Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2027249

1

The Irrelevance of Legitimacy1

Xavier Marquez

Senior Lecturer, Political Science and International Relations Programme

PO Box 600

Victoria University of Wellington

Wellington, New Zealand

64-4-463-5889

marquez.x@gmail.com or Xavier.marquez@vuw.ac.nz

Abstract

Both popular and academic explanations of the stability, performance, and breakdown of political order

make heavy use of the concept of legitimacy. But prevalent understandings of the idea of legitimacy,

while perhaps useful and appropriate ways of making sense of the political world in ordinary public

discourse, cannot play the more rigorous explanatory roles with which they are tasked in the social

sciences. To the extent that the concept of legitimacy appears to have some explanatory value, this is

only because explanations of social and political order that appeal to legitimacy in fact conceal widely

different (and often inconsistent) accounts of the mechanisms involved in the production of obedience

to authority and submission to norms. I suggest in this paper that explanatory social science would be

better off abandoning the coarse concept of legitimacy for more precise accounts of the operation of

these mechanisms in particular contexts.

1 Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2011 NZPSA meeting in Dunedin and at the 2012 MPSA

meeting in Chicago. I wish to thank especially Steve Winter, Kathy Smits, David Thunder, Peter Koritansky, Vicki Spencer and other participants in these panels for comments. Many bits and pieces of the argument of this paper were first hashed out in my blog (http://abandonedfootnotes.blogspot.com); these benefitted greatly from discussions there and elsewhere.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2027249

2

Both popular and academic explanations of the stability, performance, and breakdown of

political order make heavy use of the concept of legitimacy. The persistence and breakdown of

autocracies, including the communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union

(Burnell 2006; Kalyvas 1999; Holmes 1993) and China (Gilley 2008); political “crises” in liberal

democratic states (Habermas 1975) and their breakdown elsewhere (Linz 1978); the rise of

“populist” movements (Doyle 2011); the general phenomenon of revolution (Goldstone 2001);

and the persistence of relations of domination across a wide range of domains (Beetham 1992;

Weber 1978 [1922]; Beetham 2013), from highly coercive environments like prisons (Tyler

2010) to settings where few coercive mechanisms exist to enforce norms, like international

society (Clark 2005); these are all phenomena whose explanation has often relied on the idea of

legitimacy. Though occasional doubts have been raised about the utility of the concept (O'Kane

1993; Pakulski 1986), and at least some rationalist accounts of political order typically downplay

or even completely eschew the notion of legitimacy (Przeworski 2005; Greif and Laitin 2004), it

is fair to say the idea of legitimacy continues to play a large role in both explanatory and

normative accounts of political order (Gilley 2009, 2006b, 2006a; Simmons 2001; Hechter 2009;

Booth and Seligson 2009). Public discourse is full of references not only to the legitimacy of

political actions and orders but also to the legitimating activities of political actors; the need to

acquire or retain legitimacy is commonly used to frame stories about political action; and

almost everyone believes that political orders ought to be legitimate.

This paper argues that prevalent understandings of the idea of legitimacy, while perhaps useful

and appropriate ways of making sense of the political world in ordinary public discourse, cannot

play the more rigorous explanatory roles with which they are tasked in the social sciences. To

3

the extent that legitimacy appears relevant to accounts of social and political order, it is

typically because it works as a residual concept that bundles together many different and

sometimes contradictory explanatory mechanisms. But to the extent that legitimacy is not a

purely residual concept, it will be mostly irrelevant to social explanation, since it will refer to

only one of many potential mechanisms that account for social and political order in terms of

the human ability to recognize and act in accordance with authority norms.

My argument is grounded in a distinction between “narrow” and “broad” conceptions of

legitimacy.2 The “narrow” conception of legitimacy, which I trace back to Weber’s seminal

discussion of legitimate orders in Economy and Society (Weber 1978 [1922]), identifies a very

specific mechanism for the stability and maintenance of social and political order, namely, the

internalization of the public justifications of such orders by those subject to them. But, I show,

explanations that rely on “narrow” conceptions of legitimacy cannot account for the

maintenance of relationships of domination in a wide variety of cases, as even Weber admitted.

We might then then wish to appeal to a “broad” conception of legitimacy, which we can use to

explain the stability of social and political orders not by appealing to the internalization of their

public justifications, but by pointing to the social recognition of (and hence credible

commitments to) the social norms justifying them. Yet, I argue, such explanations, also found

embryonically in Weber’s account of legitimate orders, do not identify a single mechanism that

can generate credible commitments to norms, but several such mechanisms, with diverse and

even contradictory implications for understanding the stability, performance, and breakdown

of social and political order. I therefore suggest that explanatory social science would be better

2 I owe the “narrow” vs. “broad” terminology to an anonymous reviewer of this paper.

4

off abandoning the broad conception of legitimacy for more precise accounts of the operation

of the mechanisms underlying social and political order in particular contexts, while reserving

the term “legitimacy” for the specific (and, in my view, rare) cases in which particular relations

of domination or other forms of social order are in fact sustained via the internalization of their

public justifications. This suggestion has the additional merit of pushing the normative and

explanatory accounts of legitimacy closer together, insofar as legitimate political orders (in the

narrow sense) are sustained by the acceptance and internalization of publicly acknowledged

reasons, just as normative accounts of legitimacy suggest (Cf. Beetham 1993, p. 490).

The paper’s argumentative strategy is as follows. I begin with a discussion of why the idea of

legitimacy has been thought necessary to the explanation of the stability, performance, and

breakdown of political and social order, even though the results of empirical studies of its

relevance over the long run have often been ambiguous or disappointing. I then clarify the

meaning of the concept as typically used in social explanation, showing that the key question

for an explanation that appeals to legitimacy concerns the way in which the reasons provided in

a discourse of justification operate to sustain particular authority norms. Explanations of social

and political order that appeal to a narrow view of legitimacy, specifically, require that actors

take over public reasons justifying these norms as their private reasons for action. I then argue

that this narrow conception of legitimacy cannot account for many interesting cases of social

and political order, motivating the introduction of a broader conception of legitimacy that

merely demands that in legitimate orders the public justifications for the norms governing

interaction should be seen as valid. But, as I go on to explore in the next to last section of the

paper, the validity of the norms governing legitimate orders in this broader sense can be

5

underpinned by a wide variety of mechanisms ranging from epistemic deficits to coordination

dilemmas to framing effects. More importantly, these mechanisms have different implications

for the stability of social and political orders, and are thus not equivalent for social explanation.

In a concluding section, I argue that discourses of justification are nevertheless extremely

important in politics, not so much because they legitimate relationships of domination, but

because they serve as a language for signalling credible commitments to the norms governing

these relationships.

Why Legitimacy?

The key (but not the only) problem addressed by the notion of legitimacy has to do with the

nature of relations of power and domination, which are characteristic of all complex social

orders. These are asymmetrical relations where one party (“the dominant”) has an incentive to

prevent the other party (“the dominated”) from exiting the relationship or meaningfully

altering its terms, i.e., from resisting it, while the other party has a contrary incentive. While

such relationships can be sustained by repression or material incentives (which affect the short-

term interest calculations of the dominated regarding the possibilities of entering into

alternative relationships or changing the terms of the current one), the assumption since

Weber has been that such “external” incentives cannot by themselves induce sufficient levels of

long-run cooperation on the part of the dominated at reasonable cost to the dominant. This is

because human beings are motivated not merely by extrinsic rewards and punishments, but

also by normative considerations (Dubreuil 2010); and to that extent, we will, ceteris paribus,

more easily follow rules and accept roles that can be justified to us in normative terms.

6

The concept of legitimacy is thus typically used to explain how a relationship of domination (or

indeed any relationship which some participants have incentives to exit, regardless of whether

or not the relationship can be properly characterized as a form of domination) can be

maintained in ways that economize on violence and material rewards (Matheson 1987, p. 200;

Hechter 2009; Tyler 2006a, pp. 376-377). The explanation must indicate both the claim the

dominant make to their position over the dominated (their “legitimating formula,” which

answers the question, “why should the dominant have power over the dominated?”) and the

degree to which this claim is accepted by the dominated and comes to motivate their

commitment to the relationship between both parties. Legitimacy is, on this view,

institutionalized persuasion: it describes relationships in which the dominant make use or take

advantage of certain shared or “public” normative discourses to justify their position and

authority to the dominated, and the dominated generally find such justifications persuasive

enough to motivate continuing commitments to these relationships, net of non-discursive

incentives to remain in or comply with the terms of the relationship (like access to economic

resources or credible threats of physical coercion).3 To the extent that shared modes of

justification are not found persuasive by the subordinate (and hence are motivationally inert),

explanations of relationships of domination based on legitimacy will fail.4

3 Though the distinction between discursive justifications and non-discursive incentives is not always clear in

specific cases, a discursive justification is both public and appeals to moral or other normative considerations, whereas a non-discursive incentive appeals to private considerations of interest (Grant 2006). See also the section on Weber below. 4 It is worth noting, however, that a great deal of “legitimating” discourse in many political orders is not directed at

subordinates but at members of dominant groups, indeed sometimes at a very narrow slice of such groups (Barker 2001).

7

Successful explanations that appeal to legitimacy should thus point to the ways in which

particular relationships are structured by reference to publicly identifiable norms that are

acknowledged by subordinate participants as motivationally relevant or “valid.” Two distinct

types of norms are important here: authority norms identifying who can issue commands or

which rules are to be followed in the context of the relationship in question (e.g., norms

specifying which persons count as “officials” and which rules are “legal” rules that ought to be

obeyed) and evaluative norms identifying the standards (e.g., “fairness” or “moral” norms) the

persons or rules identified by authority norms must meet in order to remain “legitimate” or

“authoritative” (e.g., for their commands to be obeyed with high probability even in the

absence of alternative, non-discursive incentives). Explaining a relationship in terms of

legitimacy involves showing that the subordinate consider a particular authority norm valid

because the authorities in question make a credible claim to meet the standards of publicly

relevant evaluative norms, for example by deploying appropriate discursive justifications for

their actions or acting in ways that are interpretable as falling within shared normative

standards.5

Explanations based on legitimacy are thus not agnostic about the mechanism through which

authority and evaluative norms become motivationally relevant (“valid”) for subordinates.6

More specifically, they typically claim that the motivation underlying action in accordance with

authority norms on the part of subordinates (including, on occasion, helping to enforce such

norms against others; cf. Horne 2009) itself stems from normative considerations, rather than

5 Subordinates who hold the relevant authority norms valid may also be more likely to obey the dominant even if

they (occasionally) violate relevant evaluative norms. 6 For more on the importance of identifying mechanisms in social explanation, see Elster (2007); Tilly (2008).

8

from material or other non-discursive incentives. For example, Tyler (2006b); (2010) argues that

people are more likely to obey the law and cooperate with the police when they internalize

norms of authority that identify the law as a set of rules that ought to be obeyed and the police

as having a right to direct one’s conduct in accordance with their interpretations of these rules,

and they are more likely to internalize these norms when they interpret the actions of the

police (and the legal process more generally) to be in accord with norms of procedural fairness

they believe in, and evaluate the outcome induced by obeying the law as falling within

recognizable moral limits they endorse. Tyler’s account stresses the key role of the beliefs

underlying these authority and evaluative norms in the specific mechanism motivating

subordinate individuals to cooperate with the police or obey the law, and indeed distinguishes

this mechanism not only from deterrence (a non-discursive incentive) but also from peer

effects, personal morality, and evaluations of the extent to which citizens felt their interests

were being furthered by authorities.

A comparable account of the legitimacy of states as complex systems of relationships of

domination is given by Gilley (2006b), following the work of Beetham (1992), discussed in more

detail below. On Gilley’s view, a state is considered legitimate by a population to the extent

that a population believes in an authority norm that grants it the exclusive right to use political

power; and citizens believe the state has this right to the extent that it acts in accordance with

both other widely acknowledged authority norms (“legally”), and widely endorsed evaluative

norms (pursues “public purposes” that credibly justify its actions). As long as states act within

the constraints of these authority and evaluative norms, citizens will thus produce acts of

consent in ordinary life (cooperation with officials, obedience to laws, etc.). Individual beliefs in

9

these specific norms (measured both via the attitudes citizens reveal in public opinion surveys

and in their acts of consent towards the state) thus play a key role in the mechanism that Gilley

assumes makes authority norms about state power (“legitimacy”) motivationally effective for

citizens.

The importance of normative beliefs for legitimacy explanations means that the empirical

literature typically attempts to trace links between individual normative attitudes and the

stability or performance of political and social orders (Booth and Seligson 2009, chapter 1; Tyler

2006a; Jost and Major 2001). Yet though individual studies often find links between legitimacy

as measured by attitudes expressed in surveys and institutional change and stability (for some

examples, see Rose, Mishler, and Munro 2011; Gilley 2008; Power and Cyr 2009), effects are

often small,7 and the evidence that measured opinion has a big impact on the stability of large

political and social orders over the long run is limited. As Booth and Seligson (2009, p. 3) note,

If institutional legitimacy has indeed declined so much in recent decades, why have we

not by now observed at least a few breakdowns of established democracies, or more

frequent and widespread protests directed at them? And why do even the newer

democracies, with significantly worse performance than developed democracies, appear

to enjoy strong popular support?

A number of solutions to this puzzle have been proposed. Booth and Seligson, for example,

suggest that the problem lies primarily in the lack of good measures of legitimacy, which could

7 For example, in Tyler’s landmark 1990 study of why people obey the law (Tyler 2006b), only about 2% of the

variance in compliance was explained by legitimacy properly speaking (p. 60). And although much research since (noted in the afterword to the 2006 edition) confirms the importance of normative motivations for compliance with the law and deference to authorities, the specific explanatory power of measures of legitimacy remains low.

10

presumably be improved by better measurement techniques and improved datasets of the kind

that they and others (notably Gilley 2006b, 2012) have attempted to produce. Other

researchers (e.g., Norris 2011, chapter 2; as well as Booth and Seligson 2009) point not only to

measurement problems, but also to conceptual confusion regarding different dimensions of

legitimacy; Booth and Seligson in particular attempt to distinguish among the different objects

of legitimacy (the nation, regime principles, regime institutions, regime performance as

evaluated from a sociotropic perspective, local government, specific political actors) and to

identify which of these is most important for explaining the persistence of political and social

order. And arguably much empirical work neglects to control for private incentives and coercion

when testing the effects of legitimacy on institutional change and stability. But my purpose

here is not to delve into these sophisticated debates about the measurement of legitimacy or

its manifold dimensions, but to argue that the concept cannot truly bear the empirical weight

placed upon it because of its dependence on an undertheorized conception of belief in

particular norms.

Weberian Legitimacy and its Discontents

The problem goes back to Max Weber’s original discussion of legitimacy in Economy and

Society. The clarity and rigor of Weber’s presentation, as well as its influence on subsequent

accounts of legitimacy, makes his views worth discussing in some detail, especially since he is

forced to concede that a “narrow” conception of legitimacy, grounded in a specific belief

mechanism (the internalization of norms), is insufficient to explain actual relationships of

11

domination.8 At any rate, Weber shows that the key question for legitimacy explanations

concerns the way in which the reasons provided in a discourse of justification enable action in

accordance with certain norms.

Weber’s discussion of legitimacy may be best understood as an attempt to explain how the

different ways in which people understand their reasons for action give rise to and disrupt

different patterns of social action (“social orders”). According to him, there are only three kinds

of social order:

1. In habitual orders, patterns of social action emerge and are kept in existence through

the unthinking inertia of everyday activity (“habitual action”); reasons do not play a

motivating role in their creation. Such orders are not stable, however, to the

introduction of reflection; when people think about what they are doing, they may act

differently, transforming their forms of interaction into interest-based or legitimate

orders.

2. In interest-based orders (such as ideal-typical markets), social regularities emerge from

the mutual adjustment of the activities of more or less instrumentally rational actors

engaging in tactical and strategic activity in pursuit of their various interests. Reasons

here play a motivating role in the emergence of social regularities, but only privately:

each actor has his or her own (different) reasons for acting as he or she does in pursuit

of his or her interests, yet social regularities still emerge from the private adjustments

8 My interpretation of Weber draws on Habermas’ discussion in The Theory of Communicative Action (Habermas

1984 [1981]), especially I.ii.1, pp.157-185 and I.ii.4, pp. 254-271; the relevant passages of Weber are mostly in Economy and Society I.i, especially sections 4-6.

12

each actor makes to his or her behaviour in light of the actions of others. In modern

game-theoretic terms, the social order is the equilibrium of some game, emerging from

the participants’ (potentially heterogeneous) private reasons for action. Weber thinks,

however, that pure interest-based orders are generally unstable, and are thus often

stabilized by what we might call “shared” or “public” reasons, which transform interest-

based orders into “legitimate” orders properly speaking.

3. In legitimate orders social regularities emerge from the shared acceptance by agents of

certain reasons for action or inaction. These reasons are usually understood as

normative constraints on the kinds of actions that agents might privately consider, such

as for example beliefs about the validity, justice, fairness, or virtue of particular actions

or norms. Here reasons produce social regularities not through their being held privately

(as in interest-based orders) but through their being shared or “public” reasons that can

rule out of bounds or override, so to speak, certain kinds of private reasons for action.

Weber identifies three basic “ideal types” of legitimate order: the traditional order, where the

legitimating reasons refer to the supposed naturalness of an institution; the charismatic order,

where the legitimating reasons refer to the special qualities of a person or persons from whom

rules issue; and the legal-rational order, where the legitimating reasons refer to the special

qualities of a set of rules (which can themselves be used to generate further rules). In each of

these orders, submission to authority occurs according to distinctive legitimating formulas that

indicate what we might call the “expected answer” to the question of why one should obey.

Thus, in legal-rational orders the expected answer to that question is, roughly, “because the

13

(duly enacted) rules authorize it”; in traditional orders the expected answer is “because that is

the way things are done around here, and our traditions are sacred”; and in charismatic orders

the expected answer is “because the leader says so, and he/she is special.” These constitute the

(public) reasons for obedience, i.e. the (public) justifications for authority norms in each of

these orders, and Weber thinks that they can play an explanatory role in accounting for their

persistence and stability.

This characterization of the “types” of legitimacy has been subject to severe critical scrutiny,

since there seem to be more than three potential “normative” reasons for submitting to

authority than legality, tradition, and charisma. But Weber’s basic point is that there is an

empirical connection between certain kinds of legitimating formulas and the organizational

structure of historically important relationships of domination (Matheson 1987). Thus legal-

rational orders are bureaucracies (where action takes place according to clearly specified rules

and the importance of personal ties of loyalty is relatively small); traditional orders are non-

bureaucratic patrimonial hierarchies (where action takes place within the constraints of vaguely

specified normative limits understood as “sacred” and personal ties of loyalty are relatively

important); and charismatic orders are personal followings (not bound by established

normative limits and entirely dependent on personal ties to a person who is thought to have

“extraordinary” qualities).

Whatever the status and usefulness of Weber’s tripartite division of legitimacy claims may be,

however, the key point remains that an explanation of a social order for Weber must point to

the way in which certain public justificatory claims (what I called “evaluative and authority

14

norms” above) become shared or public reasons for action. But how can this happen? The

obvious interpretation (and the one that Weber seems to prefer in speaking of “beliefs in

legitimacy” – see Beetham 1992, p. 23; Weber 1978 [1922], pp. 215-216) is that such public

justifications are effective to the extent that most of those subject to the social order take

ownership of them as part of their own reasons for acting or not acting in particular ways that

can override their non-shared private reasons. Public justifications thus become private

reasons, and norms become internalized. This is the “narrow” conception of legitimacy, which is

also evident in many modern accounts of legitimacy noted earlier.

Yet it is simply not empirically clear that most people in “legitimate orders” (bureaucracies,

patrimonial hierarchies, and personal followings) actually are motivated to obey because they

believe in the “public justifications” offered by those in power in any significant sense, i.e., that

they take the reasons offered in these discourses of justification as the main reasons that

motivate their action. This is most obvious in the case of slavery, where it is clear that the

“legitimating discourses” used by slaveholders could hardly be expected to convince the slaves

themselves (though they could have helped motivate the cooperation of slaveholders to

enforce the norm of slavery); but many quite stable societies do not depend for their stability

on the transformation of public reasons into private reasons, as we can tell from divergences

between the “hidden” and the “public” transcripts (see, for a detailed example in an agrarian

society, Scott 1985). Weber is well aware of this point:

It is by no means true that every case of submissiveness of persons in positions of power

is primarily (or even at all) oriented to this belief [viz., the belief that those in authority

15

have a right to command]. Loyalty may be hypocritically simulated by individuals or by

whole groups on purely opportunistic grounds, or carried out in practice for reasons of

material self-interest. Or people may submit from individual weakness and helplessness

because there is no acceptable alternative (Weber 1978 [1922], p. 214)

The important point is less whether individual action is motivated by the belief in legitimacy

(the internalization of authority norms) than that “in any given case the particular claim to

legitimacy is to a significant degree and according to its type treated as “valid””(Weber 1978

[1922], p. 214). But, as Weber himself acknowledges, there are a wide variety of ways in which

a norm may be taken as valid for the purposes of “public” justification and “public” behavior,

ranging from pure acting “as if” one believed in the claim (Wedeen 1998; Kuran 1997; Havel

1992) to the full “internalization” of the reasons for action embedded in the public justification

(see Tilly 1991, for a list of possibilities). In other words, to say that the norm justifying a

relationship of domination is valid (and thus motivationally relevant) is to say very little about

the mechanisms that determine action in accordance with it, since belief in the norm is not the

only way in which the norm can be recognized as motivationally relevant.

Recognizing this problem, Beetham (1992, 2013) attempts to improve on Weber’s narrow

model of legitimacy by explicitly abandoning the idea of beliefs in legitimacy and instead

speaking primarily about the congruence between shared beliefs and public justifications. On

Beetham’s model, to ask whether a political system (for example) is legitimate is to ask not

about whether people take the public reasons for action offered by a discourse of justification

as their own private reasons for action, but (in the first instance) about observable features of

16

the system that show congruence between shared beliefs and public justifications, such as

whether the publicly recognized rules authorizing action are followed (and hence whether

action is in accordance with valid authority norms), whether the justifications of the norms

regulating authority appeal to widely shared beliefs (and hence whether action is in accord with

valid evaluative norms), and whether those subject to authority publicly express their

recognition of the relevant authority norms (thus providing evidence of their validity).9

The key point in Beetham’s account is that legitimate relationships of domination tend to

generate the evidence for their own justification. In his view, the justifications for the norms

that govern a relationship of domination are not merely the manipulative rhetoric of the

powerful – indeed, Beetham thinks explicit manipulation results not in persuasion but in

cynicism, as happened in the communist states of Eastern Europe in the 1980s – but rather

claims that are justified by the social facts generated by the system itself. For example, if the

powerful claim that their position is justified because of their superior education or political

intelligence, then to the extent that the relationship is legitimate, the system in which it is

embedded will tend to differentially provide the powerful with greater education and

opportunities to develop political intelligence than the subordinate; if the powerful claim that it

is only by following the rules that the subordinate will get ahead, the operation of the

relationship will make that claim credible. Legitimacy is institutionalized persuasion because

legitimate systems manufacture credible claims.

9 In the 1992 edition of his work, Beetham used the term “acts of consent.” But in the 2013 edition, Beetham

suggests that the word “consent” is too close to the subjectivity of the narrow conception of legitimacy, and prefers to speak of “acts of recognition” (see p. 267).

17

Beetham does not claim that every social system is experienced as legitimate, or that every

social system has equal need of legitimacy; the need for legitimacy is always related to the

purposes of those in authority, and is greater in political orders that explicitly incorporate the

mass of the population in politics (Beetham 2013, pp. 30-3, 256). But those social systems

which are not experienced as legitimate are precisely those where the subordinate can perceive

an obvious gap between the qualities or actions the powerful say justify their position and the

qualities they actually have, or between the possibilities for pursuing their interests given

within the system and possibilities obviously available elsewhere. Explanations that appeal to

legitimacy, for Beetham, are thus fundamentally about the mechanisms that affect the

credibility of justificatory claims within large-scale social systems, including the evidence that

public rules have been followed, that justificatory claims are plausible in terms of the

subordinates’ lived experiences, and that others publicly recognize to the norms governing the

system. Yet the mechanisms that generate credible justificatory claims and thus promote the

recognition of norms as “valid” are quite disparate, with different effects on the stability of

particular relationships of domination and the norms that justify them.

Mechanisms of Norm-recognition

Four (non-exhaustive) possibilities are worth noting:

1. Recognition of the validity of an authority norm, and hence submission to a relationship

of domination, may occur for epistemic reasons. The dominated may submit to the

dominant because they do not know whether some superior alternative relationship

exists, or have insufficient evidence that apparently superior alternatives are in fact

18

better than the existing relationship, or have insufficient evidence that the process of

changing the existing relationship will not in fact worsen their situation, regardless of

the content of the justificatory discourse used by the dominant. Social systems are

complex, and conservatism is often quite rational; it is not obviously wrong for the

dominated to think things could be worse than they are, even if they are aware of

(apparent, yet untested) superior alternatives.

Such epistemic considerations may also underwrite trust in particular institutions or

aspects of a social order: if the social order has proven beneficial (relative to alternatives

judged to be feasible) in the past, it makes sense to “put up” with it even if one is aware

of untested alternatives that might be even better than the current arrangements, but

whose actual performance is in doubt. This is what is commonly meant by “performance

legitimacy” (the legitimacy gained by a political system because it is associated with

positive economic or social outcomes), even though such performance legitimacy is only

incidentally connected to the private acceptance of the public reasons justifying the

political order. At any rate, to trust that a political order will continue to be “acceptable”

does not require that the dominant deploy justificatory discourses, or that the

dominated accept any such justifications and commit themselves to the social order on

that basis; all it requires is some kind of cost-benefit analysis on their part relative to

feasible alternatives, where “feasible alternatives” are specified in terms of the

opportunities for exit or collective action that seem available at any particular time,

given the evidence that the current order produces certain benefits.

19

It may be the case that the belief that there are no alternatives to existing arrangements

emerges only because the dominant monopolize the public sphere in such a way as to

obfuscate relevant information about such alternatives. But even then no beliefs in the

legitimacy of the relationship need play any large role in sustaining it. The belief

(whether true or false) that no acceptable alternatives to this relationship are currently

available or feasible is not equivalent to the acceptance of the justificatory discourses

for the relationship. At best we might say that the relationship is epistemically justified

to the dominated, i.e., that given available information they justifiably believe that there

are no feasible alternative relationships that would improve their condition. But in this

case no obligations are recognized, and submission does not occur because of the

acceptance of any justificatory discourses.

In these cases, beliefs in the narrow legitimacy of the relationship may often be

understood as adaptive responses to the perceived lack of alternatives, or what social

psychologists call “system justification” (Jost, Banaji, and Nosek 2004), and thus may

play little or no causal role in actually sustaining the relationship (except perhaps in

leading the dominated to stop looking for alternatives). For example, a number of

experiments suggest that the more a restriction is perceived to be absolute or

inescapable, the more it is likely to be adaptively rationalized (Laurin, Kay, and

Fitzsimons 2012); to the extent that people believe a relationship is legitimate because

they see no feasible alternative, the attendant recognition of the justificatory norm

20

plays no causal role in sustaining the relationship. Such rationalizing or adaptive beliefs

in the legitimacy of a relationship, in other words, may be effects, not causes, of the

epistemic difficulty people enmeshed in complex systems of domination have in

evaluating alternatives.

These epistemic difficulties also have much to do with the very social nature of the

knowledge involved. The evidence that some alternative is not feasible is partly

constituted by the fact that other people say or express that they believe it is not

feasible, because any alternative to the status quo would normally require coordinating

away from it with a substantial number of others. So the evidence for the feasibility of

some alternative to the existing political or social order has the character of what Kuran

has called “social proof” (Kuran 1991): what is feasible depends partly on what others

think is feasible. Consider, for example, the use of rigged elections in authoritarian

regimes: the point of these elections is often to signal invincibility (Magaloni 2006;

Magaloni and Kricheli 2010; Gandhi and Okar 2009), i.e., to produce a sense that

alternatives are not feasible, not necessarily to convince a population of the ruler’s or

the party’s right to rule. These elections do not legitimate a regime in the narrow sense

of the term, but they do provide “social proof” that alternatives are unlikely.

2. Recognition of the validity of an authority norm, and hence submission to a relationship

of domination, may occur because of coordination dilemmas. Even though better

alternatives are known to exist, the dominated are unable to mobilize collective action

21

in favor of any particular alternative, and individual efforts to exit the relationship are

ineffective. And though the subordinate may prefer an alternative relationship, they do

not all prefer the same alternative, and have no obvious way of agreeing on an

alternative and coordinating their actions to achieve it. As in the previous case, the

persistence of a relationship may thus give rise to “system justification” beliefs (or “just

world bias”: see Furnham 2003). But these beliefs need not play any actual role in

sustaining the relationship: they may be responses to, not causes of, the inability of the

subordinate to exit or alter meaningfully alter the relationship.

Many “unpopular” practices (e.g., paying bribes for public services in many parts of the

world) persist not because people find them “legitimate” in a narrow sense (justified by

a norm they internalize), but because they cannot find any way to coordinate away from

them without losing access to important goods (Bicchieri and Fukui 1999; Bicchieri and

Duffy 1997). But even practices that appear to depend on thoroughly internalized norms

are sometimes explained better by the lack of particular coordination mechanisms. For

example, consider the practice of footbinding in China before the 20th century (Mackie

1996). This oppressive practice was legitimated by a normative understanding of purity

and female beauty that was widely accepted by women because it generated the

evidence for its own justification: women who did not bind their feet would lose out on

the marriage market, marking them as low status, and only low status women would fail

to bind their feet (because, e.g., they could not afford to do so given that they needed

to work in the fields). It made sense, in these circumstances, for higher-status women to

22

bind their feet (or for their mothers to do so), and indeed the fact that they did so

meant that they engaged in acts recognizing the validity of the norm.

Yet the justificatory claims for the practice were credible only because the affected

women faced coordination dilemmas. While women as a group might have preferred

not to bind their feet, each individual woman was in fact better off by pursuing

footbinding, at least within a context where marriage was seen as otherwise highly

valuable; and the difficulties of exit then produced adaptive rationalizations for the

norm. By the same token, when commitment mechanisms enabled whole villages to opt

out of the footbinding practice at the same time, providing an “exit” option to women,

apparently legitimating norms tended to lose their hold. The practice was thus disrupted

not because people were persuaded that it was not in accord with widely shared beliefs

(i.e., because it lost legitimacy), but because new exit or collective action opportunities

undermined the credibility of justifications for the practice and thus made them

dispensable in light of the values they pragmatically pursued in everyday life. The

possibilities for coordination within the marriage market provide a better causal account

of changes in the practice of footbinding than the justificatory discourses that at one

point rationalized it; under the right circumstances, the practice was far less robust than

a simple account in terms of its legitimacy might have led one to think.

The resilience of many political orders to broad-based revolt will also often depend on

such collective action problems (Olson 1971): even if many people believe in the

23

illegitimacy of a particular social order (i.e., do not accept the justifications offered for it

by the dominant), collective action is costly and subject to free-riding. While these

collective action problems are of course not insurmountable, the key point to note is

that belief in the rightness of a social order is far less important to the explanation of the

stability of the social order in this case than the conditions that either intensify or

resolve the collective action problem faced by those who prefer change, and these

conditions have less to do with the beliefs themselves than with the way in which signals

of other people’s commitment to the social order are weighed and found credible

(Bhavnani and Ross 2003; Lohmann 1994).

3. Submission to a relationship of domination may occur because of a desire to affiliate

with people of a particular group or to live up to values associated with a particular

identity. Consider what is involved in making a claim like “ensuring female and minority

representation in the higher reaches of the party may enhance the [Chinese] regime’s

legitimacy” (Shih, Adolph, and Liu 2012, 169). To the extent that the claim identifies a

causal relation linking the representation of minorities to the stability of the Chinese

regime, this relation can be mediated either by beliefs in the moral desirability of fair

minority representation or by the desire of minority groups to affiliate with the regime

(to tie their status to the status of the regime and identify with it, etc.) if the regime

made efforts to recognize and raise their status (by granting honours to people with

whom they can be expected to identify, for example). These are generally different

mechanisms: an identity-based explanation of stability is essentially grounded on the

24

(self-)interest of individuals in recognition and status, whereas a narrow legitimacy-

based explanation is based on the acceptance of public reasons (e.g., the fairness of

representation). But they are not easily distinguishable in many circumstances, since

claims for greater status are typically couched in the language of fair representation.

More generally, cooperation with the dominant on the basis of “peer opinion” (doing

what one’s identity group expects) is different from cooperation on the basis of

internalization of justificatory norms, as some of the more careful work on legitimacy

acknowledges (cf. Tyler 2006b, chapter 5).

4. Finally, we should note that even when people do sincerely have an attachment to some

particular social order, or even believe sincerely that a relationship is justified (and this

belief is not produced by the fact that the relationship is not easily exited or altered),

this fact may imply little about their level of commitment to the maintenance of the

relationship in particular circumstances. People may be sincerely committed to the

maintenance of a relationship “abstractly” – in what psychologists call “far mode”

(Trope and Liberman 2010) – and yet show no particular commitment to it when

circumstances demand it in the here and now, and risks increase. Evidence from

psychological experiments suggests that people’s commitments to principled action (of

the kind required to preserve a “legitimate” relationship) are highly “situational” and

can change with even relatively minor changes in circumstances (Doris 2002).

25

The point is not that these “far” commitments are insincere, or that people’s expressed

ideas about the justice of particular social orders do not matter; only that they may not

affect action in uncommon circumstances (which are precisely the sorts of

circumstances when social change happens). So the fact that people express, for

example, views that suggest they regard democracy as a legitimate social order, does

not say much about their actual commitment to its defense in risky situations, as public

opinion researchers have found (Inglehart 2003). To say that people “believe what they

say” (that is, are sincere in their judgments) is insufficient, in a sense, to attribute to

them belief in what they say. A belief has to be conceivable as a certain degree of

consistency in action relative to some proposition across multiple situations

(Schwitzgebel 2010, 2001); and under sufficiently large constraints on exiting a

relationship or voicing dissatisfaction with it, such pragmatic cross-situational

consistency tends to break down.

None of this is to say that beliefs in the justificatory norms of political and social order never

play any role in sustaining them. But we cannot assume that they are always an important,

much less essential, factor for the stability or performance of a relationship of domination; and

speaking loosely of how certain practices “legitimate” a political order by appealing to certain

valid justificatory norms can be highly misleading. For example, though political scientists often

claim that single party or otherwise unfair elections “legitimate” governments (Brooker 2014,

pp. 110-114), there is very little evidence that such a “legitimating” function is the main or even

the most important purpose of holding such elections, or that the coerced “support” they

demand generates much in the way of genuine commitments to a regime (cf. Karklins 1986, on

26

Soviet elections; Kershaw 1987, on Nazi plebiscites). Elections can intimidate, demoralize,

confuse, and disrupt oppositions’ ability to engage in collective action, as well as mobilize

supporters and enhance elite commitments to a regime before they generate any sort of

normative commitments on the part of the majority of citizens; and they need not be credible

as demonstrations of popular support or legitimacy to function as credible signals of

invincibility, permanence, and the like.

Legitimation and Social Explanation

If the recognition of norms justifying relationships of domination (and hence support for and

acquiescence to political and social orders) can be produced by different mechanisms, with

different implications for the stability of particular relationships, we may thus wish to dispense

with talk about legitimation and focus on these mechanisms directly. Yet one might still argue

that such a focus would miss the forest for the trees, since it would neglect the central role of

justificatory talk in actual politics. What accounts for the prevalence of justificatory discourses

in politics (all the “legitimating activities” of political actors), if not the fact that legitimacy is

highly relevant to the production and maintenance of relationships of domination?

It is true that political discourse is full of efforts to make others treat certain normative claims

as valid, and that a great deal of effort is expended in providing justifications for these claims,

since norms that are held to be valid become motivationally relevant for those subject to them.

But the legitimating activities of political actors are typically geared to produce public

commitments to, not the sincere internalization of, authority and evaluative norms. And, as we

27

saw above, the credibility of public (i.e., visible) commitments to such norms can be achieved in

many different ways.

Very generally, we might say that in treating a legitimacy claim as valid, one wishes to signal a

commitment to a particular social order or relationship and hence to behave according to the

discursive consequences of the claim, regardless of one’s private judgment about the substance

of the claim. To use a Weberian example, in a legal-rational order one’s actions must be

interpretable as legal (regardless of one’s intentions), i.e., credibly seen as falling within (what is

publicly recognized as) the law, whereas in a traditional order one’s actions must be colorable

as traditional, i.e., credibly seen as in accordance with tradition. But when many people treat a

legitimacy claim as valid certain kinds of justifications for action become expected within

particular groups, and not giving the expected justification (or behaving according to the

expected discourse of justification) singles one out for sanctions and exclusion (among other

possibilities).

A relationship of domination thus acquires stability not because people internalize the

justifications offered for the relationship (the “narrow” sense of legitimacy); rather, it acquires

stability because people credibly signal their commitment to it by using the shared discourse of

justification; and the ensemble of such signals influences the commitment of all others in the

relationship. In particular, people may signal commitment to a political order because other

people are giving credible signals of commitment; and if enough other people are signalling

their commitment, it may make little sense for any individual to do otherwise. Such generalized

credible signals of commitment may in turn induce adjustments in one’s inner “judgments”

28

about the justifying norms of the relationships (especially given tendencies toward

confirmation bias and conformism), but these effects may not be particularly important to the

stability of the relationship. By the same token, signalling some commitment to a norm is

compatible with private avoidance or shirking, dislike of the norm, and so on.

A discourse of justification is thus a kind of focal point for coordinating expectations of stability:

it generates widespread expectations about publicly acceptable reasons and explanations for

action within a relationship, and it sets the standard of commitment that these explanations

and actions must achieve. Alternative justifications and explanations for action cease to be

credible as signals of commitment simply because they are not expressed through the public

discourse of justification. But the stability of relationships of domination is not causally

explained by pointing to the acceptance of these public reasons. The discourse of justification is

merely the form of the commitment, not the cause of the commitment.

What matters for explanations of social change are the conditions under which alternative

normative claims can emerge as focal points for new signaling systems, or under which the

signaling equilibrium is disrupted. Here traditional explanations of social change based on

legitimacy have somewhat more to say: there are many common conditions under which, for

example, the failure of authorities to demonstrate a credible commitment to norms of justice

or fairness to which they or the population are publicly committed produces anger and in turn

triggers activities that reduce the costs of coordinating signals of commitment to a different

social order (Goldstone 2001). But anything that can trigger substantial changes in the costs of

exiting the relationship (as understood from within the relationship) or coordinating

29

commitments to a different relationship will have substantial impacts on expectations of its

stability. From this point of view, legitimacy in the narrow sense of the term is merely the

residual of exit and voice – what Hirschman (2004) called loyalty: it is what is left of

commitment to a relationship that is not explained by the possibility of exit or collective action.

But there is little reason to believe that, when the costs of exit are large or the possibility of

collective action remote, this residual is often large or important.

References

Barker, Rodney. 2001. Legitimating Identities: the Self-presentations of Rulers and Subjects.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beetham, David. 1992. The legitimation of power: Macmillan.

———. 1993. "In defense of legitimacy." Political studies no. 41 (3):488-491.

———. 2013. The legitimation of power. 2nd ed: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bhavnani, Ravi, and Michael Ross. 2003. "Announcement, Credibility, and Turnout in Popular

Rebellions." Journal of Conflict Resolution no. 47 (3):340-366.

Bicchieri, Cristina, and John Duffy. 1997. "Corruption Cycles." Political Studies no. 45 (3):477-

495.

Bicchieri, Cristina, and Yoshitaka Fukui. 1999. "The Great Illusion: Ignorance, Informational

Cascades and the Persistence of Unpopular Norms." Business Ethics Quarterly no. 9:127-

155.

Booth, John, and Mitchell Seligson. 2009. The Legitimacy Puzzle in Latin America: Political

Support and Democracy in Eight Nations: Cambridge University Press.

30

Brooker, Paul. 2014. Non-democratic regimes. Third edition. ed. Houndmills: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Burnell, Peter. 2006. "Autocratic Opening to Democracy: Why Legitimacy Matters." Third World

Quarterly no. 27 (4):545-562.

Clark, Ian. 2005. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford and New York: Oxford University

Press.

Doris, John M. 2002. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Doyle, David. 2011. "The Legitimacy of Political Institutions." Comparative Political Studies no.

44 (11):1447-1473.

ubreuil, Beno t. 2010. Human evolution and the origins of hierarchies: the state of nature. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Elster, Jon. 2007. Explaining social behavior: more nuts and bolts for the social sciences.

Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Furnham, A. 2003. "Belief in a just world: research progress over the past decade." Personality

and Individual Differences no. 34 (5):795-817.

Gandhi, Jennifer, and Ellen Okar. 2009. "Elections Under Authoritarianism." Annual Review of

Political Science no. 12 (1):403-422.

Gilley, Bruce. 2006a. "The determinants of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries."

International Political Science Review no. 27 (1):47-71.

———. 2006b. "The Meaning and Measure of State Legitimacy: Results for 72 countries."

European Journal of Political Research no. 45 (3):499-525.

31

———. 2008. "Legitimacy and Institutional Change." Comparative Political Studies no. 41

(3):259-284.

———. 2009. The Right to Rule: How States Win and Lose Legitimacy: Columbia University

Press.

———. 2012. "State legitimacy: An updated dataset for 52 countries." European Journal of

Political Research no. 51 (5):693-699.

Goldstone, Jack. 2001. "Toward a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory." Annual Review

of Political Science no. 4 (1):139-187.

Grant, R. W. 2006. "Ethics and incentives: A political approach." American Political Science

Review no. 100 (1):29-39.

Greif, Avner, and David Laitin. 2004. "A Theory of Endogenous Institutional Change." American

Political Science Review no. 98 (4):633-652.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1975. Legitimation crisis: Beacon Press.

———. 1984 [1981]. The Theory of Communicative Action. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. 2

vols. Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Havel, Vaclav. 1992. "The Power of the Powerless." In Open Letters: Selected Writings, 1965-

1990, edited by Paul Wilson, 125-214. New York: Vintage Books.

Hechter, Michael. 2009. "Legitimacy in the Modern World." American Behavioral Scientist no.

53 (3):279-288.

Hirschman, Albert O. 2004. Exit, voice, and loyalty : responses to decline in firms, organizations,

and states. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

32

Holmes, Leslie. 1993. The End of Communist Power: Anti-Corruption Campaigns and

Legitimation Crisis: Oxford University Press, USA.

Horne, Christine. 2009. "A Social Norms Approach to Legitimacy." American Behavioral Scientist

no. 53 (3):400-415.

Inglehart, Ronald. 2003. "How Solid Is Mass Support for Democracy: And How Can We Measure

It?" PS: Political Science and Politics no. 36 (1):51-57.

Jost, John, Mahzarin Banaji, and Brian Nosek. 2004. "A Decade of System Justification Theory:

Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo."

Political Psychology no. 25 (6):881-919.

Jost, John, and Brenda Major. 2001. The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on

Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations: Cambridge University Press.

Kalyvas, Stathis. 1999. "The Decay and Breakdown of Communist One-Party Systems." Annual

Review of Political Science no. 2 (1):323-343.

Karklins, Rasma. 1986. "Soviet Elections Revisited: Voter Abstention in Noncompetitive Voting."

The American Political Science Review no. 80 (2):449-470.

Kershaw, Ian. 1987. The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich. Oxford and New

York: Clarendon Press.

Kuran, Timur. 1991. "Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European

Revolution of 1989." World Politics no. 44 (1):7-48.

———. 1997. Private truths, public lies : the social consequences of preference falsification. 1st

Harvard University Press pbk. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

33

Laurin, Kristin, Aaron C. Kay, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons. 2012. "Reactance Versus Rationalization."

Psychological Science.

Linz, Juan J. 1978. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and

Reequilibration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lohmann, Susanne. 1994. "The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday

Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989-91." World Politics no. 47 (1):42-101.

Mackie, Gerry. 1996. "Ending Footbinding and Infibulation: A Convention Account." American

Sociological Review no. 61 (6).

Magaloni, Beatriz. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in

Mexico: Cambridge University Press.

Magaloni, Beatriz, and Ruth Kricheli. 2010. "Political Order and One-Party Rule." Annual Review

of Political Science no. 13 (1):123-143.

Matheson, Craig. 1987. "Weber and the Classification of Forms of Legitimacy." The British

Journal of Sociology no. 38 (2).

Norris, Pippa. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited: Cambridge University Press.

O'Kane, Rosemary. 1993. "Against Legitimacy." Political studies no. 41 (3):471-487.

Olson, Mancur. 1971. The logic of collective action : public goods and the theory of groups. Rev.

ed. New York: Schocken Books.

Pakulski, Jan. 1986. "Legitimacy and Mass Compliance: Reflections on Max Weber and Soviet-

Type Societies." British Journal of Political Science no. 16 (1):35-56.

Power, Timothy, and Jennifer Cyr. 2009. "Mapping political legitimacy in Latin America."

International Social Science Journal no. 60 (196):253-272.

34

Przeworski, Adam. 2005. "Democracy as an Equilibrium." Public Choice no. 123 (3):253-273.

Rose, Richard, William Mishler, and Neil Munro. 2011. Popular Support for an Undemocratic

Regime: The Changing Views of Russians: Cambridge University Press.

Schwitzgebel, E. 2001. "In-between believing." Philosophical Quarterly no. 51 (202):76-82.

———. 2010. "Acting Contrary to Our Professed Beliefs or the Gulf between Occurrent

Judgment and Dispositional Belief." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly no. 91 (4):531-553.

Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the weak : everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

Shih, Victor, Christopher Adolph, and Mingxing Liu. 2012. "Getting Ahead in the Communist

Party: Explaining the Advancement of Central Committee Members in China." American

Political Science Review no. 106 (1):166-187.

Simmons, John. 2001. Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations: Cambridge

University Press.

Tilly, Charles. 1991. "Domination, Resistance, Compliance... Discourse." Sociological Forum no.

6 (3):593-602.

———. 2008. Explaining social processes. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Trope, Yaacov, and Nira Liberman. 2010. "Construal-level theory of psychological distance."

Psychological Review no. 117 (2):440-463.

Tyler, Tom R. 2006a. "Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation." Annual

Review of Psychology no. 57 (1):375-400.

———. 2006b. Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 2010. "“Legitimacy in corrections”." Criminology & Public Policy no. 9 (1):127-134.

35

Weber, Max. 1978 [1922]. Economy and Society. Translated by Guenther Roth and Klaus

Wittich. 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press. Original edition, 1922.

Wedeen, Lisa. 1998. "Acting : Symbolic Politics and Social Control in Syria." Comparative Studies

in Society and History no. 40 (3):503-523.