Weber

In The Three Types of Legitimate Domination, Weber discusses how the “legitimacy of a political system” leads to the stability of the state and authority. Legal domination is based on the rules according the common principles. There are people that enforce these rules, yet they have their own rules as to where the limits of their power lie. Traditional Domination has always been around and is therefore legitimate. This kind of domination is usually inherited. Charismatic Domination is based on the “charisma” of the leader. This kind of leader will convince his people that he is in power because of magical or higher up powers. He is respected by his followers because of his abilities to lead. The type of domination used to rule changes over time. In The Basic Concepts of Sociology, Weber merely explains different sociological terms. First, he goes through some plain definitions and then goes on to talk about their different understandings and different ways of interpreting them (either rational or empathetic). Actions, according to Weber, are only considered to be “social actions” if they affect others, even still these actions can be meaningful or not. Weber goes on to talk about different kinds of social relationships (open and closed, market, communal…), each with their own examples, conditions, and responsibilities. In, The Distribution of Power within the Political Community, Weber explains how the law effects both the distribution of power, but the economy as well. Class, status groups, and parties are the three groups that form because of this distribution and each group has their own break down and purpose in society that keep things functioning.
Now that we have read some works of all three “fathers of sociology” it is interesting to look at their different viewpoints and what each one emphasized. Karl Marx took the stance that the economy is the most important attribute of a society and that inequality is everywhere. Durkheim’s focus was how un-influential a single individual is but that an entire group or society could make a big difference. Durkheim didn’t see the inequalities that Marx did. And now with Weber, his big focus seems to be on where the power is and on interactions between people and societies. These interactions can be interpreted differently and must affect others to be considered “social actions.”
I was surprised by Weber’s explanation of the different kinds of domination. Charismatic Domination was the one that really threw me. So this charismatic leader is claiming to have supernatural or exceptional powers and this is why people follow him? These powers are not accessible to ordinary people, yet they chose to follow this person? Maybe I am taking this section too literally, but I really can’t think of an example to clarify this for me…