by two different groups. He rejected alternatives based on his argument from meaning, rejecting individual selection, class materialism, and other interpretations of meaning. In other words, Weber took a set of assumptions which may or may not have been true in the sense of demonstrable, measurable "fact" and "data" and then, based on these assumptions, created a theory of how and why a certain type of economic activity emerged in a certain place and among groups with a particular religious orientation (and, conversely, not in another place among a disparate group of people).
Further, Weber (1 of 3) argues that a collective property of society shapes the individual and his conduct, eliminating the problem of aggregation. For example, Weber (p. 55) stated "In order that a manner of life so well adapted to the peculiarities of capitalismashould come to dominate others, it ha to originateanot in isolated individuals alone, but as a way of life common to whole groups of men." Meaning, as attributed under a single normative code, thus aggregates individuals into groups while meanings shared by groups constitute individuality.
Weber (2 of 3) goes on to explain the "large in the small" by claiming universal significance for a localized phenomena. His view is inherently Eurocentric, focused on a single social, economic and political event or shift, and ignores the fact that what is culturally unique may not be universally significant. The argumentative style and the content of his text is almost entirely meaning-driven, with the encounter between the text (in this instance Protestantism and its doctrine and dogma) and the individual as the driving force in social organization and economic activity.
Marx, antithetical to the thrust of both religious belief systems and capitalism, also moves from an initial "stylization" or reduction of the problems to generalities capable of being contemplated. His "stylized fact", like that of...