Max Weber Political Authority Essay

Those who are in power are not accountable to constituencies and public policy does not derive from social consent. Within sociology and political science, particularly within comparative politics, authoritarianism has been understood as a modern type of political regime. Therefore, the concept focuses on the way of accessing, exercising, and organizing power, on the nature of the belief system, and the role of citizens in the political

The purpose of this essay is to analyse Weber’s theory of authority and power in order to establish its role in the modern contemporary world today. Weber, in his most acclaimed writings, discusses his three ideal types of authority being outlined as traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority. He believes that in order for any political leader or political establishment to hold legitimate authority over its peoples, they must have either one of these types of authority. All of these types of power and authority can be referred to in some way in today’s contemporary world using examples of differing political leaders and systems. However, Weber’s writings were conducted in 1922 and may be considered as out-dated, and not as relevant as they were at his time of writing. Also, many dispute that Weber’s types of authority were perhaps not entirely relatable and Martin Spencer, like many other critics of Weber’s work in fact argue that there should have been four types of authority. Hence why these issues must be discussed in order to conclude whether Weber’s ideal types of authority are representative of political leaders and governments, and whether or not they can be associated with the contemporary world we live in today.

Throughout history there have been occurrences where humans have blindly followed authority leaders. Such as the holocaust, which is an example of conformity at its best. Conformity is a compliance with standards, rules, or laws. In other words, it is an effect that causes people to do things they may not have otherwise done. During the Holocaust one man was at power, Adolf Hitler.

Max Weber identified three classifications of authority: traditional, charismatic and legal-rational authority. Traditional authority is based on traditional customs and values, such as a monarchy. Charismatic authority is based on one's personal traits and likeability. Legal-rational authority is based on the office one holds, such as that of the Prime Minister of Canada (as cited in Garner, Ferdinand, Lawson & MacDonald, 2009). Understanding Weber's classifications of authority will be beneficial when analysing how Trudeaumania proved to be advantageous for Pierre Trudeau in his quest for political power.

Generally speaking, unless someone has been living under a rock; it is clear that the subject of authority is exceedingly controversial in our current society. There are many ways to perceive just the word authority. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word authority as “the power to give orders or make decisions: the power or right to direct or control someone or something” and or “the confident quality of someone who knows a lot about something or who is respected or obeyed by other people.” From this we can gather a few things. First, there are three forms of authority according to Merriam-Webster dictionary; the right to authority, the power to have authority, and respect to have authority. The right to authority indicates

First of all is power influence:- Power means ability to do something. The term of power is not related to authority. A man can apply power, in absence of authority also. Very renowned scholar

Charismatic leadership is a passionate, self-confident leader whose character and actions affect people to behave in certain ways. High self-monitors might be more effective leaders because they can easily adjust their behavior to a different situation versus a charismatic or self-confident leader that behave in an assured way.

Transformational leaders provide a sense of vision and mission, they have the capability to inspire through communication of high expectations, stimulate the use of intelligence for problem solving, and provide personal attention and coaching for followers. This type of leadership is concerned with emotions, values ethics, standards and long term goals (p.185). “Charismatic leaders act in unique ways that have specific charismatic effects on their followers”(p.188). Charismatic leaders are strong role models for the beliefs and values they want their followers to adopt.

The charismatic leadership style depend on the attraction and persuasion of the leader. Charismatic leaders are driven by their beliefs and promise to their cause. In this theory of Charismatic leadership, they say that charismatic leaders act in a different way they have a special charismatic effect on their followers. They are dominant, having a strong way to influence other people to be self- confident, and have a strong sense of one’s own moral values.

According to Weber, “sociological analysis will treat [people] on the same level as...men who are the "greatest" heroes...according to conventional judgements,” that addresses the subject of authority (Types of Legitimate Domination, 242.) In other words, those who display a charismatic, genuine nature as leaders, will receive a different admiration from their followers that resonates with that character that they’re putting forward.

Weber’s second type of influence is charismatic authority. Charismatic authority is characterized by a leader with rare personal features that attract others to them. Charismatic leaders have qualities that are powerful and challenging

Unlike rational-legal authority, traditional authority is not codified in impersonal rules but is usually invested in a hereditary line or invested in a particular office by a higher power. Finally, charismatic authority rests on the appeal of leaders who claim allegiance because of the force of their extraordinary personalities.

Finally, charismatic authority arises in periods of social unrest and change and thus depends not only on the existence of this `exceptional' individual but a social context which produces large numbers of individuals who are `disenchanted' with the present social institutions. Charisma, is in Weber's view ` a great revolutionary force' for social change. Charismatic movements always seek to dismantle or overthrow existing/traditional forms of authority and power. Finally, Weber suggests charismatic authority as inherently unstable since it is usually based upon a `personality cult' of the leader. When the leader dies then the movement will `die' with him/her or ossify and institutionalise itself into what Weber refers to as `the charisma of office': bureaucracy! Look at Fig. 1, (at the bottom of page 2 of this document) which I have taken and adapted from Bryan Turner's book. To understand the historical process we will need to begin with the `magician' and move `clockwise' towards `secular man'.

     Weber identifies several different types of authority. One is traditional legitimacy, which states that authority is bestowed upon someone based on traditional roles of authority, such as the pope or even the parents of children. Charismatic authority tells us that some are granted legitimacy to have authority over our lives by sheer charisma, such as Martin Luther King jr., Adolf Hitler and Gandhi. The third type of authority is rational-legal authority. This states that we grant legitimacy based upon the office they serve. An example of this is the inherent authority of Jesse Ventura over the people of Minnesota, simply because he holds the title of governor.

Researchers have proposed several characteristics of leaders described as ‘charismatic’. The widely accepted characteristics of charismatic leaders are (Bryman et al., 2011, p. 90-91):