ball, donald - catholics, calvinists, and rational control - further explorations in the weberian...

7/23/2019 BALL, Donald - Catholics, Calvinists, And Rational Control - Further Explorations in the Weberian Thesis

1/9

Catholics, Calvinists, and Rational Control: Further Explorations in the Weberian ThesisAuthor(s): Donald W. BallReviewed work(s):Source: Sociological Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Winter, 1965), pp. 181-188Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3709918.Accessed: 21/12/2012 11:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University PressandAssociation for the Sociology of Religion, Inc.are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:47:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3709918?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3709918?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/9

Catholics,

alvinists,

ndRational

Control:

urther

xplorations

in theWeberian hesis

Donald W. Ball

Californiautheran

ollege

Contemporarytudies

fthe

Weberian hesis re

foundwanting

hrough

theirvulgarization

fthe

concept f

rationalityn

theWestern

world.

A comparisonfCatholics ndCalvinists,sing eeman's ersonal ow-

erlessnesscale

as a measure

f rational

ontrol,hows

differences

p-

posite rom

hose uggested y

the

Protestantthic;

possible

xplanations

of his

indingre

discussed.

Though generally

moribund,'

hat

area of social

scientificnterest om-

monly ubsumed nder he

sociology

f

religion

mbraces t eastone

flourishing

fieldof inquiry:The empirical esting

ofhypothesespringing enerally rom

the Weberian

onnulationf

Protestant-

Catholic ifferences

s

elaborated

n the

Protestantthic.2 havesuggestedome

See the

plaint of Charles

Glock

in

his

review

rticle, The

Sociology

f

Religion,

n

RobertMerton,

eonard

Broom, nd

Leonard

Cottrell,Jr.

(eds.),

Sociology

Today,

New

York:

Basic

Books,

1959, pp.

153-177; for

a

concise, but

now

rather

out-dated

historical

overviewof the field,Talcott Parsons, The

Theoretical

Development

f the

Sociologyof

Religion,

Journal

f the

History

f

Ideas,

5

(April, 1944),

pp. 176-190.

For data on cur-

rent

interest n

the

field among

practicing

sociologists,

Matilda

White

Riley,

Member-

ship

in

the

American

ociological

Association:

1950-1959,

American

Sociological

Review,

25

(December,

1960), pp.

914-926,

which

reports

nly4 per

cent of

the

full-status

em-

bers

listing

he

sociology

of

religion

s

one

of their

pecialties n 1950

and

only

6

per

cent

in 1959.

2

This

impression

s

borneout

in an

exami-

nation

of

research

eported

n

The

American

Journal

f

Sociology,

ocial

Forces,

Sociology

and

Social

Research,

nd

American

ociological

reasons

or hisgeneral ack of sociolog-

ical interest

n religion, anging

rom

a confusion

oncerninghe essence as

versus he

existence f a non-verifiable

area ofhuman xperience o a lack ofreadily-availableesearchfunds.3The

exception,

xaminations f Protestant-

Catholicdifferences

ithin

he

context

of

a mature,

ighly-industrialized,

api-

talistic conomic

rder,

has looked

at

the salience fthe Protestant

thic,

l-

though riginallyormulatedo

explain

the

emergence of Western apitalism,

for

contemporaryociety. However,

whereWeberwas concernedwiththecompatibilityetween Protestant nd

capitalistic elief

ystems,

perationally

exemplified

n

Protestantntrepreneurial

success (as

compared

with

Catholics),

modern

tudents avefocused

pon dif-

ferent

riteria f achievement.he bu-

Review

covering

he last ten

years.

For the

original tatement

ee

Max

Weber,

The

Protes-

tant

Ethic and the

Spirit

f

Capitalism,

rans-

lated by TalcottParsons,New York: Scrib-

ner's,

1958.

3

This writer's,

The Theme

of

Religion nd

Success in

Recent

American

Sociology,

(mimeo.).

181

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

182

SOCIOLOGICAL

ANALYSIS

reaucratic ature fmodem nstitutions

has led contemporarynalysts o look o

such phenomenaas intergenerational

mobility,

mobility rientations,duca-

tional aspirations, nd economicatti-

tudes s functionalr operational

quiv-

alents of entrepreneurialerformance.4

However,whenWeber examined

n-

trepreneurialuccess, t was really

s an

indirectmeasure f rationalitynd con-

trol; he did not directly xamine

ma-

terials

bearing upon rational

control

because

techniques

or

uch

an exercise

were not

then

available.

It is

a

fre-

quently verlooked ointthatWeber's

interest n Protestant-Catholic

iffer-

enceswas

not

n

theeconomic

rder

er

se,

but

only

nsofars this ectorwas

an

4

See

Gerhard enski,The Religious actor,

Garden City: Doubleday

Anchor, 963;

Ray-

mond W. Mack, Raymond

J. Murphy

and

SeymourYellin, The Protestant

thic,

Level

of Aspiration,

nd Social Mobility:

An Em-

piricalTest,

American ociological

Review,

1

(June, 1956), pp. 295-300; SeymourLipset

and ReinhardBendix,

Social Mobility

n

In-

dustrial Society,

Berkeley nd Los Angeles:

University f California,

1960, pp.

48-56;

Andrew

M. Greeley,

Influenceof

the

'Re-

ligious

Factor' on

Career

Plans

and Occu-

pational Values

of College Graduates,

Amer-

ican Journal f Sociology,

48 (May, 1963),

pp. 658-671;

Albert

J.

Mayer

nd

Harry

harp,

Religious

Preference nd Worldly

Success,

American

Sociological Review,

27 (April,

1962), pp.

218-227;

Marvin

Bressler and

Charles Westoff, Catholic Education, Eco-

nomic Values, and

Achievement,

merican

Journal f

Sociology, 9 (November,

1963),

pp.

225-233.

The

above

list

is

not exhaus-

tive, but

it is representative

f the better-

knownworks

nd their perational echniques.

For criticisms

f such work

see the issue of

SociologicalAnalysis evoted

to contemporary

consideration

of the Weberian thesis,

25

(Spring, 1964).

See especially Andrew

M.

Greeley,

The Protestant thic: Time for a

Moratorium,

nd Helmut

Wagner, The Prot-

estant thic:A Mid-Twentiethentury iew.

The former

rgues that

these modernefforts

involve an oversimplification

f history

nd

an ignoranceof contemporary

atholic

plu-

ralism.

arena for

he

examinationfwhat was

actually

his central

concern-the de-

velopmentnd

manifestationf rational

behavior.

Weber

held

this to be the

crucial haracteristicfWesterniviliza-

tion, .g.,

modern

urope.5

Although

Weber made use of

eco-

nomic ata,

hisstudywas

not,

s it

has

so often

een

interpreted,

ne of eco-

nomic ehavior r

attitudess such, ut

rather

utilizationfsuch

data

as

oper-

ational

indices of the

rationality

nd

control

hichwas

not t that

imemore

directly

pprehensible.

odern tudies

baseduponthis spectofWeber'swork

appeartohave

ignoredhis

rucialdis-

tinction.

hat

eems ohave

developed

is a

vulgarizedWeberian

radition hich

ignores

his

ultimate oncern

with ra-

tional

control

y

prematurelyoncen-

trating

pon the

economic s

an end

in

itself.

ecent

xaminationsf

Protestant-

Catholic

differences,

n

focusing pon

contemporaryeasures

f

success, ave

tended o neglectwhatwas central o

Weber's

work;

nd,unlike

he case

of

Weber,

his

has not been

due

simply

o

a

lack of

adequate

methodological

ech-

niques.6

5

Author's

ntroduction,

Weber, op.

cit.,

pp.

13-31;

Talcott

Parsons,

The

Structure

f

Social Action,

Part III, New

York:

McGraw-

Hill,

1937, pp.

516 ff.;Don

Martindale, he

Nature

nd Types of

Sociological

Theory,

os-

ton: HoughtonMifflin, 960, pp. 383-384;

also see Max

Weber, The Rational nd Social

Foundations f

Music,

translated y Don

Mar-

tindale et al.,

Carbondale:

Southern llinois

University

ress, 1958.

6

Justhow

simplistic his

methodology

c-

tually

was has been

demonstratedy the work

of

Kurt

Samuelsson.

amuelsson eplicated

he

studies of M.

Offenbacher, ne of

Weber's

students, pon

whose work

he was

quite re-

liant.

This

examination

found that

Offen-

bacher's

findings f higher

educational

and

economic chievementor GermanProtestants

were a

function f

neglecting o control

for

the fact that

this group

made up

a larger

proportion f the

population han

the

Catho-

lics with

whom

they were

compared.

When



4/9

CATHOLICS, CALVINISTS

183

Thus, those

contemporary studies

which

have,

in

general,found small dif-

ferences

between

Protestants nd Cath-

olics along

the

dimensions uggested

by

the Weberian thesis,have begged the

question. t is

not a priori

demonstrable

that

mobility

performances,

attitudes

toward

the

economy,

tc., are function-

ally

equivalent

to rationalcontrolorien-

tations.

In

other

words,

these opera-

tional

measures

have

questionable

validity

nsofar

s

they may

or may

not

reflect

rational

control

orientations,

he

central

concern of

Weber's theory.

There is also, of course, the questionof

the

appropriateness of the

Weberian

thesis

for

the analysis of

mature,

on-

going

systems. One

likely explanation

for the lack

of

Protestant-Catholic if-

ferentiation

found in

contemporary

studies

utilizing

Weber's framework s

in the

applicationof a

theory

oncerning

the

genesis

of

systems o one which

is

well

developed.

Nevertheless,

n

a field

relatively devoid of theory,the con-

tinued

use of

Weber's model

may

be

justified

n

heuristic

rounds;

t

provides

a useful

context

for the

generation nd

testing

of

hypotheses.

Furthermore,

s

argued

herein,

the

fundamental

Web-

erian

concern was with

rationality, he

growth

nd spread of

whichhe saw

as

central to

the

growth and

change of

Western

civilization.

Thus, debate over

the appropriateness f the model for a

mature

economy involves

the common

misinterpretation

f the

centrality of

Samuelsson eld

this

factor

onstant, he

Prot-

estant-Catholic

ifferences

lmost

entirely is-

appeared.

See Kurt

Samuelsson,

Religion nd

EconomicAction:

A

Critique

of

Max

Weber's

The

Protestant

thic and

the

Spirit

of

Cap-

italism,

ranslated

y E.

Geoffreyrench

nd

edited by

D.

C.

Coleman,

New

York:

Harper

& Row,1964. For a summaryfthiswork, ee

Lipset

and

Bendix,

op. cit.,

pp.

54-55. For

other

operational

echniques, ee the

works

cited

in note

4

above;

for a

methodological

critique f

these

works, lso

see note

4.

economic

factors n the

thesis,

.e.,

a

vul-

garized

Weber,

not unlikethe

oversim-

plified

condensation

of

Marxian

theory.

Fortunately

n instrument

oes

exist

whichseems to bear moredirectly pon

rational

ontrol han

have

the

previously

alluded

to indices

which

are in

recent

favor.

This is

the personal

powerless-

ness

subscale

which

is an

outgrowth

f

Seeman's

delimitation

of

the

various

formsof

alienation.7

One of

these

forms,

powerlessness,

Seeman

has

defined as

the

expectancy

or

probability

held

by the

individual

that his own behaviorcannot

determine

the

occurence

of the

outcomes or

rein-

forcements e

seeks. 8

Stripped

of the

expectancy-reinforcement

anguage of

Rotter's ocial

learning

heory,9

hiscon-

ceptualization

refers o

the actor's

sense

or

perceptionof

his

efficacy

n

control-

ling

or

manipulatingthe

environment.

This

sense

of

environmental

ontrol

has

been

furtherpecified n terms of per-sonal or

social

control, he

latter

refer-

7

This

theoretical tatements Melvin

See-

man,

On

the

Meaning

of

Alienation, meri-

can

Sociological

Review,

4

(December,

1959),

pp.

783-791.

Empirical ests

generated

y the

theory

nclude

Melvin Seeman

and

John

W.

Evans,

Alienation nd

Leaming

n

a

Hospital

Setting, American

Sociological

Review,

27

(December,

1962),

pp.

772-782; ArthurG.

Neal

and

Melvin

Seeman,

Organizationsnd

Powerlessness: Test of the MediationHy-

pothesis, American

Sociological

Review, 29

(April,

1964),

pp.

216-225; Arthur

G. Neal

and

Solomon

Rettig,

Dimensions

f

Alienation

Among

Manual

and

Non-Manual

Workers,

American

Sociological Review

28

(August,

1963),

pp.

599-608;

Dwight

G. Dean and

Jon

A.

Reeves,

Anomie:

A

Comparison

f

Catholic

and

Protestant

ample,

Sociometry,5

(June,

1962), pp.

209-212;

and in a

modified

ersion,

this

writer's

Convert

Political

Rebellion

as

Ressentiment,

ocial

Forces, 43

(October,

1964), pp. 93-101.

8

Seeman, p.

cit.,

p. 784.

9

See Julian

B.

Rotter,

ocial

Learning

nd

Clinical

Psychology,

ew

York:

Prentice-Hall,

1954,

cited n

Seeman,

p.

cit.



5/9

184

SOCIOLOGICAL

ANALYSIS

ring o

broaderpolitical-economic

on-

texts

of action.

mplicit

n

the idea

of

control

s rationality

r

a

reliance

on

volitional

ausality,

.e., elf-induced

au-

sation s contrasted ith external au-

sality

uch

as

luck,

fate,

tc.10

he

re-

ciprocal

of

personal

powerlessness

s,

therefore,

ational

ontrol:

perception

of the

environment

s

susceptible

o

manipulation

y

the

actor

via

his

delib-

erate

volitional

ctions,

ather

han

as

uncontrollable

y

any

but

external

forces

ver

which

he

actor

has

no

con-

trol.1

Thus,

he

personal

owerlessness

subscalecan be treated, t least ten-

tatively,

s

a measure

of rational

control

(the

designation

ywhich

t

will

hence-

forth

e

referred).

his

sthe

dimension

which

formed

heunderlying

heme

f

much

of

Weber's

work,

ven though

e

was

forced

o examine

t in a

round-

about

way.

It

follows

hen,

hat

scale

measuring

rational

ontrol

s

relevant

o the

exami-

nation f Protestant-Catholicifferences

within

he context

f

Weberian

heory;

the

standard rediction

onsistent

ith

the

Protestant

thic

being

that

Protes-

tants,

r

more pecifically,

hat

Calvin-

10

See

The

Belief

n

Luck,

in Thorstein

Veblen,

The

Theory

f

the

Leisure

Class,

New

York:

New

American

ibrary,

953,

pp.

182

ff.;

lso

Seeman,

op.

cit.

11 The scale consists f sevenforced-choice

items

emphasizing

choice

between

rational,

personal

control,

nd

external

ausality,

uch

as:

_Becoming

a success

s

a

matter

f

hard

work;

uck

has

little

or

noth-

ing

to

do

with

t.

Getting

good

ob depends

mainly

on

being

n

the

right

place

at the

right

ime.

Even

if

the

odds

are

against

you,

it's possible

to

come

out

on

top

by

keeping t it.

A

person's

uture

s largely

matter

ofwhat

fate

has

n

store

or

him.

On social

powerlessness

ee,

Neal

and

See-

man,

op.

cit.

ists,12 illbe more ikely han

Catholics

tomanifestational ontrol rientations.

That his redictionas beenrather on-

sistently efuted n contemporary

e-

searchdoes not vitiate he utility f its

testby anothermethod.n fact, iscon-

firmationia a measureof rationality

would provide urthervidence o sup-

port the broadly conomic-basedind-

ings of these recent studies, which

studies uggest heoverridingominance

of

the secularAmericanulture, t least

in this

area,

in whichboth Protestants

and Catholicsparticipate pon appar-

ently qual terms.

PROCEDURES

As partof a larger tudy ealingwith

work

ttitudes,

he

rational ontrol

cale

was

included

n a

mailedquestionnaire

to

a

partially andomizedtratifiedam-

ple of non-academic mployees t a

large western tate university.13nfor-

tunately,

recisefigures

n

sample

ize

are not vailabledue to a clerical rror.

However,

n estimate

f

750

mailouts

and 450 returnss within

per

cent

of

the actual

numbers.

he

small magni-

tudeofpossible rror rom his source

is

not considered

ufficient

o

seriously

bias

any findings.

n the

returned

schedules

eventy-three

f the

respon-

dents

dentified

hemselves

s

(Roman)

Catholic,

nd

fifty-two

s

Calvinists,.e.,

as Presbyterians, ongregationalists,

Dutch

Reformed,

tc.

Rational ontrol

scale

scores

for

these ndividuals

were

12

It is

sometimes

orgotten

hat

Weber's

original

ormulation

eferred

o

Calvinists,

ot

all

Protestants,

ome

of

which,

.g.,

Lutherans,

Weber

specifically

dentified

s not partaking

of

this orientation.

n

other

words,

he

Protes-

tant

Ethic

is

actually

Calvinistic

thic.

See

Weber,

op.

cit.,

pp.

87,

148

ff., 60.

13

This projectwas part of a seminaron

research

methods

nder

hedirectionfMelvin

Seeman

of

the Department

f

Sociology

t

the

University

f

California

t

Los Angeles

con-

ducted

during

he

1963-1964

cademic

year.



6/9

CATHOLICS,

CALVINISTS

185

summed

nd dichotomized

t the

me-

dian,

thus allowing

he respondents

o

be categorized

s

either igh

or low

in

terms

f their

rational

ontrol

rienta-

tion.

According

o the

classic

Weberian

theory,

t is

expected

that

Calvinists

would

be

more

ikely

o have high

ra-

tional

control

rientations

hanCatho-

lics,while

the proportion

f Catholics

manifesting

owrational

ontrol

rienta-

tions

would

exceed

that of

the Cal-

vinists.

FINDINGS

An

examination

f Table

1 indicates

thatwhen

rational

ontrol

s operation-

ally

measured

n a moredirect

ashion,

TABLE

1

RATIONAL

CONTROL

SCORES

OF

CATHOLICS

AND

CALVINISTS

Rational

Control Catholics Calvinists

High

53.4%

50.0%o

Low 46.6%o

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%0

N

(73)

(52)

.034.

Q

.068

For an

interpretation

f

0

and

Q.

see

J.

H.

Mueller

nd

K. E.

Schuessler,

Statistical easoningn Sociology, os-

ton: Houghton

Mifflin,

961,

242-258.

the

Weberian

thesis

is not

confirmed.

Calvinists

re

no morelikely

han Cath-

olics to have

high rational

control

ori-

entations;

n fact,

they

are

slightly

ess

likely

o

do so,

reversing

heusual

pre-

diction,

lthough

his

may

well be

an

artifact

f

thesmall

number

frespon-

dents.

Even

though

his

finding

s not

statis-

tically

significant

none

of those

re-

ported

here is so),

it is

particularly

strikingecause

of two

factors:

1)

the

fact

thatProtestants

n

thecomparison

were

imited o Calvinists

the

particu-

lar group

whichWeber

aw as embody-

ingthe Protestantthic),ratherhan

lumping ogether

f all

Protestants

s is

often

one n

modern

esearch nder

questionable

assumption

f homoge-

neity;14nd (2)

an extremely

igh

pro-

portion

f women

amongthe

respon-

dents,

which

group

s

traditionally

een

as being

morereligiously

riented

han

men.'5

f

anything

hese two

elements

might

e

expected

o

magnify

rotes-

tant-Catholicifferences,ithCalvinists

being particularly

ational

ontrol

ri-

ented as

compared

withother rotes-

tants), and women

more closely

ap-

proximating

he deal-typical

atternsf

theirreligious

roups

s

hypothesized

by

Weber,

thus increasing

he

spread

between he two.

Although alvinist

women,

s might

be

expected,

re

more rational ontrol

oriented hanCalvinistmen,Catholic

women

are also

morerational

ontrol

oriented,

s compared

with

Catholic

men. Again

the

differences

re

small,

as

are

the

numbers

f respondents

n

each group,but

the

data clearly

n-

dicate

he

possibility

hatbeing

Cath-

olic

may

ncrease

rather han

decrease

the

possibility

hat

an individual

will

possess

rational ontrol

rientation

o-

ward his environment.16ontrary o

Weber,

Catholic

doctrine

may

foster

n

its

believers

view

f heworld

s

manip-

14

The

degree fcontinuity

etween

eforma-

tion

and contemporary

alvinism

cannot

be

answered

ere. The justification

or

this

imita-

tion

s an attempt

o remain

aithfulo

Weber's

problem.

15

J.

Milton

Yinger, Religion,

Society

and

the

Individual,New

York: Macmillan,

1957,

pp. 93-94; Glock, op. cit.

16

An alternative

xplanation

s, of course,

thatrational ontrol

rientations

re

a function

of sex; however,

erusalof this

ine

is beyond

thescope

of the

present tudy.



7/9

186

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

TABLE

2

RATIONAL

CONTROL

BY RELIGION

AND

SEX

Rational

Catholics

Calvinists

Control

Male

Female

Male

Female

High

50.0%

54.1%

45.5%

51.2%

Low

50.0%

45.9%o

54.5%o

48.8%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

N

(12)

(61)

(11)

(41)

0

=

.030

.047

Q

=

.082

.115

TABLE

3

RATIONAL

CONTROL

BY

RELIGION

AND

CHuRcH ATTENDENCE

Rational

Catholics

Calvinists

Control

Occas'ly

Often

Occas'ly

Often

High

37.5%

58.9%o

50.0%

50.0%o

Low

62.5%

41.1%

50.0%o

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

N

(16)

(56)

(40)

(12)

A-

=179 .000

Q

.410

.000

TABLE

4

RATIONAL

CONTROL

BY RELIGION

AND

CIASS*

Rational

Catholics

Calvinists

Control

Working

Middle-Upper

Working

Middle-Upper

High

48.0%

57.5%

55.6%

48.8%

Low

52.0%o

42.5%

44.4%o

51.2%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

N

(25)

(47)

(9)

(43)

.090

.051

Q

-

.188

.134

*

Class

identifications

ere

made

using

Centers'

our-choice

ption.

No

re-

spondent

dentified

imself

s lower

lass;

of the

forty-seven

iddle

and

upper

class

Catholics,

wo dentified

ith

he atter

tratum;

or Calvinists,

he

corres-

ponding

igure

asfour.

his

measure

was

used

to

avoid

the

problems

which

re

endemic

n the

use

of

various

ccupational

r other ating ierarchies,

hich

may

or

may

notbe

valid

for

he

respondents

n

question

t

a

given

point

n

time

nd

space,andwhichhavea tendencyowardreificationn theiruse, e.g.,thewell-

known

North-Hatt

cale.

For

a

complete

iscussion

f the

rationale

ehind

elf-

identifications,

ee

Richard

enters,

he

Psychology

f

Social

Classes,

Princeton:

Princeton

niversity

ress,

949.



8/9

CATHOLICS, CALVINISTS

187

ulatable rather han

subjectprimarily

to external ontrol) o

an even

greater

extent han this perspective

s fostered

by Calvinism. f such is the case, it

would then be predictedthat those

personsmost ntegratednto he Catho-

lic belief ystemwould

be most ikely

to

manifest

ighrational

control ri-

entations.

A

crude ndicator f

religiousntegra-

tion sprovided y churchttendance-

the assumptioneing

hat he more re-

quent heattendancet church ervices,

the

greater he degree

of integrations

Given his ssumption,able 3 indicates

that

t

is

indeedthose

Catholics losest

to their hurchwho are most ikely o

hold high rational ontrol

rientations.

By way

of

contrast,ate

of attendance

makesno

difference

n rational ontrol

for

Calvinists. his findings certainly

contraryo the mplications

f Weber's

thesiswhich

would

hold thatthe more

closely ied a Catholic

s

to his or

her

Church,hemore ikely hathe or she

will manifest low rational ontrol

ri-

entation.'8

Any examination f

social behavior

must,

f at all

possible,

make n attempt

to

take

nto

ccount heeffect

f

social

class.'s

The

previously

iscussedfind-

ingsmight

well be an artifact

f

a pre-

dominance

n

eitheror both

religious

groups f members f a particularlass

which nduly iasesthefindingsn one

17

Church

attendance

was

considered ften

if the

respondent eported

ttending

ervices

two or threetimes

per

month r

more. This

ignores,

ut

is

not

unaware of, the arbitrary

natureof the

dichotomy, specially

as

it is

being applied to two

different

roups for

whom

the meanings f this

rate of attendance

probablyhave

important ifferences.

18

Though not

explicit

n his work, this

seems a natural

and logical

extension of

Weber'sargument.

19

Related to

class is

ethnicity; owever,

among the

respondents nder

consideration,

only two

persons,

both

Catholic,

identified

themselvess

non-white.

direction

r

the

other.The common-

sense hypothesis,

iventhe natureof

rational ontrol,

ouldbe that ow

ori-

entationswould

be associateddirectly

with owerclass,and similarly, high

orientation

ith

higher lass.20

urther,

common-sense

ociologywould

expect

moreCatholics

hanCalvinists o

be of

lower lass;2' ut, s has beenpreviously

indicated, atholics re not more

ikely

to exhibit ow rational ontrol rienta-

tions.

The data in Table 4 for Catholics

show, s might

e expected, hatclass

and rational ontrolre directlyelated.

However,

or

Calvinists,

ontraryo

ex-

pectations, he

relationships inverse.

DISCUSSION

The findingsegarding ational

on-

trol,using a social-psychological

cale

to testmore directly hat Weber

and

contemporarytudents

working n

his

tradition ave examined y indirect

n-

ference,re certainlyot onsistentith

the

thesis concerning

rotestant-Cath-

olic

differencesmbodied n the Protes-

tant

Ethic. Where

Weber

would

have

expectedCalvinists

o

be more

likely

than

Catholics

o exhibit ational on-

trol

orientations,

his

has not

been

the

case,and,

n

fact,

he

closer

o

the

Cath-

olic Church,

hehigher

he

probability

of

a

high

rational ontrol rientation.

The whyof thisbegs exploration,ven

if

only

n theform

f

post factum

pecu-

lation.22

20

The conceptualization

f access

to

op-

portunity

tructures

s

relevant

here. See

Richard

A.

Cloward and

Lloyd

E.

Ohlin,

Delinquency and Opportunity, lencoe: The

Free

Press,

1960.

21

Among thers, ee Lenski, p. cit.,

passim;

Michael Argyle,ReligiousBehavior,Glencoe:

The

Free Press,1959, especially p. 129 ff.

22

See the warnings n this procedure n

The Bearingof SociologicalTheory n Em-

pirical Research, n Robert Merton, Social

Theory and Social Structure, evised edition,

Glencoe: The

Free Press,1957, pp. 85-101.



9/9

188

SOCIOLOGICAL

ANALYSIS

First,

here

s

the

possibility

hat

he

rational

ontrol

cale

acksvalidity.

his

cannot

e answered

ere, ut

given

he

nature

f the

tems

nd the

types

f dis-

criminationheyhaveproducedn pre-

viousresearch,

case

can

be

made

for

at least

face

validity.

ach

item

poses

for he

respondent

dilemma

fchoice

between

rational

control

(personal

power

or

manipulation),

nd

non-ra-

tional

control

external

ausality

uch

as

luck,

fate,

etc.).

The

items

do

not

seem to

do

violence

o

either

he

as-

sumption

egarding

ontrol

r the

one

regardingationality.either oes the

use of the

scale

appear

to do

violence

to Weberian

ormulations

ealing

with

rationality

nd

more

specifically,

he

Protestant

thic. Certainly,

t

would

seem

no less

relevant

o

rationality

han

are mobility

ates nd

orientations,

co-

nomic ttitudes,

nd

the like.

The

use

ofthe

rational

ontrol

cale

s not

based

upon

a

questionable

ssumption

f

an

equivalence o entrepreneurialuccess.

Rather

t is

an attempt

o

bring

modern

methodological

ools

to bear

upon

a

portion

f

the

problem

which

f

neces-

sity

eluded

Weber.

Therefore,

n

light

of the

above,

t

is

argued

that

the

use

of

the

rational

ontrol

cale

is

based

upon

tenable

assumptions

hich

must

await the

test

of further

esearch-that

regarding

ts

saliency

o the

Protestant-

Catholic differences ypothesized y

Weber.23

A secondpossible

xplanation

s

one

which

alls

the basicdoctrinal

ssump-

tions f

the

Protestant

thic

nto

ques-

tion,

.e.,

that

Calvinism

nculcates

ri-

entations

oward

heworldwhich

nclude

23

Needless

o

say,

the

usual

caveats

regard-

ing

further

esearch pply,

specially

iven

he

small

number

f

respondents

nd

the

tentative-

nessof anynew approach r problem.

efficacious

ontrol. Contrary

o

Weber,

it mighteven

be argued

that the func-

tion of Calvinist

doctrine s

to generate

feelings f aloneness

and

powerlessness,

especially as contrasted to the more

stable,

anchorage-providing,

rotective

ideology of

Catholic dogma.24Put an-

other way, rational control

orientations

may be

dependent upon

some minimal

level of

ideological support more

avail-

able to Catholics

than to Calvinistswith

their

theologyof

predestination. t may

be noted in

passing, that this argument

is

quite similar to

Durkheim's

now

classic statementregardingthe higher

incidence of egoistic

suicide among

Protestants s

compared to

Catholics

in

late

nineteenth-century

urope.25

As

such,

it would

represent discontinuity

in

the

theories f

these

two

majorfigures.

Finally,

it

must be remembered hat

Weber

was

dealing

with

a

problem

con-

cerning the genesis of

systems,

rather

than conditions

n ongoing

ones.

Thus,

the findings erein, ssumingtheir con-

tinuitywith the

problem and its tradi-

tion, speak to a somewhat

different

problem

han

did Weber.

The

contradic-

tion with

the Protestant

thic

thesis

is

consistent

with

recent

research

using

less

direct ests.The

real

question,

which

at least for

the

present

must remain

moot,

s whether he kinds of

differences

which Weber

hypothesized

ver

did

in

factexist.26

24

See

herethe mass

society xponents

ang-

ingfrom

mile Durkheim's

uicide to

the even

moreexplicit ontemporary

orkswhich

stress

the

supportive

ature

f group ies,

.g.,

Robert

Nisbet,

Community

nd

Power,

formerly

he

Quest For

Community,

ew York:

Galaxy,

1962;

Neal and

Seeman,op.

cit.

25

Emile

Durkheim,

uicide:

A Study in

Sociology,

translated by

George

Simpson,

Glencoe:

The Free Press,

1951.

26

See Samuelsson,p. cit.

This content downloaded on Fri 21 Dec 2012 11:47:05 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ball, donald - catholics, calvinists, and rational control - further explorations in the weberian...

Documents