For a Sociological Concept of Charisma

Weber's concept of charisma has not been empirically useful to sociology even tiough it has influenced sociological thinking considerably. The reason is that Weber dealt with charisma more as a psychological than a social phenomenon. The concept can be useful, however, in the analysis of social change if the focus of attention is concentrated on the social context within which charisma develops rather than on charisma or charismatics. Utilizing the example of modern African leadership in Tanganyika, charisma appears in situations where (a) leaders formulate inchoate sentiments deeply held by masses; (b) the expression of such sentiments is seen as hazardous; (c) success-as definied by the relevant social groups-is registered. he enormous interest of sociologists * in the work of Max Weber is indicated by the popularity of his books and by the many articles dealing with Weber in recent times.1 What has probably been most significant in Weber's work has been his typology of authority and, of the three types of authority, the bureaucratic-legal has had the most influence on present-day sociology. The literature of recent years is replete with articles dealing with bureaucracy, miiost of whicl acknowledge some debt to Weber. However, Weber's two other types of authority-the traditional anid the cliarismatichave been almost totally ignored by sociologists in empirical research. Traditional authority lhas been bypassed largely because it has fallen within the purview of anthropology. Although this is an accident of intellectual history, sociologists have concentrated their energies on moderln societies ancd had little involvemiient witlh traditional societies and traditional autlhority. Chlarisma, to paraplhrase Mark Twain, is a stubject about whiclh miiuch has been said but little dcone. In spite of Parsonis' contention that "Chalrisma is not a mietaphysical entity but a strictly empirical observable quality of men and thlings in relati.on to lhumiian acts and attitudes,"2 remarkably little researchl has been un.de,rtaken to elutcidate thtis ostensibly e';npirical quality.3 This fact is all the more remark* Revision of paper read at the 1962 meeting of the American Sociological Association. Data dealing with Tanganyika were collected uinder a Foreign Areas Training Fellowship of the Ford Foundation during 1959-1960. This paper has benefited from critical readings of earlier drafts by William G. Rothstein and Neil H. Cheek, Jr. I Substantial interest in Weber began in the United States with an introduction to his worlc by Talcott Parsons in The Structure of Social Action (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1949), Chapters 14-17, the first edition of which was published in 1937. This was followed by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946); and Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Eco?omic Orgarnizatioib (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1947), translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. After this came a veritable flood of Weberian writing and commentary. Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellecthal Portrait (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1960), presents an excellent summary of Weber's ideas. 2 Structutre . . . , op. cit., pp. 668-669. 3 One needs only to examine the literature to note the dearth of empirical research on charisma. For example, the Index to the Amcericant Sociological Reziew contains no category for "charisma." A search of various indices and journals reveals, indeed, that charisma has been utilized more by political scientists than sociologists. Cf., Carl J. Friedrich, "Political Leadership and the Problem of Charismatic Power," The Journal of Politics, 23 (February 1961), pp. 3-24; James C. Davies, This content downloaded from 157.55.39.147 on Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:35:37 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms CONCEPT OF CHARISMA 19 able when one considers the empphasis placed on the concept by Weber's translators and cominentators.4 The dearth of empirical studies by sociologists can be explained, this writer believes, by the manlner in which Weber and his successors dealt with the concept. While Weber clearly indicated a social dimension to charisma, he also stressed charisma as a psychological attribute of a person. Weber's successors have lhad similarly divided orientationls toward charisma but emphasis has been, on the whole, on the idea of an individual commanding certain gifts. Sociologists have been unable to come to grips empirically with the concept because, while charisma has been interesting, as presently developed, it lies outside the purview of disciplinary interests. This paper seeks to examine charisma and clarify the psychological preoccupations of the concept and attempts to refocus the concept in terms relevant to sociological interests. In so doing, it will be shown that Weber dealt, at least to some extent, with sociological components of charisma but that his concerns were mainly psychological. An empirical case-social change in Tanganyika-will be utilized to indicate how the concept may be dealt with in a maniner consonant with sociological concerns and its importance in explaining social change. THE CONCEPT OF CHARISMA Charisma is crucial to Weber's system of analysis as the basis for the explanation of social change. Weber's other types of authority are stable systems within which it is conceivable that change will take place only at the miicro level. The problem for Weber was to account for large-scale social change and the concept of charisma provided what Bendix calls "a sociology of innovation."5 Though a sociology of clhange was necessary for Weber, it would appear that he was not at ease with it. Not only are two of his three patterns of domination concerned with stable systems but even his discussion of charisma is heavily oriented toward its stabilization and routinization.6 Despite this orientation it is obvious from a reading of his work that the problem of change continually concerlned Weber. Yet the difficulties in working with his approach to the study of social change become apparent when one examines his writings on charisma in some detail. On the one hanld, Weber's discussion of charisma sounds, all too frequently, like that "Charisma in the 1952 Campaign," Atiierican Political Science Review, 48 (December 1954), pp. 10831102; John T. Marcus, "Transcendence and Charisma," Westerin Political Qiurterly, 14 (March 1961), pp. 236-241. Sociologists interested in charisma tend to be conceriied primarily ivith studies of developing societies. Cf., Edward A. Shils, "The Concentration and Dispersion of Charisma: Their Bearing on Economic Policy in Underdeveloped Countries," !4'orld Politics, 11 (October 1958), pp. 1-19; Gideon Sjoberg, "Political Structure, Ideology anid Economic Developmenlt," Department of Government, Indiana Uniiversity: The Carnegie Faculty Seminar on Political and Administrative Development, 1963 (reprint) ; W. G. Runcimnan, "Charismatic Legitimacy and OneParty Rule in Ghana," Archives Eutropeciecs de Sociologie, 4 (1963), pp. 148-165; also the discussion of "heroes" by Immanual Wallerstein, Africa: The Politics of Indepeiidence (New York: Vintage Books, 1961), Chap. V. An application of the concept of charisma to the analysis of organizations can be found in Amitai Etzioni, A Comniparative Analysis of Complex Orgai ieat ions (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961), Chaps. 9-10. Although Weber's concept of charisma originated in his studies of religion, little empirical work on char-isma in religious movements has been undertaken by sociologists. While there is an enormous literature on prophets and other charismatics, this is the work of religious scholars, Biblical students, historians, etc. An important exception is the recently published article by Peter L. Berger, "Charisma, Religious Ininovatioin, and the Israelite Prophecy," Aiicriccat Sociological Review, .28 (December 1963), pp. 940-951. Berger not only undertakes a re-evaluation of Weber's studies based upon modern knowledge of the Old Testament but suggests important refinements of Weber's ideas on the origins of charismatic figures. 4 Cf., Structure . . . , op. cit., Chap. XVII; Weber, op. cit., p. 64 ff.; Bendix, op. cit., Chap. X; Gerth and Mills, op. cit., pp. 51-55. 5 Bendix, op. cit., pp. 272-293. 6 Thus, in The Theory of Social and Economtic Oryaniz-ation, pages 358-363 are concerned with the characteristics of charismatic authority while pages 363-373 discuss the routinization of charisma. Similarly, Bendix's material on charisma is concerned to a considerable extent with the routinization of charisma rather than with the characterization of charismatic domination. Cf., also Runciman, op. cit. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.147 on Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:35:37 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms