In his recent discussion of the complex interplay between charisma and aura, and following Weber, C. Stephen Jaeger convincingly demonstrates that charisma presupposes the aggrandizement of the charismatic individual through personal and physical qualities that present as extraordinary and make the observer feel like they are being elevated to a different, more perfect realm. Yet this view of charisma potentially obscures as much as it reveals.
For one thing, the possibility of faking charisma, and what this implies about the nature of charisma itself, should be addressed more thoroughly. A more serious issue, though, concerns the differences between different kinds of charisma. It is clear enough, for example, that democratic—or what I would call ethical—charisma is not identical to authoritarian charisma and that the two forms of charisma operate through distinct and incompatible principles and logics.
Given the pervasiveness of authoritarian charisma in the world today, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking either that charisma as such is dangerous and that democratic charisma does not exist or that something like democratic charisma does exist but is simply not effective. But this view does not hold up to critical scrutiny.
The differences between the two types of charisma are indeed very real and they are explored at length in Vincent Lloyd’s groundbreaking recent work on charisma, wherein he mobilizes a theological framework as he argues that human life in general is marked by cultural mediation and that what separates democratic from authoritarian charisma is precisely the fact that those who possess democratic charisma self-consciously embrace the necessity of mediation, at the same time throwing into relief the contingency, historicity, and transformability of received social and political models, arrangements, and hierarchies as well as affirming choice and free will and thereby highlighting the feasibility of emancipatory models of political discourse and engagement. Authoritarian charisma, by contrast, is predicated on the suppression or denial of the ubiquity of cultural mediation, which makes communities that much more vulnerable to pernicious manifestations of it, and the attendant illusion that political forms, experiences, and hierarchies are immutable and that critical reasoning, free will, and choice are at best fictitious.
This distinction in a way echoes the distinction between prophetic and apocalyptic forms of messianism proposed by recent commentators, as both generally seem to presuppose charismatic leadership, albeit different in kind. One leans toward the valorization of free will and agency among followers and the other, while superficially invested in progressive social change, has dangerously nihilistic (and potentially even authoritarian) undercurrents as it suppresses free will, revels in rage and destructiveness, and celebrates crisis, presenting it as the only authentic path toward radical social change.
At any rate, I would simply add that democratic manifestations of charisma also tend to have a characterological basis, in the sense that charismatic leaders on the democratic end of the political spectrum are psychologically healthy and mature compared to their authoritarian counterparts. Indeed, authoritarian charismatics tend to be malignant narcissists who are driven by destructive and sadistic impulses. Unlike democratic charismatics, they don’t invite identification but insist on it and enforce it through punitive measures. Donald Trump is a case in point.
Importantly, not all good and effective leaders are charismatic; some are decidedly uncharismatic seeing as they don’t possess a special ability or “gift” to inspire others and invite identification. The Jewish tradition, for example, vacillates between celebrating leaders of the charismatic variety (i.e., prophets, whose voices valorized dissent and promoted the values of love and justice) and a guarded acceptance of unassuming and less exciting forms of leadership, religious teachers being a case in point.
It can be plausibly maintained that both forms of leadership, charismatic and uncharismatic, are needed in the fight for meaningful social change, but it is clear enough that politics is the natural domain of charismatics. As far as we know, the biblical prophets were charismatic and were able to generate a following through their charisma—indeed, Weber himself thought of the biblical prophets as “archetypal charismatics.” Moreover, since prophets tended to challenge established political and status arrangements, their role was clearly politicized. These observations beg the question of whether examples of democratic charismatic—and perhaps prophetic—leadership from the more recent past can be supplied. And the answer is yes.
Apropos the Jewish tradition and prophet leaders, Erich Fromm was a notable figure in US political life who also served as a voice of dissent to the extent that he embraced and championed the cause of anti-Zionism and a host of other social justice causes through a focus on radical social transformation. Herzl is regarded as one of the prophets of Zionism, and Fromm should certainly be recognized and remembered as one of the early prophets of Jewish anti-Zionism. Incidentally, Fromm took the prophetic tradition within Judaism very seriously and produced an important text on the subject in which he links the prophetic to a critique of ethno-nationalism and to anti-Zionism.
Fromm’s relationship to the prophetic has been explored in some detail by scholars of Fromm and non-expert commentators alike. As recent scholarship has shown, Fromm was raised in an orthodox Jewish household and although he later broke with theism, his mature political outlook reflected the values he learned during his early studies with some of Europe’s most prominent rabbis and scholars of the Talmud. Fromm’s own rabbinical lineage is worth underscoring. Fromm never completely gave up on spirituality, and indeed inspired several contemporary writers to articulate future-oriented humanistic principles through theological sources.
Fromm’s voice can be characterized as prophetic for a variety of reasons, not least among them are his willingness to serve as a moral exemplar through his public intellectual work, denunciation of war and nuclear armament, and a robust and enduring commitment to the values of hope, love, justice, and harmony. These values are partly discernible in Fromm’s enthusiasm for engaging and building bridges toward other religious and spiritual traditions.
Fromm’s utopian vision and longing, as expressed in works such as The Sane Society (1955) and The Revolution of Hope (1968), constitutes yet another aspect of his prophetic sensibility. In this utopian vision one finds traces of a more just and authentic—indeed, redeemed—life and social existence. Perhaps most importantly, Fromm denounced idolatry, and he saw ethno-nationalism and Zionism as dangerously idolatrous phenomena. Though some are skeptical of the notion that the prophetic Jewish tradition can be mobilized to produce visions of social justice and progressive political change in the present, others convincingly demonstrate that the prophetic tradition remains alive and does and should continue to inspire voices of dissent on a variety of issues as they struggle against unjust and oppressive exercises of power and authority.
Fromm’s rich and unique contributions to critical theory have been neglected for many years but are presently in the process of being retrieved and applied to urgent contemporary political issues and dilemmas. The re-emergence of a robust, confident, and unapologetic anti-Zionist Jewish Left happily coincides with the ongoing Fromm renaissance, and Fromm’s writings on and critiques of Israeli militarism and Zionism should be actively sought out and engaged by Jewish anti-Zionist intellectuals and activists.
Fromm’s charismatic presence was less explosive than that of other prominent figures and leaders of the New Left, like Herbert Marcuse, which is perhaps one of the reasons why his fame was eventually eclipsed by Marcuse’s. Yet he certainly was charismatic in his own way, arguably straddling charisma and a more reserved form of leadership. Fromm’s charisma is also interesting and unique because it straddled the religious and the secular; he drew dynamically on religious sources to make human flourishing in a largely secular world possible while at the same time re-framing religious ideas through the lens and vicissitudes of the secular politics and movements of the present. Perhaps these features of Fromm’s prophetic charisma offer clues as to what prophetic leadership could mean and look like today. At any rate, Fromm’s prophetic, anti-Zionist vision and charisma find echoes in several contemporary voices of Jewish anti-Zionism.
It must also be noted that the growing popularity of anti-Zionism among sizable cohorts of younger Jews has brought with it renewed interest in discovering, exploring, and engaging with the Jewish theological tradition as well as re-interpreting it when this is called for. Fromm’s thought and activism are valuable resources to this end, though of course they are not the only ones.
The work presupposed by the prophetic has to do not only with correctly identifying prophets, which, as Fromm points out, is a real and onerous task unto itself, given that priests, who in his idiom are agents of institutionalized religion obsessed with power and preoccupied with maintaining the social and political status quo, often masquerade as prophets and because prophets rarely announce themselves as prophets and are generally reluctant leaders. Prophets certainly tend to be charismatic, which suggests that charisma can potentially serve as an index of ethical leadership, but prophets aren’t always charismatic, at least not in an obvious way.
It must also be borne in mind that priests, too, can possess charisma or at least simulate it. Such work also entails being receptive and responsive to their authority (and its limits) and the invitation to participate alongside them in meaningful social transformation. The prophetic is never imposed from above but serves as a call to action and an invitation to imagine that things could be otherwise.
An important question that looms in this discussion is whether we can confidently identify contemporary prophets either within or outside of the Jewish tradition. There is certainly a risk involved in attempting to identify and seek out prophets since they might turn out to be imposters, or worse, charismatic leaders of the authoritarian variety. Perhaps it is safer to allow them to reveal themselves. But there is a risk, too, in being overcautious and potentially ignoring the call and lessons of today’s prophets. This is a conundrum that cannot be relegated to the background or suppressed and must be actively thought through.
