Max Weber

The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber

Weber’s political and social theory explores the rise of rationalisation, bureaucratisation, and power relations in modern society.

Here, we will focus on his theories of power, and how the power of the state is justified. In his theory of power, we can find a realist approach to explaining the social and political structure of contemporary society. For Weber, power is individuals' ability to achieve what they want in a social context, even against the resistance of others.

A central theme of Max Weber’s political and social theory concerns his understanding of the development of capitalism. His work diverges from Karl Marx’s commentary on capitalism, as he disagrees that exploitation is central to capitalism. Instead, Weber sees the rise of capitalism as strongly correlated to Protestantism.

He explored this theory in his most notable book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In it, inspired by his experience of his mother's religion, he argued that Protestantism was the major driving force in the rise of our current market-driven capitalist society.

Max Weber’s Definition of Politics

Weber initially defined politics very generally. In his essay ‘Politics as a vocation’ (1919), Weber states:

For Weber, politics could be seen as permeating all aspects of society. He gives examples of trade unions, banks, education, and even power relations in marriages. Yet, as he notes, his definition of politics is too broad to give any real analysis. Instead, Weber’s focus is on the politics of the state and ‘political’ organisations.

Max Weber: The Political State

Max Weber notes that the political state cannot be defined by its activities. This is because there are no activities that have not been undertaken by states, and there are no activities that are conducted only by the state.

Thus, for Weber, the state can only be defined by the “specific means that are peculiar to it¹”. Weber argues that the means that is peculiar and unique to the state is the legitimate use of violence. Although this is not the only means of the state, for Weber, it is what is exclusive to the state.

For Weber, the state holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical violence or the only source of the ‘right’ to employ violence.

Fig. 2 Max Weber in 1918

Max Weber: Politics as a Vocation

Max Weber gave a series of lectures on the concept of politics as a vocation. Given what we’ve already discussed, Weber was concerned with whom we entrust with governing the institution whose unique feature is the legitimate use of violence.

His lectures explore three types of internal justifications, or sources of authority, for the state's domination of subjects.

Let’s explore them.

Max Weber: Traditional Authority

This justification is based on the idea that traditionally powerful groups or people maintain their power due to habit or cultural acceptance of the hierarchy.

Traditional authority is maintained through the claim of leaders, and the belief of their subjects, that there is something of value in long-standing social rules. Adherence to traditional principles is what guarantees the authority of traditional leaders.

Examples of traditional authority include gerontocracy (authority of elders) or patriarchy (male authority based on sex). Weber argues that traditional authority both creates and perpetuates inequality. Unless commonly accepted social or religious customs are challenged, it is likely those with traditional authority remain dominant.

Max Weber: Charismatic Authority

A charismatic leader, on the other hand, is not obeyed due to custom or habit, yet is chosen by the people to lead. That is also to say that the leader is justified due to their charisma: the aspects of their personality that are deemed extraordinary. Subjects may deem this person to have supernatural or exceptional qualities that justify their power.

Whether this is true is beside the point; subjects just have to believe it to be true. Weber was particularly focused on this type of justification, believing it to be more powerful than traditional or legal justifications. This, for Weber, is where the notion of politics as a vocation is at its strongest. The devotion of subjects towards the charismatic leader is directed entirely towards the person and their qualities.

Max Weber: Legal Authority

This legitimising force rests on the belief in the legality of the rules put in place by the leader or state, and the right of those given authority to command. Legal authority develops true systems of laws and regulations that lead to written legal codes and rights that moderate the state’s role.

In a system that allocates authority through legal means, those who rule have, or at least supposedly have, a legitimate right to do so based on written law. Therefore, the subjects in such a system accept their right to rule. Rules that are based on a rational legal system are likely to entail regular elections, established offices, and written constitutions.

Max Weber Bureaucracy

Weber envisaged a future in which legal justifications for authority would become more prevalent. While charismatic leaders may appear occasionally, the tendency is for states to become rational and bureaucratic.

Weber saw the development of legal authority to be tightly bound to the development of bureaucracy (at least in the West). Weber’s focus on legality and rationality led him to study the expansion of enterprises.

Bureaucracy is a means of employing rationality to organise such enterprises. While often used pejoratively in everyday terms, Weber argued that bureaucracy was the most efficient, effective, and rational way to organise human activity.

He saw the development of bureaucratic organisation to be the unique mark of modern societies. He identified six features of an idealised bureaucracy:

• Hierarchy of authority

• Impersonality

• Written rules of conduct

• Promotion based on achievement

• A specialised division of labour

• Efficiency

Don’t forget that this is ideal: critics often argue that Weber is wrong about bureaucracies, as they seldom live up to his ideals. Yet, Weber defined bureaucracy in this idealised way so that he may more accurately identify its expansion and power in modern society.

Weber’s essential thinking about bureaucracies is that they are rooted in rational principles to more efficiently attain goals. The bureaucratic organisation of human activity has become the dominant indicator of modern society, understanding their development and the growth in their power is thus central to Weber’s social theories.