ABSTRACT
The classical Weberian definition of authority is closely related to domination (herrschaft) which may be traditional, charismatic or legitimised. Especially charismatic leadership is based on authority of specially endowed personalities such as prophets, military princes, demagogues or party leaders. The state, in Max Weber’s understanding, is defined by the means which it monopolises, i.e. physical coercion. Through it the state can dominate, and some people exercise power over others (Weber 1958:494-5). The prestigious International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences agrees, in its article on authority written by Robert Peabody, that definitions of this concept vary but eventually concludes that authority is first of all a relationship and not a capacity (Peabody 1968; Bierstedt 1964). Nobody, according to Peabody, refutes de Jouvenel’s (1957) assertion that authority is basic to human behaviour. Lasswell and Kaplan (1950) in their influential book equate authority with formal power. Power however remains weakly defined not only there but in all of the literature. Peabody, following Weber of course, argues that it is legitimacy that distinguishes authority from coercion, force, power but also from influence, leadership and persuasion.
