Theory and Method in Sociology by Max Weber and Émile Durkheim: Dialogues Between the Book The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism and the Book Suicide – A Sociological Study

Abstract

Max Weber and Émile Durkheim are two of the most important classical authors in the social sciences. The influence of their respective theories and methodological approaches is still seen in the work of many contemporary authors. This article presents some contributions of the authors to qualitative and quantitative research. For this, we discuss Weber’s qualitative research in the work Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism and Durkheim’s quantitative research in Suicide: A Sociological Study. We are interested in showing how the authors use methodological and epistemological constructs to produce a sociological analysis with interpretative and causal scopes on social phenomena.

Introduction

Debates about science have been characterized by the strong influence of the Philosophy of Science, and the authors involved in that field of knowledge, to define what modern science is. Also, what methods does it use? How do we define that knowledge is scientific? What techniques used in research characterize the so-called objectivity of scientific knowledge? Is there a universal science or are there different ways of doing science? Are the physical and natural sciences and the social and historical sciences subject to the same standards and procedures? These are a few among many other questions that were asked by different authors who analysed science, the method of science and the epistemologies present in scientific explanations. Although there is no consensus regarding these questions, by asking and analysing them, the authors made relevant contributions to modern and contemporary science.

The different perspectives among the authors on these questions, as well as the different analyses produced, were fundamental to the establishment and status of science in contemporary times. Some of the most referenced works in this debate include Popper (2002a, 2002b, 2005), Kuhn (1957, 1977, 2012), Lakatos (1970, 1978), Feyerabend (1978, 1993 [1975], 2011), (Ryle 2009 [1949]), and Quine (1951, 1953, 2013 [1960]) among others. Bourdieu (2000) presents his contribution to this debate by reaffirming that sociology as an independent field of knowledge has a specific theory and method to explain social characteristics; therefore, sociology produces scientific knowledge about social life that is highly complex given the singularity it presents (with the presentation of universal and specific factors simultaneously in different societies and cultures). In this sense, the author brings the influence of Durkheim’s sociology to the creation and development of his sociological theory in contemporary times.

To better understand this debate, this article is intended to promote a debate and at the same time the presentation of two thinkers/scientists of paramount importance for the creation, consolidation, and development of Social Sciences: the French sociologist and philosopher Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) and the German sociologist, philosopher, and economist Max Weber (1864–1920). Both authors are theoretical and methodological exponents in the social sciences and still exert a strong influence on sociology in contemporary times.

By focusing on these two authors, this article will consist of four main parts: first, it will present an overview of the authors; second, it will focus on ‘Suicide and the Cosmic Factors’ of Durkheim’s book Suicide (a sociological study), in order to identify in the text the logic behind the verification of the hypotheses and the problems presented by the author.

In the third part, a counterpoint between the ‘Rules of Sociological Method’ and ‘Suicide’, both by Durkheim, will be carried out. In this part, more detail will be needed on how Durkheim elaborates his theory and methodology, and how he applies them in a case study, verifying not only the efficiency of the method, but also improving it, given that suicide is an a posteriori work.

In the fourth part, we present Weber’s approach, emphasizing how the author analyses social actions as particular, while also suggesting that these actions promote the development of a rationality favourable to the organization and reproduction of capitalism. Weber understands capitalism more generally as a rationality inherent in the actions and social relations of individuals within a society that is increasingly specialized and bureaucratized.

In the final part, in turn, a comparison will be made between Durkheim’s quantitative research (Suicide) and Weber’s qualitative research (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). This comparison aims to highlight the efforts of both authors to develop great methodologies for understanding society and the relationships of the individuals that compose society. It should be noted that this is not a comparison in the sense of ranking who is the best, but an exploration of the riches that both Durkheim and Weber left for the Social Sciences.

In the Social Sciences, since their emergence in the mid-nineteenth century, it is possible to identify theories centred on structure and theories centred on action/agency, although the authors are not addressing these theories (theories centred on structure or theories centred on action/agency) from this epistemological perspective. Historically, with regard to the Social Sciences, we see that the above clash is striking in the scientific works of the classics (Marx, Weber and Durkheim). Although we cannot define authors in such a linear way in propositions centred on structure and propositions centred on action/agency, the predominance of an author in one or the other approach is evident. In the case of the classic authors, with the caveat already stated, it can be said that Weber would be supported by a theory of action/agency while Marx and Durkheim would each be supported by a theory of structure, although these theories were different from each other (Giddens 1971; Aron 1967; Alexander 1988).

We show that, although the classical authors do not directly address the issue of the relationship between structure and agency (a topic that has gained visibility and debate since the second half of the twentieth century), the way in which they constructed their theories influenced the contemporary debate on the aforementioned topic.

The Emergence of Sociological Theory by Turner et al. (1998) is one of many books that show the influences of classical authors on the emergence of contemporary sociology; that is, the way in which contemporary sociology proposes to analyse the problems and issues of its time is through articulation, derivation, dialogue or by contrasting with the reflections produced by classical authors.

Randall Collins (1991), in his book Four Sociological Traditions, is also another author concerned with showing that the intellectual history of sociology is marked by the presence of four schools of thought: the conflict tradition of Marx and Weber, the utilitarian/rational choice theory tradition, Durkheim’s solidarity tradition, and the micro-interactionist tradition of Mead, Blumer and Garfinkel. The author also sets out to analyse the permanence and evolution of these traditions in the present (contemporaneity).

Both Turner et al. (1998) and Collins (1991), each in their own way of articulating theories and analyses of sociological theory, show that sociology, from its formation to the present day, has characterized schools, traditions of authors and ways of dealing with the problems of modernity in a way that influences the contemporary debate; i.e. between continuities and discontinuities, the classical and contemporary debates of sociological theory maintain a close analytical and interpretative relationship. It is possible to show how this relationship between structure and agency/action is interpreted in the four sociological traditions of Collins (1991) or how the relationship is present in the classical authors and how it influences the definition of the agenda and strategies of analysis in contemporary sociology in Turner et al. (1998).

On the other hand, the elaboration of qualitative and quantitative research methods is also inherent to the Social Sciences, and it is precisely this last proposition that will be explored in this work by analysing, describing, and relating Durkheim and Weber, the first for his quantitative research and the second, for his qualitative research.

General Questions about the Authors

Even before we get into the questions to be considered here, a general presentation of the above authors is in order. Durkheim is a theorist who can demonstrate, without much difficulty, his predominance in the notion of structure; however, he is somewhat different from Marx. For Durkheim, the individual is a social being, but not organized into social classes as Marx had stated (Giddens 1971).

The notion of structure in Durkheim can be identified by the idea of collective consciousness and collective representation, both key concepts for understanding the theory that the author elaborated as being something specific from the perspective of nascent sociology – that is, he presents the specificities and justifies them as a way of scientifically validating the new type of knowledge that it is proposing for the explanation and understanding of society (sociology) as opposed to, for example, the perspective of psychology, philosophy or economics (Lukes 1977).

The Collective Consciousness is linked to Morals, that is, to education and the countless forms of socialization of men. On the other hand, Collective Representations are linked to Religion, that is, to the sacred and profane – in short, the representations and conceptions of the world.

Both collective representation and collective consciousness as structural factors of society are not composed of the sum of the parts. Society is always greater than the sum of its parts; that is, it is not the sum of individual representations that result in collective representation, but individual representations that are objectified expressions of collective representations. In this sense, Durkheim’s objectification of society involves affirming that social facts are external and coercive to individuals; that is, individual actions would reflect the internalization of the collective consciousness of a given social group (Lukes 1977).

Giddens (1994, 1998) emphasizes that there is not a single collective conscience. Different societies carry different collective consciences, which, in turn, engender some differences in social organizations, in the forms of the socialization of people.

Durkheim also gives importance to the division of labour, but with a different perspective from that of Marx; that is, Durkheim starts from the idea that the division of labour engenders solidarity. Individuals understand the meaning of the division of labour as a specialization that, when seen in an integrated way, is fundamental for organic solidarity (by consensus), for the reproduction of the social order. The only exception to this solidarity would be the forced division of labour as an anomic fact, causing serious damage to social cohesion.

It is important to point out that Durkheim presents his contributions to sociology from his doctoral thesis on ‘The social division of labour’ (‘De la division du travail social’), published in 1893 (reprinted 1984), where he demonstrates that the development of individuals is strictly linked and dependent on the development of society. This was his first major work.

In 1895, with ‘The rules of sociological method’ (‘Règles de la méthode sociologique’), Durkheim (1982 [1895]) developed a method in defence of the principles introduced in his doctoral thesis; namely, the understanding of social phenomena as social facts.

Another important work by Durkheim, Suicide – A Sociological Study (Le Suicide, étude de sociologie) from 1897 (Durkheim 2005 [1897]), puts his methodology to the test by carrying out extensive quantitative research on suicide, proving that suicide, or the causes that lead someone to wanting to kill oneself (whether positively or negatively) is sociological in nature and not individual.

Finally, and as a book considered to be from Durkheim’s maturity, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse) from 1912 is perhaps his most important book (Durkheim 2001 [1912]). In this work, Durkheim elaborates a general theory of religion based on analyses centred on the simplest and most primitive religious institutions. One of the author’s central ideas is to base a theory of higher religions on the study of primitive religious forms, where totemism ends up revealing the essence of religion. From the study of totemism, Durkheim proves that it is possible to apprehend the essence of a given social phenomenon by observing its most elementary forms.

Durkheim’s sociology significantly influenced contemporary sociology and one of the most relevant authors influenced by him was Bourdieu, and in the articulation between Weber and Durkheim we cite Parsons who created his theory based on a dialogue and criticism with the aforementioned authors. However, there were numerous criticisms of the way Parsons interpreted Durkheim and Weber’s theories, such as those made by Pope et al. (1975). Other authors strongly influenced by Durkheim’s sociology and who are central references in contemporary sociology were Robert K. Merton and Anthony Giddens.

Max Weber, in turn, presents an intellectual/scientific production focused on analyses and interpretations predominantly centred on action. In capitalist societies, the actions of individuals are guided/organized by rational calculation and the division of labour in the bureaucratic administration of the State (Cohn 1995).

Weber presupposes that the actions of individuals are guided by a rational logic (oriented towards an end, or by values). However, legal rationality is not the only form of social organization, as charisma and tradition also influence the type of power (such as the pure types of domination – rational-legal, affectve/charismatic and traditional).

The rationality centred on legal power is the most important in capitalism given the imminent tendency towards the bureaucratization of society in its various spheres – social, political, economic, military, religious, among others. Faced with this tendency towards bureaucratization, the existence of powers centred on charisma or tradition can be harmful to the continuity of new leaders able to act in the bureaucratic division of state administration. Weber shows us this fact by describing and historically analysing Bismark’s legacy, that is, the consequences of the departure/fall of a charismatic leader from power and the political ‘vacuum’ left by him or her (Cohn 1995).

Many contemporary authors have devoted themselves to Weber’s work, helping to maintain the author’s relevance for sociology and social sciences in contemporary times through the translation of his books and analyses of his work. At the same time, they have also presented different forms of interpretation of Max Weber’s theory and method. Two movements have been consolidated in contemporary sociology regarding Weber’s work: on the one hand, authors have specialized in Weber and in some way continued his analyses in new research. On the other hand, Marxist authors have produced analyses articulating the theories of Marx and Weber, generating a dense debate and thought-provoking analyses of the transformations present in the twentieth century. We cite some of the main works in this debate: Gerth and Mills (1946), Held (1980), Giddens (1971), Habermas (1984 [1981]) and Lukács (1972).

Max Weber and Émile Durkheim developed their works in the different political, economic, moral, and social circumstances that characterized Germany and France in the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century in an attempt to overcome romantic conservatism (of German philosophy), as the utilitarianism of classical economics.

Durkheim – Building the Problem: The Logic of Verification/Refutation of Hypotheses in Suicide and Cosmic Factors

There is therefore nothing more urgent than trying to definitively free our science from it [prejudice]; that is the main aim of our efforts. (Durkheim 1996: 25)^a

The verification/refutation of how Durkheim constructs his problem about issues related to suicide has as its starting point a logical assumption of hypothesis verification, based on an analytical-descriptive exercise in the third chapter ‘The suicide and the cosmic factors’ of the book Suicide – A Sociological Study, which demonstrates its richness and methodological rigor in the development of a quantitative research (Leme 2011).

Durkheim’s research had a geographical aspect that involved several countries in Europe and their respective suicide rates. Among the countries studied are France, Prussia, England, Italy, Denmark and Austria. For Durkheim, the development of research with an eminently sociological characteristic takes place at first through the contrasting relationship between the social phenomenon (social fact) and the psychic or biological/chemical phenomena. It is in this differentiation, and at the same time in the definition of the object of study of sociology, that the author begins by using the above chapter to argue his point (Lukes 1977).

The importance of clearly delineating what would be the object of study of sociology, in contrast to the object of psychology, biology and chemistry, is fundamental for Durkheim. The phenomenon to be observed and treated as social for Durkheim (in his sociology) is suicide; however, the methodological path taken to define it as a social fact came from the refutation of suicide as a psychic and/or organic phenomenon (Leme 2011).

However, the refutation of psychic and organic causes of suicide demanded from the author quantitative research, this being necessary in order to carry out research on suicide rates and not on suicide itself; that is, it was necessary to quantify suicide, to measure it to be able to infer it as a social fact. Durkheim starts from an understanding that it is only by explaining a certain phenomenon that it can be understood, hence the importance of carrying out quantitative research for the author (Lukes 1977).

First, the individual predisposition was refuted as a determinant of suicide; that is, any hypothesis or attempt to show suicide as a phenomenon strictly linked to the psychic conditions of individuals was refuted. With this, not only was the individual determinant of suicide eliminated, but it was also removed from the individual sphere of causes.

Once individual factors have been eliminated, the author inserts material or cosmic conditions as possible causes of suicide. Based on the argument that while many diseases are manifested in certain material conditions and not in others, suicide could also be associated in some way with these cosmic (material/biological) differentiations (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

If such an argument, centred on cosmic factors, were to be verified, it would be possible to attribute suicide not as a social phenomenon, but a natural one, as it shows that some individuals would be naturally driven to suicide, either by the natural environment or by certain biochemical characteristics inherent to those individuals.

Of the whole set of factors and causes linked to the material environment, only the climate and seasonal temperature apparently have some influence on suicide rates; however, in his research, Durkheim ends up refuting these factors.

The climate^b as a cause of suicide is quickly refuted by Durkheim. For the author, it has no influence on suicide rates. In this sense, there is from the beginning a contrast between the above author and the Italian school that explained suicide rates by temporal variations. In Durkheim’s research, there was no relationship between suicide rates and temporal variations; that is, explaining suicide by the incidence of heat is disproved by showing that there are several hot countries that have low suicide rates (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

Another contested hypothesis was that, during the first temperature changes (rise), there would be increases in suicide. In other words, there was no relationship between suicide rates and temperature changes (the fact that the temperature went up or down was not relevant for the correlation of the surrounding variables^c) (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

On the other hand, the relationship between the suicide rate and the variations in the length of days, verified with the predominance of suicides during the day, would be explained by the fact that social relationships are more intense during the day. This fact is explained by verifying that the highest suicide rates occur in days and hours when social activity is more intense. In this sense, suicide and its possible causes can only be explained by social causes, understanding it from this relationship as a social fact.

As can be seen, Durkheim’s research on suicide, as a pathological aspect of modern societies, reveals a striking relationship between the individual and the collective; that is, it is stated by the author to what extent individuals are determined by the collective sphere. In this sense, the explanation of suicide as a social phenomenon, and therefore the object of study of sociology, is essential.

However, in order to define it as a social phenomenon, Durkheim created a typology to, from there, elaborate a general theory about suicide. To this end, the author defined suicide as every case of death caused directly or indirectly, either by positive^d or negative^e acts performed by the individual themselves and who knew what the result would be. In this sense, it is necessary to consider suicide not only in those cases recognized by all, but also in cases of voluntary death, whether for honour, glory, or any other cultural motivation of a certain group of individuals (Leme 2011).

To conclude, however, without exhausting the subject, it is worth mentioning that Durkheim intends to distinguish suicide as an individual phenomenon from the suicide rate as a social phenomenon; thus, the author explains suicide^f by its incidence rate. With this, the explanation proposed by Durkheim moves psychological explanations and their psychopathological characteristics away from the understanding of suicide rates towards explaining and understanding suicide as social; that is, it is not about not using psychological determinants, but rather highlighting the social dimensions of suicide through analysis of suicide rates (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

The Application of the Method to Explain Suicide: Relationships and Advances Between the ‘Rules of the Sociological Method’ and Durkheim’s ‘Suicide’

First, it is emphasized that Durkheim, in his historical review of contributions to the formation of sociology and his method, which is distinctive from other sciences, begins his doctoral thesis on the division of social labour. It is better developed in the elaboration of the ‘Rules of the Sociological Method’, as a method to explain the social phenomena (Lukes 1977).

Durkheim’s study on suicide is an application of the method created by the author and perfected in what is considered his most ‘mature’ work: ‘The elementary forms of religious life’ (Durkheim 2001 [1912]). Next, it will be seen how the author applied his method and gradually refined it in the elaboration of suicide.

In the first place, Durkheim presents the focus and interest for which sociology should lend itself – that is, to explain social phenomena. To do this, it would be necessary to understand these phenomena as a ‘social fact’.

A social fact is any way of doing things, fixed or not, capable of exerting an external constraint on the individual: or else, which is general within a given society, having, at the same time, an existence of its own, independent of its manifestations individual.^g (Durkheim 1995: 39)^h

In turn, a social fact has some distinctive characteristics from other facts, namely: the exteriority to individual consciences, and the coercive action it exerts on individuals. ‘We are, therefore, victims of an illusion that makes us believe that we were the ones who created what was imposed on us from the outside’ (Durkheim 1995: 32). With this, it can be said that the social fact is generalized because it is social, but not its inverse.

Based on this primary definition, it can be said that suicide – or rather, suicide rates – are seen as a social fact. Therefore, it is a phenomenon external to individualities and can exert coercion on individual consciences. This idea starts from an assumption that it would not be the individual who gives rise to thoughts of suicide, but a manifestation of society through implicit and diffuse obligations. Durkheim exemplifies this proposition through currents of opinion, for example, that can lead to marriage, suicide, a higher or lower birth rate, among other facts, which are qualified as states of the ‘collective soul’ (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

However, Durkheim did not just define what a ‘social fact’ is, he was also concerned with verifying what would be the forms of observation of social facts. In this requirement, the fundamental rule was founded on the treatment of social facts as things, because it is only by avoiding pre-notions can one be effective in scientific objectivity.

We must, therefore, consider social phenomena in themselves, disconnected from the conscious subjects who have representations of them; it is necessary to study them from the outside, as external things, because that is how they present themselves to us […] therefore, considering social phenomena as things, we will only conform to their nature. (Durkheim 1995: 52–53)ⁱ

The phenomenon whose explanation we are engaged in can only be attributed to extra-social causes of great generality or to properly social causes. (Durkheim 1996: 19)^j

In this sense, it can be said that there are two fundamental precepts present in Durkheim’s methodology. The first is the observation of social facts as things, and the second is the recognition of the coercion they exert on individuals. By ‘things’ one can understand any reality observable from the outside and whose nature is not immediately known. Suicide, or rather the suicide rate, can be a good example where the two precepts exposed above are verified.

In the application of the method proposed by Durkheim to sociology and evidenced in the research on suicide rates, it is evident that the sociological explanation proposed by the author consists of the establishment of causal links; that is, the relationship of one phenomenon as the cause of another is only possible by observing and/or examining cases in which the two phenomena are present, in order to verify whether there is dependence between them.

This comparative method, or method of indirect experience, is sociological par excellence, since the verification of the connection between variables cannot be done by the method of experimentation; however, the rigor of the comparative method proposed by Durkheim ends up supplying the impossibility of experience.

In short, it can be said that when Durkheim conducted his research on suicide, he aimed to demonstrate that suicide is also a social phenomenon; that is, it is influenced by collective factors. To confirm (or not refute) his research hypotheses, the author used different research strategies, such as: the comparative method, statistical analyses, classifications of types of suicide, social causality and, finally, sociological contextualization.

The comparative method was used to analyse suicide rates in the different social contexts of the research, such as comparing suicide rates between countries, between different religions (Catholic and Protestant), between place of residence (urban and rural), between different age groups and between gender differences (men and women) (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

The introduction of statistical analyses, innovative for the time, was introduced as a way of treating information about suicide as ‘social data’. The collection was carried out with information from several countries (France, Germany, England, Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands). The use of statistics also helped to identify patterns, associations and generalizations. By treating them as social variables, it helped the author to demonstrate the importance of external factors (wars, economic crises, etc.) and social changes in general as factors that influence suicide rates (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

With the classifications of types of suicide, the author developed a pattern to explain that the same phenomenon (suicide) could have different causes, showing that suicide is not just an individual phenomenon but, above all, it is strongly influenced by social factors. The classification developed characterizes the types of suicide as: selfish suicide, whose main basis would be the rupture or loosening of social ties; individuals end up losing their social ties, failing to see themselves as part of a primary (family) or secondary (friends) social network. Altruistic suicide has a dynamic that is practically the opposite of egoistic suicide. The strong integration of the individual into the group ends up eliminating the individual from the social process. In this type of suicide, the necessary relationship between the individual and a given collective ends up producing an unbalanced relationship, where the integration and strength of the collective prevails over the individual. Finally, anomic suicide characterizes social situations marked by disorder and deregulation; that is, when the norms and values of a given society are confused, contradictory or even disorganized in a moment of strong and rapid social changes, such as those present in economic crises, wars or revolutions. In these moments, the individual loses both their individual and social references for integration and social ties present in a collective (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

In social causality, Durkheim argues that social phenomena are explained through social causes; that is, how social structures, collective norms and other social processes that integrate and maintain the social ties of individuals in a given society influence individual behaviour. Basically, the author is problematizing the idea of social cause, where social variables (economic crises, education, religion, social status, marriage, etc.) present structural forces that influence individual behaviours (including suicide) (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

Finally, Durkheim uses sociological contextualization as a way of articulating empirical and theoretical research, through an explanation centred on social factors as determinants of individual behaviour and that the relationship between the individual and society is marked by integration and the maintenance of social ties characterized by beliefs, norms and rules of common coexistence among individuals belonging to the same society (collectivity) (Durkheim 2005 [1897]).

The correlation of Durkheim’s texts proposed here highlights some essential points in the author’s thinking that are contained in all his works, namely: the starting point is always the definition of the phenomenon; second, the previous interpretations about the enumerated object are refuted; and, finally, the explanation of the phenomenon considered in a sociological way is sought. It is precisely this logical and methodological development developed by the author that gives originality to the object of study of nascent sociology. The refutations carried out by Durkheim generally refer to individualistic and rationalizing interpretations concerning the interpretation of political economy (Lukes 1977; Giddens 1971).

Weber’s Approach

We started from Durkheim’s Suicide to explain his quantitative research and its respective theoretical-methodological application on the phenomenon to be investigated in a sociological way. In Weber, our starting point is the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, because we believe that this book, the result of qualitative research, will present us with the main starting points for understanding the author, mainly for the possibility of dialogue and opposition to Durkheim (McFalls 2007; Leme 2011).

Weber begins his book by asking what were the factors for such cultural phenomena to appear in, and only in, Western civilization; that is, what are the peculiarities of rationalization in the West? Why did the embryos of modern capitalism evolve in the West and not in other parts of the world (Cohn 1995)?

To this end, Weber presents a brief characterization of some historical factors of this rationality; that is, of the main aspects present in this historical process, but also political, social, and cultural ones, namely:

1. (1) the development of science with the presence of mathematical foundations;

2. (2) the legacy of the Renaissance in the arts:

   1. (a) the Gothic vault as a means of distributing weight and covering spaces in the desired shape;

   2. (b) the introduction of line painting and spatial perspective;

   3. (c) the journalistic and periodical press.

3. (3) science as a systematic method carried out by trained specialists (institutionalization of science);

4. (4) the organization of the Estate State with the composition of officials specially trained for specific functions (bureaucratization process);

5. (5) the emergence of the concept of ‘citizen’, ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘proletariat’ as a free and institutionalized working class (Cohn 1995).

On the other hand, the author establishes that the desire for profit itself has nothing to do with capitalism; that is, it is not a causal relationship (cause–effect). This impulse exists among waiters, prostitutes, doctors, etc., provided that there are objective possibilities for this to occur (Weber 2005 [1905]).

Furthermore, the various forms of exchange, of obtaining gains, already existed in the world before modern Western civilization. However, the rational capitalist organization based on free labour is a particularity of the West. The rational industrial organization oriented towards a real market and not towards political or speculative opportunities is a peculiarity of Western capitalism since the capitalist enterprise had two fundamental conditions necessary as a differentiated and specific enterprise in time and space:

1. (a) the separation of the company from the domestic economy;

2. (b) the creation of rational accounting (exact calculation is only possible in terms of free labour) (Weber 2005 [1905]).

On the other hand, the creation of the concepts of citizen, bourgeoisie and proletariat as classes only comes into being with the institutionalization and division of labour generated by the specialization process and by new forms of organizing the production of goods in the nascent capitalist society. This modern rational capitalism is based on the technical means of production, a legal system and an administration guided by formal rules (a process of bureaucratization of the world of work and the impersonality of social relations) (Weber 2005 [1905]; Cohn 1995).

Through such characterizations and expositions, Weber begins to problematize his object of study in order to seek a significant understanding of the problem of the construction of a certain capitalist ethos in the West and its possible relationships with factors that gave it meaning and motivation.

First, the presented problem was to understand why the leaders of the business world and capital owners and the higher-level positions were predominantly occupied by Protestants (occupational variable). This problem can at first be explained historically, that is, in the distant past, religious affiliation would not be a cause of economic conditions but appears as a result of them – economic conditions would cause the type of religious affiliation centred on Protestantism. Economic possession involves two factors: (a) prior ownership of capital (inherited), and (b) level of schooling (education, systematic knowledge) (Weber 2005 [1905]; Cohn 1995).

Both the prior possession of capital and the degree of schooling can be inherited and/or facilitated through wealth or, at least, through material well-being; for example, from the most economically developed parts or groups of the former empire, it was precisely the richest cities that adhered to Protestantism in the sixteenth century (Weber 2005 [1905]).

The second problem stems from the first; that is, before this first construction, another question arises; namely, why were the regions of greater economic development at the same time favourable to a revolution in the Church? The Protestant reforms did not mean the elimination of the church’s control over everyday life, but rather the replacement of the current control with a new form; that is, it was the replacement of a very tenuous form by a more rigorous style of control over daily life (Weber 2005 [1905]).

While the dominion of the Catholic Church ‘punished the heretic and forgave the sinner’, the Calvinist domination – introduced in the sixteenth century in Geneva and Scotland, at the turn of the sixteenth to the seventeenth century in part of the Low Countries, and, in the seventeenth century in New England – ended up determining a greater control and rigor in the conduct of individuals.

Weber also identifies that the predominant type of schooling between Protestants and Catholics was different, namely: (a) Protestants devoted themselves (in their predominance) to technical studies of perspectives in commercial and industrial occupations, and (b) Catholics were (mostly) dedicated to humanistic studies and had little interest in jobs in capitalist enterprises (Weber 2005 [1905]).

Another finding of the author was that there was a lower percentage of Catholics than Protestants. As a way of explaining the small proportion of Catholics among specialized workers, Weber found that in the historical process of transition from handicrafts to day labourers, Catholics preferred to remain as artisans (master-craftspeople). In turn, Protestants preferred to be day labourers. Protestants were more attracted to the factories where they, in turn, ended up filling the upper strata of skilled labour and the higher administrative positions.

The above phenomenon would have as one of its explanations the mental and spiritual peculiarities acquired from the environment, especially those peculiarities arising from the type of education provided by the religious atmosphere of the Protestant home and family. According to Weber (2005 [1905]), Protestants, whether as a majority or minority, as rulers or ruled, have always demonstrated a specific tendency towards economic rationality.

The third problem posed by the author was why there is so much difference between Protestants and Catholics. Why does each religion start from different orientations that directly reflect on the respective personal conduct of individuals? While Catholics prefer security, not greed to guarantee eternal (spiritual) life, Protestants prefer to invest, and they are against idleness and lust, which make them work and apply/invest their profits.

Based on this finding, Weber (2005 [1905]) establishes a relationship between Calvinist Protestantism as the religion that most promoted the development of the spirit of capitalism in various regions of the West (more than Lutheranism – according to quantitative data). On the other hand, the process of rationalization of time, working time and free time in the West. In addition to the rationalization of exchange relations, investments and accumulation processes are some of the main components of the spirit of capitalism.

The spirit of capitalism is the possibility of maximizing making money while one can; that is, it is an ethical character of maximum orientation in life. Professional duty as a vocation is the maximum ethic of capitalist culture. In this sense, capitalism leads economic life through a process of economic selection of the most apt; however, this selection should not be seen as something pertinent in a single isolated individual, but in a way of life common to an entire group. Selection is understood as a way of establishing dominance, the power to dominate others (Weber 2005 [1905]).

The question that referred to capitalist ethics as a normative way of life found tradition as its main opponent. The modern entrepreneur pays the agricultural worker for productivity time (the more you produce in each productivity time, the more you earn). In traditionalism, one is not by nature meant to earn more and more money, he or she prefers to earn enough to satisfy their traditional needs (Weber 2005 [1905]).

Work as an end in itself, that is, as a vocation, does not come from low wages or high wages, but from a process of education. Overcoming traditionalism is done through religious education, mainly through the possibility of connecting capitalist ethics to religious factors.

The motivation for the expansion of modern capitalism is not a result of the voluminous sums at the origin of capital, but rather the development of the spirit of capitalism; that is, where does it appear and is it able to develop? And under what conditions? In this process, the presence of an ethics different from the one present in traditionalism is fundamental for the development of capitalism (McFalls 2007; Cohn 1995).

In other words, what would have destroyed the old forms of mental regulation of medieval economic life allied to the growing power of the Modern State would be the strict connection of economic conduct related to religious forces (mainly those of Protestant ethos).

The individualistic capitalist economy, rationalized based on rigorous calculation and directed towards economic success, contrasts with the precarious existence of the peasant, with the traditionalism of the artisan and with the adventurous capitalism arising from irrational speculation; that is, the existence of one is the denial of the other (McFalls 2007; Cohn 1995).

In this sense, capitalism can be understood as part of the development of rationalism as a whole, and Protestantism would be the measure of the development of a purely rational philosophy. Weber does not intend to fall into a reductionism according to which the spirit of capitalism was determined by the Protestant reforms. He is concerned only with understanding to what extent religious influences participated in the qualitative moulding and quantitative expression of the spirit of capitalism (Weber 2005 [1905]).

That is, only after verifying/understanding the existing correlations between the religious movement, in the sense of acting on the development of material culture, will it be possible to assess the extent to which contemporary cultural phenomena originated historically in religious movements.

Given this understanding, Weber (2005 [1905]) establishes who were the historical representatives of ascetic Protestantism in the West, namely:

1. (a) Calvinism (especially in the seventeenth century);

2. (b) Pietism;

3. (c) Methodism; and

4. (d) Sects derived from the Baptist movement.

However, this distinction was not so linear in practice, in history. Methodism appears for the first time in the eighteenth century within the Anglican Church of England, and only later, with its spread across America, did it separate from the Anglican Church. Pietism initially developed within the Calvinist movement in England and Holland and was only gradually separated until its absorption in the seventeenth century by Lutheranism, under Spencer’s leadership, conserving itself as a movement within the Lutheran church. However, it will be in Calvinism that the doctrine of predestination will arise; that is, some are the chosen, but no one knows who is among the chosen. Few are chosen for the beatitudes through the glory and majesty of God:

1. (a) applying standards of earthly justice to God’s designs is meaningless and insulting to His Majesty (God) (e.g. people, through priests, redeem themselves with God and attain salvation – eternal life);

2. (b) humanity only learns about God’s plans if He decides to reveal it;

3. (c) one does not know what one’s individual destiny is (Weber 2005 [1905]).

All that is flesh is separated from God and only eternal death in the glorification of God brings them together (Humanity–God). Only a part of humanity will be saved and the rest will be condemned; that is, one cannot influence one’s destiny. One’s destiny was marked by God’s freedom of choice and action.

This process marks the Heavenly Father’s break from the New Testament. God’s grace is just as impossible to lose for those he has bestowed to be lost as it is unattainable for those he has denied. The path to be travelled was reserved only for the individualities of the people themselves, no priest could help.

The main difference between Catholicism and Calvinism is first in the elimination of salvation through the church and second in the sacraments (Calvinism). On the other hand, predestination is exclusive trust in God, that is, the elect as the invisible church of God.

The Calvinist’s intercourse with God was carried on in deep spiritual isolation. For Calvinism, the world exists for the glorification of God, and the elect Christian is in the world only to increase that glory. The religious believer can feel like a receptacle of the Holy Spirit or an instrument of God’s will: (a) in the first case, religious life tends towards mysticism (Luther), and (b) in the second case, life tends towards ascetic action (Calvinism) (Weber 2005 [1905]).

For Calvinism, good works, although they could not save, were a sign of the elect’s choice (salvation by works). In Catholicism, there is the existence of the sacrament of absolution. The priest, as a magician who performs the miracle of transubstantiation, held the key to eternal life in his hands.

In Calvinism, isolated good works were required of the faithful in addition to sanctification by works itself, work as a vocation and the notion of predestination through ascetic work. In Calvinism, asceticism is transformed into earthly activity. Idleness was a sign of possible eternal damnation. To the (Calvinist) believer, the law was an ideal standard, although never fully attainable. The doctrine of predestination as a motivator of methodically rationalized ethical conduct, and Calvinism as a motivator of an effective methodical rationalization of everyday life, are fundamental aspects of the logic of predestination, other aspects are:

1. (a) no one knows who the chosen ones are;

2. (b) work as a vocation and;

3. (c) recrimination against idleness and lust (Weber 2005 [1905]).

In view of this logic exposed above, it can be said that religious ethics (Calvinism, for example) engender a pattern of rationalized individual conduct. In this sense, Protestantism is not the cause, but one of the fundamental elements of the spirit of modern capitalism, based on a rational conduct and organization of business.

Religious attitudes determine moral behaviour that finds application in secular business. The Protestant ethos was one of the sources of the rationalization of life and which, according to Weber, contributed to form the Spirit of Capitalism. For commentator Julian Freund (1987a, 1987b [1968]), Weber’s concern is to understand that, at the same time, religious conduct guides or partly conditions other human activities (economy and politics), it is conditioned by them, respectively. It is a mutual and reciprocal relationship (Cohn 1995).

Durkheim and Weber in Comparison and their Influences on Contemporary Sociology

Durkheim begins by outlining what his object will be (suicide), delimiting it to individuals (eliminating animals from the sphere of study) and establishing a clear distinction between suicide as an individual phenomenon and suicide as a collective phenomenon. The latter is defined by the suicide rate, this proposition being the scientific concern of sociology, which would be carried out through quantitative research (Giddens 1971; Leme 2011).

Weber, in turn, conducted qualitative research that resulted in the book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. However, when conducting a qualitative study, the author developed some methodological concepts that are fundamental both for the development of the research and for its understanding. First, Weber attempted to provide original methodological support to sociology, starting from a classification procedure based on four pure types of action, namely: rational action aiming at an end; rational action aiming at value; affective action; and, finally, traditional action. As will be seen later, in Protestant ethics and in the analysis of its influences on the orientation of the spirit of capitalism, there is a predominance of types of rational action. In fact, rational action acquires predominance in modern society with the bureaucratization of the capitalist state, with the process of rationalization and disenchantment of the modern world.

Durkheim’s quantitative research is based on the explanation of social facts present in collective consciousness; Weber, in his comprehensive sociology, aims to understand the motivations that guide the actions of individuals, using as one of the main methodological resources for this achievement the classification already explained, and the typologies created. In this sense, it can be said that while the first (Durkheim) starts from the explanation to understand, the second (Weber) would start from the understanding to then explain (Boudon 1995; Giddens 1971; Leme 2011).

In the elaboration of this method, proposed by Weber (1978 [1922], 2005 [1905]), which would establish what he himself called ‘comprehensive sociology’, when applied to one of his research projects on the ‘Protestant ethic’ and the ‘spirit of capitalism’, some questions are highlighted, namely: what would be the peculiarity of the development of capitalism in the West, and not in other parts of the world (the East, for example?).

Weber starts from the same principle as Durkheim – that is, he begins by refuting the proposed hypotheses. The first hypothesis to be refuted is that of a purely economic explanation, which Weber finds incapable, by itself, of justifying the particularities present in the development of Western capitalism.

Second, Weber emphasizes the need to understand what the specific ethos of the first European capitalist entrepreneurs would be in order to understand why this behaviour was absent in other civilizations.

One of the particularities present in the West and verified by Weber was the Protestant ethos as one of the rationalizing sources of life, and which contributed to what the author calls ‘the spirit of capitalism’. With this, Weber does not intend to establish a merely mechanical causal relationship between Protestantism and capitalism, but rather to understand how much the Protestant ethos was rationalizing and contributed to the evolution of capitalism.

In this sense, Weber is concerned with understanding how the Protestant ethic in its psychological and moral motivations motivated the formation of the spirit of capitalism. When developing his research, his main concern was with the analysis of Calvinism from the end of the seventeenth century (and not with the writings of Calvin himself, who lived approximately 150 years earlier). It is precisely from this procedure that the application of Weber’s comprehensive sociology is used to understand the correlation of Protestant ethics with the spirit of capitalism.

While Weber aims to understand the development and evolution of capitalism in the West through the motivations engendered by Protestant ethics, Durkheim aims to explain the suicide rate as a social phenomenon, i.e. external and coercive to individuals (centred on a notion of collectivity). Durkheim, by emphasizing suicide as a social phenomenon, emphasizes the variations that suicide presents in societies (countries investigated in the book); that is, what matters are the suicide rates in relation to the social factors analysed, such as religion, marriage, social changes, days of the week and periods (times of the day) to explain how the variation in suicide is linked to the types of social ties and the individual’s belonging to a society. Weber’s analysis is based on the idea of an ideal type of Protestant ethics that includes the notion of predestination (religious conviction) and the notion of work as a vocation. First, there is the reference that no one would know who the chosen ones are – that is, God’s designs would be irrevocable – thus making it impossible to lose grace once conquered, or trying to acquire it when it has been refused. This conviction ends up gradually eliminating magic; there is a disenchantment with the world and, therefore, a growing rationalization in the various spheres of social relations.

For Weber (2005 [1905]), once the process of disenchantment of the world had been engendered, together with the non-explicit declaration of who would be chosen by God, work as a vocation emerged as an attempt to demonstrate, through its social effectiveness, who would be the possible predestined. In this sense, the most effective work would be a manifestation of the glory of God and a sign of the election based on the ascetic life, that is, success at work would confirm the personal vocation.

This ascetic conduct contributed to the rationalization of all existence related to the will of God; that is, there was a rationalization of the behaviour of individuals, including in the business world. However, success in the world of work is not synonymous with wealth in its character of accumulation for an idle life, luxury or things of that sort, but as a form of accumulation for investment. The more one invested, the more productivity one acquired at work and, on the other hand, the rejection of luxury and idleness was closely linked to a new lifestyle that directly influenced the spirit of capitalism. Through Protestant ethics, it was possible to understand the development of the spirit of capitalism due to the novelty that was introduced into the world of work. In other words, there is a foundation whose origins are religious morality that, in turn, influences the lifestyles and work of individuals, directly reflecting on the form, application and conduct of secular business.

While Weber is concerned with his qualitative research on what motivations would guide the actions of individuals (Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism) to understand the reasons for the particularities of capitalism in the West. Durkheim, in his quantitative research on suicide, is concerned with giving status to the problem of suicide as an object of study in sociology. To this end, he starts from the explanation of this phenomenon within conditions of variability (suicide rate) in a process of objectification of the same and referring to the sphere of collective consciousness and not to the psychological disturbances or crises of individuals. However, Weber and Durkheim are similar in proposing a sociology that aims to be a scientific discipline, to this end – by investigating social phenomena, each with its own strategy, methods and theories – aiming to understand the structures and social processes in Western societies.

But Weber and Durkheim also differ in terms of the sociological trajectories chosen; while Weber (1978 [1922]) values subjectivity with an emphasis on the motives and meanings of social action through an interpretative understanding (Verstehen) articulated with a methodological individualism in focusing analyses on the social action of individuals, Durkheim values objectivity through Social Facts articulated in a causal explanation that prioritizes the collective – that is, social facts are greater than the sum of their parts.

Boudon (1995) compares Weber and Durkheim, and aims to highlight the possible convergences between the authors, indicating that despite the philosophical and epistemological differences, both authors share the construction of a sociology that articulates rationality and causal explanations of social phenomena. In other words, both authors recognized the importance of the connection between social macrostructures and individual actions (they articulate structure and action/social agency).

Durkheim demonstrates that the social action of individuals must be understood from a rational perspective, even through the sharing of social and collective values. Weber aims at rationalization and historical contexts to understand the changes in the modern world (capitalism and rationality) (Boudon 1995).

Pope et al. (1975) open a divergence with Talcolt Parsons (1968) regarding the interpretation that Parsons makes when he states that Weber and Durkheim would converge on a voluntarist model of social action. Pope et al. argue that Parsons’ convergence thesis ends up underestimating crucial differences in the theoretical and methodological approaches of Weber and Durkheim.

Durkheim, by prioritizing social facts as external and coercive forces that shape individual behaviour, emphasizes the importance and centrality of collective structures in determining individual actions through norms, beliefs, and social solidarity. Weber, by starting from social action in the subjective meaning attributed to individuals, aims at an interpretation where the values and intentions of individuals occur in specific historical and cultural contexts. This is a fundamental difference that is simplified in Parsons (Pope et al. 1975).

Pope et al. (1975) also indicate differences in explanatory structures; in Weber, the introduction of ‘ideal types’ as an analytical tool to understand the rationality and subjective meaning of social actions is fundamental. Durkheim, in turn, focuses on functionality and mechanisms of social integration. Regarding Parsons’ voluntarism in the convergence between Weber and Durkheim, Pope et al. demonstrate that Durkheim never abandoned his emphasis on the coercive forces of social structures on individuals and that Weber never compromised his concern with the subjective meaning of individuals’ social actions.

While Parsons (1968) argued that Weber’s and Durkheim’s theories were complementary and convergent to the common theoretical framework of modern sociology, Pope et al. (1975) reject this interpretation, arguing that there are profound differences between Weber and Durkheim. Although these authors represented a complementary theoretical tradition, they were profoundly divergent and emphasize that it is important for contemporary sociology to preserve theoretical and methodological plurality in sociology as a way of explaining the complexity of contemporary social phenomena.

Jensen (2012) also emphasizes the methodological differences between Weber and Durkheim based on an analysis that compares the authors in six fundamental aspects, namely: (1) how the authors construct the object of sociology research; (2) which method they develop and how they articulate it with theoretical concepts; (3) how the authors deal with causality and explanation in their theories; (4) what is the importance of Laws and generalizations in their sociological approaches; (5) how values and beliefs should be treated by their sociologies as a scientific field; and (6) how they treat the relationship between the individual and the collective.

Regarding the object of sociology research, while Durkheim emphasizes exteriority and coercion (society as a sui generis reality), Weber privileges subjectivity and individual action (endowed with meaning). In relation to method and concepts, Durkheim sought to find regularities about the functioning of society, and concepts should emerge from empirical reality. Weber, in turn, used a comprehensive method through the construction of ‘ideal types’; that is, theoretical constructions are fundamental for the interpretation (Jensen 2012).

Concerning causality and explanation, Jensen states that Durkheim seeks to explain social phenomena by their social causes, developing an approach centred on deterministic and structural causality, while Weber proposes a probabilistic causality (centred on understanding the meaning of social action). Regarding laws and generalizations, the author states that Durkheim seeks to find general laws of functioning, in comparison with Weber’s construction of a contextualized explanation that is sensitive to the singularities of historical and social phenomena.

To address values and beliefs in sociology, Durkheim opted for a normative strategy, while Weber developed a more radical separation between science and values. Finally, in the relationship between the individual and the collective, Jensen (2012) emphasizes that Weber moves from the individual to society to understand the social phenomenon, and Durkheim does the opposite, starting from the collective and moving to the individual to explain the social phenomenon. The interpretation produced by Jensen (2012) was developed based on the analysis carried out in Durkheim’s book Suicide and Weber’s book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. While Durkheim would explain suicide through collective social forces (as a social phenomenon, therefore external and coercive), Weber understands capitalism (rationalization of the modern world) through the meanings attributed by individuals to their social actions, whether in the private world or in economic practices. Although Jensen (2012) emphasizes more the differences between the authors, he states that Weber and Durkheim did not develop exclusive sociologies; that is, the authors are complementary in offering different perspectives on social reality (social phenomenon), thus contributing to an enrichment of the field of sociology in contemporary times.

Conclusions

Reflecting on Durkheim and Weber as founders of classical sociology implies differentiating them by method, but not ranking them from best to worst. The methodological differences verified in the course of this work and the very difference in the type of research each author chose to carry out (the first, quantitative research, and the second, qualitative research) should be seen as consistent models of how research is carried out with coherence in the application of the method, and as clarity in the resulting explanations/understandings.

Durkheim’s quantitative research on suicide strictly follows his methodological proposition of considering suicide rates as a social phenomenon, thus possessing the characteristics of a social fact (coercive and external). This ends up explaining the above phenomenon as a social phenomenon present in collective consciousness – that is, something to be studied/researched and explained by sociology, a science that the author is founding.

The same rigor that Durkheim presents in the development of his research, Weber presents in the elaboration of his qualitative research that aims to understand which motivations guide the actions of individuals for the singular development of the spirit of capitalism in the West and not in other civilizations. To this end, Weber creates some classifications and typologies to better understand this multi-causal relationship of motivations guiding certain actions, which in turn, end up defining a new type of lifestyle and, therefore, a new pattern of more social relations. rationalized, causing a disenchantment with the world.

Both the first author (Durkheim) and the second (Weber) have relevant contributions to sociology and the social sciences as a whole. Whether in quantitative or qualitative research, whether in the way of explaining and then understanding or first understanding in order to explain later, both have essential corroborations for sociological research which are still relevant today.

As shown in this article, the international literature on the authors, although often divergent, ends up valuing the effort and influence that Durkheim and Weber left as a legacy for sociology (and social sciences in general). On the other hand, whether analysing the authors by their convergences or divergences, all commentators demonstrate that the complementarity of the authors for contemporary sociology is central.

This ends up reinforcing the belief that efforts to carry out research (quantitative or qualitative) in the social sciences are valid and viable when supported by theoretical-methodological approaches capable of responding to certain facts/social phenomena. That is, methodologies that support research based on the particularities of the ways in which the subject/object relationship is treated in the social sciences (sociology, anthropology, and political science), without losing sight of the principle of refutation and, at the same time, validating hypotheses and, consequently, achieving an explanation/understanding of certain social phenomena/facts present in certain historical moments.

Finally, the analysis of the theories and methodologies produced by Durkheim and Weber demonstrates an advance in the development of sociology as a scientific field. On the other hand, these authors also indicated that addressing the debate about the individual and society (collectivity), with regard to the causes of individuals’ social actions, is fundamental to understanding the changes that have occurred in the world, especially since the Industrial Revolution. However, this still represents an important analytical effort to address contemporary social phenomena (technology, religion, politics, the State, social movements, among others).