Max Weber's idea of [dis]enchantment

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I've never read Max Weber, but from the essay about him I just read, he sounds like a very interesting thinker, especially for someone like me who's fascinated by questions like 'What do people in Foreign Culture X live for?' He seems to have spent a good bit of his career as a philosopher pondering this question too.

But one of Weber's ideas that grabbed me most strongly was his notion of the West as disenchanted. Basically, he saw it as typical for human cultures to see themselves reflected in the external world around them. This is seen most strikingly in the way most pre-modern cultures anthropomorphize practically everthing. (Think of Pocahontas singing about every rock and tree and flower having a spirit and a name.)

Weber basically said that the West took the rejection of this way of seeing the world to an extreme not seen before his time. To him, Westerners have a decidedly disenchanted way of seeing the world. That is, our language and mindset carries the implicit assumption that we ourselves, the beholders, are not a part of what is beheld. This is your typical objectivist (with a lower case 'o' -- nothing to do with Ayn Rand) stance: the understanding of our natural world comes with the side effect of the dethroning of Man.

I first heard of this notion of disenchantment (without reference to Weber), at a seminar about psychedelics and spirituality, hosted at artist Alex Grey's studio in NYC. I decided then and there that I'm of two minds on it. On one hand, it's easier to make predictions about what will happen in the natural world, the less we assume any given natural phenomenon to be like us. On the other hand, there is something very valuable that's lost by doing a reductionist takedown of something: our own connection to it, and its significance to us. If someone like Pocahontas sees a tree as far more than a self-replicating solar-powered carbon reducer, she's more likely to forge a relationship with this tree that's beneficial to both, and better for the ecosystem as a whole.

What I've decided is this: I see rational objectivism as more of a useful tool than a way of life: use it for jobs it's good at, and then put it down. I really don't see the point, or the usefulness, of viewing everything I encounter through a reductionist filter. It could just be that I'm built (or raised) to value connectedness (and therefore compassion) over truth, I don't know. But the point is, I have no problem with, nay encourage, more enchanted worldviews, and the language they use.

I'm fond, for example, of modeling a psychotropic drug experience as a meeting and an exchange, between a person and a chemical or plant. I'm happy to simply put it in terms of receptor [ant]agonism, when issues of physical health come up. But to a person who's having a hard time mentally integrating a series of experiences on this drug, sometimes it can be just as helpful, if not more, to switch paradigms and model the problem as one of a bad relationship.

If there's anything that reading about Chaos Magick and Integral Philosophy has taught me, it's that it can be unwise to be wedded to one paradigm, one way of framing the world around you, when switching between them can bring new sides of things to light.

Any thoughts on this? Do you ever feel that it's a problem that Westerners are too disenchanted with the world? Or, alternately, are you a proponent for LESS enchantment? If the latter, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it, personally. We all see the world the way we need feel the need to see it, and like I said, I'm not committed to one set of guidelines of vocabulary for framing the world. I just think that any given one has its drawbacks, and that it's not as hard or problematic as a lot of people assume, to 'speak more than one language' philosophically, if you will.

 

[RigaCrypto]

I can't pass judgement on disenchantment since my culture is not prone to it, but I think that it is not accurate to ascribe it to Western cultures. From what I know, this kind of world view is more characteristic of Northern cultures and more specifically Northern European - Germanic, Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian.

The Pocahontas you mentioned was more western than you. Latin Americans are western too and pretty 'enchanted' from what I know.

Most of the non-European cultures I have a passing acquaintance with are not very objectivist either, though it would be interesting to get a clarification from people who know better. This seems to be a characteristic of the Germanic cluster of cultures.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ Weber was a German, after all, so that makes sense.

 

[ebola?]

Since I received thorough training in Weber, I'm going to contribute my knowledge there, rather than my personal opinion, which will be less valuable.

One of Weber's major preoccupations is conceptualizing modernity as a process of 'rationalization'. Weber means something very specific by rationalization: it is the rise of purposive rationality, that is the systematic adjustment of means to achieve as efficiently as possible the ends the purport to, to dominate all social institutions. In the process, purposive rationality comes to dominate all forms of knowledge and undermine the institutions that once created meanings (that is, substantive rationalities).

For Weber, mostly by historical accident, 'the West' let the rationalization genie out of the bottle. Where rationalization lacks completeness, we'll have 'magical' rituals, defined by Weber as poorly understood, systematized, and inadequate means-ends linkages. Those 'non-Western' religious strains (basically, non-Protestantism) preserve an element of magic and unique substantive rationalities.

I should also note that Weber has a parallel process of dis-enchantment for his schematic of the pre-modern world, where charismatic leadership gives way to the hollow routine of tradition.
...
I will note a personal opinion: not only does mechanistic reductionism erode meaning, but it cannot stand on its own epistemological ground; we need non-reductionist science.

ebola

 

[Papa1]

I will note a personal opinion: not only does mechanistic reductionism erode meaning, but it cannot stand on its own epistemological ground; we need non-reductionist science.

ebola

"I know those words, but that sign makes no sense..." What do mean by this? I'm curious. In what sense do we need non-reductionist science?

 

[stonerfromohio]

I took this as say for example in psychology a Neuroscientist will reduce everything down to neuro-chemical reactions when yes those triggers may be causing our experiences at a fundamental level but there is also a subjective experience to it and the reactions may cause certain fleeting sensations and emotions to flow through a person but those sensations and emotions are interperted in many ways determined by the individual as well as the culture, for example if you reduce a psychedelic experience on MDMA as merely a burst of seratonin in the brain and thats how you describe it your missing the point, your reducing it to your small facet of study, when in reality there is so much more to a MDMA experience. Sure the love feeling may be caused by a release of oxytocin in your brain but describing it in that way misses the entire point... its not merely a chemical reaction there are layers and layers of meaning derived from that experience. I could give you more examples and go more in-depth but I think this example illustrates his point.

 

[ebola?]

for example if you reduce a psychedelic experience on MDMA as merely a burst of seratonin in the brain and thats how you describe it your missing the point, your reducing it to your small facet of study, when in reality there is so much more to a MDMA experience. Sure the love feeling may be caused by a release of oxytocin in your brain but describing it in that way misses the entire point... its not merely a chemical reaction there are layers and layers of meaning derived from that experience. I could give you more examples and go more in-depth but I think this example illustrates his point.

It's not missing the point--it's part of the point.

 

[stonerfromohio]

I didnt mean to say that it was missing the point, I meant to say that if as a neuroscientist you merely dismiss the experience as a neuro-chemical reaction couldnt you do that with all of lifes experiences? Love for your wife is merely releases of seratonin and oxytocin, but its not that simple because thats only one part of the experience there are many other facets of the experience besides a neuro-chemical release. If a neuro-scientists just dismissed reality saying everything is just chemical reactions of the brain they arent finding the beauty, truth, love, and unity of reality they are reducing it to their field of study, to mere neuro-chemical reactions.

 

[ebola?]

"I know those words, but that sign makes no sense..." What do mean by this? I'm curious. In what sense do we need non-reductionist science?

Whoops. Sorry for having missed this. I was being quite superficial. I do not find it logically warranted to try to reduce all levels of empirical observation and theorization to a single level of abstraction. For example, I don't think that it makes sense to treat all things as a special case of particle physics.

ebola

 

[Papa1]

^ Ah I see. I don't have anything critical to say cuz I pretty much agree.

But what you said about reductionism eroding meaning - do you think that meaning (at least the kind of 'enchantment' in this thread) can obscure a view of the objective functioning of a system? That is, for whatever reason, do you think that understanding the mechanisms of a system in some sense necessarily involves stripping it of meaning?

 

[stonerfromohio]

^ Ah I see. I don't have anything critical to say cuz I pretty much agree.

But what you said about reductionism eroding meaning - do you think that meaning (at least the kind of 'enchantment' in this thread) can obscure a view of the objective functioning of a system? That is, for whatever reason, do you think that understanding the mechanisms of a system in some sense necessarily involves stripping it of meaning?

It seems so, an example that comes to mind is in Jack Johnson’s song where he says maybe it was easier when the stars were just holes to heaven, that idea gives the world a more miraculous, mystical appearance but when the objective systems are clearly defined and its merely a furnace of chemicals combusting (this shows my lack of knowledge in astronomy and physics) then it may disenchant the world to a degree. I’m not sure if that was the best example but I think your idea makes sense Papa when we clearly define in objective terms a particular system of events it can seem to strip the meaning away from it.

Another example that I remember reading on bluelight was about ayauscha someone was discussing how when you believe you are interacting wth the plant intelligence of ayauscha rather than experiencing neuro-chemical reactions in your brain it adds layers of meaning to the experience. For if your imagining your conversing with an archaic plant intelligence that opens you up to the spirit world and enables you to talk to plants your in for a whole-nother experience. Whereas if you take the neuro-chemical approach and its merely hallucinations caused by an MAOI and DMT interacting in the synapses in your brain and what you experiencing is merely hallucinations and synthesasia that must alter your experience of the ayauscha.

By the same token though what if people used to think the world being flat gave the Earth a more miraculous appearence and a more mystical tent would those persons be choosing fiction over fact? It seems that if we dont define clearly an objective system and instead chose the enchanted version we could be deluding ourselves. Here are a few quotes to make this dicussion more interesting:

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.
Mark Twain

It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.
Mark Twain

Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Fiction is like a spider's web, attached ever so slightly perhaps, but still attached to life at all four corners. Often the attachment is scarcely perceptible.
Virginia Woolf

Truth is so hard to tell, it sometimes needs fiction to make it plausible.
Francis Bacon

For truth is always strange; stranger than fiction.
Lord Byron

“Only those who truly love and who are truly strong can sustain their lives as a dream. You dwell in your own enchantment. Life throws stones at you, but your love and your dream change those stones into the flowers of discovery. Even if you lose, or are defeated by things, your triumph will always be exemplary. And if no one knows it, then there are places that do. People like you enrich the dreams of the worlds, and it is dreams that create history. People like you are unknowing transformers of things, protected by your own fairy-tale, by love.”

“The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in fairy books, charm, spell, enchantment. They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery.”

 

[ebola?]

But what you said about reductionism eroding meaning - do you think that meaning (at least the kind of 'enchantment' in this thread) can obscure a view of the objective functioning of a system? That is, for whatever reason, do you think that understanding the mechanisms of a system in some sense necessarily involves stripping it of meaning?

oh...I think that this applies mostly (perhaps almost solely) to social interpretation and action. The application of purposive rationality (and with it, reductionist ontology/epistemology) excises the capacity of social institutions to create meaning. The question of, "What is the good; which ends should we pursue?" falls away, crowded out by questions of, "Given a particular goal, which means can we employ to most efficiently attain it?" Instead, status-quo ends become rigid, appearing as necessary and/or self-evident, or simply escaping conscious scrutiny.

That is, for whatever reason, do you think that understanding the mechanisms of a system in some sense necessarily involves stripping it of meaning?

To a certain extent, yes. This is one reason that it's best to attack the same problem with different types of thinking.

ebola

 

[MrM]

What I've decided is this: I see rational objectivism as more of a useful tool than a way of life: use it for jobs it's good at, and then put it down.

Rational objectivism is a useful way to build tools and pretty much all the other physical apparatus that go with an advanced civilisation. If you consider 2 basic civilisations that meet up, one that reveres trees as sacred and another that chops them down to build houses and spears, which do you think will win out over the other?

I'm not making value judgements here, just effectiveness judgements.

I'm going to blaim christianity on this one. Once you've got the idea in your head that all the earth and animals and stuff there were made for you personally by god to use as you see fit, you are going to use them anyway you feel best and not worry about hurting their feelings so much or large scale deforestation (as Pocahontas would) until science comes along and mentions global warming and stuff.

But one of Weber's ideas that grabbed me most strongly was his notion of the West as disenchanted.

I wonder if this is because christianity is strongest in the west and wether there is a link between this disenchantment brought on by christianity and the fact the west is generally technologically in advance of most other places. Compared to a lot of other religions, christianity likes to keep it's enchantment bottled up on a sunday in church rather than the kind of ubiquitous loudness of spirituality you get in some cultures.

Of course rational atheists like myself are hardly going to go around hugging trees but i think that from the right perspective seeing a tree as 'a self-replicating solar-powered carbon reducer', the end results of millions of years of evolution on a planet spinning around a sun in a universe we barely understand is any less profound than hugging it and singing a bit.

 

[Heuristic]

I think we should be very careful here in talking about science as reductionist.

Someone above discussed how a neuroscientist "dismisses" experiential events, such as ecstasy, or love, as "mere" electrochemical reactions.

But that's far from the truth. The neuroscientist seeks to understand HOW and WHAT electrochemical reactions CAUSE those experiential events. He does not dismiss them as being merely physical; he does not reduce their importance. Indeed, the people who show the most wonder, appreciation, and amazement at the capabilities of the mind tend to be, in my experience, the people who closely study the brain.

There's an assumption that many read into scientific explanations, namely that if a scientist says a material thing x causes a given phenomenon, then that phenomenon is itself "merely" material and unimportant.

However, that reductionist assumption is actually not a part of science. All science is concerned about is the explanation itself, not any value judgments one may wish to make about the value of the phenomenon.

So I'd have to disagree with ebola?'s statement that we need a non-reductionist science, as the statement presupposes that we can have, or do have, a reductionist science. In fact, science as such simply has nothing to say about reductionism. That's for the purview of philosophers.

I also think Weber was completely off in his diagnosis of rampant purposive rationality--and I hope he gave Aristotle, Kant, and God knows how many others due recognition for their own description of the concept. Indeed, in part I wonder how much of Weber's argument was caused by the advent of the German model of the research university, which stood in stark contrast to the Anglo-American model of a liberal arts education. The former places an emphasis on the gradual accumulation of knowledge, each individual adding accretions. The latter places an emphasis on education as, in part, shaping and enlightening the self. Contemporary Anglo-American universities combine both models, but within undergraduate education, the liberal arts model remains ascendant.

Consider that last paragraph constructive pot-stirring.

 

[MrM]

I think we should be very careful here in talking about science as reductionist.

Someone above discussed how a neuroscientist "dismisses" experiential events, such as ecstasy, or love, as "mere" electrochemical reactions.

But that's far from the truth. The neuroscientist seeks to understand HOW and WHAT electrochemical reactions CAUSE those experiential events. He does not dismiss them as being merely physical; he does not reduce their importance. Indeed, the people who show the most wonder, appreciation, and amazement at the capabilities of the mind tend to be, in my experience, the people who closely study the brain.

That's kind of what i was trying to get at with my tree example. Most real scientists that i've spoken to that are involved in the cutting edge theoretical stuff be it neurology or astronomy have a sense of enchantment or reverence for the universe.

 

[zorn]

I first heard of this notion of disenchantment (without reference to Weber), at a seminar about psychedelics and spirituality, hosted at artist Alex Grey's studio in NYC. I decided then and there that I'm of two minds on it. On one hand, it's easier to make predictions about what will happen in the natural world, the less we assume any given natural phenomenon to be like us. On the other hand, there is something very valuable that's lost by doing a reductionist takedown of something: our own connection to it, and its significance to us. If someone like Pocahontas sees a tree as far more than a self-replicating solar-powered carbon reducer, she's more likely to forge a relationship with this tree that's beneficial to both, and better for the ecosystem as a whole.

What I've decided is this: I see rational objectivism as more of a useful tool than a way of life: use it for jobs it's good at, and then put it down. I really don't see the point, or the usefulness, of viewing everything I encounter through a reductionist filter. It could just be that I'm built (or raised) to value connectedness (and therefore compassion) over truth, I don't know. But the point is, I have no problem with, nay encourage, more enchanted worldviews, and the language they use.

I don't know, this seems like a wrong dichotomy (valuing connectedness over truth) -- like asking if you value liberty over brevity. Or originality over compassion. They're not really commensurable things. Truth is valuable when you're trying to decide, well, what you think is true. Compassion is important when you're trying to decide how to treat people. They're just different things, entirely -- I can't see what good confusing them would do.

So I don't think that viewing things rationally, or "reductionist takedowns," as you say, is a problem at all. A tree is in fact, among other things, a self-replicating carbon producer... but I don't know anyone who would say, "therefore we must destroy the tree!" What you do then depends on what your values are regarding life, the environment, the people it would affect, and so on -- as it should be.

But if instead you think the tree is some spirit or god, you can't come to the right conclusion based on your values about life -- instead you will come to a conclusion based on whatever your crazy belief system tells you about spirits. It's possible you might revere & preserve it anyways (tho for the wrong reason) to honor/placate the spirit. But real "enchanted" cultures are not Disney fairy-tales: Maybe you chop the tree down because you believe the spirit has turned against your village. Maybe you sacrifice animals to keep the spirit happy. Maybe you sacrifice people. Maybe you ostracize the diseased or crippled or because their injuries show the spirits have condemned them. Who knows? Whatever happens, it's determined by the made-up belief system, not your actual values about trees.

So I don't really see the value here. If a particular "enchanted" belief system were correct, then certainly, it would be valuable! That would be an important thing to understand to deal with the world. "Disenchanted" people in such a world would be like people with autism -- completely missing out on a whole important part of reality around them. But we don't live in such a world.

For example... I just can't see how confusing psychoactive chemicals with entities -- which you meet, have a relationship with, whatever -- is helpful. Sure, people respond differently to different substances, at different times, in different states, and so on. And you can invent anthropic language to describe that reponse as if it were a relationship. Sometimes that might be convenient shorthand. But what in the world does taking it seriously this add? The "alternate worldview" of relationships only works as long as you're making up the story to match what happened. If you start to actually use the worldview -- to take the story seriously, and not just match it up to reality -- it's going to lead you astray, because the chemical really doesn't follow the rules of human behavior.

On the other hand, being able to view the world through the lens of an alternate belief system is obviously valuable for understanding people. But I'm guessing that's not what you mean.

---

I've never read Max Weber, but from the essay about him I just read, he sounds like a very interesting thinker, especially for someone like me who's fascinated by questions like 'What do people in Foreign Culture X live for?' He seems to have spent a good bit of his career as a philosopher pondering this question too.

Just a random thought... Probably you don't mean it like this, but the way I read the question you say Weber was interested in, IMHO, it seems to me like a rather dangerous question. I mean, I've met many people from many cultures, who'd give all sorts of answers to the question "what do you live for?" And it's definitely not true that their answers would divide up nicely according to their "culture." Maybe there's some statistical differences. I don't know. But the question strikes me kind of the same way as "What are different races good at?"... seductive because it reifies simple categories & distinctions, but probably not conducive to useful understanding. Weber was a product of a quite racist era, late imperialist Europe, right?

 

[Papa1]

^ People want meaning and significance to their lives. That's the value here. An "enchanted" worldview is one that eschews objective, mechanistic workings for humanistic relationships between objects in such a way that the world seems more meaningful.

You, zorn, might say otherwise, but the majority of people don't get much meaning from "self-replicating carbon producer". It feels cold. The same goes for modern physics' cosmology compared to a religious one and many other views. The unhuman truth is harder to connect to than humanistic stories. I think connectedness-vs-truth is a reasonable dichotomy to make.

 

[yougene]

So I don't think that viewing things rationally, or "reductionist takedowns," as you say, is a problem at all. A tree is in fact, among other things, a self-replicating carbon producer... but I don't know anyone who would say, "therefore we must destroy the tree!" What you do then depends on what your values are regarding life, the environment, the people it would affect, and so on -- as it should be.

Reductionism in this context means reducing all perspectives to one perspective or level of analysis. Using reductionist science doesn't neccesarily make someone a reductionist.

But if instead you think the tree is some spirit or god, you can't come to the right conclusion based on your values about life -- instead you will come to a conclusion based on whatever your crazy belief system tells you about spirits. It's possible you might revere & preserve it anyways (tho for the wrong reason) to honor/placate the spirit. But real "enchanted" cultures are not Disney fairy-tales: Maybe you chop the tree down because you believe the spirit has turned against your village. Maybe you sacrifice animals to keep the spirit happy. Maybe you sacrifice people. Maybe you ostracize the diseased or crippled or because their injuries show the spirits have condemned them. Who knows? Whatever happens, it's determined by the made-up belief system, not your actual values about trees.

You are putting the cart before the horse here in that you assume the belief precedes an experience of enchantment. All small children experience enchantment in the form of animism up to about age 7. It's not a belief it's a fundamental human capacity. And it takes on different forms in different cultures. In tribal cultures it can take on the form as you described. In traditional cultures it can take on the form of a god or unifying spirit. In the Enlightened West it took on the form of a "Nature" that is an unfolding creative intelligence( Evolution ).

Outside the spiritual experience context we use anthropomorphizing capacities all the time. For example, how do you conceptualize and build communication protocols( like tcp/ip ) without projecting human qualities into the design like that of an individual( hosts, clients ) and a language( protocol )?

 

[MrM]

You, zorn, might say otherwise, but the majority of people don't get much meaning from "self-replicating carbon producer". It feels cold. The same goes for modern physics' cosmology compared to a religious one and many other views.

If this is true it is due to historical familiarity with the mystical and unfamiliarity with the scientific amongst the majority of the population.

I can honestly say that i find the scientific world view to be breathtakingly beautiful in its complexity and simplicity and scale in all directions and can't imagine an end to the wonders we have yet to discover, including many details regarding 'self-replicating carbon producers'.

 

[Papa1]

If this is true it is due to historical familiarity with the mystical and unfamiliarity with the scientific amongst the majority of the population.

I can honestly say that i find the scientific world view to be breathtakingly beautiful in its complexity and simplicity and scale in all directions and can't imagine an end to the wonders we have yet to discover, including many details regarding 'self-replicating carbon producers'.

I think that's only partly true. As Yougene mentioned, our desire to anthropomorphise the world is largely fundamental. We're wired to think in terms of people and relationships, and until we fundamentally change most people will find humanistic explanations inherently more satisfying than non-human mechanistic ones.