Types of Authority

Authority is generally seen as a special form of power, which refers to the ability to influence outcomes through force, coercion, or persuasion, and through legitimate or nonlegitimate means. Power is typically understood as a process or force that helps to integrate society or maintain social order, especially when there are disagreements or social cleavages that might make it difficult for people to get along. Much of the early sociological research on power found that society was not held together by agreement between its members, based on shared social norms (such as argued by functionalists). Rather, conflict theories saw society as divided in different ways and held together by different forms of power and authority (Waters, 1994). Leading the analysis of authority is Max Weber, whose work is the starting point for most discussions of authority in liberal societies.

Keywords Charisma; Charismatic Authority; Coercion; Governmentality; Power; Rational-Legal Authority; Stratification; Traditional Authority

Types of Authority

Overview

Before we can understand what authority is, we need to understand its source: or, if you will, the power of power. Authority is generally seen as a special form of power, which refers to the ability to influence outcomes through force, coercion, or persuasion, and through legitimate or nonlegitimate means. Power is typically understood as a process or force that helps to integrate society or maintain social order, especially when there are disagreements or social cleavages that might make it difficult for people to get along. Much of the early sociological research on power found that society was not held together by agreement between its members, based on shared social norms (as argued by functionalists). Rather, conflict theories saw society as divided in different ways and held together by different forms of power and authority (Waters, 1994). Leading the analysis of authority is Max Weber, whose work is the starting point for most discussions of authority in liberal societies. His interest in power was directed toward understanding how to govern, who should govern whom, and the legitimacy for techniques of government.

Class, Status, Party

In 1922, Max Weber, the German sociologist, wrote an essay called "The Distribution of Power with the Political Community: Class, Status, Party." He viewed power as the basis of stratification — that is, the existence of systematic inequalities between groups of people that develop through the unintended consequences of social processes and relationships. Class, party, and status reflect economic, social, and political dimensions of stratification (or different dimensions of power), where class reflects the outcomes of economic power, status refers to social power, and party refers to political power (Marshall et al. 1994).

For Weber, power is a social relationship that determines and structures how resources are distributed throughout society and is not, in contrast to materialist and Marxist views about power, solely associated with economic resources. His interest in power, nonetheless, was directed toward understanding how to govern, who should govern whom, and the legitimacy for techniques of government. For Weber, it is not the case that access to economic resources determines who is likely to be in political control or who is in a position to exercise authority, which occurs whenever someone allows someone else to make decisions for them or when a person voluntarily subordinates himself or herself to the will of another (Coleman, 1980). It was this insight that led Weber to study the different circumstances in which social groups were able to exercise power and to elaborate on different types of authority as the basis of power.

While clearly power and domination can be derived from the control of resources, Weber was very interested in legitimate domination, in which those who are ruled or are under command accept the rule of rulers (Waters, 1994). This acceptance creates a degree of stability. He suggested that authority could be seen as "imperative coordination (control)" in which "the probability that specific commands (or all commands) from a given source will be obeyed by a given group of persons" and that requires "a certain minimum of voluntary submission" (quoted in Coleman, 1980, p. 146). In other words, authority is expressed as a social relation between two parties. While one party may hold authority, the other party must concede authority to them or vest authority in them in a way that acknowledges the legitimacy of that authority. In order to further elaborate what he means, Weber set out three main ways, or typologies, by which domination is exercised.

Different Forms of Authority

Traditional Authority

Traditional authority exists in status-stratified societies, where both leaders, such as a priest or a family head, and followers of a particular group accept and support certain well-established rights, which often have a religious, sacred, or spiritual basis and are associated with slowly changing cultures, or tribal, family, or clan type structures (Ritzer, 1999). Leaders in such societies often inherit a particular status at birth (Waters, 1994). In many cases, artifacts symbolize traditional authority sustained by "a belief in the sanctity of everyday routines." (Gerth & Mills, 1991, p. 297). Broadly shared customs or beliefs provide the basis for traditional authority, which is in part sustained by the status honor bestowed on those who are in positions of dominance.

Traditional forms of authority are associated with one of four organizational structures: feudalism, patriarchalism, patrimonialism, and sultanism. These have existed in many societies across time and place and have limited the development of capitalism in non-Western societies. Patrimony means that something is derived from the father or from ancestors. Patriarchalism is the most significant type of traditional authority; it is based on the authority of the father or the senior of the house and is the basis for governing a family, household, clan, or a whole society. As long as others in the group accept the method of selecting the patriarch (e.g., this method could be patrilineal, or the first born son), the patriarch's authority has legitimacy and he can govern without restraint (Sydie, 1987). However, in modern, Western societies, women in particular have questioned the legitimacy of this form of authority, which feminists argue contributes to gender inequality. Rising divorce rates, the increase in single-parent households mainly headed by women, and rising birth rates to unmarried women have all been seen as evidence that the legitimacy of patriarchal patterns of authority is diminishing.

Weber was especially interested in patrimonialism, or patrimonial bureaucracy, a more modern form of patriarchalism, which is based on the personal use of an administration or military force and in which power is exercised via others, who carry out orders in return for favors and material rewards. While modern patriarchs hold power and can often exercise this without limits, they may also need to rely on others to carry out orders.

Charismatic Authority

In contrast to traditional authority, charismatic authority is based on the personal qualities of an individual (rather than established rituals or lineages), such as a gift for rhetoric or a magnetic way of interacting with people and, importantly, the extent to which others consider them to be extraordinary and exceptional. People may have qualities that could be described as charismatic, but charismatic authority emerges because a particular group defines an individual as charismatic. Ritzer notes that if followers "define a leader as charismatic, then he or she is likely to be a charismatic leader irrespective of whether he or she actually possesses any outstanding traits" (1999, p. 134).

Charismatic authority is a driving and creative force that underpins traditional authority and established rules and is sustained by followers' acceptance of a leader's claims (Giddens, 1990). For instance, cult leaders such as David Koresh or Jim Jones can be described as leaders whose authority was grounded in charisma and on whom status was conferred by devoted followers. While charismatic authority may seem to have a less solid basis than economic power, rationality or legality, or the use of physical force or coercion, it is no less real as a source of power which often challenges traditional authority and legal forms of authority.

However, while charismatic authority may disrupt existing and established claims to authority, it is hard to sustain charismatic authority because of its dependence on personal qualities and typically is transformed into a traditional or legal form of authority (Waters, 1994).

Rational-Legal Authority

Rational-legal authority or legitimate domination rests on "a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issues commands" (Weber, 1978, p. 215). This form of authority comprises two key dimensions. The first is the legal system, or the rules and laws that are generally accepted by subordinates and superiors alike. The second dimension is the shared assumption that such laws are rational, in the sense that they are effective and oriented toward specified ends.

There are various forms and principles of legal authority that could develop. In Western societies, the development of law has produced a legal system based on a "rule of law": written legal codes, legal rights and rules, and the "professionalized administration of justice by persons who have received their legal training formally and systematically" (Ritzer, 1999, p. 129). According to Weber, such as legal system was also historically connected to the establishment of rationality and bureaucracy.

A rational political system typically accompanies the development of a rational legal system, which is associated with constitutions, written documents, established offices, regularized modes of representation, regular elections, and political procedures. These procedures and systems stand in contrast to earlier systems of authority such as monarchies or other traditional forms, which lack a well-developed set of rules. Weber refers to such a system as rational-legal, because it involves obedience to a legally established, impersonal order (Satow, 1975). The legitimacy of rational-legal authority can, however, can have different sources. For instance, formal authority is derived from an acknowledged status based on the position that a person holds within an organization and inheres in the office the person holds and not in the particular person who performs the official role. That is to say, when a person becomes a member of an organization, he or she is already predisposed to accept orders given to him or her by persons acknowledged to be his or her superiors by their position in the formal organizational chart. In contrast, functional authority is based on qualities such as professional competence, experience, and human relations skills (Peabody, 1962, p. 466).

War, Power & Authority

Authority therefore has a subjective dimension that may hold for small groups (e.g., doctors and patients), but also larger collectives such as nations. Donna Lee Bowen, a political scientist, has written about the U.S. war with Iraq and posed questions about the basis of authority of both Saddam Hussein and of the U.S. She notes that in the United States and the rest of the world, including the Middle East, Saddam Hussein was viewed as an illegitimate leader whose authority was supported by fear rather than respect. Commentators have observed that the attacks on the World Trade Towers on September 11, 2001, brought sympathy for the U.S., which in turn shored up its authority to address acts of terror exercised by nonstate entities in almost every country in the world. However, Bowen (2003) claims that the basis of this authority weakened as other nations felt less sympathy for the U.S., which she claims was a significant basis for its initial authority to engage in war. Therefore, while there are different forms of authority, and authority may be based on different claims (status, rules, charisma, or expertise), it is dependent on a social dynamic or relationship between those who claim authority and those who accept it.

Applications

Governmentality

Weber's initial concern with power and authority was rooted in the need to understand the relation between the state and power, or to understand the basis of a state's power, especially the liberal state. Since Weber's initial premise, many social scientists have explored this phenomenon and the emerging role that expertise has played in the exercise of authority over individual and collective conduct. For instance, Michel Foucault sees this different form of authority as governmentality, which refers to the formal and informal processes through which populations are governed and which grants knowledge and expertise a special role in this process of government as the basis of authority.

Rather than solely involving direct regulation by the state, governmentality also points to processes that shape the conduct of populations through a range of agencies, programs, tactics, and techniques. Key to understanding governmentality is that it presumes participation, or "good citizenship" practices and behaviors, and is not about imposing policies on others (Nettleton, 1997). People in modern, neoliberal political regimes "choose" to regulate their behaviors in ways that align with the interests of the state and state agencies. This exercise of choice is supported by access to expert knowledge that allows people to reflect on their choices and at least feel as though they are being active decision makers, rather than behaving in certain ways because they are expected to, or because there are formal rules that underpin their decisions. Nonetheless, ideas of participation and of choice are to a degree "mortgaged to the moral principles that are set by politics, reason and expertise" (Coveney, 1998). Thus, the notion that we "choose" to be good self-regulating subjects builds on Foucault's understanding of power as inextricably bound up with knowledge (Foucault, 1978).

In particular, governmentality develops from Foucault's understanding of "biopower," a form of power that, since the seventeenth century, has been concerned with regulating the biological profile of populations. Since the nineteenth century especially, authority arising from knowledge claims about individuals and populations (e.g., vested in professions such as medicine) has produced, according to Foucault, a new form of authority. The state remains a key actor in establishing this new modality of authority, but the power of governmentality needs to be understood as multilayered and as open to study at intrapersonal, interpersonal, and political levels (Brownlie, 2004). It is after all, a form of authority that is rooted in and reproduced through the very practical, everyday tasks that people engage in, a form of authority that is based on reflective practice.

According to Foucault, various developments in the eighteenth and nineteen centuries (e.g., in relation to medical practice, crime, and punishment in education) corresponded with changes in ideas about the human body and in the relation of populations to the state (Foucault, 1978). During this period, population growth and urban and capitalist expansion produced new problems for emerging nation-states, which became increasingly concerned about the fitness of people to engage in productive labor, to reproduce the next generation, and to participate in military conflict with other nation-states (Turner, 1987). Power and control in the interests of the social order were no longer in the hands of a sovereign or traditional ruler, but became much lighter, subtler, and more effective (Garland, 1990). The new forms of power that emerged during this period were located in specific spaces and institutions such as schools, hospitals, and prisons.

At this time, new ways emerged of building up information about populations. Foucault (1979) observed the growth of examinations, timetables, registers, and classification systems as means of establishing not only information about populations but also ways of monitoring their movement across time and space. This form of power was based on a new model of authority that depended on gathering intelligence about the population whose well-being is protected and enhanced by the state (Rose, 1993).

Governmentality is differentiated from other models of authority in several dimensions.

• First, specific forms of expertise (such as scientific medicine) are the source of authority in neoliberal forms of power and are secured through licensure, professionalization, and bureaucratization. Professionalization has occurred in occupations such as medicine and other health fields, education, and social work and typically entails the formation of a status group (medicine) to gain greater control over its domain of work and regulate the means of entry to the group, thereby securing both control over knowledge production expertise and prestige.

• Second, those individuals who are governed align their personal interests with the interests of the state or state agencies (such as health professionals), or at the very least, care for and conduct themselves in ways that are aligned with dominant social values (Rose, 1993).

• Third, those who are governed are reflexive (Giddens, 1990) and engaged in constant scrutiny of the legitimacy of authority that is embedded in modern forms of expertise.

• Finally, governmentality is associated with the proliferation of technical authority, which entails the development of technical systems, in which the effectiveness and momentum of rules associated with knowledge (such as in medicine or in the business world) may be increased by their integration with machine systems, procedure manuals, and operating routines (Porter, 2005).

For instance, the context of health and medicine, although specialized, expert knowledge underpins the authority of medical and health practitioners, consumers of health care (or patients) are increasingly encouraged to question that authority through the proliferation of information available to them through, for instance, the Internet. Thus, governmentality in health settings incurs not only through the surveillance and management of risk in relation to disease, but also in relation to professional knowledge and practice. Professional expertise and practice are increasingly subject to standardization, regulatory mechanisms, and methods for securing improvements in performance. Therefore, negotiation of professional knowledge and expertise lies at the heart of authority based on governmentality.

Terms & Concepts

Charisma: Personal qualities that are held by a person and that invite obedience.

Coercion: Forcing people to do something by threatening them with or administering a form of punishment.

Governmentality: The formal and informal processes through which populations are governed and that grants knowledge and expertise in a special role in this process of government as the basis of authority.

Power: The ability to influence outcomes through force, coercion, or persuasion and through legitimate or nonlegitimate means.

Rational-Legal Authority: The capacity to give orders based on the position or office someone occupies.

Stratification: Systematic inequalities between groups of people that develop through the unintended consequences of social processes and relationships.

Traditional Authority: Authority based on tradition — that is, on existing customs, rules or rituals.

Bibliography

Biebricher, T. (2013). Critical theories of the state: Governmentality and the strategic-relational approach. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, 20, 388–405. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=91535587

Bowen, D. (2003). Power vs. authority. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from Brigham Young University, http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=1202

Brownlie, J. (2004). Tasting the witches brew: Foucault and therapeutic practices. Sociology, 38 515–532.

Brownlie, J., & Howson, A. (2005). Leaps of faith and relationality: An empirical study of trust. Sociology, 39 , 221–239.

Breuilly, J. (2011). Max Weber, charisma and nationalist leadership. Nations & Nationalism, 17, 477–499. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=61301178

Coleman, J. S. (1980). Authority Systems. Public Opinion Quarterly. 44 143–163. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5414642&site=ehost-live

Coveney, J. (1998). The government and ethics of health promotion: The importance of Michel Foucault. Health Education Research, 13 :459–468.

Foucault, M. (1978). The eye of power. In C. Gordon (Ed.). Power/knowledge. Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A social analysis. London, England: Heineman.

Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. Wright. (1991). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. London, England: Routledge.

Giddens, A. (1990). Consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

Marshall, G. (ed.) (1994). The concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Nettleton, S. (1997). Governing the risky self: How to be healthy, wealthy and wise. In A. Petersen, & R. Bunton (Eds.). Foucault, Health and Medicine. London, England: Routledge.

Rose, N. (1993). Government, authority and expertise in advanced liberalism. Economy & Society. 22 : 283–300. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11162008&site=ehost-live

Peabody, R. L. Perceptions of organizational authority: A comparative analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly. 6 463–482. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6439448&site=ehost-live

Porter, T. (2005). Private authority, technical authority, and the globalization of accounting standards. Business & Politics. 7 ,1–30. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=19358990&site=ehost-live

Ritzer, G. (1999). Sociological theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Satow, R. L. (1975). Value-rational authority and professional organizations: Weber's missing type. Administrative Science Quarterly. 20 , 526–531. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=4013888&site=ehost-live

Schneider, A., & Schröder, T. (2012). Ideal types of leadership as patterns of affective meaning: A cross-cultural and over-time perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 268–287. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89464409

Sydie, R. (1987). Natural women, cultured men: A feminist perspective on sociological theory. Toronto, Canada: Methuen.

Turner, B. S. (1987). Medical power and social knowledge. London, England: Sage.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Vol. 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Waters, M. (1994). Modern sociological theory. London, England: Sage.

Suggested Reading

Coser, R. L. (1958). Authority and decision-making in a hospital: A comparative analysis American Sociological Review. 23 , 56–63. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12780916&site=ehost-live

Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London, England: Sage.

Furedi, F. (2013). Authority: A sociological history. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Steutel, J., & Spiecker, B. (2000). Authority in educational relationships. Journal of Moral Education, 29 , 323–337. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3666000&site=ehost-live