I find it odd that the part of Weber's talk which has become most well-known, his formulation of the state as possessor of a monopoly on the means of violence, is hardly the focus of his attention in this piece. Last semester, I took a class that was basically founded on that definition; it's jarring to see it in its original, less critical context.
Weber's brew is heady, and it delivers a metaphysical shock to the system of Western ethics. His knowledge of "Occidental" belief systems is impressive, and he applies it with gusto to any question that might arise. While this all makes for very interesting reading, it begs the question of whether Weber really felt that change was attainable. He saw in Germany a basically stagnant system, one where officials focused on the importance of experience over ability and plotted to prevent younger men from entering the political sphere and usurping some of their power. If this is so, what was his purpose in giving this talk?
More importantly, what's this all got to do with Dune? Weber's model of the feudal system doesn't carry over well into the Imperium, since vassals to the Emperor clearly feel little in the way of loyalty. Moreover, the O.C. Bible renders Weber's comments on ethics seemingly obsolete, as it erases all those commandments which lead inexorably to equivocation and replaces them with one that is at once all-encompassing and, conveniently, completely removed from external judgment.
However, I see no problem with desert power as a metaphor for monopoly on the means of violence. In fact, much like I imagine Weber loved the sound of his own voice, I get a thrill when I say desert power. It sounds sleek and dangerous. Air power, land power, whatever! We can win Arrakis through a monopoly on the means of desert violence, and sandworms.
Sorry if this degraded in seriousness a bit. I can't help but find Weber to be a little too self-congratulatory in his rhetoric. The reference to desert power stands, though. Paul could have stayed in the desert with the Fremen planting stuff, but he felt it critical to his leadership that he challenge the Emperor and become the true master of Arrakis.
So then, a fair question: what kind of politico is Paul? Is he one of the ones who lives in politics, or just somebody who dips his hand in when he finds it convenient? What is the true form of his Weltanschauung? He grounds his Herrschaft in twin, opposing themes of destiny and ancestral right (the future versus the past!) It's a certainty that ancestral right is a strong component of Dune, as ninety generations implies a fair amount of status attached to your birth. Yet in going beyond other men, he loses the ability to care for them that makes him such an effective leader.
I'm ashamed of myself, but some weeks there are no computer programs, poems, or brilliant tie-ins to the election. There's just pages and pages of raw political theory to sift through, and not a spaceship or sentient machine in sight. I guess Weber wasn't all that visionary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
First, I think that his argument directly references the idea that genuine change was neither possible nor desirable. His brand of realpolitik is such that there is no need to make actual changes to political systems because people will act the same in any system.
As I iterated in another post, monopoly of legitimate force only extends to the people who buy into it. On Arrakis, there are two governments, each with monopoly of force on their domains. A war occurs, which then replaces two governments with one, and hence one monopoly of force. The issue of legitimate violence is essential, or else violence is being treated as a means rather than an end for government.
As I mentioned in my post, Weber's dichotemies, especially the "for" and "from" theory, are not mutually exclusive. To a certain extent, they necessitate each other and coexist in every politically concerned person. So Paul is both.
Post a Comment