2023-10-09 14:20:25
Charisma is as valued as it is feared. On the one hand, it promises approval if someone has a “special charisma”, but on the other hand, experiences with charismatic personalities are rather sobering: either they thwart moral expectations, as in the case of Trump, or they lose their charisma in the routine, as in the case of Obama. This isn’t surprising, since charisma begins with breaking rules and ends with following them. Breaking the rules requires a legitimacy that cannot be based either on the rules or on derived authority. It must arise spontaneously, so to speak, and therefore depend on a person’s persuasiveness.
Max Weber, who coined the term, saw the importance of charisma primarily in implementing revolutionary change. Charisma comes into play in extraordinary situations, when the secure ground of tradition and the rigid procedures of bureaucracy are shaken in the face of new challenges. Despite this contradiction, charisma can certainly be put to the service of order: charismatically represented politics can make it easier to come to terms with the standstill of the administration. However, any perpetuation of charisma carries the risk of its routinization – and thus its abolition.
Even before they are taken over, charismatic personalities are of interest to the established institutions and elites not only as opponents, but also as role models. Using the figure of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyj, two sociologists show in a recently published study how the establishment does not have to respond to charismatic demands with confrontation, but can be encouraged to imitate them. Instead of taking an anti-charismatic stance that defends what exists, they can act opportunistically and position themselves in such a way that some of the charisma falls on themselves – and use this for their own purposes. This was attempted, for example, by those parts of the Republican party leadership in America who, in view of the unusual but nevertheless – or precisely because of this – successful presidential candidate Trump, tried to establish political alliances with him or based their style on him.
Distance from your own military
In Zelensky’s case, the authors observe “charismatic mimicry” that uses aesthetic rather than rhetorical stylistic devices. In the weeks following the Russian attack on Ukraine, Selenskyj responded to the crisis not only with statements such as that he needed ammunition and no means of escape, but also with a striking change in his clothing: he replaced his suit with olive green T-shirts, mostly with the Logo of Ukraine. Like other charismatic personalities from Gandhi to Trump, he gained a recognition value that could certainly be seen as an affront by the establishment: his video appearance before the American Congress was criticized for violating the usual dress code. Interestingly, Zelensky’s outfit also creates distance from his own military, because it is not a uniform with rank insignia.
Michael Hierholzer Published/Updated: , Recommendations: 5 Christian Geyer Published/Updated: , Recommendations: 7 Gerald Hartung Published/Updated: , Recommendations: 14
Despite extensive solidarity with his country, Zelensky posed a challenge to the political elites of Europe and North America: his call for more extensive and faster arms deliveries was popular, but contradicted previous principles and considerations. In this situation, according to the authors, Emmanuel Macron was the first to adopt Zelensky’s look and had himself photographed in a hoodie with an emblem of French special forces. The political leaders of Western and Eastern Europe who traveled to Kiev in the following weeks joined in and preferred to present themselves on site in casual or combat clothing.
In doing so, it not only signaled solidarity, but also borrowed a bit of charisma that could be used at home to enforce new security policy guidelines or, in the case of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, to cushion political crises. Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s choice of clothing during his visit to Kiev was consistent in its ambiguity: wearing short sleeves, he paid tribute to the extraordinary situation, but the briefcase he carried with him also pointed out that crisis management must be secured and managed bureaucratically.
#Sociologists #analyze #motive #impact #Ukrainian #President #Volodymyr #Zelenskys #wardrobe