Max Webers Definition of the Modern State and Politics as a Vocation - Article Example

Running head: THE MODERN AND POLITICS AS A VOCATION Max Weber’s Definition of the Modern and Politics as a Vocation. Name: Institution: Abstract. Max Weber defines the modern state as a political association which employs physical force as a legitimate means to achieve its’ goals. It is circumscribed by territory and its’ authority is legitimized by the traditional, charismatic or legal justification. Professional politicians may live ‘on’ or live ‘off’ politics. They may be classified into several types: the clergy, educated literati, nobility, gentry, jurist, demagogue, party official and caucus politician. A person who wishes to make politics his vocation must combine passion with responsibility and a sense of proportion and guard against vanity. Max Weber’s Definition of a Modern State and Politics as a Vocation. Max Weber’s lecture on ‘Politics as a Vocation’: Politik als Beruf, was given in January 1918 to the students of Munich University. In it, Weber gave his definition of the modern state from the sociological point of view, which continues to hold good in the present day context, and his conception of the person who has a genuine vocation for politics. Weber’s ideal politician is one who realistically and resolutely confronts the vicissitudes of political life and combines in himself passion and detachment, along with the ethics of ultimate means and responsibility. Weber holds that the state is a political association which cannot be circumscribed by its’ ends, as these are too varied. It can only by defined in terms of its’ employment of physical force to attain its’ ends. Weber agreed with Trotsky’s assertion that “Every state is founded on force.” The state claims its’ use of physical violence as a legitimate right and considers itself the sole arbiter of this right. Another characteristic of the state is its’ demarcation into a particular territory. In the modern state, men dominate other men. This association is reinforced by the states’ use of force when necessary. The foundation of the state is the mandatory obedience of the people who are dominated to the authority of the state. This domination is given legitimacy by three “inner justifications” – traditional, charismatic and legal. Traditional domination is that exerted by patriarchs and princes out of age old custom. Charismatic domination is based on the appeal of a magnetic personality who inspires his followers to devotion because they “believe in him.” Legal domination is based on legal decrees which are accepted and respected as valid obligations. Of course, fear of punishment for resisting authority and the hope of reward for obedience are other factors which come into play. Politically dominant powers can perpetuate their dominance only by keeping control of the material goods which become necessary in the case of employing physical violence and also by retaining control of the administrative staff which executes the power holders’ authority. The staff can be offered two personal incentives: material rewards and social honour. In this perspective, states can be classified into two kinds. States in which the administrative staff are the proprietors of material goods and prerogatives are called ‘estates.’ The relationship between the overlord and the autonomous vassal exemplifies this. In the second kind of state, the power holder himself owns the means of administration and delegates authority personally to preferred officials. This bureaucratic order is one of the characteristics of the modern state and is initially brought about by the prince who, as the power holder, commandeers all the means of administration, war and finance from the estates. Finally, in the modern state, control is vested in a single head and there is a distinct separation of administrative officials from the material means of the political organization. No official personally owns the means which he controls. Thus, according to Weber, the modern state is a political association which asserts its’ authority within a territory by the legitimate use of force. It has expropriated all material means from autonomous officials and concentrated power in the leaders. The state “now stands in the top place.” Coming to his views on politics as a vocation, Weber traces the emergence of ‘professional politicians’ to the service of princes. He states that politics may be either an avocation or a vocation to a man. In the former case, a man is an occasional political player when the need arises: politics is not his ‘life.’ The case of politics being a vocation originated with the prince establishing a staff of assistants totally dedicated to his fulltime service. When politics is ones’ vocation, one can live ‘for’ politics or live ‘off’ politics. The politician who lives for politics finds his life meaningful by serving a cause through politics and enjoys the power he holds. He is wealthy and has an income apart from politics. He is therefore economically independent of his political position. It is also necessary that he is ‘economically dispensable’ – he must not be tied down to his income generating enterprise but must be free to indulge in political activity. This indicates the plutocratic recruitment of wealthy persons to rule, with honour being their main reward. On the other hand, the politician who lives off politics derives a permanent source of income from politics. This professional politician receives a fixed income in kind or as a salary and perquisites through the exploitation of his position. Political parties use the patronage of office to grant or change jobs as rewards. This dispensation of offices is curtailed by the development of a modern bureaucracy of professional, trained and qualified experts with a pronounced sense of ‘status honour.’ These expert officials deal with finance, war and law. Along with the expert officialdom, there exists the ‘leading politician’ or statesman who serves as the close advisor to the power holder. In the modern state, public functionaries are separated into administrative officials or independent officials with judicial functions and the political officials, who are dependent on the party in power at the moment for their positions and are dismissed when that party loses power. Professional politicians can be categorized into several major types over time. The first type is the clergy which does not strive for personal political power. The second is the educated literati, belonging to the humanistic school. Thirdly comes the court nobility which serves the prince as diplomats. The English gentry is the fourth type, administrating local offices with only social power as reward. The fifth stratum of university trained jurists, grounded in Roman law, is instrumental in the development of the modern state. Weber categorically states that the civil servant should not engage in political activity but confine himself to conscientiously executing the wishes of the power holders. The next type of professional politician is the demagogue, who is the typical political ruler in a democracy. When political parties hold sway, as aristocratic parties or parties of notables or plebeians at the local level, the importance of electoral chances leads to the emergence of the seventh type of professional politician – the party official. He is either an entrepreneur or receives a fixed salary. In any case, the party official expects personal compensation for delivering votes. Weber’s last type of professional politician is the caucus politician of the 1800’s when the caucus system of local elections developed, as a direct result of the franchise being democratized. The caucus politician significantly arranges finances for the party and supports the strong leader who uses the caucus to subordinate parliament. The party boss of Tammany Hall is an example of this type of politician. Weber touches upon the lawyer and the professional journalist as being particularly suited to a political career, but hindered by certain traits of their professions. The contemporary status of politics leads Weber to ponder on the avenues open to a person who wishes to make politics his vocation. Financial constraints which compel such persons to live ‘off’ politics will require them to seek alternative employment and to be exposed to the social odium of being salaried workers. One who lacks the moral resolution to overcome the temptations and disappointments inevitably tied up with politics is advised to relinquish any idea of becoming a politician. However, as a compensation, politics as a career offers the professional politician the distinction of power over others and the exciting opportunity to experience the shaping of world events at close quarters. Weber now comes to the crux of his essay: “What kind of man must one be if he is to be allowed to put his hands on the wheel of history?” Weber identifies three qualities which are paramount to a professional politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility and a sense of proportion. Passion here is not just ‘sterile excitation,’ which results in nothing but empty intellectual stimulation, but denotes a passionate adherence to a cause. This passionate devotion must be linked to a sense of responsibility which directs the politicians’ actions. Above all, genuine politics, born of passion and nurtured by responsibility, must be combined with a sense of proportion, which mandates a calculated approach, marked by a sense of detachment. These three characteristics constitute “the strength of a political personality.” The invidious adversary of these strengths is personal vanity. The politician must always be on his guard against vanity which makes him fall a prey to the “deadly sins of lack of objectivity and --- irresponsibility.” Vanity makes the professional politician addicted to power for its’ own sake rather than as a means to further his cause. This type of ‘power politician’ is not a true politician but makes a mockery of politics. It is the devoted service to a cause which constitutes the true faith of a politician. Weber goes on to discuss the relationship between ethics and politics. Weber rejects the absolute Christian ethics of ‘turning the other cheek’ and unconditional truthfulness as being irreconcilable with the practice of politics. He points out to the conflict between the ethics of ultimate ends and the ethics of responsibility. The former concerns itself only with the execution of a good action and abdicates all responsibility for its’ consequences, especially when the results are evil. Whereas, in the case of the latter, the person who does something, holds himself responsible for all the consequences of his action. One cannot ethically accept that the end justifies the means, which is what the ethics of ultimate ends seems to advocate. A politician must necessarily use power and force as a means to further his cause and stand by the consequences of his actions: he would otherwise be a “political infant.” It is inevitable in politics to use violence and to consolidate ones’ following by offering internal rewards such as the satisfaction of revenge and resentment and external rewards such as adventure and the material spoils of victory. The politicians’ cause is often given legitimacy by deliberately justifying revenge, power and looting. In such a context, Weber categorically rejects the suitability of politics as a vocation for lovers of humanity and goodness, as politics is inseparable from violence. Politics and religious beliefs are totally irreconcilable. “Everything that is striven for through political action operating with violent means and following an ethic of responsibility endangers the salvation of the soul.” The hallmark of Weber’s genuine politician is the ability to grasp the realities of life and confront them with determination. He accepts responsibility for the consequences of his actions and makes an unequivocal stand: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” Thus, the man who has a true vocation for politics can reconcile the ethic of ultimate ends with the ethics of responsibility. Weber’s ideal politician is a leader and a hero, who can resolutely hold on to his calling “in spite of all” adversity and practice politics with both passionate devotion to his cause and a detachment which grants him a realistic perspective of the world. Read More