I’ve been meaning to start two series of diaries on here for quite some time. The one I havnt started yet will be a series of book reviews and recommendations because the anthropology and sociology in the liberal blog-o-sphere is..well, its weak. And I mean cultural anthropology, not the human evolution kind. All y’all need to read Eric Wolf, Frances Fox Piven, David Harvey and a host of others.
So consider this the 1st instalment of my other desired series: A review of the theories and ideas from those who came long before us. Let us not reinvent the wheel when all we really need to do is read Capital or Max Weber.
So...the first instalment of DWM’s and their ideas of quality: Max Weber and the Charismatic Authority
Yes, fear theocracy. Yes, fight theocracy.
But how much is truly the desire for a theocracy and how much is the desire to fall behind a charasmatic authority? (um....I dont mean my desire or yours)
First–and this is ESSENTIAL: charisma does not equal a charasmatic authority. Bill Clinton, who has a tremendous amount of charisma, is in no way shape or form a charasmatic leader...in the Weberian sense to which I am referring. (Note: I see that Clinton is listed as a charasmatic leader on the wikipedia page describing the phenomenon. I assume that an experienced sociologist or anthropologist was not the person who made the list. It is also an example of why I make no links in this diary. The internet really really sucks for intellectual resources for sociology and anthropology. Data? Sure. Exposition of theoretical ideas? No f’ing way)
About a century ago, after touring the United States, Max Weber wrote an article about the Legitimate forms of authority ("The Types of Legitimate Domination" in Economy and Society published 1925). He suggested three categories of leadership: Legal Authority, Traditional Authority, and Charasmatic Authority.
In the piece, he singles out the category of legal authority: one who gets his authority through the law. A legal authority is subject to the same laws as those who s/he is an authority over. Weber felt as if the prez of the US was a perfect example of a legal authority. GWB is the legal authority of the United States. Whether elected or selected, legally he is the prez.
Now Weber was into the idea of "ideal types" where he categorized a particular way of being or a social role, but knew that it was rare for any one person to embody any one potential role. Rather, he thought leaders would likely be a mixture of the potential variations on the social role of leadership.
Weber's second category, or variation on the role of leadership, was that of Traditional Leadership. These are leaders who earn their position because "that is how it is always done". It is traditional. Traditional leaders require loyalty to the person and not to his office (which is a characteristic of legal authority). Traditional leaders may create laws at whim and can decide to follow or ignore laws as they choose.
"When the president does it, its not against the law" is Nixon claiming traditional authority, not legal authority. Cops who deal drugs are acting out traditional authority. Clinton schtuping Monica is probably an example of traditional authority. JFK schtuping Marilyn Monroe is probably him acting out traditional authority. A fancy DC restaurant that bows to Dick's last minute request for a table is probably recognizing Cheney's traditional authority.
Kings are a good example of traditional authority. Especially the current British crown. Charles et al have no legal authority through their office, but they obvious have a significantly high status and influence through the tradition.
Keep in mind that Queen Victoria was both traditional and legal authority. King George II and III were both legal and traditional authorities. Saddam and Kim Jong-Il certainly are traditional authorities, but by virtue of their creating legal systems in Iraq or N Korea, they are also legal authorities.
Most leaders have a mix of traditional and legal authority. Most are not Charismatic leaders. Legal authorities maintain bureaucracies where the bureaucrat is most loyal to his position and not the leader. When US attorneys are loyal to the law first and foremost, they are acting under a legal system. When they are loyal to the president first and foremost, they are acting under a traditional system. At least 75% of the shenanigans from the GWB administration can basically be boiled down to W and The Dick and Shit Blossom claiming traditional authority and dismissing legal authority. The presidential signing statements are NOTHING OTHER THAN THIS. W claiming that he interprets laws his own way, choosing which he will follow, is him acting out traditional authority. Yes, they play with the law in order to have this authority appear legal..and in some cases their behaviors are technically legal...but the overriding message is clear: He is the decider in chief. (Heh heh)
Charasmatic leaders are different. Moses was a charasmatic leader. So was Jesus and Mohamad. So was Ghandi. So was Hitler. So is Kim Jong-Il. So was MLK. So is GWB. (Yes, I just compared Jesus to Hitler to GWB... I do apologize to Jesus)
CHARISMATIC leaders are either touched by God or are unquestionably impeccable examples for how humans should live. God spoke to Mohamad and Moses, they were touched by God. Jesus (in Christian mythology) is God, or at least his human form/"son". Ghandi and MLK...we can easily challenge ANY human being to be better people than these two and they probably could only dream of equaling them. Of course Charismatic authority is fleeting, it only remains for as long as those who follow the authority believe the authority to be divine, touched by the divine, or exemplary humans above all others. Obviously to more than a few wackos, MLK is not a Charismatic leader. This status may very likely be denied him through racism, but many will deny it none the less.
Weber, along with a host of other late 19th century/early 20th century DWM’s, were very concerned that the emerging industrial state and modern urbanization was going to take meaning out of every day life and cause significant existential (my word, not Weber's) crises. Questions like "why am I here?" or "what's the point?"
Durkheim spoke of similar things and called them "anomie". Marx called it the "alienation of the worker". Simmel and Wirth simply stressed the heterogeneity of modern (sic.) urban life as compared to the homogeneity of rural life. In a rural world, people would most likely interact the majority of their lives with others who have gone through very similar experiences. Therefore, a number of accurate assumptions can be made about the people you meet, even if you don’t particularly know them. With the urban explosion, (and "suburban" is just as "urban" as a city in this sense...remember, you can't have "suburbs" without "urbs"...at least not until the 1990s), we interact with many people we know nothing about. We cant even make accurate assumptions about them. For many of us, this is not a problem. For many, this is: Strange languages and customs, different ways of dressing, a variety of skin tones, different religions, very different life experiences, even different ways of earning a living that can be hard to understand ("um...anthropology? Isnt that about bones?"). It can make people question the validity of their own choices and experience in life. It can really freak some people out. And it can cause some of us to have a new sense of wonder and amazement in the world. Most of us here at Dkos see this diversity as a strength and a source of joy...far from a reason to question the meaning of the world.
So Weber in part feared that there would be a rise in Charasmatic leaders who would provide people with temporary meaning in their lives. Weber thought Charasmatic leaders could be quite dangerous as they would be able to concentrate power into the hands of very very few, or the one. And that the charasmatic leaders could coerce people to do horrible things. Cult leaders tend to be charasmatic leaders without legal or traditional authority. Hitler had all three.
The utilization of the occult and the milliniarian tendancies of the 3rd Reich, as well as Hitler's own manipulations of christianity, is what truly gives Hitler his charasmatic qualities. Many believe Hitler to be the pinnicle of what Weber feared.
Find a bio of Kim Jong-Il. You'll see how N Korea claims a somewhat mystical birth for the midgit (no, i wont be polite to Kim Jong-Il or the supreme fuck head of all, Hitler...may he rot eternally in hell..and I hope John Gotti is playing with his ball...but I digress when I start talking about that piece of shit). There is a discourse in North Korea around Kim Jong-Il that endows him with Charasmatic leadership.
Remember, being a charasmatic leader is not the same as having alot of charisma. NO one would ever suggest that Clinton was touched by the divine. And I doubt anyone would portray Bubba as an exemplory human being either. (Seriously...stay away from wikipedia to understand this stuff) But he has lots of charisma. Ayatollah Khomeini, he is a charismatic authority and a traditional authority. The Ayatollah, upon returning from exile, was able to take on several titles to combat the changes in Iran implemented by the Shah. One of which was in response to the Shah abandoning the Muslim calendar for the western/Christian one. This entitled the Ayatollah to return to Iran with a title that roughly translates to "Master of Time" (with all due deference to Doctor Who).
Pat Robertson is a charasmatic leader. Since his followers believe he speaks with God, they endow him this status. He is also a traditional authority as a religious leader (whether you agree with what he says or not). Jerry Farwell too. Robert Tilton too...though he lost his Charismatic authority for a while...hes back isnt he? I don’t know if Tilton is a traditional authority as I don’t think a Robertson or Farwell and the like would recognize his authority as a reverend.
When people claim that God chose GWB to be prez, they give him this charasmatic authority. When we see children praying to a cut out of GWB (as in the movie "jesus camp"), we see people worshiping a charasmatic authority. The manipulation of christianity and the government is Shit Blossom and GWB manipulating this charasmatic leadership. Yes, it is precarious. And maybe it has lessened, though I would argue that many of the 30% of the country or so that still thinks GWB is aces are many of those who endowed him the charasmatic status. The fact that they cant wave from their support probably has much to do with how they think he is touched by the divine. God don’t make no mistakes, He is perfect. (Btw...my inclination is to write "she" or "s/he", but those who give W his charasmatic authority would never consider God to be a woman or gender-less)
The world is changing. Its been in augmentation high gear since 1973 (the year that some navel gazers suggest that we enter the Post-Modern period...as an academic, Im not much of a post-modernist), which has coincided with most of the rise in fundementalism...be it christian, muslim, hindu or buddhist (sarin gas in the tokyo subway tunnles anyone?). Those that seek a new merging of religion and government tend to choose a particular form of their religion...a theocracy based on Liberation Theology it is not. The form of theocracy is one which appears to desire charasmatic leadership. It is as if the pyschological desire is to have an authority figure who embodies the followers’ beliefs and therefore he has their loyalty because they believe he will bring back the meaning into their lives. This is a meaning which has all of its categories neatly deliniated. Where good and evil are clearly and plainly defined. Where God’s authority is the only authority and the charasmatic leader channels this divine authority to be ruler.
So...lets put GWB...or Jim Jones...in his proper context: He is a charasmatic leader who believes in his status. It may be put on from his (and shit blossom’s) perspective and he will likely abandon all of his followers when he finally leaves office. It may be falling away in some circles because he is not giving his charasmatic followers what they desire (the theocracy)...but the followers are perhaps the most dangerous of all, because the gaping hole that they are trying to fill with a charasmatic leader is not going to go away. Charismatic leaders in the industrial world are dangerous because charismatic leaders are too contested. We at DKOS would never endow GWB with that sort of authority, but those that do can become incensed that we don’t.
We get angry when the prez acts outside of the confines of legal authority..though even we too would give a prez some traditional authority (hey...a powerful man is often a busy man. And if his wife forgives him some marital infidelity, we do too...or if W wants a table at the best restaurant in DC, let him have it. He is president). But the idea here is to remind folks that NO ONE has a direct pipeline to God...except maybe Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. And Buddha, though he’ll call it something else...well, No-Thing else.
Thus ends the first instalment of Dead White Men and the quality ideas they had. Look forward to an explanation as to why Marx is more applicable to the 21st century than any other time in history, why Franz Boas’ concept of cultural relativism is important (and impossible for fundies to act out) and why EE Evans-Pritchard was a shit head (just kidding, that last one is just to see if any other cultural anthropologist are actually reading DKOS).
When I start the book reviews, Ill start with a LWW (Living White Women) and then soon drop the "white" part. Any one know Amilcar Cabral? Mmmmmm cultural suicide is just what Kerry, Clinton, Biden, and MSM need to do.