What is Weber's bureaucratic theory?

Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy has rich ideological connotation. This is an important content of Weber's political sociology. Many concepts, categories and analysis of this theory have become one of the theoretical sources of modern western political science.

This paper attempts to discuss this theory.

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

Weber believes that any rule that meets the needs has its rational basis. Since the bureaucratic system 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 relationship between the use of specific power and obedience. The possibility that a specific content command or all commands are obeyed by a specific person can be called a "rule". The rule here does not include the control of pure violence, so it is rule. It seems to be more limited to voluntary obedience. Voluntary obedience is based on a belief system that forms an atmosphere of personal values. As an individual, he must have a deep recognition of the belief system, so as to realize the consistency and continuity of his 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 is not embodied in things. The difference between good and bad reality lies in whether it is recognized by people in their beliefs. In other words, individuals insist that orders are legal orders. This is the legitimacy of this order or the rationality of its existence. With the support of legitimacy belief, any orders from authority will be obeyed by individuals, regardless of whether they come from the rulers themselves or abstract legal provisions 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 proximity 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 custom (acquiescence to facts that have become a process or appear repeatedly, and the conformity psychology that can be manifested mainly from external pressure) and the legitimacy of law (obedience to the legal system, whether internal or external). Guided, summoned or driven by these five legitimacy beliefs, the development direction from heart to action can be defined as four different types of action: (1) emotional action (emotional legitimacy), (2) value rational action (including value rationality and religious legitimacy), (3) traditional action (customary legitimacy) and (4) purpose.

The analysis of the types of actors' actions has become the basis of Weber's social order. His views on the 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. It seems that this is contrary to his value-neutral analysis. 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.

2. Weber believes that command-obedience is the analytical mechanism of bureaucratic theory. Command-obedience often means the type of governance, which is closely related to the type of action. He believes that 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, personal charm and legal legitimacy. Weber summarized them into traditional rules, [karis's] rules and legal rules, which can also be called three types of command-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 the leader himself and his ancestors have always been in the position of rulers. Rulers have the right to obey others because of their traditional advantages. In this type, paternalism and hereditary system are its outstanding representatives. The command-obedience type relying on charm is the most unstable and easy to change among the three forms. Its services. Followers have awe and complete loyalty to the rulers. They think that leaders have extraordinary temperament, extraordinary temperament or magical talent. They think that because of their talent of enlightenment and metaphor, they can point out the direction of action for their followers and even create miracles. In the legal command-obedience type, the position of the ruler is stipulated 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 people. The law recognized by scholars recognizes the hierarchical system of reality. Obedience is not an individual's personalized obedience, but mainly reflected in obedience to a certain position stipulated by law. Therefore, the command obedience type has been materialized here. In all political relations, rejecting tradition or [eliminating witchcraft] has become an established social law. The political structure system has been completely depersonalized.

Weber obviously prefers the latter type of command-obedience. He believes that in three different types of orders-obedience, bureaucracy or bureaucratic behavior may have appeared in administrative life. In the pre-modern traditional and charming form of rule, bureaucracy has been clearly shown in some cases. For example, the Gothic architecture in the Middle Ages certainly has structural stress considerations (it needs to set up a bureaucracy to deal with some problems in this regard), and the rationalization of bookkeeping in the ancient Mediterranean and the Near East, as well as 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 and China since the Qin Dynasty. However, all pre-modern bureaucracies can be regarded as irrational forms of governance, so they are not really procedural and typical bureaucratic administration, such as ancient China. China realized the flow of intellectuals to the bureaucracy through the imperial examination. The rise and fall of officials also reflects the internal flow of bureaucracy. But the evaluation of officials is mainly based on the standard of ethical 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 of the use of ethics, the relative standards of socialism measure the behavior of officials. The foundation is generally vague. The position of officials in the system depends on the personal attitude of superiors, which greatly develops the personal attachment relationship. This is the reason why China, an administrative organization, is unique in anti-bureaucracy and tends to be hereditary. On the contrary, it shows that this administrative organization is rough and backward in technology. "

[ 1]

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

Second, the above-mentioned subordinate relationship is generally arranged by a strict rank sequence of posts or tasks. The power matrix here is not reflected in the personality characteristics of power, but based on the organizational structure of the post 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 on the system of rights and obligations enable everyone to act according to the rules without exceeding the scope of the system of rights and obligations. In this case, bureaucratic individuals are not allowed to expand the threshold of their actions at will, showing the so-called "initiative." In other words, individuals have been materialized and atomized in the bureaucratic system. Bureaucracy is like a well-functioning administrative machine, requiring its members to perform their duties. Even though too many procedures may lead to efficiency in some cases.

Third, the impersonal tendency of modern bureaucracy. Because the source of power does not come from lineage or hereditary factors, but from the system stipulated by formal law theory and formal law based on practical rationality. The main indicators of bureaucratic operation are operability and efficiency. Positivism and sometimes even utilitarianism have greatly gained the upper hand. Personal character and will can hardly make a difference here. The materialization standards and procedures of the internal flow of bureaucracy weaken or even weaken the personal attachment relationship. Disappeared 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 the previous modern bureaucracy, and it is less vulnerable to internal and external shocks. The internal flow of an official is not determined by his boss's personal likes and dislikes, but depends on the objectification of the procedures stipulated by the system. His qualifications, work experience and responsibilities. Intention and professionalism can be more quantified in form. From the point of view of pure rationalism, the object of personal obedience is no longer an individual with a specific position, but a specific position that an individual has. In other words, he serves objective and impersonal organizations and organizational goals.

Fourth, the technical tendency of modern bureaucracy. Modern bureaucracy has perfect technical procedures and means, which is its outstanding advantage compared with pre-modern bureaucracy. Under the control of technology orientation, modern bureaucracy not only relies more and more on various experts, but also becomes more and more scientific in management methods and methods. Rationalized and scientific organizational behavior has become the * * * of all kinds of bureaucracy. Knowledge. This is because it is not enough to meet the challenges of modern society, whether from outside the program or from outside the system. So there is nothing that an individual or [karis's Horse] can do here. Now the bureaucratic action mode guided by experts is more detailed. The daily work of bureaucrats is mostly related to information, the collection and induction of all kinds of knowledge and information, the proposal of several feasible decision-making schemes and the further in-depth demonstration of these schemes. not only

3. Take instrumental teleology as the empirical reference of bureaucracy theory. In order to further explore the rationality of bureaucracy and avoid 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 personal tendency to bureaucracy with 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, so that the prediction of the action itself and the purpose realization procedure after the action is completed can be calculated. This is purely objective reason. Substantial rationality is completely based on value judgment. It evaluates the purpose and consequences of actions. If these evaluations are consistent with religious beliefs or teachings, are they consistent? Habit, whether it shows some social virtue or good deeds, etc. Substantive rationality is only a kind of rationality related to ethicism or moral ideal. It only judges the value of action. It strongly emphasizes the social concern of action and ignores the efficiency of action. This is a kind of subjective rationality, while formal rationality is the opposite. It regards not only the course of action as computable, but also the purpose itself as computable. Weber believes that purpose actually means the rationality of social order. In other words, it shows the computability of the largest 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. The increasingly complex production and life in modern society inevitably requires that the efficiency of action be promoted to a very important position. Social management is bound to be more hierarchical. In economic life, it will be dominated by the laws of capitalist market economy. Companies must continuously, accurately and as far as possible improve cost-effectiveness. Dealing with its affairs quickly, on the issue of modern nation-state, modern state rule relies more and more on bureaucratic management, which makes its military, judicial and administrative personnel increasingly divorced from the material means of administrative organizations. State administrators who receive wages and salaries have completely got rid of the qualifications given first in the past. They have been widely and universally used. In the field of public life, newspapers and other public opinions not only form a mechanism with clear division of labor and orderly operation, but also trust each other with the bureaucratic state and are guided by various activists or professionally trained party officials. At the same time, social public space is becoming more and more bureaucratic. In party politics, bureaucratic parties try their best to strengthen their indifference and [consent] ability and manipulate the people technically.

In Weber's view, the complete bureaucratization of modern life means that the tool-teleology has completely controlled the general social psychology. Although the rationalization process of capitalism has eliminated and replaced other forms of life, it often becomes an end in itself. 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 areas of daily life tend to rely on strict discipline. System, reasonable specialization, systematization and instrumentalization of individuals and their activities, and bureaucratic rule are the same fate in today's world. This process is basically irreversible.

4. Social care with humanistic care as bureaucracy. Although bureaucracy is inevitable in modern society, in Weber's view, modern bureaucracy still has many restrictions that point to human beings. 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, it is not difficult to work for secular production and life, but for secular enjoyment. Or deliberately pursue some kind of action. That is, Christians generally feel obligated to fulfill their responsibilities for the glory of God. This profession drives them into their daily life. Individuals must test themselves through ordinary and sometimes trivial actions and get self-salvation. The Protestant movement specifically verified the contents of these occupations by resorting to labor as a recognized occupation. According to the Protestant understanding. 【 Endless, uninterrupted and organized labor itself has become the primary purpose of secular life, a means of transcendental 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 substantial 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 heaven through abstinence is gradually lost, replaced by utilitarianism, technicalism and positivism, which embodies formal rationality. Enthusiasm for ethical values gave way to lack. In the cold sorting, induction, deduction, reasoning, calculation and demonstration lacking humanity, in order to pursue efficiency, people are increasingly ignoring values, beliefs and ideals, and are trying 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 bureaucratized. There is an insurmountable gap between formal rationality and substantive rationality, and the former still exists. Eating into the territory of substantive rationality, individuals as social subjects are completely helpless in front of the huge and omnipotent bureaucratic machine. They have been completely materialized. 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 the humanistic protection of bureaucracy. In his view, the development direction of bureaucracy is undoubtedly a factor that society should pay attention to. Through realistic factors such as nation-state and effective political and social activists, he neither wants to deny the achievements of modern bureaucracy, but 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 technical problem, we must never break with bureaucracy and try to expand the public. On the surface, it seems to advocate a national demand, but the result is inevitably that the achievements of modern civilization such as efficiency, legal order and material development level are greatly reduced. 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 nation-state can strengthen society. Psychologically identifying with the nation-state is the personification of politics. The response to the technical challenge is to improve the country's strength and position in the world. Through historical and realistic anthropomorphic activities such as economic development, military strengthening and political construction, people's deep-seated isomorphic complex of consciousness and emotion is expressed. National political leaders use administrative means to shape the new discourse system, customs and political memory after * * *. With the help of national honor, we can restore the lost tradition of value rationality. Perhaps we can rebuild our confidence in ethical relativism and moral idealism. We can combine the public with national value goals. In international relations, the solidification of nation-state will inevitably bring about the independence and individuality of political unity.

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 almost drowns every administrative leader in the scene of technological absolutism. 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 distinctive 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. Such a leader should at least meet the following conditions: 1. He must be enthusiastic about 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 be enthusiastic about his career. Constant faith. Passion without faith is naturally shallow and lacks originality. Under the call of faith, his actions must be clear-cut, determined, and have a deep sense of responsibility and dedication. His actions must reflect the sense of balance between belief and objective reality. He won't revise his beliefs because of the limitations of reality. He won't ignore the reality because of his beliefs. He doesn't despise objective superman. He is not a mediocre man who goes with the flow. Of course, personally.

Several comments on verb (abbreviation of verb)

Weber's bureaucratic theory has a far-reaching impact on western political science. His concepts of "rationality" and "legalization" have almost become the axioms of modern political science. In his view, the discussion on the positive significance of Weber's bureaucratic theory seems to start from two aspects:

Firstly, Weber established a brand-new theoretical analysis model of bureaucracy. He comprehensively applied the knowledge of philosophy, history, sociology, political science and other disciplines, and made a comprehensive and dynamic exposition on this issue, which made the theory of bureaucracy develop in multiple dimensions, showing that his theory was indeed profound and extensive. His analysis of rationality and legalization basically captures some important reasons why the public in modern society unconsciously agrees with the social system. It is worth mentioning that he not only elaborated on bureaucracy, the secondary level of society, but also paid attention to investigating it in the context of the whole social history and reality, which partly coincided with the trend of later generations to investigate bureaucracy from the perspective of system theory and political ecology.

Secondly, the theoretical pursuit of Weber's bureaucratic theory finally points to the interrogation of the rationality of contemporary capitalism. He pointed out the value distortion in the historical evolution of capitalism and the extinction of human nature in the actual operation. Although Weber expressed his appreciation for the instrumental rationality of modern bureaucracy, this is only in terms of the victory of science over theology, so it seems to have only case significance. Marx criticized capitalism according to the overall alienation of society brought about by the alienation of capitalist ownership relations, while Weber criticized capitalism through rational categories.

Although Weber's rational analysis of bureaucracy theory has aroused widespread concern, it also contains many loopholes that even Weber himself is embarrassed in some cases, which are highlighted in his admiration for instrumental rationality and the transformation of technicalism. Specifically:

First of all, Weber's research on the legitimacy of social system is based on pure functionalism, trying to avoid making value judgments on legitimacy. He believes that the establishment and existence of the ruling system is based on legitimacy, and the legitimacy of a system depends on its existence. Or legitimacy is based on the public's consent. The public's [consent] in turn reveals the legitimacy of the rules. In this way, Weber logically set himself a trap of mutual testimony: the existence of each party actually became the only reason for the existence of the other party. This makes the legitimacy theory fall into a closed cycle of the endless cycle of the two. If we further question the social premise and legitimacy of the existence of the system, all theoretical explanations will be unclear.

Secondly, the analysis of formal rationality and substantive rationality is also a dilemma. Weber insists that formal rationality and substantive rationality in modern society seem to be certain in total. The expansion of one side necessarily means the contraction of the other side. So how to achieve a balance in the structural adjustment with the same total amount without belittling the necessary significance of any party has finally become a difficult problem for everyone, including Weber.

Thirdly, Weber's theory of ruling legitimacy excludes the theory of violence. Legitimacy means the public's recognition of the form of governance. However, consent seems to be more than just a social psychological mechanism. In the process of social identity, there is hidden the integration and adjustment of social psychology by the national organizational system including violence. There should be a shadow projection of a potential technocrat-state monster in social psychology.

Repeatedly emphasizing that the solution to bureaucratic addiction is to strengthen the nation-state, which not only reflects Weber's deep and urgent concern for bureaucratic omnipotence, but also shows the shortcomings of his solution. In his picture of nation-state, the state completely integrates society and individuals, with national interests as its sole purpose. The development of this country will inevitably lead to power politics.

Finally, in order to make up for the deficiency, Weber designed various elites with a strong tendency of "karis Horse" in the social class. They are full of personality and creativity, firm belief, clear goals and strong sense of responsibility. However, how can we adjust them?