Charisma Reconsidered

16
She did not succeed by fulfilling the contemporary conventions of stardom,
though her path to celebrity included succeeding in the face of various tests of her
artistic prowess, which built a traditional ‘fan’ base.
When Madonna wore jewelry that said ‘boy toy’ or wore underwear as a
top layer of clothing, her fans imitated her actions, as well as her attitude. What
was going on here? A simple explanation would be that Madonna had shown that
one could ‘get away’ with doing those things and at the same time succeed – in
this case in drawing attention. The ‘change’ in the followers can be understood
thus: behavior that formerly would have been thought to be highly risky, and for
this group of people to risk incurring the ridicule of peers would be the worst sort
of risk, was changed by Madonna’s actions – shown to be something that one
could do successfully. The change was in the fans’ perceptions of risk, and it was a
result of nothing more mysterious than the fact that Madonna did as she did and
survived, prospered, and had a powerful effect on those around her. A mode of
behavior that had formerly been perceived as risky was no longer perceived as
such, but rather as an opportunity to live in a different way, and to achieve
previously unachievable results.
In this case the shift in perceptions of risk and the creation of the
possibility of a different mode of life is a matter of someone acting in a way that
demonstrates the possibility by their own actions. Traditional charismatic leaders,
in Weber’s own account, do something similar by passing tests, and by seeking
new tests to demonstrate their charisma. For ‘conventional’ charismatic leaders,
these tests are conventional; what is exceptional about such leaders is their
prowess in the face of them. But at the same time their potential authority is
restricted by conventional expectations about the behavior of leaders and the
scope of their authority. In contrast, ‘originary’ charismatic leaders, that is to say,
those who represent novel possibilities, do unexpected things, things that change
ideas of what is possible, which is at the same time to change ideas about the risks
that go along with possibilities. The difference between a Madonna and a
Mandela is that the message of a political leader, like Mandela, is that a political
possibility that has seemed impossible to achieve comes to be seen as possible only
through commitment to his leadership – through obedience. Political leaders who
are ‘originary’ charismatic leaders, leaders with a vision of new possibilities, must
also produce a cognitive change in their followers: the evidence of their successful
actions ‘proves’ that they are leaders who can achieve these novel possibilities,
which amounts to proving that what was thought impossibly risky is, through the
leader, at hand.
Primitive Charisma
Connecting charisma to risk in this way solves a series of problems. First, it
assimilates the explanation of charisma to a recognizable explanatory model:
rational choice. The choice to follow a charismatic leader or model can now be
JOURNAL OF CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGY VOL 3(1)