Unravelling the influence of Weber's sociology on Theravada studies since.pdf

CONSTRICTIVE CONSTRUCTS:

UNRAVELLING THE INFLUENCE

OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY

ON THERAVADA STUDIES SINCE

THE 1960S

Phibul Choompolpaisal

The present article assesses the substantial impact of Weber’s sociology upon studies

of Theravada Buddhism. In doing so, it reviews several important works on

Theravada Buddhism with a view to analysing the use, inﬂuence and implications of

Weber’s sociology in Buddhist studies. After providing a broad overview of this

inﬂuence in Theravada studies the discussion culminates with a more detailed

discussion of the impact of Weber’s sociology on the study and representation of Thai

Buddhism.

Introduction

On a global scale, as a reﬂection of the increasing popularity of sociology, 1

many academics in the 1950s sought to study ‘Oriental societies’ 2 through

Weber’s sociological views as portrayed in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism (1904 – 05, translation 1930; henceforth 1930). As Bellah’s (1963) paper

‘Reﬂections on the Protestant Ethic Analogy in Asia’ reﬂects, many academics from

1949 to 1962 used Weber’s hypothesis 3 to help explain the process of socio-

economic change in Asian countries as well as the growing importance of

entrepreneurship in Asian societies (Bellah, 1963, 52). Following this sociological

trend, academics in the ﬁeld of Indian studies (including Singer, 4 Elder, 5

McClelland 6 and Ames 7 ) in the 1950s and the 1960s also attempted to employ

Weber’s (1930) ideas in their studies.

In the study of Theravada Buddhism, many writings in the 1950s and the

1960s by Leach, 8 Bechert, Evers, Obeyesekere, 9 Tambiah 10 and others 11 also

showed a new tendency to employ sociological theories including those of

Contemporary Buddhism, Vol. 9, No. 1, May 2008

ISSN 1463-9947 print/1476-7953 online/08/010007-51

q 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14639940802312600

8 PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

Weber’s. In turn, I contend that, through a transfer of information and ideas, most

contemporary writers on Buddhist studies on both South Asia and Southeast Asia

have been either directly or indirectly inﬂuenced by Weber’s sociology, whether

the reception of such inﬂuence on the part of these scholars is conscious or not.

Despite more than four decades of such inﬂuence, no attempt has been made to

explore how and why Weber’s sociology has become so inﬂuential to the entire

ﬁeld of Buddhist studies. Nor have academics critically assessed the use of Weber’s

sociology in this ﬁeld. 12

While the writing process of major works on Buddhist society can be

regarded as a process of construction or synthesis (the fusing together of

information gathered and ideas imposed behind the framing of works), this paper

may be regarded as the de-construction (or an analysis) of major works in the ﬁeld.

The aim, then, of the present paper is to unravel pieces of information and

elements of ideas that underlie the construction of each work using a

hermeneutical approach. 13 In other words, I am seeking to ﬁnd out or interpret

the factors, especially the conceptual frameworks, behind the construction of

each work, in order to explain how this leads the authors to construct their

representation of Theravada in particular ways. These factors (as will be illustrated

hereafter) are a combination of: (1) speciﬁc conceptual frameworks (western

sociologically theoretical worldviews, western perceptions of things, speciﬁc ﬁxed

academic views inﬂuencing the way the research was conducted, etc.); and

(2) speciﬁc academic ways of using and representing such information. My aim is

then to deconstruct accounts of Buddhist societies and explore how each

interpretation comes about because of the fusing together of information, ideas

and methodology, whether this academic process of producing works on the part

of scholars be conscious or not. This paper then represents the ﬁrst attempt to

review and critically analyse the ways in which Weber’s sociology has inﬂuenced

the construction of knowledge in Theravada Buddhist studies since the 1960s. This

paper will review several of the most inﬂuential works on Buddhist studies in both

Sri Lanka and Thailand. It will focus on how each author’s ideas, arguments,

underlying methodology, explanations and conclusion are shaped or inﬂuenced

by Weber’s sociology. In this way, the present paper will help to broaden our

understanding of academic interpretations of Theravada Buddhism by

transcending what each author says to give an analysis of how and why he/she

says this.

As already indicated, methodologically speaking, the paper will review and

analyse the creation of each academic work from a hermeneutical perspective.

From a hermeneutical view, each work, its arguments and conclusion come about

due to the fusing together of: an interpreter’s pre-understanding; information and

ideas provided by previous authors; and the interpreted’ (or the subject that an

academic is attempting to study), which in a discussion of this paper is ‘the

Buddhist societies and the lives of the native Buddhists’. Within these categories,

an interpreter’s position is determined by his/her personal ideas, interests,

academic background, expertise, theoretical considerations and preferred

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES 9

methodology—the combination of these factors leads to an interpreter’s

pre-understanding. In undertaking research, each author also either obtains or is

partly inﬂuenced by further ideas and information as provided by other authors’

works. ‘Pre-understanding’ and the adoption of other authors’ ideas and

information, in turn, create an academic interpretation of ‘the interpreted’ as

reﬂected by an interpreter. Since ‘the meaning of the interpreted’ is deﬁned by an

interpreter, it becomes a reﬂection of how an interpreter perceives ‘the

interpreted’. The meaning of the ‘interpreted’ is thus the product of both

interpreter and interpreted, and not necessarily the same as the interpreted itself.

In reﬂecting on academic works, I assume in this paper that neither

academic knowledge as constructed in the ﬁeld of Buddhist studies nor insiders’

explanations necessarily portray a single reality of Buddhist societies. I agree with

Gombrich that what ‘insiders’ (or theologians) consciously explain they believe

and practise may or may not be the same as what they are unconsciously doing

(see Gombrich, 1971). However, since academics’ works are often inﬂuenced

by their own ‘pre-understanding’, sociological ideas and a transfer of ideas and

information, their resulting interpretation may not be acceptable to or even

recognisable by ‘insiders’. That is why insiders’ interpretations of Buddhist

societies are not necessarily the same as those of academic outsiders.

In this paper, an understanding of Weber’s inﬂuence and how each work is

constructed will help us to see how it can be problematic merely to take

information and ideas from other academics. This is because each interpretation of

a Buddhist society is often the by-product of some ‘pre-constructed’ sociological

ideas, and thereby has limitations due to its own ‘pre-understanding’,

methodology and theoretical underpinnings. Information and sociological ideas

as derived through an academic process can then become too speciﬁc, limited and

sometimes unrealistic to insiders, and as such may misrepresent the interpreted in

ways of which the new interpreter and his/her audience are unaware. In my view, it

is high time that we become more aware of three types of information and ideas:

(1) information and ideas as obtained and perceived through some speciﬁc

academic theoretical and methodological approach; (2) beliefs and practices as

consciously perceived by ‘insiders’; and (3) the real context of the society. This will

help us better understand: each author’s and insiders’ position; how each author

seeks to interpret the ‘sign’ (each local Buddhist community) and which approach

he/she takes to study it; how ‘the signiﬁed’ (or each interpretation of the sign)

comes about; and a contrasting picture between the ‘sign’ (each local Buddhist

community that an author studies) and ‘the signiﬁed’ (an author’s representation

of that local Buddhist community), or between ‘reality’ and ‘academic

representation’. This will, it is hoped, help raise an academic awareness about a

void within the insider – outsider dialogue (or the theologian – sociologist dialogue)

that has emerged over decades in Buddhist studies.

In spite of an effort being made to deal with as many works as possible in

the ﬁeld of Buddhist studies in Sri Lanka and Thailand, this paper can only explore

a selection of the more important works. Many more academic ‘voices’ could have

10 PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

been included had I had more space. I must also emphasise at the outset that

although this paper offers criticism and challenges many works, I nevertheless

appreciate the valuable contributions that such works have made. Indeed, it is my

very appreciation of these works that has led me to read such studies extensively

and thence to trace the genre back as far as possible to the beginnings of what

might be called ‘the Weberian sociological study of Theravada Buddhism’. Finally,

although this paper argues that academic interpretations are not always

acceptable to ‘insiders’, it does not intend to suggest that such work should be

rejected. Rather, it simply attempts to point out a void within insider – outsider

dialogue in Buddhist studies. This is because insiders and outsiders have different

worldviews and methodologies for the study of Buddhism. So academic

interpretations are valid, but only within western academic worldviews and not for

insiders inhabiting traditional Buddhist worldviews.

In organising this paper, I shall start by discussing some of Weber’s main

sociological ideas. After that, I shall look at academic works on Theravada Buddhism

in the 1960s, focusing on the important works of Bechert, Evers and Obeyesekere.

I shall then move on to explore the inﬂuence of Weber’s sociology on Buddhist

studies in Sri Lanka through an analysis of the major works of Gombrich,

Obeyesekere and Bond during the 1970s and 1980s. Finally, I will look at Weber’s

inﬂuence on even very recent Buddhist studies in Thailand, focusing on works of

Keyes, Tambiah, Suksamran, Jackson and Swearer during the 1970s and 1990s.

Weber’s sociology

I will now brieﬂy explore Weber’s ideas as expressed in Economy and Society

(1968) 14 and The Methodology of Social Sciences (1949), as it will subsequently help

understand how Weber’s ideas have inﬂuenced Buddhist studies. Combining both

subjective and objective modes of interpretation, Weber believes it is important to

understand subjectively social behaviour/action (which is guided by the intention

to achieve a particular goal) in order to be able to objectively reconstruct the

meanings of social action. Therefore, Weber proclaims that social behaviour can

only be fundamentally understood through a subjectively empathetic investi-

gation of the individual action rather than an objective enquiry into the

collectives. 15 Weber hypothesises that an interpreter, possessing imaginatively

empathetic skills, can perfectly understand the action of the interpreted as if (s)he

himself/herself were the interpreted.

However, because of the complexities of the social world, Weber believes it

is not possible to grasp the totality of social phenomena. He therefore only seeks

to approximate social reality and explain it causally. To this end, Weber can be

seen by theorists as proposing an academic technique that became useful for

academics who seek to study (religious) societies or any social phenomenon. By

coining the phrase, ‘ideal-type’, Weber can be seen as proposing that one way to

study any speciﬁc society (Society A) was by ‘comparing and contrasting’ this

society that we wished to study (Society A) with the theoretical model society (the

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES 11

‘ideal-type’ Society B), which we already knew about. 16 For Weber, through a

‘comparative’ method, an ‘ideal-type’ society (or an ‘ideal-type’ pattern of

behaviours of people in the model Society B) became the conceptual framework

of reference, or a yardstick. By comparing the society that we were studying

(Society A) with the ‘ideal-type’ Society B, we can then evaluate and understand

the society we are studying, or ‘the actual actions of the interpreted’ (the observed

pattern of behaviours of people in society we are studying). By this comparative

method, Weber was seen by theorists as proposing at least two kinds of ‘ideal-

type’ society: the ‘rational’ and the ‘irrational’. While the former, based on ‘rational

actions’ of people, operates a logical mode of thinking and/or in a more

modernised way, the latter—which has traditional and more archaic features—

operates on an illogical basis, driven by emotional and other human distortions.

These two modes (rational and irrational) became ‘ideal-types’, a model

conceptual framework of reference that academics could use to compare and

contrast with the actual society they were studying in order to understand and

represent it (as well as the actual actions of people in that society).

Therefore, apparent beneﬁts that academics could take from Weber’s ideas

included the possibility of explaining a (religious) society, either by ‘comparing

and contrasting’ it with Weber’s case studies (Weber’s Society A, Calvinism, etc.), or

by using the model conceptual framework, ‘ideal-type’ Society B, as developed by

Weber from those case studies. The latter requires one to assume that there was

no major difference between Weber’s model society of Calvinism and the

particular society (any new society A) that an academic is trying to interpret

(Parkin, 1982, 30 – 31).

By this means, Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1930)

proposes that through the westernisation and modernisation process, Calvinist

society has been transformed from being ‘irrational/traditional’ into ‘rational

capitalism’. Unlike ‘traditional’ Calvinism as an ‘ideal-type’ religion in the

traditional period, reform Calvinism as an ‘ideal-type’ religion in the modern

period becomes ‘rational capitalistic’ religion. For Weber, the ‘rational capitalistic’

reform Calvinism consists of both ‘the rational spirit of capitalism’ (or ‘the

normative’) and ‘the accumulation/wealth of materials’ (or ‘the institution’), and

therefore it ‘causally’ generates and promotes capitalist economic activity. When

the followers of Calvinist religion are inspired by the Calvinist teachings,

particularly the doctrine of ‘duty’, the religious path of ‘salvation’ and the values of

inner-worldly asceticism, ‘the rational spirit of capitalism’ functions to generate

and accelerate the surplus capital by:

(1) encouraging the labourers to perform their good duty by working hard for their

(religious) community in response to their ‘salvation anxiety’,

(2) encouraging the capitalists to invest the capital in order to increase productivity,

and

(3) limiting consumption through encouraging an ascetic compulsion to save.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: