Random Variable

To get into the spirit of blogging again, perhaps I should start writing about my courses this year. So, first off, it’s Democracy and Authoritarianism, taught by David Styan.

We just had the introductory lecture, but next week we’re looking at military coups and will be talking about legitmacy for authoritarian regimes in the seminar.

My initial thoughts, without even bothering to do a cursory literature review:

In addition to the three types of legitimacy given by Weber [1], I’ve been thinking about a further three types of legitimacy for authoritarian regimes; goal-oriented, performance, and electoral.

Now, it would seem that these types of legitimacy are at least conditioned by the times, or in other words, are more timeless than Weber’s three types.

You might want to term this ideology, and leave it at that. However, you might want to consider some of the modern work on institutional norms. In particular, the work of Dimaggio and Powell [2]. Their claim is that under conditions of environmental uncertainty, competing firms start to mimic one another. I think this is the theoretical basis of Spruyt’s work on the sovereign state [3], but how would it apply in the context of authoritarian states. How about this scenario?

1. Country gains independence after colonialism, and inherits weak civil society.
2. Elites tasked with state-building under severe environmental uncertainty: Cold war, economic catching up with colonial nation-states, fear of international military action.
3. Just a few states (maybe even one or two) choosing authoritarianism might kick off isomorphism across a whole group of states.

What are the effects of theorising the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes in this way? It minimises the role of host population culture. However, not to say that elites can’t draw upon cultural repertoires to create organisational norms. It can also lead to regional organisational cultures through mimetic isomorphism (organisations copying each other).

This could part-way explain why goal and performance legitimated authoritarianism exists, but electoral legitimacy is even odder. Why hold elections when you’re going to rule with an iron fist anyway? Clearly an example of ritualistic behaviour, no? Let’s try Meyer and Rowan [4]. They believe that ceremonial behaviour is the effect of rigid organisational formal structure. However, what organisations do to remain effective, is to decouple formal structure from informal behaviour. They then retain legitimacy whilst operating efficiently (on their own terms).

Conclusion:

I am orgBorg.

1. Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (Fortress Press, 1965). 

2. Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological Review 48, no. 2 (April 1983): 147-160.

3. H. Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An analysis of systems change (Princeton University Press, 1994). 

4. J. W. Meyer and B. Rowan, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 2 (1977): 340.

The real causal nexus, Ennis claims, was differential attention to the crossovers by outlets that were relatively marginal and localized within its home stream. Outlets and networks in Memphis, Tennessee, happened to be prominent enough on the black as well as white sides to be catalytic in the overlay. The main key were those radio stations that were small in the national picture but plugged into regional networks of playing clubs and also into networks of smaller record companies. A crucial catalytic role was played by the disc jockeys, whose interest was in the development of distinctive new combinations.

…

The bishop at first was merely what we call today the priest, but this was already a revolution in the Pauline formation. In the latter, sacerdotal authority was with the traveling apostle, not in the locally-rooted authority. The bishop–priest’s combination of the two authorities supplies the key in helping to contain, as well as generate, doctrinal disagreement and confusion. The bishop could define purity, holiness, and yet he was rooted. Two fixed points of the emerging Church doctrine were one bishop for one city, and anathema on the translation of a bishop from one city to another.

That from Mohr and White’s new paper on modelling institutions[1]. Mohr and White are contending that institutions only exist because of situated agents operating across sites of social organisation performing a succession of semi-coordinated actions. The agents in the emergence of the Rock n’ Roll were artists in black and white communities borrowing from each other’s contemporary musical styles. The emergence of Christianity occurs through the interactions between nomadic priests and a growing class of sedentary artisans.

Another interesting contention made by Mohr and White is that schisms can be modelled by looking at agreements amongst a group of situated agents operating across levels.

With perhaps a nod to trends in universities in Britain and the USA, they touch upon the call to restructure colleges with reference to science departments. The shambolic internal appearance of university departments, where many disparate research groups might be lumped together, is the result of institutionalisation and not a sign of institutional inefficiency. Instead, the networks that appear in colleges, often referred to as the invisible colleges, form much like Indian subcaste groups that grow through family and intermarriage ties, but through faculty appointment and networks of specialty.

Throughout the paper, Mohr and White refer to how differing styles emerge over time. Simply looking at relational ties, as in social network analysis is not enough. A hermeneutical angle is also required.

I wonder how much time and money organisations are wasting to make their organisations have a nice social graph, when they are actually destroying their formally invisible multi-situated groups.

[1] Mohr, John, and Harrison White. “How to model an institution.” Theory and Society (June 10, 2008).http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9066-0.