In Weber’s “The Types of Legitimate Domination,” he discusses how one group basically dominates over the other. Every type of domination/authority requires some type of voluntary compliance or obedience of one group to another. People may be motivated to comply, but they ultimately do it on their own will.
Legitimacy is just one basis for following domination. Legitimacy varies and can be accepted on so many different levels. This basically means that one had so believe a cause to be “noble” or “true” enough to follow and dedicate themselves to. Because there legitimate domination is so complex, it has to be classified in three different claims: rational grounds, traditional grounds, and charismatic grounds. Rational grounds are also known as legal authority and these are rules that people have rationalized to be true. We believe is a set of rules and give the right of enforcing those rules to another person or agency. A great example of this would be the police. We believe that stealing is illegal so we have the police catch criminals. Traditional grounds are a belief that some things are around so long that we don’t know why we even follow them anymore. The Queen of England has no real power, but there has always been a king or a queen “in charge” of England even if they do not have any legitimate power. Charismatic grounds are based on the notion that someone has exceptional character and is a hero in some sort of way. Any superhero is an example of this. They are looked at as a hero in the community for doing things that a “normal” person couldn’t do.
Legal domination can only work if certain specifications are met. There has to be a jurisdiction for the rules to be applied. Rules have to be enforced in certain areas. The rules that are formed have to be enforced by the government and also have to be in the interest of the government and have to be conforming with the previous laws laid down by the government. A person in authority is also held accountable by the laws that he enforces. Everyone “below” the leader does not necessarily have to follow him, but what he represents. These qualifications are what it takes to create “legal authority.”
Traditional authority is derived from old-time traditions and powers. The tradition is maintained throughout time and is manicured to fit a set of ideals and a projected image. Obedience is to the person not to the set of rules. The real administration (legal authority) is bound to their loyalty to the superior and is then given their responsibility. If there is resistance, it is against the leader, not the system. In the “pure” type of legitimate authority, it is impossible to create law or administration. This means that because the leader is god, judge, and jury, they are the final word at any matter. They are free to create policy or administration if feel it conforms with their rule. The leaders are expected to keep tradition that is passed down from their ancestors.
Charismatic authority is based on elevating a person based on their possession of extraordinary qualities. It is really interesting on how these charismatic leaders are looked at by the people that follow them. They are followed by people on their own free will. “Ordinary” people truly feel that the leader is truly genuine. People are in complete devotion to the possessor of the elevated quality, as the book states. The leader needs success to show the people that they need his “powers.” Once success fails, the leader has nothing to left to benefit the people and they move on to someone else. The leader needs to be surrounded by people that are tailored by the qualities they possess that make the leader look even more “god-like.”
I think that I understand everything that has been stated above. The last section, “The Routinization of Charisma,” completely confused me. I do not understand how charisma has anything to do with economics.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This chapter sounds like our country as it stands today. In relating that to what was stated in the blog, “every type of domination/authority requires some type of voluntary compliance or obedience of one group to another. People may be motivated to comply, but they ultimately do it on their own will,” the politicians and police officers have that sort of dominance over all the rest of the citizens. People are in the position that voluntary compliance is a way of life. The laws are there to motivate people to comply, but mostly they do that on their own free will. These laws that are put into place fall in line with rational grounds that are known to be true to people. They can’t see it all the time but it is always there.
The charismatic grounds issue I have to differ on. I don’t think it is more or less a “superhero” that they are referring to. I think that it should be a real person. Barack Obama could be an example of the charismatic grounds. He is in the position that he has exceptional character is a hero to most of America. He seems as though he is a savor to everyone’s needs and his charisma is a bonus in winning people over. A normal, African American man could not do what Obama is in the position to do; therefore, placing him within charismatic grounds of this discussion.
An example of charismatic authority that hasn’t been given is Adolf Hitler. He was in a position where Germany was in shambles and the people of Germany were looking for an answer and he gave it to them. He spoke with such grace and could influence anyone to do what he wanted. There was complete devotion to him in the earlier years of the war. Hitler could show the success that he had during his earlier years, however later in the war, followers began to die off. Hitler’s success failed and he had nothing left.
This chapter to me is the most relevant to our time that we have read so far. Being relevant also makes it much easier to follow. The blog made the idea of legitimacy much easier to understand and broke it down into the simple parts of rational, traditional, and charismatic grounds in an easy to follow format.
The examples in the blog brought the ideas of the chapter into an even more modern day light which helped connect the dots from the chapter. The traditional type of legitimacy as it was laid out in the blog and chapter seemed to me to reflect on dictatorships for the most part. As it said in the blog the “leader is God,” and he has the last say in everything within his sphere of society.
It was interesting that Weber seemed to hit on charismatic leaders at the beginning of a century that arguably had the most charismatic leaders emerge, whether it was Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr., JFK, the list could go on and vary in anyone’s mind basically. I just felt that the charismatic part of the blog tied up any loose ends I might have had from the chapter, and really made me think of charismatic leaders I have learned about so far, most of which that were fairly recent in human history, even after Weber wrote this.
Post a Comment