Soc 235 Exam 2

Front 1

***(1) Describe the main features of modern bureaucratic organizations. How are modern bureaucracies 'technically superior' according to Weber?

Back 1

• There are fixed and offical jurisdictions,regulated by written rules.
• There is a clearly defined hierarchy, again organized by written rules.
• authority is based on strictly delimited fields of expertise.
• Weber considered modern bureaucracies ‘technically superior’ because of how they recruit people and fill jobs. Jobs are given based on merit and having technical qualifications instead of heredity.
• Their ability to manage really large organizations.

Front 2

How do the characteristics of modern bureaucracies serve the larger goals of rationalization?

Back 2

• Rationalization is the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason.
• Bureaucracies are organized according to rational principles
• Offices are ranked in a hierarchical order and their operations are characterized by impersonal rules.
• Instrumental Rationality is related to the expectations about the behavior of other human beings or objects in the environment.
• These expectations serve as means for a particular actor to attain ends, ends which Weber noted were "rationally pursued and calculated”

Front 3

Why is it more difficult for bureaucracy to form in a society dominated by traditional authority?

Back 3

• Traditional authority is based on a belief in the sanctity of the past and its traditions
• An example of a society dominated by traditional authority would be feudalism where the ability and right to rule is inherited and passed down through heredity
• . Whereas you are born into your career or trade in feudalism
• in a bureaucracy jobs are filled through merit and technical qualifications.
• Bureaucracy does not develop easily in a society dominated by traditional authority because a belief in traditional authority does not foster social change.

Front 4

Describe some of the consequences (2), which resulted from bureaucratic forms of organizations and the creation of a bureaucratic society.

Back 4

• One consequence from bureaucracies could be inefficiency.
• This can occur when employees apply formalized rules and procedures blindly in all types of situations regardless of special circumstances.
• For example, an employee may easily be able to solve your problem but because of a written rule they make you go through procedures and paperwork first.
• Another consequence could be boredom. High routine activities can lead to boredom or a loss of a sense of purpose.

Front 5

***(2) How did Weber define power? Why did he think that class power was too unstable on its own?

Back 5

• Weber defines power as the chance that an individual in a social relationship can achieve his/her own will even against the resistance of others.
• Class power refers to the shared economic interest of property owners realizing the value of their property in a market.
• Weber argued that this kind of power cannot operate on its own
• The reason is it unstable is because property owners do not always have the same interest or they may not always have a full understanding of their interests. Additionally, property owners may not all like each other. Therefore, Weber argued that for class power to be effective, it must be linked to some other kind of common identity.

Front 6

What are the differences between status power and party power? In what way is it possible for status power and party power to be combined? Be sure to give an example.

Back 6

• Status power groups have a shared identity and share certain characteristics of social honor (either positive or negative) and a certain style of life.
• Party power is based on the leadership of an organization.
• Status power is social power and party power is organizational power.
• Status groups achieve power through mechanisms of social closure.
• Party power depends on the existence of bureaucracy and is based on organizational skill.
• Status power and party power can be combined through marriage, educational success, and organizational leadership.
• Party power becomes more important relative to status power as democracy and bureaucracy becomes more widespread and fully developed.
• An example of a person who combined status and party power is Robert Rubin. He graduated with a law degree from Yale and became a partner at Goldman Sachs. He later went on to become Secretary of Treasury during the Clinton administration.

Front 7

How does the rise of party power help to make bureaucracy a permanent feature of modern life?

Back 7

• As democracy and bureaucracy becomes more widespread and fully developed, party power becomes more important
• A rise in party power, which is based on the leadership of an organization, helps make bureaucracy a permanent feature of modern life
• This is because party power depends on the existence of bureaucracy and is based on organizational skill.

Front 8

What is the difference between coercive power and legitimate authority? What are the relative advantages of legitimate authority, from the perspective of those in power?

Back 8

• Coercive power is power that is dependent on fear or backed by the threat of force.
• An example of coercive power would be threatening a demotion or termination for employees who do not follow a new rule in the workplace.
• Legitimate authority is authority based on formal, written rules and often law. It is much more efficient and effective than coercive power.
• This is because giving legitimate authority to a person in power causes people to follow them more obediently. Followers do what they’re asked because they respect the leader’s knowledge and trust them.
• People are more likely to voluntarily submit to the orders they receive if they believe in the person’s authority.
• While coercive power can produce results in the short-term, it relies on intimidation and can backfire badly or provoke resistance

Front 9

***(3) Describe the three different types of legitimate authority, being sure to identify which was the dominant form before modernity, and which was the dominant form after modernity.

Back 9

• (before modernity)The first type of legitimate authority is traditional authority, which is based on a belief in the sanctity of the past and its traditions. It was the dominant form of authority before modernity.
• The second type is charismatic authority, which is based on “special qualities” of a particular person.
• (after modernity)Finally, rational-legal authority is based on a belief in the authority of rules and laws. It was the dominant form after modernity.

Front 10

In what ways is charismatic authority different from the other two forms of legitimate authority? Why are those in power concerned to try to change charismatic authority into one of the other types of legitimate authority? Why did Weber think that charismatic authority offered a potential antidote to the “disenchantment of modernity?

Back 10

• Charismatic authority is based on “special qualities” of a particular person.
• Charismatic authority is found in a leader whose mission and vision inspire others. This type of authority is very unstable and has the greatest potential for social change. This is because once the leader dies, their authority dies as well and it is difficult for another leader to come along and command people’s devotion as intensely.
• Charismatic authority becomes more stable when it evolves into traditional or rational-legal authority. Transformation into traditional authority can happen when charismatic leaders’ authority becomes accepted as residing in their bloodlines, so that their authority is passed down to their children and then to their grandchildren.
• Transformation into rational-legal authority occurs when a society ruled by a charismatic leader develops the rules and bureaucratic structures that we associate with a government.
• Weber believed that charismatic authority offered a potential antidote to the “disenchantment of modernity”.
• Disenchantment of modernity is that as we have more bureaucracy and we have more instrumental rationality our lives lose meaning, and we lose a larger sense of our bigger purpose. We become more machine-like, looking at the rules and trying to figure out how to succeed all the time.
• Weber believed that there was something about charismatic authority that makes our lives more meaningful even though we ourselves are not the charismatic leaders. Since people admire and love charismatic leaders and therefore believe in them, they are more likely to want to follow their orders or requests for action.