ASSIGNMENT -2

(Political Sociology)
Name: Palak Singh Department: Sociology
Semester: 3rd semester Roll no: 20/SOC/28
College: IPCW Teacher: Dr. Suraj Beri

Q. Differentiate between power an authority. What are the three types of

authority, their mutual differences, according to Max Weber.

Max Weber work on power and authority is considered to be the foundational and basis of
understanding the two concepts. Weber is intrigued by the way in which raw and brutal power
is transformed overtime into legitimated authority. That is power and authority. He defines
power as choice that an individual in a social relationship can impose or achieve his own will
even against the resistance of others. However this definition is very broad and includes a wide
range of types of power. So domination as a concept is used instead which is defined as the
probability that certain specific demand/ commands shall be obeyed by the given group of
people. And when this domination gets legitimized it becomes authority.

So in simple words, it can be said that power becomes authority when it gets legitimized. The
difference between power and authority lies in legitimacy. Weber in his writings have argued
how in everyday life the relationship between the one who dominates and the one who is
dominated gets formed sufficiently only if they are based on their belief in legitimacy, which
every system attempts to establish and cultivate. He also talks about the classification of type of
domination according to the kind of claim to legitimacy made by each. Legitimacy can be
claimed on three grounds- legal, traditional and charismatic.

Weber also talks about certain sources of domination. He believes that for domination or a rule
over a considerable number of people, a special group is required. A staff which can be trusted to
execute the general policy and specific commands. The source of motivation for this staff may be
customs, personal advantage, purely affectual or ideal motives of solidarity. But there is also a
need to belief in legitimacy for the domination to become a sufficient reliable basis for
domination.
Weber gave three types of authority namely- RATIONAL LEGAL AUTHORITY, TRADITIONAL
AUTHORITY and CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY. Weber argues that the validity of the claim of
authority, that is legitimized domination, may be based on three grounds

Rational legal authority

Weber believes that RATIONAL LEGAL AUTHORITY is a feature of modern type of
administration specially capitalism and thus explains it in context of that. Purest form of
rational legal authority is bureaucracy. According to Weber rational legal authority rests on
the acceptance of the validity of the following mutually interdependent ideas:

One, that any given legal norm may be establish by agreement or by imposition, on grounds of
expediency or value rationality or both with a claim to be obedience at least on the part of
members of the organization. This simply means that there has to be a legal norm that is
imposed upon everyone that comes under its legal arena/ sphere. Weber believes that the rules
and regulations, these legal norms are written down and established. These are then practiced
and inculcated in everyday life.

who obeys whome-The typical person in authority is or the superior himself has to abide by
rules and regulations that governs his behavior and defines his functions. The person who obeys
authority does so because he/she is a member/ part of arena/ sphere where the legal authority
or law exists and needs to be obeyed. The person in authority is obeyed not as an individual but
because he is a part of legal order and thus has authority.

method of function-Weber also asserted that for rational legal authority to be effective and
sufficient the unit which is exercising the authority called the administrative organs or agency
also need to be organized. Weber further believes that there are also rules and conduct that
these administrative organs/ agency need to follow. He argues that they are everywhere, from
large scale private enterprises to parties as well as state and church. These identities are also
subjected to certain code of conduct. They are firstly supposed to follow the principle of
hierarchy, where every office is under the control and supervision of a higher one. Secondly
they are governed by the terms and conditions that define what the role of a certain individual
will be and there is also a mechanism of specialized training to teach them these functions
and rules. Weber also mentions that these officials are recruited through a process based on
rationality. Thirdly, do not own the means of production or ownership to them but just are
employees themselves. Fourth, there is a proper procedure of recruitment follows the
recruitment of a new employee or to replace a deceased, retired. Fifth, documentation, Weber
asserts is a very important feature where every rules, acts, decision is written down and
recorded.

Bureaucracy- weber defines bureaucracy as the purest type of legal authority which employes
a bureacreatic staff to accomplish large scale administrative task by systematically coordinating
the work of many individual. the characteristics of the staff includes that they have to be
personally free who are organized in hierarchy in the office which is filled by free contracts on
the basis of technical qualifications office holders receive fixed salary. And the official work is
entirely separated from ownership of means of administration and subjected to systematic
discipline and control (pp. 320-321)

So Weber connects rational legal authority to the development of rationality and bureaucracy.
As a political or legal system develops depending and according to above mentioned ideas, an
authority takes a legal form and those with power exercise it based on right of legitimacy.

problems-Weber also mentions how this rational legal form of authority may be challenged by
those who are subordinate, which may result in dramatic changes in the nature of systems.
Weber also believes that such struggle need not lie class based though, but cold be based on
ethnic struggles, nationalism, etc. and are mainly political struggle the former wishing to have
their market situation improved can be understand as a class based struggle. Whereas, in
Saskatchewan, the division between city and rural areas might be seen as attempt to preserve
different forms of status, style of life, community. Weber optimizes rational legal authority to be
more dominant in future where there is a bureaucracy.

Traditional authority
The second type of authority given by Weber was the traditional authority. This is where
traditional rights of a powerful and dominant individual/ group are accepted, or at least not
challenged by subordinate individuals.People willingly obey somebody because they belive in
the holiness of the ancient tradition and in the legitimacy. These could be religious, sacred or
spiritual forms, well established and slowly changing culture or tribal family or clan type
structures. The dominant individual could be a priest, clan leader, family head, etc. Some
examples are of village panchayat in India or rule of prince. Even patriarchy.

Weber believes that this traditional rests upon the belief in the sanctity of everyday routines and
is based on a claim by leader and a belief on the part of followers in their age old rules and
powers. Traditional forms of authority exists in many societies throughout much of history.
Weber is concerned with how it hindered the development of capitalism in non western
societies.

Weber mentions different types of traditional authority. It might be 1. Gerontocracy that is

rule by elder. This could be seen in Indian family, where the eldest one in the family have rights
to take decisions and that has to be followed by the other members. 2. Patriarchlism where
position is inherited. Patrirachalism is described as by for, the most important type where the
legitimacy lies upon tradition, by Weber. Patriachalism means the authority of male figures of
the house of lord over domestic servants; of patrimonial lord and sovereign prince over the
subjects.

Leader may naturally emerge in traditional authority or is selected on the basis of adherence to
traditional principles. The power of patriarch is personal and prerogative, power is exercised
without restraint at least to extent that he is not limited by tradition of by compositing power.
However, modern society may see this type of authority as irrational.
Weber also considers a more modern form to be patrimonalism, or rule by an administration or
military force that is purely personal instruments of master. Patrimony means from father or
ancestor. Here the patriarch hold power, he may be limited by administrative apparatus,
etc. for example- rule of monarch in Europe, or rule of military leaders. A fourth type of
authority within traditional authority is feudalism which Max considered historically important.

Traditional authority thus, for Weber is a means of maintaining inequality. If no one challenges
it, the leader is likely to remain dominant. Status honor helps maintaining. Weber also believes
that traditional authority blocks the development of rational legal forms of authority.

Charismatic authority
The third type of authority is CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY, which Weber defines as resting on
devotion to an exceptional sanctity or heroism and these ordinary qualities demands the
obidence. For example- in 2012-13, in India during the anti- corruption movements, Anna
Hazare became a charismatic personality.

The word “charisma” will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of
which he is considered extra ordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural,
superhuman or atleast exceptional powers or quality. These are not accessible to ordinary
person, but regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary. (pp-241)

Weber’s sense of charisma was more dependent the group of disciples the leader creats an
excitement in them. weber says that it is not necessary that leaders have those qualities the but
is it lies in the eyes of the followers. These qualities are not given by lord but instead they are the
outcomes of the interpersonal relationship between the followers and leader. Examples of such
leaders can be the cult leaders.

Unlike rational and traditional authority it is revolutionary and unstable form of authority.
These charamatic leaders promise change in the future for the society and also change peoples
attitude. However charisma is unstable and deteriorates when leader can not produce the
promised change or when he confronts the contradictory logics and demands of other type of
authority. And then he becomes a private person. Leaders may also face competition if there are
many people claiming the charismatic authority.

The charismatic leader gains and maintains authority solely by proving his power in practice. He
must work miracles. And if proof and success elude the leader for long it is likely that
charismatic leader will disappear.(pp-242)

Routinization- weber consider the process of routinization as fundamental to charismatic

authority. Weber argues that charismatic authority in its pure form only exists in its original
emergent state as such it can not remain stable it must give way to either of the alternative forms
of authority it has to be either partially or fully traditionalized or legalized. This inevitable
transition is because of its very nature that it is out of everyday and set apart from routine
structures as well as based on specific relationships within a charismatic leader and charismatic
community there is therefore always a pressure towards a return to the stable world of normality
that is most obvious in case of followers who have real material interest in perusing a normal
family life. This pressure is what weber called routinization that is return to routine is
particularly marked following the death of charismatic leader when the followers must decide
whether or not to follow a new leader and if they do how much charismatic authority to accord
him. Often what develops is system of charisma of office.(pp-2446)

Problems-However it also has shortcomings as a long term source of authority. If it is to be

continued it needs to be transformed with rational legal or traditional authority. It may also be
exercised in an irrational manner, preventing development according to Weber.

Thus, to conclude power when becomes legitimized is called authority, which may further be of
three types. All three types have their own features and rules of conduct. Weber however, saw
rational legal authority as a feature of modern societies as compared to traditional and
charismatic that hindered development.

Collegiality
the monocratic (single source of power which can be traditional or legal) can be deprived by the
principle of collegiality, this may occur in many ways: 1. It may be along side the monocratic
holders of governing power there are other monocratic authorities which are in position to veto
acts of authority this is called veto collegiality. The second type is the arrangement that the
acts of authority must be carried out only after previous consultation this may follow the
principle of unanimity or decision of majority. This can be done by advisory body or by
individual with special expertise.

It may be based on the absence of leader or antipathy to the individual strong leader. or it may
lie in the independent position of the status group as it is the product of aristocratic regimes. It
may also lie in the attempt of monarch to counteract increasing expropriation at the hands of a
technically trained bureaucracy. Or it can be based on the reconcile the point of views of
different technical specialists. (pp 278-90)

Functional division of power

The authoritive power can be further limited by a functionalist specific separation of power. In
strictly legal type as in constitutional separation of power these functions are rationally
determined. The constitutional division of power is a specifically unstable structure. Still
separation of power establishes spheres of authority- introduces calculability, good for economy.
 Refrences
1. Kate Nash- Contemporary Political Sociology, 2000.
2. Max Weber- Economy and Society, 1978.