"Anthropology Class" [img]2012q1/ct_etoefm_etoeflistz_1255_20121[/img] [br] What

Narrator: Listen to part of a lecture in an anthropology class.
Professor:
The concepts of power and authority are related, but they’re not the same. Power is the ability to
exercise influence.., and control over others. And this can be observed on every level of society, from,
well... the relationships-within a family to the relationships among nations. Power is usually structured
by customs and... and social institutions or laws and tends to be exerted by persuasive arguments or
coercion or... or even brute force. In general, groups with the greatest, uh, resources tend to have the
advantage in power struggles. So, is power always legitimate? Is it viewed by members of society as
justified? Well, no. Power can be realized by individuals or groups... even when it involves the
resistance of others if... as long as... as long as they’re in a position to impose their will. But what about  Q23
power that is accepted by members of society as right and just, that is, legitimate power? Now we’re
talking about authority. And that’s what I want to focus on today.   Q26
    Okay. When individuals or institutions possess authority, they have, um, a recognized and
established right... to determine policies, with the acceptance of those over... over whom they exercise
control. Max Weber, the German classical sociologist, proposed three types of authority in society:
traditional, charismatic, and rational or legal authority. In all three types, he, uh, he acknowledged the
right of those in positions of power to lead.., with the consent of the governed. So, how did Weber  Q23
differentiate among the three types of authority? Well, he divided them according to how the right to lead
and the duty to follow are, uh, interpreted. In traditional authority, power resides in customs and
conventions that provide certain people or groups with legitimate power in their societies. Often their origin is
found in sacred traditions. The example that most often comes to mind is a monarchy in which kings or queens rule... by... by birthright, not because of any particular.., quality of leadership or political
election, just because they have a claim to authority, based on traditional acceptance of their position, and in
some cases, their, uh, their, uh, unique relationship with and, uh, responsibility in religious practices. The
royal families in Europe or the emperors in Asia are... come to mind as examples of traditional authority.
    Okay. This contrasts sharply with charismatic authority, which is... um... derived... because  Q25
of personal attributes that inspire admiration, loyalty... and even devotion. Leaders who exercise
this type of authority may be the founders of religious movements or political parties, but it’s
not their traditional right to lead. What’s important here is that their followers are mobilized more by...
uh, by the force of the leader’s personality than by the tradition or the law. So when we think of  Q24
"charismatic" leaders in the United States, perhaps John Kennedy would be an example because he was able
to project a youthful and energetic image that people were proud to identify with, or, if you prefer
Republicans, you may argue that Ronald Reagan was able to exercise authority by virtue of his charismatic
appeal. In any case, going back to Weber, to qualify for charismatic authority, a leader must be able to
enlist others in the service of a... a cause that transforms the socia structure in some way.
    Which leaves us with legal rational authority, or power that is legitimized by rules, uh, laws, and
procedures. In such a system, leaders gain authority not by traditional birthrights or by charismatic appeal
but... but rather because they’re elected or appointed in accordance with the law, and power is
delegated to layers of officials who owe their allegiance to the, uh, principles that are agreed upon rationally,
and because they accept the ideal that the law is supreme. In a legal rational society, people accept the
legitimacy of authority as a government of laws, not of leaders. So, an example of this type of authority
might be a president, like Richard Nixon, who was threatened with, uh, impeachment because he was
perceived as not governing within the law.
    Some sociologists have postulated that the three types of authority represent stages of evolution in
society. That preindustrial societies tend to respect traditional authority, but, uh, as societies move into
an industrial age, the importance of tradition... wanes... in favor of charismatic authority, with a
natural rise of charismatic leaders. Then, as... as the modern era evolves, the rational legal authority,  Q27
embodied by rules and regulations, replaces the loyalty to leaders in favor of... a respect for law. Of
course other sociologists argue that in practice, authority may be represented by a combination of
several of these ideal types at any one time.