Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._1

BRITISH SOCIOLOGY

Progress made in some is being undermined by the spread of HIV and political conflict. The drug therapies that have reduced mortality from HIV in developed countries have so far proven too costly for widespread use in Africa and political unrest continues.

Declines in infant and child mortality from infectious diseases have been largely responsible for the historical increase in life expectancy around the world. As a result, life expectancy has increased far more at birth than at age sixty (Figure 4). Heart disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular diseases have become the major causes of death in the United States (Peters et al. 1998, p. 7), other developed countries, and some developing countries. Bringing these chronic diseases under control has proven to be difficult. Research suggests that both genetic composition and unhealthy behaviors affect the development of such chronic diseases over time. In the United States where health education campaigns have stressed the link between these diseases and obesity, use of tobacco, and lack of sufficient physical activity, mortality has declined from heart disease since 1950 and from cancer since 1990. If these trends continue, gains in life expectancy at older ages will accelerate.

REFERENCES

Hoyert, D., Kenneth Kochanek, and Sherry Murphy 1999 ‘‘Deaths: Final Data for 1997.’’ National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 47, no. 19. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.

Population Reference Bureau 1998 1998 World Population Data Sheet. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau.

——— 1980 1980 World Population Data Sheet. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau.

Shryock, Henry, and Jacob Siegel 1976 The Methods and Materials of Demography. San Francisco: Academic Press.

United Nations 1998 Demographic Yearbook, 1996. New

York: United Nations.

——— 1998 World Population Prospects, 1996. New York: United Nations.

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1994 ‘‘Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020.’’ Current Population Reports, series P-25, no. 1111. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

——— 1975 Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to1970. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Ventura, Stephanie, Joyce Martin, Sally Curtin, and T. J. Mathews 1998 ‘‘Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1996.’’ Monthly Vital Statistics Report, vol. 46, no. 11, Supp. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.

DEBORAH A. SULLIVAN

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

BISEXUALITY

See Sexual Orientation, Sexually Transmitted

Diseases.

BLACK STUDIES

See African-American Studies; Affirmative Action; Discrimination; Prejudice; Race.

BRITISH SOCIOLOGY

In a global age, the concept of British sociology poses an interesting question with regard to the viability of national sociologies. Neither academic disciplines nor the subjects studied fit easily into national boundaries. An academic’s closest colleague may be in New York or Delhi rather than in

Lancaster or Birmingham. Key figures in British sociology, such as Dahrendorf, Westergaard, and Bauman are not British but have spent some or all of their careers working in British institutions

(Halsey 1989). As sociologists working in Britain they were well placed to investigate questions related to British society. Then there are the British sociologists who have left Britain to research and teach elsewhere; John Goldthorpe to Sweden and Germany, and John Hall and Michael Mann to the United States, for example. British sociologists have often studied other nations too: Ronald Dore focuses on Japan, David Lane on Russia, and John Torrance on Austria to name a few. With all of these international influences exemplifing the present status of sociology in Britain, how ‘‘British’’ then is British sociology? This entry briefly explores the range of sociology that has developed in

224

BRITISH SOCIOLOGY

Britain from its origins to the present day, and ends by noting possible implications for its future.

FOUNDATION

The discipline of sociology in Great Britain has a history that stretches back to the early 1900s.

Martin White and the London School of Economics (LSE) figure prominently in the development of British sociology. In 1907, White effectively founded the study of sociology in Britain by investing about £1,000 to fund a series of lectures at the

LSE, as well as to establish the Sociological Society.

The first annual report of the society indicated 408 members distributed throughout Great Britain, and thirty-two overseas. Early members of the society included an interesting variety of prominent public and literary figures, such as H.H. Asquith, Hilaire Belloc, and the Bishop of Stepney; British academics including Bertrand Russell, Graham Wallas, and Beatrice Webb; as well as international academics such as Emile Durkheim and Ferdinand Tonnies, among others. Also in 1907, White gave the University of London £10,000 for a permanent chair in sociology to be located at LSE. White also donated additional funds for lectureships, bursaries, and scholarships in sociology. Because of White’s prominence in supporting these early initiatives, Dahrendorf has argued that ‘‘it is not too much to say that one man, Martin White, established the discipline of sociology in Britain. . .

Moreover, sociology came to life at LSE.’’ (Dahrendorf 1995, p. 103).

Despite this promising start, by 1945 the LSE remained the only university with a department of sociology in Britain. Several reasons have been identified for this late development. Among these was the long-standing opposition to the creation of sociology as a university subject by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which were at the top of the educational establishment in Britain. In addition, two other disciplines had claims on similar social research that predated the emergence of sociology. Anthropology and political economy both focused on social research that suited the interests of Britain at the time. Studies of foreign shores while Britain was still a major empire was of greater interest than social research focused on issues closer to home. Empirically based scholarship on the political economy was preferable to

the theoretical emphasis of many sociologists because of its perceived lack of application to the real world. The purported lack of credibility of those promoting the study of sociology, many of whom were either located on the outside or on the margins of academe, did not lend a helping hand to the development of sociology either. But, the most persistent obstacle was the hierarchical social structure of British society that prevented the effective interrogation of its social structures (Albrow 1989).

EXPANSION

Following World War II, the fortunes of sociology changed dramatically, in line with the social changes in Britain at this time. In these years there was a general feeling of optimism regarding possible changes in social relationships as well as increasing expectations of education and science to create a better life. In this context the study of sociology represented a commitment to social reorganization. ‘‘There was a demand [for sociology]. . .

irrespective of what was on offer’’ (Albrow

1989, p. 202).

Around this same time, Edward Shils moved to London from the University of Chicago. His teaching of classical European sociology has been described ‘‘as magnificent a professorial presentation of the social science scenery as could be found in the Western world,’’ and had a great deal to do with shaping and inspiring the first generation of British sociologists (Halsey 1999). This first generation of ‘‘career sociologists’’ in Britain completed their education at the LSE between 1950 and

1952. They included: J.A. Banks, Olive Banks,

Michael Banton, Basil Bernstein, Percy Cohen, Norman Dennis, Ralf Dahrendorf, A.H. Halsey, David Lockwood, Cyril Smith, J.H. Smith, Asher

Tropp, and John Westergaard. All became prominent sociologists in Britain by the mid-1960s. Members of this cohort have described the sociological analysis they developed as grounded in their own experiences of social inequality and informed by critical reflections on Marx, Parsons, and Popper (Halsey 1985; Dahrendorf 1995). Two of the many publications from members of this group are:

David Lockwood’s Some Remarks on The Social System, published in 1956, and Dahrendorf’s Class

225

BRITISH SOCIOLOGY

and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, published in

1959. Lockwood’s paper is notable because it became the most widely read single paper by a British sociologist at the time. Dahrendorf’s book, a critical reflection on Marx and Parsons, argued that

Weber’s ideas were useful in explaining the positive effects of conflict in Great Britain, and was dedicated to this first cohort at the LSE.

British sociology was further developed in the next decade by the work of John Rex at the University of Leeds. His work Key Problems in Sociological Theory (1961) became the most popular British sociological theory textbook in the 1960s. Rex used a Weberian action framework in contrast to the functionalist orthodoxy prominent at the time. In addition to Leeds, departments of sociology had been established at the universities of Leicester,

Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, and Hull. In

1967, three important works became available in Britain, Garfinkel’s Studies in Ethnomethodology, Berger and Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality, and Schutz’s The Phenomenology of the Social World. These books contained an implicit critique of the kind of sociology that had been pursued in

Britain up to this time. They emphasized a qualitative analysis of the ways in which social actors create meaning and acquire social positions in the context of language. The growth of the discipline continued throughout this time with nearly every institution of higher education in Britain housing a department of sociology. This led some to make the observation that it was growing with ‘‘explosive force’’ (Heyworth 1965, p.11). Sociology as a discipline was beginning to come into its own in Britain.

By the 1970s, there were many theoretical currents in British sociology; not only were phenomenological and Marxist arguments being pursued, but also the works of Althusser, the French structuralists, the ‘‘Frankfurt School,’’ and Habermas and Gramsci. Links between British sociology and

European social theory were becoming stronger.

In addition there were important empirical studies being done; the best example is the 1972 Oxford Mobility Studies undertaken by a group of sociologists at Nuffield College, Oxford, and greatly influenced by the work of one of their team, John Goldthorpe. Around this same time a dialogue between the debates in social theory and empirical understanding was initiated by Anthony Giddens

in his analysis of the founders of sociology, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory (1971). By 1979 he had developed structuration theory to reconcile the previous theoretical debates. Giddens’s systematic analysis of modernity is the most extensive and widely disseminated work of any British sociologist to date.

Starting in the 1980s, the emerging theoretical zeitgeist of British sociology was an increasing interest in the study of culture. Cultural studies as developed in the 1960s through the rather different works of Richard Hoggart, E.P. Thompson, and Stuart Hall emphasized the social aspects of culture and led to the specialization in the 1980s and 1990s of the areas of media, feminism, and ethnicity. Cultural analyses were developed as part of an overall analysis of fundamental shifts in modern societies around production, consumption, and social interaction. Influenced by European theories of politics, ideology, and discourse, existing Marxist and functionalist theories were seen as unable to adequately theorize the modern social world.

The work of sociologists based at the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies represents an example of this analysis. In 1983, the group consisting of John Solomos, Bob Findlay, Simon Jones, and Paul Gilroy outlined a neo-

Marxist approach to racism in a series of articles entitled The Empire Strikes Back. Gilroy’s book, which followed the original articles, There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, developed these themes and stressed the contest over the meaning of

‘‘race’’ that occurs in the public sphere between different social actors. Gilroy’s analysis is an example of the wider move in British sociology away from a Marxist analysis of class conflict toward an emphasis on new social movements, such as the women’s movement, youth movements, peace movements, green movements, and others they claimed were not easily reducible to class-based politics. There is, of course, a continuing debate between cultural-studies thinkers and Marxists, such as Robert Miles, who argue that class conflict is still far from dead, and remains a central feature in explaining the production of racism. The diversity and pluralism within sociology in Britain at this time has been described as one of its great strengths (Albrow 1989).

226

BRITISH SOCIOLOGY

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

The growth of sociology in Britain was abruptly impeded by a governmental investigation of high- er-education research funding in 1981. One recommendation following the investigation was the withdrawal of funding for any new departments of sociology and those seen as ‘‘substandard.’’ Sociologists were also limited in their representation on the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), with only two of the ninety-four members from sociology departments. As a reflection of this change in academic focus, the SSRC was renamed the Economic and Social Research Council in

1984. Albrow (1989) argues that no other academic discipline was singled out in this way.

Governmental scrutiny of sociology programs and departments has become an integral part of

British higher education. It is, however, not because it continues to be singled out for special treatment as it was in previous decades but rather it is part of the larger process of fiscal accountability and quality assurance instituted by the government. The first two Research Assessment Exercises (RAE) were conducted in 1992 and 1996 respectively. Each RAE rated every department of every subject on its research output. In 1996, sociology at the universities of Essex and Lancaster received 5* (the highest rank) ratings, while close behind were the universities of Loughborough,

Manchester, Oxford, Surrey, Warwick, and Edinburgh, and the college of Goldsmiths, with ratings of 5 each (RAE 1996). Most important about the ratings is that the British government ‘‘. . . funding bodies use the ratings to inform the distribution of grants for research to HEIs’’ (higher education institutions) (RAE 1996). It has been reported that, ‘‘Some 20 percent of funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England is a reward for research excellence, as a measured by the ‘‘research assessment exercise’’ (Wolf 1999).

In fact, these funds are extremely important to the day-to-day running of departments and in some cases make them viable or not.

If research was to be assessed, then teaching could not be far behind. The Teaching Quality

Assessment (TQA) exercise was instituted in 1993 with various subjects coming up for review in each country of Britain over an eight-year period. In England, sociology was reviewed between 1995

and 1996. At the time of TQA there were approximately 20,000 students studying sociology in eightyone institutions of higher education in England alone. The Overview Report of all departments reviewed in England noted that, ‘‘The overall picture that emerges from the assessment process of the quality of education in sociology is a positive one. . . . On the other hand there is little room for complacency.’’ It was further noted that, ‘‘The majority of institutions use a suitable range and variety of teaching, learning and assessment methods. The assessors found considerable evidence of innovative approaches to teaching, which encouraged and enthused students (HEFCE 1996, p. 14).

Funding does not follow from high TQA scores. Instead, high-scoring departments can bid for money from the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning. In sociology five consortium projects were funded to a total of over £1,000,000.

The five projects publish a regular newsletter and there are plans to launch an online journal for teaching in 2000 (Middleton 1999).

THE NEXT CENTURY

As British sociology enters a global age it is challenged with the ironies and complexities of understanding the current state of modernity that includes the increasing interconnectedness of the world as a whole, the increasing choices each individual has, and the resilience of national identities as evidenced by the increasing number of nations that emerge year after year. Each of these issues has been the subject of research by British sociologists in the past decade. The 1990s saw an ‘‘explosion’’ of interest in studies of culture informed by debates around the high-modern or postmodern condition, albeit influenced by the works of the French sociologists, Pierre Bourdieu, and Michel Foucault (Swingewood 1998). Both the study of nations and trends toward globalization

find British sociology in the lead as well. Ernest

Gellner (1983) and Anthony Smith (1986) have claimed the territory of nations and nationalism.

At the same time, Anthony Giddens (1990), Roland Robertson (British by birth) (1992), Leslie

Sklair (1995), and Martin Albrow (1996) have advanced theories of globalization. Emerging from work on globalization is the sociology of human rights. Two examples include: Anthony Woodiwiss’s (1998) work on the compatibilities between Asian

227

BRITISH SOCIOLOGY

values and human rights discourses, and Kevin Bales’s (1999) study of economic globalization and the development of modern slavery. These seem to highlight some important issues to be debated within sociology (worldwide) in this millennium.

The first century of British sociology saw its ups and downs. At times it was a popular subject to study and at other times it faced significant threats to its existence. Probably there was no threat more dramatic than the former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s declaration that, ‘‘There is no such thing as society.’’ However, despite the attacks and the loss of funding, sociology as a discipline has managed not only to survive but is poised to lead policy making in Britain. Currently there are increasing numbers of Members of Parliament and Lords who have a sociology background and there are nearly a dozen Vice Chancellors of universities who are sociologists. ‘‘Indeed, the subject somehow seems in tune with the times. With a government that not only accepts, but explicitly seeks to understand, and manage society, it is surely no coincidence that Tony Blair’s favourite academic,

Anthony Giddens. . . is another sociologist-cum- VC (or Director as the position is called at the

London School of Economics)’’ (Brown 1999, p. iii). The reference here is to Giddens’s latest contribution to British sociology, his book entitled

The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy

(1998). In many ways sociology has come full circle, with LSE academics once again playing an important role in its resurgence. Despite all attempts to deny its value, sociology in Britain can once again try to fulfill the claim made a century ago and an ocean away, that ‘‘Sociology has a foremost place in the thought of modern men

[and women]’’ (Small 1895, p.1).

REFERENCES

Albrow, Martin 1996 The Global Age. Cambridge,

Eng.: Polity.

——— 1989 ‘‘Sociology in the United Kingdom after the Second World War.’’, In N. Genov, ed., National Traditions in Sociology. London: Sage.

Bales, Kevin 1999 Disposable People: Modern Slavery in the Global Economy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann 1967 The Social Construction of Reality. London: Allen Lane.

Brown, Matthew 1999 ‘‘Time to Take Us Seriously.’’ Guardian Higher 19 January, ii–iii.

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (eds.) 1983

The Empire Strikes Back. London: Hutchinson.

Dahrendorf, Ralph 1995 A History of the London School of Economics. Oxford: Pergamon.

——— 1959 Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Garfinkel, Harold 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Gellner, Ernest 1983 Nations and Nationalism. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell.

Giddens, Anthony 1998 The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge, Eng.: Polity.

———1990 The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, Eng.: Polity.

———1971 Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

Gilroy, Paul 1987 There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack. London: Hutchinson.

Goldthorpe, John H. 1980 Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon.

Halsey, Albert H. 1999 ‘‘Edward Albert Shils.’’ Personal correspondence, 18 June.

———1989 ‘‘A Turning of the Tide? The Prospects for Sociology in Britain.’’ British Journal of Sociology

40(3):353–373.

———1985 ‘‘Provincials and Professionals: The British Post-war Sociologists.’’ In Martin Bulmer, ed., Essays on the History of British Sociological Research. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

Heyworth, Lord 1965 Report of the Committee on Social Studies. London: HMSO, Cmnd 2660.

Higher Education Funding Council for England 1996

Subject Overview Report: Quality Assessment of Sociology

1995–1996. Bristol, Eng.: HEFCE.

Lockwood, David 1956 ‘‘Some Remarks on The Social System.’’ British Journal of Sociology VII(2):134–145.

Middleton, Chris 1999 Personal correspondence, 9 June.

Research Assessment Exercise 1996 ‘‘Unit of Assessment: 42 Sociology.’’ http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/hefc/rae96/1_96t42.html.

——— 1996 ‘‘The Outcome.’’ http://www.niss.ac.uk/ education/hefc/rae96/cl_96.html.

Rex, John 1961 Key Problems in Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Robertson, Roland 1992 Globalization: Social Theory and

Global Culture. London: Sage.

228

BUREAUCRACY

Schutz, Alfred 1967 The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.

Sklair, Leslie 1995 Sociology of the Global System. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Small, Albion 1895 ‘‘The Era of Sociology.’’ American Journal of Sociology. 1(1):1–15.

Smith, Anthony 1986 The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Swingewood, Alan 1998 Cultural Theory and the Problem of Modernity. London: Macmillan.

Wolf, Martin 1999 ‘‘More Meant Worse.’’ Financial Times, 21 June, 22.

Woodiwiss, Anthony 1998 Globalization, Human Rights and Labour Law in Pacific Asia. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

PETER THAYER ROBBINS

VANEETA-MARIE D’ANDREA

BUREAUCRACY

The origin of the term bureaucracy can be traced to eighteenth-century French literature (Albrow 1970).

The early usage referred to an official workplace (bureau) in which individual activities were routinely determined by explicit rules and regulations. As modern systems of management, supervision, and control, bureaucracies are designed to rationally coordinate the duties and responsibilities of officials and employees of organizations.

The delineation of official duties and responsibilities, by means of formal rules and programs of activity (March and Simon 1958), is intended to displace and constrain the otherwise private, idiosyncratic, and uniquely personal interests and actions of individuals. Bureaucratic systems of administration are designed to ensure that the activities of individuals rationally contribute to the goals and interests of the organizations within which they work.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF MAX WEBER

The historical trend toward increasing bureaucratization throughout modern Western Europe, highlighted by the changing structure of military organizations, is documented by the work of Karl

Marx ([1852] 1963) and of Alexis de Tocqueville (1877). Michels’ (1949) analysis of the dynamics of power distribution within bureaucratic organizations and the concomitant development of oligarchic tendencies (fundamentally detrimental to democratic principles) provided an understanding of one of the more important unintended consequences of bureaucratic processes. However, the study of bureaucratic structure and processes as a prominent sociological topic is based on the intellectual legacy of Max Weber (1864–1920). Although Weber conducted his studies at the turn of the nineteenth century, wide recognition of his work by English-speaking theorists had to await later translations of his work (Weber 1946, 1947).

Weber’s thorough and richly informative work included consideration of Chinese, Egyptian, Roman, Prussian, and French administrative systems. In his comparative analysis of this vast array of diverse cultural systems of administration, Weber recognized an inexorable relationship between power and authority, on the one hand, and differing systems of administration on the other. In Weber’s analysis, the bureaucratic form of administration reflects one of three ways in which power can be legitimated. To gain a clear appreciation of the unique features of bureaucratic structure and processes, it is necessary to briefly address Weber’s proclaimed relationship between power, authority, and systems of administration. Power, for Weber, represents the ability or capacity to have other people behave in accordance with certain orders or dictates, irrespective of whether those affected regard its application as rightful or legitimate. Authority represents the legitimation of this power by those individuals whose activities are so ordered such that the application of power and its impact on them are perceived to be proper and acceptable. In Weber’s historical analysis, three different types of authority are identified: traditional, charismatic, and rational–legal (Weber 1947, p. 328).

Three Types of Authority. Traditional authority represents a system in which the use of power is regarded as legitimate when it is predicated upon belief in the sanctity of time-honored traditions and patterns of behavior. By contrast, charismatic authority is based on situationally specific acts of personal devotion. Under these circumstances, authority is conferred upon a specific individual

229

BUREAUCRACY

who is regarded by the devoted followers to exhibit exceptional, sacred, and/or heroic characteristics. Charismatic authority is therefore limited to a specific setting and time. Rational–legal authority derives from the belief in the legitimacy of law, specifically in the legality of rules and the authority of officials and employees to perform certain legally sanctioned and mandated duties to which they have been formally assigned. Official rational– legal authority often permits individuals to perform tasks that otherwise would not be permitted. For example, police officers may engage in certain behaviors in the course of their official duties, such as the use of lethal force, that if performed by an ordinary citizen would expose the citizen to legal liability. Thus, it is not the act or set of behaviors per se that is critical to an understanding of rational–legal authority, but rather who performs the act or behavior and whether the individual performing the act is legally authorized to engage in such behavior.

Three Systems of Administration. Each type of authority is associated with a distinctive system of administration. Over the course of premodern social history, traditional authority was the principal means by which social organization was achieved. This type of authority structure resulted in the development of a wide variety of highly stable but nonetheless particularistic systems of administration, in which personal relations of dependence or loyalty provided the bases for authority. In general, these systems of administration are most clearly exemplified by patrimonial and feudal systems of administration. Unlike traditional authority, charismatic authority results in highly unstable systems of administration, because the foundations of these systems, the profoundly personal relationships between charismatic leaders and followers, are decisively limited in both time and circumstance. Given the tenuous foundation of charismatic authority structures, it is not surprising that the systems of administration that arise in such situations encounter difficulties in generating stable administrative practices. In this regard, problems pertaining to the routinization of authority and leadership succession are particularly salient and acute (Weber 1947, pp. 358–373). Thus, administrative systems predicated upon charismatic authority tend to be inherently transitory and most likely arise during periods of crisis or unprecedented change.

In contrast to the personal bases of authority inherent in both traditional and charismatic systems of administration, rational–legal systems of administration rely on impersonal rules and regulations, culminating in the emergence of highly precise and universalistic systems of administration that are most clearly exemplified by the modern rational bureaucracy. Weber clearly regards such administrative practices to be relatively recent in their development: ‘‘Bureaucracy . . . is fully developed in political and ecclesiastical communities only in the modern state, and in the private economy only in the most advanced institutions of capitalism’’ (Weber 1978, p. 956).

THE FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF

BUREAUCRACIES

The most distinguishing feature of modern rational bureaucracies is the formal control, prescription, and regulation of individual activity through the enforcement of rules. The explicit intent of enforcing these rules is to efficiently achieve specific organizational goals. In orchestrating individual action, a succinct and unambiguous specification of the official duties and responsibilities is provided to minimize, if not to eliminate, the influence of personal interests and ambitions upon the performance of official duties. The official or employee is then able to concentrate exclusively upon the technical aspects of the work, in particular the efficient and rational completion of assigned tasks. In addition to this attempt to separate individuals’ private concerns from their official duties and responsibilities, other distinguishing characteristics of bureaucracies include:

1.The hierarchical ordering of authority relations, limiting the areas of command and responsibility for subordinate as well as superordinate personnel

2.The recruitment and promotion of individuals on the basis of technical expertise and competence

3.A clearly defined division of labor with specialization and training required for assigned tasks

4.A structuring of the work environment to ensure continuous and full-time employment, and the fulfillment of individual career expectations within the organization

230

BUREAUCRACY

5.The impersonality and impartiality of relationships among organization members and with those outside the organization

6.The importance of ‘‘official records’’ in the form of written documents.

THE RATIONALITY OF

BUREAUCRATIC RULES

Within a bureaucratic organization, rules serve to direct individual action in ways that promote the technical efficiency of the organization. The distinctive feature of bureaucratic organization is not the use of rules per se but, rather, the type of rules employed within an organization as well as the justification for the use of rules. Rules have been, and continue to be, used in other forms of administration to control individual action; however, the rules used in the other administrative forms (such as rules based on tradition in feudal administration or on dependency in a patrimonial system) are not necessarily based on technical knowledge and the rational achievement of specific goals. By contrast, within a modern bureaucracy explicit rules are designed to assure uniformity of performance in accordance with technical requirements. Bureaucracies denote systems of control that attempt to ensure that the technical abilities of individuals are effectively utilized. A concerted effort is made to systematically exclude any factor or element that would reduce the prospect of an official’s or employee’s performance being anything other than organizationally focused, affectively neutral, and achievement oriented (Parsons and

Shils 1951, pp. 76–91).

THE IDEAL TYPE CONSTRUCT

By underscoring the unique features of modern bureaucratic systems of administration, Weber provides an ideal-type characterization of bureaucracies. Despite subsequent confusion as to the value of the ideal-type portrayal of bureaucracies, Weber did not intend the characterization to represent an accurate empirical description of bureaucracies. As noted in the introduction to one of his edited works, ‘‘Situations of such pure type have never existed in history. . . . The ideal types of

Weber’s sociology are simply mental constructs to serve as categories of thought, the use of which will

help us to catch the infinite manifoldness of reality

. . . ‘‘(Rhinestein 1954, pp. xxix–xxx). The idealtype characterization is not suggestive of either extreme cases or distinct logical categories of phenomena (Mouzelis 1967). Rather, it provides a simplification and exaggeration of empirical events so that one can appreciate more clearly the features of the phenomena in question. Actual bureaucratic organizations may exhibit only a limited number of these properties or may possess them in varying degrees, a point well understood by Weber.

A GENERAL THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON BUREAUCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS

As a general line of inquiry, the study of bureaucratic structure and processes has tended to represent a ‘‘closed’’ or ‘‘rational-system’’ approach to the study of organizations (Scott 1992). Predicated upon Weber’s conception of bureaucracy, the ‘‘le- gal-rational’’ features of organizations such as the use of formal rules, the creation of specific personnel positions or roles, and personnel policies directed at the efficient achievement of organizational goals have been the focus of study. By directing attention toward the internal properties of bureaucratic organizations, interest in a number of topics has arisen, including the impact of technology on organizational structures (Thompson 1967), the interrelationships among organizational features (Hage et al. 1968), the integration of individuals within organizations (Argyris 1964; Herzberg et al. 1959), and the increase of worker productivity and organizational efficiency (Taylor 1911; Mayo 1933). Across this array of topics, a general theoretical perspective prevails in which the internal properties of bureaucratic organizations are regarded to be of cardinal importance. By directing primary attention toward the internal properties of bureaucratic organizations, the extent to which organizations are embedded in the more global structure and context of society is not fully realized. However, as bureaucratic organizations have grown in function and complexity, assuming an ever-expanding role in society, and displacing previous, more particularistic and personalized forms of administration, management, and control, the vibrant interplay between the internal properties of organizations and the environments in which they are situated has become more salient. Correspondingly, a more ‘‘open’’ theoretical orientation is warranted. Organizations

231

BUREAUCRACY

are viewed as ‘‘natural systems’’ (Scott 1992) in which the interaction between an organization and its environment involves a series of potential two-way relationships. While many of the processes within a bureaucracy are designed to insulate the organization from external influences, invariably environmental influences can appreciably impact an organization and its internal operations. Similarly, the bureaucratic organization, with its expanding role in modern society, has unquestionably had a major impact on society.

EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT

Stanley Udy (1959) was among the first to propose that, rather than regarding the specification of bureaucracies to be strictly a matter of definition, we need to ascertain empirically the extent to which bureaucratic characteristics are associated with one another in actual organizations. In the subsequent efforts at empirical assessment of the extent to which organizations exhibit bureaucratic properties, the works of Richard Hall (1963) and the Aston University research group (Pugh et al.

1968) are especially noteworthy. Hall’s (1963) findings suggest that among samples of U.S. organizations, bureaucratic features of organizations may vary independently of one another. As is illustrated by the negative relationship between an emphasis on technical qualifications and other bureaucratic features—in particular hierarchy of authority and rule enforcement—Hall’s study suggests that bureaucratic systems of organization may be indicative of multidimensional rather than unitary processes.

The Aston University research group (Pugh et al. 1968) reported similar findings for organizations in Britain. On the basis of their measurements of the bureaucratic characteristics of organizations specified by Weber, these researchers found four mutually independent dimensions of organizational structure rather than a single overarching bureaucratic dimension. With this finding, the authors concluded that bureaucracy is a multidimensional phenomenon and that it ‘‘. . .

is not unitary, but that organizations may be bureaucratic in any number of ways’’ (Pugh et al. 1968, p. 101). However, these findings have not been unchallenged. The contentious nature of inquiry into the precise structure of bureaucratic organization is succinctly reflected in the work of

Blau (1970) and of Child (1972), the adoption of a modified position by one of the investigators in the original Aston group (Hickson and McMillan 1981), and the subsequent reply by Pugh (1981).

THE RISE OF BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL

Although bureaucracy existed in imperial Rome and ancient China, as well as in various national monarchies, the complexity of legislative issues arising within the modern state has caused an enormous growth of administrative function within both government and the private sector. Consequently, the power and authority of bureaucratic administrative officials to control policy within an organization as well as the modern state has, over time, increased significantly. The rise to power of bureaucratic officials means that, without expressly intending to achieve power, nonelected officials can and do have a significant impact on a broad spectrum of activities and future developments within society. As Weber noted,

The bureaucratic structure is everywhere a late product of historical development. The further back we trace our steps, the more typical is the absence of bureaucracy and of officialdom in general. Since bureaucracy has a rational character, with rules, means–ends calculus, and matter-of-factness predominating, its rise and expansion has everywhere had revolutionary results. (1978, p. 1002)

Moreover, Weber contended that traditional authority structures have been, and will continue to be, replaced by the rational–legal authority structures of modern bureaucracies, given their

‘‘purely technical superiority over any other form of organization’’ (Weber 1946, p. 214). Regardless of the apparent technical benefit, the increased prominence of bureaucracies in both the public and the private sectors is not without its problems. As Weber acknowledged, certain negative consequences may follow the development of bureaucratic systems of administration to include:

1.The monopolization of information and the creation of ‘‘official secrets’’

2.The inability to change bureaucratic structure because of vested incentive and reward systems, and the dependency of society on the specialization and expertise provided by the bureaucracy

232

BUREAUCRACY

3.The tendency for bureaucracies to act in an autocratic manner, indifferent to variations or changes not previously articulated or anticipated within the bureaucracy.

(Weber 1947, pp. 224–233)

A frequently expressed concern is that bureaucracies are often unresponsive to the individuals and groups they were designed to serve. To exacerbate the situation still further, few, if any, techniques of control are available outside the bureaucracies to make officials more responsive.

Additionally, a number of practical problems may arise to potentially undermine bureaucratic efficiency. These difficulties can include the unwarranted application of rules and regulations, the duplication of effort, and an indifferent and even cavalier attitude among officials. Nonetheless, bureaucracies are relatively efficient and technically superior forms of administration proven to be indispensable to large, complex organizations and modern society. As Perrow has noted (1972), criticism of bureaucracies frequently relates to the fact that the actions of officials are not bureaucratic enough and personal interests may not be fully insulated from official duties.

In viewing the operation and function of bureaucracies, it is imperative that the operational efficiency of bureaucratic procedures be recognized but not at the cost of neglecting a more

‘‘humanistic’’ orientation (Kamenka 1989, ch. 5).

The situational constraints faced by individuals and groups both within and outside bureaucracies warrant attention. As Martin Albrow has noted, bureaucracy is ‘‘a term of strong emotive overtones and elusive connotations’’ (1970, p. 13), and as such it represents more than a straightforward technical process and deserves an eclectic perspective in order to fully appreciate its complexities.

BUREAUCRATIC DYSFUNCTIONS

The classic works of Merton (1940) and of Gouldner (1954) illustrate how unanticipated developments can adversely impact the intended effectiveness of bureaucratic procedures. Merton notes that, commencing with the need for bureaucratic control, individual compliance with rules is enforced, thereby allowing for the development of routinely prescribed, reliable patterns of activity. However, when

this agenda of rule compliance is implemented in a dynamic and fluctuating environment requiring more spontaneous responses, these prescribed patterns of bureaucratic activity can lead to adverse unintended consequences. Even though the circumstances require a different type of response, prescribed and fixed patterns of response may still be adopted because such responses are legitimated and defensible within the bureaucracy, given the extent to which they enhance individual reliability. Consequently, officials and employees do not accommodate the unique features of the situation, efficiency is undermined, and difficulties with clients and customers may ensue. Eventually, troublesome experiences with customers and clients may contribute to an even greater emphasis on bureaucratically reliable behavior rather than attenuating this encapsulated and counterproductive type of behavior. As Merton (1940) notes,

‘‘Adherence to the rules, originally conceived of as a means, becomes transformed into an end in itself; there occurs the familiar process of displacement of goals whereby an instrumental value becomes a terminal value. . .’’ While more highly adaptive and flexible behavior is required and permitted within a bureaucracy, powerful structural constraints may operate to promote situationally inappropriate rule-bound behavior (Blau and Meyer 1987; Allinson 1984).

Like Merton, Gouldner (1954) is concerned with possible unintended effects of formal rule enforcement. In Gouldner’s model, the implications of using general and impersonal rules as a means of enforcing organizational control are investigated. The intention of using such rules is to mask or partially conceal differential power relations between subordinates and their superiors. In societies with egalitarian norms, such as the United States, this serves to enhance the legitimacy of supervisory positions, thereby reducing the prospect of tension between groups with differing power. However, the use of general and impersonal rules also has the unintended consequence of providing only minimal guidelines regarding acceptable organizational behavior. In turn, if only minimum standards of performance are specified and if individuals conform only to these standards, then a disparity arises between the stated goals of the organization, which require a level of performance beyond minimally acceptable and specified standards, and actual individual performance. Since

233