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
Peoples 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,
contd
Common language and concepts may
be necessary to produce cooperation,
but they are insufficient
Cohen and Vandellos South
Intrafamily conflict
Critique, contd
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, contd
People are self-interested
They seek to attain what they desire
Security (avoid death and injury)
Reputation (status)
Gain (possessions)


Assumptions, contd
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, contd
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, contd
Without a power that is able to enforce
rules, people dont 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 16
th
century!)
provides support for Hobbes view that
people are naturally inclined to use
force and fraud
Hobbes
People dont 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 dont 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, contd
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 whats
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 students
IQ
Children of highly educated parents do better on
standardized test scores
Less money is spent on schools that poor children
attend
Education, contd
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 dont control curriculum content
Rewards are external (grades) rather than
internal/intrinsic
Education, contd
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
Proudhons list of the domestic inconveniences
of the state
Max Webers 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, contd

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
Leaders 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 lords 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 organizations 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, contd
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, contd
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, contd
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 18
th
century, at the
earliest
Yet if it is such an efficient system of
administration, then why isnt 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 Security
Extreme vulnerability
Job Security
Advancement based on
performance
Monitoring
Difficult
Hence reliance on sanctions
alone
Administrative
Hierarchy
Question
If bureaucracy is the most efficient
system of administration, why isnt 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