The subject of authority has been studied by various sociology authors. One of them was Max Weber, who proposed three other types of authority. 3. Charismatic authority is usually a vestige. A leader presents himself as a representative of a team, a divine revelation. Charismatic authority tends to become traditional authority over time. This is the kind of authority exercised by criminal acts. This is usually a form of countervailing power. That is, rules are imposed that violate established laws or generally accepted customs.
It is a perverse exercise of authority. The last classification that Weber proposes is that of rational-legal authority. It is also known as bureaucratic, and it is based on a legal norm (the traditional and charismatic do not meet this criterion). The best way to understand this kind of authority is through modern states. This kind of authority is about recognition or subjective punishment, not exactly reward or punishment. Power is transferred to this authority on the basis of the respect it generates. The source of their influence is their values, experience, knowledge, etc. It is one of the healthiest and most valuable types of authority. It assumes formal authority, but is implemented in such a way that it also becomes a moral authority.
In this way of exercising power, it is the rules that are fundamental and not the people who apply them. These rules, in turn, are the result of the collective agreement. The vast majority of modern states of the twentieth century fall into the category of rational and legal authority. The consequences of disobedience to different types of authority also vary. This, of course, is closely related to the degree of power of each of them. Much of our life is defined by how we relate to authority. Therefore, it is important to know the different types of manifestation of these forces and the effect that each of them has on us. It is created by the customs of hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. Following Weber`s ideas, it exists because it has always been so. An example of traditional authority is monarchy. The monarch who exercises authority does so on the basis of the traditions, customs and values that precede him.
Its power is not questioned because it has always been. 1.Traditional authority is based on the principle of custom. It is usually reflected in political institutions with hereditary positions. If society as a whole approves of the exercise of power in some way, then power is considered a “legitimate authority.” As you can see, it is very important to define the type of authority we are referring to when we talk about authority. Each has its own characteristics as well as specific coordinates that allow us to better understand it. Authority is exercised in many areas, social, professional and family. In the latter area, four types of authorities were highlighted. Although they focus on the family, they are elements that can be extrapolated to other situations and institutions. « Authority is the balance of freedom and power. » Although the assassination failed, the story of Saddam`s involvement in the assassination and the long journey through the desert in Syria quickly took on mythical proportions, giving Saddam`s public figure a heroism that would become the basis of his charismatic authority.
It is a type of authority exercised inconsistently that varies rules and orders and does not aim for the same results depending on the time or circumstances. The boundaries are not clear. It presupposes a high degree of confusion among those who follow it, and in the long run it can cause reactance and disobedience. Authority based on violence is also called illegitimate authority, or at least in relation to those on whom it is imposed. This can be legitimized from a legal point of view (the use of force for its dissidents can be advocated, as in dictatorships), but it is illegitimate to consider the degree of pressure and coercion before those imposed. This is one of the types of authority that is possessed with the consent of subordinates. Based on the ability of the charisma of the person in charge, it was born from respect and admiration for the qualities of the leader. They shall be accepted as justified on the basis of such respect for the capacities or the manner in which the subject in question is situated. Examples of charismatic authority figures include Nelson Mandela, Charles de Gaulle, Fidel Castro and Napoleon Bonaparte. While some, like Mandela, were forced forever, many were also forces that used their charisma to force hordes of people to discriminate, wage wars of aggression and repress others. In practice, however, communist Russia was largely governed not by rational legal institutions, but by the personal whims of its dictators. An example of authority can be found in the new religious movements and in the emergence of so-called prophets who manage to gather a community of disciples around them.
Of course, this kind of authority can lead to a cult of personality or totalitarianism. Democracy, or rather its representatives, is another good example. 2. Rational legal authority based on positive law. It reflects a complex distribution and is based on the principle of legality: regulation of authority by law. Authority is the power you have over another person, whether they are deserved or not. This may come from respect for the abilities or virtues of the person or institution, the desire to receive any kind of reward or reinforcement from that person, or the fear that a penalty will be imposed if one refuses to obey. Adolf Hitler is probably the most notorious public figure in history, but a figure who embodies the power of charismatic authority. The basis of this charismatic authority, Hinnebusch said, was the image that was bigger than Gaddafi`s life as a rebel against Western imperialism, as a nationalist hero and protector of Libyan interests.
In addition to the previous classifications, we can find other types of authorities, some of which are considered subtypes of previous classifications. In general, authority can be defined as the power that a person or institution exercises over others. This power, in turn, has different areas. It depends precisely on the types of authority: the effect of a mother`s prescription is not the same as that of a legal norm. It is the most basic form of authority. It is imposed and is not chosen or necessarily freely recognized. It is precisely for this reason that it is also one of the types of authority that holds the greatest potential for conflict. As long as it is imposed, it could lead to a lack of real recognition. Moral authority is that which is granted on the basis of respect for the qualities that the leader manifests either by his experience or by his moral qualities.
It is not based on charisma, but on respect for what the person represents. Like charismatic authority (which we will see later), it arises from recognition, not from imposition. It can be divided into technical (based on knowledge and experience) and personal (based on morality). This is similar to moral authority, but in this case, the source of influence comes directly from the personality or personal charm of the leader. It is not necessarily a model of virtues, but exerts a great attraction on others. Therefore, they follow him and obey him. One of the basic types of authority. It is the kind of authority exercised on the basis of aspects that do not result from respect for the other`s abilities, but from their position and ability to manage rewards and punishments. It is assumed that authority is imposed and assigned by others without the followers in principle having any influence on it (although the attribution of this authority may result from prior compliance). Starting from specific instances centered on the individual, we now observe more abstract philosophical formulations of the concept of charismatic authority. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) sketched the concept of the great influence of the superman, roughly translated as Superman, who became a moral model for the abundance of charismatic leaders in the first half of the twentieth century, as seen in the examples above.