From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Max Weber distinguished three ideal types of political leadership, domination and authority:

1. charismatic domination (familial and religious),
2. traditional domination (patriarchs, patrimonalism, feudalism) and
3. legal domination (modern law and state, bureaucracy).

These three forms of authority are said to appear in a "hierarchical development order"; states progress from charismatic authority, to traditional authority, and finally reach the state of rational-legal authority which is characteristic of a modern liberal democracy.^[1]

Contents 1 Traditional domination 2 Charismatic domination 3 Legal domination 4 The classification of authority in the context of history 5 References 6 See also

Main article: Traditional domination

In traditional authority, the legitimacy of the authority comes from tradition; Weber described it as "the authority of the eternal yesterday" and identified it as the source of authority for monarchies.^[2]

Main article: Charismatic domination

Charismatic authority grows out of the personal charm or the strength of an individual personality (see cult of personality for the most extreme version).^[3] It was described by Weber in a lecture as "the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace (charisma)"; he distinguished it from the other forms of authority by stating "Men do not obey him [the charismatic ruler] by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him."^[4] This form of authority can be seen in populist dictatorships where one individual exerts control by virtue of their personal popularity and following. Many states based on this model do not survive the death or fall from power of their original leader.

Main article: Legal domination

Legal authority, also known as legal-rational authority, is where an individual or institution exerts power by virtue of the legal office that they hold. It is the authority that demands obedience to the office rather than the office holder; Weber identified "rationally-created rules"^[5] as the central feature of this form of authority. Modern democracies are examples of legal-rational regimes. People also abide by legal-rational authority because it makes sense to do so for their own good, as well as for the greater good of society.

Weber also notes that legal domination is the most advanced, and that societies evolve from having mostly traditional and charismatic authorities to mostly rational and legal ones, due to the fact that the instability of charismatic authority inevitably forces it to "routinize" into a more structured form of authority. Likewise he notes that in a pure type of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a master can lead to a "traditional revolution". Thus he alludes to an inevitable move towards a rational-legal structure of authority, utilizing a bureaucratic structure. This ties to his broader concept of rationalization by suggesting the inevitability of a move in this direction. Thus this theory can be sometimes viewed as part of the social evolutionism theory.

In traditional authority, the legitimacy of the authority comes from tradition, in charismatic authority from the personality and leadership qualities of the individual (charisma), and in legal (or rational-legal) authority from powers that are bureaucratically and legally attached to certain positions. A classic example of these three types may be found in religion: priests (traditional), Jesus (charismatic), and the Roman Catholic Church (legal-rational). Weber also conceived of these three types within his three primary modes of conflict: traditional authority within status groups, charismatic authority within class, and legal-rational authority within party organizations.

In his view every historical relation between rulers and ruled contained elements that can be analyzed on the basis of the above distinction.

1. ^ http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:-yJWnQaQaO4J:www.usp.ac.fj/fileadmin/files/Institutes/piasdg/governance_papers/leroy__comparative_constitutionalism_solomon_islands.pdf+weber+%2B+tripartite+%2B+authority+%2B+traditional&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=37&gl=uk&safe=vss
2. ^ http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html
3. ^ http://www.12manage.com/methods_weber_charismatic_leadership.html
4. ^ http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html
5. ^ http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html

• Form of government
• List of charismatic leaders (on the basis of Weber's classification)
• The Three Types of Legitimate Rule

Characteristic	Charismatic	Traditional	Legal-Rational
Type of ruler	Charismatic leader	Dominant personality	Functional superiors or bureaucratic officials
Position determined by:	Having a dynamic personality	Established tradition or routine	Legally established authority
Ruled using:	Extraordinary qualities and exceptional powers	Acquired or inherited (hereditary) qualities	Virtue of rationally established norms, decrees, and other rules and regulations
Legitimized:	Victories and success to community	Established tradition or routine	General belief in the formal correctness of these rules and those who enact them are considered a legitimized authority
Loyalty:	Interpersonalàpersonal allegiance and devotion	Based on traditional allegiances	To authority / rules
Cohesion:	Emotionaly unstable and volatile	Feeling of common purpose	Abiding by rules (see Merton’s theory of deviance)
Leadership:	Rulers and followers (disciples)	Established forms of social conduct	Rules, not rulers