A Sociological Analysis of the Term Ethos

Abstract

The term ethos originated in Greek has been used by many sociologists. Though its meaning seems to be clear, its conceptual, especially sociological, meaning is still vague to us. It is not too much to say that there are as many definitions of this term as there are sociologists. Therefore the question leaves room for discussion.
As many sociologists refer to the ethos from their own points, this paper tries to make clear the meaning of the term ethos in conformity with the contexts in which they are used. And it is the main theme for this paper to take out the most effective sociological meaning from their different definitions.
From the point of comparative analysis of the carrier of the ethos, sociologists are divided into three groups. First are the scholars, like W.G. Sumner, H. Bonner and A.L. Epstein, who regard nation, society, and group as the carrier of the ethos.For example, Bonner, who defined the ethos as “a system of values and ideals, ” described the ethos of the Japanese, Germans, and Americans. Second are the scholars, like M. Scheler and H. Freyer, who consider both nation and individuals to be the carrier. According to Freyer, the ethos is not only “Willensgehalt” or “Willensrichtung, ” but also “Erkenntniswille” which is carried by individuals. Third are the scolars, like M. Weber and R.K. Merton, who take social stratum to be the carrier. Weber did not define the term ethos clearly. But he seemed to think the ethos was “Gesinnung, ” “ethisches Verhalten, ” and “Lebensfuhrung, ” and its carrier was social stratum. Merton is under the influence of Weber's idea, because he pointed out “beliefs” as one of the components of the ethos, and analyzed the ethos of scifentists.
On the basis of this comparative analysis I have just mentioned above, this paper proves the ethos is “Gesinnung, ” which is carried by social stratum or members in big organizations.