Foundations of Modern Social Theory
SOCY 151 - Lecture 19 - Weber on Charismatic Authority
Chapter 1. Weber’s Theory on Charisma [00:00:00]
Professor Iván Szelényi: Incidentally, in my discussion sections, people got too excited
about charisma. So we did speak a lot about charisma. I ask your patience. We will cover
some of the same grounds, but I hope I can give you new jokes about charisma.
This is one of the most exciting features of Weber theory, and probably one of–next to
the Protestant Ethic, right?–the one which entered the common language, more than
anything else. Right? That we all talk about charisma, and people’s charisma, or
charismatic leaders, all the time. Just like the Protestant work ethic, which entered the
popular vocabulary, and everybody who has not read any Weber still uses the term.
It’s also very important to come to terms with the idea of charisma because Weber was
suspected in the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s to be actually a proto-fascist, and with the idea of
charisma advocating for a strong leadership for Germany, a calling for a charismatic
leader for Germany, and in a way almost demanding Adolph Hitler. Well, of course, he
died in 1920; he could not do that. But especially the philosopher, George Lukács,
accused him to be an irrationalist, and being a proto-fascist, laying the ideology for
Nazism and Adolph Hitler. I have to tell you that I am not absolutely certain what Weber
would have done in 1930 or ‘33. I hope, like his brother, he would not have gone for the
fascists, or Nazis. But it’s complicated. I will try to make a case that in fact the concept of
charisma is not quite what Adolph Hitler was.
So the main major themes of the presentation today. First of all we will deal with the
definition of charisma; what is charismatic authority. Then we will talk about the sources
of charisma, where charisma is coming from, and this is particularly important, to see
why Weber is actually not a proto-Nazi. Then we will be talking about the followers of
the charismatic leader.
Then we will talk about charisma as a revolutionary force, charisma as a vehicle of
change. And I think this is an interesting idea in Weber, though one of the weaker points
I think of Weber theory. I think Karl Marx has a much more coherent and much more
persuasive theory about historical change as class struggle, you know, and the
contradictions between forces and relations of production. This is historically invalidated,
but a very coherent and very persuasive kind of argument. Weber’s idea of charisma as a
revolutionary force actually has empirical relevance, but it’s rather unpersuasive, and I
will talk about this. And then we come to a big problem with charisma, how charismatic
leadership can be routinized or transmitted from a charismatic leader to the next, and
what are the methods of succession for a charismatic leader.
So, I mean, those of you who were in my discussion sections, you can see it will not be
just a regurgitation of the discussion sections. And I don’t know what happened in other
discussion sections; also the charisma may have come up. This makes people move;
minds move a great deal.
So I’ll just step back a minute and again revisit the idea of different types of domination
and authority. And this is the simplest scheme I can come up with. But I think this is a
good one. I’ll copyright it; I did it. So the question is where is obedience due to? It can be
due to rules, impersonal rules, or it can be due to a personal master, to an individual.
That’s the big story. Right? And if it is due to rules, that’s when we are talking about
legal-rational authority–and this will be the topic–and bureaucratic rule, modern liberal
democratic system or modern not-that-democratic system, but systems which still do
have rules of law. There are actually authoritarian systems which do operate with rules of
law, where authoritarian leaders actually do themselves follow the law and take law
seriously and implement laws seriously. So legal-rational authority does not mean liberal
democracy. It simply means that this is a system in which there is a rule of law, even if
the leader itself can be not particularly democratic.
Democracy, as we understand it, is a very recent phenomenon. Universal suffrage in the
Western world became widespread since the 1920s, and it really became the dominant
form–right?–of political rule much, much later; I would say more like after the Second
World War. I mean, Switzerland, for instance, gave rights for women to vote just very
recently. So well, you know, democracy is a–liberal democracy–is a very new invention.
And legal-rational authority is not such a new invention. There was a rule of law in
England going back to the Orange Revolution. Right? It’s going back to the late
seventeenth century. There was rule of law in the United States before the late eighteenth
and nineteenth century, though there was no liberal democracy as we understand that.
Right? There was no universal suffrage at all. So, I mean, you could have rule of law
without democracy. But that’s still very different from a system where you obey a master.
There are two ways how you obey a master. You obey because the tradition appointed
that master–and that’s what we were talking about Tuesday–or because the master is
believed to have some charismatic features.
I also mentioned it last time: that the differences between the three types of authority–
legal-rational authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority–do not have the
same, I’ll use the term, ontological status. Right? The two big forms in history are
traditional authority which through rationalization eventually becomes legal-rational
authority, and charismatic authority usually is a transitory stage. Charismatic authority is
a charismatic leader emerges in times of great need, desperation and need for change, and
charismatic leaders, if they deliver–you know, as long as they deliver–they remain
leaders. If they stop delivering charisma is taken away from them. And it is extremely
difficult for a charismatic leader to establish an ongoing system of charismatic authority–
right?–because it will be very difficult to transfer their own personal charisma to
somebody else–right?–and to keep running a charismatic system.
Chapter 2. Definition of Charisma [00:09:38]
Okay, so that’s about generally, you know, what is charisma? As I said, this really we
keep using the term all the time. The last eighteen months we used it a lot because of
candidate and later President Obama. And there is probably nobody in this room who at
one point did not say something about Obama’s charisma; or, you know, if you did not
like him, the lack of his charisma. Right? But, you know, this was a commonly used
term.
Now this is coming from Weber, because he dug this term out from a rather obscure
theological language, where charisma actually referred to some superhuman qualities of
individuals, I would say almost semi-gods, who have some very personal and exclusive
relationship to God, and therefore, like any other human beings, they kind of can talk to
God and then they can interpret God’s will to the people; these were charismatic leaders.
So, in the most classical definition, charisma refers rather to the great founders of great
world religions; that’s what charisma, in initial meaning, meant.
So Mohammed, Moses, or Jesus, they had charisma, because they had a special access to
God. Right? Moses got the two tables from God. Right? He could not see the face of God
but nevertheless got the two tables from God. Nobody else could walk up–right?–there on
the mountain and get these tables, you know, and tell people, “This is the law.” Right? It
was only Moses who could. Right? And Jesus had a very specific relationship to God.
Right? Christian belief, was even the Son of God, embodiment of God. And undoubtedly,
you know, it is believed by Christians that Jesus could actually convey to us what God
wants us to do. Right? Had this very special unique charismatic appeal. And Mohammed
had this special appeal to God. Or if you are Mormon, then Mr. Smith had this very
unique–right?–relationship to God. At one point an angel came, you know, got a new
sacred book, a continuation of the Bible, left it with Mr. Smith. He translated it, and when
the translation was gone, you know, the angel came and took it away. This was a
charisma–right?–a very specific superhuman; it did not happen to any other human being,
only to Smith. Right? That is the initial notion of the meaning.
But now Weber makes it here a little- kind of a broader conception, and he said–right?–
that charisma will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality. It’s
important still an individual who is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with
supernatural, superhuman. This sounds like the original definition. But then he goes on
and he said, “Or at least exceptional powers and qualities.” Right? And these are regarded
as of divine origin–that’s the founders of the great religion–or exemplary; he modifies
that. Right? It can be just exemplary. You don’t have to believe that this is semi-god or
the embodiment of God. You only have to believe that this is an exemplary being who
has some exceptional abilities, exceptional qualities, and that will qualify that you will
call somebody a charismatic person or a charismatic leader.
Let me also underline one more term from these quotations which is extremely important.
He said the person is considered to be extraordinary and treated as endowed with
superhuman or exemplary features. So–and what I think is extremely important to see,
that Weber does not tell us that this individual is actually extraordinary, that it is actually
superhuman. In a way it is in the eye of the beholder. It is among the followers who
attribute–right?–to these qualities, to somebody. So in a way charismatic leaders are
being made by the followers.
Chapter 3. The Source of Charisma [00:15:12]
Well, and what is the source of charisma? This is now making it even more clearer and
more precise. It rests in recognition. You have to recognize it, charisma. So the
relationship of charisma is in the interpersonal relationship between the leaders and the
followers, and in this interaction is charisma being created. Right? It is not given by the
grace of lord–right?–to an individual person. It is created by those who are subjected to
authority. Right? And it’s also important that those who follow the charismatic leaders
are usually seen as followers or disciples. Right? They have some extraordinary
commitment to this leader. Right? This leader creates excitement in them, and this
excitement, what creates the community of the followers or the community of the
disciples. Right?
And well this was one of the reasons why many people in the last eighteen months
regarded Barack Obama as a charismatic leader, because he was capable to appearing in a
crowd, and moved the crowd–right?–create excitement in the crowd. Right? He created
followers–right?–almost one would say disciples, as such.
Now but the charisma can be withdrawn. This is again a very important idea in Weber.
He said if the proof of success alludes the leader for too long, it is likely that the
charismatic authority will disappear. Right? So the charismatic leader gives you–right?–
promises that it will produce miracles, and then the charismatic leader does not producing
these miracles–right?–he must work miracles, said Weber–then the people withdraw the
recognition of charisma from the leader, and the master simply becomes a private person,
an ordinary person; it loses its individual appeal. Well what is very important–right?–that
the charismatic leader has to promise you miracles–right?–has to promise you that it will
deliver something what you desperately need. Right? Charisma is deeply rooted in the
conditions in the situation in which a charismatic leader is being constructed by the
followers. When you are in a desperate need, then you are looking for a charismatic
leader which can solve this problem what you think is almost unresolvable. Then the
charismatic leader will come and will promise you that this problem, that the charismatic
leader will be able to solve, because of its extraordinary characteristics.
And again if I can come back again to the last elections, that was, you know, clearly the
case, the way how candidate Obama was capable to win the elections. You remember one
of the key words–right?–which characterized the campaign: hope, change, yes we can. I
mean, these are very typical elements–right?–of a charismatic appeal. Right? You are in
need, you want hope, you want to have business as not usual, you want to have a new
type of business, now this is what I promise you. Right? Change and hope, and I
empower you. I am the person who can empower you. Right? It can be done. Right? We
can do it. Right? Yes, it can be done. Hope, change, yes can be done. These are very
typical elements–right?–what a charismatic leader does produce.
In recent history other charismatic leaders, which are probably not as attractive in
historical perspective as Obama, did become charismatic leaders the same way. Fidel
Castro established charisma for himself. The Cuban society was in desperate need for
change in 1960, and Fidel Castro appealed, and he said, “Well I will bring change to you.
I will get rid of this corrupt government. I will create equality.” Right? “I will help the
poor. The poor will get wealthier. I will create affluence.” Right? “I will create a just and
affluent society.” Right? And therefore he came up with promises what people were
looking for, and then charisma was attributed to Fidel Castro. Adolph Hitler emerged as a
charismatic leader. Right? Germany suffered a humiliating defeat in the First World War.
Then it was hit with a Great Depression, which hit Germany even worse than it hit the
United States. And then Adolph Hitler appealed, though he was not quite as an attractive
personality as Obama; he was, you know, quite a ridiculous guy. But he actually said,
“Well I can solve the problems for you.” Right? Defined an enemy; “It’s all Jewish
conspiracy. We get rid of the Jews, and I will turn things around. And, you know, we will
have a new empire.” And there he was capable with this problem. There was a need in
the situation where people were looking for leadership, and they were looking for a
strong leader, a charismatic leader, and they attributed this charismatic leadership–people
to them.
The problem comes when they cannot deliver. Certainly Hitler, when the Russian troops
were already fighting around Berlin, was no charismatic leader any longer. Right? He
was hiding in the bunker, considering suicide, and his charisma was gone all together,
because he did not deliver, he did not do the miracles–right?–and therefore his charisma
was withdrawn.
Chapter 4. What About the Followers? [00:22:46]
Now about the followers. Right? He said the followers of a charismatic leader are often
bound together by emotional ties, and they create an emotional community with each
other. Weber uses the German term Vergemeinschaftung; they become kind of a
community. There is a real religious leader with a charismatic appeal. It creates always
communities of people. I don’t know if any one of you ever had experiences of some
fundamentalist religious experience. I did when I was a teenager. There was a preacher–
interestingly, he also did not look charismatic; he was even not a great speaker. I don’t
know how on earth he had this curious charismatic appeal; but he did. He did have an
impact on me. I attributed charisma to him. And he kind of created a community around
himself. Right? We all were brothers and sisters together, who kind of believed in the
charismatic preacher. This is very often in kind of sectarian, fundamentalist religious
groups, be it Christian, or be it Muslim, be it Evangelical.
There must be people in this room–right?–who at least when they were teenagers
experienced that. Right? When you are a teenager and you want to get out of your family,
and you are looking for a new community; I mean, this kind of religious community is
very often offered an alternative. And some of you may still be in such a community.
And if you are, I envy you. I think it is–you know, as I recall, it was a wonderful
experience in some ways. Vergemeinschaftung. You had your family. Right? You have
your spiritual family where you belong to. Does it make any sense what I’m saying? I
think there must be people–right?–who experience that or are still experiencing it. Right?
So that’s what he calls Vergemeinschaftung.
Gemeinschaft means community–when the mass society relationships becomes a
relationships like a community. And indeed, even in charismatic political campaign, you
have this sense that we belong together in the common cause. Right? There
was Vergemeinschaftung in the Civil Rights Movement–right?–where there were these
charismatic leaders, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy–right?–and the whole idea of
civil rights, and that we’re called together–right?–and we go to the South and we
demonstrate–right?–and we demand civil rights from these bloody racists. Right? That
created a sense of community among people–right?–who had this belief in change. Well
and if you are actually in such a community, you have a kind of personal devotion to the
leader, and there is a certain degree of enthusiasm what emerges in you–right?–which is
occasionally coming out of despair, that you are desperate and then you hope to have
some salvation, some solution to an irresolvable problem by the charismatic leader.
That’s how in Communism charismatic leaders like Lenin or Mao or Castro emerged.
Right? These were all societies in deep trouble, after humiliations, after wars, in big need
for some major structural change, and then they were looking for a savior–right?–who
will solve these irresolvable problems and will lead out to paradise.
Well it’s also interesting that, you know, in charismatic communities there is usually
relatively little hierarchy, not all that much of a bureaucracy. Those who are actually
serving the charismatic leader usually do not get salaries or benefits. It’s again true, you
know, even for charismatic political leaders, that they get a whole army of volunteers;
because they so strongly believe in the cause that they volunteer their time and money.
Chapter 5. Charisma as Irrationality; Charisma as a Revolutionary Force [00:27:58]
Well here comes an interesting and disturbing proposition–that he said, “Well because
charisma is such an extraordinary form, it’s–as a system of charismatic authority–it is
opposed to a rational and bureaucratic authority.” Right? Therefore it is kind of irrational,
in the sense of being foreign to all established rules. Because what is a charismatic leader
about? To change. And the change means that there will be new rules of the game, and
you don’t know exactly what these rules of the games are. And this is what makes, if the
charismatic authority as a whole system is operating, a high level of uncertainty to the
system.
And now forget about American politics. Because in the United States we clearly have a
legal-rational system–right?–that’s what characterizes the United States of America. And
occasionally we see emerging politicians who actually do implement some level of
change–or promise change, whether they can deliver or not–will greatly affect how long
we attach charisma to these people. But from Roosevelt to JFK to Martin Luther King to
Obama, there were politicians with this charismatic appeal. But the system itself was not
charismatic. Right? Charisma helped leaders to get elected, and charisma actually may
help a leader to be able to make some strong and important changes early in life.
Those who are critical of President Obama usually are critical of him, that he has not
moving fast and forcefully enough– was not cashing in, in his charisma early–right?–in
his presidency. And there is, you know, some signs that in fact, you know, his charisma,
charismatic appeal is weakening. Right? There are some people who say, “Well I feel
betrayed. You know? I was promised change, and I see a lot of politics as usual.” Right?
So this is, of course, an inevitable problem, if a leader who has this charismatic appeal
finds itself in the legal-rational authority–right?–where actually it’s very difficult to
implement a change. You want to change the rules, the laws, you have to go through
Congress to do that. Right? You just cannot declare that from now onwards there is a new
game, rules of the game. And that is–sounds very much like politics as usual.
That’s very different from what Lenin or Mao Zedong did. Right? Lenin and Mao
Zedong were not guided by rules. They established the rules. I mean, Mao Zedong is a
particularly interesting character. Right? He established first a bureaucratic rule in China,
and then he launches the Cultural Revolution. Right? He launches an anti-bureaucratic
movement, and the top leader of the bureaucracy is becoming the major popular leader of
an anti-bureaucratic movement. I mean, this guy was really quite something, quite
extraordinary. And in a way he did that, you know, because his charisma was weakening
by the 1960s. First he promised “a great leap forward”; you know, in no time we will
catch up and we will look like the United States. And what happened with the great leap
forward? Disaster; people were starving to death. So he was not delivering the miracle.
So what does he does next? He shows as his–we’ll change the rules of the game. He
launches the Cultural Revolution, and he suddenly becomes the leader of people who
actually should be opposing him. You know, he’s generating these kind of miracles; you
know, the last miracle what he’s trying to generate at old age, that he goes swimming in
the Yangtze River. You see? You think I’m old and I’m dying? No, I’m superhuman, I
still can swim. Right? This is the kind of–trying to rescue–right?–your charismatic
appeal, where it is about to be taken away from you.
But on the whole, as we see, as they establish, these charismatic leaders, establish this
charismatic system, they can change the rules. And, you know, if you look at Chinese
history, every five years everything is completely different. Right? First a hundred
flowers flourish. We will let–everybody will–then, you know, great leap forward; then,
you know, Cultural Revolution. He’s changing the rules all the time. This is an
unpredictable environment. Can the economy work in this unpredictable environment?
No, it cannot. The same goes for the Nazis, and the same goes for the Stalinists. Right? It
was an unpredictable environment. It was not good for business.
Business needs a predictable environment. Right? It needs the rule of law. That’s why
capitalism–business at least—likes legal-rational authority. They don’t necessarily like
democratic system. Right? Capitalism can live nicely with authoritarian figures.
Capitalists loved Pinochet. Right? But, you know, Pinochet was, you know, reasonable
legal-rational authority; I mean, at the beginning, you know, he was killing people like
crazy. But then he established a reasonably predictable system and capitalists loved it,
and for awhile, you know, the Chilean economy, partially advised by Milton Friedman,
you know, boosted. So, I mean, what capitalism really wants is a predictable
environment. And in many ways, you know, democracy is not all that good for a
predictable environment, because every fourth year we go to the polls and then we elect
other people, and then they come up with other ideas, and this is a bit of a mess. So really
I would almost say that a good free market economy loves rule of law, with a kind of
authoritarian leader and a longstanding political stability. They don’t like these big
changes–right?–in the political system.
Well now and charisma as a revolutionary force. This is very important. I think Weber
first of all makes a very specific argument. He said it is always in traditionalistic periods–
right?–traditional authority, when charisma is the great revolutionary force. So, in fact, in
a modern legal-rational authority, it is not so much charisma which carries the change
through. It is technical innovation, and it is the kind of routine and boring elections every
four years which brings changes by gradually and incrementally. The big change is
occurring from one type of traditional authority to another type of authority, and in order
to change the value system of one type of tradition to another type of tradition, that’s
when you need charismatic leaders.
So he said–right?–bureaucratic rationalization is the major revolutionary force. But, you
know, in a bureaucratic system like what we have, it is really a revolution from without.
It is coming from technological change. We have revolution. Oh yes. I mean, the first
time when I heard there is stuff like internet–email–it was 1976. And now I’m an email
addict, as many of you know. You send me an email, and occasionally in five minutes
you get an answer from me, because I’m always checking my email like crazy. This was
all new. This was coming from the outside.
Now, charisma, on the other hand–this is very insightful, very important–it is revolution
from within. What charisma is doing is changing the value systems in you. Right? That’s
what charismatic leaders do achieve, to persuade you that you have to have a different
kind of value system. And that’s why I think charismatic leadership does play a role, not
only in traditional societies. But charismatic leaders, in a legal-rational authority, do play
a role to change people’s value systems in substantial ways. Again we discussed that in
discussion sections. Those who are not in my discussion sections–just let me invoke the
Civil Rights Movement. Right? The Civil Rights Movement in ten years, in the United
States, produced a change in value systems–our attitudes to race relationships and gender
relationships–which otherwise would have taken a hundred years. Right? It happened in
ten short years, that we completely rethought race and gender relationships in this
country. Right? And this to a large extent demanded–right?–charismatic leaders. It
demanded–right?–Martin Luther King–right?–who had a dream–right?–about a society
where there can be a different type of value system. And in no time–I mean, you were too
young to experience that, but your parents and grandparents experienced it, and talk to
them, they will tell you–right?–how fundamentally their world outlook and looking at a
person of another race, or how they began to treat women in their family, or girls in their
family, how radically it changed, almost instantly. Right? Because it was a change from
within. Right? That’s what charismatic revolution is all about.
Chapter 6. Problem of Routinization; Methods of Succession [00:39:26]
And well this is, of course has everything to do against routine. Charismatic is not doing
things as they used to be. That’s why it is the opposite–right?–of one type of
traditionalism, and the problem is what happens if the charismatic leader disappears and
dies? And that’s when we have the problem how can the charismatic leader be replaced?
It’s a very big issue, and there are different methods of succession. And let me just walk
you through of this. It’s not quite uninteresting. It can be search. It can be by revelation.
It can be designation by the original leader. It can be designation by a staff, which is
particularly qualified to decide who the next charismatic leader will be. The issue is how
can you maintain a charismatic system going on? It can be hereditary, that some
hereditary line is established. And it can be office charisma; the office itself can carry
charisma.
Now let me just briefly talk to each one of these. Search. Well the best example is how
you find a Dalai Lama. Right? It happens through a search. The Dalai Lama dies. You
know that the Dalai Lama is reincarnated. So you send out people and looking for a child
who is the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. There must be just one child who is the
reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. And then you have experts, who can tell, go around and
then they find this child. This is the new Dalai Lama, and then it will be brought up, and
will become the Dalai Lama and, of course, will have a great deal of charisma. And you
can see it works. The Dalai Lama does have a lot of charisma. Right? Well whether you
believe in reincarnation or not, that’s another story. Probably most people in this room do
not believe in it, but if you do not believe in it, even more miraculous why the Dalai
Lama has this quite extraordinary charisma. There are people who just get wild if they
can get near to the Dalai Lama. I had a student in Taiwan who actually turned into a
Buddhist and became a great follower of the Dalai Lama. He got a Ph.D. from UCLA,
but he’s following; wherever the Dalai Lama goes, he’s always there. Because he has this
charisma. His charisma is attributed to him. Right? He was found in the right way, and he
was established as a charismatic leader.
It can happen through revelation. Revelation actually means that there are some people
who are believed to have some kind of access to some divine authority who can declare
that this is a person who is the next charismatic leader. Well I don’t think in
contemporary world revelation is all that much. Though, I mean, newspapers do it for
you. Right? The newspapers do create charismatic leaders for you. They attach charisma,
they build up the charismatic powers of a person; the media does it for you. And certainly
the charisma attributed to rock stars–right?–rock stars do have charisma, right?–is created
through the media. The media has the oracle. Right? He knows who the great guys are
and whom you have to get absolutely excited when you get to the concert.
Well, there can be a designation by the original leader. If the charismatic leader is dying,
then the charismatic leader has a problem to find a successor. That’s very difficult to do,
because charismatic leaders are bloody scared that if they designate a leader then they
will be poisoned or murdered. Or the new leader wants to take it over–too often, very
often, we see charismatic leaders designating leaders and then murdering them. That’s a
long history in humankind. But, you know, an interesting example was that Stalin tried to
build up his charisma by faking a testimonial of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in which
assumedly Lenin said that Stalin will be the successor. This was all a lie. Lenin actually
disliked Stalin a great deal and was very reluctant to name a successor. But he forged this
letter and tried to say, “Well I inherited the charisma.” And he had a lot of problems
actually to establish his charisma. Eventually, in fact during the Second World War, he
managed to emerge as a charismatic leader, and not only in the Soviet Union but even in
the West. There’s a lot of people in the United States, as the Soviet Army defeated the
Germans, first in Moscow and then of course in Stalingrad, that they began to see Stalin
as a great leader–right?–as a charismatic great leader. But he probably had nothing to do
with the success of the Red Army.
Well, or it can be designated by a qualified staff. This is the way how, for instance, the
Pope is being selected; and the pope does have–right?–a charismatic authority. If you are
Roman Catholic, you know that the Pope has some access to God, what you, ordinary
Roman Catholics, do not have. And how is–but it’s going on from one Pope to the next.
The character of the Pope will matter. Right? There are some more, you know, charming,
more persuasive popes, whom you see more of charismatic leaders. There are other popes
who are more like bureaucrats. But nevertheless, even the bureaucratic kind of popes, are
assumed to be charismatic and they are selected by a designated staff. There is a certain
set of archbishops; when one pope dies, they gather together in Rome, and they cannot
leave, you know, the room until they agree, they achieve a consensus, who is the other
person who will have this special relationship to God. Right?
There is also hereditary charisma, that you try to pass charisma on through your children–
very hard to do. North Korea is trying to do that. Right? Kim Il-sung passed his charisma
on to Kim Jong-il, which is an absolutely ridiculous guy. But nevertheless, you know,
somehow it looks like, you know, that in Korea he does have some kind of charismatic
appeal. So, I mean, this is not totally impossible. I mean, it’s a bad idea, you know, if you
are a charismatic leader to pass charisma on this way.
Finally office charisma–this is very important. Incumbents of an office is supposed to
have some charisma, depending on the office. But the office of the Pope, of course, is
supposed to have charisma. But we actually do use this very often. We do–well in the
United States we call this leadership. Right? That we expect people in position of certain
authorities to offer leadership–to have vision, right? And this is a kind of a charisma
which goes with the office.
And, you know, I have been department chair quite a few times, and it’s so interesting
moving into the position of department chair and moving out of it. Your relationship to
your colleagues changes a great deal. You know, when you are the department chair,
there is– certainly some charisma is attributed to you. Right? You are supposed to offer
some kind of leadership, and you are believed to be able to bring in some change. I just
remember, you know, one of the institutions when I was an incoming outside chair, how
people said, “Oh, you came in like fresh air.” Well in two years’ time it was all gone. I
was not fresh air. I was routine. You know, I was operating in a bureaucracy, massaging
the bureaucracy to get things done. My charisma was all gone. But there is, right?–I think
it’s a very American thing, right?–that you attach expectations to incumbents of the
office, that it can actually carry out change, bring in fresh air–right?–to have a vision and
to do things better than it was done before. Okay, that’s about charisma. Thank you.