Max Weber PDF: Legitimate Forms of Domination and Bureaucracy

Max Weber Week 6: Legitimate forms of domination and bureaucracy The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination Weber’s body of political writing covers a wide range of themes relating to state development, expression of political power, the organization of political communities, and the emerg...

Max Weber Week 6: Legitimate forms of domination and bureaucracy The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination Weber’s body of political writing covers a wide range of themes relating to state development, expression of political power, the organization of political communities, and the emergence of a system of law. In his work he wanted to (1) trace the pattern of development leading to the decline of empires and the rise of the modern state, and (2) look at the changes taking place in the manifestation of political authority as the modern state developed. → Weber believed that as the state changes in its political organization, power is altered as the state becomes dependent on bureaucratic administration. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination Weber paid attention to the emergence of the nation state with its complex legal and political structure. →As we have seen in this class, the “process of modernization” brought about changes in the social structure of European societies. Democratic states replaced the old system of absolute monarchy, aristocratic classes, economic monopolies, and laws favoring one group or class. The nation- state emerged with its parliamentary system, bodies of rational law, world markets, and enfranchised individuals. →The authority of the modern state became centralized, broadening markets, and allotting legal and political rights. The rise of the new state system led to new forms of political authority. Modernity Modern institutions: → the nation-state The nation-state is both a form of political, and socio-cultural membership and a centralized state (form of government). During the Middle Ages, people had localized forms of belonging (based on their towns, churches, etc.), but the rise of the nation state implied people’s re- socialization into thinking themselves as part of a bigger political community – “French”, “Canadian”, “English”. Officializing “national” languages was an inherent part of that process. Modernity As a centralized form of government, the nation- state brought all other competing forms of political power under its fold. It exerted control over them in a particular territory (the drawing of territorial boundaries); developed centralized bureaucracies and armies and monopolized the use of violence to enforce the control over its people. The nation-state, just like Kings in the Middle Ages, became sovereign entities. → National identities served to mold people’s attitudes to serve the goals of the state. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination All modern states are nation-states; that is, political apparatuses, distinct from both ruler and ruled, with supreme jurisdiction over a demarcated territorial area, backed by a claim to a monopoly of coercive power, and enjoying a minimum level of support or loyalty from their citizens. Key characteristics of modern states: Territoriality. While all states have made claims to territories, it is only with the modern states system that exact borders have been fixed. Control of the means of violence. The claim to hold a monopoly on force and the means of coercion (sustained by a standing army and the police) became possible only with the "pacification" of peoples - the breaking down of rival centers of power and authority - in the nation- state. Impersonal structure of power. The idea of an impersonal and sovereign political order - i.e. a legally circumscribed structure of power with supreme jurisdiction over a territory - could not predominate while political rights, obligations, and duties were conceived as closely tied to property rights, religion, and the claims of traditionally privileged groups such as the nobility. Legitimacy. It was only when claims to "divine right" or "state right" were challenged and eroded that it became possible for human beings as "individuals" and as "peoples" to be active citizens of a new order. The loyalty of citizens became something that had to be won by modern states: invariably this involved a claim by the state to be legitimate because it reflected and/or represented the needs and interests of its citizens. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination Weber made a distinction between power and domination. Power is the ability of individuals to carry out their will in a given situation , despite resistance. Domination, on the other hand, refers to the right of a ruler within an established order to issue commands to others and expect them to obey. → ruler + command = legitimate system of authority Weber began with the assumption that different systems of authority vary in they way commands are issued and in the expectations of obedience by individuals who are subject to such commands. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination In looking at the historical types of authority, Weber focused on two central elements which are key to any system of domination: (a) the concern for legitimacy, and the perception that authority is legitimate among those who are subject to it; (b) the development of an administrative staff. →legitimacy: by “legitimacy” Weber refers to the extent to which officials, groups and individuals actively acknowledge the validity of the ruler in an established order, and the right of the ruler to issue commands. → In every established order, there are beliefs about the “legitimacy” of a system of authority and domination. Does the ruler have a right to issue commands? →An administrative staff is essential to any system of authority/domination as means of enforcement. In modern societies with large populations, those who lead require a large staff to administer and enforce rules and commands. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination Each system of authority/domination varies in terms of four characteristics: 1) its claim to legitimacy 2) in the type of obedience it elicits in individuals 3) in the type of administrative staff designed to carry out commands 4) in the way the system exercises authority → Different systems of domination have existed in societies at various times. E.g., societies based on military dominance, centralized monarchical powers, on systems of laws, or direct use of physical force. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination Weber looked at the question of the social and historical conditions leading to long-lasting systems of domination and the mechanisms by which they maintain themselves. In his theory of authority, Weber put forward three types of legitimate domination: (i) charismatic domination, (ii) traditional domination, (iii) rational-legal domination. → Each of these types gives rise to a corresponding form of legitimacy, type of obedience, and mode of exercising power. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination 1) Charismatic domination - Weber used the term to refer to a “certain quality of an individual’s personality which [people] consider extraordinary and treat it as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or exceptional powers and qualities”. (Weber, Economy and Society, p.212) A belief in their capabilities not accessible to ordinary individuals surrounds charismatic leaders (e.g., prophets, heroes of war). → key to charismatic leaders’ power is that people consider it valid and true. Proofs of validity may require demonstrations to believers that leaders’ claims are legitimate by having undergone an extraordinary experience, a revelation, or having claims to a special vision. Charismatic leader also derive legitimacy from the degree of “felt duty” which the followers believe is put upon them to carry out the command of the leader.  Charismatic authority? Trump’s assassination attempt What happened on Capitol Hill? → A second characteristic of charisma is its ability to mobilize legitimacy by a “renunciation of the past”. It may be associated with revolutionary force of change. This places the leader squarely within the tradition of rejecting the past based on unacceptable inequality, suffering, or wrong committed against the people. → Weber believed that charismatic authority often emerges in times of social crisis: when people see established ways of solving problems as inadequate or when a nation of people are on the brink of a political or economic crisis. The charismatic leader consolidates power by mobilizing national symbols rather than dealing with issues head- on. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination In sum: charismatic authority presupposes a people’s renunciation of the past in favor of pursuing a direction founded on the leader’s inspiration. → because of these volatile qualities Weber thought charisma incompatible with legal and traditional forms of domination: i) charisma is unable to accommodate demands arising from the pragmatic sphere of everyday life and routine; ii) charisma opposes specific rules and procedures, iii) charisma resists the development of a bureaucratic means of administration. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination → A third characteristic of charisma is its tendency to undergo “transformation in its orientation to power”. What does that mean? - Weber referred to this transformation as the “routinization” of charisma. By “routinization” Weber meant the demands placed on a charismatic system of domination that would cause it to adjust to the normal everyday needs of carrying on administration. Routinization: any external demand which would cause charisma to adjust its means of administration to the practical routines of everyday life. The process of routinization places strain on charismatic domination that tends to transform it in the direction of traditional or rational authority. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination 2) Traditional domination Authority is traditional when its legitimacy is based on tradition and custom, on the “sanctity of age-old rules and powers”. (Weber, Economy and Society, p.226) → Compliance to traditional authority does not lie on an objective system of legal rules but to the framework of obligations that bind individuals to leaders by personal loyalties. Obligation to obey commands derives from the traditional status of the ruler (e.g., monarchies and lords of feudal states). The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination →In societies where traditional authority is dominant, people owe obedience to the individual. →Leaders gain their authority by the prestige conferred by tradition and by the belief that the rulers’ commands are valid because of the authority inherent in their office or status. Rulers also have authority by the discretionary powers conferred upon them by titles or hereditary claims to power. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination 3) Legal domination In systems of domination characterized by legal authority, legitimacy rests on rational grounds, the belief in the inherent legality of enacted rules, and the right of those elevated to authority under these rules to issue commands. →People owe compliance based on principles of law rather than the leader's personal authority, and individuals owe their obedience to an impersonal legal order. →Authority in legal domination rests in a system of rationally-determined judicial rules. Individuals pursue their interests within limits established by legal precepts and follow norms approved by the group governing them. People elevated to the office of leader are subject to the rules of law and must orient their actions to these rules. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination The connection between legal authority and bureaucracy as organized means of administration is central to Weber’s reasoning. → Weber believed that bureaucracy and bureaucratic organization were technically the most rational means of exercising authority over people, and that its development was at the basis of the Western democratic state. → Two changes occur in legal systems of domination which favor the development of bureaucracy: (a) administrative activities are carried out under the force of laws and the legitimacy of rules rests on legal authority. (b) With modern society and the increase in population there is a need for large bureaucratic organizations. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination What the is “bureaucracy”? Weber defined bureaucracy as a particular system of administration for the rational or efficient pursuit of organizational goals. What are the main characteristics of bureaucracies? → a high degree of specialization and a clearly defined division of labor, with tasks distributed as official duties; a hierarchical structure of authority which clearly defined areas of command and responsibility; the establishment of a formal body of rules to govern the operation of the organization; administration based on written documents; impersonal relationships between organizational members and with clients; recruitment of personal on the basis of ability and technical knowledge. → Weber saw these elements tied together into a coherent totality by one overarching phenomenon: rationality. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination Weber viewed the rationality at the heart of bureaucracies in two ways: a) the rationality of bureaucracies lies in the way it maximized technical efficiency: the rules defined the most appropriate means to realize organizational ends. The rules were based on up-to-date technical knowledge and directed the behavior of members along the most efficient lines. b) bureaucracy was a system of social control or authority that was accepted by its members because they saw the rules as rational, fair and impartial – a predictable, “legal-rational” value system. The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination Formal vs substantive rationality Weber suggests that the development and the success of bureaucracy was the triumph of one form of rationality over another. → Weber thought all human action is governed by what he called “means-ends rationality”, but this rationality is subject to change. Means: the “means of an action” refers to the method/technique individuals use to obtain goals and reach desired ends. Ends: the goals, results or desired outcomes of action.  The nation-state and legitimate forms of domination → For Weber, rationality describes an orientation to reality which weighs up the means and ends of an action in a straightforward and pragmatic manner. Bureaucracy stresses techniques in decision making (the means are always converted into techniques). Bureaucratic rationality alters the boundaries of decision making BECAUSE a technical orientation to means and ends rules out decision making in terms of values. Formal rationality: a type of decision making which is Substantive rationality: a type of subject to calculation in means and ends. It signifies the decision making that is shaped by a amount of calculation that goes into an action to criterion of values which involved an increase its chance of success. In so doing, it eliminates appeal to ethical normal, independent its orientation to values because of their non-technical of the nature of the outcomes. character. → solves problems by the application of technical criteria.