An Analytical–Critical Approach to the Philosophical Foundations of Hierarchical Governance in Max Weber’s Thought
Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
PhD in Islamic Philosophy, Department of Wisdom, Philosophy and Logic, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, I.R.Iran.
2
Assistant Professor, Islamic Management Department, Islamic Systems Research Institute, Islamic Culture and Thought Research Center, Tehran, I.R.Iran
Abstract
The present study adopts an analytical–critical approach to examine the philosophical foundations of hierarchical governance in the thought of Max Weber. The primary objective of the research is to investigate the ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological foundations of this model of governance and to critically evaluate them in relation to efficiency, legitimacy, and indigenous contexts. The central question of the study is: What are the philosophical foundations of hierarchical governance, and what critiques can be raised against them? The research method is based on philosophical content analysis, drawing upon the works of Max Weber as well as other classical and contemporary theorists to identify and evaluate the various philosophical dimensions of this model. The findings of the study indicate that, at the ontological level, hierarchical governance is grounded in legal authority, rational–legal order, and the process of social rationalization. At the anthropological level, the emphasis on Protestant ethics and the ethics of individual responsibility gives rise to instrumental rationality and the “iron cage” of bureaucracy. At the epistemological level, this model of governance relies on an objectivist approach, while its methodology is grounded in positivism and causal explanation. Finally, at the axiological level, this model of governance emphasizes procedural justice and the primacy of public interests. The critiques directed at these foundations emerge on two levels: first, intra-paradigmatic critiques, which point to the consequences of instrumental rationality, depersonalization, institutional rigidity, and neglect of substantive justice; and second, extra-paradigmatic critiques, particularly from the perspective of Islamic governance, which regard the secular, anthropocentric, and value-neutral nature of these foundations as incompatible with the ethical, spiritual, and sacred ends of religious societies. The conclusion of the study indicates that although bureaucracy, as a rational mode of governing modern societies, has succeeded in ensuring administrative efficiency and institutional order, it has failed to realize ultimate justice, social responsibility, and human dignity due to its reduction of human beings and society to calculable and controllable units. Accordingly, the study suggests that designing alternative models of governance through the integration of bureaucratic efficiency with indigenous ethical, cultural, and spiritual values is an unavoidable necessity for overcoming the limitations of this paradigm and responding to the needs of contemporary societies.
Keywords
Subjects
جسوب، باب (۱۴۰۱). «دولت؛ حکومت و حکمرانی» در نظریه حکمرانی از منظر اندیشمندان. ترجمه و تألیف هادی خانمحمدی و عباس خداپرست. تهران: سازمان جهاد دانشگاهی تهران.
بویر، مارک (1398). حکمرانی درآمدی بسیار کوتاه. ترجمه غلامرضا سلیمی و داود کریمیپور. چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه عالی دفاع ملی.
وبر، ماکس (۱۳۹۹). اقتصاد و جامعه. ترجمه عباس منوچهرى و مهرداد ترابینژاد و مصطفى عمادزاده. تهران: نشر سمت.
وبر، ماکس(۱۳۷۱). اخلاق پروتستان و روح سرمایهداری. ترجمه عبدالمعبود انصاری. تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها.
لوویت، کارل (۱۳۸۴). معنا در تاریخ. ترجمه سعید حاجیناصری و زانیار ابراهیمی. تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment. California: Stanford University Press.
Barzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Page 8 referenced here.)
Bevir, M. (2013). Governance: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2016). Rethinking governance: Ruling, autonomy, and the plural state. London: Routledge.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2007). The New Public Service: Serving rather than Steering (2nd ed.). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972ـ1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon Books.
Goodsell, C. T. (2018). The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic (5th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1 – Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 2 – Lifeworld and System. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Held, D., & McGrew, A. (Eds.). (2002). Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Howlett, M. (2009). "Government communication as a policy tool: A framework for analysis". The Canadian Political Science Review. 3 (2). pp.23ـ37.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Peters, B. G. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Richardson, N., & Westley, S. (Eds.). (2012). Governance and Governors: Essays in Leadership in Challenging Times. London: Hodder Education.
Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate Governance and Accountability (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Terry, L. D. (1998). Administrative Leadership, Neo-management, and the Public-Service Tradition. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Tönnies, F. (1957). Community & Society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft) (C. P. Loomis, Ed. & Trans.). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Tullock, G. (2005). The Economics of Non-market Failure. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
VigodaـGadot, E., & Meiri, M. (2021). "Trust in the public service: The role of procedural justice and organizational politics". Public Management Review, 23(1). pp.133ـ152.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). California: University of California Press.
Weber, M. (2001). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (S. Kalberg, Trans.). London: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Weber, Max. (1997). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills, Trans. New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1919)
Weber, Max. (2013). Economy and society. trans. Roth and Wittich, 2013. California: University of California Press.
