Types of Domination: Legitimacy and Authority in Society
Max Weber, “Economy and Society” – Cap. III ‘Types of domination “Types of Domination
1. Forms of Legitimacy
1. Constitutes “domination,” according to the definition already given, the probability of finding obedience within a specific group for specific mandates (or for all sorts of mandates). It is, therefore, any kind of chance to exercise “power” or “influence” over other men. In case this domination (“authority“) in the direction indicated, retreat to the most diverse reasons of submission: from the habituation unconscious until they are purely rational considerations purposive. A certain minimum of will to obey, or interest (external or internal) to obey, it is essential to any authentic relationship of authority.
Not every rule is used in the economic environment. And even less is all for economic domination. But any domination over a plurality of men requires normal mode (not quite always) an administrative cadre that is, the robability, which can be trusted, that activity will be directed to the implementation of general orderings and specific mandates, by a group of men whose obedience is expected. This administrative framework can be linked to obedience to his lord (or lords) by custom, in a purely emotional, for material or ideal grounds (based on values). The nature of these reasons largely determines the type of domination. Purely material reasons and rational purposive as a link between the dominant and involve box here, as elsewhere, a relatively fragile. As a general rule are added other reasons: emotional or rational basis values. In unusual cases can they be decisive. Dominates in the daily habit and her material interests, utilities, in this as in any other relationship. But custom and the situation of interest, no less than on purely emotional and value (under rational values) can not represent the basis on which trust domination. They are usually adds another factor: the belief in legitimacy.
According to experience any content dominance is likely to voluntarily have their persistence as purely material reasons, emotional or rational basis of securities. Rather, all seek to awaken and foster the belief in its “legitimacy.
” Depending on the kind of legitimacy as proposed is fundamentally different type of obedience, such as the administrative framework designed to ensure, as the character takes the practice of domination. And its effects. It therefore seems appropriate to distinguish dominance classes according to their typical claims of legitimacy. It is advisable
from modern relationships and known.
1. Only the results obtained may justify this point has been made the basis for the classification and not another. Can not be in this a decisive drawback for now is postponed to be added other distinctive features
typical. The “legitimacy” of a rule has an importance that is not purely “ideal”, but not more than the fact that it maintains very specific relationships with the legitimacy of “ownership.”
2. Not all “claim” conventional or legally guaranteed to be called “relation of domination.” As of this sort could be said that the worker in the field of their salary claim is “lord” of the employer, and to demand it
bailiff is at your disposal. Indeed, it is formally only a “creditor” to the realization of certain benefits in exchange for services given. However, the concept of a relationship of domination does not preclude
naturally that have arisen by a formal, open, and the domination of the employer over the worker translated the instructions and orders of their work or the domination of the vassal lord over its freely the
feudal pact. Obedience which military discipline is formally “must” while imposing discipline workshop is formally “voluntary” does not alter the fact that shop discipline also involves submission to a
authority (domination). Also the official position is acquired by contract and is reportable, and the relationship itself to “subject” can be accepted and (with certain limitations) voluntarily dissolved. The absolute lack of a voluntary relationship
only given to slaves. Nor, moreover, should be called “domination” to be “economic” determined by a monopoly, ie in this case, the ability to “dictate” to the other business conditions, its nature is
identical to that of any other “influence” conditioned by any other superiority: erotic, sports, dialectic, and so on. When a large bank in a position to force other banks to accept a cartel of conditions, this can not be called, without more, “domination,” while not a relationship of obedience arises immediately: namely, that the provisions of the direction deceit of that bank’s claim and the likelihood to be observed purely as such, and be controlled in its execution. Of course, here and across the transition is smooth: from the simple responsibility for debt and debt bondage are all sorts of gradations in between. And the position of a “living room” can reach the limits of a position of authoritative power, without being necessarily so “domination.” It is often not possible in reality a strict separation, but that is why it is imperative to clear concepts.
3. The “legitimacy” of a rule should be considered only as a probability, of being treated almost as such and held in a large proportion. Not very true that obedience to a rule is aimed primarily (or
even always) the belief in its legitimacy. Adhesion can pretend by individuals and entire groups for reasons of expediency, effective practices because of their own material interests, or accepted as something inevitable under
individual weakness and helplessness. This is not decisive for the classification of dominance. Rather, its own claim to legitimacy, by its nature makes it “valid” material extent, strengthens its existence and co-determines the nature of
means of domination. Moreover, a rule can be as absolutely a common case in practice, because of a casual community of interests between the ruler and his picture (bodyguards, Praetorians, guards “red” or “white”) on the dominated , and thereby be assured by their military impotence, scorns all pretense of “legitimacy.” However, even in this case, the kind of relationship between the sovereign legitimacy and administrative framework is
very different depending on the class basis of the authority that exists between them, being largely decisive for the structure of domination, as shown below.
4. “Obedience means obeying action proceeds as if the content of the mandate had become, by itself, on top of his conduct, and that only merit of the formal relationship of obedience, regardless of one’s own
opinion of value or impairment of value of the term as such.
5. From a purely psychological causal chain can be displayed differently, it can be, especially the “inspiring” or “endopatía.” This distinction, however, is not usable in the construction of the types of domination.
6. The scope of the authoritative influence of social and cultural phenomena is much greater than at first appears. An example is the kind of domination that is exercised in schools, which are imposed by the forms of oral and written language count as orthodox. The dialects and languages of chancery work of a political association autocephalous, ie their masters, become as orthodox language and writing and have determined the separations “national” (eg, Holland and Germany). The authority of parents and school bear his influence far beyond those cultural character (apparently) formal, it conforms to the youth and men that way.
7. The leader and the administrative framework of an association according to the form appear as “servants” of the dominated, there is no evidence regarding the nature of “domination.” Later he will speak particularly of the actual situation of the so-called “democracy.” There are, however, that attribute in almost all conceivable cases a minimum of decisive power control, and thus of “domination.”