Key Arguments

• Weber argues that 'neither custom and practice, nor interests, nor the solidarity fostered by purely affectual or value-rational motives, could provide a reliable basis for rule. Normally, there is a further element: belief in legitimacy.'
• He appeals to empirical experience: 'All experience shows that no rulers will voluntarily rely merely on material, affectual, or value-rational motives for their Chancen of survival.'
• He describes a universal tendency of rulers: 'Instead, they all seek to arouse and foster belief in their “legitimacy.”'
• He notes that the character of the claimed legitimacy affects key features of the rule: 'Besides the nature of the legitimacy so claimed, there are fundamental differences in the type of obedience, the nature of the administrative staff whose work it is to assure such obedience, and the character of rule itself.'
• He links these differences in legitimacy claims to different 'associated differences in impact', justifying a typology based on typical legitimacy claims.

Source Quotes

This relationship, like others, is rooted on a daily basis in custom and practice, together with material, purposively rational interest. However, neither custom and practice, nor interests, nor the solidarity fostered by purely affectual or value-rational motives, could provide a reliable basis for rule. Normally, there is a further element: belief in legitimacy.

However, neither custom and practice, nor interests, nor the solidarity fostered by purely affectual or value-rational motives, could provide a reliable basis for rule. Normally, there is a further element: belief in legitimacy. All experience shows that no rulers will voluntarily rely merely on material, affectual, or value-rational motives for their Chancen of survival.

Normally, there is a further element: belief in legitimacy. All experience shows that no rulers will voluntarily rely merely on material, affectual, or value-rational motives for their Chancen of survival. Instead, they all seek to arouse and foster belief in their “legitimacy.”

All experience shows that no rulers will voluntarily rely merely on material, affectual, or value-rational motives for their Chancen of survival. Instead, they all seek to arouse and foster belief in their “legitimacy.” Besides the nature of the legitimacy so claimed, there are fundamental differences in the type of obedience, the nature of the administrative staff whose work it is to assure such obedience, and the character of rule itself.

Instead, they all seek to arouse and foster belief in their “legitimacy.” Besides the nature of the legitimacy so claimed, there are fundamental differences in the type of obedience, the nature of the administrative staff whose work it is to assure such obedience, and the character of rule itself. Also important are the associated differences in impact.

Key Concepts

• neither custom and practice, nor interests, nor the solidarity fostered by purely affectual or value-rational motives, could provide a reliable basis for rule.
• Normally, there is a further element: belief in legitimacy.
• All experience shows that no rulers will voluntarily rely merely on material, affectual, or value-rational motives for their Chancen of survival.
• Instead, they all seek to arouse and foster belief in their “legitimacy.”
• there are fundamental differences in the type of obedience, the nature of the administrative staff whose work it is to assure such obedience, and the character of rule itself.

Context

Central argument of §1 explaining why legitimacy, beyond other motives, is sociologically crucial for stable rule and for differentiating types of rulership.