The Dialectics of Charisma.

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]