Weber's Comparative Analysis of the Rise of Rational Capitalism: A View from the South

This article explores Weber's work on the rise of rational capitalism in the West, as well as his comparative work on the religion of China and India, and the criticisms of Orientalism that it has attracted. The overall argument is that while some of the criticisms are valid, others rest on a misunderstanding of his aims and a superficial reading of his work. It argues that Weber's aim with this study was to solve the puzzle of why rational capitalism first developed in Western Europe and not in India or China, two societies that were in some respects more advanced than Europe. Weber did not make a value judgement regarding the overall superiority of Europe. His vision of the mutually supportive, dynamic and often contingent relationship between cultural elements and the interaction of conflictual social groups disproves the criticism that he had an essentialistic understanding of Oriental societies. Weber ignored the extent to which Europe dominated and exploited people in the periphery, but his attempt to grasp internal factors explaining the initial outperformance of Europe, which allowed them to dominate others, is valid. The article acknowledges the criticism that Weber's work was Eurocentric. His understanding of Oriental history was limited, which he acknowledged, since he regarded his conclusions about the Orient as tentative. As a result, his comparative concepts and hypotheses are of more interest than his empirical analysis of the Orient.