Which of the following Is Not an Example of Legal Rational Authority
What are the main characteristics of a system based on a legal-rational order? There is continuous rule-related behavior. Again, I don`t think this needs too much clarification. They are always the same rules. The rules change slowly and with great difficulty, as we can see Congress struggling to pass a health care reform bill. It takes months or years for important new legislation to come into force. And, as a rule, new laws with legal-rational authority become acquired rights. Right? When you pass a new law, you change the rules of the game, you usually have them with vested rights; Those that came into play before the new law are still under the rule of the old law. We do it all the time in universities. Right? For example, if the requirements for a degree at a university change, it is almost always those degree requirements – this new law is a vested right.
You know the terminology. Right? It does not apply to individuals who are already participating in the program. It is only valid for people who participate in the program. Or a way to overcome it, that we give people a choice. Do you know? If you want to work according to the new rule, you can opt for the new rule. Or if you want to stay under the old rule, you can stay under the old rule. Only those who now enter the system are bound by the new rules. So that`s very important, isn`t it? – that it is continuous and subject to rules. Professor Iván Szelényi: Good morning.
Today`s topic is Weber`s theory of legal-rational authority and his theory of bureaucracy. This is one of those questions – these questions – for which Weber is probably best known. It is also a rather complicated subject. When we talk about just rational authority, we refer briefly to the rule of law, and we tend to associate the rule of law with liberal market economies and liberal democracies. Well, Weber has a very complex argument about that. A citizen`s interaction with a police officer is a good example of how people react and interact with authority in everyday life. For example, a person who sees the flashing red and blue lights of a police car in its rearview mirror usually pulls to the side of the road without hesitation. Such a driver most likely assumes that the police officer behind them serves as a legitimate source of authority and has the right to arrest them. As part of his or her official duties, the police officer has the authority to issue a ticket if the driver has driven too fast. However, if the same officer ordered the driver to follow them home and mow their lawns, the driver would likely protest that the officer is not authorized to make such a request. We usually know which authority figures have the power to demand, and we are also aware when authority figures overstep their position. In sociology, the concept of rational-legal rule derives from Max Weber`s tripartite classification of authority (one of many government classifications used by sociologists); The other two forms are traditional authority and charismatic authority.
These three types of rules are an example of his ideal type concept. Weber noted that throughout history, these ideal modes of government are always found in combinations. While scientific management focused on the management of work and employees, administrative management dealt with issues of the overall structure of an organization. This concept is position-driven, with leaders formulating the purpose of the organization, regulating employees and maintaining communication. Managers respond to change, not organizations or employees. They are considered professionals who can be trained and developed. Max Weber, an important promoter of administrative management, saw structure as a search for “predictability of rational results, precision, stability, discipline and reliability” (Weber 1947, p.332). 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. Efforts to gain power and influence do not necessarily lead to violence, exploitation or abuse. Leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi, for example, commanded powerful movements that brought about positive change without military force. Both men organized non-violent protests against corruption and injustice and carried out far-reaching reforms.
They relied on a variety of nonviolent protest strategies such as rallies, sit-ins, marches, petitions and boycotts. Despite the differences between the systems of government of the Middle East and the United States, their governments play the same fundamental role: in a sense, they exercise control over the people they govern. The nature of this control – what we will define as power and authority – is an important characteristic of society. Modern societies rely on legal-rational authority to find common ground on which consensus can be reached. But consensus based on agreements often lacks flexibility, which may embody the predominance of a bureaucratic mentality of which the public service is sometimes accused. Weber`s insight consisted in distinguishing different types of legitimate authority that characterize different types of societies, especially as they move from simple societies to more complex ones. He called these three types of traditional authority, rational and legal authority, and charismatic authority. We now turn to them. According to Weber, the power of traditional authority is accepted because it has been traditionally; Its legitimacy exists because it has been accepted for a long time. Queen Elizabeth of England, for example, occupies a position she inherited because of the monarchy`s traditional rules of succession. People cling to traditional authority because they are invested in the past and feel compelled to perpetuate it.
In this type of authority, a leader usually has no real power to carry out his will, and his position depends mainly on the respect of a group. Modern technology has facilitated the implementation of such forms of nonviolent reform. Today, protesters can use mobile phones and the Internet to disseminate information and plans quickly and effectively to the masses of protesters. During the Arab Spring uprisings, for example, Twitter feeds and other social media helped protesters coordinate their movements, exchange ideas and morale, as well as build global support for their causes. Social media also played an important role in accurate coverage of protests around the world, unlike many previous situations where state control over the media censored reporting. Note that in these examples, the users of power were citizens rather than governments. They discovered that they had power because they were able to exert their will over their own leaders. Therefore, governmental power is not necessarily synonymous with absolute power. Rosemary O`Kane challenged Beetham`s claim that legitimacy is an essential concept in explaining regimes and regime change.
While endorsing Beetham`s attempt to refine Weber, he makes three general types of objections to its reformulation: (a) the definition of legitimacy in relation to moral beliefs is circular, (b) it is difficult in practice to separate acquiescence or conformity arising from beliefs from those arising from other factors, and (c) the emphasis on legitimacy leads to misleading assessments of the direction of causality (O`Kane 1993). It suggests that we limit the criteria for judging legitimacy to “legal validity” (the criterion easiest to assess empirically) and focus on support rather than legitimacy. “A direct examination of the nature of support,” she argues, “may be more useful in understanding how political systems work” (O`Kane 1993, 476). In fact, “support” comes close to a rational concept of legitimacy developed by Ronald Rogowski, which defines a “rationally legitimate” government as one that maximizes the expected benefits of its citizens (Rogowski 1974, 43). Charismatic authority derives from an individual`s extraordinary personal qualities and that individual`s influence on followers because of those qualities. These charismatic individuals may exercise authority over an entire society or simply over a specific group within a larger society.