Weber Authority
Weber defines authority as legitimate forms of domination, that is, forms of domination which followers or subordinates consider to be legitimate. Legitimate does not necessarily imply any sense of rationality, right, or natural justice. Rather, domination is legitimate when the subordinate accepts, obeys, and considers domination to be desirable or at least bearable and not worth challenging.
Weber outline three major types of legitimate domination: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational. These three forms do not constitute the totality of types of domination, but they show how it is possible for some people to exercise power over others. Authority extends and maintains power and how people come to accept this domination as a regular and structured phenomenon.
Traditional Authority:
In this type of authority, the traditional rights of a powerful and dominant individual or group are accepted or not challenged by subordinate individuals. These could be
religious, sacred, or spiritual forms
well-established and slowly changing culture
tribal, family, or clan-type structures.
The dominant individual could be a priest, clan leader, family head, or some other patriarch or dominant elite might govern. In many cases, traditional authority is buttressed by cultures such as myths or connections to the sacred, symbols such as a cross or flag, and structures and institutions that perpetuate this traditional authority.
Different types of traditional authority are –
Gerontocracy (rule by elders) is defined as a situation in which the traditional ruler has no staff, and the power is in the hands of elders.
Patriarchalism means to inherit positions. Such authority emerges naturally (on the basis of age) or is selected on the basis of adherence to traditional principles.
Patrimonialism means rule by an administration or military force that are purely personal instruments of the master. Patrimony means “from father or ancestors.”
Feudalism is a more routinized form of rule, with “contractual relationships between leader and subordinate.” It is one of the most important historically.
Charismatic Authority:
Weber defines charismatic authority as “resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him.” Charisma is a quality of an individual personality that is considered extraordinary, and followers may consider this quality to be endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or exceptional powers or qualities. Whether such powers exist or not is irrelevant, but the fact that followers believe that such powers exist is what is important.
Weber considers charisma a driving and creative force that surges through traditional authority and established rules. It gains and maintains authority solely by proving his strength in life. If he wants to be a prophet, he must perform miracles; if he wants to be a warlord, he must perform heroic deeds. For example: M.K. Gandhi, Hitler, Napoleon, Mao, Castro, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Churchill, and so on.
Charismatic authority is not dependent on customary beliefs or written rules. It is purely the result of the special qualities of the leader who governs or rules in his personal capacity. If it is to be continued, it has to be transformed into a traditional or legal form of authority. In addition, it may be exercised in an irrational manner, preventing the development of more rational forms, especially those leading to capitalism. There is also a possibility that the administration of charismatic authority leads to the development of legal and rational authority.
Rational – Legal Authority:
The term refers to a system of authority, which is both rational and legal. Such rules and procedures are commonly found in a written constitution and set of laws. Legal-rational authority stresses a “government of laws, not of peoples.” Officials here can exercise power only within legally defined limits that have been formally set in advance. This kind of authority is commonly found in most modern societies' political systems.
As a political or legal system develops in this rational manner, authority takes on a legal form. Those who govern or rule either have or appear to have a legitimate legal right to do so. Those who are subordinate within this system accept the legality of the rulers, believing they have the legitimate right to exercise power. Those with power then exercise power based on this right of legitimacy. Associated with this are constitutions, written documents, established offices, regularized modes of representation, regular elections, and political procedures.
In this kind of authority, power is respected and complied with not because the followers are fools or endowed with extraordinary qualities as is the charismatic case. The legitimacy of authority is derived from respect for the legality of power.
Weber viewed the future as one where rational-legal types of authority would become more dominant. While a charismatic leader or movement might emerge, the dominant tendency was for organizations to become more routinized, rational, and bureaucratic. It is in this sense that legal authority can be interpreted. In modern societies, authority is in large part exercised on the basis of bureaucracies.
Post a Comment