4. Weber makes a distinction between various types of ‘legitimacy’ (beliefs that justify a leader’s authority in the minds of the led). They were ‘traditional’, ‘charismatic’ and ‘rational-legal’. How would you apply this typology to contemporary leaders? Whom do you think Weber would call ‘charismatic’ today.
In Weber’s Politics as a Vocation, he defines three types of legitimacy that justify a leader’s authority to those being led. The first type is ‘traditional’ or ‘pure’ authority. This authority is based on habit. It is largely patriarchal and patrimonial. The second type is charismatic, in which the leader seems like a hero and appears confident, so the people believe in him. Weber states: “The devotion of his disciples, his followers, his personal party friends is oriented to his person and to its qualities.” The final type of legitimacy is legal, in which “domination as exercised by the modern 'servant of the state' and by all those bearers of power who in this respect resemble him.” Obedience is expected and enforced by legal statutes.
Applying this to contemporary leaders can prove to be difficult, as some see some politicians one way and others another. Some may be following a ruler only because they feel they must, while others may find that leader to be incredibly charismatic. A monarchy would probably be an example of a traditional legitimacy. Weber would probably call Trump charismatic, for he has somehow managed to win this presidency and make people believe in him enough to elect him, but he has proven to be rather inefficient and lose support, so the authority may have changed to a ‘rational-legal’ one.
No comments:
Post a Comment