THE TYPES OF LEGITIMATE DOMINATION

1. Domination (authority) in this sense may be based on the most diverse motives of
compliance: all the way from simple habituation to the most purely rational calculation of
advantage. Hence every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary
compliance, that is, an interest, in obedience.
2. The quality of these motives largely determines the type of domination. However, what
forms the basis of domination is the belief in legitimacy.
3. According to the kind of legitimacy which is claimed, the type of obedience, the kind of
administrative staff developed to guarantee it and the mode of exercising authority; will
all differ fundamentally. Hence it is useful to classify the types of domination according
to the kind of claim to legitimacy typically made by each.
4. ‘obedience’ will be taken to mean that the action of the person obeying follows in
essential such a course that the content of the command may be taken to have
become the basis of action for its own sake. Furthermore, the fact that it is so taken
is referable only to the formal obligation, without regard to the actor’s own attitude
to the value or lack of value of the content of the command as such.
THE THREE PURE TYPES OF AUTHORITY.
1. Three pure types of legitimate domination:
a. Rational grounds – resting on the belief in the legality of enacted rules and the
right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands.
b. Traditional grounds – resting on an established belief in the sanctity of
immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority under them
c. Charismatic grounds -- resting on the devotion to the exceptional sanctity,
heroism or exemplary character of an individual person and of the normative
patterns or order revealed or ordained by them.
d. In the case of legal authority, obedience is owed to the legally established
impersonal order. It extends to the persons exercising the authority of office under
it by virtue of the formal legality of their commands and only within the scope of
authority of the office. In the case of traditional authority, obedience is owed to
the person of the chief who occupies the traditionally sanctioned position of
authority and who is bound by tradition. But here the obligation of obedience is a
matter of personal loyalty within the area of accustomed obligations. In the case
of charismatic authority, it is the charismatically qualified leader as such who is
obeyed by virtue of personal trust in his revelation, his heroism or his exemplary
qualities so far as they fall within the scope of the individual’s belief in his
charisma.
LEGAL AUHTORITY WITH A BEREAUCRATIC ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF:

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 issues commands"
There are various ways that legal authority could develop. Systems of convention, laws and
regulation develop in many societies, and there are many different principles of legality that
occur. The development of law in the West leads to establishment of a legal system, such that
there is a rule of law, written legal codes, legal rights and rules, and the "professionalized
administration of justice by persons who have received their legal training formally and
systematically. In the West, Weber connects these forms to the development of rationality and
bureaucracy. Other legal forms in societies in other parts of the world could develop in quite a
different direction, perhaps blocking the development of rationality.

With the development of a rational legal system, there is likely to be a political system which
becomes rationalized in a similar way. Associated with this are constitutions, written documents,
established offices, regularized modes of representation, regular elections and political
procedures. These are developed in opposition to earlier systems such as monarchies or other
traditional forms, where there are no well-developed set of rules.

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.

In early societies, a group may exercise power by using economic and physical force to dominate
a territory. This may lead to establishing rules or legal order, fairly few in number and not
elaborate in the beginning. As control is maintained, there is a tendency for a more systematic
and all-encompassing set of laws and regulations to be established. In addition, the ruling group
may take on more administrative tasks, leading to the development of an administrative
structure. This may initially be quite limited, but as it is developed, the administration may move
from protecting and controlling the territory to administering a wide range of problems within
this territory. The system could develop established means of setting out goals, making
decisions, and dealing with a large number of needs of the population, so that a bureaucratic state
emerges.

This 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. For Weber, such struggles need not be class based though, but could be based on ethnic
struggles, nationalism, etc. and these are mainly political struggles. The extent to which this is
true would have to be tested in each particular situation. Some of the current political struggles
would appear to be class based, other concerned with status or other concerns. The farmers wish
to have their market situation improved, and this could be interpreted as a Weberian class based
struggle.

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.
1. Legal authority: The Pure Type
a. Any given legal norm may be established by agreement or by imposition, on
grounds of expediency or value-rationality or both, with a claim to obedience at
least on the part of the members of the organization.
b. That every body of law consists essentially in a consistent system of abstract
rules which have normally been intentionally established. The administration
process in the rational pursuit of the interests which are specified in the order
governing the organization within the limits laid down by legal precepts and
following principles which are capable of generalized formulation and are
approved in the order governing the group or at least not disapproved in it.
c. That thus, the typical person in authority, the ‘superior’ is himself subject to an
impersonal order by orienting his actions to it in his own dispositions and
commands.
d. That the persona who obeys authority does so, as it is usually stated, only in his
capacity as a ‘member’ of the organization and what he obeys is only the ‘law’.
e. The members of the organization, insofar as they obey a person in authority, do
not own this obedience to him as an individual, but to the impersonal order.
Hence it follows that there is an obligation to obedience only within the sphere of
the rationally delimited jurisdiction which, in terms of the order, has been given to
him.
2. Fundamental categories of rational legal authority:
a. A continuous rule-bound conduct of official business.
b. A specified sphere of competence
c. the organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy that is each lower
office is under the control and supervision of a higher one.
d. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules of norms.
Hence a specialized training is necessary for its members. The administrative staff
of a rational organization thus typically consists of ‘officials’ whether the
organization be devoted to political, hierocratic, economic – in particular,
capitalistic – or other ends.
e. Officials, employees, and workers attached to the administrative staff do not
themselves own the non-human means of production and administration.
f. In the rational type case, there is also a complete absence of appropriation of his
official position by the incumbent.
g. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in writing,
even in cases where oral discussion is the rule or is even mandatory.
h. Legal authority can be exercised in a wide variety of different forms.
3. Legal authority the pure type
a. The whole administrative staff under the supreme suthority then consists, in the
purest type, of individual officials who are appointed and function according to
the following criteria:
 i. They are personally free and subject to authority only with respect to their
impersonal official obligations.
ii. They are organized in a clearly defined hierarchy of offices.
iii. Each office has a clearly defined sphere of competence in the legal sense.
iv. The office is filled by a free contractual relationship. Thus, in principle,
there is a free selection.
v. Candidates are selected on the basis of technical qualifications. They are
appointed and not elected.
vi. They are renumerated by fixed salaries in money.
vii. The office is the primary occupation of the incumbent.
viii. There is a system of protocol according to seniority or to achievement or
both.
ix. The official works entirely separated from ownership of the means of
administration and without appropriation of his position.
x. He is subjected to strict and systematic discipline and control in the
conduct of the office.
4. MONACRATIC BUREAUCRACY
i. This is the most efficient, thus the most rational known means of
exercising authority over human beings.
ii. The primary source of the superiority of bureaucratic administration lies in
the role of technical knowledge which, through the development of
modern technology and business methods in the production of goods, has
become completely indispensable.
iii. when those subject to bureaucratic control seek to escape the influence of
the existing bureaucratic apparatus, this is normally possible only by
creating an organization of their own which is equally subject to
bureaucratization.
iv. On one hand, capitalism in its modern stages of development requires the
bureaucracy, though both have arisen from different historical sources.
Conversely, capitalism is the most rational economic basis of bureaucratic
administration and enables it to develop in the most rational form,
especially because, from a fiscal point of view, it supplies the necessary
money resources.
v. Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally domination through
knowledge. This is the feature of it which makes it specifically rational.
This consists on one hand in technical knowledge which, by itself, is
sufficient to ensure it a position of extraordinary power.
vi. Superior to bureaucracy in the knowledge of techniques and facts is only
the capitalist entrepreneur within his own sphere of interest. He is the only
type who has been able to maintain at least relative immunity from
subjection to the control of rational bureaucratic knowledge.
5. The ‘spirit’ of rational bureaucracy has normally the following general characteristics:
 a. Formalism: which is promoted by all the interests which are concerned with the
security of their own personal situation, whatever this may consist in. otherwise
the door would be open to arbitrariness.
b. It is the tendency of officials to treat their official function from what is
substantively a utilitarian point of view in the interest of the welfare of those
under their authority. But this utilitarian tendency is generally expressed in the
enactment of corresponding regulatory measure which themselves have a formal
character and tend to be treated in a formalistic spirit.
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY

Traditional Authority summary. This 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. These could be (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, or 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 words, this traditionalist
domination "rests upon a belief in the sanctity of everyday routines." Ritzer notes that
"traditional authority is based on a claim by the leaders, and a belief on the part of the followers,
that there is virtue in the sanctity of age-old rules and powers"

Traditional forms of authority existed in many societies throughout much of history, and Weber
analyzed why this form of authority was maintained, and what were the barriers to the
development of more rational or legal forms of authority characteristic of western societies. In
particular, Weber was concerned with how these traditional forms of authority hindered the
development of capitalism in non-western societies.

Different types of traditional authority might be (i) gerontocracy or rule by elders, (ii)
patriarchalism where positions are inherited.

Patriarchalism is by far the most important type of domination the legitimacy of which
rests upon tradition. Patriarchalism means the authority of the father, the husband, the
senior of the house, 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 lord over the domestic
servants and household officials' of the prince over house- and court-officials, nobles of
office, clients, vassals; 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 is selected on the basis of adherence to traditional
principles. As long as this method of selection is accepted by others in the grouping, the rule of
the patriarch's authority must be accepted. The power of the patriarch is a personal prerogative.
He is able to exercise power without restraint, 'unencumbered by rules,' at least to the extent that
he is not 'limited by tradition of by competing powers. This type of authority may have few
limits to the exercise of domination, and to those in modern societies the means by which people
are selected for positions or the practices carried out may appear irrational.

Weber considers a more modern form to be patrimonialism, or rule by an administration or

military force that are purely personal instruments of the master. Patrimony means "from father
or ancestors." At the level of the household or family, patriarchy may continue, but within a clan,
gang or larger grouping, 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. Examples of this could include the rule of
monarchs in Europe, or the rule of military leaders.

A fourth type of authority is feudalism, one that was important historically. This is a more
routinized form of rule, with contractual relationships between leader and subordinate.

For Weber, 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. Marx might argue that there are economic reasons for such dominance, but
Weber would be more likely to claim that commonly accepted customs or religion constitute the
underlying source of such authority. Status honour is accorded to those with traditional forms of
power and this status helps maintain dominance. Weber notes that traditional authority blocks the
development of rational or legal forms of authority. This model of traditional and patriarchal
authority could be applied to male-female relationships.

1. The pure type:

a. The authority will be called traditional if legitimacy is claimed for it and believed
in by virtue of the sanctity of age old rules and power. It is based on personal
loyalty which results from common upbringing. The person exercising authority
is not a ‘superior’ but a personal master, his administrative staff does not consist
mainly of officials but of personal retainers and the ruled are not ‘members of an
association but are either his traditional ‘comrades’ or his ‘subjects’
b. The commands of such a person are legitimized in one of the two ways:
i. Partly in terms of traditions which themselves directly determine the
content of the command and are believed to be valid within certain limits
that cannot be overstepped without endangering the master’s traditional
status.
ii. Partly in terms of the master’s discretion in that sphere which tradition
leaves open to him; this traditional prerogative rests primarily on the fact
that the obligation
c. The recruitment is either patrimonial or extra patrimonial.
d. In place of a well-defined functional jurisdiction, there is a conflicting series of
tasks and powers which at first are assigned at the master’s discretion. However,
they tend to become permanent and are often traditionally stereotyped.
 GERONTOCRACY, PATRIARCHALISM AND PATRMONALISM
1. GERONTOCRACY: it is applied to a situation where so far as rule over the group is
organized at all it is in the hands of elders – which originally was understood literally as
the eldest in actual years, who are most familiar with the sacred traditions.
2. Patriarchalism: is the situation where within a group (household) which is usually
organized on both an economic or kinship basis, a particular individual governs who is
designated by a definite rule of inheritance.
3. In both cases the master is still largely dependent upon the willingness of the members to
comply with his orders since he has no machinery to enforce them. Therefore, the
members are not really subjects. Their membership exists by tradition and not be
enactment.
4. Patrimonialism: it tends to arise whenever traditional domination develops an
administration and a military force which are purely personal instruments of the master.
Only then are the group members treated as subjects.
5. Estate type domination: is that form of patrimonial authority under which the
administrative staff appropriates particular powers and the corresponding economic
assets. There is always a limitation of the lord’s discretion in selecting his administrative
staff because positions have been occupied by an organized group or a status group.
CHARISMATIC 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. 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 can even challenge
legal authority.

A particular leader may have unusual characteristics that make him or her a leader. This may
relate to a special gift of a leader, a particular style of speaking and acting, or extraordinary
qualities. But it is necessary that the disciples define a leader as charismatic, then he or she is
likely to be a charismatic leader irrespective of whether he or she actually possesses any
outstanding traits.

While we ordinarily consider the charismatic leader as the one that is unusual, there are many
people with unusual characteristics. What is more relevant is why people in accord special status
or honour to one person or type of person. To the extent that followers are willing to accord the
leader such status, the leader has power to pursue his or her own ends.
 The charismatic leader 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 war lord, he must perform heroic deeds. Above all, however, his divine
mission must 'prove' itself in that those who faithfully surrender to him must fare
well. If they do not fare well, he is obviously not the master sent by the gods.

The subjects may extend a more active or passive 'recognition; to the personal
mission of the charismatic master. His power rests upon this purely factual
recognition and springs from faithful devotion. It is devotion to the extraordinary
and unheard-of, to what is strange to all rule and tradition and which therefore is
viewed as divine. It is a devotion born of distress and enthusiasm.

Genuine charismatic domination therefore knows of no abstract legal codes and

statutes and of no 'formal' way of adjudication. Its 'objective' law emanates
concretely from the highly personal experience of heavenly grace and from the
god-like strength of the hero. Charismatic domination means a rejection of all ties
to any external order in favor of the exclusive genuine mentality of the prophet
and hero. Hence, its attitude is revolutionary and transvalues everything; it makes
a sovereign break with all traditional or rational norms: 'It is written, but I say
unto you.'"

The last paragraph of this quote shows how the charismatic form of domination may be
revolutionary in nature, challenging traditional authority and perhaps legal authority and
rationality as well. Charismatic authority can easily degenerate into traditional authority, or
personal or patrimonial rule, whereby the power is exercised by those who surround the
charismatic leader, but purely in an interest to maintain that power. But if a charismatic leader
originally claims that traditional forms of authority are to be disregarded, this is a revolutionary
claim.

Authority legitimized by charisma rests on the devotion of followers to the exceptional sanctity,

heroism, or exemplary character of leaders as well as on the normative order sanctioned by them.
All of these modes of legitimizing authority clearly imply individual actors, thought processes
(beliefs), and actions. While these forms of authority may seem much less solidly based than
economic power, rationality or legality, or the use of physical force or coercion, they are no less
real as a source of power.

Charisma has shortcomings as a long-term source of authority, but it can be quite effective
during the lifetime of the charismatic leader. 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 administration of charismatic authority leads to the development of legal
and rational authority.

1. Charismatic authority and charismatic community:

a. Quality of an individual personality.
 b. An organized group subject to charismatic authority will be called a charismatic
community. Disciples or followers tend to live primarily in a communistic
relationship with their leader on means which have been provided by voluntary
gift. There are no established administrative organs.
c. Charismatic authority is different from both bureaucratic and traditional authority.
Bureaucratic authority is specifically rational in the sense of being bound to
intellectually analysable rules; while charismatic authority is specifically
irrational in the sense of being foreign to all rules. Traditional authority is bound
to the precedents handed down from the past and to this extent is also oriented to
the rules. Within the sphere of its claim, charismatic authority repudiates the past
and is in this sense a specifically revolutionary force. It recognizes no
appropriation of positions of power by virtue of the possession of property, either
on the part of a chief or of socially privileged groups. The only basis of legitimacy
for it is personal charisma so long as it is proved; that is, as long as it receives
recognition and as long as the followers and disciples prove their usefulness
charismatically.
2. Routinization of charisma:
a. THE PROBLEM OF SUCCESSION:
i. The search for a new charismatic leader on the basis of criteria of the
qualities which will fit him for the position of authority. E.g. Dalai Lama
ii. Revelations manifested in oracles, divine judgement or other techniques of
selection.
iii. Designation on the part of the original charismatic leader of his own
successor and his recognition on the part of the followers
iv. Designation of a successor by the charismatically qualified administrative
staff and his recognition by the community.
v. The conception that charisma is a quality transmitted by heredity thus that
it is participated in by the kinsmen of its bearer, particularly by his closest
relatives. This is the case of hereditary charisma. In the case of hereditary
charisma, recognition is no longer paid to the charismatic qualities of the
individual, but to the legitimacy of the position he has acquired by
hereditary succession.
vi. The concept that charisma maybe transmitted by ritual means from one
bearer to another or may be created in a new person. it involves a
dislocation of charisma from a particular individual, making it an
objective, transferable entity. It may be called charisma of office.

3. Types of appropriation by charismatic self:

a. Status honor and the legitimate authority:
i. It follows that, in the course of routinization, the charismatically ruled
organization is largely transformed into one of the everyday authorities,
the patrimonial form, especially in its estate type or bureaucratic variant. It
 original peculiarities are apt to be retained in the charismatic status honor
acquired by heredity or office holding.
ii. Charisma is a phenomenon typical of prophetic movements or of
expansive political movements in their early stages. But as soon as
domination is well established and above all as soon as control over large
masses of people exists, it gives way to the forces of everyday routine.