Abstract
It is possible that mainstream sociology neglected charisma because it has never really fitted into the macro or micro sociological paradigms. The macro theories that ruled sociology until the last quarter of the twentieth century treated social phenomena as given facts that shape and determine human behavior and clearly had no room for the conceptual appreciation of a social phenomenon that puts at its forefront, prominent individuals. Similarly, micro theories developed in the last quarter of the century also could not deal with charismatic leadership, because its consequences on the social change of macro-level society were out of the scope of their emphasis on a micro-level analysis of the individual, reflective consciousness and the voluntaristic element of human reproductive action and their responses to situations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See George Ritzer 1990: 348–350 for a discussion of this.
- 2.
That is, in spite of the individual’s subjective and idiosyncratic consciousness aspect in reality construction.
- 3.
Quoted in Giddens’s Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings (1972).
- 4.
Quoted in O.C. Schrag’s Existence and Freedom (1961).
- 5.
In Existentialism and Humanism (1952).
- 6.
Schrag, op cit., pp. 177–178.
- 7.
See his 1992 essay, “Existentialism” (p. 273).
- 8.
Sartre and Mairet (1952), op cit., p. 48.
- 9.
Sartre, 1992, op cit., pp. 276–278.
- 10.
A point emphasized also in Berger and Kellner (1981) Phenomenological Theory of Reality Construction.
- 11.
- 12.
This is very relevant to the framework of this book because it implicitly emphasizes the significance of the interactional aspect of being and meaning, as well as between the self and the world (a relation that, as we shall see, is central to the understanding of charisma).
- 13.
Schrag, op cit., p. 26.
- 14.
Berger and Kellner (1981) p. 95.
- 15.
Ibid., pp. 95–96.
- 16.
The work of Schutz ([1932] 1967), for example, reemphasizes the call that had been put forth earlier by Weber ([1924] 1947), Mead (1934), and others, to give special consideration to the role of subjective meanings in social life. It stresses “intersubjectivity” or shared understandings on which social interaction is based. It also argues for descriptive research oriented toward a more empirically grounded understanding of the ordinary perceptions and intentions of social actors in daily life.
- 17.
In Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective (1967), p. 22.
- 18.
See his The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (1984).
- 19.
- 20.
In New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretive Sociologies (1976), p. 161.
- 21.
Giddens (1984) op cit., p. 25.
- 22.
See his 1988 article, “The Visionary Leaders,” p. 127.
- 23.
- 24.
Giddens (1984) op cit., pp. 15–16.
- 25.
- 26.
See his A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (1961), p. 203.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
For example, Maranell (1970) found that charismatic presidents were seen as more active and taking significantly stronger actions than noncharismatic presidents. Similarly, Peters and Waterman (1982) found that high activity levels coupled with strong self-confidence, determination, and a sense of mission lay behind the success of chief executive officers turning around their organizations.
- 30.
In M.S. Archer’s Structuration Versus Morphogenesis (1985).
- 31.
See Dialectical Sociology: An Analysis of the Sociology of Georges Gurvitch (1968), p. 227.
- 32.
In A Grammar of Motives and a Rhetoric of Motives (1962), p. xx.
- 33.
For example, Perinbanayagan and Wilson (1971) argue that it is obvious that the Hindu masses saw Gandhi in a “state of grace.” Gandhi’s devotion to Hindu–Muslim unity and his repeated sacrifices on behalf of the Muslim minority and its rights also impressed some Muslims. However, along with this following, he created structures that were indifferent or hostile because they felt that Gandhism was only refurbished Hinduism or Brahminism or worse. In other words, the very processes that created his charismatic appeal also created antinomous audiences, which often saw him in terms of what could be termed counter-charisma. “Not only is it untrue that all classes and groups were integrated by Gandhi’s charisma, but it was inevitable that the same processes that created the charisma of Gandhi should create antithetical structures (groups, classes, individuals, institutions, etc.). Charisma emerges in a field of conflict and contradictions and is so sustained” (1971: 395).
- 34.
See Bradley’s Charisma and Social Structure: A Study of Love and Power, Wholeness and Transformation (1987), p. 29.
- 35.
See his 1980 article, “Towards a theory of conversion behavior” p. 237.
References
Archer, M. S. (1985). Structuration versus morphogenesis. In S. N. Eisenstadt, H. J. Helle, S. N. Eisenstadt, & H. J. Helle (Eds.), Macro-sociological theory, perspectives on sociological theory (Vol. 1, pp. 58–87).
Bendix, R. (Ed.). (1968). Reflections on charismatic leadership. In State and Society (pp. 616–629). Boston: Little, Brown.
Berger, P. L., & Kellner, H. (1981). Sociology reinterpreted (pp. 91–122). New York: Anchor Books.
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City: Doubleday.
Bradley, R. T. (1987). Charisma and social structure: A study of love and power, wholeness and transformation (pp. 29–72). New York: Paragon House.
Giddens, A. (1972). Emile Durkheim: Selected writings (pp. 1–69). London: Cambridge University Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
House, J. R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, L. L. Larson, J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialised and personalised leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213–237). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maranell, G. M. (1970). The evaluation of presidents: An extension of Schlesinger polls. The Journal of American History, 57, 104–113.
Mead, H. G. (1934). Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist (pp. 135–222). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to conventional wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 154–203). Greenwich: Jai.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. D., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.
Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe: Free Press.
Perinbanayagan, R. S., & Wilson, R. A. (1971). The dialectics of charisma. The Sociological Quarterly, 12, 387–402.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search for excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
Sartre, J.-P. (1992). Existentialism. In E. B. Forest (Ed.), Human thought and action (pp. 267–278). Lanham: University Press of America.
Sartre, J.-P., & Mairet, P. (Trans.) (1952).. Existentialism and humanism (pp. 44–56). London: Methuen.
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leaders. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 122–160). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schrag, O. C. (1961). Existence and freedom (pp. 3–49, 175–200). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press (Original work published 1932).
Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 19–47.
Weber, M. (1924) 1947. The theory of social and economic organization. In Henderson, A. M. & Parsons, T. (trans.), Parsons, T. (Ed.) New York: Free Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hava, D., Kwok-bun, C. (2012). Explaining Charisma: A Nondeterministic View. In: Charismatic Leadership in Singapore. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1451-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1451-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1450-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1451-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)