Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

Weber's conception of authority fits within his three primary modes of conflict:
traditional authority within status groups, charismatic authority within class, and legalrational
authority within party organizations. Weber apparently had a soft spot for
charismatic authority, and thought that legal-rational authority was a move into “an iron
cage”. He said that if a society went socialist it would be very bureaucratic by taking over
many businesses and nationalizing them. Although he never said this was bound to
happen, it is an impressive insight into the Marxist-Leninist “revolutions” of the 20 th
century.
It would be safe to say that anarchists would likely reject all three of Weber's conceptions
of authority, in favor of a fourth variety, which might be termed “respectful selfauthority”.
Rather than placing authority in institutions or a small number of individuals,
anarchists think that people should have a strong sense of self-determination. Or, as some
anarchists have stated: there is no authority but yourself. Yet, one's freedom ought to
extend only as far as to not intrude upon the freedom of another. Thus, individuals should
have a say in decisions to the extent that there are affected by them. 17
Weber's theory on the state is especially lucid for anarchists. He defined (1922/1968) the
state as an organization “claiming a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence upon a
given territory” (Collins 1988, p. 131). Thus, the three essential elements of the state are
(a) violence, (b) legitimacy, and (c) territory. States aspire to control the violence within
their area. As such, they maintain militaries, police forces, prisons, and law-making
ability to control those living in the state by violence. Other sources of non-state violence
are marginalized and usually fought by the state because they challenge the its monopoly.
The state is also “legitimate” in its use of violence. When the state and its violence are
perceived as “legitimate”, citizens will often accept this violence and are more likely to
obey the state's orders. In a sense, the more legitimate a state is, the less raw violence is
necessary, although it still maintains the monopoly on violence (CITE HERMAN &
CHOMSKY, “MANUF. CONSENT”). Finally, a state exists within a certain territory–
once that territory is slowly ceded or lost, the state loses its power and authority inside it.
The state apparatus has the ultimate authority within its territory, but loses that authority
outside its boundaries. Only the most powerful states can exert authority into other states
– as the US commonly does – which shows the weakness of those states infringed upon
relative to the powerful states. It is unclear how economic violence (structural
adjustment, corporate globalization, embargoes, etc.) play into this theory, since they are
non-military (even though often backed by military threat). See Collins' (1988) summary
of Weber's theory of politics and the state, pp. 131-135.
Other conflict
Modern conflict theorists, writing most intensely during the middle part of the 20 th
century, recognized that social structures are coercive, focused on the primacy of the
economy in class struggle, and that there was a relative autonomy of political authority
from economic interests. Contemporary North American anarchists might likely agree
17 For a few basic definitions of these concepts, see the Appendix's “Power model”, “Individual/Collective
model”, and “Decision-Making model”.
[ Williams 18 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]