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.