Editing Authority (section)

== Sociology ==
[[File:Cleric-Knight-Workman.jpg|thumb|An inhabited initial from a 13th-century French text representing the tripartite social order of the Middle Ages: the ōrātōrēs (those who pray – clerics), bellātōrēs (those who fight – knights, that is, the nobility), and labōrātōrēs (those who work – peasants and members of the lower middle class).]]

In [[sociology]], '''authority''' is the [[legitimacy (political)|legitimate]] or socially approved power which one person or a group possesses and practices over another. The element of legitimacy is vital to the notion of authority and is the main means by which authority is distinguished from the more general concept of [[Power (social and political)|power]].

Power can be exerted by the use of force or [[violence]]. Authority, by contrast, depends on the acceptance by [[subordinate]]s of the right of those above them to give them orders or [[Wiktionary: directive|directive]]s.<ref>Anthony Giddens, Sociology. London: Polity Press, 1997:581</ref><ref>Max Weber in "Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations for the 21st Century", translated and edited by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters.  pp. 137-138.</ref><ref>C. Naomi Osorio-Kupferblum: "Conceptualising ‘Authority’". In: International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Vol. 23, No. 2, 13 March 2015, pp. 223–236, doi:10.1080/09672559.2015.1020828</ref>

The definition of authority in contemporary social science remains a matter of debate. [[Max Weber]] in his essay "[[Politics as a Vocation]]" (1919) divided legitimate authority into [[Authority (sociology)|three types]]. Others, like [[Howard Bloom]], suggest a parallel between authority and [[Veneration of the dead|respect/reverence for ancestors]].<ref>{{cite book |last1            = Bloom
 |first1           = Howard
 |author-link1     = Howard Bloom
 |title            = The Genius of the Beast: a radical re-vision of capitalism
 |location         = Amherst, New York
 |publisher        = Prometheus Books
 |date = 2010
 |page             = [https://archive.org/details/geniusofbeastrad0000bloo/page/186 186]
 |isbn             = 978-1-59102-754-6
 |quote            = To validate an argument, we refer back to our ancestors – or to someone who, while still alive, has already garnered the sort of authority only ancestors normally have.
 |url-access       = registration
 |url              = https://archive.org/details/geniusofbeastrad0000bloo/page/186
}}
</ref>

===Max Weber on authority===<!-- [[Herrschaft (sociology)]] redirects here -->
{{See also|Monopoly on violence}}
[[Max Weber]], in his sociological and philosophical work, identified and distinguished three types of legitimate domination (''Herrschaft'' in German, which generally means 'domination' or 'rule'), that have sometimes been rendered in English translation as types of authority, because English-speakers do not see [[Dominance (ethology)|domination]] as a political concept.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}} Weber defined domination (authority) as the chance of commands being obeyed by a specifiable group of people.  Legitimate authority is that which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the ruler and the ruled. Legitimated rule results in what Weber called the monopoly over the use of coercive violence in a given territory.<ref>Max Weber in Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society, translated and edited by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, Palgrave Books 2015, pp. 136 {{ISBN?}}</ref>  In the modern world, such authority is typically delegated to the police and the court system.

{{Main|Tripartite classification of authority|The Three Types of Legitimate Rule}}
Weber divided legitimate authority into three types:

*The first type discussed by Weber is ''[[legal-rational authority]]''. It is that form of authority which depends for its [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimacy]] on formal rules and established laws of the state, which are usually written down and are often complex.<ref>TY  - CHAP

AU  - Guzman, Sebastian

PY  - 2007/02/01

SP  - 1

EP  - 2

N2  - Rational legal authority is a concept developed by Max Weber (1864–1920) to explain the stability of domination in modern times, especially in bureaucracies and democracies. A ruler is or has rational-legal authority when she is perceived as legitimate by her subjects on the grounds that she has been given right to issue commands by formal rules or laws. This entry defines the concept in relation to Weber's more general understanding of domination and other types of legitimate domination, explains the usefulness of the concept from a Weberian perspective, and presents some of the main criticisms of the concept.

T1  - Rational Legal Authority

DO  - 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosr026.pub2

ER  -</ref>
A [[constitution]] may define the extent of the power of rational-legal authority. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority. Government officials are the best example of this form of authority, which is prevalent all over the world.
{{Conservatism sidebar}}
*The second type of authority, ''[[traditional authority]]'', derives from long-established customs, habits and social structures. When power passes from one generation to another, it is known as traditional authority. The rule of hereditary [[Monarchy|monarchs]] furnishes an obvious example. The [[Tudor dynasty]] in England and the ruling families of [[Mewar]] in [[Rajasthan]] (India) are examples of traditional authority. In ''[[Economy and Society]]'' (1921) Weber clarifies a distinction among three terms (as he defined them): [[Patriarchy]], [[Patrimonialism]] depending on the sole authority of an [[Absolute Monarch]] (Emperor, Empress, King, Queen) and Patrimonialism where the [[Divine right of kings|divine right]] of the sole ruler is somewhat modified by [[feudal]] aristocratic legitimate authority (e.g. feudal barons in England). The feudal variant of Patrimonial legitimate authority is characteristic of Tudor England. But the earlier variant of Patrimonial legitimate authority is the most widespread form of traditional authority structures ("systems") in world history. Reinhard Bendix discusses these distinctions. [citation below].
* The third form of authority is ''[[charismatic authority]]''. Here, the [[charisma]] of an individual or of a [[leader]] plays an important role. Charismatic authority is authority which is derived from the leader's claims to a higher power or inspiration that is supported by his or her followers. An example in this regard can be [[NT Rama Rao]], a [[matinée idol]] who became one of the most powerful Chief Ministers of [[Andhra Pradesh]]. Charismatic authority is also attributed to religious innovators like [[Siddharta Gautama]] (as the "Buddha") and [[Yeshua of Nazareth]] (as a or the Masiach-[[Messiah]].)

History has witnessed several [[social movement]]s or [[revolution]]s against a system of traditional or legal-rational authority started by charismatic authorities. According to Weber, what distinguishes authority from [[coercion]], [[Force (law)|force]] and [[Coercion|power]] on the one hand, and [[leadership]], [[persuasion]] and [[Social influence|influence]] on the other hand, is legitimacy. Superiors, he states, feel that they have a right to issue commands; subordinates perceive an obligation to obey (see also [[Milgram experiment]]). Social scientists{{who|date=November 2010}} agree that authority is but one of several resources available to incumbents in formal positions.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}} For example, a Head of State is dependent upon a similar nesting of authority. His legitimacy must be acknowledged, not just by citizens, but by those who control other valued resources: his immediate staff, his cabinet, military leaders and in the long run, the administration and political apparatus of the entire society.

Authority can be created expressly when public entities act publicly, using the same means to communicate the grant of authority to their agents that they use to communicate this to third parties, apparent authority describes the situation when a principal has placed restrictions on an agent that are not known to a third party, and restrictions on government agents are accomplished in the open, through laws and regulations. In this setting, all parties concerned are assumed or supposed to know the laws and regulations of the government.

Recently the concept of authority has also been discussed as a guiding principle in human-machine interaction design.<ref>Flemisch, F., Heesen, M., Hesse, T., Kelsch, J., Schieben, A., & Beller, J. (2011). [https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10111-011-0191-6 Towards a Dynamic Balance between Humans and Automation: Authority, Ability, Responsibility and Control in Cooperative Control Situations]. ''Cognition, Technology and Work''. Advance online publication. {{doi|10.1007/s10111-011-0191-6}}</ref>

Genetic research indicates that obedience to authority may be a heritable factor.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ludeke |first1=Steven |last2=Johnson |first2=Wendy |last3=Bouchard |first3=Thomas J. |date=2013-08-01 |title="Obedience to traditional authority:" A heritable factor underlying authoritarianism, conservatism and religiousness |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913001384 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=55 |issue=4 |pages=375–380 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.018 |issn=0191-8869}}</ref>

=== Children and authority attributes ===
Authority and its attributes have been identified as of particular relevance to children as they regard their parents and teachers. The three attributes of authority have been described as ''status'', ''specialist skills'' or ''knowledge'', and ''social position''. Children consider the type of command, the characteristics of the authority figure, and the social context when making authority conclusions.<ref>Laupa, 1991.</ref>

Although children regard these three types of authority attributes, they first assess the legitimacy of the authority figure in question using the nature of the commands they give. For example, a teacher who does not appear to have legitimate power from the child's perspective (perhaps because she or he cannot control the class well) will not be obeyed. Regarding parenting, authoritative parents who are warm and high in behavioral control but low in psychological control are more likely to be seen as having legitimate authority over the child, and will believe themselves that they have a duty to obey them and internalize their values. While the study of children in modern capitalist societies does look at the psychological aspects of children's understanding of legitimate authority at the level of symbolic interaction it is also true that is an extrapolated assumption based on one interpretation of a broad Comparative Historical Sociological (CHS) analysis of legitimate authority in multiple societies over a long duration, not the micro-social psychological study of children per se. There is nothing in Weber's published work in the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe that directly deals with children's perceptions in "formations" with traditional legitimate authority, prior to the emergence of modern capitalism .<ref>Reinhard. Bendix. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1960.</ref>

=== In social science ===
''Hofstede Insights'' details "Power Distance" as: "Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally", which can be interpreted as respect for authority. Generally, ex-communist countries, poor countries, and non-Protestant countries have the highest power distance (respect for inequality in the distribution of power). According to ''Hofstede Insights'' 2021 country comparison, all countries with power distance below 50 are Western Protestant democracies, except for Austria.<ref name="Hofstede Insights 2021">{{cite web | title=Country Comparison | website=Hofstede Insights | date=21 Jun 2021 | url=https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/ | access-date=3 Nov 2021}}</ref> Such studies are attempts to apply ideas found in Weber that he himself did not postulate directly and they assume the nation-state as a basic unit of "countries" rather than look at all of the various political-economic "formations" in which Weber himself was most directly interested.