Is the "Protestant Work Ethic" a myth?

[Blue3]

The "Protestant Work Ethic,"  real or a myth?

[DemPGH]

Myth and very damaging teaching, but it has to be looked at in context. That a person works hard, lives frugally, and receives little compensation for his/her labor (equating to salvation?!) sounds a lot like the views of reformers in the 16th century who opposed things like peasant revolts, which ultimately bettered society and moved democracy forward.

I think the term generally describes pretty well the views of those reformers who opposed peasant revolts and the like, wishing to control society as they deemed fit.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

As most 19th century concepts in social sciences, it severely lacks empirical grounding, but that doesn't make it entirely worthless.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Vastly overstated, yet real. In theory it is the duty of every protestant to work at coming to an internal understanding of scripture. The effort required to do that practices skills and habits useful to many types of work. Few actually reach that ideal, but few is not none.

[Blue3]

But I remember reading how many thought the advanced nations are advanced (US, UK, Germany, Scandinavia, etc.) because they are Protestant and Protestants inherently are harder workers because of their religion, compared to lazy Catholics.

And when the Japan/CHhna/"Asian Tigers" economic phenomenon happened, they said it was probably due to a "Confucian Work Ethic" that's very similar to the Protestant Work Ethic.

[The Mikado]

But I remember reading how many thought the advanced nations are advanced (US, UK, Germany, Scandinavia, etc.) because they are Protestant and Protestants inherently are harder workers because of their religion, compared to lazy Catholics.

And when the Japan/CHhna/"Asian Tigers" economic phenomenon happened, they said it was probably due to a "Confucian Work Ethic" that's very similar to the Protestant Work Ethic.

Taking Max Weber seriously is only slightly less absurd than taking Karl Marx seriously. Leave the grand narratives of civilizations and their course of development in the 19th century where such trash belongs.

[ingemann]

I think it's complex. Are Protestant more hard working than Catholics; not in my experience, but here's the thing, there's a inbuilt almost unconscious hostility toward bragging about your riches in most Protestant groups (prosperity heretics being the main exception). This mean that historical Protestants have tended to save up rather than outward shopwing their riches (a tendency, not a rule). There's also a great focus on literacy in Protestantism especially in Lutheranism, simply because reading Luther's Small Catechism was seen as a rite to adulthood.

So we see two protestant traits; a tendency to save up and a focus on education. Those cultural traits have a high value.

Then we see what Protestantism historical did to a society where it dominate. Church properties was confiscated, the central power was strengthen and priest was made into civil servants. These things create states which can invest in development and can enforce its laws over it entire realm (as priests suddenly served to enforce the state's laws).

At the same time continental Protestant states lived in a brutal darwinistic structure, besieged by more populated and stronger Catholic states, fighting among themselves. The result was that the states who came out on top of that, had to push even greater centralism, developing new areas to tax (like new industries) and develop a even greater control over the citizens to get conscripts to their armies. This sound negative and it wasn't fun for a 17-18th century inhabitants of those realm, but what develop from it was strong state structure, little tolerance of corruption and strong rule of law.

[NeverAgain]

Obvious myth. The agnostic work ethic is real though.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Obvious myth. The agnostic work ethic is real though.

As an agnostic... hahahahahahahahahaha no.

Ingermann makes good points (though in a very simplistic way).

[Skill and Chance]

Obvious myth. The agnostic work ethic is real though.

As an agnostic... hahahahahahahahahaha no.

Ingermann makes good points (though in a very simplistic way).

Believing you are the spiritual elect as a way to collectively become the economic elect does seem to work historically.  It's fascinating to think about and doesn't just apply to privileged groups.  MLK inspired something similar among his generation of Southern blacks to finally get the job done.

[DavidB.]

Well, let's see. Which European countries are doing relatively well? Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany... And which ones aren't doing so well? France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland... See a pattern? I thought so. Of course one could argue that Catholic Bavaria is actually the richest part of Germany etc., but the pattern still exists. There are undoubtedly more factors at play, but the differences in work ethics in Europe do partly seem to stem from an area's religious heritage.

[Robert California]

When I first heard of the theory, I found it an interesting phenomenon. I have no idea if it's true, and if so, none of my business. But if you actually want to examine it, there are about a million different facets to view it from, as displayed by Ingemann (spelling?). A simple correlation stating "Protestant=Hard-Working Industrial Capitalist" is not enough. Explanations, or accompanying and corresponding variables would have to be accounted for, and so on. In the modern context, where culture has been so unforgivably assaulted by globalization and secularism, any attempt to make a similar examination would be even more fruitless. As such, whether or not it was a myth then, it absolutely is today.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Myth and very damaging teaching

^^^