Who Has Rational Legal Authority

By 12/12/2022No Comments

Thus, the financial system is based on knowledge and rational functioning, is meticulously regulated by legal texts and exercises immense authority over ordinary citizens. Traditional authority can be closely related to race, class, and gender. In most societies, for example, men are more privileged than women and are therefore more likely to hold positions of authority. It is not uncommon for a man to be the automatic head of a family unit; In some countries, however, it is the woman who is the alleged perpetrator. In any case, most contexts provide a traditional structure of authority, even within the family unit. Similarly, members of dominant racial groups or upper-class families gain respect more easily. In the United States, the Kennedy family, which produced many prominent politicians, is an example of this model. According to Weber, the power legitimized by laws, written rules and regulations is called rational-legal authority. In this kind of authority, the power lies in a particular reason, system, or ideology, and not necessarily in the person who implements the details of that doctrine. In rational and legal authority, the power of influence does not belong to individuals themselves, but to specific and structured bureaucratic functions, and people in certain positions have the power to act on behalf of these positions. A nation that follows a constitution applies this kind of authority.

On a smaller scale, you can encounter rational and legal authority in the workplace by knowing the standards set out in the employee handbook, which give the employee a different type of authority than the boss. To give a very trivial example, once you have received your program and course requirements, and the type of assignments you need to deliver during the course to get recognition in that course, then a professor comes in. But we have to be approved by the courses and programs committee, and then, in a way, we are bound by those rules. On the way, I couldn`t tell you today, “Well, I`ve changed my mind and there will be an invisible final exam where you have to take a final exam – right? – and you won`t know what questions I`m going to ask, and I can ask any question for the whole course. » Right? If I had to change these rules now, I`m sure you would have appealed against me, against my decision. Right? I am bound by rules. That means I don`t have the administrative resources. Right? I`m getting by – isn`t it? – what is in the program. Well, there is a little wiggle room. Right? From time to time, I can give you an extension, for example, when you come to see me.

So it`s — there`s a little bit of flexibility in the system. But fundamentally, the course should be taught as it is in the curriculum, and the requirements should be as they are in the curriculum. That`s what it means – isn`t it? – that you don`t own – right? – possesses the means of administration, unlike the traditional authority, where a feudal lord owns – and appropriates part of the administrative means of the monarch. And a high British or French aristocracy could make rules; If you do not apply the rules, you can also create rules. In fact, legal-rational authority is the kind of system of authority that is predictable because there is an observable law to which everyone is subordinate, which in fact has the clearest elective affinity with a market economy. Nevertheless, as we shall see, he will argue that – which is very counterintuitive – that the purest type of legal-rational authority is bureaucracy; And that`s usually what we don`t have in mind when we think of a market economy, that it`s bureaucratic. So we have to deal with Weber`s interesting claim that the purest kind of legal-rational authority that comes with a capitalist market economy is actually bureaucracy. And then, of course, the legal system has to be reasonably consistent – that`s important for the predictability of the system – and has to be consciously established.

Right? This does not come by chance, but is intentionally detected. But the main point I wanted to make – right? – is that, according to Weber, legal-rational authority can in fact be an authoritarian system. Let us say Chile under Pinochet, the last time after he established his power; It was a tyrannical rule. But later, Pinochet established a legal-rational order, although it was not democratic at all. Right? It operated with a legal system that was imposed on the people. And in history, we have a number of cases where we can say, “This is a land of law and order. We know what the laws are; In fact, we believe that the laws are not unreasonable. But this was imposed on us by a power. That is the thrust of today`s presentation. Again, I start by defining the ideal type, the purest type of legal-rational authority, and then try to dive into this unusual but highly influential Weberian argument – that bureaucracy is actually the purest type of legal-rational authority. Next, I will examine different types of restrictions on the exercise of bureaucratic authority. One of them is collegiality.

The other is the functional division of labor – isn`t it? – the separation of the different branches of government, which is a limitation of bureaucracy, and representation, democracy, is a limitation of government. So you can see that he`s a tension, right? – between democracy, bureaucracy, legal-rational authority and capitalism. They don`t come together as easily as we Americans tend to think. And then some ideas about his vision of democracies. The rationing authority depends on an experienced administration, which is often associated with a lot of paperwork. In traditional authority, the legitimacy of authority comes from tradition. Charismatic authority is legitimized by the personality and leadership qualities of the individual in power. Finally, rational and legal authority derives its powers from the system of bureaucracy and legality.

Weber identifies three types of “pure” legitimate authority: rational and legal authority is based “on the belief in the `legality` of models of normative rules and the right of those who are elevated to authority by virtue of these rules to give orders”; Traditional authority is based “on a firm belief in the sanctity of ancient traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those who exercise authority.” and charismatic authority rests “on devotion to the specific and extraordinary holiness, heroism or exemplary character of one person and to the normative models or orders revealed or ordained by him” (Weber 1947, p. 328). Elsewhere in his analysis, Weber also describes a rational legitimacy of value that exists “by virtue of a rational belief in its absolute value” (Weber 1947, p. 130). Barker argues that the rationality of value should be included as the fourth type of legitimacy (Barker 1990, 49). It is also interesting to note that Weber does not assume that bureaucracy, legal-rational authority or capitalism necessarily go hand in hand with democracy. The way democracy fits into the picture is rather problematic for him. Of course, we have to acknowledge this with Weber – when Weber wrote about these issues between 1914 and 1920, I mean, virtually none of the countries in the world were liberal democracy or universal suffrage. The world`s political systems have changed so much in the last hundred years. But he problematizes this relationship; And it`s actually very useful.

Charismatic leaders tend to hold power for a short period of time and, according to Weber, they are as tyrannical as they are heroic. Various male leaders such as Hitler, Napoleon, Jesus Christ, Caesar Chávez, Malcolm X and Winston Churchill are all considered charismatic leaders. Some of them held official positions of power, but many did not. Because so few women have held dynamic leadership positions throughout history, the list of charismatic women leaders is relatively short. Many historians consider figures such as Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher and Mother Teresa to be charismatic leaders. Michelle Obama, who no longer holds a position of formal authority (and some might even argue that the First Lady herself is not translated into authority), is a recent example of a charismatic leader. Weber named ten necessities: “How individual officials are appointed and work.” Administrative staff are subordinated to supreme authority for legal authority in a bureaucratic administrative style. In the 1950s and 1960s, Weber (1949) had a great influence on the sociological study of organizations. Weber`s main contribution in this area was his characterization of organizations in terms of the relationships of authority within them (imperative coordination systems) and how these systems had evolved historically.

Each type of ideal, charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal authority had its own organizational form. Weber regarded the rational-legal system of authority with its organizational form of bureaucracy as the dominant institution of modern society. The system of authority is rational because the means are explicitly designed to achieve certain ends, and it is legal because authority is exercised through an office with the rules and procedures that accompany it. For Weber, bureaucratic organization was technically the most efficient form of organization. Weber wrote that the modern state, based on rational and legal authority, emerged from the struggle for patrimonial and feudal power (see traditional authority), unique in Western civilization. The prerequisites for the modern Western state are as follows: if society as a whole approves of the exercise of power in a certain way, then power is considered a “legitimate authority.” .