Was hat Max Weber mit Kātib Čelebi zu tun? Ein Annäherungsversuch an Gottfried Hagen

This article responds to Gottfried Hagen’s extensive review (see Der Islam 2/2013) of my book Islamische Verantwortungsethik im 17. Jahrhundert. Ein weberianisches Verständnis der Handlungsvorstellungen Kātib Čelebis (1609– 1657). Whilst I benefitted greatly from some of Hagen’s critical remarks and his- torical elucidations, his review not only misstates crucial passages of my book but also largely disregards its main objective, which is to develop a systematic model for understanding Kātib Čelebi’s ethical stance. Besides reiterating cru- cial arguments ignored and rectifying central aspects misrepresented in Hagen’s review, I here ask how the more fundamental misunderstandings – exceeding differences in theoretical positions or empirical observations – between the au- thor’s intentions and the reviewer’s reception may be explained. Gottfried Hagen’s historiographical perspective on Kātib Čelebi diverges from my sociological take on the same subject matter to the extent that both perspectives are struggling to enter into dialogue. Such dialogue, however, remains highly desirable so as to complement a historical reconstruction of Kātib Čelebi’s life and times with a systematic, theoretically grounded understanding of his views.

Capitals and capabilities: linking structure and agency to reduce health inequalities

While empirical evidence continues to show that low socio-economic position is associated with less likely chances of being in good health, our understanding of why this is so remains less than clear. In this paper we examine the theoretical foundations for a structure-agency approach to the reduction of social inequalities in health. We use Max Weber's work on lifestyles to provide the explanation for the dualism between life chances (structure) and choice-based life conduct (agency). For explaining how the unequal distribution of material and non-material resources leads to the reproduction of unequal life chances and limitations of choice in contemporary societies, we apply Pierre Bourdieu's theory on capital interaction and habitus. We find, however, that Bourdieu's habitus concept is insufficient with regard to the role of agency for structural change and therefore does not readily provide for a theoretically supported move from sociological explanation to public health action. We therefore suggest Amartya Sen's capability approach as a useful link between capital interaction theory and action to reduce social inequalities in health. This link allows for the consideration of structural conditions as well as an active role for individuals as agents in reducing these inequalities. We suggest that people's capabilities to be active for their health be considered as a key concept in public health practice to reduce health inequalities. Examples provided from an ongoing health promotion project in Germany link our theoretical perspective to a practical experience.

Islamische Verantwortungsethik im 17. Jahrhundert: Ein weberianisches Verständnis der Handlungsvorstellungen Katib Celebis (1609-1657)

Die vorliegende Arbeit verfolgt zwei Ziele, verbunden mit ihren Protagonisten Katib Celebi und Max Weber. Den Ausgangspunkt bildet die Frage, worin die vielfach postulierte Toleranz des Istanbuler Universalgelehrten Katib Celebi (1609-1657) begründet liegt. Zentral ist dabei das Traktat Mizanu l-haqq, mit dem Celebi vermittelnd in die damaligen Streitigkeiten zwischen Sufis und Puritanern eingriff; es werden aber auch andere Schriften elebis hinzugezogen. So werden eine mögliche Verortung Katib Celebis in einer islamischen Traditionslinie (der Illuminationsphilosophie) erörtert und zentrale Aspekte seines Bildes von Mensch, Gott und Gemeinwesen herausgearbeitet. Vor diesem Hintergrund erfolgt eine systematische Darlegung der Handlungsvorstellungen Celebis. Für das Verständnis dieser Handlungsvorstellungen wird der von Max Weber, einem Gründervater der deutschen Soziologie, geprägte Typus der Verantwortungsethik vorgeschlagen. Die Handhabbarmachung des von Weber geprägten Typus für den Kontext Katib Celebis bedarf der ausführlichen Diskussion und Begründung. Ein dahingehender Theorietest bildet deshalb den zweiten Strang dieser Arbeit. Die erfolgte Universalisierung der Weberschen Typologie erlaubt ihre zukünftige Anwendung auch auf andere Forschungskontexte.

Liberalism and racism: an ‘elective affinity’?

This appraisal of David Scott FitzGerald and David Cook-Martín's Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policy in the Americas argues that there is no ‘elective affinity’ between liberalism and racism, which is the core argument of the book. The notion of ‘elective affinity’, which the authors borrow from Max Weber, requires a structural homology between the ‘electively’ related elements that just does not exist in this case. The relationship between both is entirely contingent, ‘racism’ being a doctrine of inter-group relations while ‘liberalism’ is a doctrine of intra-group relations, with no consideration of how the boundaries of the group are constituted.