Philippine Normal University The National Center for Teacher Education Negros Occidental Branch Cadiz City

Department of Arts and Social Sciences

Course Title: PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES IN SOCIAL SCIENCES Course Code: S AGP 25 Professor: PROF. LYODELIA F. ESTACION Day/Time: TF/2:30 4:00pm Reporter: SHYRELL A. ALCONTIN Topic: Max Weber the Theory of Social and Economic Organization: Theory of Bureaucracy and Legitimate Type of Authority. References: Readings in Social Science II by UP Press, A Study Guide to Social, Economic and Political Thought by UP Open University (pp. 237 255) and Microsoft Encarta 2009. 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Max Weber (1864-1920)

A well known economist, trained in political economy and law, but who got into sociology through his debates with Karl Marx. He is a great German philosopher like Marx.

His Early Life:

He was born in April 21, 1864 in Erfurt, Germany. He was the eldest of eight children, he was a sickly child and also suffer from physical and mental torment. His father was a prominent liberal politician and civil servant and his Mother was a moderate Calvinist and very religious. Parents were refugees from catholic persecution and had marriage problems because of different beliefs. Both Weber and his brother Alfred became a sociologists and economists. Weber, like the other philosopher, lived quite an exciting and productive life. He also made quite an important contribution to his discipline.

Education, Marriage and Works

Weber is considered the most important sociologist of 20th century. Like some of the thinkers, he was diligent and outstanding student. He was passionate reader. His outstanding academic performance earned him a bachelors degree in law and a doctorate in political economy in Berlin. At age of fourteen he was writing essays about references to Homer, Virgil, Cicero, and Livy. Age eighteen he entered University of Heidelberg. He was shy and thin, his shyness quickly disappeared when he enter a dueling fraternity. With this he started to drink large quantities of beer He was engage for 6 yrs with his cousin Emmy , ended it because of mentally and physical problems. From time to time he would serve with the German army in Strasbourg. In 1884, he returned and study at the University of Berlin. He also attended University of Goettingen but was once again interrupted for military training. After his studies, he got a university position at the University in Berlin. This was sometimes in 1893. Weber accomplished this feat at a very young age young, that is, relative to the standards of his time. Ayear later, he taught economics at the University of Freiburg. Weber also held professorship positions at the University of Heidelburg (1897) and Munich (1919). He married his distant cousin Marianne, in 1893. After his fathers death, Weber became prone to nervousness and insomnia. He developed psychological problems and was institutionalized in a sanitarium. And took him over 5years to recover. Webers intellectual activities come to an abrupt halt in 1897 due to a nervous disorder. His illness forced him to leave his teaching duties. Fortunately, Weber managed to get back on his feet and began working again sometimes in 1903. In 1903 he became editor of the archiv fuer sozialwissenschaft, the leading social science journal in Germany. In 1904, he visited the U.S, which helped him with his recovery and was fascinated by America. He delivered an essay about the social structure in Germany in St. Louis for the congress of arts and sciences. He resumed his teaching duties during WWI. Between 1892 and 1905 he wrote a series of essay and speeches, which it address to the failure of German idealism, this articles 6 dealt with the social and economic conditions in eastern Germany. It was then that he began to work on his major research projects on methodology, capitalism and religion. His most famous work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), was produced during this period but it was not translated into English until 1930. At this time, he also began to work on Economy and Society, considered to be his most ambitious theoretical and historical work. He
Weber | Reported by SHYRELL A. ALCONTIN III 1 BSE SOC. SCI.

expanded his theme in The Protestant Ethic into a three volume work released in 1920 1921 entitled The Religions of the East. Here, Weber explores the link between religious and philosophical ideas in the east and in the development (or lack of it) of capitalism in that part of the world. Shortly before his death in 1920, Weber conducted a series of public lectures on the history of capitalist development at the University of Freiburg. Unlike some academicians who stay in their ivory towers, Weber got out of his and involved himself in German politics. His involvement came in the form of public addresses and lectures on topics related to relevant political issues of the time. His lectures were quite well received by the audience. Even Weber involved in politics, he continued to emphasize the importance of objectivity in any study of social issues and the need for value free empirical analysis (Curtis, 1981:423) On the whole, Webers work was broad in terms of their historical and substantive coverage. He compared and examined the experiences of various countries and their economic, political, legal and religious development. He also made significant contributions to the theoretical discussions on such concepts as class, political legitimacy, law and bureaucracy, among others. In addition, Weber emphasized the concept of rationality. In terms of methodology, he used the concept of ideal types. By rationality, Weber meant the application of systematic and precise modes of calculation and available means in the pursuit of specific goals and ends (Swingewood, 2000:103). There are, according to Weber, four types of rationality substantive, formal, practical and theoretical or technical. The first type is founded on the belief of values, ideas goals, and ends which individuals pursue for their own sake. Formal rationality has to do with calculating means over ends and looking for the most effective and efficient means of attaining particular goal (Swingewood, 2000:104). Practical rationality is a way of looking at the world in which the meaning of an act is believed to lie in is function or utility. In the context of practical rationality, all means of attaining the desire goals are seen as techniques or strategies rather than as systems of values. Theoretical rationality is said to impose order on reality through conceptual reasoning and through the use of abstract concepts. It undertakes an orientation to reality in the realm of theory (Morrison, 1995:222 223). That, in brief, the Webers concept of reality. Weber used the concept of ideal type in studying political power and type of legitimate authority, among others. The use of ideal type was deemed the most desirable way to understand such phenomena (Curtis, 1981:423). The first time Weber spoke about ideal types was in a work entitled Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy (1905). What he meant by the ideal type was a conceptual pattern which begins together certain relationships and events of historical life into a complex which is conceived of as an internally consistent system (quoted in Morrison, 2000:270). Think of the ideal type as a means for analyzing the behavior of an individual. It helps to explain why individuals behave in a certain manner and not in another. It is important to understand the ideal type is not reality. We can think of the ideal type as a mental construction which incorporates the essential, not the average, properties of the particular phenomenon, and as a methodological concept which facilitates the understanding and explanation of social phenomena (Swingewood, 2000:92). Weber identified three (3) forms of ideal types: 1.) Historical ideal types which are based on the general concepts that are common to a range of events (e.g., modern capitalism and the Protestant ethics.); 2.) Abstract ideal types which described different historical and cultural periods (e.g., bureaucracy and feudalism);and 3.) Types of action (Morrison, 1995:270 272 & Swingewood, 2000:92 93). Morrison (1995: 273) identifies five (5) uses of ideal types: 1.) To discover relationships of the types referred to in concrete reality by determining whether the types actually exist in the real world; 2.) To develop an understanding of the kinds of activities which can be assigned to different societies during research; 3.) To provide help in the formulation of research hypothesis; 4.) To assist in lessening the ambiguity of empirical reality by providing enough descriptions of that reality; and 5.) To contribute to the formation of concepts regarding societies. Weber on Bureaucracy
Weber | Reported by SHYRELL A. ALCONTIN III 1 BSE SOC. SCI.

Weber defined bureaucracy not as a type of political system, but a continuous, professionalized and ruled governed form of administration (Beetham, 1993:971). The first time Weber wrote anything about the concept of bureaucracy was in 1908 and this was in his work Economic of Antiquity. He spoke more extensively about the concept in Economy and Society. In taking about the concept of bureaucracy, Weber had in mine a legal rational form domination described as eliminating all personal. Irrational and emotional elements from administration [and] bureaucratic administration subordinating the individual to the rational specialized division of labor and an increasing rationalization of all spheres of social life (Swingewood, 2000:108). From this quotation, we can see that Weber associate bureaucracy with rationality and rationalization. We can describe rationalization as the process by which nature, society and individual action are increasingly mastered by an orientation to planning, technical procedure and rational action. Moreover, there are several themes we can link with the concept rationalization, namely: 1.) The principal of development one finds in the process of civilization and Western society; 2.) A stress on the rational containment of everyday life; 3.) Widespread use of calculation as a strategy of social action; 4.) The freeing of the social action from all magical thought; 5.) The emphasis on a practical orientation to empirical reality; and 6.) Widespread use of technical and procedural reasoning to control practical outcomes and master daily life. (Morrison, 1995:218) In terms of an institutional definition, we can think of bureaucracy as the branch of government that provides us, the citizens, with the basic services that we need on a daily basis. In this sense, we can say that the bureaucracy brings the government and the people closer together because the bureaucracy is the unit of government which the people come face to face with on a more regular basis. Due to the vital role played by the bureaucracy, it has been called the fourth branch of government (i.e., in addition to the executive, legislative and judicial branches). A very significant role played by the bureaucracy is that it provides continuity and stability during periods of transition (e.g., during elections when some current officials have to leave due to an electoral loss and they are replaced by newly elected individuals). In general, Webers study of the bureaucracy is related to his examination of the different types of legitimate domination. However, beyond that, Weber is also concerned with the link between the phenomenon of bureaucratization on the one hand, and the development of the modern society on the other. He begins his study by looking at how the modern means of administration evolved through the years and in different societal and institutional contexts. Weber identifies the six (6) basic types of bureaucratic structure: (1) states which tend to control policy and policing functions; (2) religious groups which are required to administer to large populations of believers; (3) economies whose main function is to distribute the goods and coordinate functions; (4) modern agency; (5) the military and (6) the judiciary (Marisson 1995:293 294). Weber says that historical factors are responsible for bureaucratization. These factors fall into two general categories. The first category includes changes in the conditions and organization of society while the second category consists of changes taking place in the system of rationality and decision making. Example is, there is the process of industrialization which replaced human labor with machines and consequently, alter not only the production process but also the social relations. Thus historical development also affected the decision process and system of rationality with emergence of markets governed by universalistic legal norms and the development of a system of written records, accounting, file keeping and documentation, and administration (Morrison, 1995:296 297). The example shows how bureaucratization is associated with the development of more complex societies. In fact, Weber relates bureaucratization or the development of a bureaucratic administrative system with the development of modern society. Weber gives the following argument: the highly specialized division of labor, which form the backbone, of a modern economy, must inevitability lead to greater bureaucratization [because] bureaucratic modes of organization, technically superior to other modes, are essential for large planning and mobilization of resources. Only through formal rational principles of bureaucratic organization is it possible to develop the modern polity, economy and technology the development of modern society demands this mode of administration for the larger the association, the more complicated its tasks and its reliance on rational organization (Swingewood, 2000:108 109) Weber also notes that bureaucratization is also linked to the concentration of the means of administration, means of violence, means of research, etc. He writes:
Weber | Reported by SHYRELL A. ALCONTIN III 1 BSE SOC. SCI.

The bureaucratic structure goes hand in hand with the concentration of the material means of management in the hand of the master. This concentration occurs, for instance, in a well known and typical fashion, in the development of capitalist enterprises, which find their essential characteristics in this process. A corresponding process occurs in public organizations (Weber, 1958:221). Morrison (1995:300) listed the summary of the characteristics of the bureaucracy as follows: 1.) Presence of a hierarchical chain of command, existence of clearly defined structure of offices and positions with corresponding responsibilities, and use of procedurally correct decision making; 2.) Application of a system of impersonal rules; 3.) Explicit statement of the rights and duties of officials; 4.) Granting of contractually fixed salaries; 5.) Implementation of a system of impersonal guidelines for dealing with and defining work responsibilities, and of a system of decision making based on technical knowledge and expertise; 6.) Development of a clearly defined division of labor founded on functional specialization of tasks and a well defined hierarchy of authority; 7.) Use of a system where norms of impersonality govern interpersonal relations; 8.) Application of a system of impersonal contacts between the officials and the public; 9.) Implementation of a decision making process based on written documentation and orientation file keeping; and 10.) Presence of a system of discharging responsibilities based on calculable rules which are impersonal. Another way of saying all these: Bureaucracy is characterized by the following characteristics: precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict subornation; the bureaucratic office has a clearly defined sphere of competence, its officials organized in a clearly defined hierarchy of positions, and appointed, not elected, on the basis of technical qualifications. All personal and irrational elements are eliminated in favor of specialist and experts (Swingewood, 2000:109). Bureaucracy is the vital entity in modern societies. The characteristics that mentioned enable the bureaucracy to perform the task of administering the various complex activities that take place in such societies. According to one scholar, Weber argues that the bureaucracy is the major source of authority in modern societies. Weber says, every domination expresses itself and functions through administration, [and conversely], every administration needs domination, because it is always necessary that some powers of command be in the hands of somebody (qtd. In Swingewood, 2000:109). According to Weber, domination is quite different from power because the former implies legitimacy and the later does not. In a system where there is domination, the individuals follow by some physical force. Rather, they obey because they believe that the rules and regulations (and those who made them as well) are legitimate (Swingewood 2000:109). According to Weber, domination has to do with an order which enjoys the prestige of being considered binding, or, as it may be expresses of legitimacy.

Weber on Legitimate Types of Authority

This means that legitimate authority and legitimate domination mean the same thing to Weber. Webers concern with the concept of domination was first expressed in his work Economy and Society. Here, he deals with changes in political institutions found in modern societies and how political power is manifested at different times and in different societies. as mentioned earlier, Weber said that domination is different from power. One scholar puts it this way: Power is the ability of individuals to carry out their will in a given situation, despite resistance. Domination, by contrast, refers to the right of a ruler within an established order to issue commands to others 6 and expect them to obey. (Morrison, 1995:283). Having defined domination, Weber then points out that there are different systems of domination across history and societies.

Weber | Reported by SHYRELL A. ALCONTIN III 1 BSE SOC. SCI.

One way is in terms of the way commands are issued by rulers and another is the extent to which obedience can be expected from the individuals to whom the commands are issued. We can link these differences to the two central elements of the concept of domination that were identified by Weber: (1) concern for legitimacy and the subjects perception that authority is legitimate; and (2) the development of an administrative staff that will carry out the orders. You will recall the legitimacy has to do with the perception that the rulers procedures for making and implementing laws, rules, and policies are acceptable to and valid in the eyes of the people. Seymour Lipset, in his classical work Political Man, defines legitimacy as the capacity of the [political] system to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society (cited in McLean, 1996:281). The four bases for the differences among the different systems of domination. Weber says that each system of domination varies in terms of four characteristics. These are the: (1) systems claim of legitimacy; (2) kind of obedience which the system derives from the people; (3) kind of administrative staff established to implement laws, rules, and policies; and (4) manner by which the system exercises authority or domination (Morrison, 1995:284). Weber then identifies the three (3) types of legitimate domination that have existed and continue to exist in the world. Before we discuss the three type of legitimate domination, we have to point out these are pure types in the sense of Webers concept of ideal types. This concept referred not to a description of reality but to a means by which reality can be better understood. It is more appropriate to think of an ideal type as a mental construct based on empirical reality. When we make use of Webers typology of legitimate domination, we are utilizing an example of ideal types. What are the three types then? Weber enumerates them thus: There are three pure types of legitimate authority. The validity of their claims to legitimacy may be based on: (1) rational grounds resting on the belief in the legality of patterns of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands (legal authority); (2) traditional grounds resting on an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them (traditional authority); or finally, (3) charismatic grounds esting on devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns of order revealed or ordained by him (charismatic authority) We should also mention Webers discussion of the sources of legitimacy of any order which, according to him, can be one of the following: (1) from purely disinterested motives; and (2) from pure self interest of expectations of particular ulterior outcomes. The first source is further broken down into three: purely effectual motives, rational beliefs in the validity of any order, and religious attitudes. As we discuss the three types of legitimate domination, you will notice that these sources are present in the typology.

Legal Domination
The first type of domination examined by Weber is legal domination which is also referred to as legal rational or bureaucratic domination. A word of caution here: By bureaucracy, we are referring to Webers concept of bureaucracy, and not the negative connotation, inefficiency, and so on. In this type of domination, authority is said to be based on reason (that is why it is rational) and on formally defined and accepted processes. It is accepted by everybody both leaders and the people (or followers). In particular, those in authority must realize that their exercise of authority depends on their acceptance of due legal procedures and their possession of the right qualifications as determined through the merit system (Jarvis, 2000: 1 2). Weber said that in this system, the people comply on the basis of principles of law rather than the personal authority of the leader, and individuals owe their obedience to an impersonal legal order (Morrison, 1995:291). Hence, we say that under rational legal domination, the people owe allegiance to the state, the government, 6 and even the flag, but not to any particular individual who is temporarily occupying a governmental position. We must also emphasize that an important distinguishing characteristic of legal domination is that both the officials or leaders and the people at large are subject to the laws of the land. Everyone is held liable for any violations he commits because under this system, the law
Weber | Reported by SHYRELL A. ALCONTIN III 1 BSE SOC. SCI.

applies to all equally. This practice can be traced to the impersonal nature of the laws and rules that are in place. The connection between legal authority or legality per se and a bureaucratically organized means of administration in central to Webers reasoning in a number of ways. First, he believe that bureaucracy and the bureaucratic organization were technically the most rational means of exercising authority over people Second, he thought that in a system essentially defined by legal precepts, the organization of offices necessarily followed a pattern of official hierarchy related to offices in terms of ranks, and related to functions in terms of specified jurisdictions More than any other system of domination, legal authority decreases arbitrariness in power and eliminates forms of authority in which individuals wield power by virtue of status privilege or by the appropriation of power through sheer physical force. (Morrison, 1995:291 292) Clearly then, the characteristics associated with the bureaucracy are the very same characteristics possessed by the rational legal type of domination. These would include rationality, impersonal rules, legality, hierarchical division of labor, clearly defined task and responsibilities, efficiency, and precision.

Traditional domination
Traditional domination tends to be found in systems where roles, customs, and practices are accepted parts of the peoples everyday lives. In such case, authority is said to be based not on any legal precept but on family lineage, for instance (Jarvis, 2000:1). Here, peoples compliance with authority is founded on a network of obligations linking the people to their leader by personal loyalties. Thus, people not an impersonal legal order as in rational legal domination but a particular individual leader. Traditional leaders obtain authority in two ways, namely: (1) by the prestige conferred by tradition and by the belief that the rulers commands are valid because of the authority inherent in the office or status of the leader; and (2) by virtue of the discretionary powers which are given them by titles or hereditary claims to power (Morrison, 1995:288 289). As we mentioned earlier, authority is the traditional context may be passed on or obtained through the familial or kingship system. Example of traditional domination is the monarchies. In monarchical system such as what they have in Great Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, and Thailand, among others, authority cannot be given or transferred to anyone outside the family (except in very unique situations). Usually, the crown is passed on from the king or queen, as the case may be, to the eldest child. In some cases, authority can be possessed only by the males or, in other instances, only by the females (in patriarchal and matriarchal communities, respectively). Whatever the specific arrangements may be, the important thing to note is that authority is not based on legal precepts but on customs and tradition, rites and rituals. This does not mean, of course, that traditional domination, the ruling element in traditional domination is traditions, norms, practices, and rites and rituals as opposed to any legal doctrines. If rational legal authority is closely linked with bureaucracy and the phenomenon of bureaucratization, the reverse is true for the traditional authority. Weber believed that traditional system of domination tend to resist bureaucratization lacking in [traditional] form of administration are rationally established hierarchies of offices, technical training of functionaries and a clearly delineated jurisdiction of powers and responsibilities (Morrison, 1995:289 290). We see here that the central components of the bureaucracy are missing in a system of traditional authority. The absence of these very crucial characteristics is the reason why Weber said that traditional authority and bureaucratic development do not go together. They simply are not compatible with each other.

Charismatic Domination
The third form of legitimate domination is called charismatic domination of authority. As Weber explains, this form is based on the extraordinary qualities possessed by a certain leader qualities that may be inherent in the leader or those that may have surfaced during a particular event (for example the leaders heroism and patriotism becoming evident in times of war). In this case, the leader plays a very central role in the running of the system since he is the one who organizes, directs and runs the show. In fact, it has to be said that under charismatic domination,
Weber | Reported by SHYRELL A. ALCONTIN III 1 BSE SOC. SCI.

organizational success depends on the single mindedness and expertise of the leader and the inspired followers (Jarvis, 2000:1). Why is this so? To know the reason behind the traits associated with the charismatic domination, we have to understand what Weber meant by the term charisma according to him, this has to do with a certain quality of an individuals personality which is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman or exceptional powers and qualities (quoted in Morrison, 1995:284). Charisma is then what separates these extraordinary beings from ordinary people like you and me (unless you think you are charismatic). Sometimes the authority associated with charismatic people is thought to have a divine origin as in the case of prophets. On the whole, there are two sources of legitimacy for charismatic domination. The first is the peoples belief that the leader should be followed because his extraordinary capacity to inspire people. And the second is the degree of felt duty to follow the leader which the people perceive as being placed upon the. We should add that this sense of having a felt duty or recognition of duty is key to followers felt belief that they should undertake to put into practice the vision of charismatic leader believers adheres to the authority of the leader on the basis of an devotion, which they expect will rescue long standing inner conflicts and sufferings from which they hope to be emancipated (Morrison, 1995:285). But due to the very nature of the charismatic authority, it is said to rest on shaky grounds. Once the leader is replaced or dies, the entire system may crumble. And once the leader is viewed as no longer possessing charisma, then he will soon find it difficult to command the obedience of the people. Sooner than later, he might find himself out of his office. As we say in Tagalog, he will be outside the Kulambo. However all is not lost for the charismatic leader. He can think of ways to make his authority more stable. Some suggestions from Weber include in the following: (1) focusing on the ideal goals rather than on the material world; (2) setting into text or received doctrines the revelations that attest the leaders powers and capabilities; and (3) separating the charismatic authority from the individual so that legitimacy is no longer focused on the individual leader. These may lead to the transformation of the charismatic type of domination into traditional or legal type (Morrison, 1995:287). We can see that the type of domination that exist in any given system can be change deliberately or not. Changes may be initiated by the leader himself, pushed for by the followers, and implemented jointly and his followers. Philippines may one can observe various type of legitimate domination in exist and this is possible. One system can possess traits of all three forms. Remember that Weber discussed each type as a pure and ideal type. But himself did not discount the possibility that all three types may be found in a single system of society.

Weber | Reported by SHYRELL A. ALCONTIN III 1 BSE SOC. SCI.