The present paper examines Weber's work on charisma from the original formulation in Economy and Socaety1 to the Enal statement in the essay on 'Politics as a Vocation'.2 Both the intended meaning of charisma in the earlier formulation and the uses and limitations of the new formulation are discussed. The paper concludes with some observations on the place of charisma in Weber's ethical and intellectual life. THE THEORY OF CHARISMA In Weber's original formulation, charismatic authority is said to exist when an individual's claim to 'specific gifts of body and mind'3 is ackknowledged by others as a valid basis for their participation in an extraordinary programme of action. The leader's authority and programme are thus specifically 'outside the realm of everyday routine and . . . [therefore] sharply opposed both to rational ... and to traditional authority.... Both ... are ... forms of everyday routine control ... while charismatic authority ... is ... a specifically revolutionary force'.4 In this sense, 'charisma is self-determined and sets its own limits'.5 It 'rejects all external order . . . ;6 it 'transforms all values and breaks all traditional and rational norms....'7 'In its most potent forms, . . . [it] overturns all notions of sanctity.'8 Instead of respect for rational rule and tradition, it compels 'the surrender of the faitllful to the extraordinary and unheard-of, to what is alien to all regulation and tradition and therefore is viewed as divine . . .'9 In a basic sense, then, charismatic authority represents a pattern of psychological, social, and economic release: Release from 'traditional or rational everyday economizing . . . ;10 release from 'custom, law and tradition' ;1l release from 'all notions of sanctity' ;12 release from 'ordinary worldly attachments and duties of occupational and family life';l3 and release from oneself or one's conscience. The courage the follower requires to abandon himself, to overcome the external and internal limits of daily existence (Alltag), is provided by identification with the charismatic leader, in that the leader, on the basis of his apparent gifts of body and mind, his lleroism, is perceived as This content downloaded from 157.55.39.209 on Sun, 17 Jul 2016 05:27:25 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 84 Thomas E. Dow ffnr. a model of botll release itself and the apparent power that makes release possible. It follows, that release and the posver of eharisma are interrelated if not identical, and tllat the follower is moved to 'eomplete personal devotion . . .'14 because he sees in the leader forces that exist within himself, forces that are being freed from the restraint of eonvention by the beillg and action of the leader. Accordingly, the follower obtains 'freedom' from the eommonplace, the ordinary, the recurrent by surrendering to both the initiatives of the leader and the emotional eentres of his own being. The nature of charisma Weber argues that eestasy as a 'distinetive subjective condition ... represents . . . charisma . . .'15 As a psychic state associated with charismatie 'rebirth' or 'self-deification',l6 ecstasy may be produced by 'alcohol, tobaceo, or other drugs . . ., by music and dance; by sexuality; or by a combination of all three . . . ;17 that is, by the 'breaking down [of] inhibitions . . .n18 By linking cllarisma and ecstasy, Weber implies the elemental and daemonie character of the concept; it represents a state of being beyond reason and self-control. Thus it applies equally both to Romeo's adoration of Juliet and Othello's rage in the murder of Desdemona. Both Romeo and Othello are lifted out of themselves by the powerful emotions of joy and rage svhich provoke passionate expression and frenzied action. It follows that while the difference between these emotions and the consequences they engender is crucial, it is not a matter that can be resolved within, or is even relevant to, the state of ecstacy itself. The eonsequenees of forces released by charisma must be e;aluated by standards external to the forces themselves. This, it appears, is ^hat Weber had in mind when he insisted that 'how the quality in question would ultimately be judged from any ethical, aesthetic, or other such point of view is naturally entirely indifferent for purposes of definition'.l9 This indifference (WertfreiAeit) permits us to discover or recognize the ultimate meaning and consequences of charisma, and hence subsequently to establish its moral or ethical signiEcanee in the light of