Anneke van Baalen, HIDDEN MASCULINITY, Max Weber's historical sociology of bureaucracy. 1994
Chapter 8 Connections between formal rationality and patriarchal-patrimonial domination
over and through men
151
The 'qualitative extension' of administrative tasks, which according to Weber characterizes
this phase of patriarchal patrimonialism, therefore can be understood as the creation of a
new kind of administration, which functions through the creation and application of rules.
However, it is not clear how the new tasks relate to the materially rational elements of
patriarchal patrimonialism, which according to Weber are far more characteristic.
58
To understand the development of modern bureaucracy out of patrimonial bureaucracy one
has to solve the apparent contradiction between the 'material rationality' of the domination
and legitimation of the ruler and the 'formal rationality' of the bureaucratic apparatus.
59
In the
concept of 'Staatsräson' Weber has conceptualized the unity of these opposites - of the
creation and application of rules at the one hand and value orientation to power on the other
- in modern bureaucracy. At the end of this chapter I will clarify this merging of opposite
forms of rationality into 'reasons of state' by pointing to the ambiguous characteristics of the
relation between the lord and his staff, on which legitimacy is based: to the contradiction
between patriarchal domination and the striving for emancipation of the patrimonial officials
which Weber described earlier as the foundation of 'estate patrimonialism'. First I will treat
Weber's typical case of rationalized patriarchal patrimonialism, that of Germany.
8. The victory of patrimonialism in Germany and its effects on German mentality
Weber's construction of the difference between English and continental developments is
especially manifest when at the end of his chapter on 'feudalism, Ständestaat and
patrimonialism', he discusses the 'mentality', the political and social ideologies of feudalism
on the one hand and patriarchal patrimonialism on the other. According to him the two
different ideologies shaped very different styles of life; the structures of domination
influenced the general habits of the people by way of the 'ethos', 'die Art der Gesinnung',
which they established.
60
Patriarchal patrimonialism as 'mass domination by one individual'
61
was victorious only in Germany; it succeeded in forming the mentality of the subjects in a
totalitarian way, destroying all their honor, freedom and autonomy
62
with the help of an
excess of bureaucratic administration
63
:
58
Also the example Weber gives of successful sabotage by bureaucrats of the power of an autocratic ruler, the
Russian Tsar, does not appear to be a token of their 'expertness' or 'rationality', but rather of their ability to
conspire and to create wordy confusion: 'His ministries, which were subordinated directly to him as the autocrat,
represented (-) a conglomerate of satrapies which fought among each other with all the means of personal
intriguer and bombarded each other with voluminous "memoranda", in the face of which the monarch as a
dilettante was quite helpless.' ES p. 993, WG p. 573.
59
Which exists in modern democratic 'welfare states' as well.
60
ES p. 1104, WG p. 650.
61
ES p. 1106, WG p. 651.
62
'In the interest of his domination, the patrimonial ruler must oppose the status autonomy of the feudal
aristocracy and the economic independence of the bourgeoisie. Ultimately, every autonomous dignity and simply
any sense of honor on the part of the "subjects" must be suspected of hostility to authority; the inner devotion to
the authority of the sovereign indeed fared everywhere according to the outcome of the resultant historical
struggles.' ES p. 1107, WG p. 652.
63
'Administrative functions are maximized, for every new administrative function which the patrimonial ruler
appropriates means an elevation of his power and ideological significance and creates new benefices for his
officials.' 'Typical of patrimonialism is the determined rise from rags, from slavery and lowly service for the ruler,
to the precarious all-powerful position of the favorite. '
 |
 |
 |