1) For Weber, Charisma is a type of legitimation of authority—i.e., how citizens or subjects justify their obedience to the ruler. The focus is on the motivations and feelings of the ruled, and not so much on objective features of the leaders (Gonzalez in the readings abuses a bit the Weberian concept, as his focus is on Fidel, not on the Cuban public).
The picture shows the other "barbudo:" less revolutionary, but probably crazier, and as brilliant.
2) For Weber, there are three polar types of legitimacy, which correspond to three different "subjective" motivations for obedience. One is fully rational, and obedience is to the rule of laws, not to persons. People obey because they think that rules (even bad ones!) provide stability to their lives and hence allow for rational calculations for individual plans of action. Modern constitutional governments of the North-Atlantic type (US, Western Europe post WWII), are the prime examples.
Another one is "traditional" legitimacy, which is semi-rational (people obey because they are used to obeying, and do not think too much about authority), and also impersonal (the focus of obedience is a tradition, not a person). Dynastic monarchies, in Medieval Europe, or African/Asian Ancient times, are the key political examples.
Charismatic authority, the third type, is both irrational (based on "love" to the ruler by the ruled, according to its Greek etymology), and personal: the target of the people's affection is a person, the leader, not rules or traditions. Examples? Ancient priests, druids, saints, military leaders, Jeanne d’Arc, Hitler, Ghandi … they were all the object of extraordinary amounts of admiration and love.
3) Is Castro a Charismatic leader? It is OK to say that in a dinner party in order to sound interesting. However, the real issue in Weber’s theory is that Charisma is not something inherent to Castro’s personality, responsibility, or body. Rather, the Cubans created a Charismatic authority by loving Castro ("Fidel, Fidel") and by attributing him supra-human, magical, attributes (pretty much like what progressive Americans did in relation to Obama only a year ago).
4) Does Castro WANT to be a Charismatic leader? Yes, of course. But the question is pertinent because Castro's speeches and policies are directed to a rational (not an irrational) audience: one that will appreciate the rational value of socialism, of a change in property rights, and the subsequent change in civic virtues and the enhancement of social cooperation. Only VERY rational citizens can get that message. Weber would have liked this: he thinks reality "mixes" theoretical ideal types in complicated, context-specific ways. Authority in Cuba is not only Charismatic. Were it so, it would have vanished long time ago.
5) An extension of (4). Castro exploits his Charisma (receives love) but the Revolution has been genuinely involved in creating a new, super-rational man (returns “consciencia”). Pretty unique authority process. The other few super-charismatic leaders, eg., Hitler, generally receive irrational support from their followers, and lead them to more irrationality.
No comments:
Post a Comment