Anneke van Baalen, HIDDEN MASCULINITY, Max Weber's historical sociology of bureaucracy. 1994
Chapter 10 Hidden Masculinity: impersonal bureaucracy as a result of the unsolvable conflict between
fraternity and patriarchy
175
dictatorships'. Weber names Pericles as an example of the latter type of dictator and
Napoleon as one of the former, rational, ones. The connection he establishes between anti-
authoritarian charisma and formal rationality, therefore, remains as tenuous as that between
patriarchal patrimonialism and formal rationality.
As we have seen, Weber wants to treat 'formal rationality' as an internally consistent ideal
type; therefore the internal contradictions between charisma and rationality which are the
cause of its irrational character can only be presented as 'paradoxical consequences' of
irrational actions. Therefore he can only characterize the ambiguous character of modern
democracy - the establishment of fraternities of free and equal men who subject themselves
to patriarchy in order to be able to claim patriarchal domination over women, children and
other dependents, who have a formal right to freedom and equality as well - only by
presenting an expanding universe of contradictory connections.
2. 'Impersonality' as a result of the insolvable contradiction of the personal patriarchal and
fraternal relations between men
If Weber's sex-defined terms are translated in his sex-defined ones, however, it is possible
to conceptualize the contradictory connections that constitute modern bureaucratic relations
as based on objectively rationally motivated group actions.
In Europe 'patriarchy' and 'fraternity' have been merged into one social formation, an
'impersonal patriarchal fraternity' of real men dominating women and other non-men, by the
belief in and the discipline exerted by 'the rule' . This 'impersonal patriarchal fraternity' is
based primarily on the separation between public life - the sphere of the office and the
bureau - and the private life of the household. As a consequence of this separation the
relations between women and men are separated from public masculine relations and
repressed from the consciousness of the men who take part in these relations. Public
consciousness subsequently becomes universalist: men come to represent humanity;
personal - patriarchal or fraternal - relations between men come to represent private, sex-
defined life as a whole.
The contradictions between the several kinds of personal relations between men, however,
have not been solved definitively by bureaucratic impersonality. The different sources of
charisma and the different forms of its routinization have different effects on different levels
of the formal-rational whole. While the men in positions of command form new fraternities,
subalterns, people who work, and subjects in general are affected by formalism and
discipline; therefore subalterns and subjects alike strive to form status groups to free
themselves and to create their own honor and equality. Formal rational domination therefore
is no consistent whole; the supposedly gapless rule system provides only a precarious unity
between patriarchal and fraternal interests.
In patriarchal relations only the patriarch is a real, adult man; in fraternal relations all men
are free and equal; their only interest in obedience lies in their personal honor and loyalty.
Patriarchal relations deny the manhood of the dependents; fraternal relations create and
maintain it. According to Weber, however, the contradiction between the hierarchical
obedience and the personal honor of officials can be resolved in an orientation to impersonal
discipline, because of the separation of private life from the office.
5
5
5
'A strong status sentiment among officials not only is compatible with the official's readiness to subordinate
 |
 |
 |