Weber 's Theory Of Authority

Although there are somewhat of similarities between Weber’s and Foucault’s relations of power and dominance, how they evaluate the concepts separately and the ways these concepts are practiced in society, can be distinguished differently. Webber appears to occupy the polar opposite with the respect to his claims of how power becomes existent with bureaucratic instruments and bureaucracy itself, Foucault argues that the power relations are everywhere in society and with expansive elements; society has no option but to internalize (Shaw 2011). His explanation of power is much broader than Weber’s. Focault rejects the hierarchical models of power, and believed that relations of dominance are formations of unequal power (McClaren 2002), and over time domination may seem fixed in society’s social structure (Shaw 2011). Additionally, Foucault looks at the concept of power from a functional strategy, with the functional practices administered by authority, and emphasises that authority commonly uses discursive power and the operation of discourse to maintain the dominance (Smart 2010; Shaw 2011). What is compelling about Foucault’s concept of power are his discursive claims. Unlike Webber, he suggests that power relations are not necessarily derived from state practices, but are all under state control, and highlights that “state and hegemony is in the every area of life” (Shaw 2011). Further, to understand some of Foucault’s functional examples, he focuses on the everyday lives of

and subsequent reinvestment of capital, is an end that both Weber and Marx reach in their analyses of society and agree on in definition. However, while Marx tells us that phantoms of the brain i.e. morality, religion, ideology, cannot develop independently of material production or influence it, Weber argues that ideas and religion can indeed determine life and the processes of life, namely our material production. The key difference between the two is their scope of factors that can cause historical development. Marx only allows for one factor, productive forces and the economic conditions resulting from them; Weber, on the other hand, acknowledges that while ideology and religion can support the economic relations as a driving factor, they can also develop independently and become a factor, a force on its own that can alter production, economic conditions, and thus history. By accounting for the multiple ways in which a society can be altered, Weber provides a more complete and applicable understanding of historical development and the powerful concept that an idea from an individual or group of individuals can have a legitimate and significant effect on the direction of society.

What makes a political authority legitimate? A legitimate political authority, in this essay, will be taken to mean that there is a justification for an individual or a body to have power over other people in determining such things as laws and protection of freedom. To consider this question, three theories shall be looked at – Hobbes’, Rousseau and finally Locke and determine which gives the most persuasive account of legitimate political authority. To begin with, their hypothetical starting point, the state of nature, shall be discussed to establish the foundations of their political authority. Secondly, the reasons that shall lead man to get out of the state of nature will be examined in order to see if these logically follow on from

A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both

When looking into the ideas of political theorists it is important to the use of political concepts that may play an important role in what the theorists are suggesting and also how they may affect the relationship between to state and the individuals living within a state. The concepts that will be looked at within this essay are: power, authority and also accountability.

In Weber’s article he claims that there are specific types of domination, which stress the importance of establishing “legitimacy” as a leader, within a group of people. He supports this opening claim in his introduction paragraph, in which he defines the authority of domination “classified” by the “kind of claim” demanded (2). He ultimately supports his by breaking down the types of legitimacy in domination in three distinct categories: Legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority (3). He supports his argument through theoretical examples in which he assumes the reader has a background in. The assumptions include: knowledge of basic authoritative environments such as work setting or school that are applied to his

In every country, novel, or club there needs to be structure and an authority figure to succeed in any way they can. When I think of a country and authority, Adolf Hitler comes to mind as he was one of the most power hungry people in mankind's history. As he quotes, “He

He made us aware on how so many individuals knowingly participated in the atrocious acts of violence against humanity and without much hesitance. He provided us the formula and a clear explanation on Max Weber views and how it was all possible for the bureaucratic domination of Germany, and the consequences of such power. Max Weber “was convinced that political domination would rest with whoever controlled the bureaucratic apparatus because of its indisputable superiority as an instrument for the organization of human action”. (Rubenstein, 23) Nazi Germany mastered the use of power and the management principles, this can be observed in Hitler’s organization of the concentration camps. Hitler replaced the existence camps with a more impersonal, systematized terror” camps. (Rubenstein, 24) Hitler and Nazi Germany established order in the camps, by applying bureaucracy principles. They established specialization, providing a meaning of set task and responsibilities each office and individual will handle and follow, making their job simpler and more efficient in following directions. They appointed individuals to ensure the written rules and regulations installed were being followed. This assured that individuals knew their responsibilities and made it easier for their assigned task to be completed. This also created recordkeeping of the rules, procedures and disciplinary actions.

The struggles against authority, repeatedly and continuously, take place in the history. As for those fighters, Voltaire, a famous French writer and thinker, once put forward an idea, “It is dangerous to be right in matters about which the established authorities are wrong.”() The word “right” contrasting to “wrong” means the truth. An “established authorities” could be regarded to the dominant powers controlling and guiding people, such as long-existing conventions held and propagated by the power-holders or the influential experts in specific fields. The article will support the idea of Voltaire by providing sufficient and concrete evidences. It is reasonable that people might suffer the possibility of oppression from the authority, when the ideas of the former contrasts to the latter who tend to retain its status. The challenger is dangerous in the way that the power of authorities, at most time, overwhelm them; the characteristic of opposing ideas invites the oppression by authority. It is possible to receive potential danger from the authority, while some did succeed in the struggle.

The word bureaucracy derived from “bureau” and “cracy”. The word “bureau” means office or desk and “cracy”means power or rule. Thus bureaucracy means desk government.

We have to contend, in the exercise of our personal power, with the influences of such power-channels in our environments and how they add to, limit or distort our exercise of power - e.g. hierarchies, coalitions,

The concept of power has been a topic of interest of many sociologists as they seek to define the term. Ensuring that the exercise of power is legitimate is a key integral to the concept of power in present day. However, although the power is seen as legitimate, it also has to be exercised appropriately as; ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ (Dalberg-Acton, 1907: 504). Max Weber and Hannah Arendt are two sociologists whose ideology of what the concept of power is, are at the opposite ends of a pole. It is different in the fact that both theories approach different aspects of power. Weber’s account of power is more associated with everyday understanding and use of power, whereas Arendt’s account of power focuses more on power as a tool when speaking and acting in concert (Goverde H. & Lentner H, 2000).

The exercise of authority and power are facts as old as time, throughout the ages men have tried to explain and understand how and why political authority is organised. Sovereignty is a concept used to explain political power, to

Power is defined as a political action coerced to exercise or to pursuit. It influences and controls the content of political power. The theory of power is argued by Niccolo Machiavelli, Hannah Arendt, and Karl Emil (Max) Weber. Machiavelli’s position stood that power is held by individuals. As for Arendt, she believed power was maintained within groups, while Weber believed power lied in institutions.

Max Weber's theory of rationalization is an extensively studied theory within sociology. Weber’s theory uses the model of bureaucracy to symbolize the constant shifting ways of our society. Rationalization is the process of replacing rationally consistent rules for conventional or rather illogical rules within society. According to Weber, bureaucracy is the fundamental model of rational rule. They are extremely predictable, in both the job process but also labor production. Bureaucracies are more worried with the amount of production than the value of the product itself. Weber viewed this structure as ineffective and completely flawed.