LIFE AND WORKS OF MAX WEBER
MAX WEBER (1864-1920)
The German sociologist and political economist, Max Weber (1864-1920) was born in a well to do family and received excellent training in law and economics. Max Weber stands as one of the central figures of social sciences in general and sociological theory in particular. Max Weber was born in Erfart, Germany, on April 21,1864 in a middle class Protestant family.
His father was a well known politician who played a minor role in his upbringing. Weber’s mother had major contribution throughout his life. At the age of eighteen, he left home for a short time to attend the University of Heidelberg. He left Heidelberg for military service, and in 1884 he returned to Berlin and to his parent’s home to take courses at the University of Berlin. At the University of Berlin, he obtained a university degree in law and eventually a doctorate in political economy. In 1894, Weber joined Freiburg University as a Professor of Political economy in 1897 , He joined Heidelberg University as the Professor of Economics. Only at the age of 32, he was considered very young to obtain a professorship at a major German University. However, a severe personal crisis the following year forced Weber to suspend his teaching activities and eventually resign his position at Heidelberg. But in 1897 his father died. Shortly thereafter a serious nervous breakdown occurred in his life from which he never fully recovered. After his Honorary professor in Heidelberg recovery he became an Honorary professor in Heidelberg University in 1903, that Weber was able to begin to return to active academic life. Thereafter he began to return to regular intellectual work in 1904.
In 1904 and 1905, he published one of his best known works, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, was based on the relationship between capitalism and religion. By 1909, Weber began writing Economy and Society, his most ambitious theoretical and historical work. From 1916-17, he carried out research on the history of world religions (China, India, and ancient Judaism) His last academic work was series of lectures that he gave at the University of Freiburg in 1919-20 entitled General Economic ,History that was based on the history of capitalist developinent.
In addition to the major writings produced in this period Weber undertook a numbe of other activities. He helped found the German Sociological Society in 1910. His home became a centre for a wide range of intellectuals, including sociologists such as George Simmel, Robert Michels, and gerog Lukacs. Weber was also active in politics and wrote essays on the issue of the day Weber died in June 1920.
Weber’s intellectual works are considered to be the best for their historical explanation of modern Western societies and their economic, political, legal and religious development. Weber’s major contribution in the field of social sciences are methodological orientation, analysis of social class, theory of legitimacy and religion and so on. In addition, he focused on the issues of the rise of modern society, the formation of bureaucracy, the development of the modern political state, and comparative world economics. In fact, Weber was a modernist and individualistic in his approach. He brought together various traditions of social thought and formed a unique theoretical perspective based on history, economics, philosophy, law, and comparative historical analysis. Weber, in reality, was influenced by Marxist school of economics and opposed on several fronts and this led him to formulate a completely different view of the role played by history and economy in social development.
METHODOLOGY
Ideal Type and Verstehen
One of the most important concept given by Weber to sociology is the concept of ideal type. This concept occupies a very important place in his methodology. In methodology it is known as ‘typological analysis’. Ideal types are concerned with categorising process enabling the scientist to contrast “actual types” with their common ideals. Whereas the former types were limited to historical circumstances, “the ideal type was,” explains Larson, “an attempt to deal with the problem of the historical relativity of conceptual types by means of the construction of a limited number of terms which could be used as constant generalizable abstractions.
According to Weber sociology is concerned with social action and social behaviour. Every social action has an ideal. The ‘ideal type’ of social action is in our mind. For example, we say that a particular man is a materialist. The term materialist is an idea and how can we call a man materialist? How can we apply an idea to a concrete man? It is only because we have conception about the meaning of the term materialist and this conception is an idea of the ideal type. It is because of these theoretical or rational concepts that we are able to judge a man as materialist, idealist or pragmatist. This proves that every man has in him certain ideas about perfect social action or behaviour and this ideal type is subjective, that is, it is in the mind of man.
By the ideal type, the sociologist “is able to measure the gap between the ideal-typical objectively possible action and the empirical action, and ascertain the part played by irrationality and chance or by the intrusion of accidental, emotional and other elements.”
The concept of ideal type explains organic approach to sociology. As Weber pointed out, “Organic sociology attempts to understand social interaction by using as a point of departure the ‘whole’ within which the individual acts. His action and behaviour are then interpreted somewhat in the way that a physiologist would treat the role of an organ of the body in the ‘economy of the organism, that is from the point of view of the survival of the latter…This functional frame of reference is convenient for purposes of practical illustration and for provisional orientation. In these respects it is not only useful but indispensable. But at the same time if its cognitive value is overestimated and its concepts illegitimately ‘reified’, it can be highly dangerous …in certain circumstances this is the only available way of determining just what process of social action it is important to understand in order to explain a given phenomenon. But this is only the beginning of sociological analysis as here understood.”
Characteristics of Ideal types
The above discussion of the concept of ideal types ponits out the following three characteristics :
-
Ideal types are subjective . The ideal types are subjective in character .The subjective nature of these types marks them off from the physical laws . The physical events or processes are objective , whereas social laws cannot be objective .The is because this is social laws pertain to human actions and behaviour and human behaviour is characterized by subjective motive , in tention and goal . Man is a creature of free -will and his action are not quite predictable on the basis of cases laws . Weber wanted to make sociology fully objective but full objective is not possible in human affairs because man s action are not determined in the manner of physical events . However , with the help of the concept like ideal types it should be possible to achieve a great deal of objectivety .
- Ideal Types are Emotional .
The ideal types are emotive in content , they pertain to our affections and reside in our imagination .The ideal types are not concrete but abstract in nature .even the physical laws like Lawson gravitation and motion are also abstract very much like ideal types in this aspect ,as concepts like , economic religious man etc
.. are also abstract and no existing man fully answers to these concepts .
3.The Ideal Types are changeable .
According to max Weber the ideal types are purely human constructions and there fore . Subject to the consideration of time and place . These are , affected by the current thinking and social atmosphere . Naturally , therefore the ideal types are changeable .The cannot be eternal or permanent in this respect , they are altogether unlike plato ‘s ideal which are standard forms and extra -human that is they are conserved by human reason and not fabricated by it .On the other hand max Weber s conception of ideal types is that these are changeable and non -eternal .The ideal types are subject to modification in response to change in social realities .According to social action scientifically and this the hem reality in themselves.
Kinds of ideal types
According to leval of abstraction Weber developed the following there kinds of ideal types “ideal types of historical particulars which refer to specific historical realities such as western eity ,protcstnt ethic ,or modern capitalism such (b)ideal types which refer to historical and cultural contexts , reality that are observable in a varicty of historical and cultural contexts ,such bureaucracy or feudalism (c) ideal types that constitute rationalising reconstruction of a particular kind of behaviour “all propositions in economic may be said to fall in this calegory since they are merely ideal typical reconstruction of the ways men would behave if they were pure econemic subjects “’ .
Explaining the nature of weber ‘s concept of ideal type Francis .Abraham and jhon .Henry Morgan have written , the ideal types concept grew out of a creative convenience of two of weber s other key contrary to what German mettaphysiscian would have like it to be a purelty calssfiica tory concept rather than an ideal classification for the former concept is reached by “ abstraction “form a wide range of the phenomena with differing individual characteristics whereas the latter is intended “ illuminate what is peculiar to a given cultural phenomenon ,thus ideal types provide a milienu of precise language and procedure in the analysis of specific behave our . It helps in the formulation of theretical explanation of behaviour .in the end it is fundamentally a model of what an agent would do if he were to act completely rationally according to the criteria of rationllty involved in his behaviour ‘s sense
Martindale’s’ view
An ideal type is simply a mental construct of the theoretically conceivable and the empirically probable. Martindale assumes that a scientific theory is a logically inter-related body of empirical laws. It is the ideal type of theory? It is said that the ideal type has the character of a theoretical mode. But, according to Martindale’s requisites for a theory, namely one of a theoretical function on which can be drawn out to produce hypothesis, the ideal types are not theories because they are not logically inter-related bodies of empirical laws.
Mckinney, Walkins and Parsons conceive ideal types as theories. Martindale agrees with Weber, Maclver and Merton that ideal types are not theories but simply mental constructs. Scientific method consists in the systematic processes that institute an empirical proof. There are three general kinds of systematic procedures for instituting a proof
- experimental method,
- statistical method, and
- comparative method.
The “logic of method” is the same in all the three methods. These sub distinctions arise in terms of the degree of precision of the theory and the amount and kind of control possible over the data to which a theory is addressed. The oldest procedure of science is comparison.
Comparison is an act intended to establish an item of empirical knowledge about which one is uncertain. Some ideas guide the comparisons and there is some idea, however crude in the background,
Martindale’s fundamental position taken in his essay is that ideal types are neither experimental mathematical models, nor theories, but devices intended to institute comparisons as precise as the stage of one’s theory of precision of his instruments will allow. Comparative procedure occurs most frequently in new sciences. The evolution of the ideal type in sociology was determined by the attempts to transform comparative method into a more precise procedure. The place occupied by ideal types in current sociological analysis is the testimony to the amount of sociological data still remaining on comparative level.
Thinkers who have made basic use of the concept of ‘social action’ for the analysis of social life have been not only most sympathetic to the use of ideal types but have consciously attempted to improve them.
Ideal types are not stereo-typed averages, or abstract concepts. To quote Martindale, “An ideal type is formed by the one sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffused, discrete individual phenomena which are arranged according to these one sided emphasised view points into a unified analytical construct. In its conceptual purity, this mental construct cannot be found anywhere in reality.
Verstehen
Verstehen is the key concept or approach of Weber’s methodology .verstehen is a German word which means understanding ‘ .The verstehen thesis is based on the idea that meaning precedes action in fact ,we cannot act unless we knew the meaning of other acts .This meaning , Weber thought , constitutes a positive basis .To make distinction between the nature and social science. Weber used the term in the context of a theory of social action Weber believed that sociologists had an advantage over Natural scientist. In the natural sciences, we can only observe uniformities and deduce genralisations about the natural world and the other states of things .
By contrast the social sciences are subjectifying, in that they concern themselves with the “ inner states of actors who act on their understanding, (verstehen) of the acts of other and on their interpretation of social environment Therefore ,the advantage resided in the sociologist s ability to understand social phenomena .In this context , Dilthey ‘s philosophical perspective is very much related to Weber s method , Coser stated , Dilthey opposed positivism by constructing the outline of an approach to the data of human culture and human history , which though meant to be scientific , was wholly at variance with the approach of the natural science knowledge of the world of man , Dilthey claimed ,could only be attained through an internal process , through experience (erlebau) and understanding (verstehen) rather than through merely external knowledge …
The natural science (Naturevissenschaften) can do no more than explain (eklaeren) observed events by relating them to natural laws .In the humanistic disciplines the Geistewissenschften knowledge is not external but internal . Men are intelligible to us in their uniqueness and individuality.
Through this passage,we can say that Weber s methodological concept verstenhen is based on the real experience of the individual in a social situation .Hence , Weberian approach is very much related to the fact that natural scientists understand the natural phenomena form outside the situation while sociall scientists understand the social phenomena through participation in the situation.
THEORY OF SOCIAL ACTION
Weber’s theory of social action is related to his methodological approach. Weber first developed the theory of social action in Economy and Society, which he wrote between 1911 and 1920. The theory of social action proposed by Weber eventually embraced the question of ‘meaningful’ social action and attempted to incorporate the relevance of values in a theory of human action. In fact, Weber’s theory of action is the product of the Methodenstreit.
In the background of this theory, Weber made two fundamental points: first, that sociology must concern itself with the interpretation of social action; and second, that it must devise a social theory of values. Weber’s theory of social action may be defined as that body of social theory devised by him in order to make valid judgements about the “inner states” of actors in their Actions. By “inner states” Weber was referring to the capacity of the actor to choose between the means and ends of action and to exercise ‘rational choice Weber’s theory of social action involves four central concepts:
Meaning of Social Action
The concept of social action is the centre of all social ideas of Max Weber. According to him all social concepts hinge upon the central conception of social action. Defining social action Max Weber observes that the social action is that action of an individual which is some how influenced, by the action and behaviour of other persons and by which it is modified or its direction determined. Thus, it is clear that by the term social action we mean the actions of individuals which are some how influenced, guided or determined by the action of other individuals. Pointing out the importance of the sociologist’s ability to grasp the subjective quality of human, Weber wrote, “A correct causal interpretation of concrete course of action, is arrived at when the overt action and the motives have both been correctly apprehended and at the same time their relation has become meaningfully comprehensible.”
Characteristics of social action
Max Weber has made a very subtle analysis of the concept of social action. The significant characteristics of social action are the following:
-
Influenced by an action of Past, Present or Future.
It should be by now quite obvious to the reader that a social action is a result or a modification of some action of other person or persons. But it needs to be made clear here that the modifying action need not necessarily be contemporaneous with the modified action, that is, it may not be occurring at the same time or just before in order to influence the action of an individual.
Indeed such an action may be a past occurrence or even an expected action in the future. This fact can be explained by certain illustrations. For example, if A lends B rupees one hundred B may return these at some future date. Thus here the social action of B is due to a past action of A in another example, we can visualize a man giving alms to the poor man and the poor man wishing him well. This will be a case of a present action. As regards the future action we may think of a man decorating his premises in order to impress his friends and relatives whom he expects to visit him in near future. Thus, we may conclude this point by pointing out that a social action is necessarily a result or a modification of some action of some other individual; but the causal or modifying action may be an occurrence of past, present or future.
-
Presupposes the existence of other individual and some action by him.
As we have remarked earlier, a social action is a result of some action by some individual whose action, in turn, results in an action by some other individual. This means that there can be no social action in isolation, that is, an individual living in complete wilderness removed from all inter-personal contacts cannot do a social action. The contemplation and meditation of a recluse are not to be included in the category of social action. Therefore, social action is possible if and only if there is another human being whose action or behaviour is prompting to the giving individual to act in a particular manner.
-
Necessity of Subjective Meaning.
In a social act it is necessary that it should have subjective meaning to the doer of a particular social action. If two persons collide accidentally and without any motive whatsoever the collision will not be a social action. On the other hand if a notorious smuggler causes a collision of a truck with a police jeep resulting in injuries or death, then such a collision would be a case of social action. Even if the accident- al collision is followed by some quarrel or tendering of apologies to each other, then, too the action will be social action. A blind imitation without any understanding of the nature of act being imitated is no social action. Only if there is some understanding of what is being done, social action is the result. Thus the actions of even advanced and sophisticated computers will not be included in the category of social actions. Explaining what Weber means by social action Raymond Aaron Wrote,:
“What is social action? action, Weber tells us, is a form of human conduct-the German world is Verstehen -consisting of an internal or external attitude which is expressed by acting or refraining from action. It is action when man assigns a certain meaning to his conduct, and the action is social when, by the meaning he gives it, it relates to the behaviour of other persons and is oriented towards their behaviour.” Again, “Social action takes the form of social interaction, when, given several actors, the meaning of the action of each is related to the attitude of others. The actions are reciprocally oriented towards one another.”
Sociology and Social Action
Explaining Weber’s concept of sociology Raymond Aaron has written, “What is sociology? According to Max Weber, sociology is the science of social action. It seeks to comprehend social action by interpreting it; at the same time it seeks to explain the course of this action in social terms. There are three key terms, then:
deuten – to interpret, to grasp the significance subjective meaning;
verstehen -to comprehend, to organize the subjective meaning of human actions into concepts; and
exklaren-to explain causally, or reveal the constants of human behaviour.”.
The primary task of sociology, according to Max Weber, is the study of social action. Sociology studies the different aspects of social action. It studies human behaviour. However, it is not a mere description of behaviour but is the study of the meaning, purpose and value of the human behaviour. By the analysis of social action, it tries to discover the causes underlying social action. Besides, sociology also tries to comprehend the consequences of social action. Thus, we may conclude that there is an intimate connection between sociology and social action.
Classification of Social Action
Weber classifies-social action according to the mode of orientation. Typically, any scientist should start with observable data and then proceed on to higher and higher levels of abstractions. So too, sociology, according to Weber, in tune with the other sciences, studies basically social action. This is certainly an observable phenomenon and forms rightly the crux of Weber’s analysis. It is an interpretative understanding of the subjective meaning of social action. For social action there must be a minimum of mutual orientation. Typically, any scientist should start with observable data and then proceed on to higher and higher levels of abstractions. So too, sociology, according to Weber, in tune with the other sciences, studies basically social action. This is certainly an observable phenomenon and forms rightly the crux of Weber’s analysis. It is an interpretative understanding of the subjective meaning of social action.
For social action there must be a minimum of mutual orientation. That is to say, taking the simplest kind of interaction the alter ego situation, the alters’ behaviour must be influenced by and oriented to the ego and vice-versa. Similar action does not become social action because mutual orientation is absent, for instance; the fact that all people who are out, open up their umbrellas when it rains, does not imply social action because each one is reacting individually to an external stimulus-incidentally common to all. On the mode of orientation, Weber classified social action into four types as follows
-
Zweck rational action.
-
Wert rational action,
-
Effectual Action.
-
Tradition action.
-
Zweckrational Action.
This is purely rational action. It means 1. that the actor who is fully conscious of his ends, selects the appropriate means towards the attainment of his goal. Economic behaviour is purely Final in the sense that the producer chooses the most cheap efficient canny in the production of goods. Every entrepreneur aims at optimum level of production using the best means efficient to achieving this end. Hence he chooses between the innumerable alternatives open to him to achieve this goal and exercises rationality principle. His decision is purely rational in economic terms. This is referred to as “Zweck rational action by Weber.
-
Wert rational Action.
The second kind is Wert rational action in which the actor is governed by values. Here logicality refers more to the means than to the end, because the cads may or may not by truce. Religious behaviour, in which people engage in a number of activities for the achievements of certain things, is typically an example of this kind of social action. Whether a devotee does achieve his cads through religious other related activity denotes that he is influenced by religion as a value.
-
Effectual Action.
The 3rd kind of action is ‘affectual in which sentiment, emotions and certain other states of mind play an important part. The affectual relationship of members within a family is an example. The mother does not love her children, because she finds it gainful to do so, but purely because she can’t help loving her children. Here the role of sentiments and affection is the base of actions, the kinship bonds of the members of the group, cannot be ignored under any conditions of study.
-
Traditional action :
It is the fourth kind of social action. This action is performed merely because it has always been done. All customs, folkways and mores belong to this category. A particular way of dressing, for instance, is followed because that is what people before have been following, observance of several rites and performance of ceremonies are matters more of custom than rationality.
Weber broadly classified the above four kinds into rational and irrational typologies. This classification, however, is not mutually exclusive because a particular action may fall into both the above categories. Marginal censes are not uncommon in sociological knowledge. However, the typologies of social action propounded by Weber have been the banes of not “wcial action” as such but that of the ‘ideal type’ analysis. Ideal types, referred to as standards for comparative methods are based on the Zweckrational classification of social action and these formulations in modern sociological theory are indeed immense.
AUTHORITY
According to Weber authority is related to power. indeed legitimate power is authority and authority is nothing but legitimate power. Therefore, the various forms of legitimate power will be the various forms of authority. According to Weber, authority determines the social action and the social organization. Weber recognizes three kinds of authority. These are:
-
a) Traditional Authority
Traditional authority rests on the belief in he sacredness of the social order and its prerogatives based on tradition The purest type of this authority is represented by patriarchal authority. Within it. the various strata of individuals are bound by communal relationships The man in command is ruling over obedicnt-rcgarded as the lord who exercises this control and power over obedient ‘subjects’ These people obey the lord personally sincc his dignity is hallowed by tradition. His commands are also bound by tradition. But, then the lord’s inconsiderate violation of tradition endangers the legitimacy of his personal rule, which rests merely upon the sacredness of tradition The lord’s administrative staff consists of personally dependent mcn, who are mostly members of the household, domestic workers personal fricnds or associates and lackeys bound by personal allegiance.
Weber mentions that tradition, privilege, feudal or patrimonial bonds of allegiance, status, honour and ‘goodwill’ regulate the web of inter-relations within the structure of traditional authority. And, patriarchal ruler of the family father and chief etc., represents but the purest type of traditionalist rule. The co-existence of the strictly tradition-bound and the free sphere of conduct is a common feature of all traditionalistic forms of authority.
Weber writes that in comparison to traditional patriarchalism, all estate rules, based upon more or less stable appropriation of administrative power, stands closer to legal authority as the guarantees surrounding the prerogatives of the privileged assume the form of special “rights”, which is a result of the “division of power” among the estates. This rationale is absent in patriarchal structures.
(b) Charismatic Authority:
Charismatic authority rests on the effectual and personal devotion of the follower to the lord and his gifts of grace, known as charisma It comprises especially magical abilities, revelations of heroism, power of the mind, and of speech. The eternally new, the non-routing, the unheard of and the motional rapture from it are sources of personal devotion. The purest types are the rule of the prophet, the warrior hero, and the great demagogue. The person in command is typically the “leader” who is obeyed by the “disciple”. Obedience is given exclusively to the leader as a person. for the sake of his extraordinary qualities, and not because of enacted position or traditional dignity. Therefore, “obedience is forthcoming only so long as people ascribe these qualities to him that is, so long as his charisma is proven by evidence.” The administrative staff of charismatic authority is selected according to charisma and personal devotion, selection docs not consider special qualification as in the case of the civil servant nor domestic or other forms of personnel dependency.
Throughout the ages, charismatic authority exercised by certain saints, prophets, warriors, hero, philosophers, orators, scientists, politicians and rulers have held sway over men. The demagogues have also exercised sufficient influence on the masses by virtue of their charismatic powers. It is scan that charismatic authority rests on the faith’ in the charismatic person and the belief in his extraordinary powers and qualities. Yet, as Weber points out “charismatic authority does not derive from this recognition by the subjects rather the reverse is true, which means that the charismatically legitimized leader considers faith in the acknowledgement of his charisma obligatory and punishes their violation. Thus, “Charismatic authority is even one of the great revolutionary forces in history, but in pure form it is thoroughly Authoritarian and lordly in nature.”
Weber uses the term ‘charisma’ in a completely value-neutral sense. He explains that the charismatic person has to prove that he has been sent “by the grace of god by performing miracles and being successful in scoring the good living for his followers or subjects, as was done by Moses of the biblical fame, the great law-giver of the Jews.
Charismatic rule represents a specifically extra-ordinary and purely personal relationship. Weber writes that, however, in the case of continued existence, when the personal representative of charisma is eliminated, the charisma structure has the tendency to reutilize. This is known as the “reutilization of charisma”. The process through which it happens are as follows:
(1) Traditionalization of the orders. The authority of precedents takes the place of the charismatic leader’s or his staff’s charismatic creativity in law and administration. These precedents cither protect the successor or are attributed to them.
(2)The charismatic staff of disciples or followers changes into a legal or estate-like staff by taking over internal prerogatives or those appropriated by privilege
(3) The meaning of charisma itself may undergo a change. Decisive in this is the way in which the problem of successor ship is solved which is a burning question for ideological and necked omen material interests Often an active search is made for a successor, if strong incrusts are vested in the community of the charismatic structure of authority The process of the search for the so slow Dalai Lamas in Tibet is an example of it.
(c) Rational Legal Authority
Rational legal authority rests on eye enactment sanctions its pure type is best represented by bureaucracy. The basic idea is that laws can be enacted and changed at pleasure by formal procedure. Te governing body which enacts such laws or rules is either cllected or appointed and constitute what are known as rational organizations Obedience in such organizations is not owed to anybody personally but to enacted rule and regulations These enactments specify to whom and to what rule people owe obedience. The person in authority, too obey a role when aiding an order. These rules ads regulations represent abstract norms The person in command is held to be superior legally His right to govern is legitimized by enactment enforced by the State.
Weber points out that “The typical official is a trained specialist whose terms of employments are contractual. He is given a fixed salary scaled by “rank of office” not by amount of work done by him. He has the right to a pension according to fixed rules of advancement. His admnistration represents vocational work by virtue of “impersonal duties of office” Ideally the administrator is supposed to cxercise his authority “without regard to person” by following rational rules with strict formality. He is expected to enforce organizational discipline in the burcaucratic system through Iegal rules Weber stresses that this type of legal’ rule “comprises not only the modern structure of static and city government but likewise the power relation in private capitalist enterprise, in public corporations and voluntary associations of all sorts, provided that an extensive and hirarchicaly organi/ed stall of functionaries exists,” Further. bureaucracy represents the purest type of Icgal authority However, no stnicture of authority is exclusively bureauratic, that is, it is only managed by contractually hired and appointed officials But. if should be noted that bureaucracy does not represent the only type of Iegal auihority Rather, parliamentary administration and all kinds of admimistrative bodies are included within bureaucracy when their functioning rests on enacted rules and organizational discipline.
It should be noted here that the crucial differcnce between charismatic authority and both of the other two types of authority is that the former is het unstable. This is because, the source and carrier of charismatic yare same, and therefore, it continues so long as it succeeds once. Cure of such authority Incans the loss of its legitimacy. A way out of this nation, says Weber, is the “reutilization of charisma” by which he means the transformation of charismatic authority, as far as possible, into the other two types of authority by the process of reutilization to maintain its continuity.