下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
Modern officialdom functions in the following specific manner：
Ⅰ. There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas， which are generally ordered by rules， that is， by laws or administrative regulations.
1. The regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are distributed in a fixed ways as official duties.
2. The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of these duties is distributed in a stable way and is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive means， physical， sacerdotal， or otherwise， which may be placed at the disposal of officials.
3. Methodical provision is made for the regular and continuous fulfillment of these duties and for the execution of the corresponding rights； only persons who have the generally regulated qualifications to serve are employed.
In public and lawful government these three elements constitute “bureaucratic authority. ” In private economic domination， they constitute bureaucratic “management. ” Bureaucracy， thus understood， 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. Permanent and public office authority， with fixed jurisdiction， is not the historical rule but rather the exception. This is so even in large political structures such as those of the ancient Orient， the Germanic and Mongolian empires of conquest， or of many feudal structures of state. In all these cases， the ruler executes the most important measures through personal trustees， table-companions， or courtservants. Their commissions and authority are not precisely delimited and are temporarily called into being for each case.
Ⅱ. The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered system of super and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones. Such a system offers the governed the possibility of appealing the decision of a lower office to its higher authority， in a definitely regulated manner. With the full development of the bureaucratic type， the office hierarchy is monocratically organized. The principle of hierarchical office authority is found in all bureaucratic structures： in state and ecclesiastical structures as well as in large party organizations and private enterprises. It does not matter for the character of bureaucracy whether its authority is called “private” or “public”.
When the principle of jurisdictional “competency” is fully carried through， hierarchical subordination—at least in public office—does not mean that the “higher” authority is simply authorized to take over the business of the “lower. ” Indeed， the opposite is the rule. Once established and having fulfilled its task， an office tends to continue in existence and be held by another incumbent.
Ⅲ. The management of the modern office is based upon written documents （“the files”）， which are preserved in their original or draught form. There is， therefore， a staff of subaltern officials and scribes of all sorts. The body of officials actively engaged in a “public” office， along with the respective apparatus of material implements and the files， make up a “bureau. ” In private enterprise， “the bureau” is often called “the office. ”
In principle， the modern organization of the civil service separates the bureau from the private domicile of the official， and， in general， bureaucracy segregates official activity as something distinct from the sphere of private life. Public monies and equipment are divorced from the private property of the official. This condition is everywhere the product of a long development. Nowadays， it is found in public as well as in private enterprises； in the latter， the principle extends even to the leading entrepreneur. In principle， the executive office is separated from the household， business from private correspondence， and business asserts from private fortunes. The more consistently the modern type of business management has been carried through the more are these separations the case. The beginnings of this process are to be found as early as the Middle Ages.
It is the peculiarity of the modern entrepreneur that he conducts himself as the “first official” of his enterprise， in the very same way in which the ruler of a specifically modern bureaucratic state spoke of himself as “the first servant” of the state. The idea that the bureau activities of the state are intrinsically different in character from the management of private economic offices is a continental European notion and， by way of contrast， is totally foreign to the American way.
Ⅳ. Office management， at least all specialized office management—and such management is distinctly modern—usually presupposes thorough and expert training. This increasingly holds for the modern executive and employee of private enterprises， in the same manner as it holds for the state official.
Ⅴ. When the office is fully developed， official activity demands the full working capacity of the official， irrespective of the fact that his obligatory time in the bureau may be firmly delimited. In the normal case， this is only the product of a long development， in the public as well as in the private office. Formerly， in all case， the normal state of affairs was reversed： official business was discharged as a secondary activity.
Ⅵ. The management of the office follows general rules， which are more or less stable， more or less exhaustive， and which can be learned. Knowledge of these rules represents a special technical learning which the officials possess. It involves jurisprudence， or administrative or business management.
The reduction of modern office management to rules is deeply embedded in its very nature. The theory of modern public administration， for instance， assumes that the authority to order certain matters by decree—which as been legally granted to public authorities—does not entitle the bureau to regulate the matter by commands given for each case， but only to regulate the matter abstractly. This stands in extreme contrast to the regulation of all relationships through individual privileges and bestowals of favor， which is absolutely dominant in patrimonialism， at least in so far as such relationships are not fixed by sacred tradition.
officialdom n. 官僚，官员，职员，官场，官僚作风
jurisdictional adj. 司法的，司法权的，审判权的，管辖权的
bureaucratically adv. 官僚主义式的，官僚作风的
delimit v. 限制，定……的界
coercive adj. 高压的，强迫的，强制的
sacerdotal adj. 僧侣的，祭司的，祭司制度的
methodical adj. 有方法的，有条不紊的，井然
qualification n. 资格，授权，条件，限制，合格证书
ecclesiastical adj. 基督教的，教会的
capitalism n. 资本主义制度，资本的拥有，资本的支配地位
feudal adj. 封建的，领地的，世仇的
trustee n. 受托人，信托公司，理事
courtservant n. 宫廷侍从
commission n. 委员，任命，委任
precisely adv. 精确地，准确地，一丝不苟地
hierarchy n. 等级制度，分层
supervision n. 监督，管理
appeal v. 要求，求助于；将……移交上级法院审理
monocratically adv. 单一地、集权地
competency n. 能力，资格，作证能力
subordination n. 放置在次级；次级；附属
incumbent n. 在职者，教区牧师
original adj. 独创的，新颖的，原始的，最初的
draught vt. 起草，相当于“draft”
subaltern adj. 下的，副的，次的
scribe n. 抄写员，抄书吏
domicile n. 住处，永久住处
segregate vt. 分开，分离，隔离
correspondence n. 一致，符合；通信，信件
consistently adv. 一贯地，坚持地，固守地
peculiarity n. 特性，特质
intrinsically adv. 从本质上讲
presuppose vt. 预先假定，假设
obligatory adj. 必须的，应尽的，义务的
reverse vt. 反转，颠倒，交换
exhaustive adj. 彻底的，透彻的，消耗的
jurisprudence n. 法学，法理学
decree n. 法令，命令；判决，裁定
entitle vt. 使有资格，给与……权利
bestowal n. 赠与，贮存
patrimonialism n. 世袭主义，家产制
1. are distributed in a fixed way 进行固定的分工
2. which may be placed at the disposal of officials 可任由官员安排
3. is not the historical rule but rather the exception 不是历史规则而是例外
4. the ancient Orient Orient用作名词是指亚洲、东方，这里的意思是古老东方国家的政治机构。
5. the Germanic and Mongolian empire of conquest 是指有征服史的日耳曼帝国和蒙古帝国的政治机构。
6. table-companions 指在古代寄食于贵族官僚家里，为主人策划、奔走的人，称之为食客。
7. and are temporarily called into being for each case 其中，be called into being是指使存在、使拥有、使出现或产生，所以此段翻译为“根据具体的情况赋予暂时的”。
8. the lower offices 下级
the higher ones 上级
9. is based upon written documents 建立在书面的文件之上
10. the Middle Ages 中世纪，是指欧洲历史主要是西欧历史上的一个时代，自西罗马帝国灭亡（公元476年）数百年后起封建制度占统治地位的时期，到文艺复兴（公元1453年）之后，资本主义萌芽时期为止。
11. a continental European nation 欧洲大陆国家，主要是指法国、德国等
12. hold for 适用于
13. irrespective of the fact that his obligatory time in the bureau may be firmly delimited 不管他在办公室履行义务的工作时间标准可能有界定的事实
14. which as been legally granted to public authorities 在法律上赋予公共权威（当局）
Ⅰ. Questions about the Text
1. What is composed of bureaucratic authority in government or bureaucratic management in private organization?
2. Why did not “bureaucratic authority” come out in the ancient Orient?
3. What is the main principle of the modern organization of bureaucracy?
4. What is prerequisite for all specialized office management in bureaucracy?
Ⅱ. Discussion
Based on China's national conditions， What is your opinion of the idea that “the bureau activities of the state are intrinsically different in character from the management of private economic offices”?
凡是谈到管理学发展历程的地方，都把韦伯和泰勒、法约尔
并列。古典管理学时期的这三位大师各有特色。如果说泰勒是以新教徒的执着和认真，将科学精神注入到管理当中的；法约尔是以高瞻远瞩的睿智，构建了管理学的宏观大厦；那么，韦伯就是以哲学家式的冷峻和严密，去追寻和建立最理想的组织结构，即官僚制。
马克斯·韦伯，1864年出生于德国图林根的富有家庭。由于他的父亲老马克斯·韦伯当选为国会议员，在韦伯幼时，全家迁居到柏林。老马克斯·韦伯经常邀请柏林各界的名流人士来参加家庭举办的沙龙，韦伯和他的弟弟们很小就沉浸在“谈笑有鸿儒，往来无白丁”的家庭氛围当中。在韦伯13岁时，他给父母的圣诞礼物就是两篇题为《与皇帝和教皇的地位特别有关的德国历史的进程》和《从君士坦丁到民族大迁徙时期的罗马帝国》的历史论文；到十四岁时，他的信里就涉及很多关于荷马、维吉尔、西塞罗
的著作，并且在大学之前，韦伯的知识领域已经扩展到了歌德、斯宾诺莎、康德和叔本华。
从幼时的家庭教育和兴趣爱好就可以预见到，马克斯·韦伯很早就奠定了将要在社会科学领域追求最高深的课题并取得举世瞩目的成就的基础。
家庭环境造就了马克斯·韦伯，但也给他带来了人生最大的挫折。韦伯的父亲是一个典型的、追求享乐主义的柏林官僚，他的母亲海伦妮则是一个虔诚的加尔文教徒，他们过着勤勉、节俭、冷静、审慎的生活。“一个像海水，一个像火焰”，截然不同的性格造成了生活方式、教育理念等方面的矛盾和冲突，这些矛盾和冲突集中在对他们长子韦伯的教育上。1889年，韦伯在获得柏林大学法学博士之后留校任教，并在不到三十岁的时候获得了教授资格；1893年，韦伯选择离开父母的照顾和无尽的争吵，来到海德堡大学任教。在学习和工作上，年轻的韦伯显然选择了母亲的信仰，在自己的事业上做起了一个虔诚的加尔文教徒，像疯狂的机器一样投身到了社会科学这片浩瀚的“学海”之中。但是，他这种虔诚的学者生活却因为父母的到来戛然而止。1897年，韦伯的母亲海伦妮在和老韦伯发生争吵后到海德堡投奔韦伯，老韦伯不依不饶也紧随而来。韦伯出于对母亲的维护，和父亲发生了激烈的争吵。一个月后，老韦伯在外出旅行途中去世，父子之间的冲突再也没有机会和解。韦伯为此内疚不已、悲痛欲绝，直至精神彻底崩溃，他曾对妻子宣称“一个晚上1点钟之前上床睡觉的教授不配被称为学者”，他成为了一个“工作机器”，“不能看书，不能写东西，不能谈话，不能散步，也不能好好地没有痛苦地睡觉”。后来有专门研究韦伯的学者分析，韦伯精神崩溃的根源在于他的俄狄浦斯情结，也就是心理学的恋母情结，在感情上，韦伯向着母亲，他努力赞同并效仿母亲内省、勤勉、审慎的教徒生活，这也体现在他近乎疯狂的工作状态上。但另一方面，韦伯又表现出父亲所期望的男子汉的样子，粗鲁、放纵、享乐的一个典型的德意志男子汉的形象。两种截然相反的榜样之间的冲突使韦伯最终选择了母亲的生活方式而与父亲的榜样作斗争，这样就走向了父亲的另一个极端——狂热工作、苦行禁欲主义。父亲一死，对抗消失，“疯狂的工作机器”崩塌了，最终使韦伯精神崩溃无法去做任何事。
1897—1903年，韦伯离开了教学职位，去欧美旅行疗养。在美国旅行时期，韦伯被这片生机勃勃的土地“唤醒”，他开始思考为什么最发达的资本主义没有产生在欧洲这些老牌资本主义国家，也没有出现在中国这些文明古国？其根源就在于基督新教的宗教信仰，韦伯将其概括为资本主义精神。基于这次旅行所带来的思想“火花”，韦伯出版了他有生之年唯一的也是影响最大的著作——《新教伦理与资本主义精神》。从此，他开始涉足社会科学的各个领域——法律、历史、宗教、经济、文化等，倡导分工和专门化可以提高效率的韦伯却超越了近代科学的专业分工并取得了伟大的成就，甚至开创了社会学的新领域——宗教社会学。
对于公共行政学来说，韦伯提出的“最理想的组织结构类型”——官僚制，具有重大的理论意义。官僚制的英文是Bureaucracy，“Bureau”是法语，原意是书桌、写字台；Cracy源自希腊文Kratos，作为后缀具有统治、治理之意。自18世纪以来，Bureaucracy成为一个复合名词，指实施管理的社会行政机构（的特殊形式）。后来，韦伯赋予官僚制更深奥也更为科学、合理的内涵，作为“最理想的组织结构类型”，官僚制具有合理分工、层级节制的权力体系、依照程序办事的运作机制以及组织管理的非人格化等特征。目前，官僚制不仅运用于政府机构之中，也出现在包括企业、社会组织等大型组织结构之中。
本书这一节的内容正是选取于韦伯《经济与社会》
这本宏观巨制。实际上，不管是资本主义精神还是官僚制，其核心都是以效率为主要追求目标的理性精神。但是，正如马克思主义学者批判资本主义精神过于推崇理性而抹灭了人性一样，新公共管理运动的倡导者也将官僚制视为扼杀公务员创新精神甚至人性的“囚笼”，应该予以“超越”和“再造”或者直接“摒弃”。通过学习经典著作我们能发现，学者之所以伟大并造就经典，并不是因为它提出了一个理论或者学说，而是因为他们敢于否定自己、突破自己。就像韦伯，他在充满激情地论证了资本主义精神存在的价值之后，却话锋一转地表达了对过于强调这种精神或者理性将会导致后果的担忧，“对于外在物的关心应当‘像一件轻轻披在圣者肩上的薄外衣，可以随时扔到一边’，可是命运的裁决却使那件轻裘变成了铁笼。”
对于作为后发国家的中国而言，官僚制对组织中人性尤其是创造性的遏制已经非常明显，在政府中工作的公务员朝九晚五、碌碌庸庸、官僚主义的庸政懒政现象引起了公众的极大不满。因此，在20世纪80年代西方掀起的新公共管理运动影响下，有学者提出中国也应该再造甚至摒弃官僚制，但是，按照公共行政学创始人威尔逊提出的研究方法，世界性的“做什么”应该永远由中国式的“如何做”来支配。官僚制确实会因为过于强调理性、强调程序而抑制了工作人员的积极性、主动性，反过来也会成为社会进步的组织结构障碍，这些问题在中国体现的也很明显，但是韦伯官僚制强调的法治、程序、非人格化等理性特征对于饱受传统人情观念影响的政府等大型组织来讲，如果可以合理使用，也不失为一剂良药。所以，不能盲目地吸取西方新公共管理运动的经验而去摒弃官僚制，组织对人的管理是不可或缺的，从现实来看，西方新公共管理运动浪潮“褪去”之后，其弊端日益凸显并饱受后新公共管理理论（例如本书第三部分介绍的整体治理理论、新公共服务理论）的批判。因此，中国政府在进行机构改革时，不管是西方公共行政学的何种理论或者改革运动，都应该以中国的国情为基本考量，世界性的“做什么”应该永远由中国式的“如何做”来支配。