Lifestyle or Lebensfhrung?

Critical Remarks on the Mistranslation of Weber's "Class, Status,

Party"
Author(s): Thomas Abel and William C. Cockerham
Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), pp. 551-556
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121112
Accessed: 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 support@jstor.org.
Midwest Sociological Society and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Sociological Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
LIFESTYLE OR LEBENSFiHRUNG?
Critical Remarks on the Mistranslation of Weber's
"Class, Status, Party"
Thomas Abel
University
of
Marburg (Germany)
William C. Cockerham
University
of Alabama at
Birmingham
Max Weber's
concept
of
Lebensfiihrung
was
inappropriately
translated as
"lifestyle"
in
the two
major English-language
translations of his work. The result is that Weber's
distinctly
different terms
"Lebensfiihrung" (life conduct)
and "Lebensstil"
(lifestyles)
have the
imprecise
and
singular meaning "lifestyle"
in
Anglo-American
literature.
Translated
literally, Lebensfiihrung
means life conduct and refers to choice and self-
direction in a
person's behavior,
not
lifestyles. Consequently, Lebensfiihrung
is the
element of choice within Weber's overall
concept
of Lebensstil
(lifestyles)
and
joins
with Lebenschancen
(life chances)
as one of Lebensstil's two basic
components.
To use
Lebensfiihrung
to mean
simply lifestyles
overlooks the
depth
of Weber's
thinking
on
the
subject.
In
researching
Weber's
(1972/1922)
work on
lifestyles
in the
original
German,
we found
that the
English language
translations of his famous
chapter,
"The Distribution of Power
Within the Political
Community:
Class, Status,
Party,"
in
Economy
and
Society
lack
accuracy.
In the
process,
an
important
distinction has been obscured. The mistranslation
lies in the
synonymous
use of Weber's
original
terms
"Lebensfiihrung"
(life conduct)
and
"Lebensstil"
(lifestyle)
as
"lifestyle"
in
English.
This use
appeared
for the first time in
1944 in the translation of
"Class, Status,
Party" by
Hans Gerth and C.
Wright
Mills,
published initially
in
Dwight
Macdonald's Politics
(Weber 1946,
p. vii),
and included
by
Gerth and Mills
(Weber 1946)
in their own better-known edition of From Max Weber:
Essays
in
Sociology. Subsequent reprints
of this
major
work carried the translation error
forward in time.
The result of this mistranslation and
others,
such as Roth and Wittich's translation of
Weber's
Economy
and
Society (1978),
is that Weber's
distinctly
different terms
"Lebensfiihrung"
and "Lebensstil"
typically
have the
singular meaning
of
"lifestyle"
in
Anglo-American
literature.
Consequently,
Weber's
concept
of
Lebensfiihrung,
which is
*Direct all
correspondence
to: Dr. William C. Cockerham,
Department
of
Sociology, University
of 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.
552
THE SOCIOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY
Vol. 34/No. 3/1993
critical in his
theory
of social
stratification,
does not have a distinctive
meaning
for
English-speaking sociologists.
In
German, however,
Lebensfiihrung
means life conduct
or
managing
one's
life;
applied
to the
individual,
it refers to the self-direction of one's
behavior,
not
lifestyle.
Before
discussing
this
further,
we will
briefly
review the
origins
and outcome of the mistranslation.
ORIGINS AND OUTCOME OF THE MISTRANSLATION
In the
English-language literature,
Weber's
"Class, Status,
Party"
is
perhaps
the
single
most cited classical work on stratification
theory.
However,
the vast
majority
of
publica-
tions in
English appear
to be based on
only
two
original
translations,
that of Gerth and
Mills
(Weber 1946)
and Roth and Wittich
(Weber 1978).
We found that the most fre-
quently
cited translation is that of Gerth and Mills. As Roth
(1977) observed,
Gerth and
Mills' translation
played
a central role in the
reception
of Weber in the United States in the
period
after World War
II.
Yet Gerth and Mills
(Weber 1946,
p.
vi), themselves,
pointed
out that
they
took some liberties in
translating
the
original
German in order to "conform to
the
English
conventions." It
may
have been easier for them to make sense of Weber's
writing by translating
both "life conduct" and
"lifestyle"
as
simply "lifestyle"
since there
is some
affinity
between the two terms.
The second most
frequently
cited version of Weber's
"Class, Status,
Party,"
we found in
our
review,
is
"Class, Status,
and Power" in Bendix and
Lipset (1966),
but this
work,
like
many
other
publications, essentially reproduces
the earlier Gerth and Mills translation and
is not an
independent
translation from German. The next most cited work in
English
is
that of Guenther Roth and Claus
Wittich,
which is an
original
translation from German of
Weber's
Economy
and
Society.
It was first
published by
Bedminister Press
(1968)
and
later
by
the
University
of California Press
(1978).
Although
differences can be found
between the Gerth and Mills and Roth and Wittich translations
(Parkin 1982), they
both
provide
identical translations of the sections that deal with
Lebensfiihrung
and status
groups.
In both translations we still find that
Lebensfiihrung
and Lebensstil are treated as
the same term.
Translations of
any
work
present
the translator with decisions about
meaning
and
structure. Poststructural theorists like Barthes and Derrida offer us
insight
into the me-
chanics of this
process
and
help
us understand the
potential
for mistranslation. Barthes
(1977)
explains
that the structural
analysis
of
any
text is not intended to
provide explana-
tions or new discoveries of
meaning; essentially,
it
reproduces
what went on before. This
approach
causes the text to
unwind,
says
Barthes,
like a
"run"
in a
stocking,
but does not
lead to
reinterpretation.
Thus,
meaning
is
disentangled,
not
deciphered; writing
is
ranged
over,
not
pierced (Barthes 1977,
p. 147).
This would
suggest
that once
Lebensfiihrung
was
translated one
way by
Gerth and Mills in a definitive
work,
its
general meaning
for
subsequent Anglo-American
translations was more or less fixed. This
appears
to have
happened
even
though,
as Derrida
(1981)
points
out,
we have never
had,
and
probably
never will have, a
pure "transport"
of
meaning
from one
language
to another that leaves
the
original
untouched. Translations can
easily
be transformations of
meaning.
Consequently,
neither of the two most influential translations from German contain an
adequate
translation of
"Lebensfiihrung."
Kalberg (1980) finds similar
shortcomings
in
translations of Weber's
analysis
of rationalization, faulting
Weber himself for
contributing
to this situation with a lack of
clarity
and contorted
writing style
in German.
Kalberg
Lifestyle
or
Lebensfihrung?
553
observes how
"Rationalismus," "Rationalitdt,"
and
"Rationalisierung,"
as well as related
key
terms,
have
generally
been translated as
just "rationality." Kalberg (1980, p. 1149)
also notes that it is
impossible
to trace Weber's use of
Lebensfiihrung
in the
translations,
finding
it sometimes
appearing (correctly)
as
"conduct"
particularly
in Parsons' translation
of the Protestant Ethic and The
Spirit of Capitalism (Weber 1958)
and elsewhere as
"style
of
life,"
"type
of
attitude,"
or "life." The reader who does not have access to German
texts,
in
Kalberg's
(1980,
p. 1147) view,
"confronts a
hopeless
situation."
Scaff
(1989)
likewise finds the condition of Weber's
writings, especially
in
translation,
to be
deplorable.
Scaff
(1989, p. 10)
concludes
that,
in
English,
Weber's most famous and
important
work suffers from inaccurate and
misleading
translations and "even the best
English
versions often
prove insufficiently precise."
This situation
presents
an
important
problem
for
English-speaking sociologists
who do not read German and have access to
Weber's
original
work. In order that
English-language interpretations
of Weber's
thought
reflect his
reasoning
as
accurately
as
possible,
it is critical that mistranslations of terms
like
"Lebensfiihrung"
be clarified for American and other
English-speaking
scholars.
WEBER'S MEANING OF LEBENSFUHRUNG
Weber used three distinct terms to
express
his
concept
of
lifestyles.
These terms are
"Lebensstil" or
"Stilisierung
des Lebens" which mean
lifestyles,
and
"Lebensfiihrung"
(life conduct)
and "Lebenschancen"
(life chances),
which
comprise
the two basic
compo-
nents of
lifestyles. Lebensfiihrung
refers to the choices
people
have in their selection of
lifestyles
and Lebenschancen is the
probability
of
realizing
these choices. In
Anglo-
American
sociology,
the link between choice and
lifestyles appears
to have been over-
emphasized,
while the connection between
lifestyles
and life chances has received little
attention.
However,
it is clear that Weber did not
regard lifestyles simply
as a matter of
choice,
nor
ignore
the conditions
necessary
to
support
a
particular lifestyle.
Weber
(1972,
p. 537)
states,
for
example,
that "the
possibility
of
status-specific
life conduct is of course in
part
economically
conditioned"
("Denn
die
Moglichkeit,
standischer
Lebensfiihrung pflegt
naturgemass
6konomisch
mitbedingt
zu
sein").
Consequently,
there
appears
to be
interplay
within Weber's
general concept
of
lifestyles
between life choices and chances. Weber was
vague
about what he meant
by
life
chances,
but Dahrendorf
(1979) explained
it best when
he determined
that,
for
Weber,
life chances are the
probabilities
of the occurrence of
certain events
(namely, satisfying
one's
interests)
which are anchored in structural condi-
tions
(i.e., income,
property, opportunity,
norms,
rights,
the
probability
that others will
respond
in a certain
way).
Of
course,
probabilities
in the Weberian sense should not be
confused with statistical
probabilities. Probability
for Weber was a
logical,
not a
frequen-
cy,
matter.
Perhaps
the term
"likelihood,"
rather than
probability,
would be closer to his
intention.
Nevertheless,
as Dahrendorf
(1979,
p.
29)
puts
it,
"Life chances are not the
attributes of individuals." Rather, individuals have life chances
in
society
and their lives
are
responses
to these chances.
Therefore, to use the term
"Lebensfiihrung"
to mean
simply lifestyles,
overlooks the
depth
of Weber's
thinking
on the
subject.
Translated
literally, Lebensfiihrung
means life
conduct, which refers to self-direction and choice in behavior. Used in connection with
lifestyles,
Lebensfiihrung
means
lifestyle
choices. Giddens (1991) suggests
that in condi-
tions of
high modernity, people
are forced to
negotiate lifestyle
choices
among
a
diversity
554 THE SOCIOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY
Vol. 34/No. 3/1993
of
options.
He
argues,
for
instance,
that even the circumstances of severe material con-
straint do not
preclude
lower-class individuals from
making
choices. Lower-class life
involves distinct cultural
styles
and modes of
activity
that
require choice,
although
the
range
of
options
is
quite
limited in
comparison
to more affluent individuals. All
lifestyle
choices include deliberate
rejection
as well as
adoption
or modification of various forms of
behavior and
consumption.
In
sum,
lifestyles
are based on choices
(Lebensfiihrung),
but these choices are
depen-
dent
upon
the individual's
potential (Lebenschancen)
for
realizing
them.
Lebensfiihrung
is
not a
lifestyle; rather,
it is the element of choice in Weber's
concept
of
lifestyles.
It should also be
noted, however,
that
interpretations
of Weber's work
today
are affected
by historicity. Thus,
it could be
argued
that
today's concept
of
lifestyles
is a more recent
and,
especially,
American notion whose
meaning might
differ in the 1990s from Weber's
use of it in the
early
1900s. Our
understanding
of this situation is made more difficult
by
Weber
himself,
who
changed
his use of several terms over the life course of his work.
Some
might
therefore
argue,
that from an historical
perspective,
Weber's
concept
of
Lebensfiihrung
is
principally
a moral
matter,
not
just
a means-ends choice for realization
of a
goal. Yet,
while it is clear that Weber associates
Lebensfiihrung
with an ethics of
responsibility,
these ethics still involve the individual
considering
the
possible
conse-
quences
of his or her action with a view toward
optimal possible
realization of ideal values
(Mommsen 1989). Thus,
a means-end notion of
Lebensflihrung
as a
general
exercise of
choice is not invalid.
While
lifestyle
is a
concept
that has
particular
relevance
today
and whose use
may
be
more secular than Weber
intended,
we can still
apply
it in at least two
fundamentally
important ways
to
postmodern
life.
First,
lifestyle
is a collective
phenomenon
that not
only applied
to various
religious
and status
groups
in Weber's own time but also
applies
to
various social entities
today.
Second,
contemporary lifestyles
still have two constituent
dimensions: life conduct and life chances.
So,
while Weber's
lifestyle concept may
not be
perfect
as a vehicle for
analyzing postmodern lifestyles,
his basic ideas still
represent
the
best
thinking
on the
subject.
CONCLUSION
We
would, therefore,
argue
that a more
differentiating
use of both life conduct and
lifestyle
enhances an
understanding
of Weberian
thought.
We have indicated the
potential
of a more distinctive use of both terms for
measuring lifestyles
elsewhere
(Abel 1991).
Weber
emphasized lifestyle
as a means to social differentiation which could
actively
be
used to
acquire
or maintain a
particular
social status.
Yet,
he did not
ignore
the conditions
necessary
to realize a certain status or
lifestyle.
In
fact,
Weber's
concept
of
lifestyles
draws
together
structural conditions
(life chances)
and
personal
choices
(life conduct)
as
its basic determinants.
Lebensfiihrung
and
Lebenschancen
are the two
components
of Lebensstil.
Lebensfiihrung
refers to the choices that
people
have in the
lifestyles they
wish to
adopt,
but the
potential
for
realizing
these choices are influenced
by
their
Lebenschancen.
As for the mistranslation, a
general
critical discussion has not taken
place
to date in
either the
Anglo-American
or German literature. German retranslations of
Anglo-
American sources have
repeated
the error (Bottomore 1976; Tumin 1968) and
likely
confused the situation. Some researchers have contended that Weber himself used
Lifestyle
or
LebensfOhrung?
555
Lebensfiihrung
and Lebensstil
synonymously
(Lidtke
1989),
but this does not seem to be
the case in the
original
work. Even
though
the
peculiarities
of the translation and back-
translation of life conduct and
lifestyle
in Weber's
chapter
have been
recognized previ-
ously
in
Germany
(Miiller
1989),
the mistranslation
problem
has not been addressed to
date in
any significant
manner in the German
sociological
discourse on
lifestyles.
The reason for this is
explained by
Sobel
(1981)
who
argues
that
lifestyle
has so far
been almost
exclusively
used as a
secondary concept
within the debate on class versus
status and has not attracted
widespread
attention in its own
right. Furthermore,
the
application
of the role of
lifestyles
has
always
been
closely
linked to Weber's status
theory
and this
aspect
of his work has not been
critiqued
in detail for some time
(Kreckel 1982).
This
helps
us to understand
why
a critical discussion in
Germany concerning
Weber's
original
terms of
"Lebensfiihrung"
and
"Lebensstil"
has not taken
place.
Nevertheless,
the information
provided
here on the translation
history
of the term
"lifestyle"
raises serious doubts about
today's
usual
synonymous
use of
"Lebensfiihrung"
and "Lebensstil" in
English.
A differentiated use of both terms in the
English
would
provide
more accurate
understanding
of Weber's work and contribute to theoretical and
methodological
advances in
lifestyle
research. This is
important
because of the
reap-
pearance
in
sociology
of interest in the
question
of
modernity
and
postmodernity (Giddens
1991).
The
concept
of
lifestyles occupies
a central role in this discussion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to
acknowledge
the
helpful
comments of Norman Denzin and Gisela
Hinkle on an earlier draft.
REFERENCES
Abel, Thomas. 1991.
"Measuring
Health
Lifestyles
in a
Comparative Analysis:
Theoretical Issues
and
Empirical Findings."
Social Science and Medicine 32: 899-908.
Barthes,
Roland. 1977.
Image,
Music, Texts, translated
by Stephen
Health,
New York: Hill and
Wang.
Bendix,
Reinhard and
Seymour
M.
Lipset, (eds.).
1966. Class Status, and
Power,
2nd ed. New
York: Free Press.
Bottomore,
Thomas B. 1976. "Soziale
Schichtung
(Social Class)." Pp.
1-39 in Soziale
Schichtung
und
Mobilitait
(Social
Class and
Mobility).
Vol.
5,
Handbuch der
empirischen
Sozialforschung (Handbook of Empirical
Social
Research),
edited
by
R.
K6nig.
Stuttgart:
Enke.
Dahrendorf, Ralf.
1979.
Life
Chances.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Derrida,
Jacques.
1981.
Positions, translated
by
Alan Bass.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Giddens,
Anthony.
1991.
Modernity
and
Self-Identity.
Stanford,
CA: Stanford
University
Press.
Kalberg, Stephen.
1980. "Max Weber's
Types
of
Rationality:
Cornerstones for the
Analysis
of
Rationalization Processes in
History."
American Journal
of Sociology
85: 1145-1179.
Kreckel,
Reinhard. 1982.
"Class,
Status and Power?
Begriffliche Grundlagen
fiir
eine
politische
Soziologie
der sozialen
Ungleichheit (Conceptual
Foundation for a Political
Sociology
of
Social
Inequality)." Koilner Zeitschrift fiir Soziologie
und
Sozialpsychologie
34: 617-648.
Lidtke,
Hartmut.
1989. Expressive Ungleichheit. Zur
Soziologie der Lebensstile
(Expressive
In-
equality. Toward a
Sociology of Lifestyles). Opladen:
Leske & Budrich.
Mommsen, Wolfgang.
1989. The Political and Social Theory
of Max Weber.
Cambridge: Polity
Press.
556
THE SOCIOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY
Vol. 34/No. 3/1993
Miiller,
Hans-Peter. 1989. "Lebensstile.
Ein
neues
Paradigma
der
Differenzierungs-
und Un-
gleichheitsforschung ("Lifestyles.
A New
Paradigm
for
Researching
Discrimination and
Inequality?")?" Kilner Zeitschrift
fiir
Soziologie
und
Sozialpsychologie
41: 33-52.
Parkin,
Frank. 1982. Max Weber. Chichester,
UK: Horwood/Tavistock.
Roth,
Guenther. 1977. "Max Weber: A
Bibliographical Essay." Zeitschrift fir Soziologie
6: 91-118.
Scaff,
Lawrence A.
1989.
Fleeing
the Iron
Cage:
Culture, Politics, and
Modernity
in the
Thought of
Max Weber.
Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Sobel,
Michael E.
1981.
Lifestyle
and Social Structure:
Concepts, Definitions, Analyses.
New York:
Academic Press.
Tumin,
Melvin M. 1968.
Schichtung
und
Mobilitdt
(Class
and
Mobility).
Munich: Juventa.
Weber,
Max.
1972/1922.
Wirtschaft
und
Gesellschaft (Economy
and
Society). Tuibingen:
Mohr.
-
.
1946. From Max Weber:
Essays
in
Sociology,
translated
by
H.H. Gerth and C.
Wright
Mills. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
..
1958. The Protestant Ethic and The
Spirit of Capitalism,
translated
by
Talcott Parsons.
New York: Scribner's.
-
.
1978.
Economy
and
Society,
translated
by
Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich.
Berkeley:
University
of California Press.