Anneke van Baalen, HIDDEN MASCULINITY, Max Weber's historical sociology of bureaucracy. 1994
Chapter 5 Expansion of patriarchy by decentralization and affiliation. Political patrimonialism as
masculine domination by an hierarchy of unfree men
94
3. The patrimonial officials and their ambiguous position
In Weber's conceptual exposition the difference between patriarchy and patrimonialism lies
in the fact that the patrimonial ruler commands a personal administrative staff .
21
The
patrimonial body of officials, which makes patriarchy into a rule over 'subjects', 'Untertanen',
originates from the patrimonial household and the administration of the manors:
'The crown offices which originated in the household administration are similar to all over the world. Besides the
house priest and sometimes the ruler's personal physician we find the supervisors of the various branches of the
administration: the lord high steward for the food supplies and the kitchen; the butler or cupbearer for the wine
cellar; the marshal ('connétable': 'comes stabuli') for the stables; the 'Fronvogt' for the peasants compulsory
services; the 'intendant' for clothing and armor; the chamberlain for treasury and revenues; the seneschal for
general administration.
'
22
To these tasks new ones are added, like for instance those of commanding the cavalry and
supervising the stables. The officials also have to perform representational duties and have
to attend to the person of the ruler.
In the beginning the officials are recruited from personal dependents: kinsmen, slaves,
clients, coloni or freedmen.
23
But with expansion of the administration recruitment of free
men also becomes necessary, not only because the subjects do not like to see unfree men
rise above them, but also because those forms of administration which already exist have to
be continued.
The recruitment of free men as dependent officials can be seen as another instance of the
'affiliation' process Weber mentioned in his definition of the patrimonial state, where he
emphasizes the advantages that will be gained by free men who submit themselves
individual hereditarily to the land, the vocation, the guild and the compulsory association and which exposed the
subjects to very arbitrary demands; these demands were advanced within highly unstable limits merely set by the
ruler's concern for the subjects' permanent capacity to fulfill their obligations. The more technically developed the
ruler's own patrimonial position was, and especially his patrimonial military power on which he could rely also
against his political subjects, the more easily the second type, total dependency, could prevail. (-) However,
besides the army the coercive administrative apparatus available to the ruler was important for determining the
size and quality of the enforceable demands. It was never possible or useful for the ruler, if he strove for an
optimal personal power position, to turn all desired services into liturgies based on collective liability: he was
always in need of a b o d y o f o f f i c i a l s.'
21
If there is no staff, the group, in so far as it is organized at all, may be ruled by the elders; Weber calls this form
of rule 'gerontocracy' and according to him this is 'common in groups which are not primarily of an economic or
kinship character', ES p. 231, WG p. 133. In Weber's view the elders are men - though, as I stated repeatedly
above, they could as well be women - in an organization which has an economic and a kinship character. The
other possibility is 'patriarchalism':
'"Patriarchalism" is the situation where, within a group (household) which is usually organized on both an
economic and a kinship basis, a particular individual governs who is designated by a definite rule of inheritance.'
'The decisive characteristic of both is the belief of the members that domination, even though it is an inherent
traditional right of the master, must definitively be exercised as a joint right in the interest of all members and is
thus not freely appropriated by the incumbent. In order that this shall be maintained, it is crucial that in both cases
there is a complete absence of a personal (patrimonial) staff. Hence the master is still largely dependent upon the
willingness of the members to comply with his orders since he has no machinery to enforce them. Therefore, the
members ('Genossen') are not yet really subjects (Untertanen).'
22
ES p. 1025, WG p. 594.
23
ES p. 228 and 1026, WG p. 131 and 594.
 |
 |
 |