Weber's views on Jainism, Marwaris and entrepreneurship
Contents
- Introduction
- Jain Philosophy and Doctrine
- Jainism and Capitalism:
- The Weberian Perspective:
- Concept of ‘ trust and rule’, ‘social and cultural capital’: an extension of Weberian perspective
Introduction
Jainism, like Buddhism, is usually portrayed in the West as a heterodox rebellion against Vedic and Brahmanical rituals, but with some justification Jains claim that both: their belief system and Buddhism belong to an older Shramaic tradition (" struggle") which precedes what is now described as "Hinduism". While Buddhism's dislike of Vedic traditions is unequivocal and its origins can be accurately dated, Jainism is probably an incarnation of the oldest extant religious tradition of Eurasia. The exemplary luminary for Jains is Mahavira ("Great Hero" - 599-527 BCE), an older contemporary of the Buddha, often described by non-Jains as the "founder" of Jainism. The Shramaic tradition emphasized renunciation and extreme austerities as the only means of salvation or moksa (liberation) from samsara, the endless cycle of transmigration. During a famine in the 4th century BC the Digambar and Svetambar. The main point of contention between the digambars ("dressed in the sky") and the svetambars ("dressed in white [i.e. dressed in cotton]") mainly revolves around the question of whether ascetics should wear any form of clothing. The south Indian migration formed the core of the Digambar community, which was and is mostly agriculturalists, centered in the Deccan, the modern states of Maharashtra and Karnataka.
The Svetambars are mainly concentrated in Gujarat and Rajasthan, where they mainly engage in trade, although there are members of both sects scattered across India. For example, Calcutta has a large Jain trading community and Jaipur in Rajasthan has a large Digambar population.
Jain Philosophy and Doctrine
Non Violence
Jains have placed great emphasis on Ahinsavrata. The doctrine of Ahinsa (non-violence) is a cardinal tenet of the Jain religion. It is so central to the Jain faith that it can be called the beginning and end of the Jain religion. The first and foremost principle of Jain philosophy is non-violence (ahinsa). Nonviolence means not killing or injuring a living being in body, speech or mind. This is only possible for people who devote their whole life on the basis of Mahavratas and renounce their family life. First of all, one should avoid all thoughts leading to "SankalpjaHinsa" (Violence committed intentionally and by premeditated activities) which come to mind out of attachment and aversion. The small vow called "AhinsaAnuvrata" prescribed by Lord Mahavir is an effective step towards creating a healthy society.
Non-possession
According to Jains, a person commits violence out of desire for possession. It is the most important necessity in life. A man cannot survive without it. The desire for more possessions causes people to indulge in violence. Greed for money, land, etc. and the mania for acquiring more things are the root causes of violence. Therefore, non-violence is secondary while non-possessiveness is the main tenet of Jain philosophy. The Lord cannot be understood. Mahavir's conception of non-violence until and unless he understands the principle of non-possession of him. Violence and greed go hand in hand.
Anekantavad
Philosophically, an important contribution of Jainism is the doctrine of Anekantavad. Jain thinkers believed that reality can be examined from many (aneka) viewpoints (anta). The matter can be described from at least seven points of view (saptabhangi) and all of them can be equally true. This doctrine contributed to the tolerance of opposing opinions among theologians and philosophers. In modern times, when the exclusive claims of religion are under pressure, this teaching takes on particular relevance and importance. The Jain doctrine of anekantvad (non-absolutism), so topical today that if properly propagated it can solve many of the burning problems of modern times. Jain-dharma has the ability to become Vishva-dharma (universal religion). Its principles are certainly beneficial to humanity as a whole.
The Idea of God
Concept of God in Jainism Jainism believes that the universe and all its substances or entities are eternal. It has no beginning or end in relation to time. The universe functions by itself according to its own cosmic laws. All substances constantly change or modify their form. Nothing can be destroyed or created in the universe. No one need create or manage the affairs of the universe. Therefore, Jainism does not believe in God as the creator, survivor and destroyer of the universe. However, Jainism believes in God, not as a creator but as a perfect being. When a person destroys all his karma, he becomes a liberated soul. He dwells in moksha in a perfectly happy state. He possesses infinite knowledge, infinite vision, infinite power and infinite bliss. This living being is a God of the Jain religion.
Every living being has the potential to become God. Hence, Jains do not have just one God, but Jain gods are innumerable and their number is steadily increasing as more living beings attain liberation. Jains believe that since the beginning of time every living being (soul) is connected with karma due to its ignorance. The main purpose of religion is to remove this karma through self-knowledge and become a liberated soul. There are many kinds of karma. However, they are broadly classified into the following eight categories: Mohniya karma Awakens the illusions in the soul regarding its true nature and makes it identify with other external substances. Jnana-varaniya karma Contains the soul power of perfect knowledge. Darasna-varaniya karma Covers the soul's power of perfect visions. Antaraya Karma It interferes with the natural qualities or energy of the soul such as charity and will. It prevents the soul from attaining liberation. It also prevents a living being from doing something good and pleasant.
Jainism and Capitalism:
The Jains of India are a thriving and prosperous community, but their religion is centered on the teachings and example of ascetic renunciants, whose austere regimen is actually dedicated to ending worldly life and often culminates in fasting to death . In North India especially, Jains have traditionally been associated with commerce, one of several business communities referred to as Vaisya or Baniya in the pan-Indian varna plan. Jains have been involved in trade since ancient times and have supplied modern India with some of the most powerful firms and industrialists as well as a plethora of smaller companies. But behind the individual business is a substructure of Jain sanskar, a cultural tradition that embraces religious beliefs and practices, social mores and, above all, entrepreneurship. Jains tend to hold occupations, particularly as traders, that are nominally non-violent in design, if not always in practice: for example, Ahmedabad's early textile mills were owned by Jains, with the potential for the destruction of countless insects and microbes. - organisms as the yam passed through the looms, "here economy proved stronger than principles" (Gillion 1968: 86).
As noted by Dundas, Jain industrialists do not speculate on the violation of the core beliefs of their beliefs in their businesses and manufacturing processes. Among the rural Digambars of the Deccan, they are mainly farmers - a theoretically forbidden profession - who are no longer stigmatized for the violence they inflict on organisms on land (Dundas 1992: 165).
The Weberian Perspective:
Weber's understanding of religion is based on his concept of asceticism, which plays an important role in understanding his concept of religion and the development of capitalism. Weber did not define asceticism correctly, but divided the concept of asceticism into asceticism of the inner world and asceticism rejecting the world. In it he tried to show that the path to salvation is different for different religions and depends on the ethical behavior of the individual as prescribed by their respective religious teachings. In his classification of the concept of inner-worldly asceticism and worldly-rejecting asceticism, he stated that worldly-rejecting asceticism was the main essence of the religions of Asia, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. By worldwide denial of asceticism he meant that religion which preaches the essence of rejecting worldly affairs as worthless, controlling temptations and following the path of penance to attain salvation. On the other hand, Protestantism preached to Weber the essence of inner worldly asceticism, which preached the idea of transforming the world through the ideals of asceticism and striving to bring the world into conformity with religious requirements.
Thus, its main aim was to seek the causal relationship between religion and progress in the respective societies dominated by the aforementioned religious doctrines. Weber wanted to have a comparative view of the causal relationship between religion and the growth of capitalist ideology. In this regard he had studied the "economic ethics" of religions. The economic ethics of religion refers to the practical impulses to act based on the psychological and pragmatic context of religion. capitalism. According to Weber, India failed to develop its own form of modern rational capitalism, and Indian religions may have been directly or indirectly responsible for the lack of indigenous economic development. While acknowledging the industriousness of Indian artisans and the general greed of most Indians, they could not have ushered in modern capitalism in isolation (Weber 1958: 113). were partially integrated into the caste system and also shared the doctrine of karma. He notes that while they shared many of the ethical and business characteristics of Protestants, their conduct was dominated by "ascetic righteousness" – as opposed to "active asceticism" – and ritualism, which led them to be confined to "commercial capitalism". instead of the development of “industrial capitalism” (Weber 1958: 193-204). A concern of Jain baniyas was their status as respected businessmen, historically synonymous with Jain integrity, discretion and frugality; and reputation (abroo) was an essential condition of solvency. Status was based not only on commercial and social criteria, but also on a reputation for religious piety rather than asceticism; Piety and religious philanthropy were widely seen as promising in business; and "there was a general recognition that trade and Jainism would only prosper if the money was used for religious purposes and thus converted into social and spiritual credit" (Dundas 1992:170).
Thus, piety and philanthropy in religion, integrity and prudence in business, self-sacrificing lifestyle, strict vegetarianism, austerity and orthodoxy in marital unions characterized the Jain business community as "conservative" . Dundas (1992:171) has argued that these features of Jain behavior remained intact until relatively recent colonialism and subsequent independence brought with it a massive increase in potential and actual trade, which was exploited by the business communities of the India, whose Jains are one of the most prominent . But, as already noted, Jains are not an undifferentiated community and a large part are not engaged in commerce at all. However, a number of trading partners, particularly in lucrative external markets, have experienced a relative quantum leap into prosperity previously only possible for a few large seths (business tycoons). With prosperity and contacts with the West came some changes in business practices, lifestyle and the appropriation of consumer goods as new indicators of status for the neo-rich. Nonetheless, a different adherence to an underlying sanskar remains, but is subject, as can always be said, to individual negotiation and strategies, rather than simply being reproduced as ideology, and continuing to wield so much economic power in India. that the religion he follows, such as Protestant Christianity, naturally inculcates principles of self-reliance and responsibility that create an appropriate environment for commercial activity” (Dundas 1992: 169).
One of the first to draw a comparison between Jainism and ascetic Protestantism was Max Weber. He found that Jainism had a positive relationship with economic motivation, which he considered completely alien to Hinduism (Weber 1958:193). He noted their strict asceticism, "that the individual's state of grace in life demands proof by enduring trials and pain", and the laity also observed austerity and made "special vows" equal to those of ascetics (Weber 1958: 196.198). . Their resemblance to the Jews, who also traded for ritual reasons, is also noted, but even more striking is Weber's comparison between the Svetambar Jain merchants and the Puritans.
After ahimsa, the second most important commandment of Jainism was the limitation of one's possessions, but "it should be noted that the acquisition of considerable wealth was by no means forbidden, only the pursuit of wealth and the possession of wealth ". It was "quite similar to ascetic Protestantism", "the 'joy of possession'...was offensive, but not of possession or gain per se.
Regarding their "social ethic", Weber notes that the Jains are famous for their charitable institutions and their sophisticated mutual solidarity: "However, this solidarity was essentially ... similar to the functional rationalism of Puritan social work, more in nature to give good works than the expression of a "cosmic" religious love, of which Jainism knows nothing" (Weber 1958:201-02). It is interesting that Max Weber, after describing certain striking similarities between Jainism and Puritanism, does not pursue further research in relation to Jainism and its followers.His prognosis and exploration of Jainism is coming to an end, although Jains are quoted in the detailed notes of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Perhaps it was the scarcity of resources available in 1916-1917; Weber recognizes translations by Guerinot, Jacobi, Hoemle and others and a text "worth appreciating" by Mrs. Sinclair Stevenson, a sort of ethnography of a Christian missionary to Gujarat (Weber 1958:363-66).
This ethnography was for many years the only non-Indological source on Jainism and was continually reprinted in India, concluding that "the heart of Jainism is empty" (Stevenson 1915:292). With further socio-economic data, Weber could have confirmed his intuition that the parallels between Jain and certain Protestant ascetic beliefs (those that followed Calvinim) coincided with the parallels in their daily practices; and note that Jain entrepreneurs have been able to take advantage of ready-made help groups, vast networks based on family, caste, region and religion. Max Weber was probably inaccurate when he argued that ritualism excludes Jains from industry. It has already been noted that Jains participated in the nascent textile industry in Ahmedabad in the 1870s, although initially there was some opposition within the Jain community. And this shift in economies of scale was not limited to a few entrepreneurial families.
Through a system of taking deposits from the public, investment in industry "became widespread among the upper and middle classes of the city, Jains and Hindus" (Gillion 1968: 86, 92). Another shortcoming of Weber's study is the inability to analyze in depth the relationship between Vaisnavism and the economic behavior of the Baniya Hindus; his negative comments on the Vallabhacarya sect, for example, to which many baniyas of northwest India belong, derive from their perception of guru emotionalism, orgiasm and supremacy (Weber 1958: 314 -16). But several commentators – Gillion and Timberg, for example – have argued that the economic behavior of the Baniyas differed little or not at all from different religious cultures. The Hindu and Jain baniyas of Gujarat and Rajasthan played a crucial role in the formation of modern capitalism in India and were not hampered in this endeavor by their ritual practices.
Concept of ‘ trust and rule’, ‘social and cultural capital’: an extension of Weberian perspective
Charles Tilly (2005) argues in his work "Trust and Rule" that trust is an integral part of the functioning and cohesion of small groups based on kinship, endogamy, business relationships, etc. Trust is needed to ensure that day-to-day transactions along with long-term goals are kept in mind and the social codes that come into effect in this small community are shared only by its members. It is similar to any banking transaction; each of the participating institutions shares certain agreements and these allow for smooth transactions. Even the Jain Marwaris use such a unique cultural code just for their own community. Language, cultural norms, religious obligations and the collective conscience of the group ensure that each individual actor is aware of the consequences of what each commits. This means that not only the individual, but also families and larger kinship groups are held accountable for the acts and omissions of the individual actor. It's reminiscent of Coleman's final band concept, which we'll get to in a moment. The concept of social capital has become very popular since the late 1990s.
The concept, which originated in sociology and is now integrated into various disciplines, has transcended itself along the way, resulting in far too many definitions, creating ambiguity about its theoretical and heuristic use. Moreover, since there is no widespread consensus on how to measure social capital, the concept is used quite imaginatively to support any social, economic, and political phenomenon. The novelty and heuristic power of social capital lies in two sources. First, the concept calls attention to sociability and, second, it evaluates how non-monetary forms can be important sources of power and influence. (Portes, 1998:2-3)
Bourdieu (1985) formulated the concept by examining some social phenomena, such as the way in which some privileged people or groups have managed to access positions of power through their social connections. He was able to demonstrate how social capital can be used to create inequality. Bourdieu (1984, 1990) was concerned with how oppression and power are reproduced, especially by non-economic means. He addressed issues of stratification and conflict, seeking to avoid economic reductionism by specifying the contextual specificity of associated relationships and processes and the necessary creation of meaning in corresponding efforts. (Fine, 2003: 36-37)
Bourdieu locates the source of social capital not only in the social structure, but also in social relations and connections. Social capital, for him, means "the set of actual or potential resources associated with the possession of a sustainable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual knowledge and recognition". (Bourdieu, 1983: 249) His treatment of the concept is instrumental, emphasizing the benefits to owners of social capital and the "deliberate construction of sociability for the purpose of creating this resource" (Portes, 1998).
His elaboration of the different forms of capital (economic, cultural and symbolic) aims to explain the maintenance mechanisms of the system of social stratification and to legitimize the reproductive strategy of the ruling class. His conceptualization attempts to demonstrate the 'construction' of social capital and that it is used for specific instrumental purposes such as dominance and dominion, in contrast to the idea (Putnam) that it is inherent in and has only a positive, normative function - that of social cohesion. Examining how social media enabled Jains to maintain a relatively tightly controlled group of trust would likely explain how this condition also enabled risk-taking in capital lending.
It is not surprising that large monetary transactions take place within this community of Jain-Banias, who use these trusted networks to ensure the growth of their businesses. In this case, the concept of social capital proposed by Coleman (1988, 1990) also becomes relevant. Coleman defines social capital as "a multiplicity of entities with two common elements: they all consist of some aspect of the social structure, and they facilitate particular actions by actors...within the structure" (Coleman, 1988 , 1990) - that is, social capital is anything that enables individual or collective action. He argues that the processes that generate social capital are relational networks, reciprocity, trust and social norms. For him, social capital is a neutral resource, that is to say, the improvement of the well-being of society depends entirely on individual use. (Doors, 1998)
Coleman (1990) identifies several forms of social capital, including levels of trust within a social structure, appropriate social organizations, norms and sanctions, and channels of information. However, his most important contribution has been how social capital functions as a strategy to maintain social control. Of particular significance is his discussion of 'closure', meaning adherence to norms through primary social ties, which involves social control over individuals in the group. This concept of “closure” has similarities to the notion of “binding capital” (used by Putnam), in which norms and values play a crucial role in maintaining tight networks based on particular trust. the practices in these networks of trust; create shared value systems that reinforce consensus and conformity-oriented behavior patterns among members. These networks make it possible to organize and exercise power. (Doors, 1998, Lin, 2000, Fin, 2003)
References
- Laidlaw, J. (1995): “Riches and Renunciation: Religion, Economy, and Society among the Jains”, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
- Nevaskar, B. (1971): “Capitalists without Capitalism: The Jains of India and the Quakers of the West”, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
- Bourdieu, P. (1977): “Outline of a Theory of Practice”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
- Dundas, P. (1987): ‘Food and Freedom: The Jain Sectarian Debate on the Nature of the Kevalin’, in N. K. Singhi ed. “Ideal, Ideology and Practice: Studies in Jainism”,Printwell Publishers, Jaipur.
- (1988): ‘The Tenth Wonder: domestication and reform in medieval SvetambaraJainism’, IndologicaTaurinesia, 14:181-94.
Comments