How have notions of legitimate authority and followership changed across different periods of Western history?
Reference Part III and Part IV
Wren, J.Thomas., Hick,Douglas.A., & Price,Terry.L.(2004) Traditional Classics on Leadership. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing
Of course, there is no way to answer this except in a massive, multi-volume work.
The thing about the textbook is that it is just a history of political theory. Leadership is just a part of that.
There are many different ways to approach this. All approaches have their scholarly and popular adherents.
Here are just a few of the common methods by which we can understand the change in legitimacy:
I'll go all over the place, but I'll use plenty of people from III and IV.
1. Charismatic versus bureaucratic. Charismatic or "status" leadership was important in the ancient world and the middle ages, but with the rise of industrialism, it was the "rational" organization of power that mattered. Note that bureaucracy can dispense with leadership altogether. The rise of science = the rise of bureaucracy.
2. The rise of popular theories. Of course, this is a common one. The basic concept is that authority is granted by and through the consent of the governed. This clashes with the bureaucratic concept above, since few will argue that these organizations are "representative." In Volume I of the series, those who believed in real popular leadership are few: Locke (at least for property owners), Rousseau, the Levellers (from the English civil war) and maybe Dewey.
For the most part, the traditional classics on leadership had some sense of aristocracy: for Plato, it was on birth and education. For Kant, it was the ability to follow moral duty without reference to personal interest, for Nietzsche, only those brave enough to re-create their culture have the right to rule (absolutely).
Even Marx only ...
The expert examines legitimate authority and followership in Western History.