The Sociology of Rel by Weber transl Ephram Fischoff; 4th ed 1963, beacon press, boston; org 1922

The Sociology of Rel by Weber transl Ephram Fischoff; 4th ed 1963, beacon press, boston; org 1922

“Translator’s preface” ix-xvii
ix-weber first translated 2 english in 27 by frank h. knight—(gen ecoc history), then talcott parsons 30 pesoc
x-weber coined the term “Religionssoziologie” (socy of rel) (ptd out by j. wach), and weber w/ troeltsch and sombart “created the discipline”
-socy of rel was not an indp work but was part of his “massive but never completed” Wirtshaft und Gesellschaft (ecocs and society)—stopped b/c of his sudden death
-it is “a systematic summary of the socy of rel”
-ppl have misconstrued weber’s intentions for pesoc, and this underwent more, partly due to published parts of wirtshaft in diff orders, so diff ideas appeared contradictory—(xi) so it didn’t have as much influence as pesoc
xv-many say wirtshaft is greatest wrk in german socy

“Intro” by T. Parsons xix-lxvii

xx-Weber w/ durk and other mod anthros “inaugurated a new phase in the understanding of the relations btwn relus aspects and other aspects of human behavior”
-PESOC was not a “complete explanation” of society, it was “intended as no more than an essay in historical-sociglcl interp”, “fragment,” not “culminate”
xxii-weber moved away from historicism (pop way of study—based on german idealism) to comparative, creating constants and variables—based on “ideal type”, typical type
xxvi-a lot of his facts (from anthro and history) were wrong or outdated; (xxvii) web was evolst, tho it has lost its popularity; similar to durk tho neither influenced other

-web says all known human societies have rel ((xxviii) conceptions of supernat, or impersonal superior forces—all which give meaning to life)
xxix-web said ppl went thru “relus” breakthrus—(xxx) note #12 says it’s “prolly correct” to say that web looked at rel’s ability to change and durk looked at it as stabilizing—tho this is a simplification

-web has diff def of magic—it’s just for ad hoc, not a system, and its forces can b forced w/ rels forces must be worshipped or solicited—and only rel’s forces guide destiny

xxxiii-web did not invent concept of charisma, but it “has become part of the common lang of social and cultural discussion mainly thru his influence”
xxxiv-and charisma is not only in indvs, but is in a “normative order”, eg in lineages and “charisma of office”—the last is “identical w/ durk’s concept of the sacred”—“collective sacred”

xxxviii-parsons says, despite what critics say, web did not have a “naïve one-way conception of the dvlpmnt of human societies as the product of ‘ideas’”, after all, he emphasizes the change, the break in tradtl order; ea society is (xxxix) more sensitive to diff relus “stimuli”—and he calls that sensitivity “alienation”’ ea type of society has diff kind of alienation

xl-parsons interps web’s view to b that poll groups’ conservatism is a result of their need for legitimation which is necessary for longterm power
xli-word “pagan” originally meant “country man” for xns, who were urban
-web finds little relation btwn rel types and ecoc status and prophetic movmnts r not ecoc protests

xliii-“Web does not say much about science” here, tho he does in other places, and does not go far in explaining why it “seems to b a pre-eminent case of instittnlizng the dynamism of the process of rationaliztn”—which affects culture tho is on “elite element[s] in mod society”

xlv-Puritans “were by and large not centrally situated in the main prestige structure”
-web doesn’t say ppl r only predisposed to certain relus activities by their social world, but it provides a flexible range of action

liv-“…prolly no mod scholar has put forward a framework of such scope and conceptual clarity for the ordering of this central aspect of cultural and soclgcl analysis” [radical salvation]

*lix-emphasizes that captimalism doesn’t need Protestntism—but protsntsm helped make specifically “rtl bourgeois capitalism”
*-“more than any other singe writer in the background of our own (lx) generation, weber gave us the primar ref pts for analyzing the broad common patterns of mod social, poll, and ecoc devlpmnt”
-web insisted ideas came indp of rel
-he saw the protstn web word as “the vanguard of the most important gen evory trend”; (lxi) web wouldn’t claim his work is definitive

*lxii-US rel has changed a lot since w’s time—now ruled by lib protstnsm; jews more accepted, rc’s too—both w/out prophetic breaks w/ estd order
lxiii-“privatiztn” of faith spread to all—first noted in herberg 51
**lxiv-web’s rigid ideal types were too rigid, (lxv) so it doesn’t predict the actual change in the US very well, neglects “gradual and cumulative processes of change”; and reifies “profit motive” and “need for salvation”—not showing that ppl have many motives at once
lxv-tho SOR was “a great advance in its time” and “provided a foundation for further progress in socy, and remains relevant at its broadest morphological levels”, “it seems unlikely that the broadest outline of the evory pattern of the dvlpmnt of relus orientations, incl the onception of the 2 basic direction of rtlztn in the field of meaning, will b radically invalidated”
lxvi-“For scholars of lesser genius than web, it would b very difficult to get comparable results”
*-2 main theoretical difficulties w/ web: his idea that change has to b radical and motives r too idealized and not ordinary and mixed

*lxvii-“this book is the most crucial contribution of our century to the comparative and evory understanding of the relations btwn rel and society, even of society and culture generally”
1-says he won’t b able to define rel til concl—and its “not even our concern , as we make it our task to study the conditions of effects of a particular type of social behavior”—and thes “r so diverse that an understanding of this behavior can only b achieved from the vw pt. of the subjective exprcs, ideas, and purposes of the indvs concerned—in short, from the vw pt. of the relus behavior’s ‘meaning’”

-“The most elementary forms of behavior motivated by relus or magical factors r oriented to this world” cites deut 4:40; relus behavior is similar to purposeive conduct (eg rubbing sticks to make fire is “as ‘magical’” as rain caused by rainmaker), “the ends of the relus and magical actions r predominantly ecoc”
2-only us from our mod POV can judge “correct” from “fallacious attributions of causality”

-“extraordinary powers” in objects and ppl have been called mana, orenda—but he calls it “charisma” (2 types): 1)”where this appellation is fully merited, charisma is a gift that inheres in an object or person simply by virture of nat endowment. Such primary charisma cannot b acquired by any means. [2] But charisma of the other type may b produced artificially in an object or person thru some extraordinary means. Even then, it is assumed that charismatic powers can b devlped only in ppl or objects in which the germ already existed but would have remained dormant unless evoked by some ascetic or other regimen…”—there has always been [poll?] “forms of the doctrine of relus grace”—incl “salvation by good works”—and these continue today
3-and this makes a belief that a “spirit” is “’behind’ and responsible for the activity of the charismatically endowed nat objects”—this is not a “soul, demon, not god,” its indeterminate
-belief in spirits is more advanced in societies where only a few have “charismatic magical powers”—the odlest of “vocations” is the “professional necromancer”
-ecstacy—“the distinctive subjective condition that notably reps or mediates charisma”—a “psychological state” occurs in social—in “the orgy”; can use toxins or music to induce
4-and they also therefore believe in “soul”, “animistic” views; some more advanced ppl belief that spirits follow their own laws, they r more formed
-and they name the relus forces after “the process they control” (eg nature), or (5) after powerful ppl—“chieftans or prophets”
5-diff kinds of souls: 1 for life, 1 for esctacy, 1 for the shadows, dreams, etc—and these r “by no means universally accepted”

6-the distinctive element of this dvlpment of idea of soul is that these “new exprcs now play a role in life”—not just events that were already taking place, now there r events w/ symbolic meanings eg thinking a dead body must b buried w/ belongsins to have a “tolerable existence” after death
6-and then more advanced magic was dvlped to influence spirits, supplanting naturalism, and magica/rel becomes highly symbolic; says oldest paper money was used to pay the dead
-“more and more, things and events assumed significances other than the real potencies that actually or presumably in hered in them, and efforts were made to achieve real effects by means of various symbolically significant actions”; and when thot effective, these acts were repeated—and eventually “all areas of human activity were drawn into this circle of magical symbolism”—and they must b strictly adhered to w/out “slightest deviation”, that’s why changes in symbols cause so much controversy
8-and putting relus symbols on objects is “the oldest form of stylization”’ and exorcism replaced “previous empirical methods of medical treatment”
*9-so, in gen, rel evolved from pre-animistic to symbolism—that’s why “primitives” still eat foes, or keep their body parts—they believe spirit is directly in them and “primitives” war rites, however, can b seen as a “passage to symbolism”

*[then how do u know both things never co-existed? Diff than durk.
-web does not admit to probs w/ animism or naturalism so prob w/ idea of causation and what separates man from animal r not explained]

-calls “mythological thinking” is “the fully dvlped circle of symbolic concepts”
10-analogic thinking (later also used for law) “originated int eh region of magic, which is based completely upon analogy, rtlzed into symbolism”
-ideas of indv gods evolved to a pantheon

11-“the scope of the Roman numina is incomparably more fixed and unequivocal than that of Hellenistic gods”—whose g’s were more anthropomorphic and repd as real personalities
*-says sociologclly, the basis for this is that Roman g’s were ntl g’s, while grk g’s repd the “regional and knightly culture”, tho roman ritual practices didn’t change. Diff than grks, “the Roman attitude remained permanently adverse to rels of the orgiastic or mystery type. Roman rel remained religio (whether the wrd be derived etymologically from religare or from relegere); it denoted a tie with tested cultic formulae and a concern for spirits (numina) of all types which are active everywhere”
*-and romans had g’s for every action—unlike grks
12-this roman pantheon was sacred law, “ratl casuistry of sacred law”, which led to “sacred jurisprudence”—“In this way, sacred law became the mother of rtl justice thinking” cf Livy, that’s why romans were overly concerned w/ “legal etiquette, not ?s of sin, punishment, penitence, and salvation” tho both trads allowed for rtlztn

*13-specific g’s and demons dvlped w/ relation to endemic ecoc and historic situs, eg a g may have achieved eminence b/c he was of an important nat object; chthonic g’s r more inagricultural societies; celestial g’s in feudal society
14-and w/ increasing specializtn of gs, 1 led to rule others
-family cults dvlpd; (15) and adultery was dislike b/c adulteress could improperly make a sacrifice to a wrong ancestor—angering them—tho fam gods were overtaken by tribe gods
16-or when a fam took over their g became the supreme in the pantheon (eg the roman ruler as genius)
-and w/ a poll formation, “it is a universal phena” that it “entails subordination to a tribal g” and (17) worship of outside g’s is restricted
17-this results not in monotheism, but “poll particularism” and w/in a polis, (18) every clan, fam, and house had their own god that was subordinated to polis’—thts why in grk and rome if u did not have a household g, u couldn’t hold office
18-this led to g’s of land area, when other conditions were met like “foundation of the state as a separate poll assoc w/ corporate rts, indp of the court and the person of the ruler”—that’s why it didn’t happen in india, asia, iran (19) tho did in Egypt
19-and occupations had their own g’s

21-criticizes max muller for saying the rise of a universal god was b/c of nat evo—web says that when it came to rts, which ever g’s powers appeared most consistent, they became the ones worshipped—and these were celestial g’s (this is a rtls reason)—(22) tho this doesn’t garauntee primacy—universal g’s weren’t always ruling—and it also depended of ecoc needs, warrior classes wanted hi war g, priest w/ celestial ones
22-and b/c rel was rtlztn, prest were relsts and therefore they rtlly subordinated other g’s, (23) so th hi g always eventuall y became universal
23-and if they’re universal, that means other ppls g’s r the same just w/ diff names (eg grk thot this), and universal g must b controlling other ppls too (poll and historical)

24-several reasons why monotheism didn’t dvlp everywhere, but main one is priests who wanted to maintain power by controlling cults to g’s, (25) and the need of common ppl for personal g’s who have “magical influences”
25-the power to coerce g’s is universal; eventually g’s r seen to have powers in themselves—so they r seen like earthly rulers who req devotion
26-prayer and sacrifice “have their origin in magic”, and this desire (27) for ecoc goals is irrational and comes to (28) “represent what is distinctive in relus behavior”
28-diffc btwn rel and magic is rel is “relationship of men to supernat forces”—incl worship and prayer while magic is simply “coercision”—and about all rels have magical *components—and the sharp distinction others make is the result of new rels suppressing inherent magical elements, and distinction btwn priest and sorcerer is not sharp either; (30) “There can b no priesthood w/out a cult, although there may well b a cult w/out a specialized priesthood”
30-“rtlztn of relus life” depends on if priesthood become its own separate class, (31) and this depends on 1) ethical prophets and/or 2) laity devotees

32-if efforts to get a g to do smthing fail over and over, either it is abandoned or g is seen to b impotent and he is abandoned, (33) or priest says ppl r behaving badly
33-good g’s and evil demons is an early idea in rel—so g’s r seen to possess ethics (legislation)—and in monotheism this becomes very important
35-and in many rels, the ethics g was not the most powerful—they were only ethical cuz they were the most predictable—and old rels didn’t rely on it
*-and man’s demands of ethical g increased as legal system and society got more complex and interdpndnt and increased reliance (36) on ppls wrd for ecoc reasons (transactions, debt, etc)
36-and then even the g’s r subject to a moral order, tho it can even come in the form of fate (eg for warriors, or rtl ordering of world (bureaucrats); (37) and g will protect against injury in that order
38-and violation of that order is what is “taboo”, and this extends therefore to ecoc and social events—(30) leads to an ethical system

39-“The controversy concerning the dvlpmnt of these widely diffused totemic brotherhoods is still unresolved”, (40) says it will suffice to say its just a form of animism
*-“The belief in the universality of totemism, and certainly the belief in the derivation of virtually all social grps and all rels from totemism, constitutes a tremendous exaggeration that has been completely rejected by now”, tho it does explain division of labor of sexes in terms of magic [and several editors notes indicate that most of SOR was written before 1914]

*40-taboos limited change eg Shiites not trading w/ outsiders, hindu caste—they r (42) not rtl; and only ascetic prtstnsm provides “ethical sanction for ecoc rtls and for the entrepreneur” [only protestnsm?]
42-and in hindu castes, efforts to go higher resulted in evil, (43) so no revolts, ppl just stuck to caste and hope to b born higher
44-out of allthis dvlps concept of salvation to gain awareness of virtues

46-def of prophet—“a purely indv bearer of charisma, who by virtue of his mission proclaims to relus doctrine or divine commandmnt”—ho harsh distinction btwn a “renewer of rel” and a “founder of rel”—esp b/c a new relus community can b made by “non-prophetic reformers”, and don’t concern if followers r more attracted to the person or the doctrine. Ddecisive element btwn him and priest is “the personal call” from sacred, not just service to trad—so “almost no prophets have emerged from the priestly class”; (47) and unlike magician he “claims definite revelations” and “the core of his mission is doctrine “, not magic—tho he seldom ests authority w/out magic; and does so w/out pay, (48) which influenced xn priestly poverty
49-prophets r also legislators—one who is “codifying a law systematically or of reconstituting it”, (50) resolve class conflict and “to produce a new sacred law of eternal validity”—“leveling of classes stimulated expansion” for moses, as it did for Athens and rome—but this “social reform” is unique to Hebrews and it was only a means to an end (51) and most didn’t go for social reform, not even j., they were simply worried about “injustice as a violation of the mosaic code”
52-and the philosophical ethicist is nto a prophet either b/c they wer taught by others, and (53) they lack “vital emotional preaching”00a trait of prophets
54-personal divine revelation is the “decisive hallmark of prophecy”
-mystagogues—ppl who have special ability to perform sacraments—not prophets (55) b/c they often made a living as it

55-only 2 kinds of prophets: “ethical prophet” who is “primarily…an instrument for the proclamation of a g and his will, b this a concrete demand or an abstract norm…he demands obedience as an ethical duty”; 2) “exemplary” prophet is “an exemplary man who, by personal example, demonstrates to others the way to relus salvation, as in the case of the Buddha. The preaching of this type says nothing about a divine mission or an ethical duty of obedience, but raterh directs itself to the self-interest of those who crave salvation, recommending to them the same path as he himself trasversed.”
**-exemplary is common in india, some in china (lao tzu); “ethical type is confined to the Near East” no matter race—b/c (56) in the E. they didn’t have a “personal, transcendental, and ethical g”, ethics in china eg was following the tao, and Chinese emporer performed sacfricies for rain instead of depending solely on irrigation, (57) while near e. kings freely used irrigation (they had to in a desert)—so man was thot to have more free action, then g is seen to b more “feely acting, transcendental,a nd personal”
57-and e. societies had distinct classes who were the “bearers” of ethics (w/out gods), (58) while YHWH to Zoroaster were seen as ethical deity kings (like neighboring Egypt, Persia) **[but web doesn’t explain whence diff social systems came, like castes]
59-both kinds of prophets have “a unified view of the world derived from a consciously integrated and meaningful attitude toward life…both the life of man and the world, both social and cosmic events, have a certain systematic and coherent meaning.” And man must orient itself to this to bring salvation, organizes “practical behavior into direction of life”

-and the conflict btwn this idea of a meaningful world and “empirical reality” “produces the strongest tensions in man’s inner life as well as his external relationship to the world”—in fact prophets aren’t the only ones who deal w/ it—so do priests and philosophers. “The ultimate ? of all metaphysics has always been something like this: if the world as a whole and life in particular were to have meaning, what might it b, and how would the world have to look in order to correspond to it?”—and philosophers took “issue w/ the antecedent thot of relus functionaries”—so there was a struggle btwn them

60-a prophet’s helpers r “personal devotees”, no priests or soothsayers; permanent helpers “genlly also posses some special charismatic qualifications”; and there r also other followers who give money, etc

-a relus “community”/”congregation” “does not arise solely in connection w/ prophecy in the particular sense used here”, nor w/ every kind of prophecy. It “arises…as a result of routinization, i.e., as a result of the process whereby either the prophet himself or his disciples secure the permanence of his preaching and the congregation’s distribution of grace, hence insuring the ecoc existence of the enterprise and those who man it, (61) and thereby monopolizing as well the priveleges reserved for those charged w/ relus functs” (and this can happen around mystagogues and priests)
61-exemplary prophets get the followers of local gods; its unorganized at first, but (62) becomes fixed w/ followers gaining roles of mystagogues, teachers, priests, etc.
62-priests were genlly sons “of landed priestly fams, domestic court priests of landed magnates or noblemen, or trained preists of a sacrificial cult” which was its own class and (63) indvs went to them for assistance—no congregations except when cults were formed
63-sometimes priests were kept in power by conquerors to pacify the colonized

65-all priesthoods “must frequently meet the needs of the laity,” esp their a) prophecy, b) their tradlsm, c) and lay intellectualism
66-propphecy “by its very nature devalues the magical elements of the priestly enterprise”—salvation only by “meaningful relationship to the eternal”
67-for priests “to secure its onw position” had to codify a new doctrine that either accepted or rejected prophet’s ideas; this included canons and dogmas
68-says all priesthoods dvlpd from guilds of magicians who had animistic secret lore, that eventually became public [problematic, as w/ this whole book, its not systematic]
69-says Q was quickly canonized b/c “the semi-literate m. held that the existence of a holy book automatically carries w/ it the mark of prestige for a rel”—[does not go w/ what we know about uthman who did it, like other rels, for poll reasosn—makes assumptions that r debateable]

70-estblshmnt of relus doctrine followed desire to differentiate self from others, and smtimes for nonrelus reasons (eg charlemagne’s insistence on doctrine of filioque to separate Frankish church from byzantium’s control); and they made tattoos to make changing difficult (71)

74-preaching “is collective instruction concerning relus and ethical matters”, (75) it “declines in importance whenever a revealed rel has been transformed into a priestly enterprise by routinization, and the importance of preaching stands in inverse proportion to the magical components of a rel”, that’s why protestsm has no priests, only preachers

75-“pastoral care” is “the relus cultivation of the indv”, (76) and is most powerful “when rel has achieved an ethical character”
76-and it had great influence when it combined “ethical casuistry” (eg roman law) w/ “a rtlzed system of ecclesiastical penances”

*-and so “it is these same practical responsibilities of preaching and pastoral care which brot in their wake the substantive routinization of prophetic demands into specific prescriptions of a casusistical, and hence more rtl, character, in contrast to the prophetic ethics. But at the same time this dvlpment resulted in the loss of that unity which the prophet had introduced into the ethics—the derivation of a standard of life out of a distinctive ‘meaningful’ relationship to one’s g, such as he himself had possessed and by means of which he assayed not the the external appearance of a single act, but rather its meaningful significance for the total relationship to g”; rel couldn’t just (77) focus on inwardness

77-prophets opposed magical rel, w/ its emphasis on everything (incl ppl) being in its rt place (making it easy for preist to obtain power and hold masses in bondage) (78) but after routinization, and the re-emergence of priests, it did that bondage again—it is “practically unavoidable”
78-unavoidable b/c, tho prophet preaches indp, laity’s acceptance of him is based on his charisma—he is seen as simply a great magician, so the massis habits just endure

80-peasant life is very unbureaucratic and therefore opposes rtl systematiztn (rel as we know it) that they only take it up when forced to, to survive
-eg for poll or ecoc reasons, like jews resistance to enslavement/oppression by philistines and Canaanites
*83-“That the peasant has become the distinctive prototype of the pious man who is pleasing to g is a thoroughly mod phenn” w/ a few exceptions; in fact, in E. rels, the peasant is suspect b/c he kills animals (remember rust=paganus for early xns), even aqui said rural ppl were of lower esteem, worshipping weather and nature g’s
84-it was praised by luther and mod Russian rel—it was b/c of their ”struggle against the rtlsm of the intellectuals, and against poll liberalism”—and cities were seen as carriers of it
-“xnty was an urband rel” (cf harneck), congregations couldn’t dvlp anywhere else—and xnty presupposes community orgztn
85-warrior nobles and most feudal powers didn’t need “rtl relus ethic”’ warriors don’t want a rel w/ “sin, salvation, and relus humility”—these go against their trade, they must consistently face their destiny, at most he wants “protection against evil magic” or “priestly prayers for victory or for a blissful death” and nothing else
-and grks were mostly warriors
86-tho strong reform mvmnts pull nobles into a “prophetic ethical rel”, tho they r often excluded form it by relus leadership
-and warriors can adopt it to call others “unveleivers” (says islam was first to), tho (87) xns first fot other ppl of the book ruthelessly in crusades

89-the “dominant bureaucracy” “is always the carrier of a comprehensive sober rtlsm and, at the same time, of the ideal of a disciplined ‘order’ and security as absolute standards of value. The bureaucratic class is usually characterized by a profound disesteem of all irrational rel, combined, however, w/ a recognition of the usefulness of this type of rel as a device for controlling the ppl” (eg in Romans and todays military and civil bureaucracy)
-90 they also eliminate emotionalism and irrational manifestations, and distance from spirits and ancestral cults

-the mid class is not so consistent tho, often (91) b/c that they r depends on the ecoy (eg maybe either merchants or wandering peddlars) and this also affects their social privilege—the more privileged, the less other worldy, ethical rel
93-but capitalism and ecoc rtlsm go together w/ emergence of non-poll capitalism—middle class

95-the lower mid class (esp the artisans) r the most rlusly diverse, and often most pious, uslly most orthodox too; but others were (96) reformers, exorcists, monastics, etc.
96-but in constrast to peasants, “a definite tendency towards congregational rel, towards rel of salvation, and finally towards rtl ethical rel”—tho its not purely uniform
-congregationalism”was a nat consequence of the relative recession of the importance of blood groupings; esp in the w.—esp w/ occupational orgs which had a “cultic significance”, tho in e. fam was more important, (97) Indian castes prevented congregationalism
97-and “rtl ethical rel” is important b/c of less connection/ nature means less use for magic and rtlsm in gen is more important in city life (eg calculability and capacity for purposeive manipulation), and ecoc existence requires that “honesty is the best policy”—fulfiling obligations is important—that’s why warriors and financial magnates don’t need it—they have power
-and “the artisan is very frequently active in effecting the elimination of this very process of magic”, esp b/c eg art “comes from (98) a special charisma, usally passed on hereditarily, and guarded by magical means (taboos, totems)—but when employed in the city, he starts thinking about his trade more rtlly—but not always (eg Chinese articsans still believed in karma) or (99) in india w/ its caste taboo and magic), so it only really emerged w/ congregational rtlzed ethical rel

99-and lowest classes (slaves and day laborers) never followed a strict rule for rel (it usually depended on what class they were most closely associated w/)
100-and the “wandering handifcraft apprenticies” (b/c they had to wait longer to get permanent jobs) were often the missionaries “of every mass congregationl rel”
101-and if anything, they r more prone to emotional/magical rel b/c rtlsm plays so little influence on their lives
102-“the transfer of salvation doctrines to the masses practically always results in the emergence of a savior, or at least in an increase of emphasis upon the concept of savior”—(103) and for the bourgeoisie this become domesticated “sentimental legend” and iconic g’s re-emerge
104-lower class rel is more = to women than higher (incl priests)
*106-and salvation gives esteem to high classes for what they r and low classes for what they will becom
107-legitimization—its based in “universal” “psychological patterns”—I’m happy—he’s not—I must be doing right
*-“What the privileged classes req of rel, if anything at all, is this psychological reassurance of legitimacy”—tho not every class feels this to some degree
108-lower class wants relief from suffering and punishment of wrong doers (“just compensation”); (109) and the more oppressed they r, the more they cling to their status for future salvation, (110) but a relus resentment/vengeance against privileged ppl for unequal distribution of goods occurs only in (111) certain cultures
112-tho vengeance is most extreme w/ jews, (114) and faced w/ not achieveing it they tried harder to ensure g’s favor, so emphasizing success in occupation, tho the self-fulfilment (calling) and inner-worldly asceticism was not as important for them—it was tradlstic (magical) and not psychological
116-and resentment is not universal, jesus said all could get to heaven

118-orginally, priests were most important carriers of intellectualism, esp where there is sacred text, and a guild for intrp dvlps—but this didn’t happen for Phoenicians, grks, romans or china—they had non-priests dvlp “all metaphysical and ethical thot” and even theology (eg Hesiod)—did happen in india, Egypt, Babylon, zoroastriansim, ism, xnty—where priesthood monopolized metaphysics and ethics; (119) and in budd, islam and ancient medieval xnty—monks did it,a dn art too
120-all great rlus doctrines in asia r products of intellectuals trained (eg budd and jainist were trained in Vedas—they were non-brahman nobels), same for china
121-all possessed philosophic training comparable to grks, and they were “bearers of the ethic or the salvation doctrine” and “these classes took no official position regarding existing relus practice”

122-salvation rel emerges for priveledged grps when nation demilitarizes and poll action is little; and when ruling classes have lost power to state—usully tho not always, esp in times of social change (tho this is genlly underground)
123-these high class quests for salvation have a “disposition toward and ‘illumination’ mysticism…a distinctively intellectual qualification for salvation”
-devalues “nat, sensual, and physical”, refinement of sexuality—(124) rel is irrationalized, then rtlzed to give it meaning; (125) seeks a “casuistry of which extends into infinity”—inner need, as opposed to external need of low classes; and things must match up to empirical reality; may b “world-fleeing”
*126-there is also mid class and pariah intellectualism (lower-class self taught, scribes, small officials, teachers, poets, etc)—tho this didn’t exist in E. b/c (127) it lacked “the communal feeling of an urban citizenry, which is a necessity for mid-class intellectualism”

131-despite paul, xnty genlly taught anti-intellectualsim

*132-Web characterizes the propagators of the “so-called world resl”—eg “Judaism, the wandering trader”, “islam, the warror seeking to conquer the world”, “Xnty, the itinerant journeyman”

134-puritanism “created a pop relus intellectualism never found since” the 17th ce comparable only to late Judaism and “Pauline missionary communities”

*137-he says that elites’ preventing masses from being educated, and the fashion of “conversation and journalism” will prevent rel to come again from intellectuals

138-only Judaism is truly monotheistic in the strictest sense, (139) and the more monotheistic a rel, the more probs reconciling “imperfection of the world that he has created and rules over”
143-eventually ppl thot “God must b envisaged as beyond all the ethical claims of creatures, his counsels impervious to human comprehension”, and from this comes redestination (it also opposes magic)
144-other explanations: dualism, manicheism (dualism that will end); (145) or karma (word is sealed)
147-most rels combine theories b/c of mutual interaction and to satisfy sundry beliefs of adherents
*164-paths to salvation vary widely btwn rels (the chapter basically just describes diff kinds, and next chapter describes diff kinds of asceticism, (179) esplly emphasizing diffc btwn oriental (otherworldly) and occidental (this worldly)—and this (181) is b/c web has a church w/ rtl org and a monarchical head while e. doesn’t, “parly for historical reasons, partly b/c of the nature of the rels in ?”, b/c (182) e. relus leaders still had magical function while xn monks didn’t, then ascentic prtstntsm made it this-worldly vocation for relus salvation [still flawed for not explaining why societies developed diffly]

263-“…Islam was never really a rel of salvation…An essentially poll character marked all the chief ordinances of Islam”

269-ascetic prtstntsm wrked well w/ capitalism and “There is no proof whatever that a weaker nat potentiality for technical and ecoc rtlsm was responsible for actualdiffcs in this respect”—impediment is regid trads, such as existed in the mid ages