Aeine Hokmrani

Aeine Hokmrani

An Analytical–Critical Approach to the Philosophical Foundations of Weberian Bureaucratic Governance

Document Type : Original Article

Author
PhD in Islamic Philosophy, Department of Wisdom, Philosophy and Logic, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, I.R.Iran.
Abstract
The present study, adopting an analytical–critical approach, examines the philosophical foundations of bureaucratic governance in the thought of Max Weber. The main objective of the research is to analyze the ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological foundations of this model of governance and to critique them in relation to effectiveness, legitimacy, and indigenous contexts. The research method is based on philosophical content analysis, which, relying on the works of Weber and other classical and contemporary theorists, identifies and evaluates the various philosophical dimensions of this model. The findings of the study indicate that, at the ontological level, bureaucratic governance is grounded in legal domination, a rational–legal order, and the process of socialization. At the anthropological level, the emphasis on Protestant ethics and the ethic of individual responsibility paves the way for the emergence of instrumental rationality and the “iron cage” of bureaucracy. At the epistemological aspect, this form of governance relies on an objectivist approach, with a methodology grounded in positivism and causal explanation. Finally, at the axiological level, it emphasizes procedural justice and the primacy of public interests. Critiques of 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; second, trans-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 transcendent ends of religious societies. The research conclusion indicates that although bureaucracy, as a rational mode of governing modern societies, has ensured administrative efficiency and institutional order, but by reducing humans and society to calculable and controllable units, it fails to achieve ultimate justice, social responsibility, and human dignity. On this basis, the study suggests that designing alternative governance models that integrate bureaucratic efficiency with indigenous ethical, cultural, and spiritual values is an indispensable necessity to overcome the limitations of this paradigm and respond 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.
Volume 2, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
February 2024
Pages 303-334

  • Receive Date 07 August 2024
  • Revise Date 31 October 2024
  • Accept Date 12 December 2024
  • Publish Date 21 December 2024