Have you ever wondered why you pull over when a police car is signaling with the red-blue light behind you? Why you show the police officer your driving license and accept the ticket from them for fast driving? This is because police have the authority to do such things, based on law and order, and you, as a lawful citizen, respect their power and authority.
We will discuss how power rises and what it means. We will also mention authority as 'accepted power' in detail.
- We will discuss what power and authority mean in sociology as opposed to politics.
- We will look at the similarities between power and authority.
- We will also mention the difference between power and authority.
- Then, we will consider the relationship between power and authority.
- Finally, we will summarize the types of power and authority in sociology.
Power and Authority in Sociology
Governmental and social control are significant aspects of all societies. The nature of this control is defined as power and authority, which we will discuss in more detail.
It is important to note that sociologists and political scientists analyze power and authority from different perspectives. They are interested in different aspects of them.
Political scientists aim to discover the distribution of power within political systems.
Social scientists are concerned about the effects of governmental power on wider society. They also focus on the social conflicts that result from the unequal distribution of power and the misuse of authority.
Power and Authority: Similarities
Let us now discuss what power and authority are, in relation to one another.
What is Power?
Power is difficult to define. Sociologists usually use the definition created by Max Weber in 1922.
Weber identified power as one’s ability to exercise their will over others. He added that power can be present in personal relationships as well as in social organizations and in governments.
Fig. 1 - Sociologists still use Max Weber's definition of power.
What is Authority?
Sociologists have defined authority in relation to power. They refer to authority as ‘accepted power,’ the power that the people of society have agreed to follow.
The reputation and respect commanded by the authoritative figures in society make people listen to them and give them authority. Generally, people hold these demands and opinions as reasonable and true.
Power and Authority: Differences
Let us look at power and authority in more detail, respectively, as there are a couple of differences between the two.
Emergence and Exercise of Power
Power is often used in the sense of governmental power.
Sociologists point out that governmental power is not only that which a state applies to its citizens but also the power it attempts to exercise over the citizens and governments of other states. Dominant nations, throughout history, have tried and succeeded in taking control over other nation-states.
For instance, the creation of the Allied forces during WWII was an attempt by the US government to wield power in other countries.
A more recent example would be the American sanctions on the North Korean government, to stop the development of nuclear weapons.
Wondering about the examples mentioned above, we might think that power is always closely connected to military action and violence. This, however, is not the case. Power can be gained and exercised in more peaceful ways, too.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi, for example, both led powerful but peaceful social movements that eventually led to grand social change. They protested against the existing social order and status quo by organizing rallies and marches, writing petitions, and introducing boycotts instead of engaging in military action.
Power and Social Media
Technological development has assisted in the nonviolent forms of gaining and exercising power. The Internet and social media made it possible for people to make their voices heard and their demands visible. Demonstrations can be streamed live and accurately on social media nowadays, so people all over the world can see for themselves what is happening, instead of relying on coverage by the media, which can be controlled and restricted by the government.
The uprising, now known as the Arab Spring, used social media to organize protests, share ideas and boost the morale of protesters and supporters. Dissenters also used the Internet to spread their ideas and causes all over the world.
Modern technology made it easier for citizens to take hold of power as opposed to their governments.
Emergence and Use of Authority
Power can be forced upon people, while authority usually means the accepted and supported power, the power of a government or leader that people agreed to.
The police have authoritative power that people of society respect and even support. If a person sees a flashing police car following them, they will most likely pull to the side of the road and, if asked, hand their driving license to the police officer. They look at the police as an institution holding legitimate authority over them as citizens. If they drove too fast, they most likely will accept the ticket from the police officer and pay the fine. The police have authority over the rules of the road.
However, if the driver is asked to do the grocery shopping for the police officer, they will most likely protest, as the police have no authority to do such a thing.
The Collapse of Authority
A government is strongest when its authority and power are seen as legitimate by citizens. When people lose faith in their governments and political leaders, they might rise and start a revolution.
A revolution is an armed demonstration against a political system or government. Its aim is usually to overthrow the current government, exercising its right to decide whom to give the monopoly of violence.
Relationship between Power and Authority
Sociologist Max Weber has realized that sometimes authority is based on legal positions, while at other times, it springs from the charismatic personality of an individual. Noting the differences between different types of authoritative figures and offices, Weber established a classification system for authority.
He identified three types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational (Weber, 1922). Let us consider all three.
Traditional Authority
Weber defined traditional authority as the authority that is accepted through history and traditions.
He claimed that in certain cases, authority is seen as legitimate simply because it has been accepted for a very long time. Scholars have long pointed out, that people are, in general, very invested in the past and the traditions and customs of their society. Thus, it’s often enough for them to say, ‘that's how things have always been,' to accept the authority of their leaders and governments.
The British monarchy is a good example of an institute that has traditional authority. The king of England is respected and accepted as the monarch by most people because he inherited the throne, upholding a centuries-long tradition.
Traditional authority is usually dependent on the people’s respect and acceptance; figures with this form of authority don't necessarily have the power to maintain their positions if the public turns against them and the customs they represent. This is the case with countries that have abolished their monarchies as archaic institutions.
Patrimonialism
Patrimonialism is a more modern form of traditional authority.
Eisenberg (1998) explained that patrimonialism is when a leader exercises their will through administration and the military. The ruler appoints loyal officials for the leading positions of administration and the military and uses these traditional institutions for their own benefit.
Ancient Egypt was based on patrimonialism. When the pharaoh decided he wanted a pyramid to be built, the whole political organization was forced to work on that ‘personal’ project.
Traditional authority is arguably connected to social groups, based on gender, class, and ethnicity/race. In most societies, men are more likely to be in authoritative positions, and so are members of the upper class and dominant ethnic groups.
For instance, in the US, there are multiple prominent politicians from the Kennedy family (a wealthy, upper-class White family).
Charismatic Authority
According to Weber, charismatic authority is accepted by people due to the ruler’s personality rather than their social position or position of power. The extraordinary personality of a charismatic leader can inspire others to do difficult, unusual things for the community, often amid hard times.
Sociologists noticed that charismatic leaders often arise at times of hardship and crisis. They become immensely powerful because they offer a radical solution and an appealing vision for the future that people can identify with and gain hope from.
An obvious example is Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the middle of the postwar economic depression.
As we can see from the case of Hitler, charismatic leaders can easily turn from heroes to tyrants. Weber noticed that they also often stay in power only for short periods.
Apart from Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Jesus Christ, and Malcolm X can all be classified as male charismatic leaders.
Fig. 2 - Napoleon had charismatic authority.
Women have faced considerable disadvantages in gaining political power throughout history, so female charismatic leaders are often in areas other than politics, like Mother Theresa. Yet, Joan of Arc and Margaret Thatcher must be mentioned as charismatic leaders, too.
The Threat of Charismatic Leaders
Charismatic leaders can overthrow legal-rational and traditional authority if their personal appeal is strong enough to attract public support.
A good example of such an event is when an individual priest claims magical powers and, by seducing followers away from the Church, shakes up the hierarchy at the traditional institution. The Church usually tries to make these individuals disappear from the public sphere, in order to prevent them from gaining huge public support.
Legal-Rational Authority
Weber defined legal-rational authority as power legitimated by laws, regulations, and written rules. In this category, authority is vested in a system, position, or ideology rather than a person, who only acts in the name of those things.
A nation with a constitution is based on legal-rational authority, but there are also examples on lower levels. In the workplace, the employee handbook usually determines the system of legal-rational authority, and a normal employee might realize that they have a different type of authority and power than their boss, for instance.
Transfer of Authority
To maintain social stability, one must transfer their power and authority to their successor legally and clearly. In the case of traditional authority, people know who the next in line is, and the transfer of authority is usually straightforward.
Under legal-rational authority, it is also known how the next leader will come to power, usually through an election.
However, under charismatic authority, there is no straightforward rule for transferring authority, which makes the system rather unstable. Charismatic authority is based on the leader's personality, so it is not guaranteed that the people will like the successor and follow them as they did with the previous leader, even if the successor was appointed by the former charismatic leader.
Some charismatic leaders, once they gain power, establish rules and laws, thus transforming charismatic authority into legal-rational authority. Weber called this process the routinization of charisma.
Types of Power and Authority in Sociology
To solidify your understanding further, let's look at a summary of Weber’s classification of authority in the table below.
| Traditional authority | Charismatic authority | Legal-rational authority |
Source of power | Legitimized through tradition | Personal charisma and qualities | Authority in the office one holds |
Style of conduct | Historic personality | Intense personality | Bureaucratic officials |
Example | Patriarchy | Napoleon | President of the US |
It must be noted, Weber points out, that some leaders possess two or even all three types of authority at the same time. The president of the US might also have a charismatic personality, in which case he possesses both charismatic and legal-rational authority. Or an individual might arise as a charismatic figure and later becomes the president of a country. In this case, they started with gaining charismatic authority and later transitioning it into legal-rational authority.
Power and Authority - Key takeaways
- Social scientists are concerned about the effects of governmental power on wider society. They also focus on the social conflicts that result from the unequal distribution of power and the misuse of authority.
- Weber identified power as one’s ability to exercise their will over others. Sociologists refer to authority as ‘accepted power,’ the power that the people of society agreed to follow.
- Power can be gained and exercised in peaceful, as well as forceful, ways.
- Weber identified three types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational.
- It is possible to possess more than one or all three types of authority simultaneously.
References
- Weber, Max (1922). Economy and Society
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
