Money, Individualism and the New Salvation
Given Weber’s thesis, what are the modern-day effects of this Protestant ethic? First, this ethic changed the nature of power in Western society. One’s power and status were defined by money in the modern world, rather than either land or reputation (as in the premodern world). The English social analyst, R. H. Tawney noted early in the 20th Century that:[lvii]
“The characteristic fact, which differentiates most modern property from that of the pre-industrial age, and which turn against it the very reasoning by which formerly it was supported, is that in modern economic conditions ownership is not active, but passive, that to most of those who own property today it is not a means of work but an instrument for the acquisition of gain or the exercise of power. . . In modern industrial societies the great mass of property consists . . neither of personal acquisitions, such as household furniture, nor of the owner’s stock-in-trade, but of rights of various kinds, such as royalties, ground-rents, and, above all, of course, shares in industrial undertakings, which yield an income irrespective of any personal service rendered by their owners.”
In the modern era one can not measure one’s own accomplishments in this world, let alone one’s eligibility for higher status in an afterlife, by one’s holdings of property or even by one’s personal productivity in a craft or trade. Rather, accomplishments and ultimately salvation is defined by the much more abstract notion of financial independence and wealth—and by more tangible criteria associated with “conspicuous consumption.” Donald Trump has been asked why he was so concerned with acquiring money and with exhibiting his financial wealth in such public ways. He proposed that this is the “scorecard” by which one’s success in life is measured. Similar sentiments have been expressed (often in more guarded fashion) by many other leaders of our new postmodern economy:[lviii]
“Most [Silicon] Valleyites protest, predictable, that they’re not in it for the money. And insofar as they have never had much use for mansions and helicopters, the claim is not a wholly disingenuous one. The thing is, money isn’t just for buying things; it also functions as a scorecard. As in: If he’s a billionaire, then I’ve got to be worth at least $500 million. So the perpetual refrain—“It’s not about the money”—doesn’t really carry much moral suasion. “We used to be able to say it with a very straight face,” says Randy Komisar, the former head of LucasArt Entertainment and a self-styled ‘virtual CEO’ who has helped run such companies as WebTV and TiVo. ‘Nowadays, it sounds stupid.’”
Trump, Komisar (and many other corporate leaders) have not moved much beyond John Calvin. Personal accumulation of wealth is still considered the modern-day, secular equivalent to salvation. Among the new entrepreneurs, the accumulation of wealth may be even more important than (and even somehow disconnected from) personal consumption and the achievement of organizational goals.
A second side to Weber’s analysis of the Protestant Reformation concerns the contributions of Martin Luther to our modern-day emphasis on individualism and personal conscience. For Luther, the major breaking point with the Catholic Church concerned the right of individual believers to communicate directly with God rather than through an intermediary institution such as the Catholic Church or its representatives (priests, bishops, and the Pope). Luther argued that God spoke directly to his believers and that one should be guided by this inner voice rather than by the all-too-human dictates of the church. With the success of Luther’s world perspectives in many parts of Europe and, in particular, in the United States, we see the emergence of a profound and, at times, isolating individualism. We must look inward for God’s grace and guidance rather than looking to any external authority. Similarly, we find in modern organizations an emphasis on individual rights and on the individual creation of solutions to organizational problems. We look for brilliant analysts and creative problem-solvers—but retain the right to question any form of authority.
