In Max Webers article titled Bureaucracy, Weber depicts the essentials to his ideal Bureaucracy. Weber begins the section with six key points that highlight the main stipulations of his ideal form of government. The first key being a separation of power within the government. Weber states,"Regular activities require for the purpose of the bureaucratically governed structure are assigned as official duties." (pg. 255) I unpacked that statement by determining its meaning as, not one single person will have complete control over any situation, and that each person within the system has a specific set of duties and tasks that are essential to the overall functionality of the government. Weber also makes a strong statement by claiming, "Only persons who qualify under general rules are employed." (pg. 255) I interpreted Weber's meaning similar to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. If a particular person cannot manager or complete a particular job, they are not fit for that situation and will be replaced by an organism that is, causing the exiled laborer to search for a new niche. The second ideal to Weber's society also relates to division of power between government officials. Weber uses the terms "office hierarchy" to depict pyramid effect, or a series of checks and balances intwined within the system to ensure that not one individual holds an extensive amount of power over the others. For example, the President of the United States would be the tip of our pyramid, followed by members of congress, the senate, all the way down to your average Joe. Although the President has significant amounts of power, he can not freely exercise that power at all times. By that I mean, the President simply cannot walk around bombing every nation we come into combat with, instead the President uses his assets (other members within the government) to come to an appropriate solution. Weber emphasizes on his point with this statement, "When the principle of jurisdictional "competency" is fully carried through, hierarchical subordination - at least in public office - does not mean that the "higher" authority is authorized simply to take over the business of the "lower". Indeed, the opposite is the rule; once an office has been set up, a new incumbent will always be appointed if a vacancy occurs." (pg. 265) The statement basically speaks for itself, I just pose one question. When Weber states "once an office has been set up, a new incumbent will always be appointed if a vacancy occurs" my only question is, by new incumbent does Weber mean a person within the same company, from lower on the hierarchy becomes promoted when a vacancy occurs? Or does Weber insist on the company hiring a new employee to take the place of the last employee? I believe both options are highly likely, but then again I also believe companies would rather promote within the company, than hire a new and untrained hand. The third component of Webers ideal bureaucracy stated that modern office is based upon separations, not just separation of wealth, or power but a separation of the two from themselves. What I mean by that statement is that this system abstains employees from bringing work into the household, ultimately separating business and pleasure. I believe a modern example of that statement can pertain to the military in regards to their "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, that allowing homosexuals to participate in the military under the grounds that they do not publicly exert such behaviors within the military. I believe that relates to Webers stipulation because there is a separation from business and pleasure. The fourth stipulation to Weber's Ideal governmental system beging with Weber stating, "Office management, at least all specialized office management - and such management is distinctly modern - usually presupposes through training in a field of separation." (pg. 256) That statement leads me to believe that the training of the managerial staff is vital to the operation and functionality of the company. I also believe that is extremely prevalent in a modern society, considering managers must undergo leadership classes, consumer sensitivity, and costumer service classes to ensure they are fully aware of their managerial duties. The fifth essential ideal highlights the idea once a company is established and operating, the activity demands the "full working capacity" of the official. I interpreted the meaning of the statement as, no matter how many hours your are designated to work, you may have to put in more. For an example relating to modern society I can relate to mechanics. Most mechanics are paid salary, meaning they get paid the same rate for 40 hours of work every week weather they have worked 30 hours or 50 hours. The example I can relate to is say a mechanic has been working for 39 hours, and is still not complete with his last car, the mechanic usually will stay to complete the task even if he then has worked over 40 hours. The last detail to Weber's ideal society depicts is the fact that each establishment has a set of rules or laws to be followed by each member of society. Which is fairly basic, considering every work place, or public facility has a simple set of rules each employee is responsible for knowing, and also following. I believe that rule can relate to almost every job in modern society. Considering upon being hired with a company, you sit down with a representative and fill out extensive amounts of paperwork, and finally conclude with the signing of your employee handbook, that you are responsible for reading, knowing, and demonstrating. Personally I believe Weber is wise beyond his years, considering many of these strategies are still exercised in todays modern society
Recently in [2-20] Weber II: Bureaucracy and Politics Category
Patrick Buxbaum blog 1: 20 Feb, 2012
How does Weber define legitimacy? What are three pure types of legitimate domination? What is the relationship between Weber's definition of legitimate order, his description of the basis of legitimacy in modern societies and his theory rising power of bureaucracy?
Weber speaks of legitimacy, domination, legitimate domination, and how the individual in power dominates those hes in charge, his staff and what kind of control he has over them and for what reasons. He defines legitimacy through domination. Domination is "the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons. It seems though that in whatever case it may be, to have domination when leading others, one must have legitimacy. Legitimacy is the legs that hold up domination. "in addition there is normally a further element, the belief in legitimacy." IN modern times one must show he has legitimacy before he can ever hope or wish to achieve domination. A example of legitimacy to attain domination over staff and peers is the military. Individuals start at the bottom of the rank structure, through hardwork, determination and proving ones legitimacy to lead, one earns the domination of others, or to command others. Without legitimacy domination will surely fail.
Max Weber talks about three types of legitimate domination. They are rational grounds, traditional grounds, and charismatic character. When I think of rational grounds and people who attain power in this manner I think of Officers of the Law. Police are chosen to uphold the law, and in doing this are given the power to command other civilians in regards to issues pertaining to law or the safety and best interest of the general public. These officials who are earn this power are also held at a higher standard than others and expected to act honorable or face consequences which could have them relenquish their position.
Traditional Grounds is similar but different in that when one rules on traditional grounds he is not ruling with standards related or upheld by the law. This type of legitimate power is upheld due to personal loyalty rather than legal. An example of this might be the president of the chess club, or captain of the wrestling team, he is voted into his position because peers look up to this individual.
To rule or achieve power because of charismatic grounds is slightly different as well. Although someone may be the president of the chess club, or captain of the wrestling team due to charismatic grounds. I think a great example of this is a war hero who saves many mens life and leads with a charismatic glow. When he does this he will recieve legitimate domination from his peers because on charismatic grounds.
Weber's legitimate order only comes when peers and those below the individual in power must have a belief in legitimacy of the individual whose leading them. Legitimate order in modern society is governed by some rules and regulations that must be adhered to for the commander as well as the people, with out these regulations one could lead with no power, and at the same time having those under him planning against him which on modern times happens but is a absolute must not. It is absolutely imperitive those under the commander and chief support his decisions. Although while they must do this there opinions are also important when making difficult decisions. Also while they must support the commander, he being the commander is also "subject to an impersonal order by orienting his actions to it in his own dispositions and commands." He who leads and holds the greatest power is also held accountable for his actions, no one is above the law.
Bureaucracy for Weber is the most advanced institution of capitalism. It is his ideal type of state or ecclesiastical, public or private organization. It is the most stable mechanism that would exist even if there were a change of a leader. In Weber's bureaucracy there is no negative connotation of the term, but only the most sufficient way to operate. The mechanism of bureaucracy and every little detail of it is carefully chosen according to its specialization or competency. There is no place for purposelessness. It seams not to match to the real life situation and it is the point of Weber's theory to create this perfect model and compare it to the real life for the purpose of studying it. Weber does not consider here the irrationality of humans that are involved in a bureaucratic structure that could introduce some actions that would create negative characteristics for the "ideal type".
Weber does not deny hierarchy in his ideal type and so hierarchy is serving a positive role for society that keeps everything in order. Marx's theory sees the problem in this hierarchical order since hierarchy implies classes or interest groups that due to different interests will always be in a conflict instead of producing this perfect organizational mechanism that speeds up functioning. Durkheim would be more lenient to Weber's ideal type since both of them see division of labor as a very modern and positive thing. Weber's bureaucracy consists of Durkheim's division of labor since officials in a bureaucracy are chosen to perform a certain duty that is a "jurisdiction" of only certain people. So, in this case Weber and Durkheim I think would agree.
In terms of legitimacy Weber defines it through the prism of the idea of domination. Any kind of domination according to Weber strives to legitimate its domination. Legitimate dominance is dominance, which suggest that it has a right for this domination, since purely ideological or affective motives are pretty unstable. Weber distinguishes tree types or grounds of legitimacy, which are rational, traditional and charismatic. The grounds are pretty self-explanatory and Weber suggests that rational grounds are the most desirable and traditional and charismatic grounds eventually acquire rational grounds - sort of routinization.
This routinization I think relates concepts of legitimate order and rising power of bureaucracy. Loyalty to a traditional authority according to Weber is not sufficiently reliable basis for domination without legitimization of this dominance. Charismatic authority also tends to routinize itself. Those strivings for a legitimate routinization is a definition of bureaucracy.
Weber contributes to Marx's social conflict theory when he defines class, group, social action and class situation. Social situation is linked to social action or social action brings forth social situation and this action is not between identical classes". Social actions between classes are labour market, commodities market and capitalist enterprise. Those terms are key words in Marx's theory. Labor market is where wage-workers sell their labour as a commodity. Weber does not exclude a class struggle in his concept of status.
To introduce his perception of status, Weber divides the concept of "status" into three categories: 'Classes', 'status groups', and 'parties'. To Weber, these terms are important in order to analyze power within a society.
We may speak of a "class" when (1) a number of people have in common a specific causal component of their life chances, insofar as (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and (3) is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labor markets. This is "class situation." (248)
In this statement, Weber was asserting that 'class situation' was based around the capitalist market, the commoditization of labor, and wages. In other words, there are two classes; the property owners and the 'propertyless' as Marx coined them the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. These two terms constitute the basic ideologies behind Weber's idea of 'class situation.'
This is where Weber diverges from Marx because Weber is proposing a category within a category. "Accordingly, the propertied, for instance, may belong to the class of renters or to the class of entrepreneurs." (248) Basically Weber is saying that the classes are differentiated by level of honor; for example, the owner of a small farm and the owner of a corporation. The worker is also classified or ranked according to skills. Where Marx justifies two classes, Weber contributes to that idea and introduces categories within the classes. Weber and Marx can both agree on class interest/struggles which lead to class action. Social unions grow out of the 'class situation'; (e.g. worker disapproval of wage; proletariat vs. bourgeoisie.)
This is where in my opinion Weber and Marx differ in ideas. Weber uses the term 'Gemeinschaft' meaning that a class does not in itself constitute a group whereas Marx would disagree by saying that there are but two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and they form two groups, the property owners and the propertyless. Weber introduces 'status situation' as the formation of groups based on specific lifestyles, moral values, and ethnic traits (e.g. sports teams, coworkers etc...). These groups are guided by laws and ideals. He adds that both the propertied and the propertyless people can belong in the same status group. Marx would refute that statement by maintaining that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat cannot share the same moral values.
Weber goes on with his theory of the creation of groups within groups. He adds that status groups gradually change into a closed caste, meaning that private social groups create their own identities within based on ethnicity, religious sanctions and laws, (e.g. if you belong to a certain group, you can't associate with another; Capulet and Montague; intermarriage).
Finally, Weber introduces 'parties' as groups that constitute of power. They usually associate with other groups and are formed to realize an interest. These parties are based either on class situation or status situation while some constitute of both. Marx would challenge Weber on these terms by saying that the economic division and labor exploitation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is too significant to have them in the same class situation or social situation.
Weber II
Legitimacy, in its most bare and fundamental form, is an ideal type, a belief that attempts to establish and maintain order in any system for the purpose of a functioning system, because of the insufficient reliability and relatively unstable situation of customs, personal advantage, or ideal motives of solidarity. Legitimacy, in other words, is for the guarantee of obedience and authority establishment that is attempted to be established in every system in order for the systems function.
The validity of legitimacy can be claimed on three pure forms of legitimacy. The first being rational grounds. The rational grounds foundation rests on the idea that the people who have been chosen, or put in authority, to enforce predetermined rules, have the power to enforce said rules. This type is also referred to as legal authority. Secondly, traditional grounds gives legitimacy thus authority to one who works within the sanctity of valued traditions. This type is also referred to as traditional authority. Lastly, charismatic ground gives authority to one that hold true character. Obeyed by individuals that hold belief and value to one's charisma.
The purest form of legitimate authority lives in modern-day bureaucracy. Bureaucracy foundation is on interdependent ideas on forming a system. At the most simple and fundamental a legal norm can be established and member of the organization, or social sphere, are to be obedient. Every part of law and creating law uses a consistent and predictable system. The rules are set to aid the order of governing the origination and cannot be disapproved by the group, much like a checks and balances system. Thus, the one in charge tailors their actions within the impersonal order, given certain context. The members of the organization, or enforcers, do not own the obeisance as an individual, but to the order itself and is limited to a jurisdiction that is predefined. Meanwhile, the person who obeys does so as a member, or by association, within the organization. Ultimately, this is the core of the functional bureaucracy. Without this the whole bureaucracy would fall apart. That being said, it has become one of the hardest to destroy, because one would have to destroy or change the very idea of legitimate authority.
-John Scallon
In his essay Bureaucracy, Max Weber thoroughly discusses the bureaucratic ideal type. Bureaucracy, according to Weber, is the most rational, capitalistic form of administration. Everything in a bureaucratic system is guided by fixed, general rules. Officials are hired according to set standards, perform designated duties, and interact through an unchanging pyramid of (rational) authority. The appointment, rather than election, of employees guarantees their quality and reinforces their subservience to their superiors. Bureaucrats are set apart from the rest of the population (the proletariat, if you will) by the vocational nature of their occupation, the determination of salary by rank and age (rather than productivity), and by the expectation of lifetime tenure with promotions. Weber identifies bureaucracies as symbols of democracy because they assess every individual equally and impersonally and because the bureaucratic worker is stripped of economic and social privilege and given a salary instead. Finally, Weber declares that bureaucracies are indestructible: they have become vital to flourishing capitalist economies, ingrained in people's behavior, and have transcended dependence upon the individual such that people may pass in and out and the machine itself shall endure.
Bureaucracy plays a large role in modern society. It is vital to the high-powered economics of capitalism (discussed later), supports democracy, and is necessary for the increasing scale of modern networks, such as political parties and governments. Bureaucracy is also our way of rationalizing society. At least according to Durkheim, society is increasingly rational, and efficient, impersonal bureaucracy therefore has a high appeal.
Weber's theory has several ties to Marxist thought. For one, Weber describes the division of society into the clergy and the laity. The "clergy," or bureaucratic officials, derive social honor and economic stability from their vocations. The "laity" have less secure, less estimable jobs. This is reflective of Marx's bourgeoisie and proletariat, especially in light of the fact that bureaucracies have decision-making power that affects the whole people. However, Weber's bureaucrats do not exploit the workers, nor are they a part of an eternal wheel of conflict and revolution. Weber saw society progressing towards increased democracy (the equal treatment of all), in which class stratification would continue, but social privilege would decrease. Nevertheless, the predominance of instrumental- over value-rational action was depriving the actor of meaning and dehumanizing society, much like industry and division of labour was alienating the workers
Weber's theory does a better job of complimenting Durkheim's. Durkheim put a lot of thought into division of labour. The bureaucratic system is just the division of labour in management: nolonger one overseer, but a whole team, specialized and organized for the most efficient processing of information and duties. Rationalization also corresponds to the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity, at least in the effect both have of increasing division of labour and interdependence. The loss of meaning due to rationalization could also be compared to anomie, but less clearly. Both are negative effects, but anomie rests on interactions with society and rationalization on personally-derived meaning.
Weber, like Durkheim, saw society evolving toward a more rational form, with bureaucracies epitomizing the organic division of labour. Yet Weber, like Marx, saw people losing something of themselves through the mechanization of the work.
Though Weber never explicitly defines legitimacy in The Types of Legitimate Domination, it can be explained as a reason for not only following a leader, but believing in him. Legitimacy goes beyond rational motivation; it produces "the opinion that it is right to obey" (website below). Legitimacy is typically manifested through legal, traditional, or charismatic authority. However, charismatic authority is hard to maintain, and therefore usually becomes traditional or, more frequently, legal. Traditional authority, too, is modernly being replaced with legal authority, as in the case of monarchies becoming democracies and republics. We can see here a relationship: if legitimacy is a belief in leadership, and leadership tends to change to the legal-rational type, then there must be some trend of rationalization, which is indeed what we see in society, especially in the rising power of bureaucracies.
Weber's concept of status is quite distinct from, yet complimentary to, that of class. For Weber, class is purely a measure of economic acquisition. Status, on the other hand, is a measure of honor, and also of lifestyle. Although status is directly independent of class, a given status group only has legal power while it has a stable distribution of economic power. Finally, it is when statuses become stratified (not classes) that goods and opportunities become monopolized. In this perspective, Marx's bourgeoisie and proletariat are not classes, but statuses. The bourgeoisie's political power come from their elevated class, but their true assets--honor, privileges, culture, etc.--come from their bourgeoisie status. In this light, Weber both supports and contradicts Marx. On the one hand, it would seem reasonable for the proletariat status group to covet the opportunities and capital of bourgeoisie status. However, in Weber's world it would not be impossible for a proletarian man to make himself into a bourgeoisie. Marx also believes that all of the differences of the two groups boil down to their different economic, or material, situations, whereas for Weber the true feud is independent of the market.
Sources:
the book
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6408.html
07 Weber I - Method of Social Science SP 2012.ppt (slide 16)
How does Weber define legitimacy? What are three pure types of legitimate domination? What is the relationship between Weber's definition of legitimate order, his description of the basis of legitimacy in modern societies and his theory rising power of bureaucracy?
As you know Max Weber has defined legitimacy on his own term. In the beginning of chapter 19 Max rambles on about legitimacy. Max begins defining legitimacy as a way of domination. Domination in Max's eyes is defined as "the probability that certain specific commands will be obeyed by a given group of persons"(p. 256). So Max means that a certain person or persons who has gained or has control over other people's will, has the ability to lead other people. I agree with Max on domination, because America is like that. Here in our country companies have to gain the people's trust. Take a look at Burger King or WalMart Corporation. Those companies have gained the citizens trust for many years. Since citizens trust these companies they go eat out at Burger King or shop at WalMart. People do not obey others just because they are obeying. All persons who obey others have a reason or reasons to. It could be to achieve something that people are trying to achieve. It could be even due to the fact that people have no choice but to do what that person or persons want. Going back to my example of Burger King or WalMart, people who go to Burger King restaurants or WalMart stores have "an interest"(p. 256) for obeying the rules and policies of those businesses. Those interests could be to be able to taste the delicious Whopper sandwich, fries, and drink, or to be able to see the items being sold. Basically in simple terms people obey the ones in charge due to their "material interests and calculations of advantages"(p. 256). All this collection of thoughts lead to Max's perception of legitimacy. Legitimacy has always been tried to be improved upon by the sponsors to improve public relations of course, and also to improve their reputation. We see examples of this in our everyday lives. Governments are constantly looking for ways to make the lives of citizens' lives better.
According to Max Weber there are three types which legitimacy is based on. One type of legitimacy is rational grounds. The domination of legitimacy on rational grounds is derived from trusting the legality of the rules and policies set up by the commanding authorities. Another type of legitimacy is traditional grounds. The domination of legitimacy on traditional grounds is derived from putting trust in the practices from those who exercise authority under the authority. The last type of legitimacy is charismatic grounds. The domination of legitimacy on charismatic grounds is derived from putting trust in an individual. If I try to answer the last part of the question entirely it would take too long. So I am going to summarize Max's viewpoint. In summary Max argues that all three conditions of legitimate domination must be met in order for society to operate in a well manner. If bureaucracies meet those three conditions then their power will gradually increase. Not only their power but their legitimacy will be looked upon in a better light too.
How does Weber characterize of his 'ideal type' for bureaucracy? Can you elaborate on this ideal type and its role within modern societies?
What does Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy tell about Marx's view of class struggle and Durkheim's division of labor in modern societies? Does this ideal type in anyway contribute to or challenge Marx's and Durkheim's theories of modern society, and social developments after industrial revolution or development of capitalism?
How does Weber define legitimacy? What are three pure types of legitimate domination? What is the relationship between Weber's definition of legitimate order, his description of the basis of legitimacy in modern societies and his theory rising power of bureaucracy?
How does Weber's conceptualization of status contribute to or challenge Marxist idea of class and class struggle in capitalist societies?
