(How the beliefs of Max Webber might help each of us)
A story without conflict is like rafting on a river without rapids. You will move from where you start to where you finish without raising your heart rate, or the challenge of survival. As a writer, conflict is critical to what I do and to what I present to my readers.
With that said, I’ve tried for years to craft a story around the level of political conflict in the United States today with little success. The Eel And The Angel, The Shadow Game, and The Dragon, The Eagle And The Jaguar all are built around international conflict. But the left-right anger in my own country lacks ingredients for a good book. For literary conflict to work in a book, it must be rational and realistic, and there must be a promise of solution.
To better understand today’s political conflict, I went back to one of the most fascinating and influential men of the early 1900’s. Max Webber was a German sociologist, historian, jurist, and economist. His most famous work, The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism, explores how the Protestant Ethic drove the expansion of capitalism in Europe. The primary drivers were hard work, thrift and a rational approach to life and work.
His Bureaucracy Theory described how clear bureaucratic structure, rules and specialization is the most efficient way of organizing large organizations. These two, Protestant Ethic and Bureaucratic Theory became the model that led to the explosion of wealth and the creation of the middle class.
A third theory, Social Behavior Theory, however, seems to be coming into play more and more in the 21st century. This theory emphasizes that social actions are influenced by the meanings individuals attach to their own beliefs and the actions of others. Today, many citizens social beliefs are so entrenched that they see evil in the actions of those whose beliefs differ. This becomes even more troubling when citizens’ own beliefs in certain areas conflict with their beliefs in other areas.
Webber challenged society to balance their Ethics of Conviction with the Ethics of Responsibility. A great example is the murder of the President of United Health Care. To many that company fails to live up to their beliefs in covering the cost of health care. I get it. But to many of those same people, someone killing the CEO of the company fails to live up to their beliefs in the sanctity of human life.
In politics, Webber challenges us to carefully evaluate the limits of compromise of our belief system versus the compromise that may be needed to win an election. Again, how do we balance wanting to promote our values with the perceived necessity to take money from those we might otherwise disagree with, or to be less than honest in a campaign?
Webber would abhor how we now deal with those with different beliefs as the enemy, often disregarding some of our own human values to promote what we believe in.