You are on page 1of 5

On Max Weber’s Definition

of Power
Isidor Wallimann
Sociology Department
Syracuse University
and
Nicholas Ch. Tatsis
Sociology Department
State University of New York at Oneonta
and
George V. Zito
Le Moyne College, Sociology Department
Syracuse
Introduction -Dennis H. Wrong (1970: 54): ’The prob-

The definition of power offered by Max


ability that one actor within a social rela-
tionship will be in a position to carry out
Weber in his Wirt.schaft iiiid Gesellschaft his own will despite resistance, regardless
has become of central importance to a num- of the basis on which this probability
ber of considerations in political science, rests’.
sociology and public admi,nistration. The -H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (!958:
present paper examines this definition as it 180): ’In general, we understand by power
has been published in English in a variety the chance of a man or of a number of
men to realize their own will in a com-
of texts. The German original is then pre-
munal action even against the resistance
sented, and both literal and contextual
of others who are participating in the
translati,ons suggested.
action’.
It is clear that these definiti.ons differ sig-
Previous Translations
nificantly from one another. This difference
Weber ( 1925 : 28) distinguishesbetween can be seen to exceed the limits implied by
power (Macht)’) and leadership rule or Parsons’ reference in The Structure of Social
(Herrsclwft), Setting aside, for the moment, Action (1968) cited above, and by his trans-
the problems of Herrschafl, it is interesting lation, with Henderson, of the Weber work
to note some of the many variations in under the title, The Theory of Social and
meaning among the more prominent com- Economic Organization ( 1965), similarly
mentators on Weber’s definiti,on of power, cited.‘ Students of sociology will have little
or Mcr~ht: difficulty agreeing that probability and
-Talcott Parsons ( 1968 : 6~6) : ’The proba- chance are not the same in meaning, and
bility within a social relationship of being quite disti,nct from either ability or possibil-
able to secure one’s own ends even against ity. In the two Parsons versions, the word
opposition’. will, is replaced by able to secure one’s ends;
-Talcott Parsons and A. M. Henderson Aron also omits will, and while for Wrong
( 1965 : 1 ~2): ’The probability that one actor and Freund an actor is in a position to carry
within a social relationship will be in a
out his will, Bendix speaks of one imposing
position to carry out his own will despite one’s will. Gerth and Mills include others
resistance, regardless of the basis on which
this probability rests’.’ parti,cipating, and both Parsons ( 19651 and
-Reinhard Bendix ( 1962 : 290): ’The possi- Wrong include the long clause absent from
bility of imposing one’s will upon the the others, regardless of the basis on which
behavior of other persons’. this probability rests. Other differences are
-Julien Freund ( 1969 : 2’? 11~ : ’The probabil- equally self-evident: Gerth and Mills rec-
ity that one actor within a social relation- ognise that the will may be of a group
ship will be in a position to carry out his origin, while Aron omits any reference to
own will despite resistance’.2
-Peter M. Blau ( 1963) : ’The ability of a origin; some commentators (Blau, Freund,

person to impose his will upon others Wrong) seem to imply that resistance is
despite resistance’. always present, while others (Bendix, Aron)
-Raymond Aron ( 1964: 101 ) : ’The chance ignore it completely.
of obtaining the obedience of others to a Since these are the major texts used in
particular command.’3 courses in American Universities, Weber’s

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 3, 2015


231
precise definition is consequently unclear to use of political power. We reserve the use of
many American students of his thought. In might to an aggregate of power, an excess of
the remainder of this paper we shall attempt power, and the like, not to everyday usage.
to clarify Weber’s definition by proceeding Such considerations suggest that clause C
from the original German. should be placed at the start of the sentence,
since it specifies the context wi,thin which
Literal Translation the meaning holds and within which the
action takes place, thus fixing the attention
It must be noted at once that not all com- of the English reader to a particular frame
mentators are referencing the identical por- of reference. It may be objected that this
tion of Weber’s Wirlschafl [{nd Gesellschafl. places the stress in English at a part of the
During the course of his discussion, Weber sentence other than where it exi.sts in the
conditions the meaning to make it applic- German: however, in German, power in the
able to particular contexts and speci.fic in- natural science sense is denoted by the word
stances. The Gerth and Mills translation
Kraft, not Maclrt. In English, power serves
shown in our earlier section, one most fam- both senses, and therefore the English
iliar to American students due to the pop- reader’s attention must be properly directed
ularity of the excellent text From Max at the outset. The sentence then becomes
Weber, is drawn from one such later portion C A B (G) F D (E). It is best to keep both
of Weber’s discussion (1925: 631), and must G and E enclosed in parentheses, as asides
not be confounded with the others. Weber’s or comments, at this stage of explication.
precise definition of Mncht appears as his The definition then becomes:
Definilion 16 on page 28 of Wirlschafl itiid
Gesellschaft. This is the definitive meani.ng
of the concept as understood by Weber. It
is given below in literal translation, with
successi,ve phrases and clauses identified for
future discussion :

To re-structure this sentence into con- E


ventional English usage, we might begin by will (also against resistance).
placing the predicate clause D after the The clause E is understood to mean that the
infinitive of the verb F, i.e., to carry through definition holds whether resistance is or is
the own will. We might also place clause G not present. In English, this sense is approx-
after the phrase B whi.ch it modifies, viz., imately conveyed by the phrase, even against
A B (G) F D C E. resistance, which implies that in many, but
In English, power may be used in other not all, cases resistance may not be present.
than its social meaning: we speak of a The German original implies that the
powerful engine, of electrical power, and the presence or absence of resistance i,s irrele-
like. When speaking of social power, how- vant. The best way to signify this sense in
ever, we are using the word in
most often English is in the form,
its English of might, a sense derived
sense Within a social relationship, power means
directly from the German Macht, (OED : every chance (no matter whereon this chance
429), as is the word might itself. Hence, one is based) to carry through the own will.**
*
could translate Macht as might; however, even against resistance.

English commentators have avoided might The awkwardness of the form, however,
and offered power almost universally. In seems to demand,
English we do not speak of the redundant Within a social relationship, power means
use of political might, but of the redundant every chance (no matter whereon this chance
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 3, 2015
232
is based) to carry through the own will Much of the uncertainty in the earlier
(even against resistance). translations can be attributed to the presence
We usually speak, in English, of of a footnote on page 28 of the text, where
‘imposing’ the will or ’realising’ the will. Weber recognises the ’amorphic’ character
The first points to the inception of an action, of power and the innumerable situations
the second to the termination of an action. wherein an individual may be in a position
For this reason, we prefer ’to carry through’ to carry through his own will. By so ack-
the will as closer in meaning to the process nowledging these situations, however, Weber
Weber had in mind, in impositi,on as well does not imply that Macht is not also applic-
as in term.ination. We will leave the literal able to group or collective wills. On page
translation in this last form, therefore, while 161, for example, Weber points to the Swiss
we pursue the contextual meaning. Federal Council as an example of collective
or collegiate rule. The phrase, den eigenen

Contextual Meaning Willen, in correct German usage, could be


applied to the will of the Swiss Federal
Returning to the original German, we Council. Eigenen may be used in both the
note that Weber has employed the word
singular and collective sense. Weber’s use
Chance, whi.ch has the same meaning as in of the definite article den is part of the
English, that signified not only by luck, formal syntax requirements in German;
opportunity, or fortune, but additionally, substantives such as Willen, must be pre-
that quality associated with the givenness of ceded by the article. It does not distinguish
the social environment.’ He does not here the unique case, as does the definite article
employ either the German Wafi13.cfieinli- in English: it is not the one of all possi.ble
chkeit (probability) or Ge/egenheit (oppor- ones. Had Weber wished to restrict the
tunity), nor the French probabilité.6 The definition to the will of a single person or
Aron translation appears to appreciate this
actor, he would not have employed the form
distinction, for chance in French has the he d,id. As the phrase stands, it is more
English meani,ng, but Wrong and Parsons inclusive than many of our ci.ted translations
( 1965) alone include the long phrase G .7 It seem to imply.
may be argued that some commentators We mentioned previously that Weber
sought to combine the sense of G and B by distinguishes between Macht and Hernschaft
the substitution of probability for chance
wi.th the concomitant elimination of G;
(1925: 28-29). Herrschaft is equated with
A ii ifi o iiiiit or authority ( 1925 : 122). He
but acknowledging that the basis of a chance asserts that Herrschaf is not ’every kind
is irrelevant to the manifestation of that
of chance’ (n.b). to exercise ’Macht und
chance does not imply that random charac-
teristic we associate with probability nor
Einflllss’ (power and influence) over other
with the fortuity of ’opportunity’; nor does
people (1925: 122). Herrsclwft is defined
(1925: 28) as ’The chance for an order with
the latter signify that the basis may be a certain content to find obedience with
structured or unstructured.~ Hence, chance,
as employed here by Weber, is the word
designatable persons’. It is the subset of
Macht containing as elements only those
demanded by any English rendition. formalised exercises of authority; a mob
A significant porti,on of the difficulty action, for example, where informal chances
associated with translating the definition of power and influence may exist, can not
into English appears to lie in phrase D, be considered as lying within this subset.
den eigenen W illen. We noted that some
Although Aron includes the notion of an
versions in English omit the word will, order in his rendering of the Macfii defin-
although Willen can be translated in no ition, it is .important to note that while
other way. Obedience to a command, Macht includes Herrschaft it is not limited
suggested by Aron, implies merely action as to it. Similarly, in connection with some of
a response to a verbal formulation, and
the other cited renderings, it is significant
hence is too restrictive. The heart of this that Weber (1925: 604) does employ the
difficulty is Weber’s inclusion of the word German for possibility (cf. Bendi.x), and
eigenen (own). This may seem to imply a speaks of ’imposing’ the own will on others
singular person or actor, and many com- in connection with that Macht involved in
mentators have phrased their renderings Herrschaft (n.b.). Similarly, the notion of
to reflect such an interpretation. In German influence (Einflllss) is involved in Macht
as in English, however, eigenen (own) need
(1925: 122) but not necessarily the notion
not imply solely a si,ngular person; we speak of authority (Atitoi-itdr). Thus, Weber’s
of the committee exercising its own will, definition of power does not imply the nec-
the ladies satisfying their own will, etc. essity of formal legitimacy, an important
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 3, 2015
233
point in any discussion of his sociology. Conclusion
Only in that kind of Macht called Herrschaft In Max Weber’s definition of
considering
is legitimacy a consideration. power, have found that it is restricted
we
The phrase, den eigellen Willeti, then, to wholly human social relationships, of a
presents a problem in English translation, non-teleological kind. It is the chance of
and it becomes apparent that the various carrying through the will of a person, or of
renderings of the power definition have a group of persons, within a social relation-
wrestled with the diffi.culty it presents. It ship. The basi,s of this chance is irrelevant,
may be that Weber was careful to employ as is the presence or absence of resistance.
eigellell to eliminate the possibility of The notion of legitimacy is not included in
readers mistaking his meaning as applicable Vheber’s power definition. Legitimacy be-
to some all encompassing, Universal Will, comes a consideration only in discussions
unpersonified and origin-less. The will of of formal authority, or Herrschaft. Macht
his definition must have a source, either in (power) includes Herrschaft (authority) but
one person or a group of persons: it is a is not limited to it.
distinctly human activity, not supernatural We find that the many translations of
nor primordial.&dquo; Weber’s definition which appear in sociolog-
In the light of these considerations,
it does ical texts in English have sought to catch the
not appear that a suitable substitution for intent of the passage, rather than its full
den eigenen Willen can be made employing meaning, because of the difficulty in finding
conventional English. Returning to our last equivalent phraseology for den eiyenen
literal translation, we find that the only Willen in the context in which this phrase
possible recourse is to substi,tute one’s own is employed. We have attempted to circum-
will for the own will, and to footnote one’s vent this difficulty for researchers by pre-
so that the reader may understand that the
senting as literal a translation as possible
word may be used in either the individual while employing a footnoted format which
or the collective sense with the definition we believe retains the original meaning with
still valid: minimal sacrifice of lexical form.
Within a social relationship, power means
any chance, (no matter whereon this chance FOOTNOTES
is based) to carry through one’s* own will
1. Roth’s (1968:53) translation is the same.
(even against resistance). 2. Translated from the French; see References.
*
individual or collective 3. Ibid.
This translation, we feel, comes closest to 4. Ralf Dahrendorf, in his Class and Class
Conflict in Industrial Society (1967:166)
the German origi.nal. inexplicably employs phraseology identical
to the 1965 Parsons version (which he does
It guarantees to researchers a foundation not reference in this connection, leaving the
upon which operationalisations and research source unspecified) in discussing Weber’s
power definition; and yet in referencing
categories may be grounded when they Weber’s Herrschaft later in the same sentence
he claims to employ the Fourth Edition (1947)
employ the Weberian definition of power. (sic.) of Weber’s German original. It re-
For example, if ’whatever the basis’ of mains unclear whether this later reference
chance is omitted in the translati.on, applies also to the Macht translation, part-
icularly since his discussion here involves
researchers are apt to distinguish only those the work of Parsons. Roderick Martin (1971),
referencing only Dahrendorf and Parsons in
highly specific occurrences relating to a his own critique of the Weber definition,
single dimension, as e.g., only ’government’ apparently assumes that the occurrence of
identical phraseology implies a consensus
may be perceived to entail power relations, with regard to Weber’s meaning. If
while sexual relations, commercial enter- Dahrendorf’s translation of the Power
definition is indeed his own translation of
prise and family decision-making may be the definition in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft,
and not copied directly from the Parsons-
incorrectly excluded if the Weberian defin- Henderson Theory of Social and Economic
ition is not understood. In addition, omitting Organisation, the lack of consensus evident
in the translation cited in the present
’even against resistance’ from the definition paper would be particularly confounding.
is apt to conceal from analysis those regular, Dahrendorf is elsewhere (cf. 1967:167, note)
critical of the Parsons-Henderson transla-
redundant obediences to an external will tion, and Bendix (1962:291) cautions the
which occur in everyday experiences within reader respecting Parsons’ definitions in
isolation.
bureaucracies and other formal structures. 5. In this connection, N. Luhmann (1975:118) in
The element of resistance may or may not his discussion of Weber’s concept of Chance,
notes the inclusion of the element of struc-
be present when power is being exercised, ture. Chance, for Weber, is interpreted by
Luhmann in such a way that it is a struc-
according to Weber. In these and related ture, or kind of catalyst, amenable to
ways, researchers may err i,n their analyses manipulation by those specific actors
when they employ the Weberian definition, possessing what Weber terms power. Hence,
it is not simply random occurrence that is
if the full meaning of that definition is not implied by this use of chance, but a ’given’
of social interaction that is a persistent
clear to them. feature of social life.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 3, 2015


234
6. It is interestingto note that Freund employs Dahrendorf, Ralf
opportunity, in his informal discussion of 1967 Class and Class Conflict in Industrial
Macht (1969:130), but when he comes to de- Society. Stanford: Stanford University
fining the term and quotes Weber, he Press.
employs probability rather than opportunity, Freund, Julien
referencing the 1966 Free Press Edition of 1969 The Sociology of Max Weber. Translated by
The Theory of Social and Economic Mary Ilford. New York: Vintage.
Organisation, p.154. Gerth, H. H. and C. Wright Mills (eds.)
7. Although he employs probability, not 1958 From Max Weber. New York: Oxford.
chance, for phrase B. Luhmann, Niklas
8. See, e.g., the OED (p.263) definitions of 1975 Macht, Stuttgart: Enke Verlag.
chance, where the element of gain’ and Martin, Roderick
interest are included, as in ’the main chance’. 1971 ’The Concept of Power; a critical de-
9. An activity, not a property of the actor; cf. British Journal
fence’. of Sociology, 22
Martin (1971:243), who senses the gram- (September): 240-256.
matical basis of the confusion in English Parsons, Talcott
definitions derived from Weber, since he 1967 ’On the Concept of Political Power’. In T.
cites only Parsons and Dahrendorf and not Parsons (ed.), Sociological Theory and
the German original. In insisting that power Modern Society. New York: Free Press.
is ’the property of the relation’, and not ’the 1968 The Structure of Social Action. New York:
property of the actor’, Martin is not really Free Press.
arguing so much against Weber (as he Parsons, Talcott and A. M. Henderson (eds.)
intends), but against the Dahrendorf 1965 Max Weber, The Theory of Social and
(Parsons) rendering. Economic Organization. New York: Free
Press.
REFERENCES Roth, Guenther and Claus Wittich (eds.)
1968 Max Weber, Economy and Society. New
Aron, Raymond
York: Bedminster Press.
1964 German Sociology. Translated by Mary and
Thomas Bottomore. New York: Free Press. Weber, Max
Bendix, Reinhard Gesellschaft; Grundriss der
1925 Wirtschaft und
1962 Max Weber. New York: Anchor. Sozialokomomik, Abteilung
III. Verlag von
Blau, Peter M. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tubingen.
J.
1963 ’Critical Remarks on Weber’s Theory of Wrong, Dennis H.
Authority’. American Political Science 1970 Max Weber. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Review, 57 (June): 306-316. Prentice-Hall.

Continued from page 217.


4. It is clearly one of the drawbacks of Harrison, J. and P. Sarre
personal construct approaches that careful 1975 ’Personal Construct Theory in the
and time-consuming interviewing has to be Measurement of Environmental Images’.
conducted instead of manipulation of Environment and Behavior. 7: 3-58
already available census data. Hawley, A H. and O. D. Duncan
5. This is perhaps another drawback of social 1957 ’Social Area Analysis: A Critical Appraisal’.
area analysis, if other dimensions can be Land Economics, 33: 227-45.
used equally well to denote the supposedly Johnston, R. J.
important societal changes. 1971 ’Mental Maps of the City: Suburban
Preference Patterns’. Environment and
2 = 123.8, significant at least at the .001
6. χ
Planning, 3.
level. Despite low observed frequencies in Jones, F. L.
some cells, the expected frequencies were 1969 Dimensions of Urban Social Structure.
above five in all but 15 per cent of the cells, Canberra: A.N.U. Press.
and the chi-square test is appropriate in Kelly, G. A.
such instances. 1955 The Psychology of Personal Constructs.
7. There is some difficulty in assessing the New York: Norton.
degree to which the personal constructs may Lee, T.
have provided a later rationalisation of the 1968 ’Urban Neighbourhood as a Socio-Spatial
decision to move, or vice versa, but this Schema’. Human Relations, 21: 241-268.
would not invalidate the general argument Lieberson, S.
presented here. 1963 Ethnic Patterns in American Cities. New
8. A forthcoming study is to present the York: The Free Press.
details of this second analysis, with further Lynch, K.
discussion. 1960 The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass:
M.I.T. Press.
McElrath, D. C.
1962 ’The Social Areas of Rome: A Comparative
REFERENCES Analysis’. American Sociological Review,
27: 376-91.
Adams, J. S. Parkes, D.
1969 ’Directional Bias in Intra-Urban Migration’. 1971’ A Classical Social Area Analysis:
Economic Geography, 45: 302-23. Newcastle, N.S.W. and Some Comparisons’.
Anderson, T. R. and L. L. Bean Australian Geographer, 11: 555-78.
1961 ’The Shevky-Bell Social Areas: Confirma- Parkes, D.
tion of Results and a Reinterpretation’. 1973 ’Formal Factors in the Social Geography of
Social Forces, 40: 119-24. an Australian Industrial City’. Australian
Appleyard, D. Geographical Studies, 11: 171-200.
1970 ’Styles and Methods of Structuring a City’. Rossi. P. H.
Environment and Behavior, 2: 100-118. 1955 Why Families Move. New York: The Free
Bannister, D. and J. M. M. Mair Press.
1963 The Evaluation of Personal Constructs. New Shevky, E. and W. Bell
York: Academic Press. 1955 Social Area Analysis. California: Stanford
Daly, M. T. University Press.
1968 ’Residential Location Decision: Newcastle, Shevky, E. and M. Williams
New South Wales’. Australian and New 1949 The Social Areas of Los Angeles: Analysis
Zealand Journal of Sociology, 4: 18-35. and Typology. Los Angeles: University of
Goldstein, S. and K. B. Mayer California Press.
1961 Metropolitanization and Population Change Suttles. G. D.
in Rhode Island. Rhode Island Development 1972 The Social Construction of Communities.
Council, Providence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gould, P. and R. White Timms, D.
1974 Mental Maps. Harmondsworth: Penguin 1971 The Urban Mosaic. Cambridge: Cambridge
Books. University Press.
Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 3, 2015
235

You might also like