OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
THE STATE AS A HUMAN COMMUNITY
WEBER’S IDEAL TYPE OF
LEGITIMIZATION/ AUTHORITY
THE STATE AND ITS LEGITIMATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
Over the years,
there has been conflicting view points about the actual status of the state in
which the state has been judged on the basis of morality or, of the use of force,
or even by a combination of both morality and force. This view of the state can
be traced to Machiavelli’s ‘the prince’ where he clearly declared two means of
fighting; one which is according to the laws, and the other which is by the use
of force, here therefore, the image of the state can be said to be that of a centaur;
which is half human and half beast, in other words while the state is a moral
entity, it is at the same time an entity built on force through which
compliance of the will of the state is
commanded.
Force is at the
foundation of every state, and the absence of a social institution which uses
force would mean the elimination of the state because it will be left in
anarchy which entails lawlessness.
It is good to note that force is certainly not
the normal or the only means of the state, but force is only a means specific
to the state. Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially
intimate one in the sense that force has become a necessity of the state badly
needed to maintain law and order within a given territory. At the present time,
the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to
individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is
considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. The force of the state has to be legitimate,
monopolized and focused on a particular territory. Nevertheless, force is a
means specific to the state, it is the most central and essential attribute of
the state. (Weber: 1946).
This paper critically
examines Weber’s notion of the state as a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force. It first of all
looks at the human community that makes up the state, and it finally looks at
the state and its legitimate use of force.
THE STATE AS A HUMAN COMMUNITY
The
state as a human community according to Max Weber is one that claims the
monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within a given territory; it
exists with the use of violence which creates its existence- which without this
existence, there equally will be anarchy which will be greater than the
legitimate violence the state would have used to destroy such anarchy: Here,
anarchy does not make a perfect human community. Therefore, the human community
or state according to him is made up of several characteristics of; legitimate
use of physical force, territory, legitimate power, and the legitimization of
domination. Following the account of Giddens (2006), Max describes the human
community as being made up of cultural ideas and values that help shape a
society and individual action. The society is filled with “rationalization” due
to the development of modern technology and bureaucracy.
Kornblum (2008) described the idea of Weber on the
early human community (state) as Monarchies tottering in the face of demand of
democratic rule; observing new industries and markets spanning the globe and
among isolated peoples. The growth of human community as he describes, began to
grow with the advent of modern science, rational decision making which led to
the decline of the feudal community or state.
The legitimization of domination as Marx further
puts it, is such that there is domination by virtue of legality, and there
exists authority of extra ordinary and personal gift of grace and charisma; he
does this by explaining how the charisma of a prophet and other known leaders
whose leadership quality and orientation is what describes their ability to
bring together a human community: Therefore, a well organized domination calls
for continuous administration with representative or administrative staff. The domination that is legitimate is being
divided by Max into three of; charismatic domination, traditional domination;
especially in feudal, patrimonial and patriarch terms, and the legal
domination; which to him is by law or the state. (Weber, M. (1946/1958)
According to Weber (1946/1958), the state or the
human community’s bureaucracy is characterized by the hierarchical
organization, by a delineated line of authority in a fixed area of activity, by
actions taken on the basis of written rules, by officials in bureaucracy. At
this, he describes the bureaucracy of the state as a purely technical superior
over any other form of organization within the human community. Individual
freedom ought to exist in the human community, because the threst to individual
freedom will lead to “polar night of icy darkness” in which increasing ratio
realization of human life traps individuals in the “iron cage” of bureaucratic
rational control. Max also differentiated different administrators that exist
in the human community; first, he described the “Social Class” with their
economic relationship to the market. Secondly, he described the “Status Class”
which has non economic qualities like honor, religion and prestige. Lastly, the
“Party Class” that make up the affiliations in political domain.
WEBER’S
IDEAL TYPE OF LEGITIMIZATION/ AUTHORITY
The state
demands compliance on the part of the citizens. And it is when the citizens
fail to comply that the concept of force comes into the state. Weber explained
that most governments do not openly threaten its citizens. Most of the time,
people respect their political system.
Weber
distinguished between three types of authority- the traditional, the
rational-legal authority, and the charismatic authority.
Traditional authority is legitimated
by the sanctity of tradition. The ability and right to rule is passed down,
often through heredity. It does not change overtime, does not facilitate social
change, tends to be irrational and inconsistent, and perpetuates the status
quo. In fact, Weber states: “The creation of new law opposite traditional norms
is deemed impossible in principle.” Traditional authority is typically embodied
in feudalism or patrimonialism. In a purely patriarchal structure, “the
servants are completely and personally dependent upon the lord”, while in an
estate system (i.e. feudalism), “the servants are not personal servants of the
lord but independent men” (Weber 1958, 4). But, in both cases the system of
authority does not change or evolve.
Charismatic authority is found
in a leader whose mission and vision inspire others. It is based upon the
perceived extraordinary characteristics of an individual. Weber saw a
charismatic leader as the head of a new social movement, and one instilled with
divine or supernatural powers, such as a religious prophet. Weber seemed to
favor charismatic authority, and spent a good deal of time discussing it.
Legal-rational authority is
empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of the law (legal) or natural
law (rationality). Obedience is not given to a specific individual leader -
whether traditional or charismatic - but a set of uniform principles. Weber
thought the best example of legal-rational authority was a bureaucracy
(political or economic). This form of authority is frequently found in the
modern state, city governments, private and public corporations, and various
voluntary associations. In fact, Weber stated that the “development of the
modern state is identical indeed with that of modern officialdom and
bureaucratic organizations just as the development of modern capitalism is
identical with the increasing bureaucratization of economic enterprise (Weber
1958, 3).
The actual application of
physical coercion is delegated or permitted by the state. Weber's theory is not
taken to mean that only the government uses physical coercion, but that the
individuals and organizations that can legitimize coercion or adjudicate on its
legitimacy are precisely those authorized to do so by the state. So, for
example, the law might permit individuals to use physical force in defense of
self or property, but in this case, as in the example of private security
above, the ability to use force has been granted by the state, and only by the
state.
THE STATE AND ITS
LEGITIMATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE
To begin with, Weber immediately circumscribes
politics to something done exclusively in, with, and in relation to the state
or between states. The state-centrism of politics leads Weber to his famed
definition of the state: “Today, however, we have to say that the state is a
human community that (successfully) claims of the monopoly of legitimate
physical force within a given territory” Gerth & Mill (:78).
Analytically, the idea of ‘territory’ is an essential defining feature of a
state as Max points out “Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of
the state” (Gerth & Mills,ND:78). The “Claims of monopoly” and
“legitimate,” drop out of repetitions of this definition. “Weber did see life
in terms of a struggle between powerful individuals, groups, and especially in
the modern period nations” (Mauther,2000:598). There is the struggle for power
within and among individuals, groups or organizations within a given territory
and this occurs due to the freedom granted by the state to some extent and the
state retains the ultimate legitimacy of the use of force. The state
successfully upholds a claim as the sole user of legitimate
force. “Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is
ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which
the state permits. The state is considered the sole source of ‘right’ to use
violence” (Gerth & Mills,ND:78).
Weber defines the legitimate use of
force as that which is perceived as legitimate, “ like the political institutions
historically preceding it, the state is a relation of men dominating men, a
relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e. considered to be legitimate)
violence. (Berth & Mills, ND :78) The reason Weber situates politics so
firmly within the state is linked to his definition of the state. Since the
state is defined by its legitimate claim on violence, the state becomes the
primary site for struggles over power. Power is essential to Weber’s view of
politics, whether used to further particular interests or for the sake of power
itself, but it remains something that people compete for entirely vis-à-vis the
state. On legitimacy and Weber, according to Johari(1987:107)“however, it is
Max Weber of Germany (1860-1920) who is regarded as the first social theorist
to discover the applicability of the notion of legitimacy and therefore the
first to use the term for classifying and comparing the socio political
phenomena simply stated” he further states “ he insist that the ruling group
must be legitimate” Weber chimes in that there are three forms of rule:
customary or traditional rule (“extending from the mists of time” and based on
habit); personalized charismatic rule; and rule based on rationalized legality.
These forms of legitimate rule rarely exist in a pure sense and probably
co-exist, and he also points out that compliance with all these forms of rule
is still based on “hope and fear”. “It is understood that, in reality,
obedience is determined by highly robust motives of fear and hope” (Gerth &
Mills, ND).
CONCLUSION
The definition of a state by Max
Weber in summary can be put that the actual
application of physical coercion is delegated or permitted by the state.
The state is that entity which claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of
force, which it may therefore elect to delegate as it sees fit.
Weber's theory is not taken to mean that only the government uses physical
coercion, but that the individuals and organizations that can legitimize
coercion or adjudicate on its legitimacy are precisely those authorized to do
so by the state.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Giddens .
A (2008), Sociology: fifth edition, Cambridge United Kingdom: Pouty
press
Kornblum.W
(2006), Sociology: in a changing world; eighteenth edition, Belmont USA:
Thomson learning.
Weber .M (1946/1958), Essays in Sociology: in M. Weber, H. Gerth, and C.
Mills (Eds) New York:
Oxford University Press.
Johari J. C. (1987) Contemporary political theory; New Delhi, Sterling
publishers Pvt. LTD.
Hoffman and Graham (2006) Introduction to political theory; Gosport, Ashford Coloar Press.
Mautner Thomas (2000) The penguin Dictionary of philosophy; England,
Penguin books.
No comments:
Post a Comment