The renewed interest in the phenomenon of charisma, which was first given coherent conceptual form by Max Weber, shows little sign of abating. It is probably the most easily comprehensible, possibly the most popular and certainly the most dramatic model which can be utilized in interdisciplinary studies. Moreover, the theory has the apparent attractiveness of enabling students to intensively study one leader and his movement and then draw more general conclusions about that leader's impact on the society in which he operated. In an article written in 1966, Claude Ake gave a timely warning to practitioners who made grandiose deductions from evidence about one leader and then drew firm conclusions about his total society. In particular, Ake, at one stage in his critique, pointed out the fallacy of assuming that charisma usually implies integration of a previously decentralized, regionalized or fragmented society. As Ake correctly noted, this is unenlightening, unanalytical reasoning since ‘the theory seeks to explain how solidarity may be forged [by a charismatic leader]; but it does so by means of a concept which assumes the existence of solidarity’, thus producing ‘a circular explanation of integration’.

Of the many contributions of Max Weber to the social sciences, his theory of charisma has received the greatest attention. It has been applied to Hitler and the Nazi Party, to Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, to presidents in democracy, and to rulers of dictatorial parties in newly formed nations. In addition, the scope of the term charisma has been widened considerably. Charisma should not be limited to supernatural powers but include any kind of human genius and creative activity. Nor need personal and institutional charisma always follow each other but can run concurrently during the reign of the charismatic leader.

A charismatic leader is like a beautiful woman. Taken as a whole and looked on from afar we can all agree as to the extraordinary nature of the creature. Yet once we begin a detailed analysis of each part we find we have difficulty pointing to exactly those elements that produce the effect. Clinical descriptions may incline us to lust or disgust, but they may fail to inform us as to the ephemeral nature of the phenomenon. For that we often engage, as here, in metaphor.

The expansion of Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries had brought Europeans, primarily English, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and French, into contact with the lands, peoples and civilizations of Africa, Asia and the Americas. In Asia the effects of the European discoveries had been less far-reaching than had been the case in Africa and the Americas where barter had soon given way to slavery, peaceful proselitization to forced conversion, trade and commerce to extortion and monopolies, and coexistence to armed domination by the European intruders. Whereas in New France, Brazil, and the British colonies agricultural and commerical considerations had predominated, in counterdistinction to Spanish America where the initial emphasis had been militaristic, nevertheless the results of European settlement had been remarkably similar throughout the Americas.

The mid-nineteenth-century renaissance of interest in historical and comparative social and cultural studies issued in a rich variety of work ranging through religion, law, myth, language, kinship, art, politics—indeed, the whole sweep of human institutions. We see it as an intellectual movement given unity by a common resolve to bring time and space dimensions to humanistic inquiry, to replace analysis of abstract categories with explication of specified conditions of human affairs as outcomes of processes operating through time. Revolutionary zeal that encouraged an immediate reconstruction of society based on deduction from reasoned, timeless principle was countered with a view that the setting of human group life is always a going concern, shaped variously by temporal forces, and understandable only in its concrete forms. From this perspective the Austinian search for legal forms and the dry calculations of Benthamite utilitarianism had painted a false picture that did not get at the real stuff of social life.