Characteristics of feudal bureaucracy in China

Bureaucracy was put forward by German sociologist Max Weber.

1. Rationality or legitimacy is the core concept of Weber's political sociology. It can be said that his political theory actually revolves around these two concepts, which is a further extension and development of them. Rationality is an important theoretical premise of Weber's hierarchy theory.

Weber believes that any rule that meets the needs has its rational basis. Since bureaucracy can run stably and present a hierarchical power matrix relationship, it must be based on some rationality. He believes that bureaucracy is the embodiment of the application and obedience of specific power. The possibility that commands with special contents or all commands are obeyed by specific people can be called "rules". The rules here do not include the control of pure violence, so the rules seem to be more limited to voluntary obedience. The basis of voluntary obedience is the "belief system" that forms the atmosphere of personal values. As an individual, he must have a profound recognition of the belief system in order to achieve consistency and continuity of actions without causing inner tension, and finally obtain voluntary obedience. Weber regards the system of individual voluntary obedience as a system of rationality or legitimacy, so his understanding of a system excludes value judgment. In other words, rationality does not lie in the distinction between good and bad facts, but in whether people recognize it in their beliefs, or that individuals maintain their own beliefs and think that an order is a legal order. This is the "legitimacy" of this order or the rationality of its existence. With the support of the belief of legitimacy, any orders from authority will be obeyed by individuals, no matter whether they come from the rulers themselves or from abstract legal provisions, rules and other forms of orders generated through contracts and agreements.

The sources of this legitimacy or belief in legitimacy can be divided into two categories. One is subjective legitimacy, including emotional legitimacy (mostly emotional closeness and affinity), value rationality legitimacy (thinking that an order embodies individual aesthetic, ethical or other values) and religious legitimacy (from the recognition that redemption needs order); The second category is the so-called objective legitimacy, including the legitimacy of customs (acquiescence to the facts that have become a process or repeated, and the conformity psychology that can be manifested in the psychological sense mainly from external pressure) and the legitimacy of law (obedience to the legal system, whether internal or external). Under the guidance, call or promotion of these five legitimate beliefs, the development direction from heart to action can be determined as four different types of action: (1) emotional action (emotional legitimacy); (2) Value rational action (including the legitimacy of value rationality and religious rationality); (3) traditional action (legality of habit); (4) Rationality of purposeful action (legitimacy of law).

The analysis of the types of actors' actions has become the basis of Weber's social order, and his views on social system, including his understanding of bureaucracy, are largely derived from this. Through the following analysis, we will see that Weber further distinguishes bureaucracy according to different types of actions. Although he often shows positivism in the evaluation of political issues, he still makes value judgments on different bureaucratic systems, which seems to violate the original intention of his value-neutral analytical attitude. In Weber's view, bureaucracy may only refer to bureaucracy in modern society. For other societies, typical bureaucracy does not exist, or at least it is incomplete.

Second, take the command obedience type as the analysis mechanism of bureaucracy. In Weber's view, command-obedience type often means dominance type, which is closely related to action type. In his view, different types of actions constitute the basis of different types of governance and form three independent forms of governance. They are legal governance based on traditional background, legal governance based on personal charm and legal legitimacy, which Weber summarized as traditional governance, "karis Horse" governance and legal governance respectively. These three forms of rule can also be called three orders-obedience.

In the first type of command-obedience, the individual obeys the leader out of long-term loyalty. People think that leaders have power because leaders themselves and their ancestors have always been rulers, while rulers have the power to obey others because their dominant position has been recognized by tradition. In this type, paternalism and hereditary system are its outstanding representatives. Relying on charismatic command-obedience is the most unstable and changeable of the three forms. His followers have awe and complete loyalty to the ruler, and think that the leader has extraordinary temperament, extraordinary temperament or magical talent, and that he can point out the direction of action for his followers because of his talent of enlightenment and metaphor, and even create miracles. In the command-and-obey type of jurisprudence, the position of the ruler is determined by the written law. In this case, the individual's obedience to the ruler is not based on bloodline theory, hereditary system or emotional attachment, but on the recognition of the realistic hierarchy according to the recognized laws. Obedience is not an individual's personalized obedience, but is mainly reflected in obeying a certain position stipulated by law. Therefore, the command obedience type has been materialized here. In all political relations, rejecting tradition or "eliminating witches" has become an established social law, and the political structure system is completely depersonalized.

Weber obviously prefers the latter command-obedience. In his view, bureaucracy or bureaucracy may have three different types of orders in administrative life-obedience type, and bureaucracy has clearly shown the traditional and charismatic pre-modern rule form in some cases. For example, medieval Gothic architecture, of course, has structural stress considerations (it needs to set up a hierarchical organization to deal with these issues specifically); The rationalization of bookkeeping in the ancient Mediterranean and the Near East, as well as in China and India, is also a similar fact. Even from the perspective of national politics, many pre-modern social forms are organized by developed and huge bureaucracies, such as Egypt in the new empire period, China since the Qin Dynasty and so on. However, all pre-modern bureaucracies can be regarded as irrational forms of governance, so they are not truly procedural typical bureaucratic administration. For example, in ancient China, intellectuals went to bureaucracy through imperial examinations, and the rise and fall of officials also reflected the internal flow of bureaucracy. However, the evaluation of officials is mainly based on the standard of moral relativism and the degree of loyalty to the emperor. Here, it is most important to be familiar with Confucian classics and have humanistic quality. Officials almost completely avoid technical and scientific support for their positions and powers, and they are extremely short of administrative expertise. Because the relative standard of ethics is generally vague to measure the behavior of officials, the position of officials in the system depends on the personal attitude of their superiors, thus greatly developing the personal dependence. "This is the reason why China, an administrative organization, is anti-bureaucratic and tends to be hereditary. On the contrary, it shows that this administrative institution is rough and backward in technology. "

〔 1〕

Comparatively speaking, Weber appreciates all kinds of modern bureaucracy, which shows its rationality because of its clear technicality, rationality and non-objectivity. Therefore, he believes that the modern bureaucratic system is the characteristic of the contemporary world. He further analyzed several interrelated elements of modern bureaucracy. First of all, the modern bureaucracy is characterized by a consistent and programmed command-obedience relationship. Officials at all levels are subject to non-political management (the most important positive evaluation for them is technical requirements), and subordinates must rely on the initiative and problem-solving ability of superiors. Bureaucracy is a legal hierarchy, and the direction of any official's action is decided by a higher-level official.

Second, the above-mentioned subordinate relations are generally arranged in strict order of work or task level. Here, the power matrix is not reflected in the personality characteristics of power, but based on the organizational structure of the position itself. In the bureaucratic system, each individual unit is divided into its own independent parts, and it is required to completely eliminate personal emotional entanglements.

The detailed and clear provisions of the power and obligation system enable everyone to act according to the rules without exceeding the scope of the power and obligation system. In this case, bureaucratic individuals are not allowed to arbitrarily expand the threshold of their own actions, showing the so-called "initiative." In other words, individuals have been materialized and atomized in the bureaucratic system, and the bureaucratic system is like a well-functioning administrative machine, requiring its members to just do their own thing, even if over-programming may lead to inefficiency in some cases.

Third, the impersonal tendency of modern bureaucracy. Because the source of power does not come from bloodline or hereditary factors, but from the theory of formal law based on practical rationality and the system stipulated by formal law, the main indicators of bureaucratic operation are operability and efficiency, positivism even sometimes utilitarianism greatly prevails, and it is difficult for individuals' personality and will to make a difference here. The dependence of individuals is weakened or even disappeared because of the materialized standards and procedures of bureaucratic internal flow. The actual separation between individuals and state property, and the separation of personal power resources and management means lead to the emptiness of personal authority. All these show that the modern bureaucracy is much more effective than before, and it is less vulnerable to internal and external shocks. The internal flow of an official is not determined by the personal likes and dislikes of his boss, but depends on the procedures and objective actions stipulated by the system, and depends on his qualifications, work experience, sense of responsibility and professionalism, which can be quantified in form. From the point of view of pure rationalism, the object of individual obedience is no longer the individual with a specific position, but the specific position that the individual has, in other words, he serves the objective non-personal organization and organizational goals.

Fourth, the technical tendency of modern bureaucracy. Modern bureaucracy has perfect technical procedures and means, which is its outstanding advantage over pre-modern bureaucracy. Under the domination of technical orientation, modern bureaucracy not only relies more and more on various experts, but also becomes more and more scientific and reasonable in management methods and methods, and scientific organizational behavior has become the knowledge of various bureaucracies. This is because, otherwise, it is not enough to meet the challenges of modern society, whether it comes from outside the program or the system. Therefore, the action effect of individuals or "karis Horse" is powerless here. Now the bureaucratic action mode under the guidance of experts is more detailed, and most of the daily work of bureaucrats is related to information, the collection and induction of various knowledge and information, the proposal of several feasible decision-making schemes and the further in-depth demonstration of these schemes. Not only the organizational behavior is technical, but also the organizational goals and the establishment process of these goals are technical and rational.

3. With the tool-teleology as the empirical reference of bureaucratic theory, in order to further explore the rationality of bureaucratic system, and at the same time pay attention to avoiding the value judgment of different rationality, Weber tried to determine the category of rationality from the causal relationship of things, thus showing that he completely implemented his own personal tendency of bureaucratic system reflecting different rationality on the level of positivism. Accordingly, he logically divided two kinds of rationality, namely, formal rationality and substantive rationality.

The so-called formal rationality means that in the ruling relationship, the way of action tends to be quantified as much as possible in its means and procedures, making the prediction of the action itself and the purpose realization procedure after the action a computable task. This is purely objective reason. Substantial rationality is completely based on value judgment, and evaluates the purpose and consequences of behavior, such as whether these evaluations conform to religious beliefs or religious teachings, whether they conform to habits, and whether they show some social virtues or good deeds. Substantive rationality is only a kind of rationality related to ethicism or moral ideal. It only judges the value of action, emphasizes the social concern of action and ignores the efficiency of action, which is a subjective rationality. On the other hand, formal rationality thinks that not only the process of action is computable, but also the purpose itself is computable. Weber believes that the purpose actually means the rationalization of social order, or that is, to make it show the computability of the maximum program. Therefore, formal rationality can be expressed as instrumental teleology, while substantive rationality embodies ethical idealism.

Weber pointed out that substantive rationality is the essential feature of pre-capitalist social order. In modern society, this rationality has basically lost its social atmosphere. With the increasing complexity of production and life in modern society, the efficiency of action is bound to be placed in a very important position, and social management is bound to be more bureaucratic. In economic life, dominated by the laws of capitalist market economy, companies have to deal with business continuously, accurately and as much as possible with greater cost-effectiveness and faster speed; On the issue of modern nation-state, modern state governance relies more and more on bureaucratic management, which makes its military, judicial and administrative personnel increasingly divorced from the material means of administrative organizations, and the state administrative personnel who receive wages and salaries completely get rid of the qualifications given in the past and have been widely and universally employed; In the field of public life, newspapers and other public opinions not only form a mechanism with clear division of labor and orderly operation internally, but also trust each other with bureaucratic countries externally and are guided by professionally trained activists or party officials. At the same time, public space is becoming more and more bureaucratic; In party politics, bureaucratic parties try their best to strengthen their indifference and "consent" ability, manipulate the people technically, and carefully calculate the process of their actions and the results they can achieve in advance.

In Weber's view, the complete bureaucratization of modern life means that the tool-teleology has completely controlled the general social psychology. The rationalization process of capitalism often becomes an end in itself while eliminating and replacing other life forms. This tool, teleology, echoes the efficiency of modern society. It may be a manifestation of social progress and an overwhelming world trend in the process of social development. All fields of daily life tend to rely on strict hierarchy, reasonable specialization, and organization and instrumentalization of individuals and their activities. Bureaucracy is the same fate in today's world, and this process is basically irreversible.

Fourth, social care with humanistic care as the theory of bureaucracy Although bureaucracy is inevitable in modern society, in Weber's view, modern bureaucracy still has many restrictions pointing to human beings themselves. He pointed out that modern society, including modern bureaucracy, is the result of the Protestant Reform Movement. Since16th century, Protestantism has gradually cut into the personal life and social life of believers with its own discipline. Here, working hard for secular production and life is not for secular enjoyment or deliberate pursuit of some action, but Christians generally feel obligated to fulfill their responsibilities for the honor of God. This vocation drives them to go deep into their daily lives, and individuals must test themselves through ordinary and sometimes trivial actions and gain self-salvation. The Protestant movement specifically verified the contents of these occupations by taking labor as a recognized occupation. According to the understanding of Protestants, "endless, uninterrupted and organized labor itself has become the primary purpose of secular life, the means of asceticism in the afterlife, and the most reliable symbol of resurrection and piety." [2] This rationalization movement with ethics and religious beliefs as the spiritual orientation of secular life undoubtedly embodies a kind of substantive rationality.

Ironically, Protestantism has made far-reaching contributions to the emergence of modern bureaucracy by successfully spreading these ideas. The influence of Protestantism on contemporary society only shows its empirical value after the substantive rationality of this movement is dispelled. In modern society, the strong desire to find the kingdom of heaven through abstinence is gradually lost, replaced by utilitarianism, technicalism and positivism, which embody the rationality of form. Enthusiasm for ethical values gives way to the cold sorting, induction, deduction, reasoning, calculation and demonstration without humanity. In order to pursue efficiency, people are increasingly ignoring values, beliefs and ideals, and strive to organize themselves at almost all levels in the social field with a mechanism that is considered to maximize efficiency-modern bureaucracy. In other words, all modern life is bureaucratic. There is an insurmountable gap between formal rationality and substantive rationality, and the former is still eroding the territory of substantive rationality. As the main body of society, the individual is completely powerless and materialized in front of the huge and omnipotent bureaucratic machine. Weber believes that the historical and realistic paradox between formal rationality and substantive rationality reflects that the imbalance in the process of bureaucracy is not only the main source of the unique achievements of modern civilization, but also the main source of its limitations.

How can we get out of the gap between formal rationality and substantive rationality of modern civilization? Weber generally hopes to get rid of this social dilemma through humanistic protection of bureaucracy. In his view, the development direction of bureaucracy is undoubtedly a factor that society should pay attention to, and the gap between formal rationality and substantive rationality can be opened by realistic factors such as nation-state and effective political and social activists. He doesn't want to deny the achievements of modern bureaucracy, but he also hopes to overcome its long-standing disadvantages that have been widely recognized by people in contemporary society.

First of all, because bureaucracy is one of the most difficult social structures to destroy, and because it is necessary as a technicality, we must never break with bureaucracy. Trying to solve modern bureaucracy by expanding the public sphere seems to advocate a national demand, but the result is bound to be a great discount on the achievements of modern civilization such as efficiency, legal order and material development level. In view of the "iron inevitability" of bureaucratic rule, Weber suggested that the irrationality in modern bureaucratic system should be overcome by developing the power of nation-state. Because the main drawback of bureaucracy lies in its formal rationality and inhumanity, improving the power of the nation-state can strengthen the social psychological understanding of the nation-state as a personalized political symbol. The response to the challenge of technicalism is to improve the country's power position in the world, and express people's deep consciousness and emotional androgyny complex through historical and realistic humanized activities such as economic development, military strengthening and political construction. National political leaders may rebuild their confidence in ethical relativism and moral idealism by using administrative means to shape new discourse systems, customs and political memories, and restore the lost tradition of value rationality with the help of national honor, so as to integrate the public and national value goals. In international relations, the solidification of nation-state will inevitably bring independence and individuality of political identity.

Second, the second outlet of the dilemma of modern bureaucracy is to cast the independent political personality of political and social leaders. Weber believes that bureaucracy has drowned almost every administrative leader in the scene of technical absolutism, and the legitimacy of this instrumentalism has even become a collective unconsciousness and has been respected by people. This is a potential social unconscious magic. Nowadays, it has become a very urgent task to cultivate leaders with personality, firm will, clear goals, full confidence in their actions and high sense of responsibility. Such a leader will be an important factor in breaking universalism. This kind of leader must at least meet the following conditions: 1. He must keep full enthusiasm for his career, because only enthusiasm is the main psychological premise of firm belief. Only in this way can faith and actions inspired by faith gain their lasting and consistent source of strength. He should also have a firm belief in his career. Passion without faith is naturally shallow and lacks originality. Under the call of faith, his actions are bound to have clear goals, firm will and deep sense of responsibility and dedication. His actions must reflect a sense of balance between belief and objective reality. He will not correct his beliefs because of the limitations of reality, nor will he ignore reality because of his beliefs; He is not a despising and objective superman, nor is he a mediocre person who goes with the flow. Of course, in the process of realizing personal intentions, faith should always be in the position of command and suggestion.