Anth/Soc 460: Women in developing countries
Spring 2006
Home | Announcements | Readings | Lecture materials | Assignments
Weber and evolution of legitimate authority |
| Max Weber's view: Weber helps answer questions like 'Why do we respect authority?' Why should we obey laws, for instance? Or why should women accept female circumcision and control by others over their sexuality as a rite of passage into womanhood? Weber would say that authority by force is expensive-much better to find other means to dominate. Yes, police and/or military can enforce laws and punish lawbreakers (we're not even broaching the subject of who gets to write the laws ... ), but that gets expensive at some point. Weber discusses three forms of legitimate authority that have been used by societies to maintain social order without resorting to violence. These are:
Charismatic Can you think of examples of states, companies, families that were held together by an individual with a charismatic personality? For example, Ghandi, the Jonestown cult in Guyana, the Ayatollah Khomeni and the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. Other common examples might include a church minister/pastor/evangelist, university president, social activist (ML King, Malcolm X), military officer, police chief, etc.)? Charismatic individuals can enjoy widespread legitimacy. But succession is often a problem. What happens when the individual dies/leaves? The 'trick' is for leaders to 'routinize' authority, to base the legitimacy ultimately on something besides personal charisma. This often doesn't work. Charismatic leaders can do great things--the 'benevolent dictator' comes to mind, although I can't think of any off hand. Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya began as a benevolent dictator, but his reign ended in corruption. At least the more notorious and well-known were psychopaths (Adolph Hitler from Nazi Germany, Joseph Stalin from Russia, Pol Pot from Cambodia, Idi Amin in Uganda, Jean Bedel Bokassa in the Central African Republic). Rational-legal This is based on impersonal rules, laws. Examples include countries' constitutions, by-laws of an institution, formal rules (e.g., the EOU handbook). The U.S. Constitution has been a source of enduring legitimacy--many other countries have had major constitutional crises that the U.S. has more or less avoided. So how does rational-legal authority work? We all pretty much know what's legal and what's not, and most of us agree that when people break the law they deserve to be punished (this is not to say there is considerable disagreement about who wrote/writes the laws and who benefits most from them); ultimately, these laws may be backed up by force, but if the source of rational-legal authority is a powerful one, then the legitimacy it produces will diminish the need to ever use that force. Who benefits from rational legal authority? Well, everyone presumably knows the rules, and can have some expectations of how they'll be applied; officeholders don't 'own' their offices, they're supposed to follow written rules and procedures that are generally public knowledge. Take the case of forced marriages in many parts of the developing world. One way to address this would be to pass legislation that made it illegal to force women to marry against their will. Then a key question becomes, does the culture consider this legitimate, or are their other, more widely recognized sources of authority? People in positions of legitimate power benefit, and often, especially in the third world, abuse this source of legitimacy to the point where government no longer has much credibility with people. They may obey out of fear, but often government officials are seen as hopelessly corruptible. Who pays? Rational-legal authority is often symbolized by the impersonal bureaucracy, by red tape and mindless rules. In addition, it can lead to institutional discrimination. In cases such as the World Bank and World Trade Organization, these multilateral agencies have legitimacy with the powerful, wealthy countries, who are overrepresented, and can promote their agendas for free trade which seem to favor multinational corporations and economic globalization.
Traditional Traditional authority is, well, rooted in tradition. Another way of thinking about it is, 'this is the way it's always been done.' This is often the rationale behind cultural explanations and justifications people give (some women's support of female circumcision fits this explanation). An example of traditional authority comes from the monarchy, the alleged 'divine right of kings' (i.e., a king's right to rule is straight from God). And how could you ask for a much better claim to authority and legitimacy than that?? Gerontocracies are also examples of traditional authority (e.g., the elders hold the highest positions, based on the belief that elders hold great wisdom and knowledge). Hopefully you can distinguish between these three forms of authority. In this case, there are no formal rules governing behavior, fealty, etc. There is no personality dominating the scene. Succession is not a problem. Patrilineal inheritance (through the male line) fits well here. Even matrilineal inheritance, though it's through the female line, ends up putting control in the hands of a woman's brother (who also exerts influence over her son(s). Our interest is more with patriarchal authority. We've talked about how elder men often make the productive decisions in households, over how land, labor and capital will be used, and how income will be distributed. This is made easier still under patrilocal residence patterns, where married women go to live with their husbands' families. Often times, traditional authority is based also in culture and religion. Many of the social movements involving women have centered around challenges to traditional authority and patriarchal control. So . . . Is one form of legitimacy any better than another?? For women? What happens when two forms of legitimacy conflict (for instance, women might gain constitutional rights that ban forced marriages, but the practice may continue in rural areas, and most people may not even be aware of any changes to the law)? Weber believed that there was an historical process toward rationalization. That is, when it comes to authority, that rational-legal bases for authority would become more important over time. We've seen the virtual disappearance of the monarchy and the rise of the nation-state. There are efforts to give women more constitutional protections, but as in the case of FGM, they haven't always been effective. They are probably necessary, but insufficient, as economists might say.
|
Home | Announcements | Lecture material | Reading schedule | Course-related links
Web links | Assignments, grading | Policies, expectations | On-campus resources
No comments:
Post a Comment