(Re)Organizing legitimacy theory

Abstract

Purpose Despite a common conceptual root, research applying legitimacy theory addresses any number of more or less distinct behaviours, attitudes, and processes. Although this variety in approaches has complicated theoretical development, we argue that it is critical to addressing the breadth of the construct. To address this state of affairs, we offer the Concentric Diagram of Legitimacy as an organizing tool for the literature. The diagram roots itself in the dialogue of legitimacy, and argues that legitimacy theory is fundamentally comprised of five key theoretical propositions. Proposition 1 addresses the link between authority and acquiescence directly while the remaining propositions link organizational support (Proposition 2) and public approval (Proposition 3) with authority, and interactions (Proposition 4) and the social context (Proposition 5) with acquiescence.

On the nature of acquiescence to police authority: A commentary on Hamm et al. (2022)

“…Moreover, given Hamm et al's emphasis on the interplay between power‐holder authority and audience acquiescence, it is important to also consider how police officers' understand their own ability to influence people's behaviour. Like other researchers before them (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2013; Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Brimbal et al, 2020; Kyprianides et al, 2021; Mccarthy et al, 2021; Meško et al, 2017; Tankebe, 2014; Trinkner et al, 2016, 2019), Hamm et al (2022) argue that how police understand their own power, authority and position in society is just as central to the legitimacy dialogue as how citizens think about—and respond to—the power and influence of the police. They focus on self‐legitimacy, that is how officers think about the ‘rightfulness of their authority’ and how they ‘justify their own assertions of power’ (p. 5), judgements that are partially founded in organizational support and public approval and which produce, in turn, a sense of authority.…”

“…A key contribution of Hamm et al (2022) is to think through the implications of a broader conception of authority than is typically employed. A launchpad for their organizing tool is Bottoms & Tankebe's (2012: 129) argument that legitimacy:

…needs to be perceived as always dialogic and relational in character.

…”

“…Yet, one could read Hamm et al (2022)'s account as implying that a range of instrumental, prudential, economic and other social motivations to positively evaluate and respond to police attempts at social influence also contribute to the legitimacy process. Police attempts to influence behaviour can, in certain circumstances, diverge from traditional normative accounts of fair process and consensual crime‐control models.…”

“…Indeed, officers may continue to be able to secure compliance with their commands via a variety of routes that do not involve the threat or application of force even as the institution of police moves from taken‐for‐granted status towards challenge and dispute (dull compulsion, habit and strategic self‐interest may all be important factors here). Under such conditions, it would seem interesting to claim that the ability to secure compliance equals or is automatically generative of legitimacy—depending of course on what Hamm et al (2022: 4) understand to be the full range of psychological factors defining and driving ‘positive recognition of and response to’ police attempts to influence social behaviour.…”

The utility and limitations of the concentric diagram of legitimacy: Commentary on Hamm and Colleagues

“…This development has spurred an extraordinary number of theoretical treatises, systematic empirical investigations and practical applications. While this intellectual growth has been impressive, Hamm et al (2022) argue that the police legitimacy literature has become fragmented and confusing. For example, the term police legitimacy is used when discussing both ‘audiences’ (e.g.…”