What do you think?
Rate this book
Religion and the Rise of Capitalism
In one of the true classics of twentieth-century political economy, R. H. Tawney addresses the question of how religion has affected social and economic practices. He tracks the influence of religious thought on capitalist economy and ideology since the Middle Ages, shedding light on the question of why Christianity continues to exert a unique role in the marketplace. In so doing, the book offers an incisive analysis of the morals and mores of contemporary Western culture.
Religion and the Rise of Capitalism is more pertinent now than ever, as today the dividing line between the spheres of religion and secular business is shifting, blending ethical considerations with the motivations of the marketplace. By examining the period that saw the transition from medieval to modern theories of social organization, Tawney clarifies the most pressing problems of the end of the century. In tough, muscular, richly varied prose, he tells an absorbing and meaningful story. And in his new introduction, which may well be a classic in its own right, Adam Seligman details Tawney's background and the current status of academic thought on these issues, and he provides a comparative analysis of Tawney with Max Weber that will at once delight and inform readers.
Religion and the Rise of Capitalism is more pertinent now than ever, as today the dividing line between the spheres of religion and secular business is shifting, blending ethical considerations with the motivations of the marketplace. By examining the period that saw the transition from medieval to modern theories of social organization, Tawney clarifies the most pressing problems of the end of the century. In tough, muscular, richly varied prose, he tells an absorbing and meaningful story. And in his new introduction, which may well be a classic in its own right, Adam Seligman details Tawney's background and the current status of academic thought on these issues, and he provides a comparative analysis of Tawney with Max Weber that will at once delight and inform readers.
339 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1926
85 people are currently reading
2665 people want to read
About the author
R.H. Tawney
106 books40 followersRichard Henry "R. H." Tawney (/ˈtɔːni/; 30 November 1880 – 16 January 1962) was an English economic historian, social critic, ethical socialist, Christian socialist, and an important proponent of adult education.
The Oxford Companion to British History (1997) explained that Tawney made a "significant impact" in all four of these "interrelated roles". A. L. Rowse goes further by insisting that "Tawney exercised the widest influence of any historian of his time, politically, socially and, above all, educationally".
The Oxford Companion to British History (1997) explained that Tawney made a "significant impact" in all four of these "interrelated roles". A. L. Rowse goes further by insisting that "Tawney exercised the widest influence of any historian of his time, politically, socially and, above all, educationally".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
February 3, 2012
A recent discussion, with a Goodreads friend, of Western socio-economic history and the accompanying socio-economic thought brought to mind this gem of a book, read in my early college days and a germinal influence on my own thought. (In terms of its effect on my thinking, I'd actually rank it as one of the most important books I've read, and I've upped my rating of it from four stars to five to reflect that.) Of course, my own strong personal reaction to the book will give the review below a strong element of "reader response" criticism, starting with where I was coming from when I read it.
I was raised (long story!), in a Missouri Synod Lutheran church, which proudly considered itself ultra-conservative both religiously and socio-politically. (In fact, I'm a product of five years of education in the congregation's parochial school --though even then, I was inclined to read a lot outside of class and think for myself.) One theme they harped on was that capitalism as we know it in the modern U.S. --that is, oligarchical, monopolistic, and operating on purely "rational" profit-maximizing lines devoid of ethical content-- is an essential part of "Conservatism" (which is absolutely good, as opposed to the "L" word, which is absolutely evil). A corollary of this was that the poor (with possibly rare exceptions that you could count on your fingers) were so because they're improvident, stupid, and lazy, and that giving them any consideration fostered bad behavior and made the economy unsound. This line of thinking was then sanctified as a tenet of Christianity, "Biblical economics." It would probably be fair to say that a hefty number of people then and now, both inside and outside of the Christian church and the conservative movement (which are not the same thing, though they tend to be lumped together) would define both entities in terms of this thinking. Indeed, in explaining the historical shift in Western Europe, in the Commercial Revolution of the early modern era, to this sort of economic order, replacing an older feudal system that was significantly distinct from it in many ways (and by my high school days, I was aware that a shift HAD occurred, and that the present order didn't date from Biblical times!), modern critics of capitalism tend to finger Protestant Christianity as the villain that caused the whole thing, an argument exemplified in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (No, I haven't read Weber's classic, but I think I've read --and listened to, in college-- enough about it to fairly represent the gist of it.)
Even as a pre-teen child, though, and even haphazardly reading the Bible once in awhile only in the King James Version (because the newer translations were, according to the church, Satanic counterfeits!), I was struck by the gaping disconnect between the content of the Bible and the content of the preaching/teaching I heard from church and school. As my own beliefs took shape in my teens, I became a Christian; and I also came to identify my own thinking as conservative, in the sense of wanting to conserve both a moral and social order of community and family handed down from long good service in the human past, and an incredibly beautiful and precious natural creation. But I had real questions and doubts about how the whole framework of capitalist "Biblical economics" fitted with this. That (finally!) brings us to Tawney's book.
Unlike Weber, who was a sociologist, Tawney was an academic historian, a world-class expert on the social and intellectual history of 16th and 17th century England, which is the main focus of this study, his best-known work. (He was also, in the words of one recent pundit, "a radical Christian," though, with academic detachment, he doesn't state that explicitly here.) Here, he disputes Weber's one-sided and superficial analysis, by a careful study of the primary sources, starting with the medieval background, continuing through Luther's and Calvin's actual socio-economic teachings, and the responses of the English reformers to the economic questions raised by the Commercial Revolution of their day. His thesis is that the Protestant reformers, no less than the medieval Catholic Scholastics, espoused an economic philosophy based on rejection of materialism and gain for its own sake, acutely concerned with ideas of justice and right and wrong, and explicitly favoring consideration for the poor, for workers, and for customers. (As he points out, this doesn't mean medieval society perfectly embodied these principles; but as he also points out, theory does have some significance for practice in a society, even if not as much as the theorists want it to.) This is true over the entire spectrum of economic issues of that day --enclosure of formerly common land for private profit, price-gouging, usury (an old English word meaning, like its Hebrew equivalent, charging interest on loans --the modern pretense that both words only mean "excessive interest" is the lexical equivalent of saying, "Oh no, silly, 'adultery' doesn't really mean marital infidelity; it just means excessive marital infidelity!"), etc., all of which the Protestant churches opposed as vigorously as the Catholics, and for the same serious religious reasons. When they finally jettisoned this stance in the late 1600s, it was in response to changes that were already accomplished and entrenched in society, and accomplished because the rising wealthy commoners had emancipated their daily behavior from religious authority (an emancipation greatly aided by the break-up of Christian organizational unity --but that wasn't an effect that the Protestant reformers had aimed at.) Tawney doesn't speculate on whether the capitulation was a deliberate ploy to curry favor with the newly rich and powerful, or just an unconscious response to the new "selfishness is good!" zeitgeist of the day (I'd personally surmise that both factors were at work). This is necessarily a summary of 287 pages of text (the rest of the 337 pages are source notes and index); but I checked out and skimmed a copy again to make sure I wasn't oversimplifying or misrepresenting from faulty memory from 40 years ago. Written for average intelligent readers (of course, educated in a more rigorous school system than ours), the style is jargon-free and conversational without being dumbed-down, and I personally didn't find it at all dry or uninteresting in any part.
For me, this book was an intellectual catalyst that took my inchoate doubts and misgivings and gave them a concrete voice. I came to see that there IS a tradition of serious, intelligent Christian thought on socio-economic questions which actually reflects and applies the teachings of the Bible in concrete and practical ways; and that moral criticism of capitalist abuses can be based on this tradition, not drawn from outside of it. (Also, I came to realize for sure that the "selfishness is good" school is not, historically, a natural ally of the kind of conservatism I believe in; rather, it's a natural enemy.) And finally, though Tawney's analysis basically covers only the early modern era, it gave me an interpretive key to understand the desire of the wealthy capitalist class to free itself from moral and religious restraint as a broad, ongoing process that continues to shape Western intellectual and economic history --a process that explains the whole elevation of first Hume and then Darwin to thrones of unquestioned authority in Establishment thought, that explains the horrors of slavery and the Industrial Revolution, that explains today's twisted "globalism", and much else. I'd recommend this book to any reader who wants to understand the genesis of the modern world.
I was raised (long story!), in a Missouri Synod Lutheran church, which proudly considered itself ultra-conservative both religiously and socio-politically. (In fact, I'm a product of five years of education in the congregation's parochial school --though even then, I was inclined to read a lot outside of class and think for myself.) One theme they harped on was that capitalism as we know it in the modern U.S. --that is, oligarchical, monopolistic, and operating on purely "rational" profit-maximizing lines devoid of ethical content-- is an essential part of "Conservatism" (which is absolutely good, as opposed to the "L" word, which is absolutely evil). A corollary of this was that the poor (with possibly rare exceptions that you could count on your fingers) were so because they're improvident, stupid, and lazy, and that giving them any consideration fostered bad behavior and made the economy unsound. This line of thinking was then sanctified as a tenet of Christianity, "Biblical economics." It would probably be fair to say that a hefty number of people then and now, both inside and outside of the Christian church and the conservative movement (which are not the same thing, though they tend to be lumped together) would define both entities in terms of this thinking. Indeed, in explaining the historical shift in Western Europe, in the Commercial Revolution of the early modern era, to this sort of economic order, replacing an older feudal system that was significantly distinct from it in many ways (and by my high school days, I was aware that a shift HAD occurred, and that the present order didn't date from Biblical times!), modern critics of capitalism tend to finger Protestant Christianity as the villain that caused the whole thing, an argument exemplified in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (No, I haven't read Weber's classic, but I think I've read --and listened to, in college-- enough about it to fairly represent the gist of it.)
Even as a pre-teen child, though, and even haphazardly reading the Bible once in awhile only in the King James Version (because the newer translations were, according to the church, Satanic counterfeits!), I was struck by the gaping disconnect between the content of the Bible and the content of the preaching/teaching I heard from church and school. As my own beliefs took shape in my teens, I became a Christian; and I also came to identify my own thinking as conservative, in the sense of wanting to conserve both a moral and social order of community and family handed down from long good service in the human past, and an incredibly beautiful and precious natural creation. But I had real questions and doubts about how the whole framework of capitalist "Biblical economics" fitted with this. That (finally!) brings us to Tawney's book.
Unlike Weber, who was a sociologist, Tawney was an academic historian, a world-class expert on the social and intellectual history of 16th and 17th century England, which is the main focus of this study, his best-known work. (He was also, in the words of one recent pundit, "a radical Christian," though, with academic detachment, he doesn't state that explicitly here.) Here, he disputes Weber's one-sided and superficial analysis, by a careful study of the primary sources, starting with the medieval background, continuing through Luther's and Calvin's actual socio-economic teachings, and the responses of the English reformers to the economic questions raised by the Commercial Revolution of their day. His thesis is that the Protestant reformers, no less than the medieval Catholic Scholastics, espoused an economic philosophy based on rejection of materialism and gain for its own sake, acutely concerned with ideas of justice and right and wrong, and explicitly favoring consideration for the poor, for workers, and for customers. (As he points out, this doesn't mean medieval society perfectly embodied these principles; but as he also points out, theory does have some significance for practice in a society, even if not as much as the theorists want it to.) This is true over the entire spectrum of economic issues of that day --enclosure of formerly common land for private profit, price-gouging, usury (an old English word meaning, like its Hebrew equivalent, charging interest on loans --the modern pretense that both words only mean "excessive interest" is the lexical equivalent of saying, "Oh no, silly, 'adultery' doesn't really mean marital infidelity; it just means excessive marital infidelity!"), etc., all of which the Protestant churches opposed as vigorously as the Catholics, and for the same serious religious reasons. When they finally jettisoned this stance in the late 1600s, it was in response to changes that were already accomplished and entrenched in society, and accomplished because the rising wealthy commoners had emancipated their daily behavior from religious authority (an emancipation greatly aided by the break-up of Christian organizational unity --but that wasn't an effect that the Protestant reformers had aimed at.) Tawney doesn't speculate on whether the capitulation was a deliberate ploy to curry favor with the newly rich and powerful, or just an unconscious response to the new "selfishness is good!" zeitgeist of the day (I'd personally surmise that both factors were at work). This is necessarily a summary of 287 pages of text (the rest of the 337 pages are source notes and index); but I checked out and skimmed a copy again to make sure I wasn't oversimplifying or misrepresenting from faulty memory from 40 years ago. Written for average intelligent readers (of course, educated in a more rigorous school system than ours), the style is jargon-free and conversational without being dumbed-down, and I personally didn't find it at all dry or uninteresting in any part.
For me, this book was an intellectual catalyst that took my inchoate doubts and misgivings and gave them a concrete voice. I came to see that there IS a tradition of serious, intelligent Christian thought on socio-economic questions which actually reflects and applies the teachings of the Bible in concrete and practical ways; and that moral criticism of capitalist abuses can be based on this tradition, not drawn from outside of it. (Also, I came to realize for sure that the "selfishness is good" school is not, historically, a natural ally of the kind of conservatism I believe in; rather, it's a natural enemy.) And finally, though Tawney's analysis basically covers only the early modern era, it gave me an interpretive key to understand the desire of the wealthy capitalist class to free itself from moral and religious restraint as a broad, ongoing process that continues to shape Western intellectual and economic history --a process that explains the whole elevation of first Hume and then Darwin to thrones of unquestioned authority in Establishment thought, that explains the horrors of slavery and the Industrial Revolution, that explains today's twisted "globalism", and much else. I'd recommend this book to any reader who wants to understand the genesis of the modern world.
June 11, 2017
It is a difficult read because the sentences are long and typical of 19/20th century writing. For that reason, it took me months to finish this book. This book will inform you how Christianity after The Reformation influenced the economic development in Europe. The changing religious thoughts at that time had of course changed the way average people and nobility think about properties and the state. A must read for fans of historical socio-economic thoughts.
October 30, 2016
As a Christian socialist, the theoretical root of R H Tawney’s criticism of capitalism is its division between commerce and morality - which he attributes to the Protestant reformation. He contrasts this with medieval thought on economic matters. He does not idealise the medieval Church: he frankly describes it as ‘an immense vested interest, implicated to the hilt in the economic fabric’. That fabric was riddled with feudalist exploitation, oppression and the enforced poverty of serfdom. Nevertheless there was also, at the core of Church ideas, something admirable: ‘… its insistence that society is a spiritual organism, not an economic machine, and that economic activity, which is one subordinate element within a vast and complex unity, requires to be controlled and repressed by reference to the moral ends for which it supplies the material means’.
‘Religion and the Rise of Capitalism’ is a classic study that probably suffers from being so influential that its arguments have been largely accepted since its publication in 1926. However the book is still worth reading in its own right, not least because - derived as it is from a series of lectures - Tawney’s account of theology and religious history is one of the more accessible accounts of a dense and esoteric topic (which is still difficult).
A contemporary criticism of Tawney’s work would be his neglect of the other great religion of the medieval times - Islam. A new study of religion and the rise of capitalism would have to at least mention Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and his development of the Aristotelian view of money, as well as the great trading links over the Mediterranean Sea between Europe and the Muslim world. Tawney’s focus on the thought of ‘schoolmen’ also means there is no mention of women, whereas a new study that included far more social history would have to address the role of women in establishing and maintaining commercial and market arrangements that ensured everyday economic life kept functioning.
In the 21st century we are used to treating ‘the economy’ as if it is an entity in its own right, to be tended, fed, and appeased in the hope that we benefit. There is a genuine strangeness about a time described by Tawney in which economic activity was not the principle activity of life itself. There is no need to feel fondly about such a time, given the ample evidence Tawney supplies of the misery of serfdom. However by looking at the ways Puritanism transformed ‘Christian man’ into ‘Economic man’, Tawney renders the rise of capitalism itself as problematic, rather than natural. You don’t have to fully buy his idealist version of the spread of capitalism, to accept his point that we don’t have to consider it natural and unavoidable. Human beings have previously created systems in which commerce and material gain are not the primary ends of life, and there is nothing inevitable or permanent about the current system under which we live as if they were.
‘Religion and the Rise of Capitalism’ is a classic study that probably suffers from being so influential that its arguments have been largely accepted since its publication in 1926. However the book is still worth reading in its own right, not least because - derived as it is from a series of lectures - Tawney’s account of theology and religious history is one of the more accessible accounts of a dense and esoteric topic (which is still difficult).
A contemporary criticism of Tawney’s work would be his neglect of the other great religion of the medieval times - Islam. A new study of religion and the rise of capitalism would have to at least mention Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and his development of the Aristotelian view of money, as well as the great trading links over the Mediterranean Sea between Europe and the Muslim world. Tawney’s focus on the thought of ‘schoolmen’ also means there is no mention of women, whereas a new study that included far more social history would have to address the role of women in establishing and maintaining commercial and market arrangements that ensured everyday economic life kept functioning.
In the 21st century we are used to treating ‘the economy’ as if it is an entity in its own right, to be tended, fed, and appeased in the hope that we benefit. There is a genuine strangeness about a time described by Tawney in which economic activity was not the principle activity of life itself. There is no need to feel fondly about such a time, given the ample evidence Tawney supplies of the misery of serfdom. However by looking at the ways Puritanism transformed ‘Christian man’ into ‘Economic man’, Tawney renders the rise of capitalism itself as problematic, rather than natural. You don’t have to fully buy his idealist version of the spread of capitalism, to accept his point that we don’t have to consider it natural and unavoidable. Human beings have previously created systems in which commerce and material gain are not the primary ends of life, and there is nothing inevitable or permanent about the current system under which we live as if they were.
June 21, 2017
A fascinating read. I think Tawney misses a few things but since I have read so much on these topics by those of a more libertarian bent (and usually theoretical rather than historical) it was good for me to read someone of a different persuasion. That said, his (non-Marxist) socialism doesn't seem to get much in the way of his historical work here.
The statement about how Aquinas espoused the labor theory of value and "The last of the Schoolmen was Karl Marx" was a bit much, but this is not really a book about economic theory so perhaps we can forgive the author that little faux pas.
Tawney's criticism of Luther, Calvinism and Puritanism is really powerful. He frequently returns to the idea of how strange it is that these reformers who started out as very authoritarian and discipline-minded, condemning things like usury no less than their medieval predecessors, ended up being associated with individualism, especially economic individualism (at which they would have been horrified). Because he is Anglican (I think?), he misses something huge, which is that no matter how strict and authoritarian you are on the surface, if you're rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ in favor of your own interpretation, you *are* promoting individualism (and not in the good sense). But he does have another very powerful point about the tearing down of Catholic institutions, which is that despite Luther's principles of economic morality being basically the same as that of the scholastics, his complete rejection of casuistry and the implementation of those general principles into a practical framework of ecclesiastical law basically doomed the economic morality of Protestantism from the start. One line in a really amazing longer passage about Luther: "He preaches a selfless charity, but he recoils with horror from every institution by which an attempt had been made to give it a concrete expression."
(I wish I could find a pdf of this book online so it would be easier for me to quote at length. The book really is electrifying in some parts.)
It'll be interesting to return to some of these historical subjects (enclosure, for example) and look back on what Tawney says in the light of whatever more detailed reading I end up doing. My thought on this stuff is continually evolving, and it's entirely possible that I may end up even further away from economic liberalism than I ever expected. Not towards socialism though. Socialism is cancer.
The statement about how Aquinas espoused the labor theory of value and "The last of the Schoolmen was Karl Marx" was a bit much, but this is not really a book about economic theory so perhaps we can forgive the author that little faux pas.
Tawney's criticism of Luther, Calvinism and Puritanism is really powerful. He frequently returns to the idea of how strange it is that these reformers who started out as very authoritarian and discipline-minded, condemning things like usury no less than their medieval predecessors, ended up being associated with individualism, especially economic individualism (at which they would have been horrified). Because he is Anglican (I think?), he misses something huge, which is that no matter how strict and authoritarian you are on the surface, if you're rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ in favor of your own interpretation, you *are* promoting individualism (and not in the good sense). But he does have another very powerful point about the tearing down of Catholic institutions, which is that despite Luther's principles of economic morality being basically the same as that of the scholastics, his complete rejection of casuistry and the implementation of those general principles into a practical framework of ecclesiastical law basically doomed the economic morality of Protestantism from the start. One line in a really amazing longer passage about Luther: "He preaches a selfless charity, but he recoils with horror from every institution by which an attempt had been made to give it a concrete expression."
(I wish I could find a pdf of this book online so it would be easier for me to quote at length. The book really is electrifying in some parts.)
It'll be interesting to return to some of these historical subjects (enclosure, for example) and look back on what Tawney says in the light of whatever more detailed reading I end up doing. My thought on this stuff is continually evolving, and it's entirely possible that I may end up even further away from economic liberalism than I ever expected. Not towards socialism though. Socialism is cancer.
Read
May 8, 2025insightful read, conclusion provides good synopsis of main points and authors perspective/interpretation if you’re not wanting to wade through the detailed examples and analysis of medieval, continental reformation, and english puritan thought/practice
- the tension between theory and practice, while revealing, should not negate the theory itself; we should be wary but can learn from past teachers even if their works were misapplied
- rapid economic/technological/political shifts have social consequences and it’s important for religion to be students of culture to the extent that it allows them to more accurately and wisely speak to the concerns of the age instead of simply restating outdated conclusions that have no contemporary application (think trying to apply medieval usury theory to an economic system that is far more complex than the one in which the theory was developed); this doesn’t negate the value of old principles or virtues, but highlights the need to do the hard work of evaluating how to apply to a new context
- even the best concepts can be twisted or misapplied in practice (our ideas often run away from us or are outside our control); evaluation of calvin/luther especially showed how their successors often applied their principles inconsistently
- big shifts: role of church in setting the rules for social and economic action (from involved to abdicating), function of business/economics from necessary evil to arena where sanctification occurs
- many more insights or food for thought
- the tension between theory and practice, while revealing, should not negate the theory itself; we should be wary but can learn from past teachers even if their works were misapplied
- rapid economic/technological/political shifts have social consequences and it’s important for religion to be students of culture to the extent that it allows them to more accurately and wisely speak to the concerns of the age instead of simply restating outdated conclusions that have no contemporary application (think trying to apply medieval usury theory to an economic system that is far more complex than the one in which the theory was developed); this doesn’t negate the value of old principles or virtues, but highlights the need to do the hard work of evaluating how to apply to a new context
- even the best concepts can be twisted or misapplied in practice (our ideas often run away from us or are outside our control); evaluation of calvin/luther especially showed how their successors often applied their principles inconsistently
- big shifts: role of church in setting the rules for social and economic action (from involved to abdicating), function of business/economics from necessary evil to arena where sanctification occurs
- many more insights or food for thought
October 7, 2015
The business of God ... is business
28 December 2012
It is interesting to chart the rise of the modern state, which in a way began back in the Renaissance and the period in European history known as the Babylonian Captivity (when the Papacy was moved from Rome to Avignion) to the modern day, and to see how all of the events are interconnected with each other. This book, though, probably should have the title of Protestantism and the rise of Capitalism, namely because it was through the Protestant Reformation that the individual gained the freedom to make their own choice as to how and where to (and whether to) worship God.
I don't necessarily believe that Capitalism is in and of itself a Christian concept, and in particular the Capitalism that is practised today is far from it. The Bible constantly exhorts us to consider and help the poor and the disadvantaged, and Jesus even says 'what you do for the least of these you do for me'. It is hard though, living in a wealthy and industrialised society, yet being a member of the middle class where we still need to work and we have to save for all the goodies that we want, to actually understand the plight of the poor in the developing world.
What the Reformation did though was to break us from the rules and the strictures of the Catholic Church, and one of them was the rule against lending at interest. However, it was not lending at interest that was bad, but lending at interest to a fellow Christian (which is what usury is). In the same way it is not bad for a Muslim to sell alcohol, just not sell it to a fellow Muslim.
What the removal of usury did was to create a means for individuals to be able to borrow funds to invest in business projects, though in those days the risk was still very high. For instance, there was a film I saw a while ago called Rob Roy where a Scottish farmer borrows money to trade livestock, only to have the baron from whom he borrowed from set him up so that he would lose all of the livestock and then land up in debt.
While such dubious schemes were not done away with immediately, what the Protestant religion has done is that it has influenced Western society to make us think more about acting ethically and consciously for the good of others. William Wilberforce brought an end to slavery in the British Empire, which had a knock on effect in the United States. While the French revolution was purely a secular event (since the French had nipped the Reformation in the bud during the St Bartholemew's Day Massacre) this revolution had a knock on effect in England where Parliament was forced to continue to reform.
The same goes with many of the left wing agitators in Britain and Germany, which forced the conservative government to invest in private education and healthcare, and when the Russian revolution occurred, this strengthened the Unions and the Labor parties to encourage their own countries to provide better services for the underpriviledged classes so that there would not be a similar revolt here.
However, I would not say that Capitalism is itself Christian, and in a way it is moving from the days where people were forced to change or die back to a feudal system when governments are sidelined and corporations are taking the role of the new lords. A man borrows money from a bank to start up an enterprise, only to discover that the corporate lords have raised the barriers to entry. In fact, family businesses are being destroyed by low cost retail, and many of these people who would live comfortably on their own business are being forced into bankruptcy and then into the ranks of the poor.
Also many Christians are taking the mantel of personal responsibility on board suggesting that if somebody is in trouble then they must have done something wrong to do that. Further, there is also the idea of dependency, such this meme:
The idea is that we cannot help the poor because if we help the poor, they will only become a greater burden to us, and thus they must pull themselves up by their own effort, particularly if another has managed to do that.
However the idea is trumped by the statement that these people don't need a handout (and many of them do not want a handout) but rather a hand up. In many cases the only reason the poor are forced to rely on handouts is because nobody is there to give them a hand up. As cuts are made to healthcare and education, many people are getting left further and further behind. People are caught in Westernised slums where they cannot get a job because of the belief that all people from that area (such as Elizabeth in South Australia) are all the same and are not employable. To be honest, one of the major aspects as to whether you get an interview or not is your postcode.
28 December 2012
It is interesting to chart the rise of the modern state, which in a way began back in the Renaissance and the period in European history known as the Babylonian Captivity (when the Papacy was moved from Rome to Avignion) to the modern day, and to see how all of the events are interconnected with each other. This book, though, probably should have the title of Protestantism and the rise of Capitalism, namely because it was through the Protestant Reformation that the individual gained the freedom to make their own choice as to how and where to (and whether to) worship God.
I don't necessarily believe that Capitalism is in and of itself a Christian concept, and in particular the Capitalism that is practised today is far from it. The Bible constantly exhorts us to consider and help the poor and the disadvantaged, and Jesus even says 'what you do for the least of these you do for me'. It is hard though, living in a wealthy and industrialised society, yet being a member of the middle class where we still need to work and we have to save for all the goodies that we want, to actually understand the plight of the poor in the developing world.
What the Reformation did though was to break us from the rules and the strictures of the Catholic Church, and one of them was the rule against lending at interest. However, it was not lending at interest that was bad, but lending at interest to a fellow Christian (which is what usury is). In the same way it is not bad for a Muslim to sell alcohol, just not sell it to a fellow Muslim.
What the removal of usury did was to create a means for individuals to be able to borrow funds to invest in business projects, though in those days the risk was still very high. For instance, there was a film I saw a while ago called Rob Roy where a Scottish farmer borrows money to trade livestock, only to have the baron from whom he borrowed from set him up so that he would lose all of the livestock and then land up in debt.
While such dubious schemes were not done away with immediately, what the Protestant religion has done is that it has influenced Western society to make us think more about acting ethically and consciously for the good of others. William Wilberforce brought an end to slavery in the British Empire, which had a knock on effect in the United States. While the French revolution was purely a secular event (since the French had nipped the Reformation in the bud during the St Bartholemew's Day Massacre) this revolution had a knock on effect in England where Parliament was forced to continue to reform.
The same goes with many of the left wing agitators in Britain and Germany, which forced the conservative government to invest in private education and healthcare, and when the Russian revolution occurred, this strengthened the Unions and the Labor parties to encourage their own countries to provide better services for the underpriviledged classes so that there would not be a similar revolt here.
However, I would not say that Capitalism is itself Christian, and in a way it is moving from the days where people were forced to change or die back to a feudal system when governments are sidelined and corporations are taking the role of the new lords. A man borrows money from a bank to start up an enterprise, only to discover that the corporate lords have raised the barriers to entry. In fact, family businesses are being destroyed by low cost retail, and many of these people who would live comfortably on their own business are being forced into bankruptcy and then into the ranks of the poor.
Also many Christians are taking the mantel of personal responsibility on board suggesting that if somebody is in trouble then they must have done something wrong to do that. Further, there is also the idea of dependency, such this meme:
The idea is that we cannot help the poor because if we help the poor, they will only become a greater burden to us, and thus they must pull themselves up by their own effort, particularly if another has managed to do that.
However the idea is trumped by the statement that these people don't need a handout (and many of them do not want a handout) but rather a hand up. In many cases the only reason the poor are forced to rely on handouts is because nobody is there to give them a hand up. As cuts are made to healthcare and education, many people are getting left further and further behind. People are caught in Westernised slums where they cannot get a job because of the belief that all people from that area (such as Elizabeth in South Australia) are all the same and are not employable. To be honest, one of the major aspects as to whether you get an interview or not is your postcode.
February 28, 2014
Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, 1926. R.H. Tawney. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905. Max Weber
Both are classics in the literature of economic social science.
Tawney was born in 1880 in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and in 1960 was buried at Highgate Cemetery, North London, today a de facto nature reserve. He wore many hats: economic historian, social critic, ethical socialist, Christian socialist, and was influential in all of them. Add to that his great passion for adult education after joining the Workers Educational Association, and finding that charity was not enough. The downtrodden needed education to gain social justice. His education followed the usual route for boys of his ability and class: Rugby and Balliol College at Oxford. During the first war he served in the Royal Army as a sergeant, having turned down a commission because of his political beliefs.
In studying Christian religion, he found a fissure developing between traditional Christian teachings and the pursuit of material goods, and this comment reflects that view: "A society which reverences the attainment of riches as the supreme felicity will naturally be disposed to regard the poor as damned in the next world, if only to justify itself for making their life a hell in this." This echoes Max Weber.
Weber (1864-1820) also had interest in the connection between Capitalism and religion. Born in Erfurt Germany, he studied law at the University of Heidelberg and at 50 accepted a commission during the First World War, soon becoming disenchanted with the Kaiser's expansionist policies and unrestricted submarine warfare. He died of Influenza, a postwar epidemic forgotten today and known in Germany as the Spanish flu, and perhaps in Spain as the German flu. In those years children skipped-rope to this:
I had a little bird,
Its name was Enza.
I opened the window,
And in-flew-enza.
In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber held that capitalism was fostered by the Protestant work ethic, albeit as an economic force, which began unplanned and uncoordinated. Like topsy, it grew. Weber cites Benjamin Franklin, who coined "Time is money." Weber points to a common ethos among Protestants, the stress upon individual responsibility, as distinct from communal sharing. The Protestant Work ethic figured into this. Work not shirk, duty, not lazy. To feel saved, you could not just lie down, for sloth was Satan. Weber found in Calvin and his followers an example of this. Calvin taught double predestination, some were already damned, others blessed. With this view, how could one tell if he or she were chosen? No way was possible except by belief in outward manifestation. Quavering and fear reflected doubt, so self-confidence was needed instead. Self-confidence replaced the Catholic priests who gave comfort before The Reformation. The individual will, not the church, became central, and the success of the will was measured by material achievement.
From belief in the individual both Tawney and Weber trace the arising juggernaut of Capitalism. For Weber, worldly success became one measure of self-confidence. For Tawney, among other causes, the root lay with the individual "as absolute master of his own," who thereby had the "right to pecuniary gain," which led to the view that the "theory of property" must be "accepted by all civilized communities."
For Tawney, though, the source does not arise just from the individual as individual, but from a a world view that compartmentalized society, that believed things could only get better. Call it progress. This, as offset by the retreat of Christian churches with their community and charity in the face of the Capitalist juggernaut.
Both are classics in the literature of economic social science.
Tawney was born in 1880 in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and in 1960 was buried at Highgate Cemetery, North London, today a de facto nature reserve. He wore many hats: economic historian, social critic, ethical socialist, Christian socialist, and was influential in all of them. Add to that his great passion for adult education after joining the Workers Educational Association, and finding that charity was not enough. The downtrodden needed education to gain social justice. His education followed the usual route for boys of his ability and class: Rugby and Balliol College at Oxford. During the first war he served in the Royal Army as a sergeant, having turned down a commission because of his political beliefs.
In studying Christian religion, he found a fissure developing between traditional Christian teachings and the pursuit of material goods, and this comment reflects that view: "A society which reverences the attainment of riches as the supreme felicity will naturally be disposed to regard the poor as damned in the next world, if only to justify itself for making their life a hell in this." This echoes Max Weber.
Weber (1864-1820) also had interest in the connection between Capitalism and religion. Born in Erfurt Germany, he studied law at the University of Heidelberg and at 50 accepted a commission during the First World War, soon becoming disenchanted with the Kaiser's expansionist policies and unrestricted submarine warfare. He died of Influenza, a postwar epidemic forgotten today and known in Germany as the Spanish flu, and perhaps in Spain as the German flu. In those years children skipped-rope to this:
I had a little bird,
Its name was Enza.
I opened the window,
And in-flew-enza.
In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber held that capitalism was fostered by the Protestant work ethic, albeit as an economic force, which began unplanned and uncoordinated. Like topsy, it grew. Weber cites Benjamin Franklin, who coined "Time is money." Weber points to a common ethos among Protestants, the stress upon individual responsibility, as distinct from communal sharing. The Protestant Work ethic figured into this. Work not shirk, duty, not lazy. To feel saved, you could not just lie down, for sloth was Satan. Weber found in Calvin and his followers an example of this. Calvin taught double predestination, some were already damned, others blessed. With this view, how could one tell if he or she were chosen? No way was possible except by belief in outward manifestation. Quavering and fear reflected doubt, so self-confidence was needed instead. Self-confidence replaced the Catholic priests who gave comfort before The Reformation. The individual will, not the church, became central, and the success of the will was measured by material achievement.
From belief in the individual both Tawney and Weber trace the arising juggernaut of Capitalism. For Weber, worldly success became one measure of self-confidence. For Tawney, among other causes, the root lay with the individual "as absolute master of his own," who thereby had the "right to pecuniary gain," which led to the view that the "theory of property" must be "accepted by all civilized communities."
For Tawney, though, the source does not arise just from the individual as individual, but from a a world view that compartmentalized society, that believed things could only get better. Call it progress. This, as offset by the retreat of Christian churches with their community and charity in the face of the Capitalist juggernaut.
April 14, 2021
A challenging read, but very rewarding. Written by a British academic almost a century ago, the writing is hardly breezy by modern standards. Though his prose is at times beautiful, "The exploitation of the Church by the Papacy, and the exploitation of the peasant and the craftsman by the capitalist, are thus two horns of the beast which sits on the seven hills." Tawney has a hilarious habit of quoting lengthy passages in French or German or Latin without translation - obviously, we are all conversant. But if you are interested in the interplay between Christianity and capitalism, Tawney is willing to walk you through it. However, I think it's very likely that this book rewards multiple readings.
It's no coincidence that the Protestant Reformation and modern capitalism both entered the scene at about the same time. The world was ready for change, apparently, and the impact left by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Puritans all helped pave the way for the rise of capitalism.
During the Medieval period, also known as the Age of Faith, the Church was the only game in town for both administering justice and running the European economy. Ecclesiastical authority trumped local authority on most questions. And, as Tawney points out, the Papacy was probably the greatest financial institution of the Middle Ages, with Church subsidiaries cultivating all the green shoots of what eventually became capitalism.
But there was a sticky question around usury that took more than a century to iron out. The Church and her ecclesiastical representatives were very much against charging more than the absolute bare minimum of interest. Even Luther and Calvin agreed. But business pretty much fed off lending and at a certain point, listening to the Church or allowing it to dictate such matters became unsustainable.
When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg, he didn't just spark the Reformation, he also inadvertently created an entirely new moral framework that would help justify individualism and the basis for the capitalist system. Calvin helped characterize industriousness and thrift as bedrock Christian virtues. And the Puritans helped establish the idealization of personal responsibility, becoming "among the most potent explosives that the world has known."
It was fascinating to see how religion and economics were in conversation with one another during this period. It was also a fascinating window into today's disagreements - especially amongst fundamentalist Christians who seek to bring religion back into state decision-making, who likely have no idea about the opposite fight that their own Protestant forebears fought centuries ago. This book is worth your time.
It's no coincidence that the Protestant Reformation and modern capitalism both entered the scene at about the same time. The world was ready for change, apparently, and the impact left by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Puritans all helped pave the way for the rise of capitalism.
During the Medieval period, also known as the Age of Faith, the Church was the only game in town for both administering justice and running the European economy. Ecclesiastical authority trumped local authority on most questions. And, as Tawney points out, the Papacy was probably the greatest financial institution of the Middle Ages, with Church subsidiaries cultivating all the green shoots of what eventually became capitalism.
But there was a sticky question around usury that took more than a century to iron out. The Church and her ecclesiastical representatives were very much against charging more than the absolute bare minimum of interest. Even Luther and Calvin agreed. But business pretty much fed off lending and at a certain point, listening to the Church or allowing it to dictate such matters became unsustainable.
When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg, he didn't just spark the Reformation, he also inadvertently created an entirely new moral framework that would help justify individualism and the basis for the capitalist system. Calvin helped characterize industriousness and thrift as bedrock Christian virtues. And the Puritans helped establish the idealization of personal responsibility, becoming "among the most potent explosives that the world has known."
It was fascinating to see how religion and economics were in conversation with one another during this period. It was also a fascinating window into today's disagreements - especially amongst fundamentalist Christians who seek to bring religion back into state decision-making, who likely have no idea about the opposite fight that their own Protestant forebears fought centuries ago. This book is worth your time.
April 20, 2011
Been years since I read it. But I love this book.
The writing is really fun. We've removed all aspects of poetry from modern writing about history. Tawney doesn't feel those shackles and goes with the words.
Accuracy is not entirely there. But he clearly gets across one concept of the odd ways that puritanism and capitalism were bound together in their early development and how each affected the other.
Regardless, I highly recommend it.
The writing is really fun. We've removed all aspects of poetry from modern writing about history. Tawney doesn't feel those shackles and goes with the words.
Accuracy is not entirely there. But he clearly gets across one concept of the odd ways that puritanism and capitalism were bound together in their early development and how each affected the other.
Regardless, I highly recommend it.
November 2, 2018
A must-read for anyone interested in the development of capitalism, specifically, how it was that avarice and material interests came to prominence in certain denominations of Protestant Christianity, ideals which the medieval Church regarded as sinful.
October 25, 2021
This book was first published in 1926 so it was a bit tedious to read in old english.
The book was interesting, but there are more fun books to read on economic history.
I knew most of the history already so I didn't learn much.
The book was interesting, but there are more fun books to read on economic history.
I knew most of the history already so I didn't learn much.
July 5, 2023
Hard to get through at times because Tawney is more a fan of commas than periods but thorough overview of economic thoughts/morality during the times just before and after the Reformation. Much to think about in the arena of Puritanical influence on modern American capitalism/welfare policy & that’s probably the section I liked most in this book!
March 23, 2024
A very interesting book for students of economics, history, and religion.
Written almost a century ago (first published in 1926), R.H. Tawney has put together an excellent book on how changes in religion (the Reformation and the Puritan movement for examples) affected changes in society; specifically economics.
He deftly weaves together the rise and fall of feudalism with early reformers of the Church and how other movements such as Calvinism left a significant mark on European economics and politics despite the eventual fading of that movement. Calvin supporters and churches still exist today, but in far lower numbers compared to supporters of Luther.
It is not a simple book to get through, in fact the first couple of chapters are very dense. I found it helpful to take them page by page and use as many of the source materials as I could find online. With that increased base knowledge, the rest of the book went much faster.
The conclusion efficiently wraps up Tawney's theories and reasoning. I found it much more in depth than several of the books I had in some of my college classes while the author was still able to provide a more understandable product for his students and other readers.
Highly recommended to anyone who wants to learn more about Christianity, Economic Theory and European History.
Find it! Buy it! READ IT!
Written almost a century ago (first published in 1926), R.H. Tawney has put together an excellent book on how changes in religion (the Reformation and the Puritan movement for examples) affected changes in society; specifically economics.
He deftly weaves together the rise and fall of feudalism with early reformers of the Church and how other movements such as Calvinism left a significant mark on European economics and politics despite the eventual fading of that movement. Calvin supporters and churches still exist today, but in far lower numbers compared to supporters of Luther.
It is not a simple book to get through, in fact the first couple of chapters are very dense. I found it helpful to take them page by page and use as many of the source materials as I could find online. With that increased base knowledge, the rest of the book went much faster.
The conclusion efficiently wraps up Tawney's theories and reasoning. I found it much more in depth than several of the books I had in some of my college classes while the author was still able to provide a more understandable product for his students and other readers.
Highly recommended to anyone who wants to learn more about Christianity, Economic Theory and European History.
Find it! Buy it! READ IT!
Read
June 25, 2014As I dip into early modernism, these sort of sweeping analyses that work in a great deal of history are just the kind of slog I need. Part economic history and analysis social psychology, Tawney certainly implicates Puritan secularization of politics and economics and valorization of economic individualism in the rise of capitalism. It's not the sole factor: he notes that crucial banking systems were developed in Catholic countries, technologies of navigation allowed for increased supply of $ & luxury goods, and so on. But he explicitly rejects technological determinism in the formation of capitalism. The revolutionary secular individualism of Luther and Calvin's naturalization of business and trade as part of the life of the Christian ares the straw that stirs the drink (or whatever other metaphor). Puritanism helps to break Papal dominance of the European money market and authorizes traders and prosperous farmers to work against things like "just price" and acts seeking to slow rural depopulation caused by, among other things, enclosure of common lands. Anyway, that's one shitty thumbnail of the book. Useful also in contrasting Medieval systems of mutual obligation versus early modern forms of individualism and what this means in regard to who is responsible to the poor and in what ways. This was first published 1926--will be on the alert for what he gets wrong, what sticks in the discourse going forward. Also, on a basic level, struck by the obvious but easy to overlook fact that religion can powerfully mediate attitudes RE: economics. Kinda like the political theology thing. Can't understand the Right w/o it.
March 20, 2021
A really enjoyable book on the economic and religious changes that took place over the years of 1500 - 1800. First given as lectures, Tawney fills his writing with pleasant metaphors and an even hand in complex matters. Probably not a good book if you just want raw data and a clear argument, but I have tried to reconstruct the major points I noticed below.
The Medieval Background
The medieval background can be summarised by three rulings concepts of social theory: a) religious thought embraces all areas of human life, b) the functional view of class organisation, and c) the doctrine of economic ethics.
a) There was no secular/sacred divide, instead all human actions and institutions were held to account at the standard of religious teaching. Economics was a part of ethics, and ethics a part of theology. Everything, including business and finance, was included in religious considerations.
b) Society was viewed not as a collection of individuals, each with their own ends, which by the ‘invisible hand’ manages to arrive at a harmonious balance. Instead, the model of society was that of a body – different body parts with different purposes corresponds to the different classes in society.
c) Economics was not considered a science following natural laws, the way humans can be thought of in classical economics and other schools of economics. Instead, economic teaching was much closer to Distributist thought, where economics was a humane science, and profit making subordinate to human needs.
Also important for this period was the widespread condemnation of usury, which in practice included any exploitative economic action (one where one party clearly benefits more than the other). This was largely due to the context within which borrowing would occur, typically being down to necessity. High finances amongst the powerful was generally accepted because of this.
Finally, it should not be counted against the people of the time that they failed in making their ideal a reality. The later economists managed to make their ideal a reality, and it wasn’t a very inspiring ideal! The medieval thinkers at least intended to make a just, ordered society, which cultivates men’s souls.
The Continental Reformers
Critical first to understanding the context within which the continental reformation happened is the economic revolution: the discovery of the Americas and growing international trade. The previous agrarian economic context began to give way to a commercial and productive environment. Medieval economics was static and opposed internal change, so at this time economic power was busting at its seams. Antwerp and the financiers of Germany are examples of this.
Two reformers focused on: Luther and Calvin. Neither of them radically differed from the social ethics of the medieval world.
In terms of social theory, Luther wanted to return to a (non-existent) medieval peasant ideal. Condemning usury regularly, yet in contrast retreating when it came to practical definitions or advice. Also diminishing support for ecclesiastical jurisprudence, instead claiming than it should be left to individuals to follow the teachings of the church.
Unlike Luther, Calvin came from the growing commercial class. Although giving some concession to interest, again the social theory remained generally unchanged. In Geneva the Church ruled in a dictatorial way, enacting harsh discipline to bring about the development of character.
The Church of England
Two important differences in the English reformation: 1) enclosure of the commons and 2) a growing individualism.
The enclosure of the commons was attractive to those who could manage it due to the corresponding increased productivity. The dissolution of the monasteries provided a background of major land redistribution which the landlords exploited. Nevertheless, the practice was still denounced by the church at this time.
People were more and more considered as individuals, rather than primarily parts of a whole. This was fertile soil for the later Puritan movement. A corresponding shift in the conception of (land) property also arose. Property used to be thought of as a privilege which came with corresponding responsibilities. Instead of coming with a duty to your fellows and the state, property began to be viewed as a right to do what you wish with what is yours. The church nevertheless opposed this conception.
Finally, the church began to lose administrative power with the growing nonconformists, so there was less fear of excommunication.
The Puritan Movement
Three key aspects: a) Godly Discipline vs. Religion of Trade, b) Triumph of the economic virtues, and c) a new medicine of poverty.
Firstly, the psychology of the Puritan was that of a lone pilgrim in a harsh world on their way to God. Think Pilgrims Progress. Because of this, a discipline was encouraged in Puritan life to create the character thought necessary to achieve God’s intention for the individual. Therefore, while not intending to, the Puritans created an environment where to succeed in business was to succeed as a Christian.
This led to a triumph of the economic virtues. Diligence, moderation, sobriety, and thrift became hallmarks of Puritan life. These naturally lend themselves to the success of the businessman.
Finally, to praise a virtue is to condemn the corresponding vice. Poverty was not viewed as personal misfortune, but instead as an individual moral failure. Vagrants and beggars were pressed into work, and the Elizabethan Poor Laws laid the foundation for the 19th century Poor Laws.
Conclusion
To summarise important factors: Rise of a commercial civilisation, and corresponding new classes to power. Reaction to the authoritarian social policy of the Tudors sought individual freedom. Growth of Puritanism amongst the middle classes developed economic virtues. Contraction of territory over which the writ of religion was conceived to run.
The Medieval Background
The medieval background can be summarised by three rulings concepts of social theory: a) religious thought embraces all areas of human life, b) the functional view of class organisation, and c) the doctrine of economic ethics.
a) There was no secular/sacred divide, instead all human actions and institutions were held to account at the standard of religious teaching. Economics was a part of ethics, and ethics a part of theology. Everything, including business and finance, was included in religious considerations.
b) Society was viewed not as a collection of individuals, each with their own ends, which by the ‘invisible hand’ manages to arrive at a harmonious balance. Instead, the model of society was that of a body – different body parts with different purposes corresponds to the different classes in society.
c) Economics was not considered a science following natural laws, the way humans can be thought of in classical economics and other schools of economics. Instead, economic teaching was much closer to Distributist thought, where economics was a humane science, and profit making subordinate to human needs.
Also important for this period was the widespread condemnation of usury, which in practice included any exploitative economic action (one where one party clearly benefits more than the other). This was largely due to the context within which borrowing would occur, typically being down to necessity. High finances amongst the powerful was generally accepted because of this.
Finally, it should not be counted against the people of the time that they failed in making their ideal a reality. The later economists managed to make their ideal a reality, and it wasn’t a very inspiring ideal! The medieval thinkers at least intended to make a just, ordered society, which cultivates men’s souls.
The Continental Reformers
Critical first to understanding the context within which the continental reformation happened is the economic revolution: the discovery of the Americas and growing international trade. The previous agrarian economic context began to give way to a commercial and productive environment. Medieval economics was static and opposed internal change, so at this time economic power was busting at its seams. Antwerp and the financiers of Germany are examples of this.
Two reformers focused on: Luther and Calvin. Neither of them radically differed from the social ethics of the medieval world.
In terms of social theory, Luther wanted to return to a (non-existent) medieval peasant ideal. Condemning usury regularly, yet in contrast retreating when it came to practical definitions or advice. Also diminishing support for ecclesiastical jurisprudence, instead claiming than it should be left to individuals to follow the teachings of the church.
Unlike Luther, Calvin came from the growing commercial class. Although giving some concession to interest, again the social theory remained generally unchanged. In Geneva the Church ruled in a dictatorial way, enacting harsh discipline to bring about the development of character.
The Church of England
Two important differences in the English reformation: 1) enclosure of the commons and 2) a growing individualism.
The enclosure of the commons was attractive to those who could manage it due to the corresponding increased productivity. The dissolution of the monasteries provided a background of major land redistribution which the landlords exploited. Nevertheless, the practice was still denounced by the church at this time.
People were more and more considered as individuals, rather than primarily parts of a whole. This was fertile soil for the later Puritan movement. A corresponding shift in the conception of (land) property also arose. Property used to be thought of as a privilege which came with corresponding responsibilities. Instead of coming with a duty to your fellows and the state, property began to be viewed as a right to do what you wish with what is yours. The church nevertheless opposed this conception.
Finally, the church began to lose administrative power with the growing nonconformists, so there was less fear of excommunication.
The Puritan Movement
Three key aspects: a) Godly Discipline vs. Religion of Trade, b) Triumph of the economic virtues, and c) a new medicine of poverty.
Firstly, the psychology of the Puritan was that of a lone pilgrim in a harsh world on their way to God. Think Pilgrims Progress. Because of this, a discipline was encouraged in Puritan life to create the character thought necessary to achieve God’s intention for the individual. Therefore, while not intending to, the Puritans created an environment where to succeed in business was to succeed as a Christian.
This led to a triumph of the economic virtues. Diligence, moderation, sobriety, and thrift became hallmarks of Puritan life. These naturally lend themselves to the success of the businessman.
Finally, to praise a virtue is to condemn the corresponding vice. Poverty was not viewed as personal misfortune, but instead as an individual moral failure. Vagrants and beggars were pressed into work, and the Elizabethan Poor Laws laid the foundation for the 19th century Poor Laws.
Conclusion
To summarise important factors: Rise of a commercial civilisation, and corresponding new classes to power. Reaction to the authoritarian social policy of the Tudors sought individual freedom. Growth of Puritanism amongst the middle classes developed economic virtues. Contraction of territory over which the writ of religion was conceived to run.
October 30, 2009
this is a very very very good book. covers much the same ground as weber's the protestant ethic. but the rise of cap. is more interested to show how capitalism/protestantism arose in sharp contrast to medieval ethics/economics. lots of cool references. goes way beyond like john locke & st. augstine.
December 4, 2014
A classic if now perhaps dated evaluation of man's economic drives. it was and still an influential explanation of motivation for the accumulation of wealth and the wish for prosperity; although nowadays simple naked greed seems more convincing with no veneer of any philosophy or religion to justify what drives the already unbelievably wealthy to steal more.
May 20, 2021
A truly fascinating read. The author surveys economic and societal theories from the High Middle Ages to the dawn of the 18th century. His focus is mostly on ethical thought surrounding usury, and his sources are principally English. However, he does every so often compare the English context with that of the Continent.
February 1, 2017
Fantastic overview starting in the Middle Ages. And so interesting to see how the Puritan movement has left its mark on the U.S. Well, not like it ever left...
September 11, 2022
Religion and the Rise of Capitalism is historian R.H. Tawney's 1922 masterwork on the rise of industrial capitalism and its relation to and precursors in the changing economic opinions of the 16th and 17th century, the same centuries in which ideas of Church and State and their religious and moral ideologies were undergoing a massive shift. What we find in large part is a system of religious and ethical belief struggling to keep up with the modes of economic production.
With the rise of empire in the 16th century, the Catholic Church in Europe did not know how to handle the new flow of money. Church authorities attempted to impose limits, especially on moneylending, which has been condemned since the time of Christ.
When Martin Luther came along and kicked off the Protestant Reformation in 1553, he also excoriated the rich and the practice of usury, but unlike the Catholic Church before him, when pressed with the question of how to prosecute before for crimes that preyed on the poor, he abdicated responsibility and said those were State matters and not issues for clergy.
Not so, said John Calvin (1509-1564), whose new theories of Church and State have had a wider influence on Protestant Christianity than any other theologian. Calvin created a theocracy in Geneva which punished moneylenders. At the same time, however, Calvin espoused a theory of salvation that would go on to create a contradiction that was just crying to be resolved by subsequent social-religious reformers. According to Calvin, God had predestined those who were worthy of salvation and those who weren't. There is nothing we can do to influence God's decision, Calvin said. But if God had already chosen, what difference do any of our actions make? the laity cried. Calvin's way out of the apparent contradiction was to say that our behavior in society would be evidence to ourselves and to others that we were worthy of the kingdom of Heaven. Those who acted responsibly were those who would get into Heaven.
Why does this not resolve the contradiction? Well, it does in a way, or it begins to. But there was still a sort of cognitive dissonance. By the 17th century, the great majority of people wondered how one could reconcile a form of social-economic life that prized the rich person who made it his trade to exploit the poor by charging high interests or exorbitant rents, say, and the upright Christian who was always supposed to do good.
Well, thank God for the Puritans, one branch of the lineal descendants of Calvinists. The Puritan doctrine had it that if you were doing well in society in general, you must be doing something right by God. Puritans fleshed out the doctrine by explaining the idea of a Calling. For God, there is a perfect coincidence between the spiritual and earthly Calling. By bettering society through industry, one was doing the Lord's work, said the ministers.
See? No need for cognitive dissonance. As Tawney put it, Puritans discovered that "you could work for one master while serving the other."
And that's where we've been ever since.
With the rise of empire in the 16th century, the Catholic Church in Europe did not know how to handle the new flow of money. Church authorities attempted to impose limits, especially on moneylending, which has been condemned since the time of Christ.
When Martin Luther came along and kicked off the Protestant Reformation in 1553, he also excoriated the rich and the practice of usury, but unlike the Catholic Church before him, when pressed with the question of how to prosecute before for crimes that preyed on the poor, he abdicated responsibility and said those were State matters and not issues for clergy.
Not so, said John Calvin (1509-1564), whose new theories of Church and State have had a wider influence on Protestant Christianity than any other theologian. Calvin created a theocracy in Geneva which punished moneylenders. At the same time, however, Calvin espoused a theory of salvation that would go on to create a contradiction that was just crying to be resolved by subsequent social-religious reformers. According to Calvin, God had predestined those who were worthy of salvation and those who weren't. There is nothing we can do to influence God's decision, Calvin said. But if God had already chosen, what difference do any of our actions make? the laity cried. Calvin's way out of the apparent contradiction was to say that our behavior in society would be evidence to ourselves and to others that we were worthy of the kingdom of Heaven. Those who acted responsibly were those who would get into Heaven.
Why does this not resolve the contradiction? Well, it does in a way, or it begins to. But there was still a sort of cognitive dissonance. By the 17th century, the great majority of people wondered how one could reconcile a form of social-economic life that prized the rich person who made it his trade to exploit the poor by charging high interests or exorbitant rents, say, and the upright Christian who was always supposed to do good.
Well, thank God for the Puritans, one branch of the lineal descendants of Calvinists. The Puritan doctrine had it that if you were doing well in society in general, you must be doing something right by God. Puritans fleshed out the doctrine by explaining the idea of a Calling. For God, there is a perfect coincidence between the spiritual and earthly Calling. By bettering society through industry, one was doing the Lord's work, said the ministers.
See? No need for cognitive dissonance. As Tawney put it, Puritans discovered that "you could work for one master while serving the other."
And that's where we've been ever since.
March 11, 2024
This book by a British economist is based on lectures delivered in 1922 and was published as a book in 1926. I read a paperback version that I picked up along the way which was printed in 1947.
This book was very difficult to read. It assumes a knowledge of English history (specifically, English history between about 1500 and 1700) far beyond what I possess. It uses terms like “enclosure” without reference to envelopes, and “depopulation” without reference to birth rates, sending me to Wikipedia several times in search of background information.
It seems to be a response to “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” a classic 1905 work by German sociologist Max Weber. (Full disclosure: I have not read Weber’s work.) Tawney seems to attribute to Weber what he considers a simplistic view, namely that the religious individualism of the Protestant Reformation led directly to the economic individualism of capitalism.
Tawney takes issue with this linear understanding of the history. He points out that some elements of what we know as “capitalism” were already developing in places like the Netherlands and part of Germany even before the Protestant Reformation. And he points out that the early Reformers, especially Martin Luther, did little to change existing social and economic values, even while challenging Catholic theology and church authority.
The most emblematic example of that medieval economic ethic was the ban on usury. This is generally understood as a prohibition on the charging of any interest on loans, although the word was also used more loosely for other things that were considered forms of exploitation. The book did help me to understand that in the Middle Ages, most people took out loans only in circumstances of dire need. This meant that loaning money was a form of charity, and demanding interest on loans was seen as a heartless exploitation of the needy. This is a far cry from our modern system, in which loans (and interest) are seen as essential lubricants of the economic system.
Luther continued to oppose all interest on loans as usury. Reformer John Calvin was considered radical for tolerating some, very limited, charging of interest. But the Christian society he created in Geneva, Switzerland was still very regimented—a far cry from what modern capitalists would call a “free market.”
Tawney, however, seems to come closer to Weber’s view in the end—not with respect to Protestantism per se and the early reformers of the 1500s, but with respect to the English Puritanism of the 1600s instead. The Puritans developed the idea of one’s earthly occupation as a “calling,” and thus certain economic virtues associated with capitalism—self-reliance, hard work, thrift—came to be seen as spiritual virtues as well.
One thing, perhaps, for Christians to take away from this book is to be careful about how easy it is to use religious arguments to rationalize support for the status quo in society. The medieval economic system actually did a good job of balancing the rights of the poor and the obligations of the rich—but it did so within the context of a highly stratified, class-based society which was seen as “natural,” and thus the will of God. The Puritan zeal for the importance of hard work brought a greater sense of freedom and upward mobility, but also came with a certain heartlessness toward the poor. In any age, Christians should be careful to go back to the teachings of Christ and of the Bible to seek God’s will for our economic life, as well as our spiritual one.
This book was very difficult to read. It assumes a knowledge of English history (specifically, English history between about 1500 and 1700) far beyond what I possess. It uses terms like “enclosure” without reference to envelopes, and “depopulation” without reference to birth rates, sending me to Wikipedia several times in search of background information.
It seems to be a response to “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” a classic 1905 work by German sociologist Max Weber. (Full disclosure: I have not read Weber’s work.) Tawney seems to attribute to Weber what he considers a simplistic view, namely that the religious individualism of the Protestant Reformation led directly to the economic individualism of capitalism.
Tawney takes issue with this linear understanding of the history. He points out that some elements of what we know as “capitalism” were already developing in places like the Netherlands and part of Germany even before the Protestant Reformation. And he points out that the early Reformers, especially Martin Luther, did little to change existing social and economic values, even while challenging Catholic theology and church authority.
The most emblematic example of that medieval economic ethic was the ban on usury. This is generally understood as a prohibition on the charging of any interest on loans, although the word was also used more loosely for other things that were considered forms of exploitation. The book did help me to understand that in the Middle Ages, most people took out loans only in circumstances of dire need. This meant that loaning money was a form of charity, and demanding interest on loans was seen as a heartless exploitation of the needy. This is a far cry from our modern system, in which loans (and interest) are seen as essential lubricants of the economic system.
Luther continued to oppose all interest on loans as usury. Reformer John Calvin was considered radical for tolerating some, very limited, charging of interest. But the Christian society he created in Geneva, Switzerland was still very regimented—a far cry from what modern capitalists would call a “free market.”
Tawney, however, seems to come closer to Weber’s view in the end—not with respect to Protestantism per se and the early reformers of the 1500s, but with respect to the English Puritanism of the 1600s instead. The Puritans developed the idea of one’s earthly occupation as a “calling,” and thus certain economic virtues associated with capitalism—self-reliance, hard work, thrift—came to be seen as spiritual virtues as well.
One thing, perhaps, for Christians to take away from this book is to be careful about how easy it is to use religious arguments to rationalize support for the status quo in society. The medieval economic system actually did a good job of balancing the rights of the poor and the obligations of the rich—but it did so within the context of a highly stratified, class-based society which was seen as “natural,” and thus the will of God. The Puritan zeal for the importance of hard work brought a greater sense of freedom and upward mobility, but also came with a certain heartlessness toward the poor. In any age, Christians should be careful to go back to the teachings of Christ and of the Bible to seek God’s will for our economic life, as well as our spiritual one.
Read
September 8, 2025Tawney tracks a major change that occurred in the Christian mind from the 15th to the 17th century. Towards the end of the Middle Ages and building up to the Reformation, economic appetites were considered with suspicion, greedy forces capable of hampering the stability of the social organism. One was to act according to their station in society, that station accorded to them by God. Class structures were therefore deeply entrenched and unchanging. However, merchant and landowner approached the craftsman and peasant with a duty of care. A charitable approach to the poor was an element of Christian custom, not just as kindly benevolence, but to ensure the society was nourished and maintained in its pre-ordained state. This was all possible in such personable economic circumstances, but all began to change as the blind forces of capitalism began to dissolve traditional social bonds.
It was just not the vast economic expansion that transformed Europe. Christianity's approach to economics was altered after the Reformation, and this was the focus of Tawney's study. While Luther was himself an economic conservative, he set in motion to process of individualising Christianity. Any public displays of religious ceremony were considered blasphemous and corrupting. Grace from God was to be sought privately. Luther led on to Calvin which ultimately led to the Puritan movement, which was most closely associated with the rise of economic individualism and strongly tied to ascendant bourgeois financier class. Influenced by the ideas of John Locke, the Puritans considered the pursuit of economic self- interest the new fundamental law of human nature. Usury was no longer a sin. Admonitions turned on idleness that were previously directed against the uncharitable and covetous. In many ways this shift in the approach to economics was a result of the failure of the more pious sections of the Church to institute the increasingly complex economic dynamics into a suitable code of social ethics. It kept falling back on its medieval ideas, while the Puritans saw how economic forces could transform society, most of the time for the better. But ultimately economics went from being something which could be used to serve society, to an end in itself. I don't think it would be wrong to say we've never really got over-- or progressed from-- this fetishisation of economic individualism.
It was just not the vast economic expansion that transformed Europe. Christianity's approach to economics was altered after the Reformation, and this was the focus of Tawney's study. While Luther was himself an economic conservative, he set in motion to process of individualising Christianity. Any public displays of religious ceremony were considered blasphemous and corrupting. Grace from God was to be sought privately. Luther led on to Calvin which ultimately led to the Puritan movement, which was most closely associated with the rise of economic individualism and strongly tied to ascendant bourgeois financier class. Influenced by the ideas of John Locke, the Puritans considered the pursuit of economic self- interest the new fundamental law of human nature. Usury was no longer a sin. Admonitions turned on idleness that were previously directed against the uncharitable and covetous. In many ways this shift in the approach to economics was a result of the failure of the more pious sections of the Church to institute the increasingly complex economic dynamics into a suitable code of social ethics. It kept falling back on its medieval ideas, while the Puritans saw how economic forces could transform society, most of the time for the better. But ultimately economics went from being something which could be used to serve society, to an end in itself. I don't think it would be wrong to say we've never really got over-- or progressed from-- this fetishisation of economic individualism.
October 15, 2017
While I cannot find anything particularly wrong with the author's arguments and do not imply that I am an expert or have any great knowledge of what he talked about I did find his writing very opaque and his sentences and paragraphs poorly formed for understanding. I've read a great many books from this era of the 1920's and before so I can't blame it on the style of the time. When you have to read and reread something to get any understanding out of it something is wrong with the writing. I also think that, like many authors, he confuses capitalism and over-generalizes what the term means. I also don't see how blaming Protestant Christianity for selfishness and that sense of the entitlement of the individual and the sense of greed that comes with capitalism is correct. I am probably being too critical of the author's thesis because his writing style is so overbearing and lacking clarity. I can't honestly recommend this book to any student of economic or religious history.
August 9, 2025
Rambling history of capitalistic instruments like usury, property rights, and wages and how they're viewed by predominant religious sects. Written in the 1930s by a British academic so difficult to understand the way of writing. From what I could gather, Tawney honed in on and reiterated only a few key points (e.g. some people hate usury, some people love usury, some people hate property rights, etc.) for most of the book. He did have a few interesting points such as how Puritanism gave capitalists a supernatural belief and system of ethics that encouraged/allowed them to gain material wealth without paying much attention to the societal consequences. I thought this was interesting as it seems that while Puritanism has been out of style as a formally practiced religion, capitalism has not (perhaps with thanks to Puritanism).
March 18, 2025
“Economic efficiency is a necessary element in the life of any sane and vigorous society, and only the incorrigible sentimentalist will depreciate its significance. But to convert efficiency from an instrument into a primary object is to destroy efficiency itself. For the condition of effective action in a complex civilization is cooperation. And the condition of cooperation is agreement, both as to ends to which effort should be applied, and the criteria by which its success is to be judged.”
DOGE much? A difficult read but worth the slog, as I try to puzzle out how the separation of church and state should be intellectually defended, but the separation of economics and ethics cannot be justified.
DOGE much? A difficult read but worth the slog, as I try to puzzle out how the separation of church and state should be intellectually defended, but the separation of economics and ethics cannot be justified.
April 11, 2019
A deserved classic. Covers the relationship between religion and capitalism in more historical sense than what I was familiar with from Max Weber who belonged to the same generation of scholars but wrote more from a sociologist's viewpoint. This makes Tawney far more readable than anything I've read from Weber. In fact, I've often come across writers referring readers to Tawny's book since he had already covered the subject so well. True!
All told, he has a very balanced view of capitalist development--neither denying its excesses nor underestimating its benefits.
All told, he has a very balanced view of capitalist development--neither denying its excesses nor underestimating its benefits.
January 17, 2021
This book ties the European Reformation with the emergence and normalization of economic theory of ‘efficiency and wealth collection. Not an easy read but an Illuminating one, about the origins of capitalism as we know it today and how they intertwine with protestantism. The book merits 5 full stars for its clarity of thought, communicated in an engaging understated, yet dramatic 20th century writing style.
March 3, 2024
This book by now is as much interesting for its literary value as it is interesting as a look at historical dialogue on how capitalism interacts with Christianity (or how Christianity interacts with capitalism).
Figuring out how to rate this was hard. I learned a lot, but there were spots that dragged on some so...
It is not without flaws, but it is an interesting read.
Figuring out how to rate this was hard. I learned a lot, but there were spots that dragged on some so...
It is not without flaws, but it is an interesting read.
July 21, 2022
A must-read for those who live in Capitalist societies, Tawney’s book surpasses any other work I’ve read on the topic and should be considered more essential than Weber’s Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
February 27, 2024
Well all i can say is the book was definitely over my brain cell capability. I really couldn't tell you what I read. I think i picked up bits and pieces but overall really don't know where the "Rise of Capitalism" happened in the book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews