In ordinary usage, the term ‘power’ means strength or the capacity to control. Sociologists describe it as the ability of an individual or group to fulfil its desires and implement its decisions and ideas. It involves the ability to influence and/or control the behaviour of others even against their will.

For Max Weber, power is an aspect of social relationships. It refers to the possibility of imposing one’s will upon the behaviour of another person. Power is present in social interaction and creates situations of inequality since the one who has power imposes it on others. The impact of power varies from situation to situation. On the one hand, it depends on the capacity of the powerful individual to exercise power. On the other hand it depends upon the extent to which it is opposed or resisted by the others. Weber says that power can be exercised in all walks of life.

It is not restricted to a battlefield or to politics. It is to be observed in the market place, on a lecture platform, at a social gathering, in sports, scientific discussions and even through charity. For example, giving aims or ‘daan’ to a beggar is a subtle way of exercising your superior economic power. You can bring a smile of joy to the begger’s face or a feeling of despair by giving or refusing aims.

Power, is derived from a constellation of interests that develop in a formally free market. For example, a group of producers of sugar controls supply of their production in the market to maximise their profit. Power, is also derived from an established system of authority that allocates the right to command and the duty to obey. For example, in the army, a jawan is obliged to obey the command of his officer. The officer derives his power through an established system of authority. It is legitimacy, which according to Weber constitutes the core point of authority.

Power, as you have seen, refers to the ability or capacity to control another. Authority refers to legitimized power. It means that the master has the right to command and can expect to be obeyed.

For a system of authority of exist the following elements must be present: An individual ruler/master or a group of rulers/masters, An individual/group that is ruled, The will of the ruler to influence the conduct of the ruled, which may be expressed through commands, Evidence of the influence of the rulers in terms of compliance or obedience shows by the ruled,  Direct or indirect evidence which shows that the ruled have internalized and accepted the fact that the ruler’s commands must be obeyed.

According to Weber, there are three systems of legitimation, each with its corresponding norms, which justify the power to command. It is these systems of legitimation, which are designated as the types of authority. They are:

1.           Traditional authority
2.          Charismatic authority
3.          Rational-legal authority

Traditional Authority

This system of legitimation flows from traditional action. In other words, it is based on customary law and the sanctity of ancient traditions. It is based on the belief that a certain authority is to be respected because it has existed since time immemorial. In traditional authority, rulers enjoy personal authority by virtue of their inherited status. In modern times, the incidence of traditional authority has declined. Monarchy, the classic example of traditional authority still exists, but in a highly diluted form. The Queen of England is a traditional figure of authority but as you may be aware, she does not actually exercise her authority. The laws of the land are enacted in her name, but their content is decided by the legislators, the representatives of the people. The queen has a parliament, which governs the kingdom, but she does not appoint ministers. She is a nominal head of state.

Briefly, traditional authority derives its legitimacy from longstanding traditions, which enable some to command and compel others to obey. It is hereditary authority and does not require written rules. Weber considers this kind of authority as irrational. It is therefore rarely found in modern developed societies.

Charismatic Authority

Charisma means an extraordinary quality possessed by some individuals. This gives such people unique powers to capture the fancy and devotion of ordinary people. Charismatic authority is based on extraordinary devotion to an individual and to the way of life preached by this person. The type of social action that charismatic authority is related to is affective action. The disciples are in a highly charged emotional state as a result of the teachings and appeal of the charismatic leaders. They worship their hero. Charismatic authority is not dependent on customary beliefs or written rules. It is purely the result of the special qualities of the leader who governs or rules in his personal capacity. Charismatic authority is not organised; therefore there is no paid staff or administrative set-up. The leader and his assistants do not have a regular occupation and often reject their family responsibilities. These characteristics sometimes make charismatic leaders revolutionaries, as they have rejected all the conventional social obligation and norms.

Based, as it is, on the personal qualities of an individual, the problem of succession arises with the death or disappearance of the leader. The person who succeeds the leader may not have charismatic powers. In order to transmit the original message of the leader, some soft of organisation develops. The original charisma gets transformed either into traditional authority or rational-legal authority. Weber calls this routinization of charisma.

If the charismatic figure is succeeded by a son/daughter or some close relative, traditional authority results. If, on the other hand, charismatic qualities are identified and written down, then it changes into rational legal authority, where anyone acquiring these qualities can become a layer. Charismatic authority can thus be described as unstable and temporary. We can find examples of charismatic leaders throughout history. Saints, prophets and some political leaders are examples of such authority. Kabir, Nanak, Jesus, Mohammed, Lenin and Mahatma Gandhi, to name a few were charismatic leaders. They were reversed by people for their personal qualities and the message they preached, not because they represented traditional or rational-legal authority.

Rational-legal Authority

The term refers to a system of authority, which is both, rational and legal. It is vested in a regular administrative staff who operate in accordance with certain written rules and laws. Those who exercise authority are appointed to do so on the basis of their achieved qualifications, which are prescribed and codified. Those in authority consider it a profession and are paid a salary. Thus, it is a rational system.

It is legal because it is in accordance with the laws of the land, which people recognise and feel obliged to obey. The people acknowledge and respect the legality of both, the ordinance and rules as well as the positions or titles of those who implement the rules.

Rational-legal authority is a typical feature of modern society. It is the reflection of the process of rationalisation. Remember, Weber considers rationalisation as they key feature of western civilisation. It is, according to Weber, a specific product of human thought and deliberation. By now you have clearly grasped the connection between rational-legal authority and rational action for obtaining goals.

From the above discussion on the types of social action an types of authority one may find that traditional authority corresponds to traditional action, rational-legal authority corresponds to affective action or emotional action. However one easily finds that Weber distinguishes four types of social action and only three types of authority. The lack of conformity between the typology of social action and the typology of authority is a subject for open discussion.

Weber’s focus on the trend of rationalization led him to concern himself with the operation and expansion of large-scale enterprises in both the public and private sectors of modern societies. Bureaucratic coordination of human action, Weber believed, is the distinctive mark of modern social structures. In order to study these organizations, both historically and in contemporary society, In order that you might clearly grasp the manner in which rational-legal authority functions it is necessary to examine the institution of ‘bureaucracy’. Bureaucracy is the medium through which rational-legal authority is carried out .