Max Weber on "lifestyle"

8/12/2019 Max Weber on "lifestyle"

1/7

Lifestyle or Lebensfhrung? Critical Remarks on the Mistranslation of Weber's "Class, Status,Party"Author(s): Thomas Abel and William C. CockerhamSource: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), pp. 551-556Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121112Accessed: 09/12/2008 14:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Midwest Sociological SocietyandBlackwell Publishingare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to The Sociological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121112?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4121112?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/7

LIFESTYLER LEBENSFiHRUNG?CriticalRemarkson the Mistranslationof Weber'sClass, Status, Party

Thomas AbelUniversityof Marburg Germany)William C. Cockerham

Universityof Alabamaat BirminghamMaxWeber'soncept fLebensfiihrungas nappropriatelyranslateds lifestyle nthe two majorEnglish-languageranslationsf his work.Theresult s thatWeber'sdistinctly ifferenterms Lebensfiihrunglife conduct) nd Lebensstil lifestyles)have the imprecise ndsingularmeaning lifestyle n Anglo-Americaniterature.Translatediterally,Lebensfiihrungeans ife conduct ndrefers o choiceandself-directionn a person'sbehavior, ot lifestyles.Consequently,ebensfiihrungs theelementof choicewithinWeber's verallconcept f Lebensstillifestyles) nd oinswithLebenschancenlifechances) soneof Lebensstil'swobasiccomponents.ouseLebensfiihrungo meansimply ifestylesoverlooks hedepthof Weber'shinkingnthesubject.

In researchingWeber's 1972/1922) work on lifestyles in theoriginalGerman,we foundthat the Englishlanguagetranslationsof his famouschapter, The Distributionof PowerWithin the Political Community:Class, Status, Party, n Economy and Society lackaccuracy.In the process, an importantdistinctionhas been obscured. The mistranslationlies in the synonymoususe of Weber'soriginalterms Lebensfiihrung life conduct)andLebensstil lifestyle) as lifestyle in English. This use appeared or the first time in1944 in the translationof Class, Status, Party by Hans Gerth and C. WrightMills,published nitiallyin Dwight Macdonald'sPolitics (Weber 1946, p. vii), and includedbyGerthand Mills (Weber 1946) in their own better-knownedition of From Max Weber:Essays in Sociology. Subsequentreprintsof this majorwork carried he translation rrorforward n time.The result of this mistranslationand others, such as Roth and Wittich's translationofWeber's Economy and Society (1978), is that Weber's distinctly different termsLebensfiihrung nd Lebensstil ypically have the singularmeaningof lifestyle inAnglo-American iterature.Consequently,Weber'sconcept of Lebensfiihrung,which is

*Directall correspondence o: Dr. WilliamC. Cockerham,Department f Sociology, Universityof Alabama at Birmingham,UAB Station, Birmingham,AL 35294.The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 34, Number 3, pages 551-556.Copyright 0 1993 by JAI Press, Inc.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.ISSN: 0038-0253.


3/7

552 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol.34/No. 3/1993

critical in his theory of social stratification,does not have a distinctive meaning forEnglish-speakingsociologists. In German,however,Lebensfiihrungmeans life conductor managingone's life; appliedto the individual, it refers to the self-directionof one'sbehavior,not lifestyle. Before discussing this further,we will brieflyreview the originsand outcome of the mistranslation.

ORIGINS AND OUTCOMEOF THEMISTRANSLATIONIn the English-language iterature,Weber's Class, Status, Party s perhapsthe singlemost cited classical workon stratificationheory.However,the vast majorityof publica-tions in English appearto be based on only two originaltranslations, hat of Gerth andMills (Weber 1946) and Roth and Wittich (Weber 1978). We found that the most fre-quentlycited translation s thatof Gerth andMills. As Roth (1977) observed, Gerth andMills' translationplayeda centralrole in thereceptionof Weber n the UnitedStatesin theperiodafter WorldWarII. YetGerth and Mills (Weber 1946, p. vi), themselves, pointedoutthattheytook some liberties n translatingheoriginalGerman n order o conform othe English conventions. It may have been easier for them to make sense of Weber'swritingby translatingboth life conduct and lifestyle as simply lifestyle since thereis some affinitybetween the two terms.The secondmostfrequentlycited version of Weber's Class, Status,Party, we foundinourreview,is Class,Status,andPower n BendixandLipset(1966), butthis work, likemanyotherpublications,essentiallyreproduces he earlierGerthand Mills translation ndis not an independent ranslation rom German.The next most cited work in English isthatof GuentherRoth andClausWittich,which is anoriginaltranslationrom GermanofWeber'sEconomyand Society. It was firstpublished by BedministerPress (1968) andlater by the University of California Press (1978). Although differences can be foundbetween the Gerthand Mills and Roth and Wittich translations Parkin1982), they bothprovide identical translationsof the sections that deal with Lebensfiihrungand statusgroups.In bothtranslationswe still find thatLebensfiihrung nd Lebensstilare treatedasthe same term.

Translationsof any work present the translatorwith decisions about meaning andstructure.Poststructuralheorists like Barthes and Derridaoffer us insight into the me-chanics of this process and help us understand he potentialfor mistranslation.Barthes(1977) explainsthat the structural nalysisof any text is not intended o provideexplana-tionsor new discoveries of meaning;essentially,it reproduceswhat went on before. Thisapproach auses the text to unwind,says Barthes,like a run n a stocking,but does notleadto reinterpretation. hus, meaningis disentangled,notdeciphered;writingis rangedover,notpierced(Barthes1977, p. 147).This wouldsuggestthatonceLebensfiihrungwastranslatedone way by Gerth and Mills in a definitive work, its general meaning forsubsequentAnglo-Americantranslationswas more or less fixed. This appearsto havehappenedeven though, as Derrida(1981) points out, we have neverhad, and probablyneverwill have, a pure transport f meaningfromone languageto another hat leavesthe originaluntouched.Translations an easily be transformations f meaning.Consequently,neitherof the two most influential ranslations romGermancontain anadequatetranslationof Lebensfiihrung. Kalberg(1980) finds similar shortcomings ntranslations f Weber'sanalysisof rationalization,aultingWeberhimselfforcontributingto this situationwith a lack of clarity and contortedwriting style in German.Kalberg


4/7

Lifestyle r Lebensfihrung? 553

observes how Rationalismus, Rationalitdt, nd Rationalisierung, s well as relatedkey terms, have generallybeen translatedas just rationality. Kalberg(1980, p. 1149)also notes that it is impossibleto traceWeber'suse of Lebensfiihrungn the translations,finding t sometimesappearing correctly)as conduct particularlyn Parsons' ranslationof the ProtestantEthic and TheSpiritof Capitalism Weber 1958)and elsewhereas styleof life, typeof attitude, or life. The readerwho does not have access to Germantexts, in Kalberg's(1980, p. 1147) view, confrontsa hopeless situation.Scaff (1989) likewise findsthe condition of Weber'swritings,especially in translation,to be deplorable.Scaff (1989, p. 10)concludesthat,in English,Weber'smost famous andimportantwork suffers from inaccurateand misleadingtranslationsand even the bestEnglishversions often prove insufficientlyprecise. This situationpresentsan importantproblemfor English-speakingsociologists who do not readGermanand have access toWeber'soriginalwork. In orderthatEnglish-language nterpretationsf Weber's houghtreflect his reasoningas accuratelyas possible, it is criticalthat mistranslations f termslike Lebensfiihrung e clarifiedfor American and otherEnglish-speaking cholars.

WEBER'SMEANING OF LEBENSFUHRUNGWeber used three distinct terms to express his concept of lifestyles. These terms areLebensstil or Stilisierungdes Lebens which mean lifestyles, and Lebensfiihrung(life conduct)and Lebenschancen life chances),whichcomprisethe two basic compo-nents of lifestyles. Lebensfiihrung efers to the choices people have in theirselection oflifestyles and Lebenschancen is the probabilityof realizing these choices. In Anglo-Americansociology, the link between choice and lifestyles appearsto have been over-emphasized,while the connectionbetween lifestyles and life chances has received littleattention.

However, it is clear thatWeberdid not regard ifestyles simply as a matterof choice,norignorethe conditionsnecessaryto supporta particularifestyle. Weber 1972, p. 537)states, forexample, that thepossibilityof status-specific ife conductis of coursein parteconomically conditioned ( Denn die Moglichkeit, standischerLebensfiihrungpflegtnaturgemass6konomischmitbedingt usein ).Consequently,hereappears o be interplaywithinWeber'sgeneralconceptof lifestyles betweenlife choices and chances. Weberwasvagueaboutwhat he meantby life chances, but Dahrendorf1979) explained t best whenhe determinedthat, for Weber, life chances are the probabilitiesof the occurrenceofcertainevents (namely,satisfyingone's interests)which areanchored n structural ondi-tions (i.e., income, property,opportunity,norms, rights, the probability hatotherswillrespondin a certainway). Of course, probabilities n the Weberian ense should not beconfusedwith statisticalprobabilities.Probability or Weberwas a logical, not a frequen-cy, matter.Perhaps he term likelihood, rather hanprobability,wouldbe closer to hisintention.Nevertheless, as Dahrendorf 1979, p. 29) puts it, Life chances are not theattributes f individuals. Rather, ndividualshave life chances in society andtheirlivesareresponsesto these chances.Therefore, to use the term Lebensfiihrung o mean simply lifestyles, overlooks thedepthof Weber'sthinkingon the subject. Translatediterally,Lebensfiihrungmeans lifeconduct, which refers to self-direction and choice in behavior.Used in connection withlifestyles, Lebensfiihrungmeanslifestyle choices. Giddens(1991) suggeststhat in condi-tions of high modernity,people areforced to negotiate ifestyle choices amonga diversity


5/7

554 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 34/No. 3/1993of options. He argues, for instance, that even the circumstancesof severe materialcon-straint do not preclude lower-class individuals from makingchoices. Lower-class lifeinvolves distinctculturalstyles and modes of activity that requirechoice, althoughtherangeof optionsis quite limited in comparison o more affluent ndividuals. All lifestylechoices includedeliberaterejectionas well as adoptionormodificationof variousformsofbehaviorand consumption.In sum, lifestyles are based on choices (Lebensfiihrung), ut these choices aredepen-dentuponthe individual'spotential Lebenschancen)orrealizing hem.Lebensfiihrungsnot a lifestyle; rather, t is the element of choice in Weber'sconcept of lifestyles.Itshouldalso be noted, however,thatinterpretationsf Weber'sworktodayare affectedby historicity.Thus, it could be arguedthattoday's conceptof lifestyles is a morerecentand, especially,Americannotionwhose meaningmightdiffer in the 1990s from Weber'suse of it in the early 1900s. Ourunderstanding f this situation s made moredifficultbyWeberhimself, who changedhis use of several terms over the life course of his work.Some might therefore argue, that from an historicalperspective, Weber'sconcept ofLebensfiihrungs principallya moralmatter,notjust a means-endschoice for realizationof a goal. Yet, while it is clear that WeberassociatesLebensfiihrungwith an ethics ofresponsibility,these ethics still involve the individualconsideringthe possible conse-quencesof his orheractionwitha view towardoptimalpossiblerealizationof ideal values(Mommsen 1989). Thus, a means-endnotion of Lebensflihrung s a generalexercise ofchoice is not invalid.While lifestyle is a concept thathas particular elevancetoday and whose use may bemore secular than Weberintended, we can still apply it in at least two fundamentallyimportantways to postmodern ife. First, lifestyle is a collective phenomenonthat notonly appliedto variousreligiousandstatusgroups n Weber'sown timebut also appliestovarioussocial entities today. Second, contemporary ifestyles still have two constituentdimensions: ife conduct and life chances. So, while Weber's ifestyle conceptmaynot beperfectas a vehicle for analyzingpostmodern ifestyles, his basic ideasstill represent hebest thinkingon the subject.

CONCLUSIONWe would, therefore, argue that a more differentiatinguse of both life conduct andlifestyle enhances an understanding f Weberianhought.Wehave indicated he potentialof a moredistinctive use of both terms for measuring ifestyles elsewhere (Abel 1991).Weberemphasizedlifestyle as a means to social differentiationwhich could actively beused to acquireor maintaina particularocial status.Yet, he did not ignoretheconditionsnecessary to realize a certain status or lifestyle. In fact, Weber'sconcept of lifestylesdrawstogetherstructural onditions(life chances) andpersonalchoices (life conduct)asits basic determinants.Lebensfiihrungand Lebenschancen are the two componentsof Lebensstil.Lebensfiihrung efers to the choices thatpeople have in the lifestyles theywish to adopt, but the potential for realizing these choices are influenced by theirLebenschancen.

As for the mistranslation,a generalcritical discussion has not takenplace to date ineither the Anglo-American or German literature. German retranslationsof Anglo-American sources have repeated the error (Bottomore 1976; Tumin 1968) and likelyconfused the situation. Some researchers have contended that Weber himself used


6/7

Lifestyleor LebensfOhrung? 555

Lebensfiihrung ndLebensstilsynonymously(Lidtke 1989), butthis does not seem to bethe case in the originalwork. Even thoughthe peculiaritiesof the translationand back-translationof life conduct and lifestyle in Weber'schapterhave been recognizedprevi-ously in Germany(Miiller 1989), the mistranslationproblemhas not been addressedtodate in any significantmanner n the Germansociological discourseon lifestyles.The reason for this is explainedby Sobel (1981) who arguesthat lifestyle has so farbeen almost exclusively used as a secondaryconcept within the debate on class versusstatus and has not attractedwidespreadattention in its own right. Furthermore, heapplicationof therole of lifestyles hasalwaysbeenclosely linkedto Weber's tatustheoryandthis aspectof his workhas not been critiqued n detailfor some time (Kreckel1982).This helps us to understandwhy a critical discussion in Germany concerningWeber'soriginal terms of Lebensfiihrung and Lebensstil has not taken place.Nevertheless, the informationprovided here on the translationhistory of the termlifestyle raisesserious doubtsabouttoday'susualsynonymoususe of Lebensfiihrungand Lebensstil n English. A differentiateduse of both terms in the English wouldprovidemore accurateunderstanding f Weber'swork and contribute o theoreticalandmethodologicaladvances in lifestyle research. This is importantbecause of the reap-pearance n sociology of interest n thequestionof modernityandpostmodernityGiddens1991). The concept of lifestyles occupies a centralrole in this discussion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe authors wish to acknowledgethe helpful comments of NormanDenzin and GiselaHinkleon an earlier draft.

REFERENCESAbel,Thomas.1991. MeasuringealthLifestylesn a Comparativenalysis:Theoreticalssuesand EmpiricalFindings. Social Science and Medicine 32: 899-908.Barthes,Roland.1977.Image,Music,Texts, ranslatedy StephenHealth,NewYork:HillandWang.Bendix,ReinhardndSeymourM. Lipset, eds.). 1966. ClassStatus,andPower,2nded. NewYork:FreePress.Bottomore, homasB. 1976. Soziale chichtungSocialClass). Pp.1-39 inSozialeSchichtungund Mobilitait (Social Class and Mobility). Vol. 5, Handbuch der empirischenSozialforschung(Handbookof EmpiricalSocial Research),edited by R. K6nig. Stuttgart:Enke.Dahrendorf,alf. 1979.LifeChances.Chicago:Universityf ChicagoPress.Derrida,acques. 981.Positions,ranslatedyAlanBass.Chicago:Universityf ChicagoPress.Giddens,Anthony.1991.ModernityndSelf-Identity.tanford,CA: StanfordUniversity ress.Kalberg,Stephen.1980. MaxWeber'sTypesof Rationality: ornerstonesor the AnalysisofRationalizationProcesses in History. AmericanJournalof Sociology 85: 1145-1179.Kreckel,Reinhard. 982. Class,Statusand Power?Begriffliche rundlageniireine politischeSoziologiedersozialenUngleichheitConceptualoundationora PoliticalSociologyof

Social Inequality). KoilnerZeitschrift iir Soziologie undSozialpsychologie34: 617-648.Lidtke, Hartmut.1989. Expressive Ungleichheit. Zur Soziologie der Lebensstile(ExpressiveIn-equality.Towarda Sociology of Lifestyles).Opladen:Leske & Budrich.Mommsen, Wolfgang. 1989. The Political and Social Theoryof Max Weber.Cambridge:PolityPress.


7/7

556 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYol. 34/No. 3/1993

Miiller, Hans-Peter. 1989. Lebensstile. Ein neues Paradigmader Differenzierungs-und Un-gleichheitsforschung Lifestyles. A New Paradigmfor ResearchingDiscriminationandInequality? )? Kilner Zeitschrift iir Soziologie undSozialpsychologie41: 33-52.Parkin,Frank. 1982. Max Weber.Chichester,UK: Horwood/Tavistock.Roth,Guenther.1977. Max Weber:A BibliographicalEssay. Zeitschriftir Soziologie6: 91-118.Scaff, LawrenceA. 1989. Fleeing the IronCage: Culture,Politics, andModernityn theThoughtofMax Weber.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.Sobel, Michael E. 1981.Lifestyleand Social Structure:Concepts,Definitions,Analyses.New York:Academic Press.

Tumin,Melvin M. 1968. SchichtungundMobilitdt(Class and Mobility).Munich: Juventa.Weber,Max. 1972/1922. Wirtschaftund Gesellschaft (Economyand Society). Tuibingen:Mohr.- . 1946. From Max Weber:Essays in Sociology, translatedby H.H. Gerthand C. WrightMills. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.

.. 1958. The ProtestantEthic and The Spirit of Capitalism, translatedby TalcottParsons.New York:Scribner's.- . 1978. Economyand Society, translatedby GuentherRoth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.

Documents

Max Weber on "lifestyle"