What do you think?
Rate this book
Political Legitimacy beyond Weber: An Analytical Framework
Legitimacy is an essential concept in politics. But what is it? This book seeks to answer this question through adopting Weber’s sociological approach to legitimacy. Weber argues that we should not only understand legitimacy from the perspective of the political order, but that we should also look at its subjective meaning. If this approach seems to have fallen into discredit since Weber formulated it almost a century ago, Netelenbos argues that we need to bring back the subjective into political sociology and theory. Political Legitimacy beyond Weber argues that contemporary politics in late-modern society cannot merely be understood in terms of legitimate domination or formal bureaucratic organisation. Politics is also about strategic conflict, coordination and argumentation. Based upon these different conceptualisations of politics and by critically evaluating some of the most leading sociologies, Netelenbos presents four analytical perspectives of political legitimacy. Providing crucial insights into the multiple dimensions of political legitimacy, this will be an essential tool for both empirical and normative research.
276 pages, Hardcover
Published August 31, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 16, 2026
If it is often said that the use of force is an ineffective means for guaranteeing social order but the threat of force is not.
Weber defines power (Macht) as ‘the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests’ (1978 :53). Domination, on the other hand, is defined as ‘the probability
that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons’ (1978 :212, 53). The difference between power and domination is often captured in the difference between the ‘power to’—the power to get things done—and ‘power over’—the power over others, which constitutes a political relation.
Indeed, the legitimacy of politics increasingly caught up in an ‘network society’, in supra-, trans-, and international governance networks, in which many different actors contribute and participate, cannot be grasped merely in terms of legal domination.
This also inherently means that the question ‘Is politics legitimate?’ cannot really be answered. The fact that politics tries to prove itself as subjectively and normatively meaningful does not mean success is guaranteed. Legitimacy is not merely an objective characteristic. Weber’s incorporation
of the subjective opens up political analysis to the complexities of a plural and multi-layered society.
A complex understanding of political legitimacy makes the much-discussed notion of the contemporary crisis of legitimacy therefore a problematic empirical concept. A crisis of legitimacy, in any case, is not always a crisis of political stability nor, vice versa, a crisis of stability necessarily a crisis of legitimacy. Not only is the whole concept of ‘politics’ already quite complicated—as we have seen—but a subjective understanding of legitimacy disaggregates and fragments the whole notion of a crisis of ‘the’ legitimacy of ‘the’ political system. More realistic, then, is to research
increases and decreases of the feasibility of specific objective legitimation practices in specific political contexts and domains.
Weber defines power (Macht) as ‘the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests’ (1978 :53). Domination, on the other hand, is defined as ‘the probability
that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons’ (1978 :212, 53). The difference between power and domination is often captured in the difference between the ‘power to’—the power to get things done—and ‘power over’—the power over others, which constitutes a political relation.
Indeed, the legitimacy of politics increasingly caught up in an ‘network society’, in supra-, trans-, and international governance networks, in which many different actors contribute and participate, cannot be grasped merely in terms of legal domination.
This also inherently means that the question ‘Is politics legitimate?’ cannot really be answered. The fact that politics tries to prove itself as subjectively and normatively meaningful does not mean success is guaranteed. Legitimacy is not merely an objective characteristic. Weber’s incorporation
of the subjective opens up political analysis to the complexities of a plural and multi-layered society.
A complex understanding of political legitimacy makes the much-discussed notion of the contemporary crisis of legitimacy therefore a problematic empirical concept. A crisis of legitimacy, in any case, is not always a crisis of political stability nor, vice versa, a crisis of stability necessarily a crisis of legitimacy. Not only is the whole concept of ‘politics’ already quite complicated—as we have seen—but a subjective understanding of legitimacy disaggregates and fragments the whole notion of a crisis of ‘the’ legitimacy of ‘the’ political system. More realistic, then, is to research
increases and decreases of the feasibility of specific objective legitimation practices in specific political contexts and domains.
Displaying 1 of 1 review