Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast the three types of authority as propounded by max weber
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In a society there are different authorities that we follow. According to Weber, there are three types of authorities which are are rational -legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority. According to the article “Marx Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational, and Charismatic Authority” by Dana Williams: rational-legal authority is powered by the belief that the law gives the legitimacy for example government officials; traditional authority is the belief that it is the traditional way and it is passed down for example the British Monarchy; lastly, charismatic authority is fueled by the liking of a person, it is also neutral meaning that it can go both ways (negative or positive) for example Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King …show more content…
President Barack Obama holds legal-rational authority because he was placed in office through winning the votes of the American people. His title legally holds him accountable for everything that is going on with our country as the Commander in Chief. However, anything that he wants to do, for example creating a new law, has to go through congress first in order to be approved, therefore the congress also holds the rational-legal authority. Police officers can fall within the traditional authority since their power has been passed on from generation to generation and has it is also justified by a custom that has been existing for some time now. Donald Trump would fall under the charismatic authority, since with the personality he holds, he is able to appeal to certain group of people that find him likeable and therefore he will be able to win their votes. These types of authorities can also intersect with each other, for example, police officers can also fall under the rational-legal authority since they are a part of the government and legally are supposed to make sure everyone in the society is following the laws. The president’s and congress power and also fall under traditional authority since this has been passed down from generation to generation. However we …show more content…
I find that legal-rational is legitimate since it holds the power legally and if I do not comply with the laws it provides, it would impact my life negatively such as getting arrested, and so forth. I also believe traditional authority is legitimate since it also impacts my life but in a different way. For example, my family is Catholic and although I am not very much religious, I still have to go to church with my family every Easter Sunday, and so forth. These types of authority are most convincing to me because I have to follow the rules they apply on a day to day basis and not following them may cause a disruption. For example, if I did not go to church with my family on Easter Sunday, my family would form a commotion. Or if I decided to rob a store (not following the law) I would be arrested and sent to
Raven, Bertram, and John French. Jr. "Legitimate Power, Coercive Power, and Observability in Social Influence ." Sociometry Vol. 21.No. 2 (1958): 83. Web. 2 Aug 2010. .
Power is earned, not given. There are many different types of power that people can earn. Power becomes a problem when it is not questioned or tested. Therefore, the one with the power would have total control over anything or anyone they wanted, or they would feel that way. People with power feel invincible when it is not questioned. Throughout history it has been proven that this creates a problem. For example, Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal is similar to the scandal with Father Flynn in Doubt. Doubt, by John Patrick Shanley, exemplifies an underlying message that unquestioned faith leads to abuse of power. Specifically, shown in Father Flynn’s reputation, cover up, and resignation, which all correlate to Richard Nixon’s Watergate Scandal.
While having too much authority can lead to complication and dilemmas, too little authority can lead to an overthrow of leaders in a situation. Authority is like a ticking time
C. Wright Mills in his article “ The Structure of Power in American Society” writes that when considering the types of power that exist in modern society there are three main types which are authority, manipulation and coercion. Coercion can be seen as the “last resort” of enforcing power. On the other hand, authority is power that is derived from voluntary action and manipulation is power that is derived unbeknownst to the people who are under that power.
Political power results from the fear of force. The individual acts out of a fear of consequences of disobedience and in accordance with the desdire for self-preservation. Political Authority results from a belief in the moral correctness of the organization in question. The individual acts of a sense of obligation and acknowledges the right of the ruler, morally, to rule and the moral correctness of the laws are accepted. The laws are obeyed for their own sake.
Rationality is this idea by Weber that it is potentially what created capitalism. Formal rationality is the set of pre-determined criteria that we use to make decisions and conduct activities. He basically says that as humans, we set goals for ourselves and we take whatever steps necessary to reach those goals. These steps though, have to be rational i.e. they are based off of our past experiences, logic or even science. Weber best describes this through the Protestant Ethic, in which he speaks of traditional capitalism, and rational capitalism.
Clean your room! Do the dishes! Finish your homework! All these commands have been barked at kids since they were little. At a young age, there was no question where the authority lay in the household; the parent obviously had the say so on what went on. However, as the adolescents in the home began to grow up, the line between authority holder and the individual respecting that authority begins to blur. For example, if you’re eighteen and technically an adult, but still live in your parents’ house, do you have a say in what goes on? This is where the question of authority comes in. Karl Marx discusses authority and force on a greater level in his work
He claims that the authority has a right to rule and it means that people need to obey the laws. He links the “right to rule” and “obey the law”. It is not necessarily true that the“right to rule” and “obey the law” is linked. If we look at the relationship between parents and children, parents have natural authority over their children. The parents may command children to go to school. Although the children were told to go to school, they may not obey the parents’ command to go to school. Just because the parents have a right to rule over their children, it does not mean that they are taking away children’s autonomy. While Wolff suggests that the authority’s “right to rule” is followed by individual’s “obey the law”, he does not clarify the case when some people have natural or professional
Max Weber and Karl Marx, two prolific Sociologists who share different views with the origins and development of modern capitalism. They wanted to understand the rise of capitalism, the causes of it, as well as the direction it was heading. As they started to dissect capitalism they developed two separate conclusions generated from completely different factors. It’s hard to fathom the fact that Weber and Marx could arrive at two distinct conclusions while studying a similar event. They took two separate angles of approach, which caused them to have to opposing theories. Due too Weber and Marx approaching capitalism from different angles, their views of the dynamics, and the understanding of the origins differed.
In function, the Legalist is more of a powerful and influential government consultative committee than a philosophical school. In practice, they openly advocate war as a means of state expansion and transforming people into more submissive and loyal or inversely, a way for its people to server the state; they conceive a political structure where all government apparatus and social institutions reside under an absolute monarch, who has the ultimate power and set his foundation in an elaborately self-contained, austerely impartial and severely coercive legal machinery; the state would also find no existence of the earlier schools of thoughts if not their total annihilation; loyalty to their emperor and “weakened” minds among people would prevail, bringing about social stability enabling intensive and efficient farming.
While relationship between the legislative, executive and judiciary largely remained the same, the public perception of President’s place in system has changed (Jeffrey Tulis, 1990). In the twentieth century, a strong executive emerged and was institutionalized in American national politics. Even though the framers anticipated that Congress would be the predominant branch of government, contemporary presidents wield formidable formal and informal resources of governance. As a result, the public expectations of presidents have grown and created a gap between expectations and formal powers. In an attempt to explain presidential power and its limits, four major often conflicting theories of presidential power has emerged in the last four decades.
In the reading “Class, Status, Party,” by Max Weber, Weber illustrates how the three subjects of class, status, and party all intertwine and intersect one another. Weber pointed out that class, status, and party all have a direct link to power and the social order which exists within a society. Lastly, author, Weber, tended to categorize the three subjects by repeatedly using the ideas of power and honor. Weber directly stated that classes, status groups, and parties are all based upon the distribution of power in a community.
The President was elected to run the country and therefore, has the most power of any individual. However, he cannot make a majority of the decisions alone and must make sure he keeps the approval of others in order to keep his job. The Constitution struck a fairly proper balance between empowering and limiting power of the President of the United States, but limited the power more so than empowering. Although the Constitution claimed the President as the leader of the Unites States, he is not able to single-handedly make decisions that affect our country. He is a large influence in a majority of the decisions in the government of the United States. However, he does not have complete authority over others and many of the decisions are required to have the consent of Congress or other government officials.
Skitka, L. J. (2009). Limits on legitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 567-578 inclusive. doi: 1939-1315 (Electronic)
When power becomes legitimate, it is then recognized as authority (Denhardt et al, 2001). Power becomes authority when it is accepted and even desired by society. As stated by the course study notes, “authority refers to a situation where a person (or group) has been formally granted a leadership position”. An individual has authority when everyday norms and regulations support the exercising of power by that individual. In an organizational setting, “authority is hierarchal and vested in positions” (Week 9 Study Notes), which are defined by “organizational charts, positions and rules” (Week 9 Study Notes). Generally, power in authority also involves the possibility of rewards such as promotions and good performance reviews.