Authority

Max Weber When discussing authority you must refer to Max Weber He was a German sociologist who came up with the 3 types of authority that you must refer to in any essay He was interested in figuring out why people would act against their own interests when asked by some to do so, but not when asked by others – what property do some people have to get people to do what they wouldn’t otherwise want to? He sees authority as something called “legitimate power”

Authority is different from power This is essential to remember. Authority is the acceptance that someone has the right to tell you what to do. They are not making you do it – authority is about not having to make someone act – they do it unquestioningly Authority is in many ways the opposite of power – there is no need to persuade, control the agenda or thought control – people obey without question

Whereas power can be described as the ability to influence the behaviour of another, authority can be understood as the right to do so. Power brings about compliance through persuasion, threats, coercion or violence. Authority on the other hand, is based upon a perceived “right to rule” – ie it is based on what other people think, and it brings about compliance through moral obligation – a duty to obey. For authority it is not even essential that it is obeyed – just that the patient accepts the agent has a right to expect it

All governments and leaders seek to achieve authority Achieving authority is central to any government, because in the absence of willing compliance , governments are only able to maintain order through the use of fear, intimidation and violence. Authority is a means of getting people to obey without having to persuade them, or argue with them, or put any pressure on them.

Electoral Politics is not authority Political parties fighting each other in elections are trying to persuade voters – this means that they lack authority

There is always a mixture A government based on authority without power would be very rare to find, as all governments so far have had the backing of the police, courts and armies. Power without authority is often based on violence and fear alone – this is unstable, and will eventually collapse – though the deaths of many citizens may be the result Even in the case of the most brutal dictators some measure of authority is exerted – there are always some people who are ideologically committed to the regime.

Weber’s classifications Weber tried to come up with categories of different systems of domination. By coming up with these categories Weber hoped to track how different societies had developed from traditional to industrialised bureaucratic states. It is important to note that the classifications he came up with were “ideal” types, so theoretical in basis. Authority in his view is legitimate domination.

Traditional Authority This is regarded as legitimate because it has always been this way. This usually works through a hierarchical system which allocates status to each person in the group. We can see this in patriarchal family relations, and also in the leadership of the country – we still have a ruling class who are largely public school educated, and have attended Oxford or Cambridge. This is especially the case in the civil service organisation The most extreme example of traditional authority in UK society today would be the fact that we still have a Royal Family – people still have certain behaviours towards the Queen – without really questioning it.

Charismatic Authority This comes from the ability to make a direct and personal appeal to others. All forms of leadership require the ability to communicate and the capacity to inspire loyalty.

Charismatic Authority is the most easily linked to authoritarianism and dictatorship – since it is based on personality rather than status or office – charismatic authority is not limited by rules, and may create a sphere of “total power”. This type of authority demands more than the normal level of obedience, it can inspire devotion, fanaticism or even discipleship. Charismatic authority can have a messianic quality (Jesus, Napoleon, Kim Jong Il) It can also be seen in modern democratic societies – Thatcher, Blair and Obama, all have different styles but have tapped into charismatic authority.

Legal – Rational Authority This is dominant in modern industrial societies. It operates through clearly defined rules about the power of government – and power is attached to an office (ie Prime Minister) rather than person (May). This system is based upon the rule of law – which means that those who exercise power do so within a framework of law. Nobody is higher than the law, we are all subject to the same law, justice is blind etc. Example – written constitution of the USA, Rule of Law in the UK Bureaucratic authority is much less likely to be abused, or give rise to injustice than the other types.

Problems with Authority Authority can be seen as a threat to reason Fascism depends on authority This was shown in the Milgram experiments – people with a strong inclination to obey authority can be more easily led to behave in a barbaric fashion.

Problems with Authority Weber did not believe that authority was a good thing, quite the opposite– although there were positive elements to it, there is also a worrying restriction on human freedom that goes with increased bureaucracy. The uniform and rational procedures of bureaucracy prevent spontaneity and creativity. They produce an “iron cage” that imprisons and restricts people. Weber foresaw the possibility of people being trapped in their little routines, being little cogs clinging on to a machine, having no awareness of how their tasks linked to and fitted in with the rest of human life.

Weber feared that we would lose all ability for creative thought, we would not be able to apply meaning to actions any more, and therefore we would lose what it is to be human. If the government were to be left in the hands of bureaucrats, then in times of crisis this would be ineffective, as all bureaucrats can do is follow orders. Therefore politicians, elected by the people on ideological grounds, should always hold the top positions of state and always be in charge of the bureaucrats. Politicians are decision makers, bureaucrats effectively put those decisions into practice.