¹ Max Weber's classification of types of legitimate authority suffers from its tendency to isolate charismatic authority from the traditional and rational-legal types. Its deficiency lies in its failure to acknowledge in a systematic and explicit manner that traditional and rational-legal authority both contain charismatic elements, and that a major difference among the three types consists in variations in the intensity of the attribution of charismatic properties to the incumbents of authoritative roles. (Cf. Weber, Max, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen, 1925, 2nd ed., 1, pp. 124Google Scholar, 140–48; 11, pp. 753–78.) His treatment of the transformation of charisma leaves unsettled the question whemer charisma “evaporates” or becomes attenuated in the course of its transformation. Sohm's, RudolfKirchenrecht (2 vols., 1892)Google Scholar, a work of the very greatest relevance to contemporary social science, and one from which Max Weber learned much, also overstressed the disjunction between charisma and ecclesiastical organization. It is possible that some of the difficulties which arise from the acceptance of Sohm's and Weber's views are attributable to their inclination to see charismatic qualities solely as the possession of charismatic individuals. Rudolf Otto's conception of the “numinous” offers an excellent point of departure for a reconsideration of the nature of charisma, its generalization, and its fruitful application in the study of society. I have made a very tentative and preliminary effort in “Tradition and Liberty: Antinomy and Interdependence,” Ethics, LXVIII, NO. 3 (April 1958), pp. 155–57.

² As politicians who exercise authority in the state, and as party leaders, which they must be in order to achieve a position of authority in the state, their conduct naturally and frequently shows that other motives and images are at work in them. The conduct of office and the management of a party machine impose lines of action which are far from identical in spirit with the charismatic disposition. Compromise, manipulation, rational judgment, and acceptance of opportunities for self-aggrandizement are among the inevitable products of the exigencies of leadership in the state and party. Nonetheless, the preponderance of considerations of nationality is evidence of the persisting sacredness of the nation. The extreme nationalist sensibility of die rulers is not a demagogic mask to conceal self-seeking.

³ Of the modern professions and occupations, the law, because its practice is entwined with political authority and because it is so often the point of departure for a political career, and journalism, both under colonial rule and under conditions of sovereignty, seem to possess more of the charisma of nationality than any others.

⁴ Weber, op.cit., 1, pp. 23–24.

⁵ Social scientists have tended to look askance at anomie activities, in accordance with their own tradition of the romantic ideal of a spontaneously “integrated” society. Although anomie actions are often pernicious in themselves and in their consequences, there are some which may be pernicious or immoral in themselves and most beneficial in their consequences. (This was the view of Mandeville and Adam Smith, but it has not entered very centrally into modern sociology and particularly into the ethical-political outlook of modern sociologists.) And, finally, there are anomie actions which are good in themselves—like works of art and scientific discoveries and the creation of new economic organizations—and which are also beneficial in their consequences. It is only the anti-business prejudice of social scientists which denies the accolade of creativity to economic activity.

⁶ More than a half-century ago, Max Weber observed that American workingmen preferred a civil service which they could despise to a bureaucratic caste which would despise them. (Gesammelte politische Schriften, Munich, 1921, p. 431.)

⁷ Other qualities such as kindliness, humor, generosity, which are less dependent on the formation of individuality, are not equally affected.

⁸ “Social Structure and Economic Growth,” Economica Internazionale, VI, No. 3 (1953), p. 20.

⁹ This connection was first hinted at in American sociological literature by Thomas, William I. and Zaniecki, Florian in The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (2nd ed., New York, 1925)Google Scholar in their threefold classification of personalities as “Bohemian,” “Philistine,” or “Creative.” Max Weber said as much when he declared that charismatic authority arises in times of Crisis (Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 1, p. 142). Of course, discussion of the affinities of genius and neurosis or genius and madness dates from antiquity and underwent a profound renewal in European Romanticism.