max weber theory of social power
TRANSCRIPT
Max Webber Theory
of Social Power
Ivo Carneiro de Sousa
(City University of Macau)
Research of PowerIt is convenient to divide Max Weber’s research of power as a social phenomenon in two periods: (a) from 1910 to 1914, his enquiry focus is the question “how does power works?”; (b) from 1918 to 1920 the key question becomes “how is power legitimated?” (E&S, 31).
In this seminar we basically focus on Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1978 [E&S]. Several other editions are available.
Methodenstreit: Multicausality
Weber’s interpreters have often simplified his approach of history and social processes by reducing his vast constellation of studies on several themes to single causal forces:‘Bureaucratization’ and ‘rational action’ drove forward the modern world and ‘charisma’ pushed history backwards into the pre-modern era, while ‘the Protestant ethic’ unilaterally gave birth to bureaucratized, industrial, contemporary capitalism.
•However, far more typical of Weber’s researches is a broad multicausality in which a contextual and ‘thick web’ understanding of social processes prevails.
Methodenstreit: ideal types
In fact, one of Weber major scientific contributions is precisely a multicausality methodology for building up a social theory stressing, among others, two key relational concepts:•Ideal types,‘societal domains’ — the law, religion, economy, rulership, universal organizations (the family, the clan), status groups, etc. (E&S, 20-21) —
•and ‘social carriers’ (strata, classes, and organizations) orient Weber studies rather than dichotomous concepts or overarching movements of history.
Ideal TypesIdeal types truly stand at the very core of Weber’s methodology (“sociology seeks to formulate type concepts and generalized uniformities of empirical process”: E&S 19). They convey one of his fundamental premises: past and present are constituted from diverse action that repeatedly congeals into social action, and then into patterns of social action:
“Sociology is concerned with these regularities of action: there can be observed, within the realm of social action, actual empirical regularities; that is, courses of action that are repeated by the actor or (possibly also: simultaneously) occur among numerous actors because the subjective meaning is typically meant to be the same. Sociological investigation is concerned with these typical modes of action” (E&S, 29).
Ideal Types as conceptualization
Max Weber clearly explains the conceptual meaning of “ideal types” as a sociological interpretation able to connect repeated/patterned social action and meaning:
“For example, the same historical phenomenon may be in one aspect feudal, in another patrimonial, in another bureaucratic, and in still another charismatic. In order to give a precise meaning to these terms, it is necessary for the sociologist to formulate pure ideal types of the corresponding forms of action which in each case involve the highest possible degree of logical integration by virtue of their complete adequacy on the level of meaning. But precisely because this is true, it is probably seldom if ever that a real phenomenon can be found which corresponds exactly to one of these ideally constructed pure types” (E&S, 20).
Ideal Types: Religion
Weber presents religion as a life-sphere focusing upon explanations for suffering, misfortune, and misery (E&S, 422– 426). Believers are oriented to transcendental forces, religious doctrines, and a quest for salvation, and these subjective orientations influence their social action. Religion became in Weber works the key paradigm of an ideal-type.
“Whenever salvation goals and paths place a comprehensive set of demands upon social action, the faithful organize their entire lives on behalf of religious values, for they have become aware that certain activities, when performed methodically, assist and even guarantee salvation. In this manner religion-oriented action becomes characterized by continuity and, in some cases, by a comprehensive systematization” (E&S, 290–291).
Ideal Types: Domination
This social domain concerns the reasons why persons attribute legitimacy to commands and their motives for rendering obedience. •It refers to the probability that a certain group of individuals will orient their social action to produce commands, and that another group will direct their social action to its obedience.Weber thereafter identifies three major ‘principles of legitimation’— rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic — able to orient meaningful social action (E&S, 212– 245).
Ideal Types: LawThe orientation of social action through laws involves an attribution of social validation since a legal order is believed to bind individuals and groups.
•This element of legitimacy directs action, Weber insists, though it does so in combination with a further component central to the law domain: legal statutes are enforced by a specialized staff in possession of coercive powers, whether the patriarch ’s clan or state’s modern functionaries (E&S, 311-6, 654–8).
Ideal Types: Economy
Weber defines this ideal type as the life-sphere that starts by aiming to satisfy desires for useful goods and services:
“The definition of "economic action" must, furthermore, be formulated in such a way as to include the operation of a modern business enterprise run for profit. Hence the definition cannot be based directly on "consumption needs" and the "satisfaction" of these needs, but must, rather, start out on the one hand from the fact that there is a desire (demand) for utilities (which is true even in the case of orientation to purely monetary gains), and on the other hand from the fact that pro vision is being made to furnish the supplies to meet this demand (which is true even in the most primitive economy merely "satisfying needs," and regardless of how primitive and frozen in tradition the methods of this provision are)” (E&S, 64).
Ideal Types: Universal
OrganizationsThe household and the sib group are good examples of societal realms of ‘undifferentiated forms of life’ characterized by relationships among persons, close affective bonds, and intense personal interaction.
•Person-oriented values are cultivated in these groups rather than, for example, a means-end pursuit of desired goods. A strong ethic of compassion and sharing prevails, as do the values of candor, reliability, and respect for authority (E&S, 356– 84).
Ideal Types: Status Groups
This domain refers to action oriented to group-specific consumption patterns, socialization practices, conventions, values, and styles of life. Accordingly, unique to each group are (positive or negative) notions of social honor, esteem, and prestige.
•Moreover, each status group places restrictions to some degree on social interaction with unequal status. Specific to this type are action-orientations that protect social distance and cultivate exclusiveness (E&S, 151–162).
Ideal Types as Orientations &
PatternsWeber stresses that each domain analytically organized in E&S through several ideal types, indicates probable empirical orientations and even patterns of social action.
•Although analytically distinct in terms of problems and questions, ideal types may in some epochs and societies overlap and intertwine empirically to such a degree that their boundaries, themes, and autonomy are scarcely visible; in other epochs and societies they develop more ‘autonomously.’ Finally, by no means do they unfold empirically at the same tempo or in a parallel manner (E&S, 21).
Social CarriersWeber insists that repeated and thereafter patterned social action always occurs within groups that he basically divides in strata, classes, and organizations (E&S, 50).
Thus, the reproduction of values, ideas, interests, traditions, and currents of thought of every imaginable variety presupposes the existence of a bounded group of social carriers:
“The patrimonial bureaucracy and the literati stratum in China remained the major carriers of Confucianism for more than 2,000 years, and the Brahmins carried Hinduism in India for more than a millennium’ (E&S, 515-516)
Power
“The internal cohesiveness of groups does not alone account for their capacity as social carriers; pivotal also is their possession of a certain minimum of power or authority. Only then will the patterned action carriers imply successfully oppose the patterned action carried by other groupings” (E&S, 277).
Power & Authority • Power (definition): "the probability
that one actor in a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests” (E&S, 53). (p. 152, Theory of Social & Economic Organization).
• Authority (definition): belief in the legitimacy of the exercise of power.
Power is Social
• 1. Power is always social.• 2. Power is relational.
• 3. Power is a social process.• 4. Power is a social strategy.
• Power is not neither natural (pre-social)
nor essential (a-social)
Power as DominationIn popular imagination, power tends to be viewed in one of two ways, both extreme. The first is totemic and tactical (how to get ahead at the tribe or the office, to win friends and influence people). The other is epic and amorphous (the fate of markets, of vast global events and forces that seem beyond anyone's control, but especially yours).
•Power is both these things, and more. It is best understood in terms of command and control. It is either the capacity to make others do as you wish (the command function) or to reorder the environment around you (the control function).
•Weber defines then domination "as the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons” (E&S, 53).
Domination & Obedience• Features associated with domination are
obedience, interest, belief, and regularity. Weber notes that “every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary compliance, that is, an interest (based on ulterior motives or genuine acceptance) in obedience”.
• Examples of dominance could include parent-child relationships, employer-employee, teacher-student, domination within the family, political rule that is generally accepted and obeyed, or the relation between a priest and his church members.
Relations of Power/ DominationPower (or Domination) involves the following relations:
•Voluntary compliance or obedience. Individuals are not forced to obey, but do so voluntarily. Those who obey do so because they have an interest in so doing, or at least believe that they have such an interest. •Belief in the legitimacy of the actions of the dominant individual or group.
•Compliance or obedience is not haphazard or associated with a short-term social relationship, but is a sustained relationship of dominance and subordination so that regular patterns of inequality are established.
Power StructureWhen dominance continues for a considerable period of time, it becomes a structured phenomenon, and the forms of dominance become the social structures of society. Temporary or transient types of power are not usually considered to be dominance. This definition of domination also eliminates those types of power that are based on sheer force, because force may not lead to acceptance of the dominant group or voluntary compliance with its orders. Situations of overt conflict and force are also relatively unusual. For example, Weber considers overt forms of class conflict and class struggle to be uncommon. While employer-employee or other types of relationships characterized by domination and subordination often involve conflict, the use of force is not always, or is not normally, an aspect of these and subordinates do obey and implicitly accept this subordination (E&S, 38).
Legitimacy of PowerIn E&S, Weber develops a three-pole system made from power, force and discipline. While force and discipline don’t really need an agreement on the content of an order, power is an agreement on the legitimacy of the (social- or law-) order of power.
Thus, if power contains always an agreement on values, it is this agreement that must be called legitimacy (E&S, 53).
Legitimate Power
According to Weber, the bases of legitimation of power turning it into a lasting authority are (E&C, 36):
– custom, tradition (as for a Queen) – affect; likeness (as for a mother)
– material interests (as for receiving a salary) – ideal motive (as in religion)
Custom-TraditionWhen and where people follows uniform types of conduct, Weber refers to this simply as usage (E&C, 29). Long established usages become customs. These can emerge within a group or society on the basis of continued interaction, and require little or no enforcement by any specific group.
•A stronger degree of conformity is convention, where the compliance is not just voluntary or customary, but where some sort of sanctions may exist for those who do not comply with convention. These may be informal sanctions, leading to mild disapproval, or they may be strong sanctions associated with discipline or ostracism.
Usage and custom often become the basis of rules, and violation of these may ultimately have some sanctions applied.
Convention-LawWhen and where convention is adopted by an individual or a group that has the legitimate capacity and duty to impose sanctions, the convention can become law (E&C, 33).
•This can begin to create a legal order where a group assumes the task of applying sanctions to punish transgressions, for example, a clan, priesthood, or simply elders.
When and where this can be applied over a territorial unit, with order safeguarded by threat of physical force, then this can create a political order: the threat and application of physical force by an administrative staff with legal, administrative, military, or police functions.
AuthorityIn his published works and in the unfinished E&S, Max Weber always recognized the historical and social existence of (only) three types of authority (E&S, 215):
– traditional
– charismatic
– rational (legal)
Traditional AuthorityThis is the type of authority where the traditional rights of a powerful and dominant individual or group are accepted, or at least not challenged, by subordinate individuals based in:•(i) religious, sacred, or spiritual forms, •(ii) well established and slowly changing culture, or •(iii) tribal, family, or clan type structures. The dominant individual could be a priest, clan leader, family head, some other patriarch, or a dominant elite might govern. In many cases, traditional authority is buttressed by culture such as myths or connection to the sacred, symbols such as a cross or flag, and by structures and institutions which perpetuate this traditional authority. •In Weber's sublime words, this traditionalist domination "rests upon a belief in the sanctity of everyday routines.” (E&S, 226)
Types of traditional authority
(E&S, 231) (i) gerontocracy or rule by elders; (ii) patriarchalism and patrimonialism; (iii) feudalism.
Patriarchalism is the most important type of domination legitimated by tradition. Patriarchalism means the authority of the father, the husband, the house senior, the sib elder over the members of the household and sib; the rule of the master and patron over bondsmen, serfs, freed men; of the patrimonial lord and sovereign prince over the 'subjects.' •Such authority could govern a family, household, clan, or a whole society. The leader may emerge naturally (on the basis of age), or be selected through adherence to traditional principles. As long as this method of selection is accepted by others in the group, the rule of the patriarch's authority will be accepted.
PatrimonialismWeber considers a more modern form of traditional authority to be patrimonialism, or rule by an administration or military force that are purely personal instruments of a ‘master’. At the level of the household or family, patriarchy may continue, but within a clan, gang or larger group, it may be necessary for the patriarch to rely on some form of administration.
•While the patriarch still holds power, and can often exercise this power with no limits, at other times the power of the patriarch may be limited by the administrative apparatus, by the need to rely on others to carry out orders, etc. (E&S, 240).
FeudalismA third type of traditional authority is feudalism, which Weber presents as a more routinized form of rule, with "contractual relationships between leader and subordinate" (E&S, 255).
•Traditional authority is a means by which inequality is created and preserved. Where no challenge to the authority of the traditional leader or group is made, then the leader is likely to remain dominant.
•Status honor is accorded to those with traditional forms of power and this status helps to maintain dominance. Weber finally stresses that traditional authority blocks the development of rational or legal forms of authority.
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" (E&S, 215). That is, 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 actually exist or not is irrelevant; the fact that followers believe that such powers exist is what is important.
•Weber considers charisma to be a driving and creative force which surges through traditional authority and established rules. The sole basis of charismatic authority is the recognition or acceptance of the claims of the leader by the followers. While it is irrational, in that it is not calculable or systematic, it can be revolutionary, breaking traditional rule and even challenging legal authority (E&S, 241-242).
Legal or Rational Authority
This is authority (or legitimate domination) resting on "rational grounds – resting on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands" (E&S, 215).
•There are various ways for reaching legal authority through systems of convention, laws and regulation. The development of law in the West led to a rule of law, written legal codes, legal rights and rules, and the "professionalized administration of justice by persons who have received legal training formally and systematically” (E&S, 217).
Social StrugglesThe rational-legal form of authority may be challenged by those who are subordinate. This challenge is generally unlikely to result in dramatic changes in the nature of the system very quickly (E&S, 38-39).
According to Weber, such struggles don’t need to be exclusively class based, and can have an ethnic or nationalist ground, thus becoming political struggles (E&S, 39).
Future: bureaucracies
In spite of social or political struggles, Weber envisaged the future as one where rational-legal types of authority would become more dominant worldwide. Although a charismatic leader or movement might emerge, the leading tendency is for organizations to become more routinized, rational and bureaucratic. It is in this sense that legal authority can be interpreted since in modern societies, authority is in large part exercised on the basis of professional-legal bureaucracies (E&S, 987).
The Epistemological Shift:From Ethics and Politics into the
Social
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.)
Aristotle's discusses power as a human impulse within dunamis (power as capacity) and arete (virtue or excellence). •For Aristotle, all cooperative action involves the ‘rule’ (exercise of power) of one party over another. When people are unequal, the differences between them provide reasoned ground for assigning power and coordinating action; where people are equal, they are in the relevant respects the same, and there are no such grounds. Thus relationships between equals must be structured by power that is arbitrary and to some extent unjust.
Chinese Traditional Ethics
• Since Chinese traditional thought focuses more on ethics rather than metaphysics, there is no place to invoke a unified and personified supernatural power, being power natural, human and ethic.
• In Buddhism, for example, the individualization of power through the process of purification of ones power is ontological and also ethical.
Changing social theory
Max Weber clearly shifts power and its research from the traditional and philosophical fields of ethics and political morals as well as denies its natural or essential roots as in “human nature” theories. •Rather, Weber proves that power is always social and rooted in organizations able to reproduce lasting control and obedience, thus framing ongoing social domination processes.This is one of the major epistemic shifts in social sciences, thus changing for ever methods and theories aiming to understand social actions, organization and processes.
Main References:• Gerth, Hans Heinrich and C. Wright Mills. From Max
Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.
• Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
• Hadden, Richard W. Sociological Theory: An Introduction to the Classical Tradition. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1997.
• Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1978.