Modern British Parliament Traditional Authority According to Weber, the power of traditional authority is accepted because that has traditionally been the case; its legitimacy exists because it has been accepted for a long time.
People adhere to traditional authority because they are invested in the past and feel obligated to perpetuate it. A more modern form of traditional authority is patrimonialism , which is traditional domination facilitated by an administration and military that are purely personal instruments of the master Eisenberg In this form of authority, all officials are personal favorites appointed by the ruler.
These officials have no rights, and their privileges can be increased or withdrawn based on the caprices of the leader. The political organization of ancient Egypt typified such a system: when the royal household decreed that a pyramid be built, every Egyptian was forced to work toward its construction.
Traditional authority can be intertwined with race, class, and gender. In most societies, for instance, men are more likely to be privileged than women and thus are more likely to hold roles of authority. Similarly, members of dominant racial groups or upper-class families also win respect more readily.
In the United States, the Kennedy family, which has produced many prominent politicians, exemplifies this model. The appeal of a charismatic leader can be extraordinary, and can inspire followers to make unusual sacrifices or to persevere in the midst of great hardship and persecution.
Charismatic leaders usually emerge in times of crisis and offer innovative or radical solutions. They may even offer a vision of a new world order. Charismatic leaders tend to hold power for short durations, and according to Weber, they are just as likely to be tyrannical as they are heroic. Because so few women have held dynamic positions of leadership throughout history, the list of charismatic female leaders is comparatively short.
According to Weber, power made legitimate by laws, written rules, and regulations is termed rational-legal authority. In this type of authority, power is vested in a particular rationale, system, or ideology and not necessarily in the person who implements the specifics of that doctrine.
A nation that follows a constitution applies this type of authority. On a smaller scale, you might encounter rational-legal authority in the workplace via the standards set forth in the employee handbook, which provides a different type of authority than that of your boss.
Of course, ideals are seldom replicated in the real world. Few governments or leaders can be neatly categorized. Some leaders, like Mohandas Gandhi for instance, can be considered charismatic and legal-rational authority figures. Caracas Venezuela , April 19, As Max Weber famously described in his theories of social and economic organization , charismatic leaders are often able to create a unique bond with their citizens.
But if that charisma fades, it can create instability. This is also evident when there is a transfer of power from a beloved charismatic leader to a new leader. Marshall Ganz. Chapter 1. So we did speak a lot about charisma. I ask your patience. We will cover some of the same grounds, but I hope I can give you new jokes about charisma. This is one of the most exciting features of Weber theory, and probably one of—next to the Protestant Ethic, right? Just like the Protestant work ethic, which entered the popular vocabulary, and everybody who has not read any Weber still uses the term.
Well, of course, he died in ; he could not do that. I hope, like his brother, he would not have gone for the fascists, or Nazis. I will try to make a case that in fact the concept of charisma is not quite what Adolph Hitler was. So the main major themes of the presentation today. First of all we will deal with the definition of charisma; what is charismatic authority.
Then we will talk about the sources of charisma, where charisma is coming from, and this is particularly important, to see why Weber is actually not a proto-Nazi. Then we will be talking about the followers of the charismatic leader. Then we will talk about charisma as a revolutionary force, charisma as a vehicle of change. And I think this is an interesting idea in Weber, though one of the weaker points I think of Weber theory. I think Karl Marx has a much more coherent and much more persuasive theory about historical change as class struggle, you know, and the contradictions between forces and relations of production.
This is historically invalidated, but a very coherent and very persuasive kind of argument. And then we come to a big problem with charisma, how charismatic leadership can be routinized or transmitted from a charismatic leader to the next, and what are the methods of succession for a charismatic leader. So, I mean, those of you who were in my discussion sections, you can see it will not be just a regurgitation of the discussion sections. This makes people move; minds move a great deal.
And this is the simplest scheme I can come up with. But I think this is a good one. So the question is where is obedience due to? It can be due to rules, impersonal rules, or it can be due to a personal master, to an individual. There are actually authoritarian systems which do operate with rules of law, where authoritarian leaders actually do themselves follow the law and take law seriously and implement laws seriously. So legal-rational authority does not mean liberal democracy. It simply means that this is a system in which there is a rule of law, even if the leader itself can be not particularly democratic.
Democracy, as we understand it, is a very recent phenomenon. Universal suffrage in the Western world became widespread since the s, and it really became the dominant form—right?
I mean, Switzerland, for instance, gave rights for women to vote just very recently. So well, you know, democracy is a—liberal democracy—is a very new invention. And legal-rational authority is not such a new invention. There was a rule of law in England going back to the Orange Revolution.
There was rule of law in the United States before the late eighteenth and nineteenth century, though there was no liberal democracy as we understand that.
There was no universal suffrage at all. So, I mean, you could have rule of law without democracy. There are two ways how you obey a master. The two big forms in history are traditional authority which through rationalization eventually becomes legal-rational authority, and charismatic authority usually is a transitory stage. Charismatic authority is a charismatic leader emerges in times of great need, desperation and need for change, and charismatic leaders, if they deliver—you know, as long as they deliver—they remain leaders.
If they stop delivering charisma is taken away from them. And it is extremely difficult for a charismatic leader to establish an ongoing system of charismatic authority—right? As I said, this really we keep using the term all the time. The last eighteen months we used it a lot because of candidate and later President Obama. But, you know, this was a commonly used term.
So Mohammed, Moses, or Jesus, they had charisma, because they had a special access to God. Moses got the two tables from God. He could not see the face of God but nevertheless got the two tables from God. Nobody else could walk up—right?
It was only Moses who could. And Jesus had a very specific relationship to God. Christian belief, was even the Son of God, embodiment of God. And undoubtedly, you know, it is believed by Christians that Jesus could actually convey to us what God wants us to do.
Had this very special unique charismatic appeal. And Mohammed had this special appeal to God. Or if you are Mormon, then Mr. Smith had this very unique—right? At one point an angel came, you know, got a new sacred book, a continuation of the Bible, left it with Mr. He translated it, and when the translation was gone, you know, the angel came and took it away.
This was a charisma—right? That is the initial notion of the meaning. But now Weber makes it here a little- kind of a broader conception, and he said—right? This sounds like the original definition. It can be just exemplary. You only have to believe that this is an exemplary being who has some exceptional abilities, exceptional qualities, and that will qualify that you will call somebody a charismatic person or a charismatic leader.
Let me also underline one more term from these quotations which is extremely important. He said the person is considered to be extraordinary and treated as endowed with superhuman or exemplary features. So—and what I think is extremely important to see, that Weber does not tell us that this individual is actually extraordinary, that it is actually superhuman. In a way it is in the eye of the beholder. It is among the followers who attribute—right?
So in a way charismatic leaders are being made by the followers. Well, and what is the source of charisma? This is now making it even more clearer and more precise. It rests in recognition. You have to recognize it, charisma. So the relationship of charisma is in the interpersonal relationship between the leaders and the followers, and in this interaction is charisma being created.
It is not given by the grace of lord—right? It is created by those who are subjected to authority. They have some extraordinary commitment to this leader. This leader creates excitement in them, and this excitement, what creates the community of the followers or the community of the disciples. And well this was one of the reasons why many people in the last eighteen months regarded Barack Obama as a charismatic leader, because he was capable to appearing in a crowd, and moved the crowd—right?
He created followers—right? Now but the charisma can be withdrawn. This is again a very important idea in Weber. He said if the proof of success alludes the leader for too long, it is likely that the charismatic authority will disappear. So the charismatic leader gives you—right? Well what is very important—right? Charisma is deeply rooted in the conditions in the situation in which a charismatic leader is being constructed by the followers.
When you are in a desperate need, then you are looking for a charismatic leader which can solve this problem what you think is almost unresolvable. Then the charismatic leader will come and will promise you that this problem, that the charismatic leader will be able to solve, because of its extraordinary characteristics. And again if I can come back again to the last elections, that was, you know, clearly the case, the way how candidate Obama was capable to win the elections. You remember one of the key words—right?
I mean, these are very typical elements—right? You are in need, you want hope, you want to have business as not usual, you want to have a new type of business, now this is what I promise you. Change and hope, and I empower you. I am the person who can empower you.
It can be done. We can do it. Yes, it can be done. Hope, change, yes can be done. These are very typical elements—right? In recent history other charismatic leaders, which are probably not as attractive in historical perspective as Obama, did become charismatic leaders the same way.
Fidel Castro established charisma for himself. I will get rid of this corrupt government.
0コメント