The existence of power and authority is one of the characteristics of civilizations. Furthermore, many would agree that the emergence of power is one of the most important aspect of social evolution. The work of Max Weber, “Economy and Society” took a broader view of history. Weber wrote about politics as a means of interaction and change. His work distinguished three types of leadership like a taxonomy and it defined legitimate authority and its basis.
Weber was able to distinguish three types. It is like Darwin’s taxonomy because it has given us a definition of these types and how it played certain roles in certain civilizations. Now, Weber defined legitimate domination as and I quote: “the probability that certain specific commands, or possible all commands will be obeyed by a given group of persons.” This is correct because it is directed towards another person. There is a relation between the ruler and the ruled.
The three types that are discussed by Weber includes: the rational grounds or legal authority because those elevated in power have the right to issue commands through legal means; the traditional grounds that is probably about the respect for undying traditions and the last being the charismatic domination that talks about the sanctity of a per son, the respect and the patterns ordained by the society. Let’s talk about these three types.
The belief that lies in the rational grounds is legal in some sense. According to Weber, it lies on five basic beliefs and seven basic features. I could not disagree with him in the sense that the legal authority is always supported by legal means. The staff must obey not just the rulers but the law in itself, they just don’t follow the rules because of admiration but because the person occupied a spot in the hierarchy, there should be rules for the members to obey and they are subject to norms. The seven features in the sense were able to support the perspective of Weber. There is always legality like written orders, there is officialdom that is like a hierarchic domain that a member cannot just intrude, there are trainings and of course there is a benefit or salary. I believe that this type of authority is rational in the sense that there is a formality. It is a bureaucracy. It defies race, sex or other things as long as the person is technically trained to fill in the position. The problem, however, lies on the scheme that it is impersonal. This type borders on formality and strictness that there is no more room for interrelations because of social leveling.
The next type, the so-called traditional authority is quite different because the followers are not members but subjects. Suffice it to say that the subject has a personal loyalty to the ruler. It is a nobility and there is no question about that. The third type lies on the belief of charisma. If before, the leadership may connote superhuman abilities or heroic deeds, at the moment it could mean those people who opted for change and got it. I believe that Weber’s point on charisma is correct because authority can sometimes be associated with the person’s individual personality. The history of many ancient civilizations is characterized by the frequent ruling of people who are charismatic. But I see no reason for Weber to say that there are certain revelations for one to say that a leader to be charismatic. We don’t live at those times when we still need oracles of some sort to choose a new leader.
As a whole, Weber’s take on the sociology of politics is quite remarkable. But we cannot dismiss the notion that not all three types are particular to a certain society. It is not always true that the best equipped leaders became leaders. This is not necessarily the case, whether leaders are appointed through legal means, with respect to tradition or the charisma of the person. A glance of history reveals too many mad leaders, weak generals, and inefficient politicians. However, Weber’s work is still worth the time.
Leadership does not mean merely exercising power. There are no true leaders without followers. Furthermore, it is in the study of the relationship between the two that we begin to understand what leadership is really about.
Weber was able to distinguish three types. It is like Darwin’s taxonomy because it has given us a definition of these types and how it played certain roles in certain civilizations. Now, Weber defined legitimate domination as and I quote: “the probability that certain specific commands, or possible all commands will be obeyed by a given group of persons.” This is correct because it is directed towards another person. There is a relation between the ruler and the ruled.
The three types that are discussed by Weber includes: the rational grounds or legal authority because those elevated in power have the right to issue commands through legal means; the traditional grounds that is probably about the respect for undying traditions and the last being the charismatic domination that talks about the sanctity of a per son, the respect and the patterns ordained by the society. Let’s talk about these three types.
The belief that lies in the rational grounds is legal in some sense. According to Weber, it lies on five basic beliefs and seven basic features. I could not disagree with him in the sense that the legal authority is always supported by legal means. The staff must obey not just the rulers but the law in itself, they just don’t follow the rules because of admiration but because the person occupied a spot in the hierarchy, there should be rules for the members to obey and they are subject to norms. The seven features in the sense were able to support the perspective of Weber. There is always legality like written orders, there is officialdom that is like a hierarchic domain that a member cannot just intrude, there are trainings and of course there is a benefit or salary. I believe that this type of authority is rational in the sense that there is a formality. It is a bureaucracy. It defies race, sex or other things as long as the person is technically trained to fill in the position. The problem, however, lies on the scheme that it is impersonal. This type borders on formality and strictness that there is no more room for interrelations because of social leveling.
The next type, the so-called traditional authority is quite different because the followers are not members but subjects. Suffice it to say that the subject has a personal loyalty to the ruler. It is a nobility and there is no question about that. The third type lies on the belief of charisma. If before, the leadership may connote superhuman abilities or heroic deeds, at the moment it could mean those people who opted for change and got it. I believe that Weber’s point on charisma is correct because authority can sometimes be associated with the person’s individual personality. The history of many ancient civilizations is characterized by the frequent ruling of people who are charismatic. But I see no reason for Weber to say that there are certain revelations for one to say that a leader to be charismatic. We don’t live at those times when we still need oracles of some sort to choose a new leader.
As a whole, Weber’s take on the sociology of politics is quite remarkable. But we cannot dismiss the notion that not all three types are particular to a certain society. It is not always true that the best equipped leaders became leaders. This is not necessarily the case, whether leaders are appointed through legal means, with respect to tradition or the charisma of the person. A glance of history reveals too many mad leaders, weak generals, and inefficient politicians. However, Weber’s work is still worth the time.
Leadership does not mean merely exercising power. There are no true leaders without followers. Furthermore, it is in the study of the relationship between the two that we begin to understand what leadership is really about.
_________________________________________________________________
Sources:
Weber, Max (1978). Economy and society. (G. Roth and C. Wittich). Berkeley: University of California. (Originally published in 1922).
Whitehouse, R. and Wilkins, J. (1986) The making of civilization. New York: Roxby Archaeology Ltd.
Whitehouse, R. and Wilkins, J. (1986) The making of civilization. New York: Roxby Archaeology Ltd.
No comments:
Post a Comment