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
155
Therefore Weber's concept 'formal rational legitimation', which, like all kinds of legitimation,
is defined in the first place by the relation between the lord and his staff, is also contradictory
in character. Viewed from the position of the lord, it is a private, sex-defined relation: the lord
is the patriarch, the real man, the officials are not. Seen from the position of the officials,
however, it is an ambiguous one. The officials want to have their cake and eat it: they want
to share in the patriarchal power, while at the same time they want to be free themselves.
They want to be patriarchs, not to obey one.
Weber does not describe this ambiguity of the position of the patriarchal-patrimonial officials;
he only describes the paradoxical effects of the rationalization process. Rationalization of the
administrative apparatus, though supported by interests of the staff itself, was mostly
furthered by the patrimonial rulers themselves. They made use of every possibility which
made them more powerful than their enemies, the Estates: they employed clerics of the
church for secretarial and accounting work; furthered the reception of Roman law since it
supported princely sovereignty; were inspired by the urban techniques of law, administration
and accounting or even copied them; educated official specialists in princely councils in a
matter-of-fact way of cooperation with each other and with notables and businessmen; and
finally they indeed succeeded in depriving the Estates of their political power. The
paradoxical result of these developments was, according to Weber, that bureaucracy itself
became the only force which could threaten patriarchal-patrimonial power.
In my view the establishment of 'formal rationality' as a legitimation of domination cannot be
explained by developments within the patrimonial bureaucracy itself, since this bureaucracy
is the private property of the patriarchal-patrimonial ruler. The formal separation of private
and public sphere is a new element and one which is essential for modern bureaucracy; it
has to be interpreted as a result of a desire for emancipation, for formal liberation of male
officials and subjects: as a result of formal 'democracy'. In the process in which formal
freedom of and equality between men becomes the rule instead of the exception, elements
other than 'patriarchy' and 'rationality' come into play: 'charisma', which Weber relegated to
feudal Western Europe and gentlemanly England, can be shown to have influenced the
development of formal rational bureaucracy as well.
Beside the autonomous cities, free feudalism had an important influence on modern
bureaucracy. In the first place and on the most abstract level, feudalism advances
rationalism, since it weakens patrimonial obedience and spreads the ethos of freedom,
equality and contract; because of this it clears the way for the development of bureaucracy,
which is after all only a way to compel free men to obedience. Secondly and more
concretely, the feudal stratum, from the early Middle Ages on, supplied the patrimonial lords
with officials, thereby transforming administrative activities from servant work into
representation and domination by nobles. In the third place, the Ständestaat, as analyzed by
Weber, is a framework for the revival of patriarchal patrimonialism, the Estates being
adversaries as well as clients of and contributors to patrimonial bureaucratic activities; these
Estates do no only consist of burghers, but also of nobles.
 |
 |
 |