In our age of increasing authoritarianism, when strongmen and strongwomen have gained institutional power in a variety of prominent Western states, we might wonder: How have such morally corrupt individuals have gained access to power? Figures such as Geert Wilders (Netherlands), Giorgia Meloni (Italy), Javier Milei (Argentina), Viktor Orbán (Hungary), and Donald Trump (USA) have offered compelling narratives that were meant to excite the passions of the electorate around emotive topics, especially economic insecurity, immigration, and renewal of national pride. And all offer palingenetic messages aimed at building populist movements to “take back” and “renew” their countries along traditional identity markers. Some leaders buttress their narratives with their institutional credentials while others rely on an intangible but often a more powerful form of authority: the authority of charisma.
While much scholarship has been produced on the notion of charisma in recent years, it was Max Weber who first gave a systematic account of the authority that derives from the perception that an individual leader possesses a divine gift. In his 1921 Economy and Society (Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft), Weber argues that times of social distress give birth to “natural” leaders who hold “special gifts of the body and spirit” that are perceived to be “supernatural” in nature, and therefore “not accessible to everybody” (245). In other words, disruptive and unstable social conditions create leaders whose perceived authority exists outside of traditional or institutional authority. Charisma is seemingly from beyond.
By virtue of their past accomplishments, unconventional actions, and mannerisms, combined with their transformative visions for society, such leaders are understood to possess the ability to do what traditional types of authority cannot: abate, arrest, or reverse the perceived decline of society, state, and civilization. As if by magic or by the power of providence, the charismatic leader alone has the ability to bring about change in society for which the masses yearn. The more desperate the situation, the more the masses devote themselves to the charismatic leader and their restorative cause.
Once in office, charismatic authority alloys with institutional power, the power of the state. However, it is the otherworldly form of authority associated with the charismatic individual that accounts for the extreme devotion to the leader, even when the leader fails to address or remedy the social problems that brought them to power. As such, the perception of a leader’s charisma acts as an adhesive between the charismatic leader and their devotees. Without such an adhesive, that which bonds the leader and followers together is contingent on other factors, especially the success of the authority figure. With charisma as an adhesive, success of the leader is secondary.
On examination, we see that Weber’s notion of charisma and charismatic authority is wholly formal, or what he calls “value-neutral” in Economy and Society (245). It wagers no judgement on the content of charisma and the charismatic individual’s socio-political mission. Therefore, both right and left, secular and religious, bourgeois and proletarian can have charismatic leaders or can find themselves drawn to charismatic leaders from within their ranks. Indeed, the great struggles in history are often rooted in antagonisms between equally charismatic leaders who happen to be on opposite ends of a given socio-political spectrum.
At this point, I would like to forward a concept of charisma and charismatic leadership that I think is helpful in understanding the current socio-political situation that Western countries currently find themselves in. By appropriating the concepts of “biophilia” and “necrophilia” from Erich Fromm’s socio-psychoanalytic thought, I posit the conception of “biophilic charisma” and “necrophilic charisma” as two distinct forms of charismatic leadership operative in contemporary political life.
An an early member of the Frankfurt School, Fromm introduced the concepts of “biophilia” and “necrophilia” in his 1964 book The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil, and he later elaborated on the concept in his 1973 book The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. In the former, he argues that biophilia is the “true love of life” whereas necrophilia is the “true love of death” (13). Fromm states, “There is no more fundamental a distinction between men, psychologically or morally, than the one between those who love death and those who love life, between the necrophilious and the biophilious” (38).
Biophilic personalities devote themselves to causes that forward human growth; they are creatively productive and foster healthy development in themselves and in society. Life and the flourishing of life is an end in itself. Necrophilic personalities are the opposite: they are fundamentally attracted to that which is dead, i.e., inorganic things such as wealth, property, and possessions. “[They] transform all life into things, including [themselves],” Fromm states in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (350). Additionally, the ability to destroy that which is alive, or to “transform a man into a corpse,” as Fromm stated in The Heart of Man, or to accumulate that which is not-living, provides the necrophile with a sense of power, control, and self-worth at the expense of the life and quality of life of others (40). For the necrophile, life is a means-to-death; life is never the end itself.
While Fromm admits that few personalities are purely necrophilic or biophilic, as most are a mixture of both, he argues that one type often dominates the psyche and therefore determines the behavior of the individual. With that in mind, I contend that this bio-verses-necro dichotomy is all the more important when it pertains to leadership, especially state leadership, as leaders who have obtained institutional power will forward policies that reflect either biophilic or necrophilic tendencies.
When we alloy Fromm’s concepts of biophilia and necrophilia with Weber’s formal concept of charisma, we create two distinct forms of charisma that I argue are helpful for understanding the nature of charismatic leadership in the world today, especially among authoritarian populists. In biophilic charisma the charismatic individual, perceived to be acting with an authority that is supernatural, behaves in such a way as to maximize the wellbeing of the masses. In other words, charismatic authority is in service to eudaimonia (human flourishing), rooted in the true love of life, where the “being” mode of existence dominates the “having” mode of existence. Biophilic charisma still creates devotees, but it represents a rational kind of authority, one that authentically means to bring about the greatest quality of life possible for all.
Part of the charismatic authority of the biophilic individual is that their motives are never questioned, for they never give a plausible reason to question their motives. Here, I think of someone like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who throughout his entire political career, has dedicated himself to the advancement of meaningful, life-enriching policies for the citizenry of America. While individual policies advocated by Sanders can be legitimately questioned, one remains confident that his fundamental biophilic constitution is beyond corruptibility; he is by character a genuinely biophilic person. As such, the authority he possesses by virtue of millions perceiving him to be charismatic is not dependent on whether he is successful in making his policies into law. Rather, it is his disposition as a biophilic individual – as recognized by his followers – that accounts for the undying loyalty he receives from his supporters.
On the other hand, Donald Trump is also seen as a charismatic figure, in possession of abilities to do what others cannot. He delivered a Supreme Court that would overturn established law on a variety of topics; he evaded justice during the Biden interregnum despite being indicted over ninety times; he was reelected despite his attempt to overthrow the government; and he survived two impeachments, just to name a few extraordinary abilities. Trump seems untouchable and beyond reproach, almost as if his authority was divinely mandated.
Although he is now the bearer of institutional authority by virtue of twice being the President, it is the charismatic authority that congeals unwavering support for him amongst millions of Americans. Unlike Sanders, Trump’s altruistic populist politics is not constitutional for him; rather, it is episodic, transactional, and instrumental.
It appears to me that Trump is constitutionally necrophilic, in that his character structure is wholly geared towards the accumulation of that which is devoid of life, i.e., wealth, possession, and property. This portion of his psychological profile is constitutional and thus cannot change. His occasional biophilic rhetoric, such as language about his sacrifices for the nation and the “forgotten man,” is merely camouflage meant to hide his true motives and simultaneously bind millions of American precariat to himself for his own political and financial gain.
The concept of necrophilic charisma allows us to make sense of the fact that Trump is bound to a way of being that is death-oriented while at the same time accounting for the neurotic attachment millions have to him. Once understood to be charismatic – a man of superhuman powers or divinely guided – Trump induced millions of Americans into a political psychosis: they inhabit a psychic life detached from reality and created by Trump (and his support structure including media, party, influencers, etc.).
Unlike biophilic charismatics, who choose to lead the masses into rational, reformative, or even revolutionary change, furthering a biophilic way of being-in-the-world, necrophilic charismatics like Trump promise much the same, but in the end always prioritize their own necrophilic self-interest over the interests of their devotees.
Biophilic charisma and necrophilic charisma are not limited to secular leaders. They can also be found within religious leadership. Indeed, having a religious affiliation does not make individual leaders immune to the amorality that is typical of necrophilic individuals. Indeed, some of the most notorious necrophiles were authentically religious. It is a matter of history that necrophilia is often smuggled into politics under the cover of religious garb, especially religious morality. This again we witness with Donald Trump, whose notorious amoral lifestyle as well as private disdain for religious people is camouflaged by his strategic relationship with prominent religious figures who are also necrophilic in orientation and, like Trump, are perceived to be charismatic and thus favored by the divine. Trump’s “spiritual advisor,” Paul White, comes to mind. Thus, the charisma of religious necrophilia, which is often found in priestly Judaism (as Fromm understood it), Constantinian Christianity, and Islamism, is given social legitimacy due to its special status as opus dei – the work of God.
To reiterate, Weber’s notion of charisma is empty of content; it is purely formal. This notion certainly helps explain why individuals are attracted to certain leaders even when those leaders are devoid of rational, institutional, or educational credentials. Nevertheless, in order for Weber’s notion of charisma to be helpful to us today, living in an unstable age of rising authoritarianism, we have to give it qualifying content, as we have done here with Erich Fromm’s concepts of biophilia and necrophilia. Once alloyed, the resulting concepts of biophilic charisma and necrophilic charisma furnish us with the conceptual apparatus we need to comprehend more fully the rising tide of authoritarian populists who seek to guide the West into palingenetic greatness, yet always with an eye to self-interested ends.
