WEBER- LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY

Max Weber talks about different types of authority and their association with power.
Power, according to Weber, refers to the probability that the actor within a social
relationship will be in a position to carry out his will despite resistance shown by others. .
He uses the term authority to mean power. He believes that resources in a society are in
the hands of a particular group and the control over the resources gives the group
economic power that might lead to domination, which emerges, from a social relation.
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. The quality of these motives largely
determines the type of domination. However, what forms the basis of domination is the
belief in legitimacy. 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.
‘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. Weber underlines three types of authority
(can also be referred to as legitimate domination) and shows how power is exercised in
each of them. First is Rational Legal Authority. It rests on the legality of the enacted
rules and rights of those elevated to authority under such rules. 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, and 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 those who are subordinate may challenge a bureaucratic
state emerges. This rational-legal form of authority. 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 a sense that legal authority can be interpreted. In modern
societies, authority is in large part exercised based on bureaucracies. Legal authority
validated the following interdependent ideas. 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. 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. 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. 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’. 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. The following can thus
be said to be fundamental categories of rational legal authority. A continuous rule-bound
conduct of official business. Specified sphere of competence the organization of offices
follows the principle of hierarchy that is each lower office is under the control and
supervision of a higher one. 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. Officials, employees, and workers attached to the administrative staff do not
themselves own the non-human means of production and administration. In the rational
type case, there is also a complete absence of appropriation of his official position by the
incumbent. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in
 writing, even in cases where oral discussion is the rule or is even mandatory. Legal
authority can be exercised in a wide variety of different forms. The complete
administrative staff under the supreme authority then consists, in the purest type, of
individual officials who are appointed and function according to the following criteria:
They are personally free and subject to authority only with respect to their impersonal
official obligations. They are organized in a clearly defined hierarchy of offices. Each
office has a clearly defined sphere of competence in the legal sense. The office is filled by
a free contractual relationship. Thus, in principle, there is a free selection. Candidates are
selected based on technical qualifications. They are appointed and not elected. Fixed
salaries in money remunerate them. The office is the primary occupation of the incumbent.
There is a system of protocol according to seniority or to achievement or both. The official
works entirely separated from ownership of the means of administration and without
appropriation of his position. He is subjected to strict and systematic discipline and control
in the conduct of the office.

The ‘spirit’ of rational bureaucracy has normally the following general characteristics:
Formalism that 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. 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.

Second kind is Traditional Authority. It rests on the belief in the sanctity of ageold
rules, traditions and powers. 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. There are two Different types of traditional authority gerontocracy or rule by
elders and 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.

Gerontocracy 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.

However, 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 ‘The commands of such a person are legitimized in one of the two ways: 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. 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 the recruitment is either patrimonial or extra patrimonial. 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.

Third kind of domination according to Weber is known as 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.

He 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. However, it is necessary that the disciples define a leader as charismatic,
and 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 honor 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 warlord, 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, 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. Nevertheless, 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.
Charismatic authority is based on charisma, which refers to the quality of an individual’s
personality. Charismatic community is 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. Charismatic authority is different from both
bureaucratic and traditional authority. Bureaucratic authority is specifically rational in the sense
of being bound to intellectually analyzable 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 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.
However, there is an issue of succession in the routinisation of charisma. The search for a new
charismatic leader based on criteria of the qualities, which will fit him for the position of
authority. E.g., Dalai Lama Revelations manifested in oracles, divine judgement or other
techniques of selection. Designation on the part of the original charismatic leader of his own
successor and his recognition on the part of the followers Designation of a successor by the
charismatically qualified administrative staff and his recognition by the community. 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.
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.

The routinization of charisma also takes the form of appropriation of powers and of economic
advantages by the administrative staff. The original basis of recruitment is personal charisma.
Status honor and the legitimate authority 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.
Charisma is a phenomenon typical of prophetic movements or of expansive political movements
in their early stages. Nevertheless, 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.

The process of routinization of charisma is identical with conditions of the economy as it is the
principle continually operating force in everyday life. In economic dimension the revolutionary
impact of charisma is tremendous but often destructive because it means new modes of
orientation, but routinization leads to the exact reverse.