Transcription
When person A tells person B what to do, and B does it because A is pointing a gun at his head, then it is clear that A has power over B. This is a case of "Macht." But when A is not threatening B, and yet B is doing everything that A has asked him to do, and B adds that it is only good and writes that A is ordering him around, then A has authority over B. It's a matter not of "Macht," but of "Herrschaft." Weber is intrigued by the way in which role and brutal power is transformed over time into legitimated authority.
It now will come as no surprise that Weber presents here a list of ideal types of authority. The only surprise may be that this time it's not a four-fold division, but a threefold division. But the three ideal types of authority are clearly related to the four types of social action, as you will see. Let us begin with the most famous one: charismatic authority.
Max Weber here uses a word that a professor of theology had borrowed from a biblical text and had employed to point at certain historical phenomena. Now Weber gives it broader meaning, and you can say that he is the man who gave us the word "charisma." Weber says that charismatic authority is founded on the belief in the extraordinary devotion, holiness, the heroic powers, or the exemplary lifestyle of the leader. This religious or political leader is perceived to be superior to ordinary human beings. He, or sometimes she, is somebody whose extraordinary qualities demand our obedience. That is the oldest type of authority between human beings. There is, of course, a clear link here between charismatic authority and affective social action.
The second type of authority, that is a bit more modern, is the pom-pom of traditional social action, and it is called traditional authority. People willingly obey somebody because they believe in the holiness of the ancient traditions and in the legitimacy of those who are called by those traditions to rule. I live in the Netherlands, and although this is a constitutional monarchy and the royal family enjoys a strictly bounded kind of authority, there are many people in this country—you can find them especially in the Protestant churches—who believe that the inhabitants of these low countries must be governed by the members of the family of Orange, because that is the family that has been ordained by God to rule over us, the Dutch.
The third and most modern ideal type of authority is rational-legal authority. When I ride my bicycle and a policewoman gives me a ticket on the spot because the red rear light at the back of my bike doesn't work, I do not protest. I completely and wholeheartedly accept her authority. Under given circumstances, she is the competent official; this is her job, and she is authorized to give me a fine. I do not think that she has any charismatic qualities. I do not obey because the Holy Tradition instructs me to obey her. This is simply a matter of her being the official that we have given this task of enforcing the law.
Once again, this is an ideal-typical classification. In reality, we come across all kinds of interesting mixtures. For example, in Dutch politics we see rational-legal authority all over the place, of course. It's a modern nation-state, but like I said, there are some elements of traditionalism, and some of our politicians may even profit from a certain degree of charisma. But the general direction is clear: the realm of rational-legal authority is increasing, and the realm of traditional and charismatic authority seems to dwindle away.
But there is an important exception here. Charismatic authority is the oldest type, but all through history it had its comebacks, especially in times of crisis, when many people are disoriented and scared and looking out for someone who may lead them out of the chaos. Then, all of a sudden, the seemingly old-fashioned type of charismatic authority may unexpectedly return, and this is possible even in high modernity, as can be illustrated by such political personalities as John F. Kennedy or Nelson Mandela.