|
Sociology
Sociological Theory Chapter 4:
Max Weber (1864-1920) was like his sociology: complex, and full of what at first glance may seem like contradictions. He was extraordinarily productive in terms of his academic and scholarly career, and yet he spent long periods of his adult life in an almost catatonic state of mental illness. He was in many ways rebellious intellectually and politically, was hated for it, and yet had great influence. He loved democracy but recognized its limitations, disliked bureaucracy but recognized its strengths. He was irreligious but ordered his life like a monk. He loved his country but was not afraid to criticize its leadership when he disagreed with its policies. Weber was born in "Saxony," one of many German states that existed separately before Germany was united in 1871. His family would be considered upper-middle class - his father, also named Max, was a career politician. Max the senior was selfish, authoritarian, and hedonistic. Like many politicians, he played at being progressive while choosing to support the current power structure and status quo, as long as this served his own career. Weber's mother Helene was an extraordinarily religious Protestant, disciplined and self-denying in the way her husband was not. Weber was what we might call a "Renaissance man" - he mastered a large variety of subjects and, though for the most part an academic, took part in many areas of life. He studied law, economics, religion, history, politics, psychology, and what was at the time a new field called sociology. This breadth of knowledge made him an excellent speaker, regardless of the audience. Though he was too extreme and principled to become a true man of politics, there were factions at the time that wanted to see Weber elected to parliament, or even become the chancellor. Weber had a talent for differentiating between rhetoric (e.g. "BS") and reality. He knew when compromise was necessary, and when it worked against positive goals. Weber was a patriot and nationalist. Though he spent most of his adult life as an academic, he also served in the military on two occasions. He initially supported the German war of aggression (WWI), but changed his mind as soon as it was clearly not going to work out well for the nation. Weber was actually one of the delegates sent to discuss surrender conditions for Germany at Versailles, and refused to support (what are still considered today to be) the unreasonable conditions of surrender demanded in the treaty (which was signed, of course, despite Weber's recommendations to the contrary). Following the war, he helped draft a new constitution for Germany. Weber achieved prominence in academia early on. He organized the German Sociological Society and ran the journal, Archive for Social Science & Social Policy. By the time he was 32 he was given the chair of political science at the University of Heidelburg, a position he kept for the rest of his career. Even when he resigned due to mental illness, the university insisted on making him an honorary professor. Weber suffered on and off from severe depression, the cause of which is open to speculation. Its first onset followed the death of his father, with whom Weber had a terrible argument just months before. Another possibility is that, like many intellectuals, he simply found life to be meaningless - at one point he commented that he studied sociology to see how much he could stand. Weber died of pneumonia in 1920.
IN A NUTSHELL
Social science can't discover universal laws, society is too complex. Social phenomena are multicausal - influenced by many things, including historical context. No social event can be precisely predicted; we must develop "probabalistic" rather than "deterministic" models. We can't predict an ultimate destiny for society - history is "open-ended." We must recognize that our theoretical concepts are "ideal types" rather than concrete categories that social reality fits neatly into. Life is meaningless, except for meaning human beings invent and attach to the phenomena of life, so we can't expect science to discover which values are best for people to follow. Traditional society provides meaning, but this meaning disappears with the rationalizing process of modernity. Instead of a traditional, shared, and clear world view, modernity is diverse and provides many confusing values and beliefs. Each individual must struggle to find meaning in this modern world. Science can't be "value-free" - values influence the topics scientists choose study - except in the sense that the conclusions of science can be repeatedly tested by people with varying values. If similar results are found by different people, the finding is in a sense more "objective." "Social action" is behavior with meaning provided by society. Values motivate social action. By discovering what these values are, we can determine the "cause" and consequences of social action. This sort of "verstehen" (understanding) is the goal of social science, different from the goals of natural science (universal laws). The Protestant (work) Ethic was inspired by Luther's idea of "the (occupational) calling," and Calvin's doctrines of predestination (the saved were pre-selected by God) and asceticism (simple living, rejection of pleasure). This ethic helped capitalism emerge first in the West, and thrive there. The ethic did this by defining hard work, investment of profits, and thrifty living as pleasing to God. The trend in modern societies is towards "rationalization." A method is rational if it leads to the intended goal (whatever that goal may be) with a minimum of time, resources, and effort spent. Rational action can be compared to other sorts (e.g., that based on tradition or emotion). Organizations and institutions in the modern Western world are designed to rationally meet goals (typically the goal of profit, though the goal can be anything). This "formal rationality," which does not take ends into consideration, can be distinguished from "substantive rationality," which has at its ends more humanistic values. In the modern world, the former threatens the latter. All modern institutions, including economic systems like capitalism and socialism, are examples of rational systems. The early capitalist took advantage of rational methods familiar to him, and became the new elite of the modern world. Modern science is a rational method of obtaining knowledge, modern music is carefully calculated and controlled, etc. The trend toward rationalization is unstoppable; we are both trapped by it and dependent on it. In gaining freedom from tradition, modern individuals have become more vulnerable to the steel-hard cage of rational control "Power" is the ability to have one's wishes carried out despite resistance, "authority" is power made legitimate. Charismatic authority is power made legitimate by a leader's strength of personality. This authority can be "routinized" - made into part of the culture, which creates "traditional authority," power legitimized by tradition. Rational-legal authority, power made legitimate by formal rules, is part of the rationalization process and the most common sort of authority in the modern world. Charismatic authority can pop up anywhere and disrupt the others sorts. Elected leaders are given power by the people, and ideally they return that power by representing those who elected them. But power is often used in ways contrary to the people's interests. Bureaucracies are designed to rationally meet goals, regardless of what they are. Commonly thought to be inefficient, they are the most efficient way we have devised to carry out the large tasks of modern organizations. There are seven ideal characteristics of bureaucracy (keyed to goals): division of labor into bureaus (specialization), obedience to written rules (conformity to organizational goals), hierarchy based on rational-legal authority (smooth flow of information/ commands; accountability), hiring and advancement by formal and objective qualifications (competence), record keeping (information for decision making, power), offices not owned (smooth transition of employees in and out), position as career (reduce external corruption). Class, party, and status are three separate forms that power can take. Class is one's position in the economic structure (access to wealth), party is political power that comes with association with a political party, and status is how much "esteem" is given to members of a "status-group" by others due to the characteristics of that group's lifestyle. Modern problems can't be "solved," but can be addressed by balancing between extremes. The meaninglessness, ruthlessness, and alienating power of rational modern institutions can be balanced by tradition, emotion, freedom, and humanistic, purposeful (if non-rational) ethics. No government or organization is perfect, but the red tape and unimaginativeness of rational-legal authority can be balanced by charisma. Democracies must find balance between stale, bureaucratic control and excessive charismatic authority of leaders. Free-market capitalism and socialism are both alienating, but capitalism seems better because it allows for some freedom and competition, whereas socialism, with government control of economy, weakens that aspect of civil society. At the individual level, we should find a balance between success and responsibility.
REMEDIAL SOCIOLOGY asceticism - the practice of denying oneself of pleasure, typically in order achieve spiritual development Calvinism - ideas of John Calvin, a 16th Century European religious leader. These ideas are the basis of Presbyterianism and certain other faiths, and emphasize asceticism and predestination. caste - an inescapable social category one is born into. Caste determines one's occupation, status, marriage partners, etc. The Hindu caste system is a good example. calling - a call from God to undertake some course of action, especially an occupation causality - condition of something causing something else civil society - that aspect of society consisting of regular citizens organizing themselves and taking an active role in society - for example by participating in politics and other institutions - as opposed to being organized by government cottage industry - a preindustrial means of production in which people work out of their own homes and are provided materials and pay by the business owner determinism - broad term, refers to idea that events are determined by previous events and conditions; also tends to include the idea that free will does not exist historical approach - approach to understanding that focuses on the events, trends, and conditions of a particular time period when explaining something; compare to positivism, which focuses on universal laws to explain things intersubjectivity - the attempt to gain objectivity by taking into consideration many subjective (i.e., biased) perspectives/ interpretations Lutheran - religion started by Martin Luther, the 15th and 16th Century German priest who was the first Protestant. Luther emphasized a personal relationship with God and the idea of the "calling." McDonaldization - George Ritzer's term for Weber's concept of rationalization. Ritzer points out that modern social institutions operate similarly to the McDonalds restaurant meaning - sociologists, especially symbolic interactionists, are quick to point out that people place meaning on events, words, objects, etc. This is accomplished through social interaction. predestination - Calvin's idea that God has already decided whether you will be saved or damned, and that your behavior will not change that destiny state capitalism - an economic system in which the government encourages and supports the development of a capitalist class (sometimes used to describe communist control of production) stratification - condition in which there is inequality between people, and this inequality is due to an economic and political system, such as capitalism or feudalism values - things that are valued, e.g., money, family, democracy, freedom
IDEAS THAT MADE IT
4.1 Caution and Balance Social science investigation cannot discover the precise relationships (universal laws) sought by the positivists. Social phenomena are influenced by many things, including historical context. Thus, we must search for "multicausality," not "causality." Further, no social event can be precisely predicted, and so we must develop "probabalistic" models rather than "deterministic" ones. The direction of society is not predetermined - anything is possible (history is open-ended). To deal with the inexactness of social reality, we should see our theoretical concepts as abstract "ideal types" rather than concrete categories that social reality fits neatly into.
Weber's sociology is very cautious and balanced. Unlike Marx, who saw the inevitability of revolution and perfection of communism - and Durkheim, who believed society could ultimately be understood in a precise manner (like physics) and that perfect solutions could be offered to improve it - Weber did not make big claims about what could be understood, or what the world should be like. Society, thought Weber, is far more complicated than the natural world. It should be investigated scientifically, but we are foolish to assume that universal laws (like the theory of gravity) can be found. At best, social science can make probabilistic statements, perhaps giving us an idea of what the chances are that something might happen in the social realm. For instance, sociologists have found that, on average, women with low levels of education tend to have more children. But this is not the same as saying that a woman who has a certain number of years of education will definitely have a certain number of children - or even that a woman who has not finished high school will definitely have more children than one who does. Social behavior is not determined in such a simple way. Still, we can say that, if a woman lacks education, it is more probable that she will end up having lots of kids. Another limitation of social science Weber recognized was that any given social phenomenon is "caused" by a variety of things. It is not as if A causes B, or even that a change in A causes a change in B. There are probably several (if not dozens or hundreds of) influential factors that impact a social event. One important influence that Weber paid attention to was history. We must be aware that the historical period of a society has an impact on events in that society. Thus, while A might cause B in 1890 America, A might cause C in 1980 America.
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
In 1924, Joe Collins divorces his wife, causing a scandal in his Irish-Catholic Chicago neighborhood. Joe goes the rest of his life without remarrying, since in the eyes of his church and community he is still married, and should not have divorced in the first place. In 1994, a distant nephew of Joe's divorces his wife. In this very different time period, the divorce has very different consequences. Joe's nephew is in good company, as about half of all marriages that began in the 1990s will end in divorce. He can move on with his life, perhaps marrying again, but certainly not living in shame until the day he dies. Same event... plus different historical context... equals different outcomes. -------------------------------------
Scientists use the term "multicausality" to indicate a situation in which an outcome is caused by many things. If we think about it, multicausality describes most social phenomena. Consider, why did you go to college? Why does a country decide to go to war? Why did the economy crash? The answer to such questions about society and human behavior are rarely simple. Later we will describe in more detail what Weber thought about the "cause" of capitalism (more specifically, what caused it to come about in the first place). For now, suffice it to say that he considered capitalism to have multiple causes: the development of factories, political changes, the Lutheran idea of a "calling," the Calvinist idea of "predestination," and other factors. Weber stays true to his cautious tendencies in his vision of the future. While he did see certain trends as hard to shake (like the increase in bureaucratic organization), he did not claim to know what direction human society would ultimately take. The complexities of society, thought Weber, made it silly for us to try to forecast the ultimate end of human history (compare to Marx, who believed communism was inevitable). After all, the development of one social phenomenon can lead to the development of a very different one - as was the case with capitalism. According to Weber, capitalism came about, in part, due to a humble religious idea that seemed to have very little to do with the accumulation of personal wealth. History (as it is made) moves in strange ways: it is open-ended and ultimately unpredictable.
One more example of Weber's cautious approach, his concept of "ideal types," should be mentioned. Weber was aware that abstract theoretical concepts are just that: abstract. Theorists must describe and explain very complicated and variable social phenomena, and they must do this with simplified language. For instance, we describe America as a "capitalist" society, but isn't this descriptive term a bit too simple? Clearly, America it is not perfectly, completely capitalistic. There is government regulation of business, tampering with the economy, and help for the poor (and the not so poor!). America is hardly a "pure" example of an "ideal type" capitalistic society. Weber emphasized that every sociological concept describes an "ideal type" - not a real thing. There is no perfect bureaucracy (clearly!). Societies calling themselves "democratic" are ideally ruled by the people, but in reality politics in democratic nations are much more complex than that. ------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Dave considers himself "a conservative" and his roommate Eric "a liberal." During an argument over abortion, Eric accuses Dave of being "anti-woman" and a "sexist." Dave resents these accusations, pointing out that, although he feels abortion should be made illegal, he does not support other legislation that limits the behavior of women, such as rules against women taking certain jobs in the military. "You have a stereotype of the 'ideal conservative' in your mind, but it doesn't apply to everyone!" complains Dave. More to the point, there are probably very few, if any, examples of specific individuals that completely conform to any given ideal-typical political philosophy. ------------------------------------- Still, said Weber, we can describe real societies as being more or less democratic (or capitalist, or "free," or whatever). We can measure how close a real life example comes to matching the characteristics of the ideal type described by a theorist. Doing this may even help us understand society better, because we can then treat the ideal type as a variable instead of a concrete category. For instance, what if we suggest two ideal types of control on a college campus: "administratively-controlled" and "faculty-controlled?" In the first type, we might imagine a situation in which administrators (e.g., the president and other high-ranking college officials) made all of the decisions with no input or resistance from the faculty (professors). In real life, this probably could not happen - there will always be a degree of interference on the part of the faculty, so that administrators cannot always get their way. The same applies to the opposite situation. If we wanted to, we could find a way judge where, on a continuum between two ideal types, particular colleges landed. For instance, we might rate a college this way:
Faculty Controlled ------------------------------------------X--------Administration Controlled
We could then examine other aspects of colleges and try to find relationships. For instance, what if we found that, the more the administration controlled the policies of the college, the more grade inflation (another ideal type) occurred?
Faculty Controlled -----------------------------------------X---------Administration Controlled Bell Curve Grading------------------------------------X---------------Inflated Grading
There is much more to the use of ideal types. Weber's method might ask us to find the relationships between many ideal types. For instance, we might find that a higher degree of faculty control, coupled with a high degree of student organization, creates a moderate degree of grade inflation. And so on.
Faculty Controlled ----X--------------------------------------Administration Controlled Organized Student Body---------X----------------------------------Unorganized Student Body Bell Curve Grading-----------------------X---------------------Inflated Grading
Sociologists today use a more sophisticated (statistical) version of this method of analysis, but some historians (and Weber preferred a somewhat historical approach, as we've seen) still do something very much like this when they analyze the probable causes of historical events. For instance, a historian, after studying many cases of revolution, might observe that a certain combination of factors - which are themselves ideal types or spots between a continuum of ideal types - lead to revolution (example factors might include government corruption, booming population, type of economy, etc.).
4.2 Meaninglessness and Value-Freedom Life is meaningless in the sense that the universe does not provide us with meaning - human beings invent meaning and attach it to the phenomena of life. This being the case, we cannot expect science to discover which values are best for people to follow. All values are equally valid. Also, science cannot be "value-free" in the sense that it objectively chooses what to study. Human values influence the topics scientists choose study - the questions they try to answer. But science can be "value-free" in the sense that the conclusions of science can be repeatedly tested. If a scientific finding is tested many times by many skeptics (who are likely to have different values) and still seems accurate, we can at least claim that values have not biased the conclusions of the scientist.
What is the meaning of life? What purpose should life have? What values should we pursue? These questions all ask basically the same thing. The question, "What is the meaning of life?" is really asking, "What is the point of our being here?" In other words, the question asks, "What should we be doing here - what goals should we pursue?" These are questions regarding proper values. Values, said Weber (and say most sociologists) are those things that motivate behavior. The are the things we value (e.g., money, love, power, family, or whatever) and try to get. By pursuing them, we end up making society what it is: we set up habits, social patterns, norms, organizations - all in pursuit of values. Some people believe that life has a definite and pre-determined meaning - a purpose. Perhaps you believe that the purpose of your life is to serve a god, or to help others. Or maybe you think the "meaning of life" lies in accumulating wealth, or mastering some skill. Another possibility is that you think the whole point is to have fun and be happy. In any case, we commonly think that there is some "point" or "purpose" or "meaning" to life, and that we need to discover it and act accordingly. We need to discover what values to pursue. Weber didn't think so. He acknowledged that people needed meaning, purpose, and values - but he didn't think that there was some "ultimate" meaning written in the stars. I.e., he didn't think there was a meaning that already existed and needed to be found. Instead, Weber believed that people have always searched for meaning in a meaningless universe, and found it in different places. People may create new meanings, accept values taught in their culture, or whatever. Because there are no "ultimate" values to be discovered, Weber considered all values to be equally valid. Should we ignore family to pursue riches? Should we kill for power? Should we dedicate our lives to helping others? There is no logical way to decide which value is "best." This is not the same as saying that Weber personally had no value preferences. Clearly, he advocated some values over others. But what he was trying to say is that, as scientists, we cannot rationally determine what values are best to pursue. Values are chosen non-rationally. If a scientist chooses to study a disease so that he or she can cure it, a value has been chosen ahead of time. The method of study is scientific, but the reason the scientist is studying is not (perhaps he or she is trying to cure a sick family member). A different scientist may dedicate his or her life to inventing a new way to kill people on a massive scale. This scientist may use the rational, methodical techniques of physics experiments to invent a weapon of mass destruction - but his or her reason for doing so (say, hatred of a rival society) was likely learned in a non-scientific manner. In both cases, science has been used to accomplish a goal - but in both cases, science was not used to choose the goal.
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Jenny, a graduate student in anthropology, has done extensive field research in Islamic societies. Her expertise in these areas attracts the attention of a US military intelligence agency, who recruits Jenny to work for their "psyc warfare" division. Jenny's job is to use her knowledge of culture to help the military find ways to demoralize and intimidate people from certain enemy nations. Jenny feels conflicted about her new job. On the one hand, she learned a code of ethics, as an anthropologist, that said researchers should try not to harm the people they study. While living with a nomadic tribe in Afghanistan, she also came to understand the point of view of the people she was studying. At the same time, as an American, she was taught to be patriotic and serve her country however she could. Jenny's scientific skills could be used to serve any one of these values. What they cannot do is tell her which value is best. --------------------------------------
In this sense, science (including social science) cannot be value-free. But in another sense it can. Weber pointed out that scientific conclusions can be confirmed or refuted by other scientists, and of course this is an accepted part of the ideal scientific method as it is practiced in basically free societies. In societies, like Nazi Germany, where a totalitarian government controls the practice of science, the state can declare that certain conclusions are true, or false, regardless of the facts. But in a free society, scientific conclusions are (typically) not accepted by the scientific community until such findings have been confirmed repeatedly. Once the conclusion has been put to the test by many different people with, arguably, many different values, we have more confidence that no one particular value has influenced the conclusion. We have achieved not "objectivity," but what might be called "intersubjectivity."
4.3 Social Action and Verstehen "Social action" is behavior that has some meaning provided by society, and can be distinguished from simple "behavior." Values motivate social action, and by discovering what these values are, social scientists can in a sense determine the "cause" of social action and the consequences of such action. This sort of "verstehen" (understanding) is the goal of social science, and is different from the goals of natural science (developing universal laws). The focus is on the individual as creator of society, and that individual's motivations.
Weber noted that some kinds of human behavior are different from behavior seen in other animal species. The difference is that human behavior often has some sort of social meaning - meaning that comes originally from society. When a person behaves because he or she is trying to live up to one of society's values, Weber calls this "social action."
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Casey drives to work. Tonight, his job is to play his bass guitar for "Rednecks and Redskins" - a country and western band that plays music Casey doesn't particularly like. Casey breathes - this is not social action according to Weber. He sucks on a cigarette because he's addicted to them. When he first tried smoking, he did it to fit in with other musicians, and so maybe it was social action back then. Fifteen years later, it's just a physical necessity. He stops at a stop sign even though it's late at night on a country road and no one else is around. Casey stops because he values the law - this is social action. He arrives at the country music bar and says his obligatory "hellos" to the owner and some of the staff and patrons, even though he can't stand most of them. Each polite greeting is an example of social action. On stage, he plays songs he hates because the lead singer is his friend, and because he needs the money. His behavior is motivated by social connections and shared values - therefore, says Weber, it is social action. If he's lucky enough to pick up one of the residual groupies that bass players have to settle for, having sex with that woman later will probably not be social action (it will be a social behavior in response to a physical desire) - unless he's only doing it to say he "scored" and live up to social expectations regarding masculinity. --------------------------------------
Social action is motivated by values shared by groups in society. If there is no "sharedness," we should not use the term "social action," according to Weber. But when values are shared, that means they are motivating not just one individual, but (possibly large) numbers of people. This is important to remember, says Weber, because it is such collective social action that makes things happen in the world. Therefore, we can determine the cause of social phenomena simply by discovering the motivations that cause people to engage in social action. Learn the (shared) value being sought by the individual, and we know why patterns of social behavior come about. Although this may sound overly simplistic, Weber thought that this was a much more realistic goal for social science than the development of universal laws of human behavior. Our method should be to seek "verstehen," the German word for "understanding." Understanding the motivations of actors, said Weber, is the closest social scientists can get to knowing the true causes of social phenomena. We must compare this method and view to Durkheim. For him, there are real characteristics of society, and real relationships between them, and we can find out what the exact nature of these relationships is. In other words, we can discover laws about how society works, just like we can about the natural world: Our method of studying society should be based on the same principles used by the natural sciences. Part of the difference in methods here stems from a difference in what exactly is being studied by Weber and Durkheim. Notice that Durkheim's unit of analysis (the thing he studies) is the whole society, whereas Weber's unit is the individual. Of course Weber saw that the individual is connected to society by values and social relationships - but he reminds us that it is the individual who is real, who makes decisions, who carries the culture in his or her brain: in short, who makes society happen. That is why Weber puts the word action in his concept of "social action." He also uses the term "cultural carriers" to remind us that no culture can exist without people to keep it alive!
4.4 The Protestant Ethic The Protestant Ethic is a work ethic that was inspired by certain Protestant beliefs including Luther's idea of "the (occupational) calling," and Calvin's doctrines of predestination (the saved were pre-selected by God) and asceticism (simple living, rejection of pleasure). This ethic had an influence on capitalism. It helped capitalism emerge first in the West, and thrive there. The ethic did this by defining hard work, investment of profits, and thrifty living as pleasing to God. Weber looked at religion differently than Marx. Marx saw religion as something that "went along" with the economic system, or something that was built on the economic base. For him, religion reflected economy - it didn't create it. Weber, being the careful thinker he was, did not directly contradict Marx (though many sociologists see Weber in this very simplistic manner). Weber agreed with Marx's basic explanation of the rise of capitalism. Clearly, historical and technological forces had a great deal to do with it. But Weber was puzzled by one question: why did capitalism start first in Western Europe, and thrive there? And why did it also thrive in America? Western Europe resembled certain other societies, including Far Eastern ones, in terms of many characteristics relevant to the development of capitalism - and yet these Eastern societies did not adopt capitalist economies until much later. What made the West so special? After a thorough investigation, Weber settled on one key difference: Protestantism. He noted that societies practicing Protestant religion were more prosperous economically. Further, Protestant groups within societies were more productive economically than non-Protestants groups. During a visit to the United States - a predominantly Protestant nation - Weber observed the same thing: astounding economic productivity and prosperity. What was it that made Protestants so successful? Weber identified an "ethic" (moral code, value, or whatever you want to call it) that seemed to explain the industrious social action of Protestants. This ethic can be summed up in three parts:
1) Martin Luther's doctrine of "the calling." Luther believed that people were "called" to an occupation/ career by God. Because it was God who made the call, as a faithful individual it was your responsibility to perform your occupational duties to the best of your ability. The better you did at work, said Luther, the more it pleased and glorified God. This doctrine was revolutionary because it changed the meaning of occupational achievement. Traditional Christianity did not associate such achievement with Godliness - quite the opposite! Traditionally, a person was supposed to dedicate themselves to prayer, charity, etc. - not moving up the occupational ladder.
2) John Calvin's doctrine of "predestination." Calvin believed that a person's fate was sealed. God, he said, had decided whether you would be damned or saved long before you were born. No matter what you did, you could not change this judgment. One might think that this idea would encourage people to "live it up." After all, why try to be good if you have no control over the final destiny of your soul? Instead, the belief in a sealed fate made Calvinists very anxious. They had to know if God favored them or not! In response to this anxiety, Calvinists worked hard. If God favored them, perhaps He would demonstrate that favor by making them successful in their occupation or business. Thus, the Calvinist interpreted occupational success as proof of his or her salvation.
3) John Calvin's doctrine of asceticism. Calvin was an old poop. He taught his followers that they weren't allowed to have any fun: no dancing, no tasty food, no flashy clothes, no feather beds, etc. In other words, they had to live in an ascetic manner (asceticism is a lifestyle that minimizes pleasure). The Calvinist slept in a straw bed, wore scratchy, brown and gray clothes, and ate unseasoned food. No time was to be wasted on pleasure or relaxation: six days a week you worked from dawn until dusk, and on Sundays you prayed all day. The side effect of working constantly, while spending almost nothing on your stingy lifestyle, is a lot of extra cash. Since this cash needed to go somewhere - and since spending it on luxuries was forbidden - Calvinists invested it (saved it, put it into their business, loaned it out, etc.). Such behavior tends to lead to prosperity in the long run - and as far as Calvinists were concerned, this was a good sign (see #2 above)!
So here we have a category of people - the early Protestants - who associated morality and Godliness with hard work, thriftiness, and reinvestment of money. Given that Western Europe and America served as home for these people, should we surprised capitalism took off in the West? The case of the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism demonstrates some of the ideas presented in previous sections. Consider the importance of understanding values: Weber uses the values of Protestantism to explain the social action of Protestants, action that in turn influenced the development of a social phenomenon - capitalism. We have, it seems, located a cause of capitalism in the motivation of actors. Of course, the ethic is not the only cause, and this goes along with Weber's idea of multicausality. The ethic is also not a deterministic cause of economic prosperity - there are certainly Protestant societies that lack economic prosperity (Bentel 2002). But, as Weber might argue, Protestantism is that time and place increased the probability of prosperity. Weber's assertion that one social phenomenon can lead to another, very different one, is also demonstrated in this case. Here we have people trying to be humble, nonmaterialistic, and religious, and it leads to capitalism! Capitalism - especially as it exists today - is more about materialism than these traditional religious ideas. In a capitalist society like America, the ethic is to spend, not save. The goal is the most profit for the least effort, not working hard regardless of the results that brings. This is not to say that the ethic has completely vanished. Americans still give lip service to the "Protestant work ethic." We complain that poor people are lazy and don't have this ethic, and teach our children to work hard and make sacrifices so that they may succeed. The difference is that the goal of this hard work is now material gain, status, a comfortable lifestyle, etc. The religious element has been removed.
4.5 Rationalization The trend in modern societies is towards "rationalization." A method is rational if it leads to the intended goal (whatever that goal may be) with a minimum of time, resources, and effort spent. I.e., rational methods are efficient. Rational action can be compared to other sorts (e.g., that based on tradition or emotion). Organizations and institutions in the modern Western world are designed to rationally meet goals (typically the goal of profit, though the goal can be anything). This "formal rationality," which does not take ends into consideration, can be distinguished from "substantive rationality," which has at its ends more humanistic values. In the modern world, the former threatens the latter.
Weber's concept "rationalization" is simple in its essence, but complex and far-reaching in its application. The word "rational" describes a certain approach to reaching a goal. An approach is rational if it leads to achievement of the goal for the lowest cost, where "cost" means cost in time, effort, resources, problems, etc. The lower the cost of an action in reaching a goal, the more "rational" we would say that action is. Or, to put it in more applicable terms, the lower the cost imposed by a way of doing things, the more rational our method is. What is the goal? Well, of course, according to Weber it doesn't matter. Values cannot be rationally chosen - but once chosen, they can be rationally achieved.
---------------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Sam, a "method" actor, wants to know what its like to get the crap beat out of him so he can better portray a worn-down prize-fighter in an upcoming play. In pursuit of this goal, Sam goes about goading large men into beating him up. While this goal is not rational, Sam has found the most rational way to reach it. After trying several approaches, including name-calling, kicks to the shin, and dumping water on his victims' heads, Sam found that licking total strangers on the side of the face provokes the quickest and most brutal ass-kicking. --------------------------------------------
In his book The McDonaldization of Society, contemporary social theorist George Ritzer (1996) uses the analogy of McDonalds to demonstrate Weber's concept of rationalization, including the manner in which American society has become more rationalized. He points out that McDonalds is the ultimate rational system, bringing in tremendous profits (the goal) at minimal cost. The rational methods used by McDonalds toward this goal include: · uncomfortable chairs to make you want to vacate the restaurant as soon as possible (creating room for more consumers). · a job so boring and repetitive that employees rarely stay on to collect higher wages, thus keeping labor costs low. · buying the lowest quality meat that still meets government standards, at bulk prices. · making the menu very limited, so people can choose quickly. · using technology that minimizes human error, like friers and grillers that beep when they need to be attended.
Ritzer breaks down the components of rationality into four: 1. calculability - the tendency in rational systems to keep numerical track of everything: costs of materials and labor, time needed for tasks, profit margins, etc. By doing this, steps can be taken to minimize costs and maximize profits. 2. predictability - the only way to absolutely ensure that things are working the way you want them is to make sure everything is done the same way. The less variation, the less mistakes. 3. efficiency - minimizing waste, whether we are talking about wasted time, profit, materials, or whatever. Like the general nature of rationality, efficiency has to do with spending the least effort for the output desired. 4. control - people make mistakes, and so the goal of rational systems is to minimize their ability to act outside imposed limits. Control can be imposed by rules, machines, supervision, etc.
To these four "good" characteristics, Ritzer critically adds "the irrationality of rationality." If you haven't thought about it already, you might note that there are some problems with rationalized systems like McDonalds. For instance, as a free-willed human being, you feel like you have less control over decisions in such a context. More importantly, other goals (besides the goal for the rational approach) may be threatened. In the case of fast food, one such sacrificed goal is... well, taste. There are other examples.
-------------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Amy pushes her way into an auditorium-sized classroom for her general biology course at a large state college. Three-hundred students fill the room for today's multi-choice exam. She looks to the seating chart posted near the entrance and discovers her seat for today will be Row 14, seat AK. The professor assigns exam seating to discourage cooperation between friends during the test. Somewhat disoriented and uncomfortable with her spot in the room, Amy watches as seven graduate assistants help distribute the exams. "There are four forms," announces the professor. "Be sure to mark the correct form on you scantron sheet, or your test won't be graded properly by the machine." Amy certainly doesn't blame the professor for using "fill-in-the-circle" exams, and they are pretty easy after all. She can't help but wonder, though, how much could these students be learning? And with such a crowd during lectures, it's difficult for a person to ask more than a few questions all semester. I guess the university saves money by having such big classes, thinks Amy to herself. But I can't help but feel like there's something missing in all this.
--------------------------------------------
It should be clear that social action is not always "rational." Even in the modern world, much (perhaps most) social action takes place in a different manner. Weber compared rational action to other types, including social action based on emotion and tradition. This should make sense. Consider how often your actions are a response to emotions (cursing in frustration when your computer doesn't work, kissing a romantic partner, driving too fast because you are angry or worried about being late). None of these actions are particularly "rational," and yet they are social actions that make sense, given one's emotional state ("affective action," in Weber's terms). Another "irrational" type of action mentioned by Weber is "traditional action." Speaking in tongues, lining up at church to take communion, and attending a graduation ceremony are not "rational" in the sense of leading efficiently to some clearly-defined goal. The goal in the case of religious activity might be "salvation," and the goal of walking up to get your diploma might be to satisfy the expectations of family. But these goals, and the rituals themselves, are based on tradition - not carefully crafted methods designed to maximize output for minimum input. A "rational" way to pick up your diploma would be to have it mailed to you, and would involve much less expense and boring speeches.
It is easy to be confused by the many categories (of action, values, etc.) that Weber laid out. We will risk adding one more of his distinctions, that between "formal rationality" and "substantive rationality." We do this because Weber strongly emphasized the difference and conflict between these (and this conflict will come up again, repeatedly, in this chapter). "Formal rationality" is how the concept of rationality has been described so far: the use of ruthless, efficient means towards goals (ends) that can be anything. Weber contrasted this with substantive rationality - i.e., rationality that has substance. For Weber, this substance was the same as it was for the idealists of the Enlightenment: social justice, equality, freedom, etc. Weber's concept of substantive rationality reveals in him a lingering hope for humanity - that rationality can be used to achieve (what Weber thought to be) positive values. His fear was that formal rationality threatened substantive. I.e., in the modern world, formal rationality has achieved such perfection that its use for the pursuit of destructive goals (greed, domination) has made the rational pursuit of humanistic goals difficult.
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
"Democrats Split on Challenging Iraq Arms Hunt" By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ADAM NAGOURNEY, The New York Times
WASHINGTON, June 13. The war in Iraq is once again dividing the Democratic Party, with Congressional leaders and presidential candidates struggling over how strongly to challenge President Bush about the failure so far to find biological or chemical weapons. Many party leaders say they are hopeful that questions about the weapons can be turned into a powerful political issue. But others are concerned that it may backfire, given the strong public support for Mr. Bush's war policies, the public's apparent indifference to the absence of weapons and the prospect that such weapons could turn up any day. Several polls have indicated that the public remains largely supportive of the war, and that people are not particularly concerned that the weapons that Mr. Bush said would be found have not yet been located. "The right tone is one of serious concerns but no allegations," said a senior adviser to one of the presidential candidates who, given the sensitivity of the issue, spoke on the condition that he and his candidate not be named. "I think we do ourselves a disservice to start screaming conspiracy. Let's give them the time to search." Of Mr. Bush, the adviser said that "if we take a run on this guy and they find them, he'll come up at us stronger than ever. Mr. Graham, who is the latest entry into the presidential race, has attacked Mr. Bush's credibility with a directness that has startled some rivals, who argued that Mr. Graham would be in political difficulty if weapons were uncovered. [T]he risks for the Democrats are high. Mr. Bush has dismissed suggestions that he manipulated information, and Republicans were quick to try to paint Democrats as unpatriotic for raising such questions. Democrats, in keeping with tradition and fearing they would be labeled unpatriotic, refrained from criticizing the administration during the war. That has changed with most American forces out of harm's way. Given the overwhelming public support of the war, even Democrats said it was hardly certain that opinions would turn against the administration if no weapons were found. In March, before the invasion began, a joint survey by Democratic and Republican pollsters found that 41 percent of the public believed that the war would "mostly be a success" if Saddam Hussein were removed from office but no weapons were found. That sentiment has grown since Baghdad fell, in no small part because people believe the weapons will be found, said Jeremy Rosner, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey. Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, said a majority of the public did not believe that the Bush administration had deliberately misled them. "There is really not a credibility issue at this point," Mr. Kohut said. [edited for length]
--------------------------------------
As the example above illustrates, the practice of politics has become a technical endeavor. Pollsters and highly paid campaign managers use well-tested, rational methods to ensure the political survival of the professional politicians they serve. In such an environment, keeping one's position requires adherence to formal rationality. Where, we must ask, has substance gone? How, in this environment, can men and women of substance achieve outcomes that are "right" or "just," if to stay in office they must always choose the most technically efficient and safe methods?
4.6 Rational Institutions of the Modern World Modernization and rationalization are synonymous: the modern world becomes increasingly rational. All modern institutions, including economic systems like capitalism and socialism, are examples of (in their ideal forms) rational systems. The early capitalist took advantage of rational methods already familiar to him, and became the new elite of the modern world. Similarly, modern science is a rational method of obtaining knowledge, modern music is carefully calculated and controlled, etc. The trend toward rationalization is unstoppable; we are both trapped by it and dependent on it.
It's difficult when we are talking about society to separate between one aspect of society and another - to ask, for instance, "which came first and caused the other?" For Weber, it is the same with "rationalization," "modernity," "capitalism," and other trends of the modern world. As we mentioned, he did not see Protestantism as the single cause of capitalism. Likewise, though Weber speculated on how one aspect of modernity influenced another, he remained the complex and careful thinker. Modern institutions were influenced by a general trend of rationalization. At the same time, these institutions serve to keep that trend alive. Marx saw the economy as both influencing, and maintained by, other institutions. Similarly, Weber might point out that, for instance, capitalism both influences, and is influenced by, another rational institution - science (more on this later). In any case, the "McDonalidized" world in which we live today supports the classical theorist's predictions that, even though nonrational action is still with us, the modern world and its institutions would become increasingly rational over time. Modern (or postmodern, if you prefer) institutions are highly rationalized, from schools, to supermarkets, to airlines, to internet dating. Let us consider some important examples in more detail. Capitalism, said Weber, was the rational economic system that took over less efficient, traditional approaches to exchange (or exploitation). Weber agreed with Marx that Capitalism arose due to material factors (see section 2.3), and of course he added the Protestant ethic to the mix of influences. But an additional point made by Weber, rarely discussed in textbooks, is the importance of the merchant/ craftsmen class to the success of the early capitalist in the rationalizing world. In the early days of capitalism, the aristocracy still ruled over the farmer, and between these two extreme classes sat the "middle" class of merchants and craftsmen. Here we had men who made their living by keeping careful track of materials, travel times, wages, and profit margins. A successful merchant might run a "cottage industry" in which he paid people to work in their own homes. The boss carefully calculated how much material and time was required per unit produced, and how much he could afford to pay per unit, given the profit made. This is of course in the days before automated factories, and yet the logic is the same: efficiency, calculability, predictability, control. Weber hypothesized that any of the major groups existing in the middle ages - aristocracy, farmers, or merchant/ craftsmen - could have risen up to become the new elite of the modern world. But he argued it was less likely that the other two groups - aristocracy and peasants - would have done this because of their lack of experience with the rationality that modernity is based upon. Specifically, Weber argued that a farmer's life is too unpredictable - due to weather variation - to encourage rational approaches. As for aristocracy, they were above counting pennies, and more interested in the glory of conquest (an interesting comparison might be the success of King Henry VII of England, a man who did pinch pennies, and his son Henry VIII who preferred warring and drove his kingdom down). In the end, says Weber, it was predictable that the calculating cottage industry boss would become the ruthlessly efficient factory owner, paying starvation wages to the hapless women and children who commonly filled factories in the early part of the industrial period. Of course, cottage industry was rather irrational compared to the kind of rationality imposed on production once industrialization bloomed in the Western world. We must wonder if Max Weber could have imagined the complex, subtle, and overwhelming rationality of 21st Century capitalism.
-------------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Rollo works as a cashier at a clothing store. He runs items over a laser scanner, minimizing human error and thus lost profit. When the total comes up, he cannot even open his cash drawer of his own will - the drawer opens only after he has entered the cash amount given him by the customer (and he must press the button for "cash"). And of course his register informs him of the correct change, lest he miscalculate here as well. Upon leaning over to hand back the change, he bumps the drawer shut. The machine's drawer slides closed with marvelous ease. Rollo can't count how many times he's shut it without realizing it. Was the machine positioned in a manner that ensured the bump? Should he make a mistake with change, the drawer will not reopen (that would require another transaction). On those unlucky occasions when going back into the cash drawer is necessary, Rollo has to call a manager with a key. Guess they don't trust us minimum wage clerks, he thinks to himself. --------------------------------------------
What is not apparent to many postmodern people is the deliberateness of rational methods like those described above. Remember that these are tried and true techniques, tested on a mass scale. When a way to reduce waste, control error, or cut costs is found, it is implemented. One airline found it could save tens of thousands of dollars a year by eliminating one of the olives placed in each martini. In the same manner, McDonalds specifies how many pickles go on each burger. Pickled vegetables cost money, people!
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
The previous sales clerk example, though based on an interview with an actual clerk, was fabricated. The following sales clerk example, more extreme but demonstrating the same principle, is real…
"Cashiers Diapered to Avoid Breaks?"
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - Supermarket cashiers in Argentina are being forced to wear diapers to keep them from taking toilet breaks at work, a union says. Female cashiers in western Mendoza province must wear adult diapers in case "cold, nerves, pressure or stress" provoke incontinence, union official Jorge Cordova told local news agency Diarios y Noticias on Thursday. Cordova refused to name the supermarket, but he did say the chain is backed by foreign capital, said Sandra Varela, Mendoza's labor subsecretary. "The truth is, it's difficult to imagine a line of 20 adult cashiers wearing diapers for eight hours," said Varela, who is investigating the matter. "In seventeen years as a labor lawyer, I've never heard anything like this before," she added. --------------------------------------
The American business world may seem like the best example of rationality gone wild, but Weber noted that both socialism and capitalism were rational systems. Socialism is rational in a different way. In its more extreme forms, it may produce an economy planned by a committee or individual. While this may seem like a good way to ensure your economy takes the form you want, history has shown that planned economies have important disadvantages. For example, too few or too many goods may be produced, since planners may be unable to accurately estimate market demands. Any good economist can point out the problems with both socialism and capitalism - either can be corrupt, or have irrational components. Still, in their ideal form, both are "rational" and a part of the general rationalizing trend of modern society. Another important part of this trend, for Weber, was science. Remember that, for Marx, a socialist (i.e. communist) society was made possible by the advancement of technology. Likewise, Weber was interested in how the modern, high-tech world is made possible by the increasing technical perfection of (formally rational) scientific methods. The importance of science (i.e. positivism) to modern society should be clear - it is a rational method of observing, understanding, and (ultimately) controlling the world, and can be applied to nearly any human endeavor. Science, in its ideal practice, methodically observes the world, attempts to control unwanted influences while testing theories, carefully calculates the significance of findings, etc. Weber commented on a variety of other modern, rational institutions, sometimes in detail. Architecture, government, math - even music takes on the character of formal rationality in Western societies.
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
Mark sits in his room and listens to Johann Sebastian Bach's "Trio Sonata." He can't help thinking how much the harpsichord can sound like a modern synthesizer. Adding to this cold, rational effect is the fact that Bach was known to compose in a most methodical way. "His approach was literally mathematical," said Mark's music professor, "testing patterns and combinations one by one to produce combinations of notes that sometimes sound as if they were generated by a computer." Weber might point out that Bach was a German Lutheran whose lifestyle, like his music, was rigidly disciplined and methodical. In general, though, when we compare Western to non-western music, the former is planned out. Key signatures, measures, marked tempos, the division of sound into notes that represent specific fractions of time - it is as if Western music would work better if it were played by machines. Even the careful creation of harmony between, in some cases, dozens of types of instruments at once, requires discipline of musicians as much as it requires artistry. But still, thinks Mark, I like Bach. --------------------------------------
Rationalization has its advantages. Sometimes we appreciate the convenience of fast-food restaurants, or being able to discover the lowest fares and best flight schedules by entering a few pieces of information into our home computer. Weber realized the advantages of rationalization, and was known to live in a methodical, disciplined manner himself (when he wasn't locked in the depths of depression for years at a time). More importantly, Weber pointed out that modern society without rational institutions would be hard to imagine. How exactly would we be able to feed billions of people without rationalized, scientific farming methods? How could we gather taxes from 280 million people without a huge, sprawling, calculating bureaucracy like the IRS? In the first English translation of Weber's work, Talcott Parsons used the term "Iron Cage" to describe Weber's evaluation of rationalization. The original German, properly translated, was "Steel-hard Cage." However you want to say it, what Weber meant was that we are both dependent on, and trapped by, this cage that is the rationalized world. Consider how annoying it is to have your call directed by an automated answering system, or how humiliating it is to "feel like a number" as you wait in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles. But, as Weber might point out, imagine how much worse things would be if millions of people had to request an audience with the king every time they needed something! Large nation-states require rationalized institutions to exist as they do. We will take a closer look at the advantages and disadvantages of the rationalized modern world in section 4.8, "Bureaucracy," and 4.10, "Alienation."
4.7 Power and Authority "Power" is the ability to have one's wishes carried out despite resistance, "authority" is power made legitimate. Charismatic authority is power made legitimate by a leader's strength of personality. This authority can be "routinized" - made into part of the culture, which creates "traditional authority," power legitimized by tradition. Rational-legal authority, power made legitimate by formal rules, is part of the rationalization process and the most common sort of authority in the modern world. Charismatic authority can pop up anywhere and disrupt the others sorts. Elected leaders are given power by the people, and ideally they return that power by representing those who elected them. But power is power, it is gained in democracies through charisma and cunning, and it is often used in ways contrary to the people's interests.
Weber defined power as the ability of one party to enforce its will despite the resistance of others. This is a very basic definition for a very basic concept, and does not take into consideration types of power. For instance, by this definition, a respected parent and a criminal with a gun both have power over you - you will probably obey either of them, even if you'd rather not. Weber dealt with this problem by distinguishing between power in the general sense, and "authority" (this is again Parsons' faulty translation; the original term was "domination," but for our purposes we will stay with authority because it stuck and works better). Authority is power that is accepted as legitimate by those who are subject to that power. Such acceptance, of course, requires a social process in which the powerful have established themselves as legitimate. This can happen in several ways, according to Weber. Before we discuss these ways, we should note that the exact form "power" takes can vary. Power does not necessarily mean a threat of physical force, though it certainly can. For instance, Weber noted that the state retains the exclusive right (a "monopoly," as he put it) to use violence in a legitimate manner. Like Marx, he understood the importance that violence can have for maintaining power (even though violence may not be required). Weber also recognized other kinds of power, such as that derived from wealth and status (this will be discussed in greater detail in section 4.9) Moving to the types of authority, we should begin with "Charismatic Authority" - authority based only on the personality of the individual. We have all known charismatic people - those whom, when they walk into a room, everyone notices. They have something - a "presence" that demands attention. The exact nature of it may be hard to pinpoint: intense eyes, pronounced expressions, animated body language. People like to let them talk, hear their stories. They can interrupt anyone, but no one wants to interrupt them. They are "charming." Perhaps they mix with many social circles, and somehow fit in well with all of them. People want to be close to them, go where they go, and do what they ask. When they break rules, they get away with it. When they ask for exceptions, exceptions are made.
-------------------------------------- In Your Terms:
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straight-way left their nets, and followed him (Matthew 5:18-20, emphasis original). --------------------------------------
The above example illustrates a point made by Weber about charismatic leaders - they are often believed to possess supernatural powers. If you think such beliefs are restricted to ancient religious figures, consider the extremes of influence that more recent charismatic leaders have had on their followers. David Koresh (leader of the Branch Davidian cult of Waco Texas) convinced his male followers to hand over their wives to him. To take a less negative example, Mohandas Gandhi's followers made extreme sacrifices for him - for instance, lying down on railroad tracks to stop British trains. There is an obvious problem for a group held together by charismatic authority - charismatic people are rare and tend to die, eventually. Weber said this problem is solved when groups "routinize" charisma. I.e., the group makes up rules, traditions, symbols, positions, etc. that are based on or inspired by the charismatic leader, and these things become traditions that serve to keep the organization (whatever kind it is) going. Weber used the term "traditional authority" to describe power that is legitimized by tradition. The ways that charisma can be routinized are as limitless as the human imagination, but consider a few examples. For many societies, authority is passed down to the leader's offspring. E.g., the new king is the son of the old. This occurs due to a tradition, possibly established originally by a charismatic leader who declared it (or by followers who just decided this was the best way to go). Another, more specific example of routinization is the manner in which some Buddhist groups select leaders by searching for children who display personality characteristics of a former leader. Again, these are both examples of traditional authority: Why does the leader have power? Because tradition says he or she does (i.e., it has always been done this way). Of course, in the case of both religious and political leaders, there are more "modern" ways to legitimize power. For a well-established religion, though the authority of, say, a priest is in part traditional, it is also legitimized by a formal bureaucratic process. For instance, a priest or minister (or whatever) may have to go through some sort of formal religious training, pass tests, and be officially approved by church leaders before becoming a legitimate church authority. This process is really not that different than the process a government official, or corporate worker, goes through as they work their way up through the hierarchy and gain a degree of power. Weber said that, in the modern, rationalized world, we have created rational processes (like those just mentioned) for assigning authority to people. Written rules and policies are followed, official meetings are had, votes are cast, etc., to determine who gets authority. Weber called this "rational-legal" authority, because it is authority bestowed upon someone by a rational process involving rules or laws (thus the term "legal"). As with much of Weber's categories, the authority types are ideal. In real life, any given leader draws his or her legitimacy from all three sources. Consider some fairly recent examples the office of President of the United States. Men like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were considered to be "charismatic" (at least compared to some), |