Three Pure Types of Legitimate Domination: A Sociological Analysis
Three Pure Types of Legitimate Domination
Basis of Legitimacy
There are three pure types of legitimate domination, each with a distinct basis for its legitimacy:
- Rational-legal authority: Rests on the belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands.
- Traditional authority: Rests on the belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them.
- Charismatic authority: Rests 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 or her.
Obedience and Authority
Under rational-legal authority, people obey the impersonal and objective legal statutes and the individuals designated by them to exercise authority, whose legitimacy derives from the formal legality of their pronouncements within their defined sphere of competence. Under traditional authority, obedience is owed to the person of the ruler designated by tradition and bound by it (within its scope) by reason of piety (pietas) within the sphere of what is customary. Under charismatic authority, obedience is owed to the charismatically qualified leader by virtue of personal trust in his or her revelation, heroism, or exemplary character within the sphere in which faith in their charisma is valid.
Ideal Types and Historical Reality
The utility of this threefold classification lies in its analytical clarity. The concept of “charisma” is derived from early Christian terminology. Rudolf Sohm, in his Kirchenrecht (Ecclesiastical Law), was the first to apply this concept, though not the terminology itself, to the Christian hierocracy. Others, such as Hall in Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt (Enthusiasm and Atoning Power), highlighted certain important consequences.
It’s important to note that none of these ideal types exists in its pure form in historical reality. The concept of “charisma” will be further explored in its transformation as it becomes absorbed into everyday life, thus connecting it to empirical forms of domination. However, even then, no historical phenomenon of domination is ever fully transparent. Sociological typology offers the advantage of using relatively consistent concepts, such as “charismatic,” “hereditary charisma,” “institutional charisma,” “patriarchal,” “bureaucratic,” or “estate-based” domination, to categorize and analyze concrete historical instances.
Traditional Domination
Sanctity of Tradition
Traditional domination is characterized by the belief in the sanctity of age-old rules and powers, inherited “since time immemorial.” The ruler’s legitimacy derives from the perceived sanctity of these traditions. The “association of domination” is, in its simplest form, an “association of piety” defined by a shared education. The ruler is not a “superior” but a personal lord, served by “servants” rather than “officials.” The ruled are not “members” of the association but either “traditional companions” or “subjects.” The administrative staff’s relationship with the ruler is based on personal loyalty, not objective official duty.
Legitimacy of Commands
Commands are legitimate based on two factors:
- The force of tradition, which dictates the content, scope, and meaning of the rules. Transgressions of these traditional boundaries are seen as dangerous to the existing order.
- The ruler’s free discretion within the bounds of tradition. This discretion allows the ruler to grant or withdraw favors, influenced by personal biases, antipathies, or even gifts, which can become a source of “taxes.” The exercise of power is guided by custom and what is traditionally accepted by the subjects, so as to avoid resistance. Resistance, when it arises, is directed against the person of the ruler (or servants) who oversteps traditional boundaries, not against the system itself (“traditionalist revolution”).
In pure traditional domination, the deliberate creation of new laws or administrative principles is impossible. New creations must be legitimized by being presented as rooted in tradition, drawing on precedents and jurisprudence.