[Besprechung von:] Wolfgang Kellner: Der moderne soziale Konflikt. Seine Ursachen und seine Überwindung im Betrieb

Hans Bayer on Wolfgang Kellner’s Der moderne soziale Konflikt (1963)

Hans Bayer’s journal book review presents Kellner’s study as an inquiry into the causes of modern social conflict and its possible resolution within the workplace. Its organizing distinction is between the conception of the human being (Menschenbild) and the guiding ideal (Leitbild). Bayer identifies their divergence as a central premise:

Einer der Grundgedanken der Arbeit liegt darin, daß der moderne soziale Konflikt seinen charakteristischen Ausdruck darin finde, daß das Menschenbild und das Leitbild gänzlich verschieden sind.

English translation: One of the work’s fundamental ideas is that modern social conflict finds its characteristic expression in the conception of the human being and the guiding ideal being entirely different.

Bayer traces the book’s movement from historical comparison to workplace sociology and, finally, to an ethical proposal. Kellner first distinguishes modern from ancient social conflict by examining their respective causes. He then considers failed attempts at overcoming modern conflict, which share the mistake of recasting a social problem as an economic one. Their failure provides the transition to an account of the emergence, development, task, and methodology of workplace sociology. The distinction between human conception and guiding ideal is subsequently examined in relation to entrepreneurs, workers, and salaried employees.

The concluding chapter proposes solutions grounded in the preceding sociological considerations, but its decisive appeal is to the commandment to love one’s neighbour as oneself. Bayer reproduces Kellner’s argument that reciprocal material provision within a division of labour does not exhaust what people owe one another:

Der Mensch lebt nicht von Brot allein. Wie lieben wir denn uns? Wir lieben uns als verantwortliche Person, wir lieben unsere Freiheit als Gegenstück unserer Verantwortung. Also müssen wir unseren Nächsten als verantwortliche Person und seine Freiheit lieben.

English translation: Man does not live by bread alone. How, then, do we love ourselves? We love ourselves as responsible persons; we love our freedom as the counterpart of our responsibility. Therefore we must love our neighbour as a responsible person and love his freedom.

The proposed remedy thus turns on recognizing personal responsibility and freedom, rather than treating material provision as sufficient. Bayer nevertheless closes with a reservation: at some points, Kellner’s lofty aspirations impair sober objectivity and scientific grounding. The review’s critical interest lies in this tension between an argument against economic reductionism and the evidential standing of its ethical solution. Bayer conveys the book’s conceptual trajectory while withholding unqualified endorsement of its scientific achievement.