Max Weber and the Legitimate Order Theory
Andrea Salvatore Cerfeda is a researcher at the universities of Turin and Florence. His interest in Weber focuses on his conception of social order from a political and philosophical point of view: «Studying Weber for me means primarily drawing from an extremely complex conceptual reservoir that still holds analytical and hermeneutic potential today. Therefore, the study of Weber, from my point of view, is not just a matter of textual exegesis, but it is also an attempt to question the present time, to challenge it.»
In the presentation below, Andrea S. Cerfeda introduces us to some of the topics that he will be discussing at our next online event «Max Weber’s Concept of Ordnung», which will take place on April 14th at 18:00 (CET) with another expert discussant on the subject, Prof. Andreas Anter. The event will be held online (via Zoom) and it’s open to all those interested! We’ll share the link of the meeting and details a few days in advance but stay tuned to our Facebook Fanpage for any updates on the event and network.
Max Weber and the Legitimate Order Theory
In Weberian terms, the concept of «order» (Ordnung) refers to a complex and multifaceted reality that cannot be reduced to a simplistic, one-dimensional object. To accurately describe this concept, one must consider a range of semantic and conceptual frameworks that may not be immediately aligned with one another.
Notably, in a text such as Soziologische Grundbegriffe, written between 1919 and 1920, Weber explores deeply the relationship between the semantics of «order» and «legitimacy». The typologies on legitimacy that Weber formulates in this text – and which have garnered considerable attention from scholars – are more accurately understood as typologies on the legitimate order or, alternatively, on the legitimacy of a given order.
However, the question arises as to why Weber relates the concept of legitimacy to that of order and what, if any, is the theoretical significance of this connection? In short, is this conceptual interweaving, as some have argued, an unsatisfactory theoretical guideline, extraneous to the real enigma of legitimacy – relating precisely to the justification of power manifested in the compliance of individual commands – or is it rather the solution of this enigma?