An introduction to the symposium consisting of papers read by Duncan, Habenstein, Kleitsch, I. L. Horowitz, F. Kolegar, Murvar, Mannheim, & Jacobs at the 1964 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Sociol'al ...Society. This & the accompanying papers call attention to the centennial of M. Weber's birth & to the continuing influence of Weber's thought & work on modern soc. sci. The introduction points out that perhaps the various Sch's of contemporary sociol can find common ground in Weber's theory as they turn their attention to empirical & theoretical investigations of soc change. AA.
A paper to facilitate the applicability of M. Weber's typology of Herrschaft: legal-rational, traditionalistic & charismatic, by eliminating a few apparent contradictions due to its unfinished ...condition. The 'ideal-typical' used by Weber is replaced by `constructive type' terminology of Howard P. Becker & John C. McKinney. Disagreement among US Weberians as to the question of translating Herrschaft into authority, leadership or domination is noted. The legal-rational & charismatic types do not seem to require any finishing touches. Also the conceptual tools within these 2, such as legitimacy, rationality, bur'cy, charisma, forms of routinization & others have been frequently & successfully used. Only the traditionalistic type, perhaps a residual type in Weber's mind, & esp the subtypes within the traditionalistic type, non-existent in the other 2, represent certain difficulties which are not insoluble. Harry M. Johnson's preference for the use of `traditionalistic' rather than `traditional' is acclaimed. Of the 4 subtypes - patriarchalism, patrimonialism, sultanism & feudalism - it is suggested that sultanism be discarded entirely due to several operational ambiguities. Patrimonialism & feudalism are placed at the opposite ends of a `continuum' & at least 7 major areas of basic contrast are offered. Extensive historical evidence in support of this thesis is presented. Most of the controversial opinions on feudalism are noted. It is further suggested that patriarchalism as a conceptual tool be employed anly as the originating model for patrimonialism, but the same patriarchal model is not basic to feudalism. Finally, a functional break down is offered in the applicability of Weber's typology into 2 sets of types: (1) historical societies before the emergence of the modern bureaucratic state - charismatic, traditionalistic & feudal & (2) contemporary societies after the establishment of pol'al, industrial, technological & other institutional bureaucratization - charismatic, traditionalistic & legal-rational. COMMENT by Ernest Manheim: The principle of legitimacy, from which Weber derives his primary types of pol'al authority, appears to suggest a deductive typology. This first deductive classification of authority is, howevex, external to Weber's subsequent elaboration of the varieties of pol'al control. In the substantive portions of his pol'al sociol he ignores the rationale for the use of power & deals, instead, with its composition which he elaborates in a structural typology. What makes this typology efficient is the derivation of one type from another through the addition of a single structural component. Thus, patriarchalism, patrimonialism, the prebendary system, & feudalism are differentiated by the distinct sources from which the executive staff of each system derives its livelihood. The diff between the patrimonial & feudal org of power is basic to the divergent development of East & West. While feudalism fathered pol'al representation in the West, most supra-tribal power systems in Asia & Russia were either patrimonial or prebendary. The suggested explanation points to the more acute military exigencies in the East, requiring a higher degree of centralization than was necessary in the more sheltered locations of Western countries. The feudalization of patrimonial systems, in most instances, took place after the permanent military hazards had passed. AA.
It is hyp'ed that Japanese herrschaft (& society), rather than being considered as patrimonial-prebendary, is better interpreted as feudal, with the same essential structure as that of other feudal ...(esp western European) societies. This conclusion is reached though it is conceded that many of the formal features of pre-modern Japan, esp Tokugawa Japan (1603-1868) were similiar to, patrimonial-prebendary China. For viewed as a dynamic functional system, & as an ideal-typical construct over time, regardless of certain short-term changes in that society, the Japanese patrimonial features are atypical, while the feudal features are typical. The typical feudal features were the prime contributors to the success of the `breakthrough' of Tokugawa society & the establishment of modern capitalism in Japan, which is compatible with M. Weber's major thesis of the origin of modern indust'al capitalism. The patrimonial-prebendary thesis, however, remains of inestimable value in analyzing mainland Asian herrschaft & in explaining the differential receptivity to modern industrial order between `feudal' Japan & `patrimonial' mainland Asia. AA.
T. Parsons argues in his STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ACTION that M. Weber's category of `usage' was never developed in Weber's own work. Yet it cannot be said that Weber does not place great emphasis of ...usage, convention, custom, manners, decorum, & `matters of taste.' Indeed Weber's use of such categories as `status honor' & 'styles of life' is so central to his whole system that if we do not understand what is meant by `styles of life' we cannot understand Weber. Status honor may be the basis of pol'al & econ power, as among the Chinese literati. The Confucian Gentleman ruler grounded his glory in manners which he perfected to such a degree that he became, as Weber tells us, a fully rounded, harmonious 'work of art.' Weber analyzed the soc conditions under which the charismatic inspirations of the few became the dominant orientation of a whole culture. In view of the power of a `style of life' we ought to study it as a constituent category of soc experience (as Weber does in the RELIGION OF CHINA, & not reduce it to some kind of soc phenomenon which `mirrors' but does not `constitute' soc reality. COMMENT by Robert W. Habenstein: Duncan's paper on M. Weber raises a valid question about the adequacy of T. Parson's interpretation of M. Weber's types of legitimation, esp re the aesthetic dimension of human conduct. Duncan's formulation brings Weber & G. H. Mead closer together theoretically & provides new theoretical terminals for a rewiring of the field of sociol. COMMENT by Ronald G. Klietsch: In proposing a return to Weberian sociol with an emphasis upon sociohistorical questions, Duncan has reopened `a Pandora's box' for sociol while commemorating the Weber Centennial. By arguing that a theory of usage & custom, seemingly omitted by T. Parsons, is necessary in contemporary sociol, Duncan seeks to re-vitalize a sector of traditional soc theory which he feels has been excluded by functionalism. Assuming that contemporary sociol is more oriented to an existential interpretation of soc reality, problems are briefly examined which aim at returning neo-Weberianism to a proper perspective. AA.
PDF