Authority Traditional Rational Legal Charismatic

3 Οκτωβρίου, 2022 Χωρίς κατηγορία

Although children examine these three types of authority attributes, they first assess the legitimacy of the authority figure in question based on the type of orders they give. For example, a teacher who does not seem to have legitimate power from the child`s point of view (perhaps because he cannot control the class well) will not be obeyed. In terms of parenting, authoritarian parents who are warm and rich in behavioral control but little psychological control are more likely to be seen as the legitimate authority of the child and believe themselves that they have a duty to obey them and internalize their values. [7] Weber also notes that the legal rule is the most advanced and that societies evolve from mainly traditional and charismatic authorities to mainly rational and legal authorities, as the instability of charismatic authority inevitably forces them to “routine” into a more structured form of authority. Similarly, he notes that in a kind of pure traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a master can lead to a “traditional revolution.” In doing so, he alludes to an inevitable step towards a rational and legal authority structure that uses a bureaucratic structure. This ties in with his broader concept of rationalization by suggesting the inevitability of a move in this direction. Therefore, this theory can sometimes be considered part of the theory of social evolutionism. Contemporary societies depend on this form of authority; because complexity requires the emergence of a bureaucracy that embodies systematization and order. Authoritarians can only exercise power within the limits set by law.

Charismatic authority comes from the extraordinary personal qualities of an individual and the influence of that individual on his followers based on those qualities. Such charismatic individuals can exercise authority over an entire society or only over a particular group within a larger society. You can exercise your authority for better or for worse, as this short list of charismatic leaders shows: Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and Buddha. Each of these individuals had extraordinary personal traits that led their followers to admire them and follow their orders or demands to act. When traditional authority is derived from custom and tradition, rational and legal authority derives from the law and is based on the belief in the legitimacy of the laws and rules of a society and in the right of rulers to act according to those rules in order to make decisions and determine policy. This form of authority is a feature of modern democracies, where power is given to the people elected by the voters and the rules for exercising this power are usually set out in a constitution, charter or other written document. While traditional authority by inheritance or divine designation resides in an individual, rational and legal authority resides in the function that an individual performs, not in the individual himself. The authority of the President of the United States therefore lies in the office of the President, not in the person who happens to be the President. When that person leaves office, authority passes to the next president. This transfer usually takes place smoothly and stably, and one of the wonders of democracy is that incumbents are replaced in elections without the need for revolutions. We may not have voted for the person who wins the presidency, but we accept that person`s authority as president when he (until now, it has always been a “he”) takes office. Rational-legal authority: Also known as bureaucratic authority, power is legitimized by legally promulgated rules and regulations such as governments.

Max Weber identified and distinguished in his sociological and philosophical work three types of legitimate rule (rule on German, which usually means “domination” or “domination”), which have sometimes been translated into English as types of authority because domination is not considered a political concept at all. [Citation needed] Weber defined domination (authority) as the chance that orders would be followed by a specified group of people. Legitimate authority is one that is recognized and justified as legitimate by both the ruler and the ruler. The legitimized rule leads to what Weber called the monopoly on the use of coercive power in a particular area. [4] In the modern world, this power is generally delegated to the police and the judiciary. Weber`s insight was to distinguish different types of legitimate authority that characterize different types of societies, especially when they evolve from simple to more complex societies. He called these three types traditional authority, rational-legal authority, and charismatic authority. We now turn to them. First, charismatic leadership can be problematic because it is somehow based on some form of messianic promise to reform an unjust system. However, it is not impossible to find such a type of guide, as history shows.

Think of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. or Nelson Mandela. A charismatic leader`s mission is to unite his people in the midst of adversity and difference to achieve an almost insurmountable goal. A citizen`s interaction with a police officer is a good example of how people react and interact with authority in everyday life. For example, a person who sees the flashing red and blue lights of a police car in their rearview mirror usually shoots at the side of the road without hesitation. Such a driver most likely assumes that the police officer behind him serves as a legitimate source of authority and has the right to overtake him. As part of his official duties, the police officer then has the power to issue a ticket if the driver has driven too fast. However, if the same officer ordered the driver to follow him home and mow his lawn, the driver would likely protest that the officer does not have the authority to make such a request.

We usually know which authority figures have the power to ask for them, and we are also aware when authority figures go beyond their position. Sociologists have a distinct approach to the study of government power and authority that is different from the perspective of political scientists. Political scientists focus largely on studying the distribution of power in different types of political systems. For example, they would observe that the political system of the United States is divided into three distinct branches (legislative, executive, and judicial), and they would examine how public opinion affects political parties, elections, and the political process in general. Sociologists, however, are more interested in the influences of state power on society and how social conflicts arise from the distribution of power. Sociologists also study how the use of power affects local, state, national, and global agendas, which in turn affect people differently based on status, class, and socioeconomic status. Charismatic leaders tend to stay in power for a short time and, according to Weber, they are as likely to be tyrannical as they are heroic. Various male leaders such as Hitler, Napoleon, Jesus Christ, Caesar Chávez, Malcolm X and Winston Churchill are all considered charismatic leaders. Some of them held formal positions of power, but many did not. Because so few women have held dynamic leadership positions throughout history, the list of charismatic women leaders is relatively short. Many historians consider personalities such as Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher and Mother Teresa as charismatic leaders. Michelle Obama, who no longer holds a formal position of authority (and some might even argue that the First Lady herself is not translated into authority), is a current example of a charismatic leader.

Charismatic authority can be defined as power legitimized by extraordinary, unusual and extraordinary personal abilities that inspire devotion and obedience. Weber identified this extraordinary attribute as “charisma,” while Robert Bierstadt called it leadership and no authority at all. Charismatic authority comes from the personal charm or strength of an individual personality. [1] He was described by Weber in a lecture as “the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace (charism)”; He distinguished it from other forms of authority by saying, “People obey him [the charismatic leader] not by virtue of tradition or status, but because they believe in him. [2] Therefore, the real power or abilities of the leader are irrelevant as long as followers believe that such power exists. Thus, it is especially difficult for charismatic leaders to maintain their authority, Weber said, because supporters must continue to legitimize the leader`s authority. According to Weber, the power of traditional authority is accepted because it has traditionally been accepted; Its legitimacy exists because it has long been accepted. British Queen Elizabeth, for example, holds a position she inherited based on the monarchy`s traditional rules of succession. People adhere to traditional authority because they are invested in the past and feel compelled to maintain it. With this type of authority, a leader usually has no real power to carry out his will, and his position depends mainly on the respect of a group.

According to Weber, systems based on charismatic authority tend to turn into traditional or legal-rational systems as soon as the leader loses his charisma or dies. Charismatic Authority: Power legitimized by extraordinary personal abilities that inspire devotion and obedience. Legal authority, also known as rational-legal authority, is when a person or institution exercises power based on the legal function they hold.



  • Χωρίς κατηγορία