Download Questioning the Individual under Capitalism: Alienation and

Questioning the Individual under
Capitalism: Alienation and the Iron
Cage
Derya Güler Aydın*
Abstract: The capitalist system is inherently unstable and open to change,
and most of the destructive tendencies of the system depend on its internal
variables. Capitalism commodifies labor, which is the basic element of
production as Marx put forward in his analysis, and it imprisons the
individual in the iron cage of rational bureaucracy as Weber argues. Such a
case can be regarded as unexpected consequences of rational behavior. In
this study, Marx’s theory of crisis will be analyzed taking the instability of
the capitalist system as the basis on the one hand, and the fact that
capitalism is a system that mostly leads to unintended consequences and
can dehumanize the individual within the process of capitalist
development, will be scrutinized on the other hand.
Key Words: Marx, alienation, Weber, iron cage, dynamic instability.
INTRODUCTION
The capitalist system is inherently unstable and the source of its
instability is its internal dynamics. These internal dynamics and
changes, which involve economic and non-economic elements, may
produce consequences that will prepare the end of the system in the
capitalist development process. As the economic sphere is an element of the social field, problems in the economic sphere should be
investigated without being isolated from the social sphere.
Although the thought that the development and dynamic change
process of the capitalist system may bring its own end has so far
been approached from very different aspects, this paper will attempt
to analyze and discuss Marx and Weber’s studies. The capitalist development process will be discussed not only from the economic aspect, but also in terms of society as a whole for both philosophers.
The study argues that the capitalist system has laid the foundation for
an adverse consequence that ‘dehumanizes’ the individual. What
should be deducted from this situation, which is expressed as unintended consequences of rational behavior, is: In the essence of the
*
Dr., Lecturer, Hacettepe University, FEAS, Department of Economics.
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration, Volume 4 No 2 June 2010, p .21-38.
22
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
rational individual model lays the idea that self-interested individuals
ensure the best consequences for society.
The loss of human values by individuals, who act by themselves with
self-seeking and hedonistic motivation, i.e. their dehumanization, can
be described as the unintended consequence of rationality, which is
the prerequisite of the capitalist development process. In other words,
in Marx and Weber, the unintended consequences of rationality are
the emphasis laid on the fact that the absolute goal should not be the
institutions, but the humans themselves.
The study has no intention of bringing these two philosophers
closer or, reducing one of them to the other. The study, taking as the
starting point Marx and Weber, who had quite different views at epistemological and ontological level, intends to lay emphasis on the ‘dehumanization of the individual’, the basic fact about capitalism. As the
process of dehumanization of the individual is a product of capitalist
development, the study will discuss the capital accumulation process
and the crises caused by this process as well. The process of dehumanization, which is conceptualized as ‘alienation” by Marx and ‘iron
cage’ by Weber, can be defined as not only the dissolution of the
functioning of capitalism in the economic sphere, but also the dissolution of its social fabric and institutional structure.
Though Marx and Weber represent two different ways of thinking,
their fields of study are modern economics and the capitalist organization of society. The analysis of the capitalist economy and the form
of society bases itself on the active individual in an economic sense.
In brief, the theme of Marx and Weber’s scientific research is “capitalism”. The problem of capitalism and contemporary man raises the
question ‘what makes human a human?’ The obvious intention of the
Communist Manifesto is practical-political, while the intention of Weber’s studies in the sociology of religion is theoretical-historical (Löwith, 1982: 20). Reserving this important distinction, this study overemphasizes “the theme of the dehumanization” of the individual taking Marx and Weber as the starting point.
With regard to capitalism, Marx directly and Weber indirectly present the nature of ‘economy’ that prevails humans. This situation necessitates a critical analysis of modern man in the bourgeois society.
The human, who is the key actor of the capital accumulation process
and the development of capitalism, is prevailed over by his own products and this becomes the major problem of the capitalist development process. Marx argues that this problem can be solved when a
Questioning the Individual under Capitalism: Alienation and the Iron Cage
23
human becomes conscious of his/her power of action, while Weber
only defines it. Therefore, it can be said that Marx proposes a therapy,
while Weber only offers a diagnosis (Löwith, 1982: 20).
Capitalism, in its essence, is a dynamic system open to change
that leads to instabilities. Therefore, this study attempts to reveal the
connection of the instability of the capitalist system in the economic
sphere with the social sphere based on the studies of Marx and Weber, who make a dynamic change analysis with a historical approach
and focuses on how and in which way capitalism dehumanizes the
individual. The first section of the study will investigate the process
that leads to the dehumanization of an individual in the context of
Marx’s theory of alienation. Alienation is nourished by internal dynamics that appear in the capital accumulation process and increase the
instability tendency in capitalism. In this context, the issue of alienation that emerges in the capital accumulation process or the dehumanization of an individual in the capitalist development process
seems to be too extensive and important to be restricted to the economic sphere. In the second section of the study, rational bureaucratic capitalism and Weber’s metaphor of the iron cage caused by rational bureaucratic capitalism will be analyzed.
CAPITALISM AND ALIENATION
Marx’s purpose is to set forth the laws of motion of the capitalist
system. The most distinctive characteristic of Marx’s analysis is that it
approaches production relations in the context of the conflicting and
struggling relationship between labor and capital (the generator of
surplus value and appropriator of surplus value). Another important
feature of Marx’s analysis is its historicity. Marx explains the fundamental dynamics of social change by taking the forces and means of
production and the conflict between them as the starting point.
“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into
definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of
production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production
constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on
which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond
definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual
life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence,
but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society
come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this
24
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From
forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into
their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the
economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the
whole immense superstructure” (Marx, 1970: 20-21).
The mode of production of societies (base structure) determines
their conscious (superstructure) (Marx, 1970). It can be asserted in
view of these expressions that in Marx’s analysis productive forces and
production relations constitute the basis of historical change. According to Marx’s understanding of history, capital determines its historical
preconditions, while his analyses on capitalism put forward the dehumanization process of an individual and the alienation process. The
essence of man can remain the same in different historical periods,
but its existence is determined by material conditions. In this sense, it
can be said that in his work ‘Capital’, Marx discovers the conflict between the existence and essence of man under capitalism (Özel,
2009: 197-198). Under capitalism, man not only alienates himself
from the product of his labor, but also from his potential power of action and thus, is dehumanized.
According to Marx, the capitalist system can be described by four
institutional and behavioral factors. The first of these elements is that
production is undertaken for the purpose of market sales; the second
is the existence of private ownership of the means of production; the
third is the majority of individuals that are forced to sell their labor in
the market to survive and the fourth is economic decision-making
agents’ efforts towards rational behavior. The primary characteristic of
capitalism is that production is done for market sales. This means
that under the capitalist system the individual does not know who will
consume the product of his labor and therefore, the relation between
the producer and consumer is established by the market. As a result,
under capitalism, the economic and social relations between individuals transform into inter-product relations via the market and thus,
individual requirements become dependent on the impersonal forces
of the market.
The second characteristic of capitalism is the existence of private
ownership of the means of production. In capitalist society, while a
specific class of society owns the raw materials needed for production
and has the right to use the means and tools of production, other
classes have no rights to them. Under such a structure, the owners of
the means of production, instead of directly participating in the pro-
Questioning the Individual under Capitalism: Alienation and the Iron Cage
25
duction process, take control of the management of production and
the surplus value produced, while those lacking ownership are given
the status of producer. That is to say, while the capitalist becomes the
sovereign power as a result of ownership relations, he has no direct
role in the control and management of the production of labor (Hunt,
1992: 5-6). As the laborer, who actually realizes the production does
not possess the means of production, he can only get a part of the
products of his labor. The surplus value of labor, which is the basic
source of the capital accumulation process, is utilized by the capital
owners. In this context, under capitalism, labor turns into a commodity bought and sold in the market place and can utilize only a certain
part of it. Therefore, in the analysis, production relations deepen in
such a way so as to cover the struggle between classes, and with this
aspect they gain a social dimension.
Another characteristic of capitalism is that individuals behave as
rational beings in the economic sphere. Rationality, which is argued
to be essential for the successful functioning of capitalism, suggests
that the basic drive of an individual is utilitarianism/hedonism. In this
context, under the capitalist system, rather than the method used by
the capital owner to increase his profit, the amount of his profit assumes importance. Therefore, the surplus value seized by the capital
owner through the means of production he owns and the distribution
that comes as a result of it, are considered the outcome of individuals
who act rationally. According to Marx, who analyzed the laws of motion of capitalism, while it involves economic conflicts on distribution
on the one hand, capitalism is open to change and industrial development on the other hand.
Capitalism is a system in pursuit of increased profit margins,
which is rendered legitimate by individual rationality. This is the outcome of production made for change in the “market’. The realization
of production for the purpose of change turns labor into a commodity
subject to sale and purchase in the market just like other products. In
Marx’s view, the conflicts the capital accumulation process involves
and production for the market leads to alienation both for capital and
labor (Elliott, 1984: 385-386).
Marx has two different approaches towards capitalism. According
to Marx, the first of these is that compared to the former modes of
production, capitalism is a stew towards the freedom of individuals in
the history of humanity.
“It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advanta-
26
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
geous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and
the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the
preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc.” (Marx, 1991: 819).
Nevertheless, the second point that should be underlined is that
capitalism prepares its own end as a result of its own internal conflicts
and dehumanizes the individual in the production process.
At this point, it is possible to define the capital accumulation process as creator, while the consequences of this process as destructive. While the capitalist system undergoes economic depressions in
the economic development process, it leads the individual to a social
depression by commodifying his labor. The source of this social depression or alienation and the source of economic crises faced in the
capitalist system are the consequences of the internal conflicts of
capitalism. Therefore, while examining the functioning and instability
of capitalism, the economic sphere and social sphere should be jointly considered. Before discussing the issue of alienation, which
emerges in the capital accumulation process, and which will be investigated in this study as the first consequence of the development process of the capitalist system, it will be helpful to briefly touch on
Marx’s crisis theories in order to set forth the economic aspect of the
instability of capitalism.
Marx’s theories of crisis that put forth the dynamic, unstable nature of the capitalist system can be gathered under two headings: real
and monetary theories. Marx approaches crisis as an economic theory, a political issue (Jacoby, 1975: 3-4). One of the most important
characteristics of Marx’s analysis is that the effects of monetary and
financial circulation on crises are not overlooked. In Volume III of
Capital, Marx discusses money circulation processes and describes
how credit and financial institutions affect the real processes (Marx,
1991: 566-567). Nevertheless, Marx argues that the factor that determines the social existence of an individual is not his labor, but the
market value of his labor. Money is the basic tool of the circulation
relationship between the producer and consumer. When money buys
labor power and turns it into monetary labor, it becomes the
fundamental instrument of the relationship between labor and capital.
Marx maintains that money circulation can occur without crises, but
the emergence of crises without money circulation is impossible
(Roberts – Stephenson, 1985: 58). Therefore, in Marx’s view, money
is an instrument that influences real processes and that has to be to
taken into accout in real processes (Schuklian, 1999). His view is
apparent from his assertion in The Power of Money in Bourgeois
Questioning the Individual under Capitalism: Alienation and the Iron Cage
27
Society section of his work ‘Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts
of 1844’ that money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life (Marx, 1976: 206).
In law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, one of Marx’s
theories of real crisis1, which demonstrates the instability of capitalism, the social consequences of the analysis are at the forefront as
much as its economic consequences. It is possible to say that in his
theory of profit squeeze, the basic emphasis is laid on the conflict between labor and capital. The fundamental difference between these
two theories is that in the theory of profit squeeze, the labor and capital emphasis of crisis is replaced by the tension between wages and
profits and every factor that increases wages leads the system to crisis
at the point where that it decreases the profit (Sweezy, 1968). Under
the inter-sector inconsistency theory and the underconsumption
theory, which are defined as realization crises that break out when
the capital owner fails to sell his product at its real value, the basic
problem is the halt in production by the capital owner due to the
emergence of overproduction or underconsumption as a result of
products made by various sectors in the right amounts (Shaikh,
1978).
The point that should be taken into account in the monetary and
real crisis theories is that the economic variables in the analyses, such
as labor-capital, surplus value and profit margins, are at the same
time variables of a social nature. Therefore, Marx’s analyses2 consider
laborers and capitalists different social classes in qualitative terms and
focus on the problem of distribution based on the existence of
surplus value. In this context, the issue of alienation, which is the
second pillar of Marxian theories maintaining that crisis originates
from the conflict between the economic and social dimensions and,
which is defined as the crisis of individual in the study.
In the capital accumulation process, while the capitalist system
goes through real and monetary crises, it also leads to the alienation
of the individual to the product of his labor and himself. While
1
2
For detailed information on Marx’s theories of crisis, see:. Güler Aydın, 2008.
As it is known, there is no qualitative difference between labor and capital under neoclassical tradition. As there is no surplus value left over in total production, distribution
is not a problem. In their actions based on benefit maximization, each and every
decision-making agent strives to achieve the best for themselves and society. In this
context, the factors that may cause crises are external factors. Marx’s analysis that
attributes crisis to internal variables makes the analysis dynamic on one hand and
leads to more realistic analyses in terms of the individual and society.
28
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
exploring the issue of alienation, Marx focuses on the form of existence of the individual in the capitalist system and argues that labor
turns into a commodity to become an object within capitalist property
relations. This objectification process that can be described as the
crisis of subject or the social dimension of the capitalist depression
leads to the consideration of the social aspect of crisis undergone in
economics as well. In the capitalist society, the individual is trapped in
the inter-relations of goods produced for exchange as a result of
market relations and is objectified. In this respect, Marx’s analysis of
capitalism describes not only the ‘dehumanization3 process of the
capitalist system, but also of the individual, who exists in this system,
as the creator of the system.
The concept of alienation, which is defined as the dehumanization
of the individual, appears in its two forms in Marx’s Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (1976). The first one is the alienation of man, isolating him from nature and his creation of a new nature for himself in the cultural-social sphere. Such a form of alienation that refers to a break from nature can be considered positive alienation in terms of the existence and the development of man. The
second form of alienation is the alienation inherent in the capitalist
system, which is specific to this system. As a consequence, man alienates himself from his nature/labor/product. In other words, man alienates himself from, his labor, social relations, world and life. Even
though the private property relations on the means of production lies
behind alienation, this situation assumes more importance particularly under capitalism, where labor power turns into a commodity. Under the capitalist system, as the worker is broken off from the means
of production, he turns into a commodity bought by the capital owner
in the market place. At the end of the production process, the worker
gets only a part of the products of his labor, just enough to reproduce
himself and thus the surplus value produced is seized by the capital
owner. The surplus value can be asserted to be the consequence of
private ownership on the one hand and alienation and alienated labor
on the other hand. In his sense, the relation of alienation and private
ownership continuously reproduces itself, thus breaking off labor
from human values and turning it into a commodity.
3
Holloway takes as his starting point what he terms the 'scream': that is the transformation of the 'power over' to the 'power to' and brings an interesting approach to the
dehumanization of the individual and alienation. For detailed information, see:
“Change the World Without Taking Power”, 2006.
Questioning the Individual under Capitalism: Alienation and the Iron Cage
29
In his work Capital I, Marx attempts to explain the material basis
of man’s alienation from his own nature by the concept of fetishism
that emerges as an outcome of market relations. According to Marx,
once an individual begins to work for others in any way, his labor
takes a social form. As soon as labor acquires a social nature, that is
to say, when products are produced for the market, the products enter a relation both with one another and labor itself. Marx calls this
process the fetishism of commodities, which attaches itself to the
products of labor, as soon as they are produced as commodities, and
which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities
(Marx, 1990: 165). In fact, it should be borne in mind that commodity
fetishism is the natural outcome of alienation. The reason is that under this system, the alienation of man not only from the products of
his labor, but also from his own labor power, which represents his total physical and mental capacity, is the consequence of the transformation of his power into a ‘commodity’. In other words, the alienation
process under capitalism leads to the ‘fetishism‘ and ‘reification‘4 processes. The individual in these processes is a dehumanized being deprived of his individual efficiency; in brief, he is a lost individual engulfed in rational rules. Therefore, in this study, alienation is presented as the initial state of dehumanization under rational capitalism.
In this framework, ‘commodity fetishism’ comes first among
Marx’s criticisms towards capitalism as a form of mode of production.
As mentioned above, under the theory of commodity fetishism, the
relation between the physical and social existence of man are reproduced via the relations between commodities and therefore, individuals begin to lose focus of their physical and social existence. According to Marx and Engels, “the production of ideas, of conceptions, of
consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity
and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life” (Marx Engels, 1970: 47). That is to say, under capitalism, which is a specific
mode of production, the alienation process leads to reification and
fetishism. Due to the reduction of relations between people to the relation between commodities, the social aspect of an individual is explained by the relation between commodities. Although private prop4
The commodification of the labor force describes a social relation, in which relations
among individuals appear to be in the form of relations between objects, i.e. commodities. Under this fetishism, labor force, as an abstract category, becomes alienated from individuals who own it, and turns into a ‘thing’. (Lukacs, 1971: 83). In brief,
this is a process, where social relationships between people are expressed as, mediated by and transformed into, objectified relationships between things (fethishism).
30
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
erty is a phenomenon seen in different periods, the factor that differentiates private property under capitalism is the alienation it causes.
In summary, according to Marx, labor is severed from its human
traits under the circumstances of the capitalist system and is transformed into an object. Man’s estrangement from his human values by
the capitalist society denotes the capitalist society’s transformation of
man in the context of the capitalist values of the society. In fact, this
transformation, i.e. the fetishism process, leads to instability in the
social fabric as well. Such a ‘dehumanization’ process leads to conflicts in the capitalist society’s reproduction process itself as well. In
other words, capitalism’s tendency to go through periodical crises
does not stem only from the economic sphere. Alienation is also an
important factor that increases the instability of capitalism in the social sphere. Therefore, crises faced by capitalism from time to time
should not be considered merely a consequence of economic depression, but also the depression of the individual and society.
RATIONAL DEMOCRACY AND IRON CAGE
The impacts of the economic development process on the individual or the effects of individual actions or motivations on economic
actions bring integrity to economic and social activities. In his economic views and his studies conducted in the field of sociology, Weber took account of this integrity and with his ‘iron cage’ metaphor,
he investigated the adverse effects of capitalism on the individual in
such a way so as to overlap with Marx’s arguments on alienation. This
section of the study will first focus on Weber’s views and then analyze
the fundamental concepts that are believed to be related to the instability of capitalism. Weber’s ‘concept of ideal type’, “rationality and
forms of rationality’, ‘bureaucracy and Ascetic Protestant Ethic’ and
‘iron cage’ come first among these concepts.
There exist two Max Webers; the first is the one who is a liberal individualist and the basic issue that weighs on his mind is the trapping
of the individual’s future in an iron cage in a predestined manner.
This iron cage appears as a result of the irresistible power of products
over the individual as a consequence of mechanization. That is to say,
the iron cage, which Weber describes as the individual’s bleak destiny, emerges with mechanized petrification. The said petrification further deepens by bureaucratization, which is an outcome of rationalism. The other Weber is described as a man who never envisages any
other world than his own, which is largely characterized by the rivalry
Questioning the Individual under Capitalism: Alienation and the Iron Cage
31
of nation states (Löwith, 1982: 15). Considering such a difference, it
should be noted that this study focuses on the first Weber.
According to Weber, who is interested in the sociological aspect of
economic facts, it will be appropriate to access the knowledge of
economics and sociology via the interaction of these two fields. In his
works, Weber maintained that while exploring the interaction of economic and social variables, economic theory should be examined in
respect of not only economic facts, but also economic sociology and
sociological facts. Recalling that the interaction of economic and
non-economic factors are also taken into consideration in Marx’s crisis theories, it is possible to assert that while analyzing the capitalist
system, both theorists adopted a viewpoint that went beyond the
boundaries of pure theoretical analysis and built their analyses on a
broader base. 5
While the interaction of economic and social events expands the
framework of the analysis on the one hand, it makes analysis difficult
on the other hand. For that reason, in his analysis, Weber asserted
that what was important was to choose events and to establish a
connection of meaning between the chosen events, and he described
the instrument that would establish this connection as the “ideal type”
(Sen, 1985: 7). According to Weber, capitalism was a historical concept of ideal type6 in the context of a few centuries of meaning connection. In this framework, Weber saw capitalism as a product of the
rationalization process in Western countries from the Enlightenment
Era up to the present and attempted to describe capitalism as a historical process based on accumulation and motive of profit.
5
6
Weber’s aim is to reveal the factors that ensure the continuation and motivation of
capitalism. In his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1997), Weber, rather than detecting a causal relationship between protestantism and capitalism,
investigated the effects of certain religious and ethical forms of thought on the economic system (Sen, 1985: 5). According to Weber, instead of a scientific system based on the same causal factors and effects, a study where the researcher describes
the mutual effects of certain factors produces more efficient results in terms of economic facts.
According to Löwith, Weber misunderstands himself, when he insists on the purely
“methodological” significance of his “individualistic” and “rational” definition and denies its substantive character [i.e. its historical specificity] as well as its valuerelatedness. The value which sustains this definition (and the many others like it in
Weber’s sociology) is basically that of freedom and autonomy. ‘The ideal-typical
“construct” is based upon a human being who is specifically “free of illusions”,
thrown back upon itself by a world which has become objectively meaningless
(Löwith, 1982: 13).
32
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
Weber argues in the framework of economic actions that the analysis should move beyond the boundaries of theoretical economics to
also include non-economic factors along with economic ones. To
Weber, the type of individual, who acts rationally and is defined as
homo economicus is specific to modern Western societies. He criticizes homo economicus for being an abstract individual, rather than a
real life person. Weber defines economic action as ‘any peaceful exercise of an actor's control over resources, which is in its main impulse oriented toward economic ends,’ (Weber, 1995: 98). Rational
economic action is a purposive, rationally planned economic action.
Rationally planned economic action is the purposive and methodical
use of instruments elevated to the peak of rationality under scientific
assessments (Weber, 1995: 101). At this point, economics differ from
sociology and other fields in terms of its boundaries of actions and
economic action is restricted to the actions of rationally acting decision-making agents. However, a tradesman is not only influenced by
the actions of potential consumers, but also legal, political and even
ethical values (Weber, 1995). Such a unity of motivation of action, i.e.
economic or non-economic, all actions based on action motivation,
falls in the scope of ‘economic sociology’.7
Weber's work on economic behavior with rational action divides
into two: individuals’ concrete rational action and rational behavior
within abstract values. The concrete rationality of the individual refers
to their rational choice among instruments, purposes and consequences. As abstract values are generally considered irrational, the rationality of individuals in terms of abstract values is used in the meaning of their attempt to act in a rational manner within the irrational
values system. Throughout his studies, Weber focused on the nature,
reasons and consequences of rationality. Kalberg (1980) proposes
four different definitions of rationality based on Weber’s studies. The
first of these is practical rationality, Practical rationality (is every way of
life that views and judges worldly activity in relation to the individual's
7
Economic sociology is a field that attracts the interest of economists and sociologists
in terms of the emergence and analysis of economic institutions. Although economic
sociology is the field of sociologists, it includes the studies of many economists. In
this sense, the first name that comes to mind is the economist Schumpeter. In his
work ‘History of Economic Analysis’ (1954), Schumpeter puts forth that economic
sociology should be attached importance to as much as economic history (Schumpeter, 1954: 9). The book, which consists of four chapters, investigates the institutional structure in the analyses of schools of economics from Ancient Greek times up to
the present. For more information about economic sociology, see: Swedberg, 1991:
253-254.
Questioning the Individual under Capitalism: Alienation and the Iron Cage
33
purely pragmatic and egoistic nature. The second type of rationality is
theoretical rationality. Theoretical rationality involves a cognitive effort
to master reality through increasingly abstract concepts rather than
through action. Substantive rationality directly orders action into patterns through clusters of values. Substantive rationality makes calculation not only by rational instruments, but also taking into consideration traditional, political and class factors. These are, in a sense, irrational instruments of value and, substantive rationality has numerous
criteria. The fourth type of rationality is formal rationality. Formal rationality involves the rational calculation of means to ends based on
universally applied rules, regulations, and laws.
Although practical, theoretical and substantive types of rationality
have so far been observed in different societies; formal rationality was
experienced only in the industrialization process in the West. In Weber’s studies, formal rationality is given more prominence, as it is
compatible with the essence of Western capitalism and it defines
maximum efficiency. In a formal rational system, almost all decisions
and actions are built on a rational foundation (Weber, 1995: 130132). Weber, inspired by Nietzsche, sees the rational world as a disenchanted world. In this magical world, the rationalization process
sometimes works in the opposite direction. To Weber, rationality refers to the action of abandoning a worldview based on values and
ideals and purifying the world of its magic/spirit. Therefore, in rational
thought, the only way to understand the world is the rationalistic way
of thinking (Swatos, 1981: 120).
Bureaucracies are organizations formed under the principle of
formal rationality. The more official affairs become independent from
love, hate and all incalculable personal feelings, the more bureaucracy gets closer to its intended nature. Weber lays down the relationship
between capitalism and rationality as follows: capitalism refers to
curbing irrational motives or balancing them in a rational manner. As
bureaucratic tendencies increase, the framework of rational rules becomes more robust and, bureaucratization and rationality appear before us as factors that nourish each other.
The rational entrepreneur, rational calculation, rational technology
and rational law come first among factors that contributes to the development of capitalism. To Weber, none of these factors alone can
be considered the factor that develops capitalism. Along with these,
other factors that complete each and every factor, such as the rational spirit, agreements that ensure the rationalization of society and rational economic ethics, are needed (Weber, 2003: 352-354). In We-
34
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
ber’s view, the spirit of capitalism is nourished by the rational understanding of work. Weber characterizes the rational understanding of
work by the ascetic spirit; he integrates the ambition to work and accumulate wealth for earthly things with protestant ethics. This spirit
nourished by rationality is exposed to a danger. Weber lays emphasis
on his danger, saying that material goods ‘should be worn like a light
coat that can be easily cast aside’ (Weber, 1997: 159) and it can turn
into ‘an iron cage’ over time. In other words, the capitalist spirit nourished by rationality will lead to the removal of all an individual’ personality in the course of time.
At the point of evolution of the capitalist spirit, Weber’s concept of
charisma should be touched on. Weber says the concept of charisma
dates back to the past and there are numerous charismatic leaders in
history. In Weber’s view, the origin of charisma differs from person to
person. An individual, who is considered charismatic by a specific
group of people, can be rejected by other groups of people. In general, charisma is said to come out in certain people as a consequence
of a particular social movement. Charismatic leadership leads to irrational actions. In fact, charismatic authority is needed for the functioning of rationality and bureaucratic organization. A certain routinization and the disturbance felt because of it may cause irrational actions and after some time, it can be re-routinized. That is to say, it is
the fate of charisma, whenever it comes into the permanent institutions of a community, to give way to powers of tradition or of rational
socialization. This waning of charisma generally indicates the diminishing importance of individual action. And of all those powers that
lessen the importance of individual action, the most irresistible is rational discipline (Weber, 1996: 98-99).
One of the unintended consequences of rationality that takes
place at the core of modernization is the routinization of charisma.
Weber defines the routinization of charisma that improves in line with
the increased rationality in the modernization process as the ‘disenchantment of the world". While, on the one hand, modernization,
which is shaped on a rational bureaucratic basis, brings about wealth
accumulation (an economically favorable effect), on the other hand, it
leads to the withering of all manners of personality and personal capability (socially adverse effect) (Özel, 2007). Weber describes this
state, which is considered a kind of mechanization, and, which is reinforced by the routinization of charisma, as the ‘iron cage’. Being
trapped in the iron cage refers to the mechanization of an individual
by being stripped of his every personal trait. It should be noted that
Questioning the Individual under Capitalism: Alienation and the Iron Cage
35
the mechanization of the individual and commodification of labor
means the same in terms of the dehumanization of the individual
(Löwith, 1982). At his point, the following words by Weber are impressive:
“No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at
the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise,
or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither,
mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive selfimportance. For the last stage of this cultural development, it might well
be truly said: "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this
nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before
achieved” (Weber, 1997: 160).
According to Ashley and Micheal (1990), Weber’s analysis points
to a bleak destiny for individuals in modern society. Modern societies
are enslaved by the bureaucratic organization founded on the formal
rationality in the long-term, i.e. of capitalism itself. Weber argues that
there is no escape from the iron cage metaphor in modern societies.
Capitalism is a chaos, in which individuals strive to exist. This chaos
can be said to have an ironic consequence, in respect of the fact that
it leads to the loss of the individual’s human values over time. That is
to say, under the capitalist system, individuals become involved in the
relations determined by the market and individual behaviors are
shaped according to the principles of capitalism. These behaviors,
which are formed in accordance with the rules of the market or the
rationality, lay the foundations for the dehumanization of the individual and in Weber’s analysis, breaking the individual from his human
values is one of the inevitable consequences of modern capitalism.
While capitalism rises above the principles of rationality, the individual gets trapped in an iron cage under bureaucratic rules. One of
its most concrete signs is that under the capitalist system, the individual’s choices and abilities are most of the time suppressed due to
the formal rational rules in his work life. In brief, under capitalism, individual relations are replaced by relations between commodities, as
Marx maintains. Therefore, in modern societies, individuals seem to
be bound by the chains of bureaucracy. In this regard, Weber attributes the bleak destiny of the individual determined by the capitalist
system to the individual’s breaking from his values and human feelings, thus turning him into a cold, insensitive creature. The individual’s waning of personality and the charismatic leader becoming nonfunctional under capitalism that has emerged as a product of a historical process are important, as these are the products of formal ra-
36
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
tionality and in this sense, both situations can be considered unintended consequences of rationality (Weber, 1996: 97). That is to say,
rational actions that constitute the basis of the capitalist development
process have unintended consequences such as the dehumanization
of the individual.
In brief, Marx’s commodity fetishism and Weber’s iron cage metaphor discussed above are important in respect of their emphasis on
the fact that the individual delegates his power of action to the market
mechanism as an inevitable consequence of the capitalist development process.
CONCLUSION
According to Löwith (1982), Marx and Weber’s critical approaches
towards capitalism can be discussed in the context of the concepts of
alienation and rational capitalism. Particularly Marx’s analysis attempts to lay down the dynamics of bourgeois capitalism through a
historical analysis.
To Marx, the basic contradiction of the capitalist system is the
conflict between labor and capital and the breaking of production and
the labor force, the source of surplus value, from the product it
produces and the alienation that emerges thereof, in other words, the
transformation of the individual into an object bought and purchased
in the market place in the production process. Every single economic
variable used in Marx’s monetary and real crisis theories (laborcapital, surplus value, profit margins, realization, et.) is the internal
and at the same time social variable of the systems. Marx attributes
the problems of the capitalist system to its own dynamics; considers
labor and capital as different social classes in qualitative terms and
focuses on the distribution analysis based on the existence of surplus
value. In this sense, Marx’s theories of crisis argue that crisis stems
from the tension between the economic and social dimensions of the
system and dehumanizes the individual with the alienation. This
contradiction caused by the economic development process or this
result that can be said to be the unintented consequences of rational
intentions is highly important in respect of the fact that it portrays the
individual’s state in the capitalist system.
On the other hand, Weber, who puts forth the contradictions of
modern rationality, argues that formal rationality, which is the spirit of
modern capitalism, leads to the bureaucratization of human behavior
via intense technical calculations and thus, to the petrification of indi-
Questioning the Individual under Capitalism: Alienation and the Iron Cage
37
vidual actions. According to Weber, capitalist rationality also incorporates irrationality. That is to say, capitalist development, which is
based on formal rationality, causes the loss of charismatic values,
such as individual happiness, individual activity and decisiveness. In
Weber’s expression, individuals get trapped in an iron cage in the
capitalist development process in the course of time. The individual,
who loses all his personality as result of rational bureaucracy, dehumanizes with modern capitalism.
A rational purpose defined as the fulfillment of man’s needs leads
to an unintended consequence, the dehumanization of the individual
or his deprivation from his human values. It should be noted that the
analyses on the causes and consequences of crises facing the capitalist system at certain times reveal that the crisis is not just economic; it
may cause the crisis of the individual too. In this framework, the findings of the analyses of both Marx and Weber that point to the dehumanization of the individual as a consequence of the capitalist system
is an issue that should be emphasized significantly.
REFERENCES
Ashley, D. - Micheal D. (1990), Sociological Theory: Classical Statements,
Boston, Bacon, 1990.
Elliot, J. E. (1984), “Karl Marx’s Theory of Socio-Institutional Transformation
in Late- Stage Capitalism”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 18, No: 2,
p. 383-391.
Güler Aydın, Derya (2008), “Kapitalizmin Đstikrarsız Doğası: K. Marx ve J. A.
Schumpeter”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, 2008.
Holloway, John (2006), Đktidar Olmadan Dünyayı Değiştirmek, (Çev. Pelin
Sirol), Đletişim Yayınları, Đstanbul.
Hunt E. K. (1992), History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective,
Harper Collins Publisher.
Jacoby, R. (1975), “The Politics of Crisis Theory: Toward A Critique Of Automatic Marxism II”, Telos, Vol. 23, p. 3-52.
Kalberg, S. (1980), “Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the
Analysis of Rationalization Process in History”, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 85, p. 1145-1179.
Lukacs, G. (1971), History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, (Tr. R. Livingstone), Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press.
Löwith, Karl (1982), Max Weber and Karl Marx, London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Marx, Karl (1844), 1844 El Yazmaları, Sol Yayınları, Ankara, 1976.
38
TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
Marx, Karl (1867), Capital, Volume I, Penguin Books, London, 1990.
Marx, Karl (1894), Capital, Volume III, Penguin Books, London, 1991.
Marx, Karl (1970), A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Maurice Dobb. (yay.), New York: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl - F. Engels (1970), The German Ideology, C. J. Arthur (Yay.), New
York International Publishers.
Mommsen, W. J. (1989), “Capitalism and Socialism: Weber’s Dialogue with
Marx”, The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber (Ed.), Basil
Blackwell Ltd., p. 53-73.
Özel, Hüseyin (2007), “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Marx, Weber,
Schumpeter, and Polanyi”, Economic Pluralism for the 21st Century adlı
konferans tebliği, Utah, USA.
Özel, Hüseyin (2009), Piyasa Ütopyası, BilgeSu Yayıncılık, Ankara.
Roberts, C. P. - A. M. Stephenson (1985), Marx’s Theory of Exchange
Alienation and Crisis, Hoover Institution Press, Standford University,
California.
Shaikh, Anwar (1978), “An Introduction to the History of Crisis Theories”,
U.S. Capitalism in Crisis, New York: U.R.P.E, p. 219-241.
Schumpeter, Joseph. A. (1954), History of Economic Analysis, London Allen
and Unvin.
Shuklian, S. (1999), “Karl Marx on the Foundations of Monetary Theory”,
Working Paper, p.1-13.
Sen, A. (1985), “Weber, Gramsci and Capitalism”, Social Scientist, Vol.13,
No: 1, p. 3-22.
Swatos, W. H. (1981), “The Disenchantment of Carisma: A Weberian
Assesment of Revolution in a Rationalized Word”, Sociological Analysis,
p. 119-136.
Swedberg R. (1991), “Major Traditions of Economic Sociology”, Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol.17, p. 251-276.
Sweezy, Paul (1968), The Theory of Capitalist Development, Modern Reader
Paperbacks, New York and London.
Weber, Max (1995), Toplumsal ve Ekonomik Örgütlenme Kuramı, (Çev.
Özer Ozankaya), Đmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
Weber, Max (1996), Sosyoloji Yazıları, (Çev. Taha Parla), Đletişim Yayınları.
Weber, Max (1997), Protestan Ahlakı ve Kapitalizmin Ruhu, (Çev. Zeynep
Aruoba), Hil Yayın.
Weber, Max (2003), General Economic History, (Tr. Frank Knight), Dover
Publications.