Search

The subject of charismatic leadership has been attacked by a number of scholars and many supposed shortcomings have been pointed out. Lowenstein (1966) argues that it is difficult to apply the concept to historical figures since all the researcher can rely on are the reports of the individual's contemporaries. In other words, it is not strictly a testable theory. Batnam has argued that charisma as a concept of leadership "has not in any substantial manner improved our understanding of the problems it touches on," and considers the concept "largely valueless" (1964:341). Ake has voiced similar misgivings and suggests that the concept lacks rigor and clarity, distorting rather than illuminating political reality. Wolpe has argued, "… the concept of charisma is not analytically useful," and has tried "to make explicit the contradictory and ambiguous features of charisma" (1968:306). In spite of these criticisms, the concept of charisma continues to be used in a variety of studies and has even penetrated the field of political journalism. It is, however, the argument of this paper that neither those who denigrate it nor those who have used it are doing justice to the notion of charismatic authority and leadership. For Weber it was one type of leadership, and authority among other types, and in the course of the voluminous output of his short scholarly life he left the details of his typologies unspecified. It is therefore the task of latter day students to specify them and apply them to concrete instances. While many have done this, there are two basic flaws: a) they have been loathe to escape from the limits set by Weber himself, and b) they have not tried to integrate Webers notions with other relevant perspectives and theories, so as to enlarge and/or supplement them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since its first systematic treatment by Max Weber in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in the early twenties, the concept of charisma has been of only limited use to the social sciences. This is so because of fundamental disagreement concerning its meaning and application. In response to this, the present paper offers (1) a brief examination of Weber's contribution, (2) a critical analysis of this position based in part on the recent literature, and (3) a final formulation of the concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Half-a-century after his death Max Weber's name is becoming more of a household word within the scholarly community and, perhaps, even beyond, for there is a rock-music band named Max Weber and His Charismatics surviving now for over five years. The mass media today increasingly prostitutionalize some of his carefully formulated concepts of charisma and charismatic leadership, e.g., the labeling of everybody and everything odd or that which is not understood as charismatic, including a loud-mouth reactionary household name of the (hopefully early) seventies. The greater interest in Weber's work among social scientists is justified by several propositions, a few of which will be briefly pointed out. To this writer at least the most important among them is that there seems to be absolutely nothing in his work which could even remotely serve as a source for a messianic doctrine of salvation for mankind in contrast to the writings of many well-known names. No messianic or millennial movements could possibly carry his name, and this appears to be a blessing today in the midst of so much utopian emotionalism. Even a more limited ideological preaching is absent from his legacy. Also, because of his unqualified and absolute humanitarianism, conservative defenses of the established order cannot be hidden behind Weber's name in spite of some attempts made by certain American sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]