11 Basic concept of Domination, Legitimation, Authority and Bureaucracy

Ektaa Jain

Introduction:

Sociology as a discipline looks at various domains of society including family, religion, marriage etc. A very prominent institution within society is that of ‘Political System’. According to Easton (1965), a political system is “that system of interactions in any society through which binding or authoritative allocations are made and implemented”. Political sociology is the special branch of knowledge here that attempts to explore and understand the interface between polity and society. It can be seen as a connecting bridge between sociology and political science. As argued by Amartya Sen (2005), India is an immensely diverse country with many distinct pursuits, vastly disparate convictions, widely divergent customs and a veritable feast of viewpoints. Thus the terms, domination, legitimation, authority and bureaucracy become significant in understanding the political system of the society. The current module has been divided into five major sections. Section I. deals with the concept of domination. Section II follows with a detailed discussion on the idea of legitimacy. Authority is a very integral part of political system. This has been elaborated in Section III. Section IV highlights the idea of bureaucracy. The module ends with a conclusion which can be read as a crux of the various concepts and tries to bind one with the other.

I. Domination

One of the most widely accepted and popular definitions of power is that given by German sociologist Max Weber, who said that power is the ability to exercise one’s will over others (Weber 1922). Power affects more than just personal relationships; it shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional organizations, and governments. Similarly, a government’s power is not necessarily limited to control of its own citizens. This is a very broad definition and includes a very wide range of types of power. This vastness was then reduced for making the idea more applicable and useful in the study of society. The concept of ‘domination’ thus entered this parlance. Weber defines domination “as the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons” (Weber 1968: 212). Domination included the elements of obedience, interest, belief, and regularity. Weber notes that “every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary compliance, that is, an interest (based on ulterior motives or genuine acceptance) in obedience” (ibid.). There exist various examples to showcase the existence of domination in daily life. Domination is witnessed in parent-child relationships, employer-employee relationships, teacher-student, political rule etc.

Francine Frankel (1989) provides two ideas of dominance and power to understand the society-state relationships in India. Dominance, according to the author here refers to “the exercise of authority in society by groups who achieved politico-economic superiority, and claimed legitimacy for their commands in terms of superior ritual status, or through alliances, with those who control status distribution” (1989: 2). Power on the other hand means “the exertion of secular authority by individuals appointed or elected to offices of the state, who claimed legitimacy under law, to make and implement decisions binding on the population within their territorial jurisdiction” (ibid.).

Infact, the applicability of these concepts can be seen in case of India both in the earlier as well as in the contemporary times. While the entire power structure in the earlier times was built on the basis of an intricately constructed network of alliances of social domination. There existed the regional raja at at the middle level followed by the intermediary zamindars and at the local level by the zamindars and substantial peasants. A similar frame of domination can be witnessed in the post-independence democratic structures of state power and of social domination by ethnic groups. Harris however distinguishes between `old politics’ and `new politics’ (2009). The former with its focus on political parties and trade unions is seen as dirty whereas `new politics’ with its strong association with `technocratic rationalising modernism’ is perceived to be good1.

In closed systems of stratification, according to Gupta, the actually existing hierarchy can be seen as an expression of political power (Gupta, 1996). This domination comes across through various means, for instance, language of caste, religion, or patriarchy. This idea can be seen in relation to Gramsci’s discussion on hegemony which according to him is the capacity of a class to build a “moral and intellectual leadership. ” 2The disputes existed in the actual empirical existence of the dominated. This is because these ideologies were ascriptive in nature. Thus, to be born a non-Rajput in a Rajput stronghold would have several disadvantages. This is why when domination is based on purely ascriptive grounds; there are no agreed reasons as to why the dominated should ideologically accept their domination. In feudal estates, for instance, different stratas always interacted only on the basis of already established rules that were guaranteed by political power. Thus there existed no major intellectual challenge to discuss the sources of legitimacy in a feudal state. Power became authority without major transformation. For Lukes (2005), power could be seen in three ways including: decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and ideological power3.

Check Harriss, John. Power Matters, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Gramsci, Antonio (1992). Buttigieg, Joseph A, ed. Prison Notebooks. New York City: Columbia University Press.
Check, Lukes, Steven Power: A Radical View, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd Edition, 2005.

Dominance can thus be seen as a power relation. This power relation includes:

Voluntary obedience: Individuals are not forced to obey, but do so voluntarily.
Those who obey do so because they have an interest in so doing, or at least believe that they have such an interest.
Belief in the legitimacy of the actions of the dominant individual or group is there. “The particular claim to legitimacy is to a significant degree and according to its type treated as‘valid’” (Weber 1968: 214).
Compliance or obedience is not random or associated with a short-term social relationship, but is a sustained relationship of dominance and subordination so that regular patterns of inequality are established.

While Weber’s definition of domination may be narrow, it is a useful way of examining relationships that do become structured. While employer-employee or other types of relationships characterized by domination and subordination often involve conflict, the use of force is not always an aspect of these. It is important to note the differences in conception of ‘power’ itself. Parsonian (1963) definition of power would thus need to rethink Weber’s assumptions that power always involves domination and subordination. There are some forms of cooperative and non-dominative power. 4 For Foucault (1980), too, power can be seen as relational. No one lacks power in some form and thus the start and clear demarcation of domination-subordination can be quite faulty. In his view, the dominated also produce their own consent. 5This brings us to the notion that is entailed within domination, power and authority; that is the basis of legitimation.

II. Legitimacy:

Legitimacy has gained quite a prominent place over time. Concepts like power, influence or authority can actually remain effective only when they are legitimate. The word has been derived from the Latin word ‘legitimas’ which in English meant ‘lawful’. According to Dahl, legitimacy includes the elements of being right, propriety and moral goodness (Dahl 1971: 60). For instance, the ‘de facto’ government becomes ‘de jure’ on acquiring legitimacy. Once legitimacy is lost, a government can be overthrown in a democratic set-up. Giddens discusses various levels of legitimacy, and how these might become established over a period of time (Giddens 1971: 154). According to Gupta, legitimacy was the foundation on which the difference between power and authority is based for Weber. He goes on to argue that authority is understood as a relation between the ruler and the ruled, for brute power is now delegitimized making it possible to study politics across historical periods.

4Check, Talcott Parsons, “On the Concept of Influence,” Public Opinion Quarterly 27 (1963) 37–62.

5Check, Michel Foucault, (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. New York:

Pantheon

There exist three major sources of legitimacy according to Weber (1968):

Tradition: leaders may be obeyed according to established set of traditions.
Exceptional personal qualities: certain exemplary character of an individual may make it legitimate.
Legality: a rational legal system can be seen as a source of legitimacy.

David Easton (1965), described three types of legitimacy as follows:

Ideological legitimacy: such legitimacy is based on an ideology. Ideology seeks to state the aims and objectives of a political system. These aims and objectives may help in establishing legitimacy.
Structural legitimacy: every system is marked by a particular set of goals. Political power is wielded according to these goals. This basis of validation is structural legitimacy.
Personal legitimacy: the behaviour and personality of some members make them as trustworthy authorities and thus become legitimate.

Weber introduces the idea of usage too when people develop uniform codes of conduct. The established usages over a period of time can be seen as customs according to him. A custom is followed by a convention. Convention can be seen as a stronger form of conformity. The compliance here is simply not customary but there is existence of a number of sanctions in case one does not comply with the convention. The degree of sanctions may differ. The convention when adopted by a group which has a legitimate capacity to impose and put in effect the sanctions; may become what can be termed as law. This can begin to create a legal order where a group assumes the task of applying sanctions to punish transgressions, for example, a clan, priesthood, or elders. Where this can be applied over a territorial unit, with order safeguarded by threat of physical force, then this can create a political order, the threat and application of physical force by an administrative staff with legal, administrative, military, or police functions. Thus we may conclude that there exists a running thread through different political concepts when seen sociologically. This brings to one of the most popular concepts of political sociology, authority.

III. Authority:

The concept of authority is quite close to the concept of power. According to MacIver (1945), “authority is often defined as power, the power to command obedience”. For Robert A. Dahl, “Legitimate power is often called authority” (1971). Weber defines authority as legitimate forms of domination, that is, forms of domination which are considered legitimate by followers or subordinates. Legitimate does not necessarily imply any sense of rationality, right, or natural justice. Rather, domination is legitimate when the subordinate accept, obey, and consider domination to be desirable, or at least bearable and not worth challenging. However, this authority can be questioned from time to time as it is the willingness of those who are subordinate to believe in the legitimacy of the claims of the dominant.

Authority can be seen as a means to extend and maintain power. A study of authority and its origin can be a way to understand how people come to dominate as well as how people accept domination as a regular and structured phenomenon. Weber thus came up with the following ‘ideal types’ to understand the nature and existence of authority.

Types of Authority:

1. Traditional Authority

Traditional authority, as the name suggests is based on traditional rights of a powerful and dominant individual or group. In many cases, traditional authority is reinforced by culture such as myths or connection to the sacred, symbols such as a flag, and by structures and institutions which perpetuate this traditional authority. In Weber’s words, this traditionalist domination “rests upon a belief in the sanctity of everyday routines.” (Gerth and Mills 1958: 297). Ritzer notes that “traditional authority is based on a claim by the leaders, and a belief on the part of the followers, that there is virtue in the sanctity of age-old rules and powers” ( 1988: 132). This form of authority has been quite common in several societies throughout time. There exist several examples of such authority. Examples of traditional authority can be seen in the form of (i) gerontocracy or rule by elders, (ii) patriarchalism where positions are inherited. Patriarchalism can be seen as one of the most important type of domination where the legitimacy is drawn from tradition.

2. Charismatic Authority:

Weber defines charismatic 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” (Weber 1968: 215). Charisma can thus be seen as a quality of an individual personality that is considered extraordinary, and followers may consider this quality to be endowed with exceptional powers or qualities. The belief of the followers in the qualities is important. Charismatic authority finds its basis in the recognition or acceptance of the claims of the leader by the followers. While it is irrational, in that it is not calculable or systematic, it can be revolutionary, breaking traditional rule and can even challenge legal authority. (Giddens 1971: 160-161). The charismatic leader gains and maintains authority solely by proving his strength in life. Ritzer comments that “authority legitimized by charisma rests on the devotion of followers to the exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of leaders as well as on the normative order sanctioned by them. All of these modes of

legitimizing authority clearly imply individual actors, thought processes (beliefs), and actions. “(Ritzer, 1988: 115).

4. Legal or Rational Authority:

This is authority or legitimate domination resting on “rational grounds – resting on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issues commands” (Weber 1968: 215). Legal authority can be seen developing through various ways. Systems of convention, laws and regulation develop in many societies, and there are many different principles of legality that occur. With the development of a rational legal system, there is likely to be a political system which becomes rationalized. Elements like constitutions, written documents, established offices, regularized modes of representation, regular elections and political procedures are all associated with this. As a political or legal system develops in this rational manner, authority takes on a legal form. Those who are subordinate within this system accept the legality of the rulers, believing they have the legitimate right to exercise power. Those with power then exercise power based on this right of legitimacy. This rational-legal form of authority however, may be challenged by those who are subordinate.

We saw above the different sources of authority. These are maintained through certain sanctions.

Sanction of Authority:

There exist certain sanctions through which authority is maintained in society:

Social sanction: authority can be accepted by the individual due to fear of society.
Economic security: acceptance of an authority may bring some benefits to people and elevate their status in society.
Sanction of purpose: this is in relation to attain a goal. For the efficient functioning of an organisation, for instance, juniors might accept authority of the seniors.
Psychological sanction: authority may be asserted only on the basis of seniority. This would be a psychological reason.

This kind of legitimate dominance is quite common in Indian households too as elaborated by K. L. Sharma (1996). However, it is important to note here that the assumption that there exists group dominance over individuals has to be questioned. As Sharma (1996) notes, whenever the patriarch of a joint family becomes autocratic and ignores the rights of the younger people, this authority over individualism was subverted and new sanctions were enforced. It can thus be said that authority is always subjected to limitations. Subordinates may oppose authority thereby making it loose its legitimacy. The difference between power wielders of today and yesterday lies in the fact that ‘group’ rank membership as a determinant of elite position has withered away. Today elites are an aggregation and not an active functioning primordial group as the members lack group homogeneity. The elements including legitimacy, dominance, rationality and accountability thus remain integral in maintenance of authority.

IV. Bureaucracy:

The term ‘bureaucracy’ has been quite popular in the administrative and political parlance. It has been widely used with diverse connotations directed at government and business. Bureaucracy can be seen as an administrative system which aims to manage and achieve huge large-scale administrative tasks in a systematic and organised manner by coordinating work between a number of individuals. It is interesting to note that the bureaucratic power has been regarded as the ideal type of power. According to Weber, bureaucracy “is a system of administration characterised by expertness, impartiality and the absence of humanity” (Weber 1946: 197-98). Gouldner (1954), too discussed various patterns of bureaucracy and bureaucratization as for him bureaucracy could take different forms that are experienced differently by employees. 6

Characteristics of Bureaucracy:

A number of features have been attributed to bureaucracy by Weber himself. These can be seen as follows:

– Administrative Class:

Bureaucratic organisations generally have administrative class responsible for maintaining coordinative activities of the members.

The prominent features of this class are:

a. People are paid and are whole time employees

b. Salary and other perks are given on the basis of their positions

c. The rules and regulations of the organisations are important in order to determine the tenure of the employees.

d. They do not have any proprietary interest in the organisation,

e. Competence and capability is the general criterion for the selection of the people for the employment.Hierarchy:

The major feature of a bureaucratic organisation is the existence of a hierarchy of positions. Hierarchy can be regarded as a system of ranking various positionsin a descending scale. In bureaucratic organisation, offices also follow the principle of hierarchy that is each lower office is subject to control 6Check, Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Free Press, Glencoe, IL. and supervision by higher office. The idea of control and scrutiny is central to the hierarchy in a bureaucratic organisation. The hierarchy then helps in a line of communication across different levels of offices thereby leading to delegation of authority too. These is to say that there exist offices with an equal level of authority but are allocated different functions in different areas of work. For instance, a government organisation has different offices, each looking at particular functions only.

– Division of Work:

Division of labour is a prominent aspect of bureaucratic organisations. Work is divided according to the specialisation that people have in order to take out the maximum utility. This is done on the basis of different competence needs of different offices. The work involves certain important things. These are:

a. The work involves a particular set of duties that are to be performed to mark the systematic division of labour;

b. the provision of the incumbent with necessary authority to carry out these functions; and

c. the various means of punishments or so are not arbitrary. These are clearly defined.

The division of labour thus becomes a very crucial marker for a competent functioning of the system wherein all the people are well aware of their duties and function according to the given set of rules and obligations. This leads to a smoother functioning of the organisation and all the work that needs to be done is carried out in an efficient and productive manner in the typical understanding.

– Official Rules:

Any bureaucratic organisation cannot function without a basic set of official rules. The entire administrative set-up and processes are based on these rules. This is in sharp contrast to a temporary or unstable kind of ad hoc system of relations. To maintain the right level of uniformity and coordination among different departments, these set of rules are the most handy and desirable. These rules are more or less stable and more or less exhaustive.

– Impersonal Relationships:

As seen above, official rules are integral to any administrative organisation. Thus, relations between people are also governed according to these set of rules and authority ideas. The existence of personal emotions, sentiments and involvement is thus kept at the minimum. The governing basis can be seen as rational actors rather that personal sentiments. Impersonality is thus crucial in the making of bureaucracy. This impersonality can be seen both within the organisation amongst the people themselves and also with the outsiders.

– Official Record:

Official records are necessary when talking about bureaucratic organisations. Documentation and archiving is thus necessary. All decisions and activities are recorded in a formal manner and thus preserved for any kind of future reference. The official records can be seen as a form of encyclopaedia for the entire bureaucratic organisation.

This can be then seen as an open system marked by continuous hierarchy. In a continuous hierarchy, the different stratas bind together because they are arranged on a scale. For instance, in case of castes as Gupta elaborates, various caste groups have different hierarchies that are not correspondingwith one another. These gaps become major causes of caste wars (Gupta, 1999).

Bureaucracy as a system may be seen to be prevalent and functional in big business houses and government department which need a lot of people to carry out diverse set of functions mechanically. . However, along with the popularity, it has gained much criticism due to the rigidity that marks the processes. There is excessive impersonality and control leading to partial or no development of the individual personality. Everybody gets restricted to being dependant only on their seniors. There exists a lot of dysfunctional aspect to this kind of set-up. The logic of planning and bureaucratic implementation has been critiqued in case of India too where the professionals are seen as getting converted to a dominant proprietary class (Bardhan, 1984). Despite the limitations, the model can be seen as being useful to large enterprises that aim for profit.

Conclusion:

Thus we see that the concepts of Domination, Legitimation, Authority and Bureaucracy, are all linked to one another and are integral to any political system. In the discipline of sociology, these become even more important due to existence of people in them. All these deal with people wielding authority or power, within a beauracratic set-up, dominating legitimately or not. Srinivas (1996) pointed out not only hierarchy dies hard in India but also that new forms of it were emerging under the eyes of egalitarians. The hierarchical conception of society was challenged from time to time. The memory of traditional hierarchy in India is by no chance remote. The Weberian state that can be seen in organisational terms is thus an idea marked with limitations when seen in Indian context. Jayal (1999) remarks that the state capacities here might be constrained by social and cultural specificities as seen in different cases above too. Thus, if one looks at politics through social processes where collective power is generated, organized, distributed and used in social systems; India represents an evolving democratic polity in quest of justice- political, social and economic (Johnson, 2000). The functioning of political systems depends on the functioning of these ideas to a large extent. A society is made up of several systems out of which political system is also a very prominent one. It thus becomes indispensable to study and explore these concepts through the discipline of sociology especially for the c

Further Readings:

Dahl, Robert A (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. London: Yale University Press,
Easton, D (1965), A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Wiley
Ashley, David and David Michael Orenstein, Sociological Theory: Classical Statements, third edition, Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 1995.
Cohen, Ira J., “Theories of Action and Praxis,” in Bryan S. Turner, editor, The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, Oxford, Blackwell, 1996.
Gerth, Hans Heinrich and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, New York, Oxford University Press, 1958. H33 W3613 1958
Giddens, Anthony, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Grabb, Edward G., Theories of Social Inequality: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives, second edition, Toronto, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990.
Hadden, Richard W., Sociological Theory: An Introduction to the Classical Tradition, Peterborough, Broadview Press, 1997.
Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory, third edition, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Weber, Max (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Soiology, ed. H.H.Girth and C.W.Mills. NewYork: OUP.
Weber, Max, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, New York, Bedminster Press, 1968.
Movie: The War Room (1993). Directed by: D. A. Pennebaker, Chris Hegedus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXZdaP4SvD0