Hierarchy salience and social action: disentangling class, status, and authority in world politics
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Author | Carsten-Andreas Schulz |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117818803434 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117818803434
International Relations
2019, Vol. 33(1) 88 –108
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117818803434
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Hierarchy salience and social
action: disentangling class,
status, and authority in world
politics
Carsten-Andreas Schulz
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Abstract
Hierarchy is a persistent feature of international politics. Existing accounts recognize that there
are many ways in which actors can stand in relation to one another. Yet they struggle to make
sense of this complexity. This study considers Max Weber’s contribution to understanding
international hierarchy. It discusses three ideal types of stratification based on the distribution
of capabilities (class), estimations of honor and prestige (status), and command relationships
(authority). Following the neo-Weberian approach, these dimensions matter because they make
social action intelligible. Furthermore, Weber clarifies how class and status are connected and
how these two dimensions relate to authority through the process of ‘social closure’. The study
concludes that scholars who focus exclusively on authority structures miss the fact that authority
typically derives from other forms of stratification: although based on different logics of social
stratification, class and status hierarchies often coalesce into (legitimate) authority.
Keywords
authority, class, hierarchy, Max Weber, status, stratification
Introduction
The last decade has seen a lively interest in the role that hierarchy plays in world politics.
There is now a sprawling body of literature that makes the case for taking relations of
super- and subordination among states more seriously. This debate has produced myriad
conceptions of hierarchy from different theoretical angles. Rationalists,1 constructivists,2
critical theorists,3 and scholars in the English School tradition have all waded in.4 Yet, in
Corresponding author:
Carsten-Andreas Schulz, Instituto de Ciencia Política, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña
Mackenna 4860, Santiago 7820436, Región Metropolitana, Chile.
Email: caschulz@uc.cl
803434IRE0010.1177/0047117818803434International RelationsSchulz
research-article2018
Article
Schulz 89
some ways, their contributions have muddied the waters rather than clarifying things.
While refraining from outright paradigm wars, this literature remains largely discon-
nected, missing out on opportunities to engage in fruitful debate. Only recently have
attempts emerged that have sought to build bridges by offering conceptual clarification.5
Authors agree that hierarchies are ubiquitous features of world politics and deeply
imbued with power, that the prioritization of the state in contemporary International
Relations (IR) reflects its hierarchical nature, and that there are multiple ways in which
actors can stand in relations of super- and subordination.6 Furthermore, scholars accept
that hierarchies are ‘intersubjectively constituted’ social facts generated and interpreted
by purposive actors – even if there is disagreement as to what precisely this entails.7 Yet
despite the recent search for common ground, the literature remains divided between
those who take a ‘broad’ view of hierarchies as patterned inequality and those who adopt
a ‘narrow’ conception focusing exclusively on authority structures.8
Although both sides of the debate draw heavily on insights from other disciplines,
arguably the most influential account of social stratification is conspicuously absent
from this debate.9 To fill this void, this study considers Max Weber’s contribution to
understanding the nature of stratification and the way in which hierarchies shape social
actions, as applied to international relations. It asks a simple question: what can Weber
bring to our understanding of international hierarchy?
First, following a neo-Weberian typology of the distribution of power in societies, the
study shows how existing accounts conform to his three ideal-typical dimensions of
stratification: the distribution of capabilities (class), social estimations of honor and pres-
tige (status), and command relationships (authority).10 This scheme greatly reduces the
current conceptual complexity, creating a common ground for debate among scholars
interested in international hierarchy. However, rather than highlighting what all concep-
tions of hierarchy have in common, the Weberian approach highlights what typically sets
them apart.
Second, in line with the Weberian approach, the study argues that these dimensions
matter because they are linked to different logics of social action. How actors respond to
hierarchy depends fundamentally on how they perceive the international realm to be
stratified. Although others have argued that actors’ understandings of hierarchy affect
their behavior,11 this study discusses the question considering Weber’s ideal-type
approach and notion of adequate causation.
Third and finally, Weber provides insights about how class and status are connected
and how these two dimensions relate to authority through the process of ‘social clo-
sure’.12 In that sense, this study warns that the narrow conception of hierarchy as legiti-
mate order misses the fact that authority derives from other forms of stratification.
Although based on different logics of social stratification, class and status hierarchies
will often coalesce into (legitimate) authority.
The remainder proceeds as follows: the next section defines the three ideal-typical
dimensions of stratification and outlines the neo-Weberian argument linking each dimen-
sion to different logics of social action. The subsequent sections discuss IR conceptions
of hierarchy along the dimensions of class, status, and authority; they also develop the
relationship between these dimensions – something that is notably missing in the current
literature. The conclusion discusses how the neo-Weberian approach contributes to
To continue reading
Request your trial