The Two Concepts of Patrimonialism in Max Weber: From the Domestic Model to the Organizational Model

Abstract

The aim of this article is to update the exegetical discussion of the concept of patrimonialism in the sociological writings of Max Weber. In the wake of the results of the latest publication of his works, it discusses the evolution of the sociology of domination in the different stages of writing of Economics and society, with special emphasis on the changes that Weber introduces to the traditional type of domination. Focusing on the history of the work, two conceptual models of patrimonialism are distinguished that follow each other in his writings: the domestic model and the organizational model. From a systematic point of view, these models will be detailed in their theoretical nature (ideal-type) and as comparative instruments of socio-empirical analysis. In the conclusion, and in affinity with Weber's models, two ideal-typical conceptions of patrimonialism present in the Brazilian debate are characterized: the socio-patriarchal and the institutional-liberal conceptions.

Worse Than “Bushmen” and Transhumance? Transitology and the Resilient Cannibalization of African Heritages

“…Mobilized to fight and cannibalize their own authorship, as implied for instance under African authority, Africans are surreptitiously enrolled to deconstruct their own patrimony: this is evident, for instance, in uncritical discourses against neopatrimonialism. In Eurocentric discourses, Africans, their leaders and states are not only supposed to relinquish patriarchy, but they are also a fortiori supposed to relinquish their patrimony and neopatrimonialism or heritages which are conveniently portrayed, in Eurocentric scholarship, as bad (Nikšić, 2012; Sell, 2017). Originally referring, as bona patrimonium , to people’s cultural and material heritages, including property to be restored and preserved (Nikšić, 2012), the idea of patrimony has overtime come to be associated, in Eurocentric scholarship, with appropriation of offices and position for personal use, with political dominance, arbitrary power and private rule (Ermakoff, 2011; Sell, 2017).…”

“…In Eurocentric discourses, Africans, their leaders and states are not only supposed to relinquish patriarchy, but they are also a fortiori supposed to relinquish their patrimony and neopatrimonialism or heritages which are conveniently portrayed, in Eurocentric scholarship, as bad (Nikšić, 2012; Sell, 2017). Originally referring, as bona patrimonium , to people’s cultural and material heritages, including property to be restored and preserved (Nikšić, 2012), the idea of patrimony has overtime come to be associated, in Eurocentric scholarship, with appropriation of offices and position for personal use, with political dominance, arbitrary power and private rule (Ermakoff, 2011; Sell, 2017). The challenge here is that Eurocentric scholarship has increasingly portrayed patrimony and patriarchy as private rule and as monopolization of resources by the African states (Ermakoff, 2011).…”

Bolivia’s "Proceso de Cambio": Adjusting the Ideological Paradigm from Social to Economic

“…In simple terms, the patriarch, embodied in the figure of a monarch, rules the government through a system of dense social relationships, many of them based on kinship, which allows him/her to control de state and its related resources, social, political and economic. The recent analysis by Sell (2017) helps to clarify some of the gaps left by Weber's analysis. As he argues, a key distinction is related to the issue of legitimacy, where the 'pure' type of patrimonialism refers to a total domination (in Weber's typology described as sultanism).…”

Genres of waiting: patronage, healthcare, and dyadic sovereignty in Northeast Brazil

“…The legitimacy of the ruler's domination rests on tradition and his (prototypically male) identity encompasses that of the ruled. But as the organizational apparatus of rule expands, the ruler must retain the loyalties of those who refuse to nest their identities under his, and so make recourse to gifts (Sell 2017). It is this expansion‐related transformation that accounts for the contradictory face of patronage: patron‐client bonds appear both ascriptive and voluntary; at times, the relation seems one of hierarchical solidarity, while at other times, it appears egalitarian and transactional (see Graeber 2011: 119).…”