1 Negrel

Power Authority And Legitimacy Essays

As a founder of sociology, Max Weber influenced the social sciences immensely. In his “Politics as a Vocation,” Weber claims that one of the definitions of the state is its ability to employ legitimate violence as a means of control in a given territory. He also claims that one can define the state as being a human community where people struggle with one another for what is ultimately a greater share of the power to apply legitimate force. But, should one only support Weber’s claims despite the fact that states also employ knowledge as a means to preserve their power?

This paper will first describe Weber’s views on legitimacy, his definitions of the state, and the forms of legitimation which he claims justifies his definitions. Next, by drawing from the works of Foucault I will suggest that there are other forms of power that states' use to assert their authority. Lastly, I will argue that the power the state has, through the use of institutions, to employ and perpetuate knowledge as a means of coercion, can be understood to be another essential piece in defining the concept of the state, which I believe Weber’s “Politics as a Vocation” seems to miss.

Weber claims that the state’s legitimacy rests on the chance that people will follow its commands as a given source of power. In other words, a state’s legitimacy depends on the probability that those within in it will, in theory, abide by all of its commands. How do states accomplish the task of ensuring that its people will obey its decrees? Weber states that people submit to the authority of the state because of factors that range from simple habit to very specific desires for advantage.

By using knowledge and not just physical force to assert power, as reasoned by Foucault, the state positions itself to perpetuate and increase control over its people through the process of normalization.

Furthermore, because personal interests play a role in sustaining obedience within the state, one may claim that there is a purposive element to being obedient. Weber seems to support this claim when he states that those who have ulterior motives, or intentions for personal gain, have an interest in obeying the state since it is the source that can grant them their wants. Hence, because one may gain what they view to be an advantage by obeying the state, it follows that they recognize the state as legitimate since they accept it as the source of command and power that can grant them the advantages they seek to obtain.

Also, Weber claims that obeying the state is a result of, but not solely due to, people’s habit to do so, their affection for the state, and for the intricate interests that they may gain from obedience to it. Hence, as a source that is customarily accepted, the state can maintain a person’s feelings of loyalty, and it can fulfill the desires of its members, which Weber believes legitimates it because it alone is independent of politics, or the struggle for a piece of the state’s legitimate power. Furthermore, Weber claims that the belief in the legitimacy of the state is akin to how a worker, who is a member of a workplace, acquiesces to the rules of his/her employer to receive the right of payment.

To him, just as a worker is a member of a place of work and gives up of some of his/her freedoms to gain money, a subject, who is a member of a state, gives up a piece of his/her freedom to gain the benefits of living within a human community. Though it does not seem that Weber wholeheartedly ascribes to social contract theories, he nevertheless claims that it is a possibility and that it does reflect social arrangements of old. Finally, with this outline of Weber’s views on legitimacy, the reader may now understand his definitions of the state and the forms of authority that he claims it employs to maintain its legitimacy.

According to Weber, a defining characteristic of the state is its total domination over the right to use legitimate force to assert its legitimacy within its domain. In other words, Weber believes that the state can coerce people under its jurisdiction with its potential to employ the means of authority, or legitimate violence to achieve the goal of maintaining and asserting its authority. Because only the state monopolizes, or controls the means to achieve an end that only it can fulfill, Weber believes that the state is the sole entity that can legitimately assert its power by the use of might.

An example to help clarify what Weber is trying to convey, would be if the Pope, who Catholics believe, is the sole representative of Christ, and thus, infallible after his ascension to the throne of St. Peter, used his infallibility as a way to justify and assert the purity of his papal decrees. Thus, just as the Pope, who Catholics believe, is infallible, can use his legitimate claim on purity to justify the pureness of his decisions, the state with its sole right to use the means of authority, or legitimate violence, justifies its authority through asserting its authority.

Furthermore, Weber claims that though other institutions use force to coerce people, it is not unique to them, and rather it is limited to the amount of authority that the state allows other institutions to possess. Also, because the state not only controls, but also distributes the legitimate use of power, Weber continues to claim that the domination of one person over another, or of one group or institution over another, in a given territory, is another definition of the state.

In other words, Weber defines the state as a human community where struggles for dominance between those who have power, and those who power controls occurs. He then claims that this struggle for control over the legitimate use of power is the definition of politics. Finally, since the state allows for struggle and because those who succeed at struggling come to gain a greater share of the state’s power; those who come to hold authority must provide justifications for their right to use legitimate force as a technique to preserve the state's authority over its people.

Weber asserts that three forms of authority define the means used by the state to affirm the validity of its legitimacy. One form of authority that justifies the validity of the state’s legitimacy is its tradition. Tradition, in Weber’s view, is a form of legitimation that the state uses to assert the validity of its authority. Also, the foundation for traditional authority rests on the claim that the state has been legitimate for a very long time and that its customs and norms assert its legitimacy because they too have existed for a long duration.

To better grasp what Weber means, one should think of the custom of crowning a king or queen. I refer the reader to such an example because a coronation is a traditional custom of a kingdom that asserts the kingdom's authority. One may make this claim because as a practice that people in a kingdom accept and expect, due to its long-standing history, coronations are understood as being only in the power of the state to perform legitimately. Thus, just as a coronation is only in the state’s right to perform legitimately, due to it being a convention that the state has performed throughout its history, the state that derives from tradition, justifies its potential to use its authority due to its historical control over the means to assert its authority.

Another form of authority that asserts the validity of the state’s legitimacy is charismatic leadership. According to Weber, if a state has legitimate authority over its people, and if the basis for that power predominantly derives from the devotion people have to obey their leader, then it is a prime example of a state that is dependent on a charismatic figure of authority. He also believes that ‘charismatic’ domination derives from a population that perceives their leader to be virtuous and deserving of their dedication. Furthermore, because people perceive their leader’s charisma as being the basis for the validity of the state’s legitimacy, one may infer that they also view their leader as a virtuous person who they understand has an inner calling to lead.

Also, Weber claims that the supporters and friends of a charismatic leader orient their interests to be in line with his/hers because they genuinely believe in the allure of their leader’s personal qualities. Hence, because a charismatic leader is someone that many people favor, and due to them believing in his/her devotion to the state, it follows that the validity of a state’s authority under a charismatic leader is dependent on their charisma. Finally, Weber continues his piece by describing how authority that derives from rules is another mode of validating the state’s legitimacy.

Weber believes that states also employ the use of reason, order, and law to assert the validity of their legitimacy. He calls this form of authority rational-legal authority, and its fundamental feature as a continuous organizational body which executes its official functions within the boundaries of the state’s rules is its focus on a systematic division of specified labor which demands competence. Furthermore, this form of authority, which features a hierarchical system of leadership, and thus, featuring lower-ranked civil servants, higher-ranked civil servants, and an executive leader, demands loyalty not to the leader, but rather to the idea, or impersonal order that validates the legitimacy of the state. Also, the guidelines for potential leaders of a society in a state that is predominately legitimized by rational-legal authority includes specialized forms of training and having to follow a code of conduct that derives from technical rules as well as norms.

Weber continues to claim that once an individual is an official of the state, and hence, can be an authority in one of the state’s various organizations; it is improper for them to own the means of economic production or the means of administrative power. Also, rational-legal authority validates the state's legitimacy, because by separating its officials into different subordinate groups based on their competency in a particular field, none can gain total power over the state. Hence, by allowing none to monopolize the means of economic or state power, one may infer that rational-legal authority not only thrives on the administrative expertise of officials, it also thrives off of a government structure that limits the power of officials through the legitimacy of law.

Another theorist, Michel Foucault, defines the state in other ways than Weber. According to him, raison d’état, or the reason of the state, is something that one can analyze so that they may learn more about what only the state can legitimately do. In Foucault’s view raison d’état is also an integral component needed to understand the state because it is the rationality in which leaders refer to, knowingly or not so that they may govern effectively. Also, at the same time, one should note that Foucault does not believe that there is a transcendent, natural, or subjective force that guides leaders.

Rather the decisions of past leaders and the very structure of the state apparatus leaves certain options open that officials of the state are left to choose from to protect the state’s interests. Furthermore, to better understand the political realities of the present, Foucault claims one should analyze and trace the thought patterns that were dominant in a state’s past so that they may gain a clearer understanding of the modern state and the reasons for why it acts now. With this methodological outline in mind, I will now describe Foucault’s understanding of the state and his views on what role knowledge plays within it.

In Foucault’s view, the modern state is a product of territorial sovereigns helping to craft a well-disciplined space. What he means by this is that regulations of social milieus, territorial limits, and territorial borders, are all coordinated by leaders, so that there is a general motion of, namely, people and merchandise in a state’s space. Furthermore, by constructing the form of the modern state, leaders helped the features of the state to become an objective reality that people interact with.

To Foucault, the means used by modern states to assert their authority first came into being with its power to control the prices of basic foodstuffs, especially grain, and its total control over the ability one had to store it, which helped to assert the state’s authority over its land. Hence, because the land is under the jurisdiction of the state, it becomes assumed that the right to store and export what results from cultivating it, i.e.; food, is within the state’s control. Also, to defend against fluctuations such as the scarcity of food, states’ found ways to protect themselves by turning economic theories into real practices, such as the case with the state’s initial embrace of the commercial practice of mercantilism in the past.

To Foucault, the anti-scarcity practice that the state had believed and once used to prevent famine, and its unfortunate economic and political effects, was the system of mercantilism. In theory, mercantilism was believed to work, since it could limit the realities of food shortages by putting foodstuffs on the economic market as quickly as possible, which was believed to allow for an ample circulation of goods. Thus, because, in theory, goods were moved at a more than adequate rate, one may claim that unless the flow of goods stopped, mercantilism could continually stifle famine even before it could occur.

On the other hand, by also prohibiting a person's ability to export, hoard, raise prices on, and cultivate certain goods, states which used mercantilism, were prone to experience sharp economic fluctuations. Furthermore, because the defects of mercantilism can cause dismal economic realities, such as severely inflated prices for goods including food, which can thus lead to famine, the state, was open to suffering from population unrest and revolt. Therefore, dismal economic realities, which are key reasons why revolutions occur, renders the state open to the threat of revolutionary uprisings that could challenge its legitimacy and authority. Finally, to remedy this threat, the state looked towards new ideologies to turn into economic practices that could help to continue to maintain and perpetuate the legitimacy and authority of the state.

According to Foucault, after the failure of mercantilism, the leaders of modern states started to fix their states’ problems in numerous ways. First, state leaders revised the mercantilist principles that had failed at the economic level. They did this by allowing their people to set prices for, hoard, and trade food. Those who governed lifted these prohibitions on the control of foodstuffs, to not only avoid political unrest and famine but to also gain more money for the state.

Leaders reasoned that the state would benefit from taking a more laisser-faire approach to its political economy, because, with greater freedoms for merchants, there were prospects for competition and profits to surge. Hence, to Foucault, the apparatus of the state, by allowing people the liberty to have more control over their grain, caused a new raison d’état to emerge. Lastly, Foucault calls this new mode of understanding and practicing political economy, liberalism.

Foucault claims that in a liberal economy, people are free to set prices for their goods since it helps them to avoid damaging their livelihoods. Furthermore, by people setting the price for grain, helps the state to avoid economic disaster, since in times of good harvest, when prices for grain are low, it follows that the freedom one has to price manipulate can raise the price of grain. Also, when grain prices are higher, it indicates that there was a bad harvest and that the supply of grain does not match its demand, yet since the state by allowing all to hoard grain, ensures that the market for grain is not severely damaged.

Additionally, to keep the market for grain stable, the state allows grain merchants to impose import taxes on foreign grain to balance prices domestically, and to freely export goods that can reach new sources of consumers. Thus, by the state liberalizing its economy through allowing its people to price manipulate, save goods, and to move and trade goods, the state was able to ensure that its people would live financially stable lives.

Furthermore, one may claim that by helping its people elude poverty, the state’s interests in avoiding major political unrests became easier for it to achieve. Hence, there were ways in which liberalism influenced the political course of the modern state after the era of mercantilism. One way that liberalism affected the political sphere of the state was the emergence of a population which is different and more intricate than a simple mass of people. To Foucault population is the predicament members of a state are in, where they act as components needed to perpetuate and maintain the state, and thus, there is a distinction between them as members of the state and them as individual producers for the state. To further show this distinction, one may refer to the differences between feudal subjects of the state and citizens of the modern state.

Feudal subjects, by being only members of the state, were forced to toil the land for their feudal lord, who in turn paid tribute to the state’s sovereign. Unlike feudal members of the state, a population consists of people who are free to pursue a career of their liking. The freedom one has to choose their occupation creates two roles they have to fill; one that is obedient to the state, as a member, and one that is a free contributor to the state, as part of the population. Also, since a population is free to pursue the careers they like, the state is not only in a position to earn more money, but it must also use more innovative techniques to ensure that its population will remain politically docile while economically active.

Before an analysis of the techniques used by the state to ensure political and economic obedience, one should first understand the power of political positions and the interests they tend to represent. To Foucault, positions of government, are not only positions that can give rise to state projects, but they also are products of the state’s government structure and its raison d’état. In other words, civil servants and political leaders not only shape the logic of the state, but their positions also exist due to the design and needs of government, which derives from the thought structures that have led to them. To him, the modern political positions that one may come to fill derives from a long line of intellectual discourse that culminated in the inception, and the existence of political occupations in the modern state. Furthermore, raison d’état, or the logic of government, does not just exist in the ideal, it is also evident in institutional and governmental practices.

Consequently, Foucault claims that there are reasons that influence the ‘mentality’ of the state, such as those deriving from issues concerning its political economy, which he claims is a key factor in the course of action that states take to ensure their longevity. How do states ensure that their political economies will continue to thrive? Foucault claims that it is through techniques of security and targeting populations to coerce them into fulfilling the political/economic objectives of the state. Hence, because of the importance political economy plays in the structuring of a state’s needs, one must analyze why the state turns certain economic theories into commercial practices, that it alone can regulate, which, in turn, helps to legitimize the state and its methods of authority.

The techniques used by the state to ensure that its people will remain politically obedient and economically involved is not of a typical master-slave relation, but rather the power to secure and discipline people in a state derives from a process Foucault calls normalization. One way in which the state facilitates normalization is by linking law with what people consider to be normal, which bolsters the state's security. Foucault believes that because systems of law have an intricate tie to systems of norms, it follows that the state by codifying laws that reflect what it and its people consider as being normal helps to secure the legitimacy and authority of the state.

He makes this claim because the state, with its ability to punish through the guise of normalized laws, secures itself from political uprisings by governing in line with the consent of its people, even though this consent is not of their making alone. In other words, the state as a source of power, influences normalized laws just as much as people do, because the legal apparatus of the state impacts how people understand those laws and behave according to them. Hence, because the state coerces people to conform to its normalized law system, with the threat of punishment, the state secures itself from unrest with greater ease. Finally, the process of normalization also applies to the implementation of discipline.

Also, the normalization process of discipline breaks down individuals, places, time, actions, movements, and operations, so that the state can classify the attributes of definite objects, such as people, with greater ease. The state’s ability to manage people also leads to questions such as those concerning the best course of action the state can take to accomplish its tasks. Thus, because disciplinary normalization has the power to influence people to conform to an ideal model of normal behavior so that the state may achieve certain ends, Foucault claims that it is in the interests of the state to perpetuate normality through the law. With the use of the law, which justifies the state to stop its people from being abnormal, or unable to conform to its normalized ways, it follows that institutions arise to correct people's supposed abnormalities.

Also, the state disseminates its power, so that normalization and discipline, through the means of institutions which appear to be apolitical, such as prisons, workplaces, schools, and hospitals, can occur. Yet, institutions are political because they have the ability to gain economically from those they discipline, and, in turn, the state can also gain financially from organizations that help to shape people into being more docile. Furthermore, Foucault claims that institutions all have certain characteristics that one can label as falling under different categories of normalized discipline. At the same time, though distinct, institutions all feature economic, educational, and medical aspects, which are, to a degree, used for political ends. One political end that Foucault claims the state achieves, by using institutions to obtain sophisticated and precise information about those who defy the state, is it can leave institutions to correct the behavior of those disobedient individuals, so that they may reenter society as productive members of the economy.

Another political benefit that the state gains from obtaining information about those who disobey it, is that it gains power over those perpetrators with its ability to monitor them. Hence, because the state exerts influence over institutions that help to discipline people, it follows that institutions with their ability to provide the state with information on especially those they claim cannot conform to society, gives the state an intellectual form of authority over its people. Finally, the state’s ability to obtain knowledge, so that it can, in theory, use it as a means to discipline any individual that is under its control, shows that the state’s power over the use of information is key to it successfully disciplining its people.Continued on Next Page »

Weber, Max. Gerth & Mills eds. “Politics as a Vocation” in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013).

Weber, Max. Gerth & Mills eds. “The Types of Authority and Imperative Coordination” in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013).

Foucault, Michel. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans. "Power/Knowledge" in Security, Territory, Population (New York: Picador, 2008).

Foucault, Michel. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans. "The Birth of Biopolitics" in Security, Territory, Population (New York: Picador, 2008).


Foucault, Michel. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans."Body/Power"in Security, Territory, Population (New York: Picador, 2008).


  1. M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “Politics as a Vocation” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013)., 78.
  2. Ibid.
  3. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., Power/Knowledge as found in Security, Territory, Population (New York: Picador, 2008)., 109.
  4. M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “Politics as a Vocation” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013)., 77-79.
  5. Ibid., 80.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Ibid., 78.
  11. Ibid., 85.
  12. Ibid.
  13. Ibid.
  14. Ibid., 78.
  15. Ibid., 78-79.
  16. Ibid.
  17. Ibid.
  18. Ibid., 80.
  19. Ibid., 78.
  20. Ibid.
  21. Ibid.
  22. Ibid., 78-79.
  23. M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “Politics as a Vocation” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013)., 79 & M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “The Types of Authority and Imperative Coordination” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013). 324, 328, & 341.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Ibid.
  26. Ibid.
  27. M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “Politics as a Vocation” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013)., 79 & M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “The Types of Authority and Imperative Coordination” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013)., 324-325 & 328-329.
  28. Ibid.
  29. Ibid.
  30. Ibid.
  31. Ibid.
  32. M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “Politics as a Vocation” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013)., 79 & 81-95 & M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “The Types of Authority and Imperative Coordination” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013)., 324 & 328-341.
  33. Ibid.
  34. Ibid.
  35. Ibid.
  36. Ibid.
  37. Ibid.
  38. Ibid.
  39. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., The Birth of Biopolitics (New York: Picador, 2008)., 1-3.
  40. Ibid., 7.
  41. Ibid., 7-8.
  42. Ibid., 20-22.
  43. Ibid.
  44. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., Security, Territory, Population (New York; Picador, 2008)., 30.
  45. Ibid.
  46. Ibid.
  47. Ibid.
  48. Ibid.
  49. Ibid.
  50. Ibid.
  51. Ibid., 30-31.
  52. Ibid.
  53. Ibid., 32.
  54. Ibid., 32-34.
  55. Ibid.
  56. Ibid.
  57. Ibid., 36-37.
  58. Ibid.
  59. Ibid.
  60. Ibid.
  61. Ibid., 37-38.
  62. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., The Birth of Biopolitics (New York: Picador, 2008)., 21.
  63. Ibid.
  64. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., Security, Territory, Population (New York: Picador, 2008)., 38-39.
  65. Ibid.
  66. Ibid.
  67. Ibid.
  68. Ibid.
  69. Ibid., 40-42.
  70. Ibid., 42-43.
  71. Ibid.
  72. Ibid.
  73. Ibid.
  74. Ibid.
  75. Ibid., 43-44.
  76. Ibid.
  77. Ibid.
  78. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., The Birth of Biopolitics (New York: Picador, 2008)., 8.
  79. Ibid., 8-9.
  80. Ibid.
  81. Ibid.
  82. Ibid., 3 & 8-9.
  83. Ibid., 7-8.
  84. Ibid.
  85. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., Security, Territory, Population (New York: Picador, 2008)., 56-58.
  86. Ibid.
  87. Ibid.
  88. Ibid.
  89. Ibid.
  90. Ibid.
  91. Ibid.
  92. Ibid., 57
  93. Ibid.
  94. Ibid.
  95. Ibid.
  96. Ibid., 58-60
  97. Ibid.
  98. Ibid., 82-83.
  99. Ibid.
  100. Ibid., 82.
  101. Ibid.
  102. Ibid.
  103. Ibid., 82-86.
  104. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., Body/Power as found in Security, Territory, Population (New York: Picador, 2008)., 56-57.
  105. Ibid.
  106. Ibid., 57.
  107. Ibid., 58.
  108. Ibid., 60-61.
  109. Ibid., 60.
  110. Ibid., 57-58.
  111. Ibid.
  112. Ibid.
  113. Ibid.
  114. Ibid.
  115. Ibid.
  116. Ibid.
  117. Ibid.
  118. Ibid.
  119. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., Power/Knowledge as found in Security, Territory, Population (New York: Picador, 2008)., 92-93.
  120. Ibid.
  121. Ibid.
  122. Ibid., 96-97.
  123. Ibid.
  124. Ibid.
  125. Ibid.
  126. Ibid., 95.
  127. Ibid.
  128. Ibid.
  129. Ibid.
  130. Ibid.
  131. M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “Politics as a Vocation” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013). 78-79.
  132. M. Weber. Gerth & Mills eds. “The Types of Authority and Imperative Coordination” as found in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New York: Routledge, 2013)., 328-329.
  133. M. Foucault. M. Senellart ed., G. Burchell trans., The Birth of Biopolitics (New York: Picador, 2008). 8.
  134. Ibid.
  135. Ibid., 13-15.
  136. Ibid.
  137. Ibid.
  138. Ibid., 17-19.
  139. Ibid.
  140. Ibid.
  141. Ibid.

Save Citation »  (Works with EndNote, ProCite, & Reference Manager)

Similar Documents

The Authority of the Bible

...  Reflection Paper 21APR11 THEO104 Phillip A Johnson #L23636707 The Authority of the Bible The purpose of this paper is to share some thoughts of what we learned over this semester. Many thoughts will come from what I have written during the class and from the Core of Christianity, Elmer Towns. The topics I chosen to discuss is Does the Bible have authority, Did Jesus claim to be God and How can we be confident that Jesus is returning. Let us first look at the word authority. Authority means “the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.” ("authority.") This authority can come from a teacher, pastor, principle or anyone else that has the ability to control or command someone or something. The Biblical definition, states that authority is “the legal and/or moral right to exercise power, or power that is rightly possessed. We recognize the Bible is the most significant book in the history of civilization. In the context of Jewish history, the Bible’s impact on politics, history, and religion is without comparison. Along with establishing the covenant-based legitimacy of the Jewish people and their history, the Bible’s political impact is exemplified through prophetic politics, the power of kings, and the effects of political authority. Biblical archeology has discovered biblical structures which supports the historical validity of the Bible. The Bible’s effect on......

Words: 1412 - Pages: 6

The Fruits of Legitimacy

...is by taking actions that provide them with legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders. new ventures can gain legitimacy by creating associations with more established entities, either external or internal to the firm. Article Review: This article is written by Raghunath Singh Rao, Rajesh K. Chandy, & Jaideep C. Prabhu.In this study, the role of a variety of legitimizing actions have been highlighted and empirically tested. In order to legitimize the new ventures in the eyes of the stakeholders different actions can to undertaken.It has also been shown that these legitimizing actions may not always work together. Among internal means of gaining legitimacy, four types of actions has been proposed: historical, scientific, market, and locational. Actions associated with historical legitimacy convey to stakeholders information about the new ventures’ past business performance.It can be shown if the new ventures have successfully launched other products in the past.Actions associated with scientific legitimacy convey to stakeholders that the new ventures in question have the technological capabilities needed to operate in their industry successfully.This can be achieved by recruiting scientists on their board. Actions associated with market legitimacy convey to stakeholders that the new ventures in question have the market-based capabilities needed to operate in their industry effectively New ventures may achieve this type of legitimacy by, for example, placing on their boards......

Words: 691 - Pages: 3

Assess the Strengths and Weaknesses of Using Experiments in Investigating Power and Authority in Prisons

...Assess the strengths and weaknesses of using experiments in investigating power and authority in prisons (15 marks) There are two types of experiments which are used by sociologists to study various causes and effects of variables within settings and situations, these include laboratory experiments and field experiments. As favoured by positivists, the laboratory experiments are artificial environments where the researcher controls variables to discover their effect, with the aim to discover a causal law. However, sociologists sometimes use field experiments to overcome the lack of validity of laboratory experiments. Field experiments differ from lab experiments as they take place in the participants' natural surroundings, and the participants do not know they are in an experiment. Researchers could use laboratory experiments to create a prison situation amongst participants and observe their behaviour in terms of power and authority. However, if prisons itself were to be studied, many practical issues may arise. For example, prisons are closed organisations which mean that access to them may not be gained, and even so, prison guards and other authority figures could be protective over their 'canteen' like culture and thus may deny requests for access. Despite this, previous research has shown that researchers have easier access to organisations such as prisons if they are encouraged by the government. For example, researchers of the 'short, sharp shock' approach......

Words: 874 - Pages: 4

Power, Authority and Legitimacy

...balance of: Power, authority and legitimacy. These three concepts are interrelated and a society in absence of one or the other usually finds itself in strain from political instability. In the following essay the question “how do Plato, John Locke and Nicollo Machiavelli address the concepts of: power, authority and legitimacy” shall be discussed. Reference shall be made on how each theorist addresses the above concepts. John Locke addresses the concept of legitimacy. He agrees with Thomas Hobbes in that “the British monarchy lost some of its authority” (John 1689), but he believed it came about because “the monarchy had tried to exceed the scope of its authority” (John 1689).Locke believes the people were acting `natural’ by being disruptive because the monarchy broke the `contract’ by wanting absolute power. Thomas Hobbes agrees with Locke in that the monarchy “suffered from a failure of authority” (Thomas 1651.part 1) but he believes it came about because the monarchy was careless and didn’t know what was expected from them as a ruler. Plato also addresses legitimacy in the Greek government. Plato believes that we live in a world of illusions and that the Greek citizens executed themselves when they executed Socrates. Plato tells us illusions can be dangerous “allegory of the cave” (Spragens 1997). Machiavelli deals with power and “believes a good state, is a state that is well ruled” (Machiavelli 1513 chapter12) He believes that unrest is caused by the lust for......

Words: 307 - Pages: 2


...Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics Ian Hurd What motivates states to follow international norms, rules, and commitments? All social systems must confrontwhat we might call the problem of social control—that is, how to get actors to comply with society’s rules—but the problem is particularly acute for international relations, because the international social system does not possess an overarching center of political power to enforce rules. Yet, taken in bal- ance with other values, a measure of order is a valued good. Some take this absence of centralizedpower tomean thattheinternationalsystemis likea Hobbesianstateof nature,where onlymaterialpowermatters;otherssee it as evidencethatinternational rules haveforce onlywhen theyare in theself-interestof each state.I show thatthese two conclusionsare prematurebecauseof theirshallowreadingof internationalsoci- ety and misinterpretationof the ways in which authorityworks in domesticsociety. Consider three generic reasons why an actor might obey a rule: (1) because the actor fears the punishmentof rule enforcers, (2) because the actor sees the rule as in its own self-interest,and (3) becausetheactorfeels therule is legitimateand oughtto be obeyed. The trait distinguishingthe superior from the subordinate is different in each case. In the￿rst, it is asymmetry of physicalcapacity;in thesecond,a particular distributionof incentives;and in the third, a normative structure of status and legiti- macy.In......

Words: 256 - Pages: 2


...Authority is Power – Crucible Essay Is authority power that is given to an individual? Or must that individual earn their respectful status with no faults? When does the power given begin to become too much for an individual to regulate? An individual with a lot of power over a certain group or person may misuse their authority in negative ways. Many figures of authority misuse their powerful influence over other individuals which can negatively impact the lives of others or even themselves. A number of people with authority tend to misuse their powerful influence over a group of individuals, as seen in the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller. Many characters with power try to maintain their respectable reputations but along the way end up dissipating the authority they have. Other characters misuse their positions of power over certain individuals for personal gain such as love and for wealth and land. Individuals with respectable authority tend to misuse their power in hopes of maintaining their idea of a perfect reputation. Reverend Parris is known as the town reverend, a title with power and high expectations. He has power over the town due to his title but he misuses the power he has over his slave from Barbados, Tituba. Once Parris discovered that Tituba was present in the woods with the girls dancing, he felt as though she were responsible. He used his power, as her boss, to threaten Tituba into giving information as he asks her “who? Who? Their names, their names”...

Words: 1737 - Pages: 7

Legal Authority

...rational authority is the most rational type of authority. In this understanding, key concepts to the task at hand will be defined and discussed; after which a brief background of Weber and the three types of authority will be given. The essay will then proceed to show how legal rational authority is the most rational type of authority by highlighting its advantages and disadvantages then comparing it with the other forms of authority and then a fitting conclusion will be given at the end. The term legal is defined as means based on or required by law, the term rational means based on or in accordance with reason or logic and the term Authority refers to the power or right to give orders and enforce obedience (Collins, 2011). Thus Max Weber defined legal rational authority as the type of authority which rests on the grounds of a belief in legality of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue command (Basu, 1994). Legal rational authority is the type of authority that rests on legally established impersonal order, rule of law and not humans (LeMay, 2002). Legal rational authority has also been defined as authorities found in organizations were rules are applied judicially and in accordance with ascertainable principles valid for all members in the organization (Prasad, 1991). Weber (1864-1920) was a German sociologist, who laid emphasis on the three types of authority thus traditional authority, charismatic authority and......

Words: 1968 - Pages: 8


...cvbnm Authority and Accountibility11/24/2014Submitted BySalal Ahmad Basharat 14-4907Khawaja Haroon 12-4992Musa Rizvi 12-4990 | Table of Contents Introduction to the Topic 2 Authority 2 Different levels of the Authority 3 Accountability 4 Accountability in the workplace? 4 Why is Workplace Accountability Important? 4 Strategies for ensuring focus: 4 Authority in the Organization 8 Top Level Mangement 8 Middle Level Management 8 Operational Level Management 8 Accountability in the Organization 9 Accountability at work 9 Merit and strengths 10 Demerits and deficiencies 10 Conclusion 11 Introduction to the Topic Authority According to Henri Fayol, "Authority is the right to give orders and power to get obedience." Authority is the right given to a manager to achieve the objectives of the organization. It is a right to get the things done through others. It is a right to take decisions. It is a right to give orders to the subordinates and to get obedience from them. A manager cannot do his work without authority. A manager gets his authority from his position or post. He gets his authority from the higher authorities. The lower and middle-level managers get their authority from the top-level managers. The top-level managers get their authority from the shareholders. Authority is delegated from above but must be accepted from below i.e. by the subordinates. In other words, authority flows......

Words: 2584 - Pages: 11

Historical Systems of Power and Authority

...GKE1 Task 3, Historical Systems of Power and Authority Part A The rise of colonialism in North America occurred in the 1600’s by the British. Britain had sent to North America, colonists which were to establish new settlements in the name of the crown and Britain. Most of the colonists were privately funded with endorsement by the British government. The Idea of colonization was to establish settlements for the purpose of expanding a trade base for economic purposes. Britain colonized North America basically because they had a limited amount of land and natural resources, North America presented a great opportunity to expand their land holdings and create a source for raw materials. Britain still considered the colonists to be British citizens and therefore were expected to abide by rules and laws established by Britain for the colonists. Britain exerted tight control of the colonists through laws and acts that were specifically designed for the benefit of Britain. The needs of Britain were always put first before the needs of the colonists. Acts and taxes were put in place as a means to control trade and make sure that monetary items were received by Britain. The economic cycle was one of Britain obtained raw materials cheaply from the colonies, the goods were finished in England and sold back to the colonists for large profits. The colonies in North America were strictly established for the economic benefit of Britain. Also there was great prestige in this era that came......

Words: 1348 - Pages: 6

Power and Authority

...SUBJECT: - SOCIOLOGY TITLE OF THE PROJECT: - POWER AND AUTHORITY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: - The researcher will have a doctrinal approach towards the Project. Information for the Project will be collected from Books, Journals and Internet. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This Project couldn’t have been successfully completed without the support and guidance of our Sociology Professor, M. Lakshmipati Raju Sir and we would like to express our immense gratitude to him for his constant support and motivation that has encouraged us to come up with this project. Lastly, we would like to thank our classmates for their whole hearted support at all times during the course of the Project. Thanking You Rahul Kr. Dubey CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………..4 2. WHAT IS POWER?.......................................................................................................5 A. THE EMERGENCE OF POWER…………………………………………6 B. THE DIVISION OF POWER……………………………………………..9 3. WHAT IS AUTHORITY…...…………………………………………………………9 A. POLITICAL AUTHORITY……...………………………………………11 4. THE DEMOCRATIC CONCEPTION OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY………..….15 5. THE RELATIONSHIP AND DISTINCTION BETWEEN POWER AND......

Words: 9038 - Pages: 37

Power, Authority and Legitimacy

...politics Power gets used to implement a decision. The role of Power becomes most effective when Power does not remain a source of coercion. In-fact after getting legitimized it becomes Authority. Means the stability of Authority depends upon legitimacy. So in short Authority is a quality or capacity of a person, institution, rule or order which becomes important in defining whether Authority is correct or authentic, so that people can follow the rules and regulation without any hesitation. Because of the use of Authority official Governmental policies, rules and regulations get accepted in the society. Authority has two main components: Power and Legitimacy. Legitimacy of a rule or a decision signifies the fact that people reckon the decision as fruitful and in welfare of the society. Thus they are always ready to follow the rule or decision. Demonstration of Power does not become necessary as long as Legitimacy is attached to Power. It only comes out as a symbol. Like a judge with his black gown or a policeman with his uniform. Just like beauty lies in the eyes of beholder, Legitimacy lies in the eyes of beholder. There is no question, that without Power it will be very difficult to implement the official decision as well as rules, but only by the fear of punishment or by the coercion authority may not prove successful as far as long term benefits are concerned. Infact such a step becomes tyranny and works as a catalyst for the rebellion. The able use of Power always......

Words: 307 - Pages: 2

Power and Legitimacy

...political terms, power can be explained as the control one entity has over the other. Power is sometimes confused with the term 'influence'. Where power is the ability of make formal binding decisions, influence can be taken as a means through which that power is exerted. This may be due to intimidation, threats, logical reasoning, rational persuasion or lobbying. Authority can be defined as a form of power. The difference lies within the ways through both power and authority is exerted. Where power is viewed as control through any means, authority has a moral character attached to it, and is based on a 'right to rule' notion, where the ruled see the authority as legitimate and take it as a moral obligation to obey it. Authority is essential for the ruling governments. They can maintain order in the society by sheer use of force and coercion but stability and peace can only be achieved through willing compliance otherwise chaos would follow. However, authority by some, is also viewed as an idea which threatens the notions of liberty and democracy. The idea of Authority and Power can be distinguished in theory. Authority is followed without any means, as it is seen as a moral obligation by the ruled party however power is exerted through either persuasion or force. But in the practical terms both of these terms overlap and it is difficult to distinguish them both. An authority will not be influential unless it is backed by power. A leader is said to be in authority when he......

Words: 1795 - Pages: 8


...Main article: Authority (sociology) Max Weber, in his sociological and philosophical work, identified and distinguished three types of legitimate domination (Herrschaft in German, which generally means 'domination' or 'rule'), that have sometimes been rendered in English translation as types of authority, because domination isn't seen as a political concept in the first place.[citation needed] Weber defined domination (authority) as the chance of commands being obeyed by a specifiable group of people. Legitimate authority is that which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the ruler and the ruled. Weber divided legitimate authority into three types: * The first type discussed by Weber is Rational-legal authority. It is that form of authority which depends for its legitimacy on formal rules and established laws of the state, which are usually written down and are often very complex. The power of the rational legal authority is mentioned in the constitution. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority. Government officials are the best example of this form of authority, which is prevalent all over the world. * The second type of authority is Traditional authority, which derives from long-established customs, habits and social structures. When power passes from one generation to another, then it is known as traditional authority. The right of hereditary monarchs to rule furnishes an obvious example. The Tudor dynasty in England and the ruling......

Words: 629 - Pages: 3

Power. Authority. Violence

...Power. Authority. Violence A research paper highlighting the relation between the three terms: power, authority and violence, and the nature of violence and power in Hannah Hannah Arendt’s theory in her book ‘Crises of the Republic’. ------------------------------------------------- Sushrut S. Vaidya (20155042) Hannah Arendt (1906 – 1975) was a political theorist, who through her theories got the recognition of a philosopher and framed the thoughts of many political theorists to come through her topics on the nature of power, authority and totalitarianism. Through this paper, I shall be talking about my take on the relation between the three fundamentals of Hannah Arendt’s theory in her book ‘Crises of the Republic’. The relation that I will be deriving is between her theory of power, authority and violence. I hope to be, at the end of this paper, be able to provide an input as to where the ideal culminated theory lies and be able to put forward a few points on the continued flow of power. Power, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is defined as the ability to act or produce an effect or as the possession of control, authority or influence over others. Power, has evolved into its many forms as it was practiced through time. Turning back time to back when primordial man asserted his power over others to the beginning of civilized life to the time where empires began and required ruling to the creation of the ‘modern man’, power has been exercised multiple...

Words: 1932 - Pages: 8


...that Janet had actual authority which means Hal one of the owners, intentionally conferred express and implied powers to the her to act for him. By Janet exercising actual authority, it is as if the Hal is acting, and Hal is bound by the Janet's acts and is liable for them. Janet was given the authority to act in Hals name when he gave her authority to order supplies. When Janet performs duties, such as ordering supplies, it is as if the Hal has done so. Another issue concerning whether Janet had the authority to sign the lease agreement also arises when trying to determine if the lease agreement is enforceable. Janet may have what is called apparent authority, which is when Hal either knowingly or even mistakenly, permits the agent or others to assume that Janet possesses authority to carry out certain actions when such authority does not, in fact, exist. Hal did not directly give Janet the authority but it was implied that Janet had the authority when Hal told the sales person to work out the details with Janet. By having the sales person work the details out with Janet is gives the sales person the impression that she has contractual authority. The scope of an Janet's authority, whether apparent or actual, is considered in determining an Hals liability for her actions Janet is not personally liable to Non Linear Pro for the lease agreement she had entered into as a representative for Quick Take Video as long as she acted within the scope of her authority. It can be......

Words: 532 - Pages: 3

Leave a Comment


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *