The Contradiction of Domination and Production in Bureaucracy: The Contribution of Organizational Efficiency to the Decline of the Roman Empire

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review. American Sociological Review 1979, Vol. 44 (December):895-912One of the contributions of Max Weber is his distinction between formal and substantive rationality. When viewed in relation to his theory of bureaucracy this distinction provides a context for clarifying the domination aspects from the productive activities of organization. The case study of Roman bureaucracy is used to illustrate how the contradictions between two coexisting forms of rationality-one reflecting the control of persons and resources and the other the production (and distribution) of goods and services-contributed to the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire.Max Weber stressed the "specific and peculiar rationalism of western culture" (Weber, 1958:26). Furthermore, he was seriously concerned about its continuing intensification and diffusion through a related set of ever advancing developmental processes involving the disenchantment of nature, the scientization of thought, the deepening penetration of advanced technology into practical activities and the bureaucratization of social life. Weber's discussion of western rationalization' does not posit movement toward a Hegelian rational society where truth is actualized in social relations. Instead, Weber limits his emphasis to advances in the spheres of rational calculation and exact coordination of collective action. This refers to increased technical efficiency in controlling both the material and human environments. For Weber, these were by no means utopian developments because the consequent advances in production were accompanied by new forms of domination, alienation and waste.Weber (1968:85)2 distinguishes between * Direct all communications to: I am indebted to Michael Lacy for his careful reading and editorial, organizational and substantive criticism of several drafts of this paper. Also, David Willer has provided much insightful criticism and encouragement; he has significantly contributed to the work. Furthermore, thanks go to Scott McNall, George Ritzer, Alan Sica, Norm Yetman, and Augustus diZerega for useful comments and suggestions at various stages of the research. Finally, two anonymous A.S.R. reviewers provided solid criticism that contributed to the final draft. All these individuals have helped shape this essay, but I am alone responsible for any errors. This investigation was supported by University of Kansas research allocation #3485-xO-0038. I Rationalization must be understood in relation to Weber's broader concept of reason. The term is most often associated with social action and structures emph...

Class, State, and Political Surveillance: Liberal Democracy and Structural Contradictions

“…That is, the state has both an instrumental relation (powerldomination) and a procedural relation (apparatus/individual discretion) to the class structure of society. This dual relation, as Antonio (1979) has suggested, helps display the contradictory nature within the state by illustrating how human behavior may mediate policies and activities. This mediating tendency not only reflects attempts to resolve structural and related tensions, but may also create them.…”

Bureaucracy and Democracy: A Theoretical Analysis

“…Perspectives abound, but the majority agree that whoever controls the institutions of government also controls and uses the bureaucracy as an instrument of power and rule-including class rule. History has shown this being the case, from the ancient time to the present (Antonio 1979;Eisenstadt 1963;Farazmand 2009a, b, c). Even Max Weber recognized and acknowledged this in his expose of modern ideal-type rational-legal bureaucracy (1947,1968).…”

“…He also agreed that bureaucracy can be a repressive instrument of class rule and domination, as it was in the imperial Rome or the last stage of the Persian Empire (Antonio 1979;Eisenstadt 1963). Nevertheless, Weber considered it to be the most efficient form of organization for its blind implementation of laws, public policies, and decisions, and for its universal application of rules, standardization of operations, and task specializations leading to expertise and knowledge unmatched by any other forms of organization (Weber 1947(Weber , 1968).…”

“…It has also gained a negative reputation for being a repressive instrument of domination, control, and class rule in the hands of ruling elites. But bureaucracy and bureaucratization have also been historically recognized for being processes through which a policy of "leveling off," at least to some extent, in socio-economic class structures pursued by certain ruling elites or rulers to ensure broader political bases of support (Antonio 1979), particularly in patrimonial and historical bureaucratic societies (Eisenstadt 1963), or to curb local feudal powers by centralization of authority through bureaucratization (Farazmand 2009b). The same may also apply to enforcement of the "rule of law" through bureaucratization of society (Eisenstadt 1993;Etzioni-Halevey 1983).…”

“…Such an imbalance can have serious consequences for sound governance, democracy, public administration. The policy of excessive bureaucratization, militarization, and bureaucratic "domination" was detrimental to the ancient Persian and Roman Empires and contributed to their eventual collapse (Antonio 1979;Cook 1983;Eisenstadt 1963Eisenstadt , 1993; it is equally detrimental and dangerous to contemporary empires and political systems, whether democratic or authoritarian. Learn from history and its laws (Kennedy 1989).…”