable foundation for the conception of labour as an end in itself

(1930: 63).

Herein one can see the essential seeds of both rationalized bureaucratic administrat ion,

and its entrepreneurial rationalized cousin, corporatized and commercialized education.

The current conditions of educational rationalization are historically a continuation of

developments Weber traces in the modern period, beginning in the 17th century, through

The Protestant Ethic. In other words, the rationalization, or bureaucratization, processWeber analysed at the turn of the 19th century continues to take place. In the most




8/20

resistant societal sectors, such as education, we are , in Weberian terms, experiencing the

continuation of the permeation of bureaucracy in institutions like the university that have

remained relatively traditional and char ismatic in character .

Webers most important contributions on education in the modern Occidental world

are conta ined primarily in the lecture Science as a Vocation,6 mostly dealing with the ethics

of scholarly teaching and research and the organization of science as a career (1989: 8), journalistic writings on German universities inMax Weber on Universities dealing pri-

marily with the proper re lationship between educational institutions and government and

the potential negative effects of the rationalization of educational organizations through

this relationship, and educational references in Economy and Society examining edu-

cational requirements and practices peculiar to various forms of religion (1968: 4447,

50017), law (1968: 78492), bureaucracy (1968: 9981002), and politics (1968: 11435).

There are two basic, and competing, educational themes of interest to educational

administration and leadership in these writings: the e thic appropr iate to scholarship, and

the organizational principles of higher education in industrial capitalist society, experi-

enced in Webers time as incipient rationalization.Scholarship, for Weber, is regarded as an inner calling in which the individual should

demonstrate an inner devotion to the subject and on ly to the subject [raising] him to the

height and dignity of the subject which he claims to serve (1989: 12). This vocation is

characterized by passion, inspiration (1989: 9), and a willingness to be overtaken in

science (1989: 12) in serving the common goal of scholarship. Weber distinguishes

between the necessary thoroughgoing specialization in scholarship given the stage that

various sciences reached by the early 20th century, requiring the capacity to put on b link-

ers, and contemporary conceptions of scholarship as an arithmetical problem, which is

produced in laborato ries or statistical card-indexes as in a factory , widespread among

the younger generation by 1919 (1989: 89). The latter form of intellect, to Weber, lacksthe determination of significance that passion, inspiration, and imagination provide, or

soul (1989: 9; see also Samier, 1997). It is this latter function, of intellect derived from

calculation, that Weber regarded as the rationalization of academic disciplines (1989: 30),

providing a foundation not only for economic enterpr ise through science and technology,

but also one that ultimately contributes to a change in the mentality of the professoriate

making it more amenable to conspiring in its own transformation into an instrument of

political and economic interests (1974: 78; see also Samier , 1997).

The fate o f an epoch which has eaten of the t ree of knowledge is that it must know that

we cannot learn the meaning of the world from the results of its analysis, be it ever soperfect; it must rather be in a position to create this meaning itself. It must recognize

that general views of life and the universe can never be the products of increasing

empirical knowledge, and that the highest ideals, which move us most forcefully, are

always formed only in the struggle with other ideals which are just as sacred to others

as ours are to us. (Weber, 1949: 57)

The political and economic conditions of universities in modern society Weber saw as

increasingly hostile to a scholarly ethic. This problem was characterized by him both as a

government intrusion into what should be the autonomy of the academy, in order to

support government policy and activities, and the increasing transformation of the uni-versity organizationally into a market-place actor.




9/20

Government intrusion was characterized by Weber as taking a number of forms. First,

universities in Germany were used by government bureaucracy to tra in future bureaucrats

for the civil service, a condition that he saw coming to American universities as a conse-

quence o f administrative reforms under way in the early 1900s and which would eventu-

ally undermine their independence (1974: 245). Ministry personnel, therefore, are

represented as viewing the university as a means primarily of career creden tialing, therebyserving vocational rather than scholarly purposes, and ultimately changing the character

of university programs towards an increasing proport ion of professional programs.

Second, academic appointments are used by government to advance its political inter-

ests. Weber refers to academics appointed through government influence, or to satisfy

government desire, as operators, or opportunists who serve extra-scholarly ends, such as

political or ecclesiastical ones (1974: 4). Such operators are the beneficiaries of patronage,

and, in Webers view, contribute to the growing number of compliant mediocrities (1974:

5) thereby creating a favourable market for ascent of more compliant academic opera-

tors (1974: 6). Operators are not only those whose appointments are directly influenced

by government, but are deemed to be those whose mentality is infused with economic andbureaucratic values. While many university systems do not appoint senior academics in

the manner that German universities do, directly through culture ministries, other prac-

tices can contribute to effectively giving government greater control over the nature of

appointments, such as the new controversial program of Research Chairs in Canada, or

the restructuring of government funding to universities targeted to programs meeting

political and economic policy objectives, such as applied science and technology. Any con-

cessions made by faculty to non-intellectual considerat ions take their revenge in the ulti-

mate weakening of the moral authority of the faculties (1974: 6).

These conditions contribute to a problem for academic freedom. Weber devoted two

short articles, The Alleged Academic Freedom of the German Universities and TheAcademic Freedom of the Universities (1974: 1423), to an examination of the intrusion

of other interests in scholarly affairs as they apply to appointments, research, and teaching

(that is, to the academic freedom of both professor and student). For Weber, the freedom

of science [sic] exists in Germany within the limits of political and ecclesiastical accept-

ability (1974: 17)in more secular societies, the external authorities are political and econ-

omic. The consequence for many in universities is regarded by Mommsen, commenting on

the educational implications of Webers Objectivity essay (Weber, 1949), as alienating.

[Individuals] are required in all intellectual sincerityalmost the last substantial relic

of Enlightenment thoughtto play out in their own hearts the relentless conflictbetween competing ideal values, in a situation of extreme intellectual solitude, or even

if need be to sacrifice the intellect and, fully conscious of the irrational nature of their

own actions, to give themselves over to an explicit religious doctrine or to an absolutely

valid pr inciple, or even just to one tha t is held to be absolutely valid, no matter how fla-

grantly this may contradict everyday reality. (Mommsen, 1992: 134)

The origins of the economic rationalization of education in the West can be seen in Webers

study of ascetic Protestantism, which he described as fostering the practical and . . . method-

ical inclusion of national science in the service of the economy (1978: 1129). The distin-

guishing characteristic of modern capitalism from historically ubiquitous capitalism is thedevelopment of rational calculation to a fundamental and exclusive principle, with a




10/20

routinized, calculated administration, regularized investment of capital, and the rational cap-

italistic organization of (formally) free labour (1930: 21). In other words, education is sub-

jected to rational economic values, treated as capital, and is susceptible to exchange theory

and calculation by costbenefit analysis as it becomes an economic enterprise (1930: 18). Two

other developmental factors of relevance to the transformation of education into a rational

enterprise are: the separation of business from the household, which completely dominatesmodern economic life, and closely connected with it, rational book-keeping (Weber, 1930:

212). In the modern university organization, lecturers and professors no longer work with

libraries and other technical resources they own, and their r ights become the same as those

of a factory worker organised as bureaucratically structured apparatus in the hands of the

person who has command over (beherrscht) this human apparatus (Weber, 1994a: 2801).

One can draw an analogy from the role the Protestant ethic played in bureaucratiza-

tion for the role intellectualism has played in rationalization. The moral energy of the

Puritans was one of the precipitating conditions for the development of modern capital-

ism, along with a number of changes in economic, political, and social activity, the religious

elements of which were later eradicated by the established economic order (Giddens,1930: pp. xviiixix). Similarly, the scholarly ethic associated with Enlightenment human-

isman emphasis on rationality and free inquiryis ultimately eradicated as an end in

itself in institutions of h igher education once its method is harnessed to capitalist pursuits.

Webers contention that all logico-theological systems of belief eventually demand the

sacrifice of the intellect (G erth and Martindale, 1952: p. xiii) applies not only to religious

systems, but educational systems as well.

For Hennis, a major theme in Science as a Vocation is the fate of the individual in the

academic profession, in which Weber demonstrates that for both German and American

universities the inner calling is compromised by the separation of the academic worker

from the means of production in the modern university, a fate shared by all in a modernindustr ialized capitalist, that is, rationalized, society (1987: 54). This theme is taken up by

Gronow, who reads Science as a Vocation as a commentary on the ra tionalized and impov-

erished spiritual destiny of modern times (1988: 319). Gronow further connects this

theme with a historical thesis of the Protestant E thic essay: scholarship and academia a re

subject to the two forces typifying the rationalization process, namely, that

. . . a rational and methodical conduct of life becomes detached from its original embed-

ment in a eth ic of calling derived from a religious and metaphysical world view; and the

spheres of lifescience, art, morality and lawbecome differentiated, thereby losing

the original quality of values and becoming, in the process, mutually incompatible.(1988: 320)

For Karl Jaspers, in The Idea of the University,

Either we will succeed in preserving the G erman university through a rebirth of its idea

in the decision to create a new organizational form, or the university will end up in the

functionalism of giant institutions for the training and development of specialized scien-

tific and technical expert ise. This is why it is crucial to envision . . . the possibility of a

renewal of the university on the basis of its idea. (1960: 36)

As Habermas points out in d iscussing this essay, Jaspers proceeded from premises derived




11/20

from Idealism, that institutions are forms of objectified spirit, rigidifying into mechanism

once the spirit has left it, and rather naively ignoring a lesson from Weber that the capac-

ity of differentiated operations and institutions to function depends upon the detachment

of organizational goals and functions from its members motivations (1989: 1012). Once

a detached organizational form has been instituted, that is, the university has become

bureaucratized (and one may add commercialized), the prospects for reconstituting thevaluational and interpersonal social behaviour typical of the traditional and charismatic

character of the premodernized university is remote. The lifeless machine of the

materialization of the mind which bureaucratic organization represents for Weber, he

regarded as among the most difficult social creations to destroy (in Mommsen, 1984:

1667). Bureaucrat ized education is as difficult to eradicate as any other form of bureau-

cratized sector of society.

The Possibilities of Educational Leadership in the Modern World

The possibility for leadership in modern, rat ionalized universities is problematic from aWeberian perspective for two reasons. First, the traditional scholarly ethic itself mitigates

against leadership in certain respects. Second, the bureaucratic does not allow for leader-

ship, essentially a political role for Weber, in administrative positions.

In order to determine leadership activities appropriate to scholarship, one must differ-

entiate three fundamenta l roles a scholar plays: teacher, research, and member of the pro-

fessoriate. In The Academic Freedom of the University, Weber argues that in ones

teaching role, a scholar is constrained by an e thical obligation to refrain from instructing

ultimate values and beliefs and proposing his own position in the struggle of ideals,

instead using his position of academic authority to create a forum where the under-

standing of ultimate standpointsalien to and diverging from h is ownis fostered (1989:22). Weber places the burden of decision on the conscience of each individual; the primary

responsibility of the scholar as a teacher is to oblige the individual to account to himself

for the meaning of his own actions (1989: 21). The basic principle of academic freedom

pertaining to students is further developed in Science as a Vocation, where Weber presents

the undue influence over students ideas as a problem of abuse of authority by professors

who use the lectern as an opportunity for prophesy and demagoguery (1989: 201). Pro-

fessors, in their re lationships with students, therefore are teachers not leaders, a clear d is-

tinction he maintains even in the face of what he regards as a desire on the part of many

students to seek leadership in the lecture hall and classroom (1989: 24). Politics has no

place in the lecture-room (1989: 19).As noted in the section above, scholars are bound by an ethic of the inner calling

requiring devotion to the subject.7 Where leaders, as politicians, are required to compro-

mise, scholars must not, even when they are engaged in research with an explicit political

and policy reform orientation, as Max Weber was in the academic organization the Verein

fr Sozialpolitik, which endorsed legislative interventions in the economy to benefit the

common good rather than narrowly defined class interests (Demm, 1987: 88) and under-

took a number of large-scale research projects designed to investigate economic con-

ditions in Germany in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Webers own

part icipation in the research activities of the Verein involved the methodological design,

data collection, and analysis of the conditions of industrial and agricultural workers, con-centrating on bureaucratic and economic constraints and structures, emphasizing the




12/20

theory of bureaucratic domination and the political and economic assertion of state

power (D emm, 1987: 95). While the Vereins activities were useful in informing political

leadership, its activities were bound in the first place by scholarly ethic.

Party politics . . . does not belong in the lecture-room as far as the lecturer is concerned

and it belongs least of all when he is scientifically concerned with politics. For opinionson practical political issues and the scientific analysis of political structures and party

positions are two different things. (Weber, 1989: 20)

As a scholar, one must detach oneself from ultimate value positions, but as a political

actor, one has to make ultimate value decisions.8

In their corporate role, as members of an academic organization, professors have more

latitude in political activity and in assuming leadership roles. However, their leadership

should be derived from protecting scholarly interests and taking an intellectual leadership

role within their d isciplines. As noted above, those operators who curry favour with the

ministries ultimately erode the corporate solidarity of the professoriate (1974: 7). Byanalogy with a distinction Weber makes between politicians who live off politics, and

those who live for politics, that is, those who strive to make it into an enduring source

ofincome and those for whom it provides meaning and purpose and in an inward sense

are devoted to it as a cause (1994b: 318), academic operators live off education. Weber

regarded as not only possible but necessary tha t a professorial leadership is necessary in

combating the practical point of view characteristic of rationalization.

An organisation of university teachers with intelligent leadership could reawaken the

sense of corporate pride of the next academic generation to offset the practical point

of view, and it could thereby contribute to a gradual re-establishment of the diminish-ing moral weight of the universities . . . (1974: 78)

part icularly in relation to the intrusions of political life through government policy. The

ethical demands on an individual in a disenchanted world are met for Weber, as

Mommsen describes, through a

. . . maximum of tension between ultimate ethical and extra-ethical norms prescribed

for individuals and everyday reality; it was to some extent in his own words, a sort of

heroic ethic which places fundamental demands on a person to which he is generally

incapable of doing justice other than at exceptional highpoints in his existence.(Mommsen, 1992: 135)

The second problematic for educational leadership in modern universities, inheres in the

nature of bureaucracy. For those academics occupying bureaucratically defined adminis-

trative roles, the capacity for leadership is reduced proportionate to the degree to which

they assume a rationalized mentality. In order to understand why leadership cannot take

place in a bureaucratized environment, one must look at Webers characterization of

bureaucracy and how it mitigates against the characteristics Weber associated with leader-

ship.

From a Weberian perspective, all forms of authority are conferred. Based uponhis methodological individualism, authority is regarded as dependent upon the value




13/20

orientations of followers who legitimize authority. To Weber, not all exercise of power is

leadership. Power, as the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be

in a position to carry out his will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this

probability exists, is distinguished from domination, or author ity, as the probability that

a command with a given specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons (1968:

53). Weber further distinguishes leadership from au thority. In their ideal-typical form, tra-ditional and legal-rational types of authority are not regarded as leadership. Only the

charismatic form is, defined as

. . . a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered

extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least

specifically exceptional powers or qualities . . . and on the basis of them the individual

concerned is treated as a leader. (1968: 241)

In other words, not everyone with authority is a leader . From this perspective, it is neces-

sary to distinguish between a formal administrative position, and incumbents who mayexert leadership influence. While titles or positions are sources or means of acquiring

leadership, they are not leadership per se. In actual situations, however, characterized by

Weber as reflecting a combination of ideal-typical elements, this leadership, or charis-

matic, quality will appear in some individuals to varying degrees in traditional or bureau-

cratic roles. In contrast to much literature on Weber, Eisenstadt (1968: p. ix) maintains

that a deep chasm does not separate charismatic aspects of social relation from routinized

organizationinstead they are continuously interrelated in social life.

However, the more bureaucratized social relations in an organization become, the less

room there is for charisma to play a role. If one accepts Webers definition of authority

types, and that occupying a legal-rational authority position does not by itself conferleadership, then leadership is reserved for those who exhibit exceptional or special per-

sonal characteristics outside those desired and required by bureaucratic convention.

Leaders do not come from the ranks of the apparatchiki in any political tradition. This

does not mean that bureaucrats cannot be leadershowever, leadership characteristics

are most often found in those who occupy the ranks of senior administration whose

responsibilities are quasi-political. Those senior bureaucrats, whom Hegel described in the

Philosophy of Right(1967) as the highest stratum of civil service, the executive or higher

advisory officials, manage the state itself and are distinguished from the lower strata who

perform technical duties. And, a categorical distinction exists between those who exercise

leadership in establishing bureaucratic systems, such as vom Stein and Hardenberg, orthose referred to by Hegel in Philosophy of Rightas world-historical individuals like

Alexander and Napoleon who themselves are not rational but bring about the conditions

for and create rational administrations, and the managers who later maintain them

through technical-rational mentality and means. More recent administrative theorists,

such as Heclo and Wildavsky (1974: 3), also identify the most senior as political adminis-

trators who share with cabinet ministers the tasks of integrating political and adminis-

trat ion goals with the maintaining of formal and informal mechanisms to achieve them.

The constraints on even those in executive administration in bureaucracy are, accord-

ing to case study analyses by Kaufman, considerable, and comprise two basic types: prior

programming of the behaviour of the bureaucracies work force represented through thetechnically rationalized methods of written directives, budgetary cycles, and the habits and




14/20

rout ines they engender; and the imposition of agendas on bureaucratic chiefs by events

and conditions and people not under their control represented by unpredictable events,

demands, complaints, and potential minefields originating both within the organization

and beyond its boundaries through politicians, lobby groups, and o ther officials (Kaufman,

1981: 91). Both pressures encourage the adoption of a technical-rational organizational

ideology, including the roles that people occupy. Administrative roles, if viewed this way,become managerial and prescribed, and, as Weber argued, compartmentalize individual

experience by separating the emotional, spiritual, and moral, that is, ultimate values, from

the calculative. As Hennis points out, rationalized institutions for Weber have only a

partial use for human beings, isolating for itself specific utilizable qualities (1987: 62),

reducing a bureaucratized organization to structural leader lessness.

The continued permeation of bureaucratic values and ways of thinking have produced

the passion for bureaucracy, establishing as an ideal men who need order and nothing

but order, who become nervous and cowardly if for one moment this order wavers, and

helpless if they are torn away from their tota l incorporation in it (Weber, 1976: 362). This

is a mentality reinforced in organizational and management literatures devoted to struc-tura l-functional or environmental determinist conceptions of administration in which indi-

viduals in their full human character play little or no ro le.

Webers concern on a normative level for the modern economic order is that it does not

conta in within it the possibility for regulating relat ionships in ethical terms, since the logic

of rat ionalization excludes moral and religious influencean inwardly oriented interpre-

tation and individually determined conductrendering it eth ically vacant (Nichtethisier-

bar) (H ennis, 1987: 65, 67). This concern has been discussed by more recent social theor ists

critical of bureaucratic systems and author ity. As a moral problem of obedience, Milgram

investigated the propensity of people for divesting themselves of responsibility by at tribu-

ting moral accountability to legitimate authority, resulting in a shift of moral agency fromstandards of conscience to a consideration of how well the expectations of authority are

met (1974: 78). Similarly Jennings characterizes the traditional perspective on ethics in

the professional practice of the public administrat ions as obedience to h igher political and

constitutional authority (1991: 65). Denhardt, also, views the field as marked by diver-

sity bordering on chaos, due to a large extent to cultural and organizational barriers: an

unwillingness to ta lk about morality directly for fear of being accused of moralizing; a lack

of consensus in the moral foundat ions of public administration for educational and social-

ization purposes; and the general reliance on institutions rather than individuals to

promote appropriate behaviour (1991: 91). From a technically rationalized perspective,

rational techniqueslaws, mechanisms, hierarchies, policies, rules, and regulationsarenormatively necessary and sufficient.

These concerns of bureaucrat ic mentality were not new in Webers time. Shortly after

the t erm bureaucracy was coined in 1745 by Vincent de G ournay, it was used pe jorat ively

to denote government by officials and excessive official power. By the early 19th century

Balzac, in a celebrated definition, described it as a gigantic power set in motion by dwarfs.

Frederic Le Play regarded it as a diseased form of administration, and the bureaucratized

state had been critiqued extensively by Marx in the Eighteenth Brumaire of L ouis Bona-

parte (1963: 477), as a dictatorship based on a bureaucratic machine, stifling all parts of

civil society as objects of intrusion, and in Critique of H egels Philosophy of R ight (Marx,

1970: 47), as a general spirit of secrecy and mystery, preserved inwardly by means ofhierarchy and externally as a closed corporation. What Weber brought to a critique of




15/20

bureaucracy was a valuational and authority analysis based upon individually oriented

social actionin other words, a rationalized mentality of the members of an organization

who view calculative means as legitimate.

However, the very bureaucracy which historically had helped create the conditions for

the democratic ideal, an essential feature of collegial governance in the traditional uni-

versity, was perceived by Weber as threatening the moral, spiritual, and emotional quali-ties necessary to further democratic freedom as it moved beyond being a mere instrument

for political ends by increasing its autonomy and becoming a societal authority.

It is in such an evolution that we are already caught up, and the great question is there-

fore not how we can promote and hasten it, but what can we oppose to this machinery

in order to keep a por tion of mankind free from this parceling out of the soul, from this

supreme mastery of the bureaucratic way of life. (1976: 362)

Robert Michels, drawing in part from Webers work, regarded the relationship between

bureaucracy and democracy to be paradoxical: bureaucracy is necessary to a modern state ,but is incompatible with the welfare of the public. He regarded bureaucrats, especially

lower ranking ones, as sworn enemies of individual liberty and initiative. Their depen-

dence on superior authorities suppresses individuality, one of the basic components for

leadership, corrupts character thereby engendering moral poverty, produces

. . . place-hunting, a mania for promotion, and obsequiousness towards those upon

whom promotion depends; there is arrogance towards inferiors and servility towards

superiors . . . the more conspicuously a bureaucracy is distinguished by its zeal, by its

sense of duty, and by its devotion, the more also will it show itself to be petty, narrow,

rigid and illiberal. (1962: 191)

Michelss view reflects Webers concern about the role technical-rationality plays in crip-

pling the personality of the bureaucrat, reducing him to a cog in a machine that clings to

his position, desperately hoping to be a bigger cog. It is the value orientation of technical

rationality that is responsible for the replacement of cultured people by technical experts,

whom Weber regarded as specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity

imagines that it has atta ined a level of civilization never before achieved (1930: 182). The

conflict of the specialist with the cultivated personality is determined by the irresistibly

expanding bureaucratization of all public and private relations of authority and by the

ever-increasing importance of expert and specialized knowledge. This fight intrudes intoall intimate cultural questions (Weber, 1946: 243). The emphasis on staff with technical

expertise is one of the main characteristics of the current corporatization of the uni-

versity, contributing in large part to the propor tional increase in administrat ive staff, the

creation of new administrative units in university organizational structure (e.g. units

devoted to recruiting and managing private sector partnership relationships), and the

growth of professional programs, usually at the expense of t raditional academic faculties.

For Wittfogel, no society is free of authoritarian e lements; in a democracy, for example,

large corporate bodies such as business, labor organizations, and state bureaucracies, are

repositories for authoritarian ideas, behavior, and forms of organization (1957: 366). In other

words, societies are tensions of competing forms of social organizationin modern societies,democratic versus bureaucratic values and forms of authority. Where democratization




16/20

emphasizes liberalism, individualism, the right to dissent, and willingness to compromise

(Alford, 1967: 71), embodied in universities in principles of autonomy, academic freedom,

and collegial governance, bureaucratization emphasizes authority, collectivism, obedience,

and calculation. As oppositional forces in society, bureaucratization erodes both the mental

disposition and conditions for the development and expression of leadership, and democ-

ratization involves the liberation of the individual from the enveloping mechanism of thestate, the rescue of his personality, as well as the recognition of a necessary commitment by

the individual to the community (Jacoby, 1973: 185). More recently, drawing heavily upon

Weberian analysis, Etzioni-Halevy (1983) has characterized the paradox of a society achiev-

ing democratic political values, yet operating through indispensable bureaucratic organiz-

ations, as a dilemma-ridden relationship of interdependence and mutually eroding power in

which bureaucracy is expected to be both independent and subservient, both politicized and

non-politicized at one and the same time (1983: 2).

Bureaucracy precludes both the value orientations and the conditions for leadership,

part of what Weber termed disenchantment. Webers fear was not only that we would

become ruled by bureaucrats, but that we all would become bureaucrats; we are threat-ened with an existence without extra-organizational qualities, much as William Whyte

argued in The Organization Man (1956), and Robert Musil described in his novelistic

treatment of modern society in The Man Without Q ualities (1930). Leadership as a func-

tional concept in bureaucratized organizations has been bled of its traditional virtues,

ironically, promoting in its place a form of facilitative management deemed democratic,

yet tame enough to provide little effective challenge.

Webers critique of bureaucracy must be read in the context of his concern for indi-

vidual freedoms, and in the educational context as a concern for the autonomy of the uni-

versity and the protection of academic freedom from state intervention, as well as the

intrusion of state bureaucratization. For educational organizations in modern societies,increasingly subjected to financial pressures and a cultural context imbued with techni-

cal-rational values, is the bureaucratization of universities through an increasing shift

toward an ideal of effective management style exhibiting technical-rational character-

istics? R eplacing traditional academic forms of governance, the collegium, is the increas-

ing power of administrative staff, accompanied by the regularization of teaching and

researching activities, and introduction of accountability schemes derived from financial

models?

The objective for educational leadership in a rationalized world is to preserve and

reassert ultimate values organizationally. In political terms, the task is the same as that

Weber sets for democracy: the minimalization of the author ity of officialdom (1968: 985),that is, domination by professional civil servants, in favour of domination by the collegium.

Webers studies on bureaucracy, as Frye suggests, convinced him that only an able leader,

that is someone with charismatic qualities, could overcome the stultifying influences of

officialdom (1971: 4), however, herein lies a dilemma for the traditional collegium. On

both ethical and epistemological grounds, collegial governance mitigates against the

requisite qualities of leadership in playing the modern instruments of power (1994c: 164).

Conclusion

General conclusions that can be drawn from Webers writings on education, adminis-trat ion, and leadership are threefold. First, educational systems require examining as they




17/20

are embedded in other social institutionspolitical, economic, religious, and legal. Edu-

cational organizations are conditioned by, and affect the character of, these other social

spheres through a complex and dynamic relationship of material and ideational means. It

is clear from his approach to authority and leadership that the political structures and prac-

tices of a society, as well as the character of its economic system, profoundly affect the

course of educational policy and its management .The implications of this interconnectedness for educational administration study is

interdisciplinary if not multidisciplinary requirements. Educational administrat ion is not

simply a managerial or leadership science, but a discipline requiring strong (that is, foun-

dational) theoretical and methodological training in the social sciences (sociology, politi-

cal science, and economics) and humanities (history and philosophy), and international

comparative analyses in order to identify institutional configurations and causal relations.

Second, education and its administration and leadership are historical phenomena. The

rationalization of education, particularly as it is examined in Webers combined works on

world religions, demonstrates that it occurs through a complex process of historical

development. The curren t commercialization of higher education has its genesis in ear lymodern history, and is causally related to cont inuing developments in economic and politi-

cal spheres. The bureaucratization of universities, for example, is found in a societally

widespread growth of rat ional formalism affecting the conditions for labour in all spheres

and the suppression of ultimate values. And the uneasy relationship between government

and universities is a long-standing arena of tension and struggle over a material and

ideational resource: for governments, universities represent a policy instrument, and for

those in a university of traditional scholarly mentality, a sphere which by virtue of its orien-

tation to ultimate values requires independence from external authority.

The implications of this historical dimension are not just that history and historical

methods as well as policy studies are important to an understanding of educationalorganizations, but that a critical spirit is required in examining the current and possible

future developments of education in modern societies.

Third, the character of an educational organization is determined by the value orien-

tations of the individuals comprising it. The style of administration and leadership poss-

ible in education is a function not only of extra-organizational factors, but also of the

values held by educational actors that confer legitimacy on styles of authority. Therefore,

it is also the responsibility of organizational actors to determine whether the leadership

they support politically reinforces or opposes various developments in the purpose to

which education is structured. If one takes Webers scholarly ethic as a true expression

of the goals of higher education, then legitimate university leadership has three funda-mental tasks: restricting governmental influence in educational policy and regulation,

resisting the transformation of the university into a market-place actor, and reducing man-

agerialism in university administration.

Educational administrat ion studies, to meet th is valuational requirement , cannot simply

be a discipline of description and explanation, but one ofVerstehen . Educational adminis-

tration and leadership, therefore, are not reducible to a study and training in managerial

competence, or more importantly, not reducible to a program of training in sequential

managerial fads. Administrat ion is a d iscipline, as Weber notes, of valuational orientations

as they are expressed in authority dispositions, requiring the combined investigation of

traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic practices.The promise Webers writings hold for educational administrat ion is not a joyous one.




18/20

Dominating his many studies was a concern for the future of human freedom and creative

potential in a world increasingly succumbing to rationalization, or bureaucratization

more famously known as the iron cage. Described as a liberal in despair by Mommsen,

Weber maintained the position that eventually rationalization and intellectualization

being the two most effective revolutionary forces in world historywould no longer

permit individual creativity and personal values to play any significant role in socialrelations (Mommsen, 1984: 99), elements essential to a liberal education. And adminis-

tra tion is complicit in this process. Bureaucracy is, however, distinguished from other h is-

torical bearers of the modern, rational way of ordering life by the fact of its far greater

inescapability (Weber, 1994c: 156). The manner in which the discipline and practice of

educational administration is conducted can, in large part, either contribute to this

inescapability or provide a means by which to circumvent it.

Notes

1. Kings essay on Webers contributions to the sociology of education deals predominantly withmethodology, primarily the methodological individualism, and various sociological concepts of

authority, power, social class, status, and pa rty, and the role of values and ideology in contrast to

Marxist approaches. There is little discussion of Webers substantive work on education with

only short references to the Chinese literati. This essay is an example of the quarrying of

Weber for sociological concepts, an approach critiqued frequen tly by Mommsen (2000: 366).

2. With the exception of Sadri (1992), for example, who examines Webers conception of

intellectuals as societal carriers of ideas.

3. For example see Hennis (1983).

4. Originally published in G erman in 1916, 191617, 191719, and 19045, respectively.

5. See pp. 139143 on the genteel litera ti character o f the Brahmin caste in compar ison with the

Chinese literati, and pp. 1557 on school organization and practices.6. Delivered to the Federation of Libera l Studen ts at the University of Munich in 1919.

7. For a m ore detailed discussion of Webers writings on academic ethics see Samier (2001).

8. A deta iled discussion o f this principle is contained in his essay Objectivity in Weber (1949).

References

Alford, R. (1967) Class Voting in the Anglo-American Political Systems, in S. Rokkan and S.M.

Lipset (eds) Party Systems and Voter A lignm ents. New York: Free Press.

Bates, R. (1989) Leadership and the Rationalization of Society, in J. Smyth (ed.) Critical

Perspectives on Educational L eadership, pp. 13156. London: Falmer.

Best, R., Ribbins, P., Jarvis, C. and Oddy, D. (1980) Intepretations: Teachers Views of PastoralCare , in R . Best, P. Ribbins and C. Jarvis (eds) Perspectives on Pastoral Care, pp . 24865.

London: Heinemann.

Bush, T. (2000) Administrat ion and Management in E ducation: Theory and Practice, in B. Moon,

M. Ben-Peret z and S. Brown (eds)Routledge International Companion to Education, pp . 27282.

London and New York: Routledge.

Demm, E . (1987) Max and A lfred Weber and the Verein fr Sozialpolitik, in W. Mommsen and J.

Osterhammel (eds)Max Weber and his Contemporaries, pp. 8898. London: Unwin.

Denhar dt, K. (1991) Unear thing the Moral Foundat ions of Public Administrat ion: Honor,

Benevolence, and Justice, in J.S. Bowman (ed.) Ethical Frontiers in Pub lic Management:

Seeking N ew Strategies for Resolving Ethical D ilemmas, pp. 91113. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

E isenstadt , S. (1968) Com parative Perspectives on Social Change. Boston: Little Brown.




19/20

Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1983)Bureaucracy and D emocracy: A Political Dilemm a. London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul.

Frye, B. (1971) Max Weber: The German Professor in Politics,Rocky Mountain Social Science

Journal 8: 110.

Gerth , H. and Martindale, D. (1952) Preface, in M. Weber A ncient Judaism, pp. ixxxvii. G lencoe:

Free Press.

Giddens, A. (1930) Introduction, in M. Weber The Protestant E thic and the Spirit of Capitalism,

pp. viixxvi. London: Unwin Hyman.

Green field, T. (1973) Organisations as Social Inventions: Reth inking Assumptions about Change,

Journal of A pplied Behavioural Science 9(5): 55174.

Green field, T. (1975) Theory about Organization: A New Perspective and its Implications for

Schools, in M. Hughes (ed.)A dm inistering E ducation: International Challenge, pp. 7199.

London: Athlone.

Green field, T. (1976) Theory about What? Some More Thoughts about Theo ry in Educational

Administration, UCEA Review 17: 49.

Greenfield, T. (1979) Organization Theory as Ideology, Curriculum Inquiry 9(2): 97112.

Greenfield, T. (1991) Re-forming and Re-valuing Educational Administrat ion: Whence and When

Cometh the Phoenix? Paper presented to the O rganization Theory Special Interest G roup,

AERA, Chicago.

Greenfield, T. (1993) Organizations as Talk, Chance, Action and E xperience, in T. Greenfield and

P. Ribbins (eds) Greenfield on Educational A dm inistration: Towards a Hum ane Science, pp.

5374. London : Routledge.

Gronow, J. (1988) The E lement of Irr ationality: Max Webers Diagnosis of Modern Culture,A cta

Sociologica 31: 31931.

Habermas, J. (1989) The Idea of the University: Learning Processes, in The New Conservatism:

Cultural Criticism and the Historians Debate, pp. 10027. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Heclo, H. and Wildavsky, A. (1974) The Private Government of Public Money: Com munity and

Policy Inside British Politics. Berkeley: University of California Pre ss.

Hegel, G.W. (1967) The Philosophy of Right. London: Oxford U niversity Press.

Hennis, W. (1983) Max Webers Centra l Question ,Econom y and Society 12(2): 13580.

Hennis, W. (1987) Personality and Life Orders: Max Webers Theme, in S. Lash and S. Whimster

(eds)Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity. London: Allen & Unwin.

Jacoby, H. (1973) The Bureaucratization of the World. Berkeley: University of California Pre ss.

Jaspers, K. (1960) The Idea of the University. London: P. Owen.

Jennings, B. (1991) Taking Ethics Seriously in Administrative Life: Constitutionalism, Ethical

Reasoning, and Moral Judgment , in J. Bowman (ed.)Ethical Frontiers in Pub lic Management:

Seeking New Strategies for Resolving Ethical Dilemmas, pp. 6487. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kaufman , H. (1981) The A dm inistrative Behavior of Federal Bureau Chiefs. Washington, DC: The

Brookings Institute.

King, R. (1980) Weber ian Perspectives and the Study of E ducation,British Journal of Sociology of

Education 1(1): 723.

Marx, K. (1963) The Eighteenth Brum aire of L ouis Bonaparte. New York: International

Publishers.

Marx, K. (1970) Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right. Cambridge: Cambridge U niversity Pre ss.

Michels, R. (1962) Political Parties: A Sociological Study o f the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern

Democracy. New York: Free Press.

Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to A uthority: A n E xperimental View. New York: Harper & R ow.

Miyazaki, I . (1981) Chinas Examination Hell: The Civil Service Examinations of Imperial China.

New H aven, CT: Yale U niversity Press.

Mommsen, W. (1984)Max Weber and German Politics, 18901920. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.




20/20

Mommsen, W. (1992) The Political and Social Theory of M ax Weber: Collected E ssays. Chicago:

University of Chicago P ress.

Mommsen, W. (2000) Max Webers G rand Sociology: The Origins and Composition of

Wirtschaft und G esellschaft. Soz iologie,History and T heory 39: 36483.

Ribbins, P. (1985) Organisation Theory and the Study of E ducational Institutions, in M. Hughes,

P. Ribbins and H . Thomas (eds)Managing Education: The System and the Institution , pp.

22362. London: H olt, Rinehart & Winston.

Sadri, A. (1992)Max Webers Sociology o f Intellectuals. New York: Oxford U niversity Press.

Samier, E. (1997) The Cap italist E thic and the Spirit of Int ellectualism: The Rationalized

Administrat ion of Education, inLEthique protestante de Max Weber et lesprit de la modernit,

pp. 190207. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de LHomme.

Samier, E. (2001) Understanding Ethical Indeterminacy in E ducational Leadership: A Weberian

Perspective, paper presented at Organization Theory Special Interest Group, American

Educational Research Association, Seattle.

Shils, E. (1974) Introductory Note, in M. Weber Max W eber on Universities, pp. 13. Chicago:

University of Chicago P ress.

Weber , M. (1930) The Protestant E thic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin Hyman.

Weber , M. (1946) The Social Psychology of World R eligions, in From M ax Weber: Essays in

Sociology, pp. 267301. New York: Oxford U niversity Press.

Weber , M. (1949) The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press.

Weber , M. (1951) The R eligion of China: Confucianism and Taoism. New York: Free Press.

Weber , M. (1952)A ncient Judaism . Glencoe: Free Press.

Weber , M. (1958) The Religion of India: The Sociology of H induism and Buddhism. New York:

Free Press.

Weber , M. (1968)Econom y and Society: A n O utline of Interpretive Sociology . Berkeley: University

of California Press.

Weber , M. (1974)Max W eber on Universities: The Power of the State and the D ignity of the

A cademic Calling in Im perial Germany. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Weber, M. (1976) Some Consequences of Bureaucrat ization, in L. Coser and B. Rosenberg (eds)

Sociological Theory, pp. 3612. New York: Macmillan.

Weber, M. (1978) Anti-Critical Last Word on the Spirit of Cap italism ,A merican Journal of

Sociology 83(5): 110531.

Weber , M. (1989)Max Webers Science as a Vocation. London: Unwin Hyman.

Weber, M. (1994a) Socialism, in Political Writings, pp. 272303. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Weber , M. (1994b) The Profession and Vocation of Politics, in Political Writings, pp . 30969.

Cambr idge: Cambr idge University Press.

Weber, M. (1994c) Parliament and G overnment in Germany under a New Political Order , in

Political Writings, pp. 130271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Witt fogel, K. (1957) Oriental Despotism: A Com parative Study of Total Power. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press.


Correspondence to:

D R E U G E NI E SA MI ER , Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University D rive,Burnaby, British Colombia V5A 1S6, Canada. [[email protected]]

Weber on Education

Documents

Transcript of Weber on Education