ANTARA CHAKRABARTYwy lam Antara Chakrabarty and | am currently doing my a Development Studies from Jamia Milia 7 I teach 2a" and a2" Humanities along with NTA NET. Sociology! « a: Overview ofthe WRITE A REVIEW =~ aitenmne-b-~ ®@ ED'Y unacademy WEBER'S DIFFERENCES WITH MARK ¢ First, Weber maintained that social life did not evolve according to some immanent or necessary law. Thus, unlike Marx, Weber did not foresee a definitive "end of prehistory" toward which social evolution progressed. * Instead, he saw the future of modern society as an open question, the answer to which it is impossible to foretell. * This position, coupled with his view that rationalizing processes had transformed modern society into an "iron cage" accounts for Weber's unwillingness to accept a Utopian vision of humanity's future.'Y unacademy * Second, he contended that the development of societies could not be adequately explained on the basis of a single or primary causal mechanism. * The analysis of economic conditions and class dynamics alone could not capture the complex social and cultural processes responsible for shaping a society's trajectory. + In particular, Weber maintained that Marx, in emphasizing economic factors and class-based interests, underestimated the role that ideas play in determining a society's course of development.'Y unacademy + "Not ideas, but material and ideal interests, directly govern men's conduct. Yet very frequently the 'world images’ that have been created by ‘ideas' have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest" (Weber 1915/1958:280).'Y unacademy + A third difference lies in where the two theorists located the fundamental problems facing modern industrial society. + As you read previously, Marx identified capitalism as the primary source of humanity's inhumanity. The logic of capitalism necessarily led to the exploitation of the working class as well as to the alienation of the ini from his work, himself, and others. idual * For Weber, however, it was not capitalism but the process of rationalization and the increasing dominance of bureaucracies that threatened to destroy creativity and individuality.YF unacademy ‘Nonrational ec acon | Traditional acton | Taitonal thority Valve-rational action - Protestant ethic ng = Status groups Charismatic authority | Instrumental-rational ‘action'Y unacademy INTRODUCTION TO "THE TYPES OF LEGITIMATE DOMINATION" + In this selection, Weber defines three "ideal types" of legitimate domination: rational or legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority. * Before briefly describing the forms of legitimate authority, we first need to clarify Weber's definition of legitimacy. By "legitimacy," Weber was referring to the belief systems on which valid commands issuing from authority figures are based.'Y unacademy * Such belief systems supply the justifications and motives for demanding obedience and allow those in authority to rightfully exercise domination over others. It is to these ications that authority figures turn when seeking to legitimate their actions and the actions of those subjected to their commands.'Y unacademy RATIONAL-LEGAL AUTHORITY '* Modern states are ruled through rational-legal authority. This form of domination is based on the rule of rationally established laws. * Legitimacy thus rests "on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands" (Weber 1925c/1978:215).'Y unacademy * Obedience is owed not to the person who exercises authority, but to the office or position in which authority is vested. It is the impersonal, legal order that vests the superior with the authority to demand compliance, a right that is ceded on vacating the office. Once retired, a police officer or judge is but another civilian and as such no longer has the power to enforce the law.'Y unacademy TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY * Traditional authority is the authority of "eternal yesterday." It rests on an "established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions" (ibid.:215). + This is the rule of kings and tribal chieftains. Leadership is attained not on the basis of impersonally measured merit, but on lines of heredity or rites of passage. * Subjects owe their allegiance not to bureaucratically imposed rules and laws that are open to change, but to their personal "master" whose demands for compliance and loyalty are legitimated by sacred, inviolable traditions.'Y unacademy CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY + Weber's third type of authority derives from the charisma possessed by the leader. Demands for obedience are legitimated by the leader's "gift of grace," which is demonstrated through extraordinary feats, acts of heroism, or revelations—in short, the miracles of heroes and prophets. + Like traditional authority, loyalty is owed to the person and not to an office defined through impersonal rules. But unlike traditional authority, legi acy is not based on appeals to sacred traditions or on the exalting of "what has always been."* Instead, compliance from "disciples" is demanded o1 re paecaderyy basis of the “conception that it is the duty of those subject to charismatic authority to recognize its genuineness and to act accordingly" (ibid.:242) ¢ From Jesus and Muhammad, Joan of Arc and Gandhi, to Napoleon and Hitler, such leaders have proved to be a powerful force for social change, both good and bad. Indeed, in its rejection of both tradition and rational, formal rules, charismatic authority, by its very nature, poses a challenge to existing political order. In breaking from history as well as objective laws, charisma is a creative force that carries the commandment: "It is written, but I say unto you."