Post on 31-Mar-2015
Hierarchies
Critique of Individual theories In the last section, theorists focused on
how people come to share common understandings of a situation In other words, how people come to know the
rules of the game People’s behavior will reflect this
understanding Once they know the rules, they will follow them
But this approach ignores the possibility of self-interest Even people who know the rules might be
tempted to cheat
Critique of Individual theories, cont’d
Common language and concepts may be necessary to produce cooperation, but they are insufficient Cohen and Vandello’s South Intrafamily conflict
Critique, cont’d
How then do we get people to follow the rules? How do we get people to cooperate even when doing so is counter to their self-interest?
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Hobbes’ question
How is social order possible?
Hobbes’ assumptions
People have the capacity to reason They weigh the costs and benefits They consider the consequences of
their actions
Hobbes’ assumptions, cont’d
People are self-interested They seek to attain what they desire
Security (avoid death and injury) Reputation (status) Gain (possessions)
Assumptions, cont’d Their ability to attain what they desire
depends on their power Because men want a happy life, they
seek sufficient power to ensure that life All men have a “restless desire for power”
Assumptions, cont’d
But men are equal in body and mind
Everyone is pulled into a constant competitive conflict for a struggle for power Or at least to resist his powers being
commanded by others
Assumptions, cont’d
Without a power that is able to enforce rules, people don’t enjoy their interactions with each other
Implications The natural state of man is a war of all
against all (‘the state of nature’) People who want the same things will be enemies They will use all means (including ‘force and fraud’)
to attain their ends
Characteristics of the ‘state of nature’
People are insecure, and live in a constant fear of injury and death
There is no place for industry, because the fruit of it is uncertain
Hence, no agriculture, navigation, building, culture, science
Life is short and unpleasant
Characteristics of the ‘state of nature’
Nothing can be unjust The notions of right and wrong,
justice and injustice have no place
Hobbes’ defense of his assumptions
The fact that people lock their doors at night (even in the 16th century!) provides support for Hobbes’ view that people are naturally inclined to use ‘force and fraud’
Hobbes
People don’t like the state of nature
They therefore have a desire for social order
Summary of the problem of social order
Man is a rational egoist who fears death
His egoism competition and war with all others He is engaged in a zero-sum game
His fear of death and desire for ‘commodious living’ demand for social order
Hobbes’ solution Under these conditions, how can social
order be attained? In the state of nature, people have
liberty Since man is rational, he will never use
his power to harm himself Man will try to attain peace only if he is
convinced that everyone else will do the same
How to make sure that everyone would seek peace?
No use for everyone to merely agree to give up their individual sovereignty
because men would still be rational egoists and would renege whenever it was to their advantage
They would have to transfer them to some person or body who could make the agreement stick
By having the authority to use the combined force of all the contractors to hold everyone to it
Agreements alone don’t have any force without some coercive power to back them up
The solution: surrender of sovereignty
The only way to provide social order is for everyone to acknowledge a perpetual sovereign power (the state, or Leviathan) against which each of them would be powerless
This represents a coercive solution to the problem of social order. Due to rational egoism, the only means of providing order is by establishing a state that would punish would-be miscreants.
Hobbes: Summary of causal relations and mechanisms Macro-level cause: war of all against all Situational mechanism: people want security Individual internal state: desire order Behavioral mechanism: rational egoists decide to give up
sovereignty to the state Individual action: People give up sovereignty to the state Transformational mechanism: Aggregation Macro-level outcome/cause: state Situational mechanism: Individuals evaluate new costs of
deviance Individual internal state: Recognize that deviance is costly Behavioral mechanism: Individuals want to avoid costs Individual action: Obedience Transformational mechanism: Aggregation Macro-level outcome: Social order
Hobbes: Draw the theory
War of all against all
Formation of the state
Social order
Unhappy life
Individuals give up rights
Costs of disobedience
Individual compliance
Hobbes
How do we know if the theory has merit? Look at the empirical world
For example, do societies without government have more violence than societies with governments? (Cooney 1997)
Friedrich Engels
Engels on the state
Like Hobbes, Engels views the state as necessary for social order
However, the origin of the state is different Hobbes: a world of equal individuals Engels: a world of unequal classes
Classes
Defined by their relation to the means of production Owners Non-owners
Are important because production determines consciousness (Marx)
Classes
The interests of the dominant and subordinate classes conflict
Their behavior reflects their conflicting interests
So, societies are prone to conflict
Classes
The class with the most economic power becomes the political power
Engels: How the state encourages compliance It represents the interests of the ruling
class as against the class made up of non-owners
Mechanism: coercion, supplemented by ideology/religion Coercion
Fines Prison
Ideology/religion Makes dominance by the ruling class seem
natural
Engels: How the state encourages compliance, cont’d
Example: 1984 Coercion via
Monitoring (telescreens) Sanctioning
Ideology/persuasion Control over information
Ministry of truth
Engels: Draw the theory
Class Conflict
Dominance by Powerful = State
Costs of deviance, view of what’s appropriate
Compliance
Social Order
Engels
How do we know if the theory has merit? Look at the empirical world
E.g. Do governments protect the interests of the wealthy?
Do religion, education, and so forth benefit the wealthy?
Education (Bowles and Gintis)
Education perpetuates inequality Those with wealthy, educated parents have
more years of school and are more likely to attend college
Parental socio-economic status is a better predictor of college attendance than the student’s IQ
Children of highly educated parents do better on standardized test scores
Less money is spent on schools that poor children attend
Education, cont’d
Education perpetuates existing status structures The structure of schools corresponds
to the structure of the economic world Role relationships replicate the
hierarchical division of labor Students don’t control curriculum content Rewards are external (grades) rather than
internal/intrinsic
Education, cont’d There is a hierarchical division of types of schools
like there is for types of jobs At work: lower levels emphasize rule-following;
middle levels emphasize dependability and ability to act without supervision; higher levels stress internalization of norms
At school: lower levels (junior and senior high) limit and channel activities of students. Community colleges have more independent activity. Elite four year colleges even more so.
As students master each level, they either progress to the next or are channeled into the corresponding level in the hierarchy of production.
Critique of coercive theories of social order
Hobbes cannot explain social order Why should rational egoists in the
state of nature ever be willing to lay down their arms and surrender their liberty to a coercive ruler?
Critique of coercive solutions
Hobbes’ solution to the problem of order stretches the conception of rationality beyond its scope in the rest of the theory, to a point where the actors come to be concerned about the social interest rather than their individual interests (Parsons 1937)
In the absence of normative limits on the use of force and fraud there will be an unlimited struggle for power
But there are no normative elements in Hobbes (nor are these central in Marx-Engels)
Critique of coercive solutions
Very high levels of coercion would be required to produce social order. But, Coercion is expensive
Need a cop on every corner A telescreen in every room (1984)
Coercion is ethically unappealing Proudhon’s list of the ‘domestic
inconveniences of the state’
Max Weber’s contributions
1. The concept of legitimacy 2. Three types of social order
Legitimacy
In every social order, commands will be obeyed by a given group of individuals
To ensure this, there must be some voluntary compliance
people must have an interest in obeying the rules/laws
Thus, every type of social order cultivates the belief in its legitimacy
Legitimacy implicitly recognized in Marxism To forestall class conflict, the ruling class attains
intellectual hegemony by supporting (State) churches – religion = ‘the opiate of the people’ Schools The mass media
In capitalism, political, military, religious, media institutions are dependent on the ruling class
Serve the interests of the ruling class Justify exploitation of the working class
The Orwellian conclusion In 1984, the ruling class molds thinking, through its
control over media, language, etc.
Legitimate orders
Requires administrative staff to rule large numbers of people Staff = a specialized group normally
trusted to execute policy Every system of order
Has a way to bind the staff to the ruler Has a way to bind the ruled to the ruler
Three ‘ideal types’ of social order
Abstract models of social conditions Patrimonial (‘Traditional order’)
Rests on the belief in the sanctity of traditions, and the legitimacy of the rulers selected thereby
Bureaucratic (‘Legal order’) Rests on the belief in the legality of enacted
rules, and the right of those elevated in authority under such rules to issue commands
Charismatic Rests on devotion to the exceptional sanctity,
heroism, or exemplary character of an individual person
How are these types arrived at?
By assuming what instrumental, self-interested actors would do, if they found themselves in the given social conditions
Weber imagines how rational egoists would behave in these conditions
Charismatic order There are no fixed rules
Leaders make their own rules (said to come from a higher power)
Gandhi Order does not depend on a continuous
source of income Wealth not pursued in a methodical manner
Regards as undignified all rational economic conduct
Master and disciples must be free of ordinary worldly attachments
Charismatic order, cont’d
Followers are not materially compensated They often share in the goods the leader
receives as donations Ability of leader to provide goods sets a
limit on charismatic authority Leader’s mission must prove itself by fulfilling
the values of faithful followers (and providing some subsistence to them)
Patrimonial order Rests on the sanctity of age-old rules and
powers Masters chosen according to these rules,
obeyed because of their traditional status Motivational basis
Personal loyalty When exercising power, the master must
consider how far he can go without inciting resistance
When resistance occurs, directed against the master personally, not against the system as such
Recruitment to staff People are recruited to a
patrimonial staff either via Traditional ties of loyalty
Kinsmen, slaves, dependents, clients, etc. Example: Saddam Hussein recruits from Tikrit
Voluntarily People who willingly enter into a relation
of loyalty to the leader (Tom Hagen, the consigliere to the Corleone
family)
Factors absent from patrimonial orders
Clearly defined spheres of competence subject to impersonal rules
Rationally established hierarchies An orderly promotion system Technical training as a requirement Fixed monetary salaries
How are patrimonial staff compensated?
By living from the lord’s table By allowances in kind By rights of land use in exchange
for services By the appropriation of property
income, fees, or taxes By fiefs
A contemporary example
Francis Ford Coppola, The Godfather, Part I
The bureaucratic order Based on the rule of law
Abstract rules established intentionally Law applies these general rules to specific cases, so as to
rationally pursue the organization’s interests Office holders themselves subject to an impersonal order
Members owe obedience to superiors not as individuals, but only to the impersonal order
Incumbents obliged to obey only within the scope of their job description
Members owe obedience to superiors not as individuals, but only to the impersonal order.
Fundamental characteristics of bureaucracy
Official business conducted according to formal rules Hierarchy
Each lower office is under the control and supervision of a higher one
Each office has a distinct sphere of competence
Candidates for office selected according to technical qualifications
tested by exams, guaranteed by diplomas Incumbents cannot buy their offices
Instead, staff are paid by fixed money salaries, usually with pensions
Bureaucracy, cont’d The office regarded as the primary
occupation of the incumbent It constitutes a career, with a system of
promotion based on seniority, merit or both Officials accountable to superiors for
their conduct in office Administrative acts, decisions and
rules formulated and recorded in writing
Meetings with minutes
Bureaucracy, cont’d
Rights of individuals are protected This prevents the arbitrary use of
power by superiors in the service of extra-organizational goals
Procedural justice The right to appeal decisions and statements
of grievances
Types of bureaucratic organizations
Governments Armies Profit-making firms
Including professional sports teams Universities Charitable organizations
The rationale of bureaucracy It is the most efficient form of
administration It is the most stable and disciplined Its activities are the most predictable It can be used to accomplish a variety of
tasks.
Bureaucracy = the modern system of authority
Modern organizations are types of bureaucracies
Bureaucracy -- by far the most efficient means of administration
The advantages of bureaucracy
Takes advantage of the division of labor Based on technical knowledge
greater precision, speed and objectivity in administrative organization
Ensures that the best people are selected for each position
Recruitment according to expertise
Provides a basis for individual accountability Superiors grade performance of their subordinates Promotion in the career contingent on good
performance
Advantages, cont’d
Contributes to social levelling Meritocratic rather than particularistic
recruitment Affinities with democracy
High stability Sometimes, too stable: bureaucratic
inertia Democratic decision-making can be
inefficient
Some disadvantages of bureaucracy
Concentrates power in the hands of a small number of people Those at the top of the various hierarchies
Slow to adapt to environmental changes Akin to turning around a large oil tanker
Discourages individualism, creativity, and risk-taking An ‘iron cage’
A key question Bureaucracy is a modern
invention; dates from the late 18th century, at the earliest Yet if it is such an efficient system of
administration, then why isn’t it found everywhere in space and time?
Answer: bureaucracy has certain preconditions that were not able to be met until modern times
Why patrimonialism? What does an instrumentally
rational leader do in the absence of modern technology of communication and exchange?
The 3 essential tasks of administration Recruiting an effective staff Motivating the staff Monitoring its compliance
Comparing the two orders
Patrimonialism
Bureaucracy
Recruiting Dependents Experts
Motivating (Sanctioning)
No Job SecurityExtreme vulnerability
Job SecurityAdvancement based on performance
Monitoring DifficultHence reliance on sanctions alone
Administrative Hierarchy
Question
If bureaucracy is the most efficient system of administration, why isn’t it found in the Mafia?
Weber: Draw the theory
Characteristics of the authority
Individuals view ruler as legitimate
Individuals obey ruler demands
Social order
Weber
How do we know if the theory has merit? Look at the empirical world
Paul Willis
Willis, Learning to Labour Consequence of the counter-school
culture: poor achievement placement in working-class jobs
The emergence of a ‘counter-school culture’
‘lads’ vs. ‘ear’ oles’ Conflict over dress and personal
attractiveness – about the legitimacy of the school as an institution
‘having a laff’
Lessons from Willis
Legitimacy needed for cooperation, but not predictability
The order in the working-class school is not legitimate, yet students behave in a predictable way
They commit ‘everyday acts of resistance’
Consequence: reproduction of the existing class structure