UNIT One

1. NATURE AND SCOPE OF POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

1.0. Introduction

Political sociology lies at the intersection of the disciplines of political science and sociology.
Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori had suggested that there was an ambiguity in the term
‘political sociology’ as it could be interpreted as a synonym for ‘sociology of politics’. Due to
this ambiguity, it became difficult to be precise concerning the objects of study and the
approaches of inquiry within the field of political sociology. There thus arose the need for a
clarification.

Political sociology is a sub-discipline within the broader framework of sociology. It deals with
the social circumstances of politics, that is, how politics is shaped by and shapes other events in
societies. It can be safely called the sociology of politics, because politics is described only in
terms of social factors. Politics is a dependent variable that varies according to society. In other
words, society comes first and politics second. This unit discusses the nature, scope and
importance of political sociology and traces the evolution of political sociology as a discipline. It
also discusses the concept of power, authority and legitimacy.

1.1. The Concept, Nature, Scope, and Important of Political sociology

Definition and Concept

Dowse and Hughes define political sociology in the following way: ‘Political sociology is the
study of the interrelation between politics and society.’ Society is the pre- condition of politics;
politics takes place when there is society. We do not have politics when there is no society, and
we cannot find a society without politics. The moment society comes to existence, politics
emerges. As Sartori claims:

A real political sociology is, then, a cross-disciplinary breakthrough seeking enlarged models
which reintroduce as variables the ‘givens’ of each component source.

For Sartori, such a clarification would be possible only ‘when the sociological and “politico-
logical” approaches are combined at their point of intersection’. This point of intersection is the

1
site of interdisciplinary studies. However, to understand the dynamics of such a site, one must
delineate the contours of the two parent disciplines—political science and sociology.

Although the discipline of political science traces its history back to Aristotle, it evolved into an
academic field of study in the United States of America. According to Lipset, one of the earliest
usages of the term ‘political science’ occurred with the founding of the Faculty of Political
Science at Columbia University, New York, in the late 19th century. A few years later, in 1903,
the American Political Science Association was founded, and, soon, the first issue of the
American Political Science Review was published, which is now more than a century old. As
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:

Aristotle’s word for ‘politics’ is politikê, which is the short form of politikê episteme or ‘political
science’. The word ‘political’ is derived from politikos meaning ‘pertaining to the polis’, where
the polis may be understood as a city- state.

Gradually, as the 20th century unfolded, political science acquired a certain focus. It included a
historical study of political thought, an analytic and comparative study of distinct polities, as well
as a normative approach to politics. Notwithstanding such a broad scope, if one were to narrow
down the object of study of the discipline of political science to a single theme, it would be the
State.

If political science is largely focused on the study of the State, sociology may be understood as
the study of society. The latter discipline was the consequence of the Enlightenment—an
intellectual epoch in the history of Europe that awarded primacy to the critical application of
human reason as opposed to blindly following the dictates of human and divine authorities.

Let us look at some more definitions:

 R. Bendix and S. M. Lipset state that ‘political sociology starts with society and
examines how it affects the state’.

 Robert E. Dowse and John Hughes call political sociology as ‘the study of political
behaviour within a sociological perspective of framework’.

2
  As mentioned by Michael Rush and Phillip Althoff: ‘Political sociology is a subject
area which examines the links between politics and society, between social behaviour
and political behaviour.’

Finally, Coser states:

Political Sociology is that branch of sociology which is concerned with the social causes and
consequences of given power distribution within or between societies, and with the social and
political conflicts that lead to changes in the allocation of power.

And, according to Keith Faulks, at its broadest level, political sociology is concerned with the
relationship between politics and society. Its distinctiveness within the social sciences lies in its
acknowledgment that political actors, including parties, pressure groups and social movements,
operate within a wider social context. Political actors therefore inevitably shape, and in turn are
shaped by, social structures such as gender, class and nationality. Such social structures ensure
that political influence within society is unequal.

It follows from this that a key concept in political sociology is that power, where power is
defined as the capacity to achieve one’s objectives even when those objectives are in conflict
with the interests of another actor. Political sociologists therefore invariably return to the
following question: which individuals and groups in society possess the capacity to pursue their
interests, and how is this power exercised and institutionalized.

Nature

Political sociology seeks to understand the process of interaction between government and
society, decision-making authorities and conflicting social forces and interests. It is the study of
interactions and linkages between politics and society; between the political system and its
social, economic and cultural environment.

It is concerned with problems regarding the management of conflict, the articulation of interest
and issues, and political integration and organization. The focal point in all these concerns is the
independence of the interplay of socio-cultural, economic and political elements.

3
The perspective of political sociology is distinguished from that of institutionalism and
behaviouralism. The institutionalists have been concerned primarily with institutional types of
political organization, and their study has been characterized by legality and formality. The
behaviouralists have focused on the individual actor in the political arena; and their central
concern has been the psychological trait, namely, motives, attitudes, perception and the role of
individuals. The task of political sociologists is to study the political process as a continuum of
interactions between society and its decision-makers, and between decision-making institutions
and social forces.

Political sociology provides a new vista in political analysis. Yet, it is closely linked with the
issues which have been raised in political philosophy. Political philosophy, as we know, has a
rich and long tradition of political thought that began with the ancient Indian and Greek
philosophers, and has amply followed since Machiavelli, who made a bold departure from Greek
idealism and medieval scholasticism. It was Karl Marx, however, who brought into sharp focus
issues concerning the nature of political power and its relationship with social or economic
organization.

The Marxist theory of economic determinism of political power laid the foundation for the
sociology of politics. Marx was, however, neither the first nor the only thinker to conceive of
government as an organ of the dominant economic class. The Arabian scholar Ibn Khaldun and
several European predecessors of Marx had argued that ideology and power were the
superstructures of economy.

The early origins of sociology are often traced to Auguste Comte’s six-volume work Cours de
Philosophie Positive (1830-42). This work offered an encyclopedic treatment of sciences. It
expounded positivism and initiated the use of the term sociology to signify a certain method of
studying human societies. Comte proposed a historical law of social development, and according
to this scheme, human societies pass from an initial stage of interpreting phenomena
theologically to an intermediate stage of metaphysical interpretation before arriving at the final
stage of positivist interpretation. This idea of a historical development of human societies
obeying laws of nature was adopted by Karl Marx.

4
The works of Marx, which emphasized the role of capitalist mode of production and Marxism in
general, were important stimuli for the development of sociology. The early Marxist contribution
to sociology included the works of Karl Kautsky on the French Revolution; Mehring’s analysis
of art, literature and intellectual history; and Grunberg’s early studies on agrarian history and
labour movements. It is important to note that Marxist studies of society also developed
independent of universities as it was intimately related to political movements and party
organizations.

In the decades following the death of Marx, sociology was gaining ground as an academic
discipline, and the critics of Marxism had an important role to play in its development. The most
notable critics were Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Weber’s work on capitalism, the State,
and methodological writings were largely directed against historical materialism. In the later
works of Durkheim, an attempt was made to distinguish the social functions of religion from the
explanation provided by historical materialism.

Given the inevitability of political role in society, a body of thinkers from Aristotle to
Tocqueville has rightly emphasized the point that instead of deploring the evils of human nature
or social circumstances, it is more prudent and worthwhile to accept the ‘given’ and improve it
for the good of man and society. It is wiser to face and manage it so as to achieve reconciliation
and accommodation.

Conflict, though apparently an evil is a condition of freedom, as it prevents the concentration of

power. This kind of political realism recognizes the necessity and utility of the political
management of conflict through compromise and adjustment among various social forces and
interests. Political sociology aims at understanding the sources and the social bases of conflict, as
well as the process of management of conflict.

Scope
The broad aim of political sociology is to study and examine the interactions between social and
political structures. The determination of the boundaries of what is social and political, however,
raises some questions. The relevant question in delineating the scope of political sociology is that
of the kinds of groups which form part of the study of the discipline of political sociology. Some

5
scholars believe that politics depends on some settled order created by the State. Hence, the State
is political, and is the subject matter of political sociology, not the groups.

There is another school according to which politics is present in almost all social relations.
Individuals and small groups try to enforce their preferences on their parent organizations family,
club, or college, and thus indulge in the exercise of ‘power’.

Sheldon S. Wolin takes quite a reasonable view of the word ‘political’, which, according to him,
means the following three things:

(i) A form of activity that centers on the quest for competitive advantage between groups,
individuals, or societies

(ii) A form of activity conditioned by the fact that it occurs within a situation of change and
relative scarcity

(iii) A form of activity in which the pursuit of advantage produces consequences of such a
magnitude that they affect, in a significant way, the whole society or a substantial
portion of it

Two groups of scholars have discussed the scope of political sociology in two different ways.
According to Greer and Orleans, political sociology is concerned with the structure of the State,
the nature and condition of legitimacy, and nature of the monopoly of force and its use by the
State, as well as the nature of the sub-units and their relation with the State.

They treat political sociology in terms of consensus and legitimacy, participation and
representation, and the relationship between economic development and political change. By
implication, whatever is related to the State is alone held as the subject matter of political
sociology. Andreu Effrat takes a broader view of the picture and suggests that political sociology
is concerned with the causes, patterns and consequences of the distribution and process of power
and authority ‘in all social systems’. Among social systems, he includes small groups and
families, educational and religious groups, as well as governmental and political institutions.

Lipset and Bendix suggest a more representative catalogue of topics when they describe the main
areas of interest to political sociologists as voting behaviour, concentration of economic power

6
and political decision-making, ideologies of political movement and interest groups, political
parties, voluntary associations, the problems of oligarchy and psychological correlates of
political behaviour, and the problem of bureaucracy. To Dowse and Hughes, one area of
substantive concern for the political sociologist is the problem of social order and political
obedience.

Richard G. Braungart has pointed out that political sociologists are concerned with the dynamic
association among and between three things, namely:

(a) The social origin of politics

(b) The structure of political process

(c) The effects of politics on the surrounding society and culture Political sociology should
include four areas, which are as follows:

(i) Political structures (social class/caste, elite, interest groups, bureaucracy, political
parties and factions)

(ii) Political life (electoral process, political communication, opinion formation)

(iii) Political leadership (bases, types and operation of community power structure)

(iv) Political development (concept and indices of its measurement, its social bases and
prerequisites and its relationship to social change and modernization)

To illustrate, it can be pointed out that, on one hand, sociologists focus their attention on the sub-
areas of the social system, and political scientists concentrate on the study of law, local, state and
national governments, comparative government, political systems, public administration and
international relations.

Moreover, the syllabus of the Graduate Studies in Politics (1980 - 81) of the London School of
Economics and Political Science is useful in under- standing the scope of political sociology. It
indicates its scope as follows:

(i) Theories and Concepts of Political Sociology.

(ii) Theories and Concepts of Political Sociology.

7
 (iii) Theories and Concepts of Political Sociology.
(iv) Theories and Concepts of Political Sociology.

On the other hand, political sociologists ought to be concerned with topics of social stratification
and political power—socio-economic systems and political regimes, interest groups, political
parties, bureaucracy, political socialization, electoral behaviour, social movements and political
mobilization. A significant concern of political sociology is the analysis of socio-political factors
in economic development.

Importance
There are four main areas of research that are important in present-day political sociology. They
are as follows:

(i) The socio-political formation of the modern state

(ii) How social inequality between groups (class, race, gender) influences politics

(iii) How public personalities, social movements and trends outside of the formal
institutions of political power affect politics

(iv) Power relationships within and between social groups (families, workplaces,
bureaucracy, media)

Contemporary theorists include Robert A. Dahl, Seymour Martin Lipset, Theda Skocpol, Luc
Boltanski and Nicos Poulantzas.

This introductory purview of the disciplines of political science and sociology should allow us to
now characterize the field of political sociology. The latter may be understood as the study of
varied and multiple relationships between the State and society. In this sense, political sociology
evolved into an interdisciplinary field lying between the academic disciplines of political science
and sociology.

8
1.2. The difference between political sociology and political science as well as other
social sciences

While both political sociology and political science studies politics, they differed on significance
issue and areas of interests.
Political sociology Political science
 Main focus of the discipline has been  The general approach of the discipline
on the political processes which take of political science towards politics has
place within human societies. Political been a state-centric one (except the
processes such as democratization, rising emphasis on the role and
ideological affiliation, revolution, influence of social factors in most
political reforms, nation-building, contemporary works), mostly ignoring
citizenship, political identity formation the factor of society and social
and development phenomenon in political processes
 The general approach of the discipline  The general approach of the discipline
of political science towards politics has of political science towards politics has
been a state-centric one (except the been a state-centric one (except the
rising emphasis on the role and rising emphasis on the role and
influence of social factors in most influence of social factors in most
contemporary works), mostly ignoring contemporary works), mostly ignoring
the factor of society and social the factor of society and social
phenomenon in political processes phenomenon in political processes

Moreover, the following table shows the significance difference between political sociology and
others social sciences disciplines in the case of approaches

Disciplines Approaches in studying politics

Political science Institutionalist approach

Political Anthropology Minimalist approach)

Political Psychology Individualist approach

Political Sociology Social approach

9
1.3. EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY AS A DISCIPLINE

Modern political sociology has existed for more than a century. According to Ronald H.
Chilcote, the early political sociologists were interested in studying political and social life by
incorporating data based on empirical research and an examination of informal institutions and
processes. Some of them went beyond the Marxist conception, wherein employers and the
propertied class wield political power.

Gaetano Mosca, in his Elementi di Scienza Politica (1896), distinguished between elites and the
masses. Mosca’s elites comprised of civil servants, managers and intellectuals. These elites
formed the political class in parliamentary democracies. However, this class underwent
transformation through recruitment of members from the lower strata and new social groups,
leading to a phenomenon known as the circulation of elites. Vilfredo Pareto, on the other hand,
sought to differentiate between governing and non-governing elites in his work Cours
d’Economie Politique (1896-97).

Max Weber, in his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1921), examined the
entrepreneurial drives of individuals in capitalist economies. In his other works, he also analysed
the impact of science, technology and bureaucracy in the evolution of Western civilization. The
works of these early political sociologists influenced the studies of American political scientists
of the 20th century.

1.3.1. Historical Contexts of Political Sociology

Let us take a look at the historical context from within which political sociology evolved as an
important field of interdisciplinary scholarship.

Peter Wagner has sketched a history of political sociology within the larger process of
modernity. This sketch is relevant in so far as it allows us to locate the work of political
sociologists within intellectual and political contexts. Wagner’s scheme comprises three phases:

(i) Classical sociology and the first crisis of modernity

(ii) Organized modernity and the consolidation of sociology

10
 (iii) Second crisis of modernity and the renewed debate on the possibility of sociology

Let us look at the first phase, which outlines the political context of those writings that are now
known as ‘classical sociology’. Soon after the American and French revolutions, the philosophy
of liberalism dominated intellectual debates. Nonetheless, towards the end of the 19th century,
scholars began to realize the inadequacies of liberal theories. These inadequacies contributed to
the first crisis of modernity.

Although liberalism, in theory, sought to establish principles of liberty, equality and democracy,
the reality it presented was different in practice. Women, workers and non-European people were
not actually ‘free and equal citizens’. In fact, many intellectuals of the first half of the 19th
century did not even advocate a totally inclusive liberal society. The ideas of liberalism were
restricted largely to male property owners, who were believed to be reasonable and free. Thus,
market relations were restricted to economic ties between these individuals.

As this century was drawing to a close, there occurred a gradual erosion of the elements that
constituted this society. Migration, growth of industrial cities, struggles for suffrage and the
increased strength of the workers’ movements altered the social structure, and consequently, the
traditional social identities as well. The ideology of socialism, trade unions and labour parties
strengthened the new collective identity of the working class. The works of Durkheim, Weber
and Pareto were produced within this context of changing social identities and polities.

Wagner’s sketch highlights certain currents that created discontinuities within the sociological
tradition in Europe and the United States following the disillusionment of intellectuals with
liberalism. The following points are to be considered:

 The rise of the ‘philosophy of the deed’, which emphasized a strong man and his
willpower to rejuvenate the nation

 The growth of empirical social research towards acquiring strategically useful

knowledge about a certain populace

 The political philosophy of John Dewey, which was linked to the social theory of
George Hebert Mead, and the empirical sociology of the Chicago School also

11
 reinforced the belief in the human ability to create and recreate one’s own life, both
individually and collectively

 American sociology witnessed a shift of hegemony from the Chicago School to the
Columbia School, and the focus shifted to social policy research in the 1960s

According to Peter Wagner, ‘The social sciences in general, and sociology in particular, were
consolidated and modernized in the decades following World War II.’ The goal of the
modernizing paradigm was to explain how traditional societies could be modernized, while
maintaining societal coherence. This process was called development and its goal is the
establishment of a modern society. The works of Talcott Parsons, Gabriel Almond and Sidney
Verba are prime examples of the modernization paradigm.

Parsons appropriated elements from classical European intellectual heritage to create a theory of
modern societies, which were represented as systems. According to his theory, each social
system was comprised of subsystems. To maintain stability of the system, Gabriel Almond and
Sidney Verba argued that restricted political participation and exclusion of social actors,
voluntarily or otherwise, was a legitimate objective for the sake of societal coherence. They
recognized that liberal ideals such as liberty and autonomy were not always conducive for
stability and coherence of societies.

The work of these systems theorists occurred during a phase described by Peter Wagner as
‘organized modernity’. This phase was marked by an unprecedented growth of production and
consumption accompanied by a relative stability of authoritative practices. This meant that this
period saw limited restrictions to political liberties when compared to other epochs. The presence
of economic growth, political stability and nominal liberty was treated as the final goal of all
social change. Thus, modernization was defined as the process leading to the achievement of this
goal. These circumstances would later provide the ground for an increased faith in those
ideologies that proclaimed the ‘end of history’.

As organized modernity placed restrictions on human freedom created by the boundaries of

convention, certain intellectuals directed their efforts at creating ambivalence in the social
structure instead of seeking a well-ordered society. Order, for them, meant placing limitations on
human endeavour. So, they worked towards de-conventionalization. This questioning of the goal

12
of a regimented society created a crisis, which Wagner denominates as the second crisis of
modernity. This second crisis provided the context for the emergence of the post-modern
sociological discourse

1.3.2. Proper “Unit of Analysis” for Political Sociology

Prominent figure Unit of analysis Explanation

For Marx Class (collectivist) Society is inherently divided,

with individuals in different
collectivities restricted by
their position in the division.

For Weber Individual (individualist) Society is nothing except the

aggregate of individual
. subjectivities and their
meaningful actions

For Durkheim Society as a whole (holist) The social whole is more than
the sum of its parts.

For Simmel The interaction (interactionist) We must study neither

individuals nor collectivities
in isolation; it is their
relational interactions that are
of interest.

1.4. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY

Political sociology concerns itself with power in the broadest sense. In order to investigate how
power operates, Political sociology takes into consideration not only the states but also many
primary and secondary groups in society. Political sociology emphasizes that there is no
difference between the power of the state and the power to be found at any level of society.
Hence, to understand the character and operation of political power, political sociology places it
in the perspective of social variables.

Political power is essentially conditioned by the social process and political power will differ
according to the variations in the nature and working of the social process. Thus, the same set of
political institutions generates different results in different social environments. Political

13
sociology also seeks to analyze political power against the background of the social process, but
moves on further to investigate the pattern of the distribution of political power.

The English noun ‘power’ derives from the Latin word ‘potere’, which stresses potentiality and
means ‘to be able’. The term ‘power’ is identifiable with some terms like influence, coercion,
force, domination, authority, control and the like, but it has its own meaning on the basis of
which it is differentiated from all other related themes. In other words, we can say that the term
power means the ability to affect or control the decisions, policies, values or fortunes of others.
The reasons behind discussing the concept of power in political sociology are as follows:

1. Power is not merely a political or economic phenomenon but is a social phenomenon.

2. Power has the ability to determine behaviour of others in accord with one’s own wishes.

After World War II, the behaviouralists affirmed that politics is about power and consists of
relationships of subordination, of dominance and submission of the governors and the governed.
The study of politics is the study of these relationships. According to Lasswell and Kaplan,
politics is a discipline is the study of the shaping and sharing of political power. It is the study of
the influence and influential. Morgenthau also describes that the re-examination of the Western
tradition must start with the assumption that power politics, rooted in the lust for power, which is
common to all men, for this reason, is inseparable from social life itself. Following are a few
branches where power operates:

1. Political power: Political power belongs to the State and it manifests itself through
executive, legislature, bureaucracy, judiciary, military and police. The state exhibits
political power through the agencies of a government and this power is shared by elites,
political parties, political leaders, pressure groups.

A liberal would say political power is dispersed and diffused and it varies from hands to hands,
whereas a Marxist would say power is concentrated in the dominant class which never permits
its replacement. It is widely accepted that because of possessing the political power, the capitalist
class is capable of exploiting and oppressing the working class.

14
 2. Economic power: Economic power depends upon the political power. It manifests itself
in the ownership and control of national wealth. It is true that economic power manifests
itself in the form of ownership and control of the land and other means of production and
distribution.

In the view of the liberals, economic power is diffused throughout the society and anybody can
get his/her share on the basis of merit or hard work. Economic and political powers are closely
associated. So, if a dominant class has economic power, political power automatically
concentrates in its hands.

3. Ideological power: The word ‘ideology’ was propounded by French theorist Destutt de
Tracy in 1797. The term ‘ideology’ signifies a set of ideas ranging from one desiring
change in the prevailing order to another striving for a total transformation of a society.
Ideological power is born of a set of ideas having a strong faith at its core.

Therefore, the people of dominant caste or class propagate and implement ideas that are suitable
to their interest. In this context the press, radio, television and all the agencies of mass
communication play a crucial role. The Church, parties, schools, groups and numerous unions
play their part in popularizing and establishing a particular type of ideology and also collectively
constitute ‘ideological apparatus of the State’ (ISA). According to Althusser:

Marx says that the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class
which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.

1.4.1. Authority and Legitimacy

Authority is a type of power that articulates orders or controls the actions of others through
commands which are effective because those who are commanded look upon the command as
legitimate. Authority is different from coercive control because the latter generates conformity
with its prescriptions and commands through its ability to punish or reward.

In simple words, authority is the legal and legitimate power. Due to its legitimacy, the power
addressee recognizes the authority of the power holder. In a democracy, it emanates from the
constitution that expresses people’s sovereignty and guarantees legality of the law. Furthermore,
authority doesn’t simply imply command and obedience but also involves the ideas of rationality

15
and criticism. Weber provides a sociological explanation of people’s compliance to authority
rather than philosophically analysing the concept of authority.

Types of Authority

There are three types of authority: traditional authority, charismatic authority and rational-legal
authority. Traditional authority rests on customs and prescription. It commands obedience of the
people on the basis of unwritten but internally binding rules that are customary, religious or
historical, e.g., authority of the tribal chief and the divine rights of Kings. Some examples of
charismatic authority were Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.

Political sociology apparently favours the last without denying the existence of the first two. The
first two, however, are rejected since they weaken the society. The modern and developed
society advocates rational-legal authority. Hence, political sociology disfavours unlimited power.
It has to be adjusted according to the democratic relationship between the power holder and the
power addressee. Political power in a society is unequally distributed. In every society, the elite
rule the masses or non-elites. Further, it is also true that there is not one but several elites in a
society. Power, therefore, is pluralistic in nature.

Max Weber: Power, Domination, Legitimacy and Authority

According to Max Weber, power is an aspect of social relationships and refers to the likelihood
of imposing one’s will upon the behaviour of another person(s). He stated that power is present
in social interactions and generates circumstances of inequality because the one who possesses
power imposes it on others. The consequences of power vary among different circumstances. In
one way, it depends on the ability of the powerful individual to exercise power. In another way,
it depends upon the degree to which it is resisted or opposed by others. Weber states that power
may be exercised in almost all walks of life.

Weber stated that ‘power’ (macht) as a common concept is different from ‘domination’
(herschaft) as a definite phenomenon. Power is referred as an actor’s probability to impose
his/her will on another (even if opposed by the latter) in social relationships. We can say that

16
‘power is the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action
even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action’.

The essential proposition of the Weberian theory of power is that the extent of power depends
upon the nature of compliance over the one on whom it is being exercised. In other words, the
extent of power is more if the prospect of submission to the will of the one who holds it is
greater. It can be securely stated that the power of an individual(s) is measured in terms of the
prospect(s) of imposing the will.

Weber distinguishes three types of authority:

1. Rational-legal authority: It is based on ordinances, norms and legality of the

offices/institutions of those who exercise authority, e.g., the authority exercised by the
policemen, tax collectors and bosses in the office.

2. Traditional authority: It is based on a faith in the sacred nature of long-held traditions

and in the legality of those who exercise authority, e.g., the authority of the eldest
individual the family.

3. Charismatic authority: It is based on loyalty to the sacred attribute, heroic force or

commendable character of an individual, e.g., authority of god men.

Weber states two discrete sources of power. These are as follows:

1. Common interest: Under this source, power is drawn from an assortment of interests
which evolve in formally free market. For instance, a group of textile producers controls
and directs the supply of production in the market for profit maximization.

2. An established system of authority: This source of power allocates the right to

command and the duty/responsibility to obey. For instance, in the army, a soldier is
under obligation to obey the senior’s command. The officer draws his powers through
an established/institutionalized system of authority.

17
Power and Domination

According to Weber, power is the ‘chance that an individual in a social relationship can achieve
his or her own will even against the resistance of others’. It is a very wide definition and
incorporates a broad range of types of power. Some of the important highlights of Weberian
though on the issue of power and domination are summarized below:

 According to Weber ‘domination’ is ‘the probability that certain specific commands (or
all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons’.

 There are certain key features of domination, e.g., interest, obedience, belief and
regularity.

 Weber maintains that ‘every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of

voluntary compliance, that is, an interest (based on ulterior motives or genuine
acceptance) in obedience’.

 Instances of dominance may include employer–employee relationships, teacher–student

relationships, parent-child relationships or the relation between a priest and church
member, authority within a family, political rule which is commonly obeyed and
accepted, etc.

 If dominance persists for a substantial amount of time, it transforms into a structured

phenomenon. Further, the forms of dominance become social structures.

 Temporary or momentary types of power are not generally considered as dominance.

 The definition of domination also excludes those kinds of power which are based on
absolute force, since force might not result in approval of the dominant group or
voluntary observance of its orders.

Basic elements of domination are as follows:

 Deliberate conformity or obedience means that individuals are not compelled to obey,
rather do it voluntarily.

18
  Those who obey do it since they have an interest in doing so, or at any rate believe that
they have such an interest.

 The belief in legitimacy of the actions/policies of the central individual or group is

present (although it is defined by Weber as authority), i.e., ‘the particular claim to
legitimacy is to a significant degree and according to its type treated as “valid”’.

 Conformity or obedience is not random or associated with a short-term social

relationship; instead, it is a sustained relationship of dominance and subordination in
order that customary patterns of inequality are established.

1.4.2. Power and Legitimacy

When power attains legitimacy or justification it is known as authority. It may be noted that a
person who has authority may exercise command or control over other persons. For example, a
senior bureaucrat who assigns tasks to his/her subordinates and may even transfer some of them
to another city.

The reason behind this is that the bureaucrat has the authority to take this type of decision by
virtue of his/her position and status in the government machinery. In formal organizations
authority is clearly specified, and distributed under the ambit of rules and laws of the
organizations. It may be understood at this stage that the exercise of authority does not
necessarily imply the superiority of the person who commands.

Aprofessor may be a better scholar than the Vice Chancellor of the University who dismisses
him/her. It is simply because of the authority, which vests with the Vice Chancellor that he/she
may suspend a teacher. Power may, therefore, be executed in formal organizations as
institutionalized authority and as institutionalized power in informal organizations.

1.4.3. Power, Legitimacy and Authority

The idea of political legitimacy and effectiveness is associated with the name of a German
sociologist of the present century, Max Weber. As we can notice in Weber’s ideology, any
discourse of power takes us to the questions about its legitimacy.

19
According to Weber, legitimacy constitutes the core of authority. He said that in any type of
legitimate dominion, legitimacy is based on belief and elicits obedience. In this way, the ruling
group in a state must be legitimate. Weber states that authority is the legitimate form of
domination, i.e., those forms of domination which are considered to be legitimate by the
followers or subordinates.

The expression ‘legitimate’ does not essentially mean any sense of rationality, rightness or
natural justice; rather, domination is lawful when the subordinates admit, comply with, and
consider domination to be desirable, or at least endurable and not worth challenging. It is not so
much ‘the actions of the dominant that create this, but rather the willingness of those who
subordinate to believe in the legitimacy of the claims of the dominant’.

Bases of Legitimacy

The veracity of legitimacy may be assigned to an order by those acting subject to it in the
following manner:

 By virtue of tradition, i.e., belief in the legality of what has all the time existed.

 By virtue of logical belief in its supreme value, hence lending the validity of an absolute
and final commitment.

 Byvirtue of affectual attitudes, particularly emotional, for instance, legitimizing the

soundness of what is recently revealed or is a model to emulate.

 Legality, i.e., willingness to conform to formally correct rules which have been imposed
by accepted procedure. It has accomplished in a way that is accepted to be this legality
and may be treated as legitimate.

Weber: Authority/Types of Legitimate Domination

Famous sociologist Max Weber gave a theory of authority that included three types of authority.
He laid down a path towards understanding how authority gets legitimized as a belief system.
The English translation of his essay ‘The Three Types of Legitimate Rule’ was published
posthumously in 1958. It is the most lucid explanation on the issue.

20
Weber demarcates three fundamental types of legitimate domination: (i) traditional, (ii)
charismatic and (iii) legal or rational. These three forms do not comprise the entirety of
domination types but they represent how it is feasible for some individuals to exercise power
over others. Authority broadens and maintains power and proves that a study of its origins can
show how people get ready to accept this domination as a customary and structured
phenomenon. It is noteworthy that these are ideal types, with any real use of power being prone
to have aspects of more than one kinds of authority, and may be even other forms of power like
the use of force or intimidation. Hence Weber’s classification of legitimacy is taken as the basis
of a righteous investigation of the nature of authority in the modern-day civilization. He states
three types of legitimate authority: Traditional, Charismatic and Rational-legal.

1. Traditional Authority

Throughout history the traditional authority has existed in various societies. The sanctity of
tradition legitimizes the traditional authority. Usually the capability and the right to rule are
passed down through heredity. However, it does not assist social change. On the other hand, it
tends to be inconsistent and irrational, and perpetuates the status quo. Weber analysed why this
particular form of authority was maintained, and what were the obstructions to the development
of more logical or legal forms of authority characteristic of the Western societies. Specifically,
Weber was focused upon how these traditional forms of authority restricted the development of
capitalism in non-Western societies.

Weber stated that traditional authority is a means through which inequality gets created and
preserved. If there is no challenge to the authority of the traditional leader or group, the leader is
expected to stay dominant. Traditional form of authority is derived from an established faith in
the sanctity of age-old traditions and the legality of the status of those wielding authority over
them. In this kind of authority, the traditional rights of an influential and dominant individual or
group are accepted and are not challenged by the subordinate individuals.

Weber stated that this traditionalist domination ‘rests upon a belief in the sanctity of everyday
routines’ (Gerth and Mills, p. 297). Ritzer states that ‘traditional authority is based on a claim by
the leaders, and a belief on the part of the followers, that there is virtue in the sanctity of age-old

21
rules and powers’ (p. 132). These rights can be: (i) religious, sacred or spiritual forms, (ii) well-
established and gradually changing culture, or (ii) tribal, family or clan type structures.

The types of traditional authority are as follows:

(i) Gerontocracy or rule by elders

(ii) Patriarchy wherein positions are inherited

(iii) Patrimonialism or rule by an administration or military force that are entirely personal
instruments of the master

(iv) Feudalism type of authority was important historically; it is a more routinized form of
rule, with ‘contractual relationships between leader and subordinate’

Traditional authority is characteristically embodied in feudalism or patrimonialism. In an entirely

patriarchal structure, ‘the servants are completely and personally dependent upon the lord’. On
the other hand, in an estate system (i.e., feudalism), ‘the servants are not personal servants of the
lord but independent men’ (Weber, 1958:4). However, in both cases the system of authority does
not change or evolve.

Hence, gerontocracy and patrimonialism are the forms of traditional authority. Gerontocracy
means the rule by elders, and patrimonialism stands for the rule by someone designated by
inheritance. There is still a common idea of everybody being a member of the group, although
there is by no means equal distribution of power. A patrimonial retainer may be supported
through: maintenance at his lords table, allowances from the chief (mainly in kind), rights of land
use in lieu of services, and appropriation of property income, fees or taxes by fiefs.

2. Charismatic Authority

Charismatic authority is possessed by a leader whose vision and mission is capable of inspiring
others. Its roots are found in the perceived astonishing characteristics of a person. Weber defined
a charismatic leader as the leader of a new social movement, and the one endowed with divine or
supernatural powers, e.g., a religious prophet. According to him, charismatic authority subsists
on the devotion to the explicit and exceptional heroism, sanctity or commendable character of a
person and of the normative patterns of order revealed or ordained by him.

22
Charisma stands for the quality of an individual personality which is viewed as extraordinary.
The followers might view this quality to be endowed with supernatural, superhuman or
exceptional qualities or powers. Whether such powers exist in reality or not is not relevant—the
mere fact that followers believe that such powers exist is more significant. Weber views
charisma as a driving and creative force that rushes through traditional authority and established
rules. The singular basis of charismatic authority is the acceptance or recognition of the claims of
the leader by the followers. ‘While it is unreasonable, in that it is not computable or systematic, it
can be revolutionary, breaking traditional rule and may even put up a challenge to the legal
authority’ (Giddens, p. 160–161).

A particular leader might possess extraordinary characteristics which make him/her a leader. It
may relate to an extraordinary gift of a leader, a distinguishing speaking style and acting, or
astonishing qualities, for instance personalities like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Abraham
Lincoln, Hitler and so on. The charismatic leader attains and maintains authority exclusively by
proving his mettle in life. If he desires to be a prophet, he should perform miracles; if he wants to
be a warlord, he should perform heroic acts. Finally, nonetheless, his divine mission should
‘prove’ itself in that those who devotedly surrender to him must fare well. In case they do not
fare well, he is perceptibly not the master sent by the Gods.

Charisma has deficiencies as a long-term source of authority. However, it may be really effective
during the lifetime of the charismatic leader. If it has to be continued, it should be transformed
into a legal or traditional form of authority. Further, it might be exercised in an illogical way,
preventing the development of more rational forms, particularly the ones leading to capitalism.
Also, there is a chance that administration of charismatic authority results in the development of
legal and rational authority. Charismatic authority gets ‘routinized ‘in various 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.’

It would be appropriate to discuss the process of the routinization of charisma. In basic form,
charismatic authority exists just in the process of originating. It turns either rationalized or
traditionalized, or a combination of both for the following reasons: ideal and material interests of
the followers in the repeated reactivation of the community interests of the administrative staff,
followers or disciples of the charismatic leader in maintaining their positions, so that their own

23
standing is established on a day-to-day basis. Huge masses of people exist; it paves the way for
the forces of daily routine. There is an objective requirement of patterns of order and
organization of the administrative staff to fulfill the normal, everyday needs and conditions of
running the administration. Further, there is a craving for security, needing legitimization of
positions of authority and social prestige and economic advantages held by the followers.

Thus the process of routinization is not limited to the succession problem, and does not come to
an end when it is solved. The most basic problem is the changeover from the charismatic
administrative staff and its administrative mode to one which can tackle everyday circumstances.
Following are the possible types of solution:

1. Search for new charismatic leader on the basis of criteria that will entitle him for the
position of authority.

2. Revelation thorough oracles, lots, etc. Legitimacy is then dependent upon the technique
of selection, which represents a form of legalization.

3. By the leader designating his successor.

4. The designation of a successor by the charismatically qualified staff, and the

successor’s recognition by the community. The legitimacy may come to depend upon
the technique of selection.

5. Hereditary charisma which may lead to either traditionalization or legalization (divine

right, etc.).

6. The charisma transmitted through ritual means from one bearer to another, or created in
a new individual, which might become the charisma of office (e.g., the Big Potato, the
Pope himself).

In one form routinization also appropriates the powers of control and economic advantages by
the disciples. Further, it may be either legal or traditional, on the basis of whether or not
legislation of some kind is involved.

3. Rational-Legal Authority

24
Legal-rational authority gets empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of the law (legal)
or natural law (rationality). A specific individual leader does not get entitled to obedience by the
people—whether charismatic or traditional—but a set of uniform principles is put at his/her
disposal. According to Weber, bureaucracy (political or economic) was the best example of
legal-rational authority. This kind of authority is commonly found in the modern state, city
governments, private and public corporations, and many voluntary associations. Rational-legal
authority or legitimate domination resting on ‘rational grounds—resting on a belief in the
legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issues
commands’ (Weber, p. 215).

It is stated to subsist upon a faith in the legality patterns of normative rules and the right of those
elevated to the authority under such rules to issue commands. It might also be stated that rational
legitimacy—identified with legality by Weber— is the only kind of legitimacy to survive in the
contemporary world. All the bearers of the power of command are legitimated in so far as these
correspond with the norms.

There are numerous ways through which legal authority may establish. These are:

1. Systems of convention

2. Laws and regulation evolve in various societies

3. Various principles of legality occurring around

The evolution of law in the West goes on to establish a legal system which ensures that there is a
rule of law, written legal codes, legal rights and rules, and the ‘professionalized administration of
justice by persons who have received their legal training formally and systematically’(Ritzer, p.
129).

As the political or legal system develops in this logical way, authority adopts a legal shape.
Those governing or ruling either possess, or seem to possess, a lawful legal right to do so. The
subordinates within this system recognize the legality of the rulers, with a belief that they possess
the lawful right to exercise power. Those with power then use it on the basis of this right of
legitimacy.

25
As the rational legal system develops, there has to be a political system that becomes rationalized
in a similar manner. The constitutions, codified documents and established offices, streamlined
means of representation, regular elections and political procedures are the basic elements of this
systematization. These are developed in opposition to earlier systems like monarchies or other
traditional forms, where there are no established sets of rules. This rational-legal form of
authority might be challenged by the ones who are in a subordinate position. This opposition is
usually not likely to bring about dramatic changes in the system’s nature very rapidly.

Weber stated that in future the rational-legal types of authority will become more and more
dominant. A charismatic leader or movement may occupy the scene, but the predominant
tendency will be for the organizations to become more routinized, rational and bureaucratic in
nature. The legal authority can be interpreted in this sense. In contemporary societies, authority
is in big part exercised on the basis of bureaucracies.

Inter-relationships between Traditional, Charismatic and Rational- Legal Authority

Weber’s theory of authority is very comprehensive and elaborate in nature. Weber and several
other political sociologists have denoted various interesting relationships and processes taking
place between the different types. The three types of authority may be consolidated by the
characteristics that distinguish them from others.

 Charismatic authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and non-rational (again, unlike

legal-rational).

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

rational).

 Legal-rational authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and impersonal (unlike charisma).

However, Blau (1974) stated that ‘traditional authority is un-dynamic, charismatic authority is
personal, and legal-rational is rational’. The possibility of retaining a specific type of authority
might depend on the ability of that authority system to maintain the features which make it
exceptional and reject the characteristics that make it more beneficial for another type of
authority.

26
Further, it has been observed that a specific kind of authority may lose its power to—and hence
transition into—other kind of authority in the following manner. For instance, revolutionary
ideals may be advocated by a charismatic leader or the logical pursuit of ends through abstract
formal principles can both deteriorate traditional authority. The revolutionary charismatic
movements may be crystallized into a traditional order or bureaucratized into a logical formal
organization. Ultimately, the illogical forces and powers of tradition or charisma may lessen the
position of legal-rational authority. It has also been observed that Weber’s three kinds of
authority are comparable to his three categories of inequality: (i) class, (ii) status groups and (iii)
parties. Traditional authority is the basis for status groups. Charismatic authority depends on a
market scheme (like the potential for life chances), and Weber viewed it to be the result of class.
Ultimately, parties are the codification of legal-rational authority, particularly in the case of
bureaucracies.

Distinction between Power, Authority and Legitimacy

The expression ‘authority’ stands for an abstract concept possessing both sociological and
psychological components. Hence it is very difficult to differentiate these concepts. In fact, the
ideas of power, authority and legitimacy are basically interrelated. It is a concern not just in the
abstract sense in terms of how these three are related, but also in the concrete since scholars
themselves are usually accountable for entangling them. One is defined as the function of the
other and vice-versa till the reader doesn’t understand where to turn anymore to get help.

Figure: Distinctions between Power, Authority and Legitimacy.

27