- Email: [email protected]
The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership
102
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. l/1987
Young social scientists will have their eyes opened by the treatment Mills received from the hands of some noted establishment sociologists. He had committed the unpardonable sin of writing as a popularizer, a vulgarizer of sociology to a journalistic level in books such as Listen, Yankee! which sold 400,000 copies. There is a noticeable reserve and lack of enthusiasm displayed by the author here. One gets the feeling that Horowitz may not be firmly in the camp of the mandarins, but there is movement in this direction. He attempts to show by pure assertion-no evidence cited-that the claim that Mills was the leading referent for the American New Left was merely “myth.” Horowitz does a masterful job discussing Mills’ intellectual explorations and ambivalent interactions over time with pragmatism and Marxism. He became disillusioned with the Marxian credo that the hope for social change rested with the organized working class, a belief he came to label as the “Marxian metaphysic.” In America at least, he concluded, labor leadership was just not up to the job of revolutionary transformation, citing labor’s acquiescence during the McCarthy period of the purges of Left labor leaders as one example. Horowitz finds Mills main theoretical contribution to sociology to be in the area of social stratification through such books as White Collar and The Power Elite. His political struggles and his radical critique of American society are discussed briefly. Mills scorned value-free pretensions of establishment sociology and, without apology, sought to integrate moral judgments with empirical research. Mills was the first American sociologist to be read and seriously discussed by European intellectuals. He was as well known in the literary establishment of Greenwich Village as he was at meetings of the American Sociological Association. This book is a valuable contribution to our understanding of Mills. Horowitz deserves credit for considerable research. It is definitely not the final word nor was it intended to be. Horowitz writes in the beginning that the ignored parts of Mills’ life and thought are for others to write about in the future.
The Spellbinders:CharismaticPoliial leadership By Ann Ruth Willner New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984,212 pp., $17.95 Reviewedby PatriciaWasielewski,University of Redlands
Many scholars have been intrigued by the idea of charisma. Most, however, have found gathering empirical data on the topic nearly impossible. The very fact that Willner tries to muster empirical evidence to illustrate the development of charisma sets this book apart from most previous analyses of the subject. Willner draws upon a wide range of historical and descriptive data, the best of which she personally gathered through years of observing Sukarno of Indonesia. The examples drawn from these data are definitely the strong suit of the book. Also to Willner’s advantage are her logical organization and clear writing. In Chapter I she defines charisma and in Chapter 2 attempts to develop operational criteria for studying it. Both chapters set the stage for a discussion of the book’s major thesis in Chapter 3. Here Willner examines the emergence of charisma, her main focus being the
Book Reviews
103
personal styles of charismatic leaders. In this chapter she introduces four personality characteristics, supposedly indicative of such leadership. Each of Chapters 4 through 7 then describes one of these characteristics in detail. Finally, Chapters 8 and 9 explore the relationship of charismatic leadership to political authority. Despite Willner’s highly readable style and engaging examples, the study has several serious shortcomings. The first problem is Willner’s conceptualization of charisma. Like most analysts of charisma she attempts to portray it as an interactive relationship. Her view of interaction, however, sees only leaders acting and followers reacting. The charismatic relationship thus is said to be one where: “(1) the leader is perceived by followers as superhuman; (2) followers ‘blindly’ believe the leader’s statements; (3) followers unconditionally comply to the leader’s directives; and (4) followers give leaders ‘unqualified’ emotional commitment.” Charisma, then, is a particular perception of a leader-a perception successfully created only by leaders with certain personality characteristics. Willner’s conception of charisma is, therefore, ultimately individualistic and psychological. In Chapter 2 Willner describes how she chose the seven charismatic leaders who constitute her “sample.” These seven include Castro, Gandhi, Hitler, Khomeini, Mussolini, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Sukamo. They were chosen, according to Willner, based upon how their followers perceived them. If leaders were: (1) identified as divine; (2) unconditionally accepted; and (3) generated intense emotions in their followers, Willner identified them as charismatic. There are, however, several problems with the way Willner applies these criteria in choosing her sample. First, she does not specify whether all three must be met for a leader to be defined as charismatic. Second, the last criterion is not even distinct from the other two, as Willner herself admits. Finally, and most importantly, the way Willner applies these broad criteria seems almost arbitrary. For example, she excludes leaders who could arguably meet each of her criteria (most notably Nasser and Nkrumah), yet includes others to whom it is not clear all three apply (as in the questionable designation of F. D. R. Roosevelt as divine). Because of these inconsistencies one gets the feeling Willner chose the seven leaders in her sample because rich data were available and that, perhaps, her selection scheme was developed posr hoc to justify her choices. The core of Willner’s book (Chapters 4 through 7) provides interesting reading. In these chapters she suggests four ways leaders cultivate perceptions of themselves as charismatic, although it is never quite clear if these techniques are based on calculation or intuition. Here again, though, she does a fine job illustrating her points with examples. But the reader comes to the end of this section and still finds no synthesis of these exemplary materials. Many obvious questions go unanswered. It is unclear, for example, whether all four techniques must be used by a leader to be perceived as charismatic, or if the techniques typically occur together or in a particular sequence. Nor is any theoretical analysis of these techniques offered. Thus the most promising part of the book ends up disappointingly vague. Willner makes what I believe is her most grievous mistake in Chapters 8 and 9. Since she is a political scientist, she wishes to explore the relationship between charismatic leadership and political authority. To this end, Chapter 8 discusses how holding office can help leaders cultivate charismatic perceptions. But, relying heavily on Weber as she does, there is clearly something amiss here. When Weber developed his analysis of leadership he distinguished between the rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic varieties. Weber
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. l/1987
104
unequivocally defined charismatic leadership as separate from office. As charismatics move into positions of authority, according to Weber, their charisma becomes routinized. In Chapter 8 Willner turns Weber on his head by arguing that positions of authority enhance perceptions of charisma. While some charismatic leaders are indeed successful in maintaining their image as charismatic even if office, their charisma cannot properly be said to issue from incumbency in an official position. Finally, Willner’s book seems to end prematurely, without any overall conclusion. She fails to connect her ideas on charisma and political authority to her “theory” of the emergence of charisma. Nor does she discuss what any of her material means for past or present work in this area. In fact, Willner’s review of previous work is so sparse that readers new to the area would be led to believe nothing else exists-even Willner’s discussion of Weber in the appendix is sketchy. On balance, although Willner’s book has some major theoretical flaws, social scientists interested in studying charisma would do well to read it for an example of how documentary and descriptive data can be used for illustration.
Theories
of Evolution
By H. James Birx Springfield, Illinois:
Charles C. Thomas, Publisher,
Reviewed by Oleg Zinam, University
1984,417 pp., $39.50
of Cincinnati
This volume represents a first part of a planned quadrology with the three sequences tentatively titled Human Evolution, Life in the Cosmos, and Eternity and Infinity: Speculations in Cosmology. The author of Theories of Evolution has embarked on a long, fascinating journey in search of a synthesis between anthropology and cosmogony. In his Theories of Evolution, the writer uses and expands his theoretical framework developed in Man S Place in the Universe (1977), which represents a holistic view of the universe, infinite and eternal, and man endowed with potentially limitless capabilities within it. Both volumes serve as an introduction to scientific-philosophical anthropology and as a contribution to the future synthesis between the latter and cosmology. In his analysis, Professor Birx is guided by a one-worldconcept, a monistic interpretation of the universe as an eternal and infinite time-space-matter continuum based on a philosophy of pantheistic materialism. To the concept of planetary man he adds a cosmic dimension that transforms him gradually into cosmic man. In this process, two frontiers are investigated-internal and external. The former deals with the unlimited potentialities of human intelligence, the latter with the vastness of the material universe. While the author’s commitment to science and reason is unshakable, his own work confirms the contention that the formulation of bold scientific hypotheses, as well as the construction of conceptual frameworks and theories, belong to the realm of creative art. In this spirit, he revived and updated contributions of the German school of scientificphilosophical anthropology based on Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach’s “new philosophy of the future,” in a naturalistic-humanistic study of man within the material world.
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. l/1987
Young social scientists will have their eyes opened by the treatment Mills received from the hands of some noted establishment sociologists. He had committed the unpardonable sin of writing as a popularizer, a vulgarizer of sociology to a journalistic level in books such as Listen, Yankee! which sold 400,000 copies. There is a noticeable reserve and lack of enthusiasm displayed by the author here. One gets the feeling that Horowitz may not be firmly in the camp of the mandarins, but there is movement in this direction. He attempts to show by pure assertion-no evidence cited-that the claim that Mills was the leading referent for the American New Left was merely “myth.” Horowitz does a masterful job discussing Mills’ intellectual explorations and ambivalent interactions over time with pragmatism and Marxism. He became disillusioned with the Marxian credo that the hope for social change rested with the organized working class, a belief he came to label as the “Marxian metaphysic.” In America at least, he concluded, labor leadership was just not up to the job of revolutionary transformation, citing labor’s acquiescence during the McCarthy period of the purges of Left labor leaders as one example. Horowitz finds Mills main theoretical contribution to sociology to be in the area of social stratification through such books as White Collar and The Power Elite. His political struggles and his radical critique of American society are discussed briefly. Mills scorned value-free pretensions of establishment sociology and, without apology, sought to integrate moral judgments with empirical research. Mills was the first American sociologist to be read and seriously discussed by European intellectuals. He was as well known in the literary establishment of Greenwich Village as he was at meetings of the American Sociological Association. This book is a valuable contribution to our understanding of Mills. Horowitz deserves credit for considerable research. It is definitely not the final word nor was it intended to be. Horowitz writes in the beginning that the ignored parts of Mills’ life and thought are for others to write about in the future.
The Spellbinders:CharismaticPoliial leadership By Ann Ruth Willner New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984,212 pp., $17.95 Reviewedby PatriciaWasielewski,University of Redlands
Many scholars have been intrigued by the idea of charisma. Most, however, have found gathering empirical data on the topic nearly impossible. The very fact that Willner tries to muster empirical evidence to illustrate the development of charisma sets this book apart from most previous analyses of the subject. Willner draws upon a wide range of historical and descriptive data, the best of which she personally gathered through years of observing Sukarno of Indonesia. The examples drawn from these data are definitely the strong suit of the book. Also to Willner’s advantage are her logical organization and clear writing. In Chapter I she defines charisma and in Chapter 2 attempts to develop operational criteria for studying it. Both chapters set the stage for a discussion of the book’s major thesis in Chapter 3. Here Willner examines the emergence of charisma, her main focus being the
Book Reviews
103
personal styles of charismatic leaders. In this chapter she introduces four personality characteristics, supposedly indicative of such leadership. Each of Chapters 4 through 7 then describes one of these characteristics in detail. Finally, Chapters 8 and 9 explore the relationship of charismatic leadership to political authority. Despite Willner’s highly readable style and engaging examples, the study has several serious shortcomings. The first problem is Willner’s conceptualization of charisma. Like most analysts of charisma she attempts to portray it as an interactive relationship. Her view of interaction, however, sees only leaders acting and followers reacting. The charismatic relationship thus is said to be one where: “(1) the leader is perceived by followers as superhuman; (2) followers ‘blindly’ believe the leader’s statements; (3) followers unconditionally comply to the leader’s directives; and (4) followers give leaders ‘unqualified’ emotional commitment.” Charisma, then, is a particular perception of a leader-a perception successfully created only by leaders with certain personality characteristics. Willner’s conception of charisma is, therefore, ultimately individualistic and psychological. In Chapter 2 Willner describes how she chose the seven charismatic leaders who constitute her “sample.” These seven include Castro, Gandhi, Hitler, Khomeini, Mussolini, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Sukamo. They were chosen, according to Willner, based upon how their followers perceived them. If leaders were: (1) identified as divine; (2) unconditionally accepted; and (3) generated intense emotions in their followers, Willner identified them as charismatic. There are, however, several problems with the way Willner applies these criteria in choosing her sample. First, she does not specify whether all three must be met for a leader to be defined as charismatic. Second, the last criterion is not even distinct from the other two, as Willner herself admits. Finally, and most importantly, the way Willner applies these broad criteria seems almost arbitrary. For example, she excludes leaders who could arguably meet each of her criteria (most notably Nasser and Nkrumah), yet includes others to whom it is not clear all three apply (as in the questionable designation of F. D. R. Roosevelt as divine). Because of these inconsistencies one gets the feeling Willner chose the seven leaders in her sample because rich data were available and that, perhaps, her selection scheme was developed posr hoc to justify her choices. The core of Willner’s book (Chapters 4 through 7) provides interesting reading. In these chapters she suggests four ways leaders cultivate perceptions of themselves as charismatic, although it is never quite clear if these techniques are based on calculation or intuition. Here again, though, she does a fine job illustrating her points with examples. But the reader comes to the end of this section and still finds no synthesis of these exemplary materials. Many obvious questions go unanswered. It is unclear, for example, whether all four techniques must be used by a leader to be perceived as charismatic, or if the techniques typically occur together or in a particular sequence. Nor is any theoretical analysis of these techniques offered. Thus the most promising part of the book ends up disappointingly vague. Willner makes what I believe is her most grievous mistake in Chapters 8 and 9. Since she is a political scientist, she wishes to explore the relationship between charismatic leadership and political authority. To this end, Chapter 8 discusses how holding office can help leaders cultivate charismatic perceptions. But, relying heavily on Weber as she does, there is clearly something amiss here. When Weber developed his analysis of leadership he distinguished between the rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic varieties. Weber
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. l/1987
104
unequivocally defined charismatic leadership as separate from office. As charismatics move into positions of authority, according to Weber, their charisma becomes routinized. In Chapter 8 Willner turns Weber on his head by arguing that positions of authority enhance perceptions of charisma. While some charismatic leaders are indeed successful in maintaining their image as charismatic even if office, their charisma cannot properly be said to issue from incumbency in an official position. Finally, Willner’s book seems to end prematurely, without any overall conclusion. She fails to connect her ideas on charisma and political authority to her “theory” of the emergence of charisma. Nor does she discuss what any of her material means for past or present work in this area. In fact, Willner’s review of previous work is so sparse that readers new to the area would be led to believe nothing else exists-even Willner’s discussion of Weber in the appendix is sketchy. On balance, although Willner’s book has some major theoretical flaws, social scientists interested in studying charisma would do well to read it for an example of how documentary and descriptive data can be used for illustration.
Theories
of Evolution
By H. James Birx Springfield, Illinois:
Charles C. Thomas, Publisher,
Reviewed by Oleg Zinam, University
1984,417 pp., $39.50
of Cincinnati
This volume represents a first part of a planned quadrology with the three sequences tentatively titled Human Evolution, Life in the Cosmos, and Eternity and Infinity: Speculations in Cosmology. The author of Theories of Evolution has embarked on a long, fascinating journey in search of a synthesis between anthropology and cosmogony. In his Theories of Evolution, the writer uses and expands his theoretical framework developed in Man S Place in the Universe (1977), which represents a holistic view of the universe, infinite and eternal, and man endowed with potentially limitless capabilities within it. Both volumes serve as an introduction to scientific-philosophical anthropology and as a contribution to the future synthesis between the latter and cosmology. In his analysis, Professor Birx is guided by a one-worldconcept, a monistic interpretation of the universe as an eternal and infinite time-space-matter continuum based on a philosophy of pantheistic materialism. To the concept of planetary man he adds a cosmic dimension that transforms him gradually into cosmic man. In this process, two frontiers are investigated-internal and external. The former deals with the unlimited potentialities of human intelligence, the latter with the vastness of the material universe. While the author’s commitment to science and reason is unshakable, his own work confirms the contention that the formulation of bold scientific hypotheses, as well as the construction of conceptual frameworks and theories, belong to the realm of creative art. In this spirit, he revived and updated contributions of the German school of scientificphilosophical anthropology based on Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach’s “new philosophy of the future,” in a naturalistic-humanistic study of man within the material world.