history class, Weber intellectual

1. Essay​: Max Weber and his three domination types
Max Weber, German intellectual, was born the 21st of April of 1864. The man grew
in a time in which Germany prepared for war although she didn’t know. Before the war, the
country followed politics to expand its territory and power, while the industries did the same
thing in the cities, although nothing changed to this fact, the structure of the hierarchy in the
labour sectors didn’t change at first, the domination relationships remained the same until
1910. As the number of workers increased, so did the number of working men that could
vote, meaning that the labouring class began to have a bigger influence in politics. Politicians
decided to act in order to reduce the support for the social party, so they got together with the
junkers and the industrialists and passed some reforms in order to keep the big class happy.
As you can imagine, Weber lived in a time in which society was a very interesting topic to
analyze, after questioning some traditional moral laws, he concluded in his well known
thesis.
Max Weber, born in Erfurt, Germany was the eldest of seven children. His father,
Max Sr., was a free-wheeling, controlling public servant who would eventually become
estranged from Max. His mother was a devout Calvinist, a fact that would become influential
in Weber’s theoretical work on capitalism and religion. They belonged to the middle upper
class, a family of intellectuals with complete studies. He studied at the University of
Gottingen, where his career started. In 1893, he married Marianne Schnitger, who would later
become a brilliant theorist in her own right, penning influential works on feminism and
marriage reform as well as a biography of her husband.
The German sociologist and political economist was influenced by philosophers such
as Immanuel Kant and historical economists like Wilhelm Dilthey, each of whom thought
that universal laws could not be used to explain something as complex as the human mind or
historical events. He was also influenced by religion and capitalism. Weber defined the state
as an entity that successfully claims a "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force
within a given territory" .1
1
​Weber, N. ​Politics As A Vocation​, Munich, Duncker & Humblodt, 1919, p. 396

2. Weber was curious as to why we so often comply with the rules of society with
minimal coercion or the constant use or threat of force. His answer: legitimacy. Sometimes
we follow orders because we believe the rules are meaningful and correct, even if we don’t
know why they were written in the first place. Domination, according to him, is based on the
voluntary compliance of subordinates. In his text, he tells us “every genuine form of
domination implies a minimum of voluntary compliance” . Because it is voluntary,2
domination does not include the use of physical force. Rather, we comply because we see the
rules as the right thing to do in that situation.
Weber defines domination "as the probability that certain specific commands (or all
commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons" . The sociologist explains three3
types of domination in his text according to the kind of claim to legitimacy typically made by
each: traditional, charismatic, and legal or rational. These three forms do not constitute the
totality of types of domination but they show how it is possible for some people to exercise
power over others.
The first one is called charismatic domination, according to him, this form of
domination is based on the leader’s attitude towards the people. He expresses its authority as
"resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an
individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him" . This4
means, the leader should have certain charisma, a personality which attracts followers to
believe he is the one capable of guiding them. He must show his strength and constantly
proving people should follow him because he is the chosen one. According to Weber, this
type of organization could be seen as a relationship between the leader and its followers. The
leader could be threatened if he is not able to provide prosperity to his followers.
The second type of legitimate domination is traditional domination. Weber analyses
this type of authority where the orders of a dominant individual or group are accepted, or at
2
​Weber, N. ​Economy And Society​, New York, Bedminster Press Inc, 1968, p. 212
3
​Weber, N. ​Economy And Society​, New York, Bedminster Press Inc, 1968, p. 212
4
​Weber, N. ​Economy And Society​, New York, Bedminster Press Inc, 1968, p. 215

3. least not challenged, by subordinate individuals and why they were so hard to change. The
reasons for the subordinates not challenging the authority vary from religion to slowly
changing culture. Generally the the dominant individual would be a landowner or a clan
leader, and the clearest cases are the elite members governing the country. A type of authority
is patriarchy, another one is feudalism, one that was important historically. This is a more
routinized form of rule, with settled relationships between landowners and workers. Where
no challenge to the authority of the traditional leader or group is made, then the leader is
likely to remain
The third one is the rational-legal domination. Weber connects these forms to the
development of rationality and bureaucracy. He points out that though there are many ways
of legal domination, all of them outline there is a legal system established, so there is a rule of
law, written legal codes, legal rights and rules. But not only that, he also reveals us there also
is a political system installed. Associated with this are constitutions, written documents,
established offices, regularized modes of representation, regular elections and political
procedures. These are developed in opposition to earlier systems such as monarchies or other
traditional forms, where there are no well developed set of rules. The ones who govern, who
make the law, have legitimacy to do so. Weber viewed the future as one where rational-legal
types of authority would become more dominant. That's why he believed it should be applied
in Germany. He wanted Germany to have a rational-legal domination type.
Thinking about this question about what Weber thought concerning Industrial
Society, we can find as an answer that Weber, being “the father of sociology”, as German
people knew him in his time, could see a society with a problem in relationships, and that this
domination of a traditional system problem should be changed into a society in which the
weight would be on the aristocracy. Weber recognized a problem in society, the different
ways of domination, and he described three of them, in order to prove which one was the
most required for Germany. He wanted Germany to have a rational-legal domination type,
since he wanted a legal system and a country controlled by the law, a constitution and rights.