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