MAX WEBER’S THEORY OF AUTHORITY: A CRITICAL ANALYSYS

POLITICAL SCIENCE:

Submitted By:

SANJIVAN CHAKRABORTY

UID:SM0116038

1st year, 1st semester

Faculty-in-charge

Dr. MAYENGBAM NANDKISHWOR SINGH

NATIOANAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ASSAM

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………3
1.1 Research problem……………………………………………………………………...3
1.2 Literature review………………………………………………………………………4
1.3 Research Questions……………………………………………………………………4
1.4 Scope and objectivity…………………………………….............................................4
1.5 Research Methodology………………………………………………………………..5

2. Chapterization .………………………………………………………………………………..6
2.1 The Idea Of Authority…………………………………………………………………6
2.2 Max Weber on Authority……………………………………………………………...7
2.3 Relevance of Max Weber’s Theory of authority…………...........................................9
2.4 Critical Analysis of Max Weber’s Theory of authority……………………………...11
3. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………...14
4. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………15

2|Page
 1. INTRODUCTION

The influential sociologist Max Weber proposed a theory of authority that included three parts.
Hr pioneered a path towards understanding how authority is legitimated as a belief system.

He gave three types of theory of authority ‘TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY’ ‘CHARISMATIC

AUTHORITY’ and ‘LEGAL-RATIONAL AUTHORITY’.

The Traditional Authority is legitimated by the sanctity of tradition. The ability and right to
rule is passed down. Often through heredity. It doesn’t change over time. No change in social
norms, tends to be irrational and inconsistent. And have a status quo. Traditional authority is
typically embodied in feudalism or patrimonialism.

The Charismatic Authority is found in leaders whose vision and mission inspires all. It is
based on the extraordinary characteristic of an individual. Weber found charismatic leader as a
head a new social movement, and one instilled with divine or supernatural powers.

The Legal-Rational authority is powered by the formalistic belief of the legal content(law) or
natural law(rationality). There is no specific individual leader – weather traditional or
charismatic – but a set of uniform principle. According to Weber the best example of a Legal-
rational authority is a bureaucracy(political or economic). This type of authority is frequently
found in the modern states, city governments, public and private corporations, and various other
associations.

1.1.RESEARCH PROBLEM:

The following research work is done to study and analyze Max Weber’s theory of authority. To
understand his theory in better way.

3|Page
1.2.LITERATURE REVIEW

 MARX, DURKHEIM, WEBER: FORMATION OF MODERN SOCIAL THOUGHT

(KEN MORRISON): This book gives a proper understanding about authority, and gives a
proper understanding about Weber’s political authority theory.
 MAX WEBER: TRADITIONAL, LEGAL-RATIONAL AND CHARISMATIC
AUTHORITY BY DANA WILLIAMS (DanaWilliams2.tripod.com): It is an online article
that talks about the three types of authority Weber gave, shows its application in the present
world and the inter relation of the three types.
 WHAT IS AUTHORITY? By Hannah Arendt (1954): this article talks about authority and
explains all the factors clearly about authority, and explaining its ancient meaning and the
changed meanings, and saying that this was a fundamental to political scientist only but now
it has changed
 PHILLOSOPHER’S IMPRINT: Role of authority by Scott Hershovitz( volume 11, no. 7,
March 2011): this article talks about the different roes of authority in different fields.

1.3.RESEARCH QUESTION

 What is authority?
 What is Max Weber’s theory of authority?
 What is the relevance of Max Weber’s theory of authority?
 Critical analysis of Max Weber’s theory of authority?

1.4.SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

 To study and analyze Max Weber’s theory of authority.
 To get an idea of Max Weber’s theory of authority and find the relevance of his theory.

4|Page
1.5.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this research work, the Doctrinal Method of Explanatory Research Design is employed for an
in-depth study and analysis of Max Weber’s theory of authority

Explanatory Research Design: This method is employed in order to understand, analyze and
study Max Weber’s theory of authority.

Secondary sources such as books, articles and journals have been used for the collection of
information for the research work.

5|Page
 2.1. THE IDEA OF AUTHORITY

‘Authority’ refers to the right of a ruler within an established order to issue command to others
and the expectation that they will be obeyed. Historically there were two type of elements of
authority: First, was the concern for the legitimacy of the ruler’s power, and the perception by
others that the rulers authority was legitimate for those who were subject to it. Second, was the
development of “Administrative Apparatus1” in which subordinates and various personnel carry
out commands of the ruler. Essentially, the term legitimacy refers to the extent to which officials,
groups and individuals actively acknowledge the validity of the ruler in a established order.

According to most of the philosophers authority in a practical thought consists of the right to
rule, and everybody are obligated to obey that authority. A person has authority over another
only if his order gives conform better to reason’s requirement than she otherwise would. A
authority order should be based on reasons that independently apply to those subjected to them.

Authority can be of different types, as in earlier times the strongest of the group had all the
authority, no one could disobey him/her, then came the times of kings and lords where authority
was based on hierarchy, only the descendent of the king or lord had the right to take over the
authority of the king. Authority sometimes also depends on the individuals behavior belief and
vision, others could get inspired by him an wish to follow him, so as a result he gains authority,
and then there is the authority of the government that is, the population elects an body and give
them the authority to govern them.

According to Joseph Raz “authorities provide services: they help subjects conform to reasons,
that is their role, their job, their point”2.

1
formation of modern social thought(Ken Morrison) pub; SAGE, year:2008, pg;362
2
PHILLOSOPHER’S IMPRINT: Role of authority by Scott Hershovitz( volume 11, no. 7, March 2011)

6|Page
 2.2. MAX WEBER ON AUTHORITY

Max Weber, in his sociological and philosophical work, identified and distinguished three types
of legitimate domination, that have sometimes been rendered in English translation as types of
authority, because domination is not seen as a political concept in the first place. Weber defined
domination (authority) as the chance of commands being obeyed by a specifiable group of
people. Legitimate authority is that which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the
ruler and the ruled. Max Weber in his theory gave three types of authority- (i) TRADITIONAL
AUTHORITY. (ii) CHJARISMATIC AUTHORITY. (iii) LEGAL-RATIONAL AUTHORITY.

In Traditional Authority he explains the authority based on heredity, where power is passed
down from generation by generation. In Charismatic Authority he explains leadership authority
where people follow someone by whom they get inspired by their mission and vision and let him
led them. And in Legal-Rational Authority he talks about the modern authority system, the
system of bureaucracy, government etc.

Traditional Authority:

In traditional authority Weber explains that, authority is traditional. “According to him, when its
legitimacy is based on tradition and custom and on the ‘sanctity of age old rule and power’.
Compliance to traditional authority is owed not to an objective system of legal rule but to the
framework of obligations which binds individuals to the ruler by personal loyalties.”3 This type
of authority rests on an established belief that leaders have a traditional and legitimate right to
exercise authority, where different traditional circumstances enable and legitimize those in
command to exercise authority. This traditional authority gives rise to patrimonial systems like
e.g. patriarchal and feudalistic systems and societies. These systems are however dependent upon
the followers' acceptance of this authority, and that the followers see this type of authority as
legitimate.

Charismatic Authority:

In Charismatic authority Weber explains that, here the “leader or ruler is not selected by any
hierarchy, nor are they trained leaders or rulers, the leader or ruler selects its own followers who
wish to follow him, who commits themselves to ‘serve’ the leader because of their beliefs in
their leader’s power.”4 This type of authority rests on the belief in an exceptional sanctity,
heroism or exemplary character of an individual, and on the normative patterns or orders
revealed and issued by him or her.
Charismatic leaders are often seen as legitimate in times of crisis or change when extraordinary
leadership is called for, and when this extraordinary leadership is recognized in the specific
authorial figure by followers. According to Max Weber, only the traditional and rational-legal
types of authority relationships are stable enough to provide the fundament for permanent

3
formation of modern social thought(Ken Morrison) pub: SAGE, year:2008, pg: 369
4
formation of modern social thought(Ken Morrison)pub: SAGE, year:2008, pg; 364, 368

7|Page
administrative structures such as e.g. business organizations. Structures formed on charismatic
authority, will therefore most likely need to evolve into more stable forms of authority.

Legal-Rational Authority:

“The third type of authority that Weber discussed is the legal domination”5. The legal- rational
authority is the modern form of authority, which includes the government, bureaucracy, etc. It is
modern form of authority, including all the modern and developed forms of authority. This type
of authority rests on the belief in the "legality" of formal rules and hierarchies, and in the right of
those elevated in the hierarchy to posses authority and issue commands.
“This type of authority is often seen as legitimate in bureaucratic systems, which enables
impersonal, specific and formal structures of modern companies. For Weber, this bureaucratic
administration means fundamentally the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge”6. People
will hence find this type of authority legitimate, if the authority is distributed to leaders based on
e.g. rationality and capability.

5
formation of modern social thought(Ken Morrison) pub: SAGE, year:2008, pg: 372
6
Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic authority by Dana Williams
(DanaWilliams2.tripod.com).

8|Page
 2.3. Relevance of Max Weber’s Theory of authority:

The relevance of Max Weber’s theory of authority can be shown by its present day examples and
applications. If the theory is applicable in present day situations than Weber’s theory is relevant.

To see whether this theories are relevant or not, here are two recent examples to check the
relevance of this theories. Here are two contemporary examples of the dynamic forces in the
USA: 1st the invasion of the US in Iraq and 2nd is the North American Anarchist Movement.

Example No 1: (US invasion in Iraq)

“The push that the US had go to war against Iraq. Weber’s various authority types help to
explain the US, pre-March 2003, in regards to invading Iraq. If Weber to analyze it, he would
likely say that it was the strongest type of charismatic authority that , embodied by US President
George W. Bush. Although he has little military experience, he was able to project a sense of
urgency to much of the American population about the need to attack Iraq. His “folksy”
demeanor and the continual media attention to his threats towards Iraq were likely the only
messages most Americans received. According to many polls, a good number of Americans were
willing to simply trust Bush in whatever he did on the matter, a sentiment repeated again during
and after the US invasion.
Weber would also point towards traditional authority as the basis for the pro-invasion sentiment
of the country. The nation has a long tradition of foreign military invasion, many hundreds of
episodes since its founding, and the philosophy, means, and “necessity” to invade other countries
are entrenched in American institutions. The Pentagon and its corporate partners have
widespread and relatively consistent powers over the government. Further, the institution of the
presidency is what also gave George W. Bush so much persuasive ability - the executive branch
is highly influential. The tentative and dissident portions of the country relied on legal and
rational authority for their power and influence. Legal authority would require a mandate from
the US Congress to go to war; but the charisma of Bush was great enough to push aside this
requirement for much of the pre-invasion debate, and later enough to influence Congress to
permit it.
Legal authority also conflicted with charismatic authority internationally, as Bush flaunted
international law and the United Nations by moving towards a clearly illegal act. Even though it
was illegal, the legal authority of the UN was not enough to enforce international law or to stop
a US invasion. Perhaps the most relevant authority for the anti-war constituency was a popular
authority – one part charismatic in that it attempted to be a movement for social change and one
part legal-rational in its attempts to use the legal system. This popular authority can be viewed as
an attempt to: (i) force the US and Bush to adhere to the law, (ii) use the political system as a
mechanism for lobbying, as legally defined. But, in the background of the anti-war movement, is
an attempt to forge a truly popular authority, where the public consensus would be one of peace-
a perspective not derived from any of Weber’s types of

9|Page
authority, but a perspective gained through public debate and political intervention (i.e. value-
rational authority)”7.

Example no 2: (North American anarchist movement)

The anarchist reaction to various kinds of authority is fundamental. Anarchism opposes any
authority that is placed above the individual and collective interest. Anarchism rejects the
authority of any idea or institution that supports itself merely on the merit of being “tradition”.
As such, anarchists were early critics of industrial capitalism and advocates of women’s rights.
Anarchism likewise rejects charismatic leadership as the kind that frequently leads to despotism
or reformism. However, anarchism has an ambiguous understanding of “leadership” itself.
Finally, anarchists reject legal-rational authority since its power is lodged within the confines of
the State, which is bureaucratic and hierarchical. Anarchism claims that laws are made and
enforced to protect the few and the expense of the many.
“The North American anarchist movement itself adheres to none of Weber’s authority types. At
its core, anarchism is explicitly anti-authoritarian. The fundamental principle of Anarchism is the
rejection of authority, with the possible exception of ‘natural authority’. Or, there is no authority
but yourself- a sentiment that obviously contradicts authority, which must be over others”8.

From the above examples, the relevance of his authority is depended on different ideals and
situations and believes. In the 1st example of the US invasion of Iraq, it’s an clear example that
Weber’s authority is relevant and applicable in the present day situations. George W. Bush is an
clear example of charismatic authority as the populace believes in everything he says. It is also
an traditional as US has an long and historic sentiment of war invasions since its foundation. And
of course legal-rational as it case with the charismatic intentionally, as Bush flaunted
international laws to invade Iraq.

But the second example, of the anarchist movement, it is seen that Weber’s authority is not
relevant in such an society, where the believes and ideals doesn’t have faith in the base of the
theory the authority. For them on itself is the authority of itself, “there is no authority but
yourself”.

7
Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic authority by Dana Williams (DanaWilliams2.tripod.com)
(present-day examples and applications)
8
Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic authority by Dana Williams (DanaWilliams2.tripod.com)
(present-day examples and applications)

10 | P a g e
 2.4. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MAX WEBER’S THEORY OF

AUTHORITY

The influential sociologist Max Weber proposed a theory of authority that included three types.
He pioneered a path towards understanding how authority is legitimated as a belief system. “His
essay “The three types of legitimate rule”, translated in English and published posthumously in
1958, is the clearest explanation of his theory. Legitimate order and authority stems from
“different aspects of a single phenomenon – the forms that underlie all instances of ordered
human interaction””9. There are two fundamental components of order, norms and authority.
“Authority and norms represent polar principles of social organization: In the one case
organization rests upon orientation to a rule or a principle; in the other instance it is based upon
compliance to commands”. Weber’s three types of authority are traditional, charismatic, and
legal-rational authority. Weber wrote about “pure” types of authority, and that “he was aware
that in empirical reality mixtures will be found in the legitimacy of authority”. As such, many
examples of the following authority types may overlap.

Authority Types:

(i) Traditional authority:

Traditional authority is legitimated by the sanctity of tradition. The ability and right to rule is
passed down, often through heredity. It does not change overtime, does not facilitate social
change, tends to be irrational and inconsistent. In fact, Weber states: “The creation of new law
opposite traditional norms is deemed impossible in principle.” Traditional authority is typically
embodied in feudalism or patrimonialism. In a purely patriarchal structure, “the servants are
completely and personally dependent upon the lord”, while in an estate system (i.e. feudalism),
“the servants are not personal servants of the lord but independent men”. But, in both cases the
system of authority does not change or evolve.
“The authority of leadership is obtained in two ways: (i) By the prestige conferred by tradition,
and by the belief that the rulers command are valid because of the authority inherent in the
office, or the authority inherent in the traditional right to rule. (ii) Ruler have authority by virtue
of the discretionary powers which are conferred upon them by titles or hereditary claims to
power”10. In this case, power exists in the form of traditional prerogatives, privileges and rights
which tend to confer almost unlimited authority to the leader.

(ii) Charismatic authority:

Charismatic authority is found in a leader whose mission and vision inspire others. It is based
upon the perceived extraordinary characteristics of an individual. Weber saw a charismatic
leader as the head of a new social movement, and one instilled with divine or supernatural

9
Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic authority by Dana Williams (DanaWilliams2.tripod.com)
10
Ken Morrison formation of Modern Social thoughts, publication: sage, year:2008, page no: 369, 370.

11 | P a g e
powers, such as a religious prophet. Weber seemed to favor charismatic authority, and spent a
good deal of time discussing it. “In a study of charisma and religion, Riesebrodt (1999) argues
that Weber also thought charisma played a strong – if not integral–role in traditional authority
systems”11. Thus, Weber’s favor for charismatic authority was particularly strong, especially in
focusing on what happened to it with the death or decline of a charismatic leader. Charismatic
authority is “routinized” in a number of ways according to Weber: orders are traditionalized, the
staff or followers change into legal or “estate-like” (traditional) staff, or the meaning of charisma
itself may undergo change.
For example, “Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle against the British domination is an explicit example
of charismatic leadership based on the unique ethical vision of Gandhi who, with very little
political power and no resources, mobilized a massive resistance that was fortified by Gandhi’s
charismatic connection with his followers”12. In this instance, the struggle of the people of India
took the form of a charismatic movement which was designed to break the hold which the British
had over the Indian masses.
In charismatic authority Weber says that, the leaders claim to legitimacy originates from two
related levels of beliefs: (i) The level which derives legitimacy from peoples that the leader is to
be followed because of extraordinary capabilities and power of personal inspiration and unique
ethical vision. (ii) The level which derives legitimacy from what Weber calls the degree of “felt
duty” which the followers believe is put upon them to carry out the demand or command of the
leader.

(iii) Legal-Rational authority:

Legal-rational authority is empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of the law (legal) or
natural law (rationality). Obedience is not given to a specific individual leader – whether
traditional or charismatic – but a set of uniform principles. Weber thought the best example of
legal-rational authority was a bureaucracy (political or economic). This form of authority is
frequently found in the modern state, city governments, private and public corporations, and
various voluntary associations. In fact, Weber stated that the “development of the modern state is
identical indeed with that of modern officialdom and bureaucratic organizations just as the
development of modern capitalism is identical with the increasing bureaucratization of economic
enterprise (Weber 1958, 3). However, no authority structure, Weber wrote, could actually be
exclusively bureaucratic, because some positions would be held by a variety of charismatic
leaders. He also stated that non-bureaucratic legal authority could be found in organizations that
have rotating office holders, such as “Parliamentary and committee administration and all sorts
of collegiate and administrative bodies” (Weber 1958, 3). Weber’s feelings about bureaucracies
sometimes came through in his writing and he tended to view the move towards legal-rational
authority as a move into an “iron cage”.

Inter-relationships

Weber’s theory of authority is very rich and intricate. Weber and others have detailed many
interesting relationships and processes occurring between the types. “Blau’s “Critical Remarks

11
Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic authority by Dana Williams
(DanaWilliams2.tripod.com).
12
Ken Morrison formation of Modern Social thoughts, publication: sage, year:2008, page no: 365

12 | P a g e
on Weber’s Theory of Authority” (1963) explains two of these in particular, components that
either strengthen or weaken an authority type in regards to another. The three authority types
may be re-enforced by traits that differentiate them from other types”13.

“Traditional authority is impersonal (unlike charisma) and non-rational (unlike legal-rational).

Charismatic authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and non-rational (again, unlike legal-
rational). Finally, legal-rational authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and impersonal (unlike
charisma)”14. Conversely, traditional is un-dynamic, charisma is personal, and legal-rational is
rational. The likelihood of retaining a particular type of authority may depend on the ability of
that authority system to retain the traits that make it unique and reject the traits that make it more
conducive to another authority type. To elaborate, particular authority types can lose their power
to – and thus transition into – other types by some of the following ways.
Revolutionary ideals can be advocated by a charismatic leader or the rational pursuit of ends via
abstract formal principles can both weaken traditional authority. Revolutionary charismatic
movements can be crystallized into a traditional order or bureaucratized into a rational formal
organization. Finally, the irrational forces and powers of tradition or charisma can weaken legal-
rational authority. These categories of authority “do not exist merely for the sake of labeling and
classifying history; they are embedded in a larger network of concepts and in an image of how
they work”. As such, Weber’s three types of authority match up to his three categories of
inequality: class, status groups, and parties. Traditional authority is the basis for status groups.
Charismatic authority lends itself to a market scheme (such as the potential for life chances), and
Weber considered it to be the outcome of class. Finally, parties are the codification of legal-
rational authority, especially in the case of bureaucracies.

13
Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic authority by Dana Williams
(DanaWilliams2.tripod.com)
14
Max Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational and Charismatic authority by Dana Williams
(DanaWilliams2.tripod.com)

13 | P a g e
 3. CONCLUSION:

Authority is an right of a person to rule others. Max Weber explained authority in three types, (i)
traditional, (ii) charismatic, (iii) legal-rational. Traditional authority is one, where the ruler is
hierarchy based, the new ruler is a heir of the ex-ruler, charismatic authority is based on
character, vision, work, mission of an individual, by whom everybody is inspired and are ready
to follow his and gives that individual all the authority and follow all his commands. And legal-
rational is the modern authority system of democratic, bureaucracy etc. it is the government
system of authority where one individual is not the authority and authority is not hierarchy based.

Max Weber is one of the most influential sociologists and political philosopher, and has given a
very strong explanation of the authority and its types. His types has relevance in past and present
both as he has given both the traditional types and the legal types of authority. His charismatic
authority type talks about all those individuals whose mission and vision has changed others
mind and others decide to follow them, there charisma forces others to follow them and they feel
that whatever they command or order, other’s are bound to follow it.

Relevancy of his theory depends on the society and beliefs, as show in examples of the US
invasion in Iraq and the North American anarchist movement, in one its seen that the charismatic
mission and way of George W. Bush inspired others and everybody believed in him and was
happy about US invading the Iraq. And in the anarchist, no body beliefs in the base principle of
authority, according to them “everybody should follow only one authority that is of yourself”.

All three types of authority, That Weber had gives are inter related and exist together, his types
are related and are sometimes making one another weak and sometimes making one another
strong. For example as, Traditional authority is impersonal (unlike charisma) and non-rational
(unlike legal-rational). Charismatic authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and non-rational
(again, unlike legal-rational). Finally, legal-rational authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and
impersonal (unlike charisma). This shows the inter relationship of the three types of authority
that Weber suggests.

14 | P a g e
 4.BIBLIOGRAPHY:

 MARX, DURKHEIM, WEBER: FORMATION OF MODERN SOCIAL THOUGHT (KEN

MORRISON) Publication: Sage, 2nd Edition(2008)
 MAX WEBER: TRADITIONAL, LEGAL-RATIONAL AND CHARISMATIC
AUTHORITY BY DANA WILLIAMS (DanaWilliams2.tripod.com)
 “WHAT IS AUTHORITY”? By Hannah Arendt (1954)
 PHILLOSOPHER’S IMPRINT: Role of authority by Scott Hershovitz( volume 11, no. 7,
March 2011)

15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e