The article reviews current historical research on the life and work of Max Weber. The completion of the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe (Collected Works) by the Mohr Siebeck publishing house not only made it possible to put a new textual basis behind the systematization of Weber's legacy - which is key for a general theoretical grounding and self-explanation of sociology-but 9 also elevated historical and biographical studies devoted to Weber. This has been achieved by introducing many new sources and clarifying old ones. The article is based on an analysis of Weber's most recent intellectual biography published in 2019. It was written by Gangolf Hubinger, a German academic and a member of the MWG editorial staff since 2004. Hubinger's book presents Weber's life as a convergence of some concentric circles that revolve around several major themes. Among them are social and cultural features of "organized modernity" as the turning point era in the history of the West; the formative years of Weber as an individual and a scholar; the intellectualization of modernity and its consequences; Weber's invention of a new academic discipline, political sociology; the intellectual networks with which Weber was involved as a scholar and politician. An important advantage of this new biography is that it provides a detailed description of the current study of Weber's theoretical legacy and the prospects for the development of a "Weberian paradigm" in today's social science and humanities.

This article focuses on Max Weber’s understanding of “ethos” in “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” and the benefits afforded by this concept. The reference is not accidental as it is in this work that Weber could consistently explicate his ethical argument. The idea of ethos becomes clearerin comparison with the concept of habitus, which is actively used today in socialscience. Itisshown thatthe distinction between ethos and habitus may be more productive than the conflation common in modern research. The category “ethos” is compared with the value-rational action from the later typology of action in Weber’s “Economy and Society”, while habitusis associated with traditional action from the same typology. The concept of ethos is further clarified by the example of Weber’s opposition oftraditionalism and ethical modern Western capitalism. By focusing on ethical issues and using character as a theoretical tool, Weber not only putsforward a convincing interpretation butlaysthe foundationsfor a specific line of analysis in social and economic science. The category of ethos in conjunction with the value-rational type of action acquires special significance due to the potential for novelty and change thatis embedded in it.

Weber's concept of "vocation" in science implies "anti-monumentalism”: research can always be continued, and the results obtained can be used in 69 various ways. The scientist cannot be completely aware of the final impact of their work, so they are faced with a paradox of consequences. This paradox is based on value polytheism, a concept put forward by Weber. There are two ideas central to polytheism: first, one must recognize the internal logic of value spheres and, second, one must consider their fundamental incommensurability. But how does this idea emerge in Weber's theory? Interpretations of value polytheism as a "fact” of a cultural situation and as the logical foundation of science do not allow one to answer the question of its origin. The conceptual bridge is found in Weber's sociology of religion. Tenbruck's, Schluchter's, and Hennis's models are examined to identify variations of value polytheism. However, their macro-orientation does not demonstrate the internal structure and functioning of polytheism. The present paper explicates the logical-methodological foundations of Weber's scientific programme to clarify these points. Primarily, it investigates the problem of the consequences of an action carried out in a "vocation” mode and the boundaries of "adequate” causal explanations as presented in Weber's works. It makes it possible to consider Weber's value polytheism and concepts associated with it not as value metaphysics or unreasonable axioms, but as a methodologically based conceptual apparatus.

The article considers Max Weber's model of plebiscitary leadership and historical examples of plebiscitary democracy. It is argued that there is no clear distinction between plebiscitary democracy and dictatorship in Weber's writings. As Stefan Breuer demonstrates, such a distinction allows us to broaden the application of Weberian concepts. Plebiscitary elements can be seen in the political life of non-Western states, which have been discussed from the multiple modernities perspective. However, while that perspective develops the Weberian sociological tradition, its representatives mostly do not use the concept of plebiscitary leadership. Thus, Shmuel Eisenstadt draws primarily on Weber's sociology of religion in his analysis of different types of modernity. Specifically, Eisenstadt considers the impact of civilizational legacies on political processes in India and Latin America. Peter Wagner discusses the relevance of Weber's rationalization thesis and theory of capitalism rather than the concepts of Weberian political sociology. In his study of democratization in Brazil and South Africa, Wagner emphasizes the progressive character of political changes but does not consider the possibility of a reversal of these processes. The article argues that the contemporary reconstruction of Weber's model of plebiscitary leadership can complement the analyses of democratization in non-Western societies from the multiple modernities perspective.

The article focuses on the concept of the state in the works of the German sociologist M. Weber and his contemporary, the anarchist G. Landauer. Specifically, it is commonly thought that Weber has a unique interpretation of the state, its nature, and inalienable characteristics. This Weberian approach did not fit into any of the traditions that existed at that time in Germany (for example, represented by H. Kelsen, G. Jellinek, and O. von Gierke). However, the author of the article tries to demonstrate that three main Weberian aspects of the state - 1) the monopoly on legitimate physical violence, 2) the relationship of domination, which is accompanied by a minimum desire to obey, and 3) the chance for the regular reproducibility of these relationships-are consonant with Landauer's concept of the state. This discovered conceptual affinity allows one to look at Weber's sociology from new angles, without being impacted by the personal beliefs of the German scientist, who very critically treated anarchism as a socio-political movement. In the final section of the paper, the author discusses the modern project of "anarchist sociology", which also uses Weberian methodology. The paper argues that "anarchist sociology" might be a promising social science with its unique vision of several key sociological topics, such as domination, power, or social inequality.

The article discusses a key issue for Russian and international Max Weber Studies: the epistemological possibilities and place of Weberian sociology in modern social theory. Discussion articles by well-known Russian scientists - who sharply criticized the actualizing direction of Weberian studies in general, and the religious, cultural, and sociological orientation in particular-are contrasted with the re-actualization and rethinking of key Weberian themes in the "New Critical Theory" of the influential German sociologist Hartmut Rosa. Such a projection will make it possible, on the one hand, to thematize the axiomatic assertion about the heuristic rather than concrete-content relevance of the classics; on the other hand, it will provide an opportunity to read Weber as a macrosociologist. In the original, criticized, and often rejected sociology of Rosa, Weber appears not only as a predecessor whose mention enhances the relevance of the new theoretical framework, but, above all, as an analyst and diagnostician of early modernity. Weber's main ideas and theoretical constructions are organically built into Rosa's methodological framework: analysis-diagnosis-praxis. The analysis of rationalization as a universal historical process of modernity in Weber's sociology is rethought by Rosa as expansion and acceleration; disenchantment becomes a diagnosis of modernity and is recoded into alienation, while the concept of charisma is transformed into the key concept of resonance.