Political Sociology of Peacebuilding Organizations. Introduction

ABSTRACT

This special section turns its gaze inwards to explore how legitimate authority is constructed in the field of peacebuilding. Authority building in peacebuilding has attracted much research interest since peacebuilding efforts have become unending ‘transitions' from war to peace. Commonly, the main reference point of these debates is Max Weber’s distinction between bureaucratic, traditional and charismatic legitimacy. Drawing on the articles in this special section, the introduction discusses the limits of a Weberian approach and suggests a number of amendments in order to better frame research into the political sociology of global institutions of peace.

KEYWORDS:

• Legitimate authority
• Max Weber
• peacebuilding agency
• sociology
• international cooperation
• international organisation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Note on contributor

Dr Catherine Goetze is Senior Lecturer of International Relations at the University of Tasmania. She is the author of The Distinction of Peace. A Social Analysis of Peacebuilding (Universtiy of Michigan Press, 2017). Her work is broadly situated in international political sociology with a particular interest in peacebuilding and international cooperation. Her most recent publication is learning in peacebuilding missions in this journal, Learning in Peacebuilding – Mission Impossible?.

Notes

1 In order to allow for a range of comparisons, peacebuilding is here defined in a very broad sense of engaging in post-conflict societies with the aim of contributing to United Nations peace missions, whether as UN-managed peacekeeping force or as UN-funded NGO. Such peacebuilding missions can take multiple forms and encompass the full range of activities that are initiated by the UN Security Council in conflict and post-conflict situations; peacebuilding, hence, includes military peacekeeping, civilian reconstruction efforts, transitional administrations, and transitional security and justice reforms and is not restricted to missions established by the UN peacebuilding commission.

2 In the following the German original notions are used when the English translation is not clear. In this case, Herrschaft can be translated as both, domination and rule, and Recht as ‘law’ and ‘rights’. In the German context, the specific meaning of Herrschaft and Recht is evident out of the context in which the notions are used; English translation would require switching between different translations.

3 All citations of Weber refer to the German edition of his work and all translations are mine. In the following citations are referenced as SK for his Soziologische Kategorienlehre (Basic Categories) which forms chapters I and II in the first section of Wirtschaft und Geselleschaft (Economy and Society); RS for his Rechtssoziologie (sociology of law/rights) which forms chapter VII of the second section of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft; and HS for Herrschaftssoziologie (sociology of rule/dominatin) which forms chapter IX of the second section of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. The entire volume is referenced as W&G.

4 It is interesting to note that here, too, a major problem has been, in the reception of Weber’s work, the translation of his notion of Entzauberung as ‘disenchantment’. Entzauberung would be better translated with ‘losing its magic’ which refers to the functioning of world as a whole, and not to a (subjective) feeling of disappointment or disillusionment that is expressed with ‘disenchantment’.