The first thing we notice about power is that, even though everyone knows what it is, it is a difficult concept to define. It isn't that no one has tried to define power, but rather, that few people can agree on any particular definition. As we shall see, what we mean by the term depends a lot on what kind of model we want to build about how society works. Despite all the disagreement, there does seem to be one thing about which we can agree: that power is important.
We'll begin with the definition of power suggested by Max Weber, the great German sociologist. Weber defines power as the ability of an actor to realize his or her will in a social action, even against the will of other actors. Power relates to the ability to command resources in a particular context. Economic power, for example, is the ability to control material resources: to direct production, to monopolize accumulation, to dictate consumption.
Societal power occurs in a variety of different spheres, including economic power, social power, legal or political power, and so forth. Although the control of these different kinds of resources usually go together, they represent different processes of power, and are conceptually distinct.
Weber uses the concept of authority to analyze the operation of power. The use of force is one way that power is exercised. But, for Weber and for us, it is more sociologically interesting to consider how power can be exercised without force. For this to occur, those without power must, in some way and to some extent, accept the arrangements as legitimate. Authority refers to the probability that the contents of particular kinds of commands will be obeyed. In other words, to have authority in a particular domain means that one's directives will be followed. He identified three ideal types of legitimacy upon which authority may rest: charisma, tradition and rational-legal. In any actual society or institution, power may be exercised on the basis of a mixture of these types.
Charismatic legitimacy rests on the character of the leader. Through inspiration, coercion, communication and leadership, a particular individual may succeed in occupying a central role in the planning and co-ordination of social action. Charisma, Weber believed, emerges in times of social crisis. People lose confidence in existing forms of authority, and the charismatic leader takes advantage of the crisis. Because it is a personalized form of authority, charisma tends to be unstable. It does not normally survive the death of the original leader, and it often abandons the leader while he or she is alive. For charismatic legitimacy to be sustained, it must be routinized.
Traditional authority is based on the belief in the legitimacy of well-established forms of power. Tradition implies an inherent, natural, or supernatural quality in the state of affairs that makes it resistant to challenges by reason. Tradition often functions in a society with rigid forms of social hierarchy, because of the role of social inheritance and custom.
Traditional authority is based on loyalty to the leadership. Power is exercised by commands issued from the leader or leadership group. Officials are obedient to that person or group, and the lines of authority are often unstated and vague. Traditional authority tends not to distinguish between public and private affairs. The task specialization, in terms of the exercise of power, is minimal.
Rational-legal authority is based on a set of rules, and the belief in the legitimacy of the process of rule creation and enforcement. This form of domination is routinized through bureaucracy. It tends to remain independent of particular individuals, because authority resides in the office, or the organizational position of the role.
In the bureaucracy, rational-legal power is exercised on the basis of knowledge and experience, not on personality or custom. Authority functions by means of obedience to the rules rather than persons. Bureaucracy tends to separate the personal and public spheres. Task specialization is extensive within the bureaucracy.
Bureacracy is so ubiquitous in contemporary societies that we usually pay little attention to it. We expect to have to deal with bureaucracies regularly in the course of our day to day activities. Sometimes we shake our fists at the seemingly mindless routines or mountains of paperwork that are commonplace in our bureaucracies. But, for the most part, we have accommodated to this form of power.
Weber attributes the development of bureaucracy to the increase in rationalization in modern societies. Bureaucracy represents, Weber says, the most rational form that the exercise of power can take. Weber is not saying that actual bureaucracies are always logical or practical in their operation, but rather, that bureaucracy represents the most systematic and abstract form of power. A bureaucracy, in its ideal manifestation, is organized as a hierarchical system of offices that are governed by rules (or regulations). Each office has a sphere of tasks, and the offices operate and interact according to an explicit set of procedures. Power resides in offices, not individuals. Office-holders merely act out the responsibilities of their offices.
Contrast this form of power to charismatic and traditional authority, and it is easy to see what Weber means when he says that bureaucracies represent the highest form of rationality. The exercise of power is divorced from individual prerogative. The result is the most predictable and efficient exercise of authority. This is why Weber so often uses the metaphor of a machine to describe the bureaucracy.
Weber was not optimistic about the consequences of actual
bureaucracies in modern societies. He felt they represented a grave
threat to individual liberty. Power is exercised by bureaucrats whose
interest is in following regulations rather than
principles. Individuals are lost in the vast machinery of the
bureaucratic organization. He notes:
No machinery in the world functions so precisely as this
apparatus of men and, moreover, so cheaply. ... Rational calculation
... reduces every worker to a cog in this bureaucratic machine and,
seeing himself in this light, he will merely ask how to transform
himself into a somewhat bigger cog. ... The passion for
bureaucratization drives us to despair.[REF]
Looking to the future,
Weber lamented, "Not summer's bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a
polar night of icy darkness and hardness."[REF]
Let's take a closer look at modern bureaucracy by examining information about the U.S. system of government. To familiarize yourself with our rule-making and rule-enforcing processes, consult this summary by the parliamentarian of the U.S. House, this summary for the U.S. Senate, and this summary of the U.S. Supreme Court. We can contrast the U.S. with Great Britain.
In our federal system, the division of branches of government at the national level are mirrored at the state level. You can find information about the New York state government at NY State Assembly, NY State Senate, and the NY State Unified Court System.
The last layer of governmental bureaucracy that we encounter regularly is the city. You can find more information about the orgnization of local government at the NYC web site.
All content on this site is copyright © 2003 by Prof. Timothy Shortell, except where copyright is retained by the original owners. No infringement of rights is meant or implied. This page is U.S. Section 508 accessible.