Weber's Theory Of Authority Essay

Improved Essays
Authority refers to a type of power which is seen as socially recognised, it also refers to the amount of power which someone or a group have over someone else. Legitimacy is a key concept in authority, it highlights the way in which authority is distinguished from general notions of power. Weber distinguished three different types of authority in the work that he done, the first type of authority was rational legal authority, this is dependant on laws of the state. The second type is traditional authority, this comes from different habits and different social structures and it is when power is passed from different generations and the last type of authority is charismatic authority, this is when the charisma of a certain person plays an important role. Weber later highlighted that legitimacy distinguishes these different types of authority from leadership and power and that people who are have a higher status feel like they may have more right to give out commands but this is based off of the legitimacy of authority which has been recognised. Democracy is based on a Government by the people which their power is invested …show more content…
He said that citizens should take part in a political society so that they are able to enjoy freedom, he said that no man should be living in the shadows of another and citizens should form a legislation. Rousseau later went on to say that there is no legitimate authority and society can only work well if people have the same interests. He argued that the common good can be reached, only if the General will is expressed by the sovereign. The sovereign can not change its power to someone else or be represented by a smaller group. It highlights General will and how it will ever coincide with a specific private will, the sovereign can only exist if the people have both an active and direct political voice. The sovereign will also always express the will of the people as a

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Freedom is a concept that cannot be mutually defined by all. This is because of the various aspects that impact one perception on what freedom is and how it should be achieved. Through the text Introduction to Social and Political Society by Omid Payrow Shabani and Monique Deveaux, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill provide their unique philosophies on the concept on freedom and liberty. Kant stands behind positive liberty and advocates that the government can act as an institutionalized version of the best parts of ourselves meaning that freedom does not mean an absence of government but one that helps everyone become more reasonable. Mill, on the other hand, supports negative freedom and believes that the state should only intervene when…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes Vs Rousseau Essay

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages

    If someone disobeys the law it is best solved by the popular opinion and believes in the direct interaction of the people with the laws they must obey. Rousseau uses collectivism as a way for people to actively present their own views while also using This collectivism is best exemplified in his definition of the “general will”. He calls for all members of society to subordinate their own will for the general goal set forth by society. Rousseau does not believe that surrendering freedom to a leader provides any benefit and encourages intervention by the individual on a political level. With Rousseau believes that these goals can only be realized with the assumption of a great leader into the seat of power.…

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Because everybody can’t participate, Locke states that the government should do what most people want. This respects the rights of citizens who want to participate in government as well as the rights of those who cannot or do not want to vote. A government that protects the citizen’s rights and makes decisions that benefit most citizens will most likely gain the consent of the people. Due to the fact that it will gain the people’s consent, it will be considered…

    • 1044 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    I think this because the pluralist view conveys that democracy comes from openness of the system to group interests, and competition, but not as a result of mass participation. On the other hand, the majoritarian view is based upon a decision by majority. Majoritarianism is a traditional political philosophy that declares that a majority of the population is entitled to a certain degree of priority in society. It also means that the population has the right to make decisions that affect the society. This traditional view has come under…

    • 710 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This view is about power over interests. He claims that it requires and acceptance of the status quo due to accepted the underlying ideology. It is accepted by people that the system hold power because of believe on system. Furthermore, it allows rulers to shape the preferences and the masses of perception so he argues that his radical dimension is the most insidious exercise of power. In this radical view, power assumes the consequences of unintended domination and power occurs the absence of conflict due to power exercised as an action and inaction.…

    • 1323 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    In Rousseau’s argument, men cannot be as free as they are in the state of nature in modern society and asserts that that institutions and structures in modern society contradict the freedom and natural goodness of man. Yet, a specific government may be able to provide its members with a certain amount of freedom that somewhat amounts to that present in the state of nature. He writes, in regards to the role of government, “Find a form of association which defends and protects with all common forces the person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau, 148). The ultimate goal of the government is to ensure the natural freedom of its societal members. The law put forth from the government should be a reflection of the general will of the community.…

    • 1838 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although these two sound similar, they are much different. The “general will” is Rousseau’s idea of how society should function. He theorizes that the “general will” is the community as a whole, that people would surrender their rights to; Rousseau expects that the people will obey it blindly. The purpose of the “general will” is to protect what is good for the whole of society and to perfect the idea of freedom in the state of nature. Even though that sounds similar to the majority, the two are not the same; however, the “general will” should reflect the majority in practice.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The society has to find ways to keep their freedoms while also becoming a community to protect their freedoms. Rousseau’s idea was to create a true democracy in which the rules and regulations of the society were chose by the majority and general will of the people. Those who disagreed were forced to follow the general will and if they did not want to they could leave the state. The government would be “entrusted with administering the general will” of the public in order to keep everyone on the same page (Costly). He favored a direct democracy where the people would be heard directly by the government instead of through elected officials.…

    • 1276 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    As stated by Locke, man authorizes to enter the commonwealth for their serene, secure, and still stay or living along with another citizen. Both Hobbes and Locke have the same opinion on the formation of civil societies, however, their difference is from how they each think or feel that a civil society should be ruled or controlled. We all know that Hobbes is a supporter of the sovereign ruler with supreme power, while on the other hand, Locke sets the control in the hands of the people, and he does not want the power to be focused or concentrated to one ruler. In accordance with Hobbes, people moving from the state of nature into a treaty, in which they surrender all of their rights when they enter a contract with the all-powerful sovereign, creates a commonwealth. In contrast, the rights of the sovereign are absolute and cannot be controlled by the people.…

    • 1758 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He (the monarch) does not wrong, because lawful/unlawful and good/evil are at the discretion of the will of the sovereign. Locke disagrees and states that the state exists to solely to protect the natural rights of its people. When a government fails to do so, citizens have the right (and even the duty) to renounce their support and even to rebel. Locke opposes Hobbes’s view that the original state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short,” and that people, by way of a social contract, yielded their rights as to benefit their own self. Locke counters with this, “And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does…

    • 1322 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays