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
91
Weber's concept of 'patrimonialism' is an ambiguous one; after having used it in order to
conceptualize the domination of dependent subjects who are formally the property of the
patriarch, he develops it into one which conceptualizes 'political' domination of subjects who
are formally free, although this domination is organized in the same way as patriarchal
power.
8
'Political' patriarchal power therefore is defined as the domination of one master of a house
over other masters who are not subject to his patriarchal power. It is only possible to exert
such power over free men as long as they submit themselves to it of their own free will;
according to Weber this type of submission therefore 'implies an affiliation
9
of domination
relations *to patriarchal power which differ only in degree and content, not in structure.' (it.
mine). The concept 'patrimonial domination' thus refers both to a type of domination which is
based on appropriation, as well as to patriarchal domination by 'affiliation'.
Thus Weber again represents a development - in this case the expansion of patrimonialism -
by extending a concept - in this case that of patrimonialism - in such a way that it includes
the opposite of its original meaning. He manages to do this by constructing a fluent transition
between both opposites. The free political subjects come to differ from the unfree patrimonial
subjects 'only in degree', as a result of the violence the patrimonial lord may use against
them; in this way they lose most of their freedom without formally becoming the property of
the lord.
Weber explains in detail how this specifically political power, this 'military and judiciary
authority', is established. According to him a chief in principle has no judicial power over men
who are not members of his household; he can however usurp 'contempt powers'
(Banngewalten), until 'his position is practically identical with the unlimited judicial power of
the patriarch.'
10
The same principle applies to military authority: in early history military authority over non-
dependents only occurred in extraordinary circumstances, under ad hoc leaders similar to
the ones I dealt with in my chapters on charisma; if however the military authority of the ad
hoc leader is great and persistent enough, 'it turns into a levying power toward his political
subjects which differs only in degree from the patrimonial subjects' duty to render military
service.'
8
'We shall speak of a p a t r i m o n i a l state when the prince organizes his political power, * thus his not
manorial, physical coercion, over extrapatrimonial areas and political subjects, just like the exercise of his
patriarchal power', ES p. 1013, WG p. 585. The American edition translates the not very clear formulation 'seine
nicht domaniale, physischen Zwang' with 'which is not discretionary and not enforced by physical coercion', which
would be right if 'manorial' coercion would be identical with physical coercion; Weber, though, has defined
'manorial' domination as a strongly traditionally bound and regulated form, which resulted in 'a considerable
disintegration of pure patrimonialism', which lies far from physical coercion. I thus read 'not manorial, b u t
physical', which also makes it easier to understand why free men, who are masters themselves, would let
themselves be politically dominated. This interpretation is the more plausible since Weber analyzes here the
formation of the state, and for him the only decisive characteristic of a state is the monopoly of physical violence;
the political powers Weber names next are indeed founded on the possibility of physical violence. In my view this
translation problem is caused by the fact that, given Weber's views on sociology, it is essential for him to maintain
that a permanent structure of dominance cannot be built on physical coercion alone, see below.
9
'Angliederung', ibid.
10
ES p. 1014, WG p. 585/6.
 |
 |
 |