Charisma: From Weber to Contemporary Sociology *

Kojiro Miyahara, Uniwsity of Wisconsin-Madison

This paper critically examines sociological treatments of the concept of charisma.

I t demonstrates that the existence of diverse and conflicting views on charisma is
due partly to sociologists’ selection accentuations of the different types of charisma
(magical, prophetic, and routinized) in Weber’s writings. Reconsidering charisma as
an expression of alienation, the paper also suggests a synthetic approach that may
alleviate the conceptual anarchy surrounding it.

“Charisma” is a peculiar sociological concept that, despite its popular

currency, eludes clear understanding as to its meaning and sociological
relevance. A glance at the sociological writings on charisma reveals a
bewildering variety of treatments that often conflict each other. While most
writings attempt to show the. significance and the utility of the concept,
some argue for the elimination of its use in sociology (Ratnam, 1964;
Wolpe, 1968; Worsley, 1968; Eichler, 1977). Among the latter, Worsley
(1968:liii) goes so far so to call charisma a “sponge word.” This indictment
is perhaps too strong. Yet, there is no doubt that the concept of charisma
is in a rather obscure and confusing state in contemporary sociology.
This paper is an attempt to clarify and explore a possible remedy for
the conceptual anarchy surrounding charisma. In order to carry out this
objective, it starts from the critical examination of the ideas of the concept’s
originator, Max Weber. (“Charisma” was first used as a scholarly term by
Rudolf Sohm, a German church historian, who took it from the Greek
New Testament. Yet it is Weber who generalized the concept and introduced
it to the social sciences.) Next, the essay looks into the conceptual anarchy
surrounding charisma in post-Weberian sociology. Various sociologists have
generalized only one or two of Weber’s usages of the term into that of
charisma per se, creating disagreement as to its meaning and sociological
relevance. Finally, a new perspective that may generate some consensus
about the understanding of the concept of charisma is advanced.
Weber’s Conception of Charisma
A close examination of Weber’s sociology of religion and sociology of
domination reveals that he speaks of three distinctive types of charisma,
namely, “magical,” “prophetic” (or “genuine”) and “routinized.” Often
Weber discusses charisma without qualifying which of these types he refers
to. This gives rise to considerable confusion on the part of post-Weberian
sociologists trying to understand the concept. The following discussion
 CHARISMA 369
attempts to explicate Weber’s underlying ideas, which apply to all types of
charisma.
Charisma in the Sociology of Religion
In the opening part of T h e Sociology of Religion, Weber defines charisma
in connection with the notion of magic.
Not every stone can serve as a fetish, a source of magical power. Nor does every person
have the capacity to achieve the ecstatic states which are viewed . . . as the preconditions
for producing certain effects in meteorology, healing, devination, and telepathy. It is
primarily . , . these extraordinary powers that have been designated by such special terms
as “mana,” “orenda,” and the Iranian “maga” (the term from which our word “magic”
is derived). We shall henceforth employ the term “charisma” for such extraordinary
powers. (1922:400)

Here, Weber designates certain magical extraordinary powers as cha-

risma. The magician is, unlike ordinary people, a person who “is perma-
nently endowed with charisma” (1922:401). It should be noted that
charisma in this context does not suggest a connection with either leadership
or with certain utopian visions. It refers solely to a phenomenon in which
people recognize either persons or objects as extraordinary and attribute
special status to them. This is magical charisma.
Second, Weber discusses the nature of prophets. According to Weber,
we shall understand “prophet” to mean a purely individual bearer of charisma, who by
virtue of his mission proclaims a religious doctrine or divine commandment. No radical
distinction will be drawn between a “renewer of religion” . . . and a “founder of
religion” , , . Nor shall we be concerned in this context with the question whether the
followers of a prophet are more attracted to his person, as in the cases of Zoroaster,
Jesus, and Muhammed, or to his doctrine, as in the cases of Buddha and the prophets
of Israel. (1922:439-440)

What distinguishes prophets from magicians is the fact that the former,
unlike the latter, claim definite revelations, missions, or doctrines. Prophetic
charisma thus involves not only extraordinariness but also an element of
idea and doctrine. Thus, the typical prophet propagates ideas for their own
sake . . .” (19223441). Weber qualifies the nature of the idea by saying
that a prophetic revelation involves “a unified view of the world derived
from a consciously integrated meaningful attitude toward life” (1922:450).
Third, there is yet another type of charisma in the sociology of religion,
namely priestly charisma (1922: 1161). Unlike prophetic charisma, it is not
attached to the person, but to the social institution, i.e., the priestly office.
According to Weber,
the priest, in clear contrast [to the prophet], dispenses salvation by virtue of his office.
Even in cases in which personal charisma may be involved, it is the hierarchical office
that confers legitimate authority upon the priest as a member of an organized enterprise
of salvation. (1922:440).
370 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

This priestly charisma is clearly a variant of office charisma. It retains

an aspect of mission, since it is a routinized form of prophetic charisma.
Throughout the sociology of religion, Weber depicts the interplay of
these three types of charisma. Magical charisma is understood as bound up
with traditionalism. It secures an everyday functioning of a community by
satisfying, at least illusorily, various discrete needs (for rain, health, etc.)
of the people (1915:277). Prophetic charisma arises and suppresses magic,
though the degree of the success in the elimination of magic depends largely
on whether it is of an ethical or an exemplary type. At any rate, prophetic
charisma pushes forward a further rationalization of religions by introducing
systematic world-views and ways to attain salvation. It also creates a
permanent association or religious congregation. There develops an office
hierarchy among the people who succeed the prophetic movement. Thus,
priestly charisma emerges in this process of routinization. It legitimates the
salvation enterprise that the priests represent. At the same time, the mass
of people tend to look for certain magical need satisfaction from the priestly
charisma. In this way, it tends to be infused with magical charisma. Against
this tendency there may arise, again, the prophetic charisma of reformation,
which breaks up the routinized priestly charisma and at the same time
suppresses the remnants of magical charisma. In this way, according to
Weber, the social worlds become rationalized and also disenchanted.
Of Weber’s different types of charisma in the sociology of religion,
magical charisma comes closest to being the generic conception. Prophetic
charisma, in addition to perceived extraordinariness, involves an element
of mission and doctrine. Unlike priestly charisma, it is highly personal. In
contrast to the conservative outlook of magical as well as priestly charisma,
prophetic charisma is inherently revolutionary. As is apparent, prophetic
and priestly charisma in the sociology of religion correspond to genuine
and routinized charisma in the sociology of domination.
Charisma in the Sociology of Domination
The second, and probably the best known, definition of charisma
occurs in Weber’s writings on legitimate domination. I According to Weber,
the term “charisma” will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by
virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural,
superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers and qualities. These are such as
are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as
exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a “leader.”
. . . What is alone important is how the individual is actually regarded by those subject
to charismatic authority, by his “followers” or “disciples.” (1922:241-242)

When one takes note of such terms as “extraordinary,” “superna-

tural,” and “superhuman” in the above definition, one can observe
similarities with the definition of magical charisma in the sociology of
religion. Nevertheless, there are important differences between the two
 CHARISMA 371
definitions. First, in the latter, only persons can be called charismatic,
whereas in the former either persons or objects can be so designated.
Second, while Weber very explicitly regards a charismatic phenomenon as
a relationship between a leader and his or her followers in the second
definition, there is no such suggestion in the first. The second definition
is, to be precise, concerned with “genuine” charisma.
A closer look at Weber’s discussion reveals some further features of
genuine charisma, the term that Weber uses whenever it is necessary to
deny, in the argument, the relevance of routinized charisma. First, the
leader-follower relationship is characterized by a “complete personal devo-
tion” to the former on the part of the latter (1922:242). Second, the
followers shape a “charismatic community” (Gemeinde) in which the mem-
bers are emotionally tied to each other (1922:243). Third, there is a very
explicit emphasis on the fact that genuine charisma has a revolutionary
nature. According to Weber,
charisma, in its most potent forms, disrupts rational rule as well as traditional altogether
and overturns all notions of sanctity. . . . In this purely empirical and value-free sense
charisma is indeed the specifically creative revolutionary force of history. . . . T h e bearer
of charisma enjoys loyalty and authority by virtue of a mission believed to be embodied
in him: this mission has not necessarily and not always been revolutionary, but in its
most charismatic forms, it has inverted all value hierarchies and overthrown custom, law
and tradition. (1922:1117)

The “revolutionary” nature is, moreover, described as the essence of

charisma (1922:1123). Fourth, genuine charisma has to do with a “mis-
sion,” i.e., a normative world image. Weber expounds this point again and
again.
The mere fact of recognizing the personal mission of a charismatic master establishes his
power. (1922:1115) . . . the power of charisma rests upon the belief in revelations and
heroes, upon the conviction that certain manifestations-whether they be of a religious,
ethical, artistic, scientific, political or other kind-are important and valuable. (1922: 11 16)

One could say, after Weber’s logic, that charisma is connected with
absolute values in this context.
The conception of genuine charisma in the sociology of domination is
a generalization of that of prophetic charisma in the sociology of religion.
Both are a recognized quality of individuals, both tend to disrupt existing
norms and rules of conduct, and both contain a mission or message.
Weber’s examples of genuine charismatics such as Jesus, Joseph Smith, and
Kurt Eisner seem to confirm this point.
Despite the passionate tone echoing in his writings on genuine cha-
risma, Weber devotes more space to the discussion of the routinization of
charisma than to genuine charisma. The routinization refers to a process
in which a charismatic movement becomes infused with everyday social
institutions. It is also a process of the depersonalization of genuine charisma
(1922:1135). From a slightly different angle, routinization may also be seen
372 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

as a process in which the charismatic missions and ideals are exploited by

the interests of the followers (1922: 1121). Weber pays special attention to
the emergence of certain kinds of routinized charisma in this process.
“Office” charisma emerges on the basis of the belief that original charisma
can be transferred through some artificial means such as a priest’s
ordination and a king’s coronation (1922: 1139). “Hereditary” charisma,
on the other hand, emerges on the basis of the belief that original charisma
can be transferred through blood. It is, in fact, a general term for the other
variants of routinized charisma (except office). For instance, “clan”
charisma means that “extraordinary quality adheres to sib members per se
and not . . . to a single person” (1917:49).
Routinized charisma is radically different from genuine charisma.
First, it is no longer revolutionary. O n the contrary, routinized charisma
legitimates the existing institutional order and the continual operation of
an organized enterprise, be it religious or political.
As domination congeals into a permanent strutfure, charisma recedes as a creative force
. . . However, charisma remains a very important element of the social structure, even
though it is much transformed. . . . after its routinization its very quality as an
extraordinary, supernatural and divine force makes it a suitable source of legitimate
authority for the successors of the charismatic hero. (Weber, 1922:1146-1147)

Second, routinized charisma adheres not to persons but to social

institutions, be they offices or kinship organizations. Especially in the
former case, the depersonalization may reach the point where office and
person (incumbent) are completely separated (1922: 1140).
Routinized charisma is so far from being genuinely charismatic that
one is tempted to ask whether it is charismatic at all. Yet, according to
Weber, “We are justified in still speaking of charisma in this impersonal
sense only because there always remains an extraordinary quality which is
not accessible to everyone and which typically overshadows the charismatic
subjects” (1922:1135).
Translating it into our analytical language, Weber is arguing that
routinized charisma is charismatic since it contains an element of magical
~harisma.~
A textual analysis of Weber’s prolific usage of the concept of charisma
has shown that he i m p t e s several meanings to the term. They are connected
with his three types. of charisma, which may be termed magical, prophetic,
and routinized. Consequently it is quite legitimate to suspect that the
meaning and the sociological relevance of the concept is far from unambig-
uous, and to gnticipate the diversification of its treatment by so@ scientists
after Web&. Although Weber’s works betray ambiguity about the formula-
tion and the use of the concept of charisma, it is nevertheless possible and
important to explicate some constants in his writings. For Weber, first, any
charismatic phenomenon involves the recognition of extraordinariness, be
it of persons, objects, or social institutions. Rudolf Sohm’s original usage
 CHARISMA 373
of charisma as a “gift of grace” echoes in Weber (see Friedrich, 1961:14).
The decisive difference between the two is that while for Sohm charisma
refers to a gift of grace that really comes from God, for Weber it designates
something that is recognized or believed as a gift of grace. Second, to the
extent that charisma is an imputed quality, it is a product of its imputers,
i.e., charismatic followers. Weber stresses this point whenever he points out
the crucial importance of social recognition for any charisma to exist
(1922: 1113). Third, Weber implies that behind any charisma exists a
collectivity of people. Weber’s emphasis on an “emotional form of com-
munal relationship” under a charismatic leader testifies this point (1 922:
153, 1187-1188; see also Roth, 1975). This point further implies that
charisma should be treated as a collective rather than an individual product.
These general viewpoints should be kept in mind throughout the following
discussion of contemporary treatments of charisma, since without them the
concept may easily collapse as a viable sociological construct.
Post-Weberian Treatments of Charisma
The concept of charisma has been understood in quite diverse ways
by social scientists who have claimed to be using it as introduced by Weber.
One can find such diverse definitions of charisma as the capacity to bring
salvation (Tucker, 1968), simple normative influence (Etzioni, 196l),
extraordinary emotional significance (Camic, 1980), imputed moral supe-
riority (Katz, 1975), and the capacity to arouse awe and reverance (Shils,
1965). The concept has been utilized in such diverse fields as social
movements (Apter, 1968; Cell, 1974; Dekmejian and Wyszominski, 1972;
Dow, 1968; Fagen, 1965; Friedland, 1964; Jones and Anservitz, 1975;
I
Runciman, 11963; Tucker, 1968; Willner and Willner, 1965), collective
behavior (Smelser, 1962), organizational compliance (Etzioni, 1961;
Zablocki, 1980), social psychology (Camic, 1980; Katz, 1972, 1975;
McIntosh, 1969; Schiffer, 1973), the sociology of religion (Bosk, 1979; Hill,
1973; O’Dea, 1957; Stark, 1970), general theories of societal order and
legitimation (Shils, 1958, 1965, 1968; see also Parsons, 1947, 1963), and
social change (Berger, 1963; Berger and Berger, 1975; Roth, 1975).
How have these diverse and sometimes conflicting views with regard
to the meaning and sociological relevance of charisma developed? One
might attribute the diversity to the multiparadigmatic character of contem-
porary sociology itself.’ Yet, if one goes beyond this general account and
tries to find a factor that is specific to the concept of charisma, one can
hardly ignore the fact that Weber’s original formulation of the concept left
much room for subsequent ramifications. The present conceptual anarchy
surrounding charisma is due partly to the emphasis, for whatever reason,
on one or two of the usages in Weber at the expense of the others. In fact,
it is not difficult to classify most of the contemporary sociological literature
on charisma according to whether it emphasizes magical, prophetic, or
374 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

routinized charisma in Weber’s works. The following discussion cannot be

an exhaustive account of treatments of charisma in recent social science
publications. (For example, it does not include those of Etzioni [1961] and
Zablocki [ 19801 in the context of organizational and intragroup compliance.)
Nevertheless, it presents a balanced picture of how the concept of charisma
is used in contemporary sociology.
Prophetic Charisma
Many sociologists who use the concept of charisma in the study of
social movements and related fields tend to generalize Weber’s prophetic
charisma into charisma per se. Here main attention is given to Tucker
(1968) and Roth (1975) because of their explicit emphasis on prophetic
charisma. In addition, some other writings that display a similar concern
are examined and evaluated.
Tucker (1968) tries to reformulate Weber’s theory of charisma so that
it can be more fruitfully utilized in sociology. He argues for the need of a
theory with a clear-cut subject matter. The essential argument is that the
concept of charisma is useful and indispensable for the study of various
salvationary social movements and their leadership. He considers a leader’s
charisma as arising from the followers’ recognition that the leader embodies
certain hopes of salvation. Then he identifies the followers’ distress and
dissatisfaction with the existing society as a condition on which such a
movement occurs. Since the types of such acute distress may be various,
he proceeds to propose a systematic analysis of its causes and forms.
Moreover, in order to avoid the misidentification of charismatics, Tucker
calls for a “genetic approach” to the problem, in which more attention is
paid to the stages of a leader’s career before power is obtained. He
illustrates this point by examining Lenin’s extraordinary reputation even
before his assumption of power.
Tucker is clearly referring to Weber’s prophetic charisma. Moreover,
he argues to the effect that the entire theory of charisma must be
reformulated around the notion of prophetic charisma. Thus, he finds
Weber’s notion of routinized charisma very problematic. In fact, he
subscribes to Friedrich’s (1961) view that it makes little sense for Weber to
speak of routinized charisma, since ‘‘routine and charisma are contradictory
terms, if the initial specification of the term ‘charisma’ is taken at all
seriously” (Tucker, 1968:753). However, as mentioned before, Weber
suggests that routinized charisma may involve an element of magical
charisma, and to this extent the former is charismatic anyway. Conse-
quently, Tucker seems to fail to take account of Weber’s emphasis on the
significance of routinized charisma.
Many other studies also understand charisma as primarily concerned
with ideologically inspired leadership of social movements. The most
frequent application of the term can be found in the discussion of the
 CHARISMA 375
nationalistic movements of Asian-African countries in the 1960s (see, for
example, Apter, 1968; Bendix, 1967; Dow, 1968; Friedland, 1964; Runci-
man, 1963). I n these studies, the concept of charisma serves as little more
than a convenient label for some “inspired” leadership. Consequently,
Eichler (1977) concludes that the concept of charisma is not useful for the
study of social movements. (Instead, she uses the term “closed access
movement,” in which legitimacy of leadership comes from one person.)
Thus, it appears to be sensible for Smelser (1962) to devote only a small
space to charisma in his study of collective behavior. Here, the charismatic
movement is subsumed under one of many forms of collective behavior,
namely, “value-oriented” movements (Smelser, 1962:355-356). It should
be noted that Smelser, too, takes account of only a portion of Weber’s
formulation, i.e., prophetic charisma, which involves missions and messages
and hence values.
Roth (1975) also makes this ideational aspect of charisma explicit.
According to Roth, one can characterize a wide variety of ideologically
inspired groups as charismatic, “since Weber’s broadest definition of
prophecy is a sense of mission and the proclamation of a doctrine” (Roth,
1975:151). Thus, both pacifist and militant groups in contemporary coun-
tercultural movements can be regarded as charismatic groups: the former
closely associated with Weber’s “exemplary” prophecy, the latter with his
“ethical” prophecy. The group members, according to Roth, are “ideolog-
ical virtuosi” who espouse “single-minded conviction” about certain abso-
lute values.
The members of the two kinds of groups become charismatic by embracing an ethic of
sheer commitment to an ethical or exemplary way of life and by adopting a distinctive
mode of want satisfaction, thus forming an emotional consociation, or an “emotional
form of communal relationship.” (Roth, 1975:155)

Roth feels that those charismatic groups may have an important role
in future social change.
. . . when long-range structural changes and historical accidents lead to a crisis of
legitimacy, the virtuosi become important, whether or not they ultimately succeed in
seizing power. In times of trouble, many ordinary men can be swept along by a
charismatic movement and sometimes this leads to a political revolution. (Roth, 1975: 151)

When sociologists link the concept of charisma with social change,

they tend to accentuate the elements of values and ideas contained in
Weber’s prophetic charisma (Berger, 1963; Berger and Berger, 1975; see
also Bendix’s [ 19601 characterization of Weber’s sociology of religion as
9

sociology of innovation in the context of prophetic charisma). Roth’s

“ideological virtuosi,” for example, stand as charismatics not because of
the existence of some “inspired” leaders but because of their possession of
the “ethic of absolute value’’ (see Weber, 1919a, 1919b). This conception
is clearly an extension of Weber’s prophetic charisma, not magical or
routinized charisma.
376 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

Charisma is often used in the study of religious movements as well as

political movements (see, for example, Stark, 1970; Hill, 1973; Bosk, 1974,
1979). An interesting use of the concept is in O’Dea’s The Mormons (1957).
It contains an analysis of how Joseph Smith succeeded in preserving his
position as the supreme prophet in face of challenges by other contenders.
O’Dea depicts this process as the deliberate concentration and monopoli-
zation of charisma in Smith himself (O’Dea, 1957:156-160). While the
term charisma exclusively applies to the “qualification for a legitimate
revelation,” it appears to be indispensable for the account of early religious
movements where the authority of a leader is not firmly established and
where several competitors for the leadership position exist. It should be
noted, however, that despite the ease with which the concept of charisma
is employed in the studies of religious movements, these studies tend to
obscure the vital point implicit in Weber that charisma is a collective
product of the followers.
Routinized Charisma
This section is devoted to the examination of the writings by Edward
Shils (1958, 1965, 1968), which have been among the most influential post-
Weberian studies of charisma. Although Shils has written several papers on
this subject, we examine mainly his article “Charisma, Order, and Status,”
in which he explicitly tries to reformulate and ‘‘transcend” Weber’s theory
of charisma (Shils, 1965).
Shils conceives of the “extraordinariness” in Weber’s definition of
charisma as constituted by the manifestation of a “certain vital, crucial”
quality of life. According to Shils,
the charismatic quality of an individual as perceived by others, or himself, lies in what is
thought to be his connection with . . . some very central feature of man’s existence and
the cosmos in which he lives . . . The centrality is constituted by its formative power in
initiating, creating, governing, transforming, maintaining what is vital in man’s life.
(1965:20 1 )

Charisma thus understood may take intense and concentrated forms

as present in prophetic leaders, or it may take attenuated and dispersed
forms as present in certain social institutions and roles. The empirical
manifestations of charismatic phenomena, according to Shils, are awe and
reverence felt by the populace toward certain persons or social institutions.
The “central feature of man’s existence” is also called by Shils the “vital
layer of reality,” and the latter, in turn, is identified with some symbolic
“order.” Since the need for such an order is a universal human attribute,
Shils argues, anyone or anything that is perceived to be connected with the
symbolic order arouses the ‘‘charismatic propensity.”
The generator or author of order arouses the charismatic responsiveness. Whether it be
God’s law or natural law or scientific law or positive law or the society as a whole, or
 CHARISMA 377
even a particular corporate body or institution like an army, whatever embodies, expresses
or symbolizes the essence of an ordered cosmos or any significant sector thereof awakens
the disposition of awe and reverence, the charismatic disposition. (Shils, 1965:203)

Thus, kings, presidents, Supreme Court justices, governors, mayors,

philosophers, scientists (including sociologists), and even ‘‘citizens” become
the objects of the attribution of charisma. Moreoever, Shils argues that
power as such is also a “central order-related event.” Hence, massive
corporate bodies such as governmental, business, or military organizations
“come to possess charismatic qualities simply by virtue of the tremendous
power concentrated in them” (Shils, 1965:207, emphasis in original). (For
a discussion of “charismatic firms” [IBM, ITT, etc.], see Vinson [1977].)
In addition, Shils argues that virtually all status stratification is closely
related to charisma. The societal allocation of deference to various occu-
pations, according to Shils, reflects the degree of charismatic connections
of each occupation. Supreme Court justices receive the highest occupational
prestige scores because they become the link between the transcendental
order and the earthly order when they assert the Constitution. Garbage
collectors receive the least deference, because they “order very little, handle
brute matter as brute matter, express little that is vital . . .” (Shils,
1965:208).
Since Shils claims that he analyzes charisma more systematically than
Weber, he makes his intention very explicit in treating Weber’s concept of
charisma in the way presented above.
Weber had a pronounced tendency to segregate the object of attributed charisma, to see
it almost exclusively in its most concentrated and intense forms, and to disregard the
possibility of its dispersed and attenuated existence. He tended to deny the possibility
that charisma can become an integral element in the process of secular institutionalization.
(Shils, 1965 :201)

Shils clearly argues that Weber placed too much emphasis on prophetic
charisma and tended to neglect the importance of routinized charisma.
Thus, what Shils tries to do is, in short, an extension of routinized
charisma. He seems to be successful in incorporating Weber’s suggestion
on the relevance of charisma for status stratification. Yet, in doing so, Shils
seems to neglect prophetic (or genuine) charisma. His focus is not on the
personal charisma of a prophetic leader, but on the widely dispersed
charisma that is attached to certain social roles and institutions. Moreover,
his idea of institutional charisma is a significant leap from Weber, since
institutional charisma “is not a resultant of routinization process of certain
charismatic ‘movement’ ” but rather is “inherent in the massive organi-
zation of authority” (Shils, 1965:206).
In addition, Shils scarcely touches on the revolutionary nature of
charisma. Instead, he gives us an impression that charisma primarily works
as a legitimating force of the operation of existing social institutions. O n
the more general level, while Weber’s prophetic charisma disrupts the
378 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

established status ranking, Shils identifies the latter as the very “charismatic
order.” It is clear that Shils is generalizing routinized charisma into the
concept of charisma per se.
Because of its one-sided elaboration of Weber’s concept of charisma,
Shils’s works have been controversial among sociologists. For instance,
Wrong (1976:255-256) accuses Shils of equating Weber’s charisma with
Durkheim’s “sacred,” thereby mitigating charisma’s revolutionary nature.
(Parsons [ 1963:xxxiii-xxxiv] equates routinized charisma with sacred, but
not with charisma per se.) At the same time, Wrong criticizes Shils’s view
as obfuscating the ideal typical distinction between charismatic and tradi-
tional authority. (For other criticisms of Shils, see Bensman and Givant,
1975; Dow, 1969; Hill, 1973; Worsley, 1968.)
However, the most serious problems in Shils’s formulation seem to lie
in the following two points. The first is concerned with his conceptualization
of “order.” As we have seen above, he tends to conflate various heteroge-
neous concepts into the concept of order. Thus, it may refer to either
internal or external order; it may also refer to either transcendental (e.g.,
divine law) or secular (e.g., Constitution) order. The “need for order” is
the key concept for Shils’s formulation of charisma, since charisma is seen
as a function of this need for order. Yet, it is not clear what Shils means
by such an all-inclusive term as “order.”
The second problem lies in Shils’s latent functionalist assumption about
charisma. In rejecting Weber’s disenchantment thesis, Shils asserts that
charisma is a universal phenomenon that exists in all societies. “A great
identity exists in all societies, and one of the elements of this identity is the
presence of the charismatic element” (Shils, 1965:203). This idea is a
logical result of his argument that charisma is a function of “need for
order,” which is a universal human attribute. Consequently, charisma is
seen by Shils as a sort of “functional prerequisite” for all societies, past
and future. Thus, Shils’s criticism of Weber as “too much historicist” may
be turned against himself Shils is too much ahistoricist (Shils, 1965:203).
Shils’s study, nevertheless, reminds us that charisma is a very general,
protean concept that cannot be narrowly confined to the usages in some
specific sociological subdisciplines. It reminds us that the concept of
charisma, like legitimacy, is concerned with a macrosociological principle
whose empirical mainifestations may be various. The task of sociologists,
Shils implies, turns out to be not so much an investigation of this or that
seemingly “charismatic” phenomenon as an inquiry into the nature of a
macrosociological principle behind these discrete incidents.
Magical Charisma
The magical elements in Weber’s concept of charisma have been
stressed by some psychoanalytically oriented sociologists (McIntosh, 1969;
Camic, 1980; see also Schiffer, 1973). Among the works that emphasize
 CHARISMA 379
magical charisma, Camic’s (1980) recent investigation deserves particular
attention because of its explicit intention of reformulating the concept of
charisma.
Camic sees charisma as a phenomenon in which people attribute
certain extraordinary affective significance to persons or objects. It occurs
because when people suffer from certain extraordinary needs, anything that
satisfies their needs tends to be recognized as special. According to Camic,
this process can be elucidated by the psychoanalytic theory developed by
Freud and others, since the theory gives a systematic account of human
needs. The preconditions for charisma are the existence of one or more of
the following four needs, which are rendered extraordinary due to some
sociopsychological processes. These are dependency, ego-ideal, super-ego,
and id. Corresponding to these forms of psychic deprivation, Camic argues,
people impute “omnipotence,” “excellence,” “sacredness,” and the
I‘
uncanny” to persons or objects that gratify their needs. Magicians,
prophets, and political heroes may be omnipotent figures since they satisfy
people’s extraordinary dependency needs (e.g., fertility, “meaning”); pro-
fessors and film stars may become excellent figures since they gratify
extraordinary ego-ideal needs; presidents and national flags may be attrib-
uted sacredness because they satisfy extraordinary super-ego needs; the
Rolling Stones and Charles Manson may be uncanny figures since they
gratify people’s extraordinary id needs (Camic, 1980:14-16).
Camic proceeds to offer hypotheses about the consequences of char-
isma, i.e., the attribution of a variety of specialness. In the short term, he
points out the utility of psychoanalytic discussions on transference and
resonance identification for the study of leader-follower relationships. In
the long term, Camic suggests that whether charisma results in the
disruption or conservation of social order cannot be decided a priori but
must be studied empirically.
Camic assumes the central importance of the imputation of extraordi-
nariness for Weber’s conception of charisma. This aspect of Weber’s
charisma is most evident in his definition of magical charisma, and Camic’s
study, as well as other psychoanalytically oriented studies, regards magicians
as typical charismatics (Camic, 1980:7). Consequently, prophetic charisma
tends to be deemphasized in this approach. For example, Camic treats
prophets and magicians equally as omnipotent figures, the only difference
being that the former satisfy people’s need for meaning, while the latter
gratify their needs for fertility, rain, health, etc. (Camic, 1980: 14-15).
Moreover, the revolutionary nature of (prophetic) charisma is not taken as
central for the reformulated concept. Yet, given the generic significance of
magic for Weber’s charisma, it may well be said that Camic’s work squarely
covers aspects of charisma discussed by Weber. Moreover, while Weber pays
little attention to the preconditions for charisma, Camic offers clear
380 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

hypotheses about them. In addition, the study makes it clear that charisma
is a product of people who are under its influence.
However, the psychoanalytic approach suffers from two serious prob-
lems. The first is concerned with the level of analysis. Consider a
schizophrenic person who imputes, say, omnipotence to a doll in her
bedroom. Or consider a patient who attributes excellence to his therapist.
The doll or the therapist perfectly qualifies as a charismatic in the framework
of Gamic’s argument. Thus, there are no clear differences in the psychoan-
alytic approach to charisma between such individual phenomena and such
collective phenomena as social movements or the legitimation of political
authority. (This point has its deeper root in Freud’s “psychological
reductionism.’’ See Freud, 1933: 158.)
Weber is aware of the collective nature of charismatic phenomena when
he emphasizes the importance of “charismatic community.” (Gemeinde)
formed around a prophet (Weber, 1922: 1119). Moreover, he pays attention
to the “collective excitement’’ present in such a community (Weber,
1922:1121). All of Weber’s three types of charisma (i.e., magical, prophetic
and routinized) presuppose a certain collectivity behind them. Indeed,
charisma has to be considered not only as human product but also as a
collective product of people. (Mannheim [ 1936:207] rightly stresses the
“collective impulses’’ that underlie charismatic phenomena.) The psychoan-
alytic approach seems to have difficulty in accounting for this point.
The second problem pertains to the question of whether a charismatic
phenomenon is necessarily an expression of pathological psychological states.
Because of its clinical origin in Freud, the psychoanalytic approach retains
a tendency to compare charismatic phenomena to neurotic behavior (see
Eisenstadt, 1968:xxii-xxiv). Gamic’s study also has this tendency. For
example, he describes the factor that renders otherwise ordinary needs of
people into extraordinary needs as ego passivity. To quote Camic, “Ordi-
nary needs will here be differentiated from extra-ordinary needs according
to whether the ego is active or passive with respect to them (i.e.,
dependency, ego-ideal etc. needs)” (Camic, 1980: 12). Such ego passivity is
closely related, though not identical, to neurosis, given that the general
task of psychoanalytic therapy is to help patients restore their ego’s control
over the demands from other faculties such as super-ego and id. Yet it is
not convincing to postulate that some neurotic (or pathological) condition
gives rise to such charismatics as professors, the Supreme Court, and film
stars (Gamic, 1980:15-16). This point is clearer when one tries to account
for Weber’s routinized charisma within the psychoanalytic framework. For
example, it would be unlikely that imputation of specialness to, say, a
constitutional monarch presupposes some pathological mental structure
among the populace. What matters here is clearly not the mental structure
of individuals, but certain collectively shared mental structures that repro-
duce themselves from generation to generation. Thus, we cannot exclude
 CHARISMA 381
the possibility that charisma may be quite a “normal” phenomenon within
the framework of such clinical sciences as psychoanalysis.
Toward a Unified View of Charisma
It has been argued above that the concept of charisma entails multiple
meanings in Weber’s original formulation and that this is partly responsible
for the subsequent diversification of its treatments in sociology. In the face
of the conceptual anarchy surrounding charisma, the following discussion
attempts to illuminate a fundamental element of the concept and thereby
suggests a new synthetic framework about it.
In the following, we adopt a highly abstract level of discussion. We
ask about the nature of certain social phenomena that demand a specific
conceptual grasp by the term charisma. That is, we ask what kinds of
social phenomena can and should be made intelligible for us by imposing
the concept of charisma to them.
A charismatic phenomenon is, like all other social phenomena, a
product of human beings and not a product of God or of nature. Yet, what
is distinctive about a charismatic phenomenon is the fact that it does not
present itself as a humanly constructed phenomenon. Instead, a charismatic
phenomenon is apprehended by people as caused and maintained by certain
non- or superhuman powers. In this point, it is sharply differentiated from
other “ordinary” social phenomena that are apprehended as “merely
human” constructs, leaving aside the correctness of the understanding of
the mechanisms by which people produce them. Regardless of whether it
is attached to persons, social institutions, or even ideologies, charisma is a
“gift of grace” that appears to be derived from external, superhuman
sources such as God.
Consider, for example, the social phenomenon in which people obey a
governmental law because of their belief in its divine origin. They do not
comprehend the fact that the law is actually constructed by their fellow
human beings. Instead, the law is apprehended as coming from a super-
human being, i.e., God. In this case, the law is endowed with charisma.
Thus, the phenomenon deserves a distinctive conceptual grasp as charis-
matic phenomenon. (In discussing his contemporary German “state meta-
physics,” Weber notes that the state itself may be endowed with charisma
[Weber, 1922:1140-1141l.y
Here, one may notice an interesting fact that charismatic phenomena,
in the most generalized understanding, are the expressions of the process
of alienation. Although the concept of alienation has been, like charisma,
subject to numerous different interpretations, we find Berger’s (1969)
explication particularly relevant in this context. According to Berger,
alienation refers to ‘‘the process whereby the dialectical relationship between
the individual and his world is lost to his consciousness. The individual
382 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

forgets that this world was and continues to be co-produced by him”

(Berger, 1969:85).
Moreover, Berger points out that the core experience of religion, i.e.,
“the most powerful agency of alienation,” is that of “otherness.”
One of the essential qualities of the sacred, as encountered in “religious experience,” is
otherness, its manifestation as something fohzlitn alifer as compared to ordinary, profane
human life. It is precisely this otherness that lies at the heart of religious awe, of
numinous dread, of adoration of what totally transcends all dimensions of the merely
human. (Berger, 1969:87)

It should be noted that the above description of alienation speaks about

the essential nature of charisma more precisely than most of the post-
Weberian sociological discussions surrounding it. Let us take, for example,
charismatic leadership in order to illustrate the point. We may consider it
as a social phenomenon in which people (followers) impute a superior
quality to a leader. The superior quality is, of course, not simply the
leader’s “merely human” managerial skill. The quality is an extraordinary
one. It is apprehended by the followers as a gift of grace, i.e., something
that is coming from superhuman sources. Yet, obviously, the extraordinary
quality of the leader remains, in actuality, the produce of the followers’
perception that there exists a certain alien power, i.e., something totaliter
alitn, behind the leader’s expressed words and deeds. In so doing, the
followers “forget” the fact that the leader’s extraordinary gift of grace is
produced by themselves. It should be apparent, therefore, that charismatic
movements cannot be reduced to “value-oriented movements” (Smelser,
1962) nor “closed access movements” (Eichler, 1977).
As long as a charismatic phenomenon involves a dependence and
submission relationship between the people and the objects that are endowed
with charisma, it serves as a strong source of legitimation of the submission
relationship. Thus, if charisma is attached to social institutions, obedience
to the institutions is legitimated by certain superhuman powers, be they of
God, of nature, of the forces of history, etc. It is clear that charisma in
this context corresponds to Weber’s routinized charisma. If, on the other
hand, charisma is attached to a person rather than an institutional
functionary, obedience to the person (i.e., leader) is likewise legitimated by
certain superhuman powers. Weber’s prophetic charisma is a case in point.
Ideal typically, a prophet radically rejects the existing taboo-like legitimation
(or sanctification) of the power relationship between the ruler and the ruled.
The revolutionary nature of prophetic charisma should be understood in
this context. Yet, prophetic charisma is no less a source of legitimacy of
domination than routinized charisma, as long as the dependence relationship
between the leader and the led is concerned. Consequently, it is quite
natural that once a prophetic movement is successful, prophetic charisma
is transferred from a personal leader to a social institution, and thereby
transformed into routinized charisma, since the success of the movement
 CHARISMA 383
makes it possible to extend its internal power relationship that is sanctified
by a certain superhuman source to a society at large.
Conclusion: Fundamental Viewpoints on Charisma
It has been argued that charismatic phenomena are essentially the
expressions of the pure process of alienation. It is on this level of abstraction
that we could suggest several basic points about charisma.
First of all, charisma should refer to an imputed quality of persons or
objects. The charisma of a leader, for example, is a product of the followers.
It is essentially an illusion. The actual personality of a leader has little to
do with charisma. This assertion does not deny the existence of remarkably
innovative individuals. Rather, the point is that innovativeness of an
individual as such is just one of many factors that facilitate the imputation
of charisma.
Second, charisma should refer to an illusory product of a collectivity
rather than an isolated individual. Although certain schizophrenia-like
experiences may have implications for its study, a charismatic phenomenon
should not be equated with a solitary illusory experience. Rather, it always
entails a collectivity of people as its producer. Weber’s magical charisma,
for instance, presupposes a village community that shares the belief in a
magician’s superhuman power. In the case of “divine kingship,” there
exists a community of monarchic “subjects” who impute charisma to a
monarch. Similarly, in the case of charisma of a revolutionary leader who
attacks a monarch, there exists a community of “disciples” who constitute
an “anti-community” within a larger community of monarchic subjects.
Weber’s emphasis on the significance of “charismatic community” can be
fully understood only in this context. In essence, charisma has to be treated
as a collective illusion.
Third, charisma as a collectively produced illusion is at the same time
an expression of alienation.‘j That is, while people impute and produce
charisma, they forget this fact and apprehend their own product as coming
from superhuman sources, i.e., as a gift of grace. Katz (1972, 1975) speaks
of charisma as an imputation of inherent moral superiority to persons.
Certainly, the charisma of a person does not appear to be a result of the
perceivers’ imputation. O n the contrary, it appears to be an inherent quality
(“moral superiority” in Katz) of the person. This is the decisive point that
differentiates charismatic phenomena from “ordinary” social phenomena.
For a social movement, for example, to be charismatic, either a leadership
quality or a pronounced message has to be preceived as coming from
external, superhuman sources. Roth’s “ideological virtuosi” may become
charismatic only when the ideology espoused by a group assumes an
independent and superhuman quality in the eyes of the group members.
This criterion for charisma should be, of course, ideal typical. That is, one
can speak only of the approximation of a given empirical phenomenon to
384 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

the ideal typical category of charisma. Yet, without this qualitative criterion,
the concept of charisma seems to be virtually meaningless.
Fourth, while we maintain that charisma is essentially a collective
illusion, this does not mean that it has no “real” power. O n the contrary,
charisma exerts a strong life-regulative power as a source of legitimacy.
(This parallels Weber’s definition of religion as systems of life regulation.
See Weber, 1915:267.) Indeed, charisma may be considered as the strongest
source of legitimacy because of its function to transform a given social
relationship that is inherently precarious into a superhuman facticity that
is seemingly everlasting. The distinctiveness of Weber’s charismatic author-
ity, thus, lies in its direct legitimation of domination, in contrast to the
other types of authority in which legitimation is mediated either by law or
by tradition. Moreover, while it is not impossible to speak of charisma in
microsociological settings, it seems more advantageous to use the concept
in connection with a macrosociological legitimation of domination. Prophetic
charisma’s function to delegitimate an existing social order and to form an
‘‘anti-community” within a larger community cannot be understood with-
out taking a macrosociological perspective on charisma.
Finally, it should be emphasized that charisma, contrary to Shils’s
suggestion, is not an ahistorical “functional prerequisite” of all societies.
Charisma, just as alienation, should not be treated as an anthropological
necessity. Moreover, behind the insistence of the ubiquity of charisma exists
an implicit tendency to suppose that charisma is somehow necessary and
desirable for society (see Etzioni, 1961; Shils, 1965, 1968). A similar
tendency is found among the sociologists who wish to distinguish authentic
charisma from pseudo charisma (see Friedrich, 1961; Loewenstein, 1966;
Bensman and Givant, 1975; Glassman, 1975). Yet, if we regard a charis-
matic phenomenon as the concrete expression of alienation, it becomes
clear that charisma is neither necessary nor desirable. Although Weber did
not explicitly address the problem of charisma in connection with alienation,
this is the implication of his arguments in “Politics as a Vocation” (1919a)
and “Science as a Vocation’’ (1919b). One of the central themes repeatedly
echoing in these lectures may be put simply as follows: Bear the fate of the
time that is devoid of charisma, i.e., is “disenchanted.” Do not be seduced
by the charm of charisma in order to hastily deny the disenchanted modern
social life. Weber’s emphasis on the noncharismatic “ethic of responsibility”
in contrast to the charismatic “ethic of absolute value” also testifies to the
point that he was far removed from the supposition that charisma is an
ahistorical necessity of social organization.

ENDNOTES

*I would like to thank Warren 0. Hagstrom for his valuable advice and encouragement.
I am grateful to Ivan Szelenyi and Charles Camic for their precious comments on my master’s
 CHARISMA 385
thesis on which this paper is based. Thanks also go to David F! Lindstrom and Kaoru
Miyahara for their generous help in producing this paper.
‘On the debate over the appropriate translation of lcgifime Hmschajt, see Parsons (1947: 152)
and Weber (1922:61-62) (Guenther Roth’s note). Although I have followed Roth’s usage in
this paper, this choice was not entailed by the arguments below; “authority’ or “imperative
coordination” could have been used instead of “legitimate domination.”
2Weber also relates charisma to “individual creativity.” For example, he speaks of
Taylorian scientific management as eliminating charisma in factory production (1922: 1 1 56).
It is no wonder that Gerth and Mills (1946:72) find a “metaphysical vehicle of man’s
freedom” in Weber’s concept of charisma. Yet, as will be apparent, this usage of the concept
is not a central one in Weber.
3Another interpretation of Weber is that “routinization” means simply institutionalization
of authority and hence it is no longer necessary for the followers (subjects) to perceive
routinized charisma as supernatural, mystical, etc. By contrast, we want to stress the
fundamental continuity between genuine and routinized charisma, namely, (perceived) extraor-
dinary quality.
‘For example, some discard Weber’s ideal-type methodology and try to make objective
variables out of the concept (see Cell’s [ 19741 Guttman Scalogram of Charisma and Zablocki’s
I19801 Charisma Scale). Others emphatically defend its ideal typical character (see Hill, 1973;
Wrong, 1976).
’Thus, insofar as people are aware of the purely human origin of, say, the U.S.
Constitution, it is hardly called “charismatic,” though it may be “sacred” in the Durkheimian
sense.
“Zablocki (1980:278) regards charisma as an inverse function of alienation and constructs
a Chrisma Scale, which corresponds to Seeman’s (1961) alienation scale. Yet, this type of
linkage between charisma and alienation has obviously little to do with that presented here
because of basic differences in the conceptualization of charisma.

REFERENCES

Apter, D. E.
1968 “Nkrumah, charisma, and the coup.” Daedalus 96:759-792.
Bendix, R .
1960 Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1967 “Reflections on charismatic leadership.” Asian Survey 3:341-352.
Bensman, J. and M . Givant
1975 “Charisma and modernity: T h e use and abuse of a concept.” Social Research
(Winter):570-614.
Berger, F! L.
1963 “Charisma and religious innovation.” American Sociological Review 28:940-950.
1969 The Sacred Canopy. New York: Anchor Books.
Berger, B. and F! L. Berger
1975 Sociology: A Biographical Approach. 2nd. ed. New York: Basic Books.
Bosk, C.
1974 “Cybernetic Hasidism: An essay on social and religious change.” Sociological
Inquiry 44:13 1- 144.
1979 “The Routinization of charisma: T h e case of the Zaddik.” Sociological Inquiry
49:150- 167.
Camic, C .
1980 “Charisma: Its varieties, preconditions, and consequences.” Sociological Inquiry
50:5-23.
386 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

Cell, C . I?
1974 “Charismatic heads of state: The social context.” Behavioral Science Research
9:255-305.
Dekmejian, R. and M . J . Wyszominski
1972 “Charismatic leadership in Islam.” Comparative Studies in Society and History
14: 193-214.
Dow, T. E., J .
1968 “The role of charisma in modern African development.” Social Forces 46:328-
336.
1969 “The theory of charisma.” Sociological Quarterly 10:306-318.
Eichler, M .
1977 “Leadership in social movements.” Sociological Inquiry 47:99-107.
Eisenstadt, S. N.
1968 “Introduction.” In S. N. Eisenstadt (ed.), Max Weber: On Charisma and
Institution Building. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Etzioni, A.
1961 A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press.
Fagen, R. R.
1965 “Charismatic authority and the leadership of Fidel Castro.” Western Political
Quarterly 18:275-284.
Freud, S.
(1933) New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. Trans. J. Strachey. New York:
1965 Norton.
Friedland, W. H .
1964 “For a sociological concept of charisma.” Social Forces 43: 18-36.
Friedrich, C. J.
1961 “Political leadership and the problem of the charismatic power.” Journal of Politics
23:3-24.
Gerth, H. H . and C . W. Mills
1946 “Introduction.” In H. H . Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds.), From Max Weber:
Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford.
Glassman, R.
1975 “Legitimacy and manufactured charisma.” Social Research (Winter):615-636.
Hill, M .
1973 A Sociology of Religion. London: Heinemann.
Jones, R . A. and R. M. Anservitz
1975 “Saint-Simon and Saint-Simonism: A Weberian view.” American Journal of
Sociology 80:1095-1123.
Juan, E. S., J .
1967 “Orientation of Max Weber’s concept of charisma.” Centennial Review 11 :270-
285.
Katz, J.
1972 “Deviance, charisma, and rule-defined behavior.” Social Problems 20: 186-202.
1975 “Essence as moral identities: Verifiability and responsibility in imputations of
deviance and charisma.” American Journal of Sociology 80: 1369-1390.
Loewenstein, K.
1966 Max Weber’s Political Ideas in the Perspective of O u r Time. Boston: University
of Massachusetts Press.
Mclntosh, D.
1969 “Weber and Freud: O n the Nature and Sources of Authority.” American
Sociological Review 34:901-911.
 CHARISMA 387
Mannheim, K.
(1936) Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
1968 O’Dea, T. F.
1957 T h e Mormons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Parsons, T.
1947 “Introduction.” In M. Weber, T h e Theory of Economic and Social Organization.
New York: Free Press.
1963 “Introduction.” In M. Weber, T h e Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon.
Ratnam, K.J.
1964 “Charisma and political leadership.” Political Studies 12:341-354.
Roth, G.
1975 “Socio-historical model and developmental theory: Charismatic community, char-
isma of reason and the counterculture.” American Sociological Review 40:148-
157.
Runciman, W. G.
1963 “Charismatic legitimacy and one-party rule in Ghana.” Archives EuropGennes de
Sociologie 4:145-165.
Schiffer, I.
1973 Charisma: A Psychoanalytic Look at Mass Society. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Seeman, M .
1961 “On the meaning of alienation.” American Sociological Review 16:753-758.
Shils, E.
1958 “The concentration and dispersion of charisma.” World Politics 11:l-19.
1965 “Charisma, order, and status.” American Sociological Review 30:199-213.
1968 “Charisma.” In D . Shills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
Vol. 2. New York: Crowell.
Smelser, N. J.
1962 Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press.
Spencer, M. E.
1970 “Weber on legitimate norms and authority.” British Journal of Sociology 21:123-
134.
Stark, W.
1970 The Sociology of Religion. Vol. 4. New York: Fordham University Press.
Tucker, R .
1968 “The theory of charismatic leadership.” Daedalus 97:731-756.
Vinson, D. E.
1977 “Charisma: A sociological explanation of market leadership.” International Journal
of Contemporary Sociology 14:265-275.
Weber, M.
(1915) “The Social Psychology of World Religions.” In H. H. Gerth a i d C. W. Mills
1946 (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford.
(1919a) “Politics as a Vocation.” In H. H. Gerth and C . W. Mills (eds.), From Max
1946 Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford.
(1919b) “Science as a Vocation.” In H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds.), From Max
1946 Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford.
(1917) T h e Religions of India. Trans. H . H. Gerth and D. Martindale. New York: Free
1958 Press.
(1922) Economy and Society. Trans. G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley: University of
1968 California Press.
Willner, A. R . and D. Willner
1965 “The rise and role of charismatic leaders.” Annals of American Academy of
Political and Social Science 358:77-88.
388 KOJIRO MIYAHARA

Wolpe, H .
1968 “A critical analysis of some aspects of charisma.” Sociological Review 16:305-
318.
Worsley, F!
1968 The Trumpet Shall Sound. New York: Schocken.
Wrong, D. H .
1976 Skeptical Sociology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zablocki, B.
1980 Alienation and Charisma: A Study of Contemporary American Communes. New
York: Free Press.