WEBER: ON CHARISMA AND BUREAUCRACY

[Max Weber (1864-1920) grew up in Berlin in an upper-class Protestant home frequented by leading intellectuals and politicians of Bismarck's Germany. Trained in languages, history, and the classics in secondary school, he emphasized law, economics, history, and philosophy in his university studies. Recognized as a founder of the field of sociology and a leader in interdisciplinary studies, Weber wrote comparative studies of ancient and modem civilizations. Through his methodological innovation of "ideal types," he was able to examine the tension between charismatic leadership and modem bureaucracy in industrial societies. His most controversial work, The Protestant Ethit' and the Spirit oj Capitalism (1904), provides an analysis of the linkages between religious ideologies and economic institutions.]

The General Character of Charisma

Bureaucratic and patriarchal structures, so opposite in many ways, are systems with one very important feature in common: permanence, in that both are institutions of daily routine. Patriarchal power especially is rooted in the need to meet the recurrent and normal demands of workaday life, and thus it is initially based in the economy, that is, in those branches of the economy that can be satisfied by means of normal routine. The patriarch is the 'naturalleader' of the daily routine. And in this way the bureaucratic structure is only the converse of patriarchalism, transposed into rationality. As a durable structure with a system of rational rules, bureaucracy is designed to satisfy calculable continuing demands by means of a normal routine.

The satisfaction of all demands that go beyond those of everyday economic routine has had, by and large, an entirely different foundation, a charismatic one, and the further back we look in history, the more we find this to be so. This means that the 'natural' leaders -- in times of psychic, physical, economic, ethical, religious, political distress -- have been neither officeholders nor practitioners of an 'occupation' in the present sense of the word, that is, men who have acquired expert knowledge and who serve for remuneration. The natural leaders in stressful times have been deemed possessors of particular physical and spiritual gifts, which were believed to be supernatural, not accessible to everybody. The concept of 'charisma' is here used in a completely 'value-neutral' sense. The capacity for heroic frenzy of the Arabian "berserk," who bites his shield like a mad dog, biting around until he darts off in raving bloodthirstiness, is a manic seizure, just as is that of Irish culture hero, Cuchulain, or of the Homeric Achilles. For a long time it was thought that the seizure of the berserk was artificially induced through acute poisoning. In Byzantium, a number of 'blond beasts,' given to such seizures, were maintained, just as military elephants were formerly maintained. The ecstasy of shamans is linked to an epileptic condition, and possession and testing of such epilepsy constitutes the qualification for charismatic status. They do not seem impressive to us.... But sociology is not concerned with such questions. In the faith of their followers, ["heroes" and "sorcerers" have] proven to be charismatically qualified. They have all

280

WEBER: ON CHARISMA AND BUREAUCRACY

practiced their arts and ruled by virtue of this gift (charisma) and, where the idea of God has already been clearly conceived, by virtue of the divine mission embodied in that charisma. The same is true for doctors and prophets, just as for judges, military leaders, or for leaders of large hunting expeditions. Rudolf Sohm clarified the sociological features of this type of domination structure for the historical development of the authority of the early Christian church, a special case with considerable historical significance. To his credit, Sohm performed this task with logical consistency, but as a result, of course, he was onesided from a purely historical point of view. In principle, however, the very same phenomenon recurs universally, although often it is most clearly evident in the field of religion. By contrast with all sorts of bureaucratic or official organization, charismatic structure knows nothing of a form or of a regular procedure of appointment or dismissal. It recognizes no 'career,' 'advancement,' 'salary,' or controlled or expert training of the charismatic or of his aides. It knows no agency of control or appeal, no local or exclusively functional jurisdictions; nor does it embrace durable institutions like our bureaucratic 'departments,' which are independent of persons or of purely personal charisma. Charisma knows only self determination and self restraint. The possessor of charisma takes up the task appropriate for him and requires obedience and a following by virtue of his mission. Finding them will be determined by his success. His charismatic claim fails if those to whom he deems he has been sent do not recognize it. He is their master if they recognize him -- as long as he is able to obtain recognition by 'proving' himself. But his right

is not derived from their will, as would be the case in an election. On the contrary, those to whom he addresses his mission have the duty to recognize him as their leader, charismatically qualified. In Chinese theory, the prerogatives of the emperor are made to depend upon the people's recognition. But this does not mean that the sovereignty of the people is recognized, any more than did the prophet's need to get recognition from believers in the early Christian community. Rather, the Chinese theory describes the charismatic character of the monarch's role, which is tied to his personal qualification and authentication. Charisma can be qualitatively specialized, and of course it often is. This creates a qualitative barrier in the charisma holder's mission and power, determined internally rather than externally. In meaning and in content the mission may be directed to a group of people limited by local, ethnic, social, political, professional, or other criteria. When the mission is thus addressed, as usual, to a limited group it finds its limits within their circle. In economic sub-structure, as in all else, charismatic power is just the opposite of bureaucratic power. While bureaucratic power depends on regular income, and thus at least after the fact on a money economy and taxes paid in money, charisma lives in, but not off, this world. This must be properly understood. Charisma often deliberately avoids the earning and possession of money as such, as did Saint Francis and many like him, but of course this is the exception to the rule. Even a pirate leader may exercise 'charismatic' power, in the value-neutral sense intended here. Charismatic political heroes seek booty and, above all, money. But what is decisive is that charisma always rejects as dishonorable any financial gain that is me-

281

WEBER: ON CHARISMA AND BUREAUCRACY

thodical and rational. Above all, charisma rejects rational economic conduct. In this rejection of rational economic conduct lies the sharp contrast between charisma and any 'patriarchal' structure resting upon the 'household' as an orderly basis of activity. 'Pure' charisma is never a source of private gain for those who possess it, not in the sense of economic exploitation through bartering or dealing, not in the form of pecuniary compensation, and just as surely not an orderly taxation for the material demands of its mission. If the mission is peaceful, individual patrons provide the means necessary for charismatic activities, or those to whom the charisma is directed contribute honorific gifts, donations, or other types of voluntary support. For charismatic warrior heroes, booty represents a goal as well as providing the material means of the mission. 'Pure' charisma is the opposite of all patriarchal power (in the sense used here) and of all ordered economy. It is the very force that opposes orderly economic institutions. This is all the more true when the charismatic leader seeks to acquire goods, as with the charismatic warrior hero. Charisma can behave thus since it is by its very nature not an 'institutional' or permanent structure; on the contrary, in 'pure' form charisma is just the opposite of all that is institutionally permanent. To perform their mission properly, the possessors of charisma, master and disciples or followers alike, must remain outside worldly ties, outside everyday occupations, as well as outside the routine duties of family life. The regulations of the Jesuit order forbid the acceptance of church offices; members of the order may not own property, nor may the order itself own it, as in the original rule of the Franciscan order. The priest or the knight of an order must live in celibacy, and many possessors of prophetic or artistic cha-

nsma are in fact single. All this is illustrates the unavoidable separation from this world of those possessing charisma.
[Economic and Social Systems, Chapter 9, Section
6: 1; orig. pub!. 1922]

The Definition of Discipline

It is the fate of charisma, whenever it enters into the permanent institutions of a community, to recede before the powers of tradition or rational socialization. The waning of charisma usually signifies the diminishing importance of individual action. Among the powers reducing the significance of individual action, the most irresistible is rational discipline. The power of discipline not only destroys personal charisma but also rationally transforms the stratification of society into elite status groups.

In content, discipline is merely the consistendy rationalized, methodically trained and precise execution of received orders, the unconditional suspension of all personal criticism, and the preparation of the individual actor exclusively for unswerving and uniform obedience to such commands. The specific particulars of the uniform execution of such commands will be determined by the character of discipline as the communal action of a mass organization. Those executing such commands do not necessarily do so simultaneously, nor does the mass organization in question need to be particularly large, or united in a specific locality. The decisive factor in discipline is that the obedience of a number of individuals must be rationally uniform. Discipline as such is not at all hostile to charisma or to social stratification into elite groups. Quite the contrary, elite

282

WEBER: ON CHARISMA AND BUREAUCRACY

groups wishing to rule large geographical areas or extensive organizations -- the Venetian aristocratic council, the Spartans, the Jesuits in Paraguay, or a modem officer corps led by a prince -- can maintain their superiority over their subjects only by enforcing very strict discipline within the group, for the "blind" obedience of subjects can be effected only by training them to practice submission exclusively under the code of discipline, and not to "practice" under any other. The encouragement of social stratification and of a high status elite with prestige and a high standard of living can only be made to seem rational on the grounds of discipline. This fact has an impact on all aspects of the culture which are in any way influenced by these status communities; (however, we will not discuss specific effects here). In just this way a charismatic hero may use discipline to his own advantage; indeed, he must us it thus if he desires to widen his sphere of domination. Napoleon created a strict disciplinary organization for France, one which still operates effectively today. Discipline in general, like its most rational offspring, bureaucracy, in particular, is impersonal, uncompromisingly so, and it places itself at the disposal of any power that reflects upon its services and knows how to use them. Nonetheless, bureaucracy is intrinsically alien and opposed to charisma, as it is to honor, particularly feudal honor. The "berserk" with manic seizures and the feudal knight measuring swords with an equal opponent for the sake of personal honor are equally alien to discipline, former since his action is irrational, the latter since his attitude lacks the proper impersonality. Instead of the ecstasy or piety of the hero or saint, instead of spirited enthusiasm or personal devotion to a leader, instead of the cult of 'honor'..., discipline substitutes skill which becomes habitual or routine, and since it

appeals to definite motives of an 'ethical' sort, it presupposes a sense of "duty" and "conscience" ('men of conscience' versus 'men of honor,' in Cromwell's terms.) But the conditioning and training of the masses for discipline is always directed toward the rational calculation of their optimal physical and psychic power in attack. There is a place in discipline for enthusiasm and unqualified devotion, of course; the modem conduct of war places great weight, in every instance and often above all else, on just those 'moral' elements of a soldier's ability. Military leadership uses all sorts of emotional devices -- just as does, in its own way, the most sophisticated program of religious discipline, the "spiritual exercises" of Ignatius Loyola. In combat, military leaders try to influence followers by means of 'inspiration' [Eingebung] and, even more, to train them in 'empathetic understanding' [Einfuhlung] of the leader's will. Sociologically, however, the decisive factors are, first, that everything, and especially these 'imponderable' and irrational emotional factors must be rationally "calculated," in principle, at least, just as one would calculate yields of coal or iron deposits. Secondly, "devotion," does not mean devotion to a person as such, no matter how "personally" colored it may be in any concrete instance of a fascinating leader, for in its purposefulness it is normally objective in content. It is devotion to a 'cause,' and to the "success" of that cause, intended rationally. (A different sort of discipline situation is created only when the prerogatives of a slave-holder are involved, on a plantation, for instance, or in an ancient Oriental slave army, on galleys manned by slaves, or among prisoners in ancient or medieval society.) The individual cannot escape from a mechanized organization, since training and routine establish his place and force him to 'go along.' All who are en-

283

WEBER: ON CHARISMA AND BUREAUCRACY

listed in the ranks of such an organization are "mechanically" [tJPangslaujiiJ integrated into the whole. The effectiveness of all discipline is dependent to a large extent upon such mechanization, especially in wars conducted in a disciplined way. It is the only effective element and it always remains as a residue even when the 'ethical' qualities of duty and conscience have failed....
[Economic and Sodal Systems, Chapter 9, Part 6:3; orig. pub!. 1922]

charisma is legitimized through personal heroism or revelation. Yet it is just this quality of charisma as an extraordinary, supernatural, divine power that transforms it, once it has become routine, into a fitting basis for the legitimate acquisition of sovereign power by the successors of the charismatic hero. Routinized charisma thus continues to work to the advantage of all those whose power and wealth is secured by that sovereign power, and who for this reason depend on its continuing existence. The forms through which a leader's charismatic legitimation expresses itself will vary with the relation of the original chari~matic powerholder to supernatural powers. If it proves impossible to legitimize the leader's power according to unambiguous rules of hereditary charisma, he must establish its legitimacy through some other charismatic power. As a general rule, this must be hierocratic power. This is particularly true for the king who represents a divine incarnation, thus possessing the highest form of 'personal charisma.' Unless backed up by personal deeds, his claim of charisma must be acknowledged of professional experts on divinity. Incarnated monarchs are in fact subjected to the odd process of internment by close court officials and priests, who have a material as well as an ideal interest in his legitimacy. This seclusion may be carried to the level of permanent palace arrest or even to the killing of the monarch when he reaches maturity, so that the god (incarnate in the king) may have no occasion to compromise his divinity or to free himself from their tutelage. But usually, both in theory and in practice, the weight of responsibility borne by the charismatic ruler makes it unmistakably clear that he stands in need of this tutelage.
It is owing to their high charismatic qualifications that rulers such as the Oriental

Charismatic Legitimation of Enduring Structures

The creative force of charisma wanes when faced with power which has become solidified into lasting institutions, and becomes effective only in short-term mass emotions, incalculable in their effects, as in the case of elections and the like. Nonetheless, charisma is still an extremely important element in the social structure, though of course in a gready altered sense. Let us now return to the economic factors...which are of predominant importance in determining how charisma will be made routine: the need of elite groups, privileged as a result of the existing political, social, and economic order, to "legitimize" their social and economic position. The elite desires to see its position changed from a merely factual power into a set of acquired rights and thus sanctified. These interests comprise by far the strongest motive for the preservation of charismatic elements, now objectified, in the structure of domination. Genuine charisma is utterly opposed to this objectified form. Real charisma does not appeal to a traditional order, or to one that has been enacted, nor does it base its claims on rights which have been acquired. Genuine

284

WEBER: ON CHARISMA AND BUREAUCRACY

Caliph, Sultan, and Shah urgendy need, even today (1913), an individual to assume responsibility for governmental action, especially for failures or unpopular moves. In particular, this is the basis for the traditional position of the 'Grand Vizier' in each of those realms. The move to abolish the office of the Grand Vizier and replace it by bureaucratic departments under ministers even under the Shah's personal chairmanship, failed in Persia during the last generation. This change would have put the Shah in the position of a leader in the administration, personally responsible for all its abuses and for all the suffering of the populace. Not only would this role have continuously jeopardized him, but it would have shaken the very belief in his "charismatic" legitimacy. In order to protect the Shah and his charisma, the office of Grand Vizier, with all its responsibilities, had to be restored. The Grand Vizier is the Oriental counterpart of the responsible prime minister of the West, particularly in parliamentary states. The formula, "Ie roi regne mais il ne gouverne pal' ["the king rules, but he does not govern"], the theory that in order to protect the dignity of his position the king must not "appear without ministerial apparel," or that he should abstain altogether from intervention in the adminis tration normally directed either by bureaucratic experts and specialists or by political party leaders occupying ministerial positions -- all these theories correspond exacdy to the idea of the enshrinement of the deified, patrimonial ruler by experts in tradition and ceremony: priests, officers of the court, and high dignitaries. In all these instances the sociological character of charisma plays a role just as great as that of court officials or party leaders with their followings. Despite his lack of parliamentary power, the constitutional monarch is preserved, and most important, his very existence, to-

gether with his charisma, guarantees the legitimacy of the existing social order and the property that goes with it, since decisions are made 'in his name.' Furthermore, all those with an interest in the social order must fear for their belief in the 'legality' of this order, lest it be shaken by doubts of his legitimacy. A president elected according to established rules may formally legitimize the .governmental actions of the victorious party as 'lawful,' just as a parliamentary monarch may do. But the monarch, in addition to this kind of legitimation, can perform another function which an elected president is unable to perform: a parliamentary monarch formally limits the quest for power by the politicians, since the highest position in the state is occupied once and for all. From a political point of view this basically negative function, linked with the very existence of a king enthroned according to established rules, is of the greatest practical importance. Positively stated, it signifies that the archetype of the species, the king, cannot by prerogative gain an actual share in political power (kingdom of prerogative). He can only share power by virtue of outstanding personal ability or social influence (kingdom of influence). Yet he is positioned in such a way that he can exert this influence, in spite of all parliamentary government, as has been shown by events and personalities of recent times. 'Parliamentary' kingship in England signi~ fies a selective admission to actual power for any monarch qualifying as a statesman. But a false step domestically or in foreign affairs, or the display of pretensions not corresponding with his personal abilities and prestige, may cost him his crown. Thus English parliamentary kingship is formed in a fashion more genuinely charismatic than may be observed in monarchies on the Continent, where mere birth-

285

WEBER: ON CHARISMA AND BUREAUCRACY

right endows the fool and the political genius equally with the pretensions of a sovereign....
[E"onomic and Sodal Systems, Chapter 9, Part 6:2; orig. publ. 1922]

5.) They must demonstrate specialized qualifications, by examination in the most rational cases, or by a diploma certifying the appropriate specialized qualifications, and they are appointed, not elected. 6.) They are salaried, often with pension benefits...; the salary is graduated according to rank in the hierarchy, or according to the degree of accountability of their positions, generally according to the principle of rank standing. 7.) They seen their official duties as a high calling. 8.) They see before them a career, with promotions based on skills or seniority or both. 9.) They work with administrative funds without appropriating them. 10.) They submit to uniform official discipline. This type of order is in principle applicable to either profit-making or philanthropic organizations, to groups with any material or ideal goal in the course of their operation. It may be observed in political and hierocratic groups and even in historical situations, with greater or lesser fidelity to the pure type.
[E.onomic and Sodal Systems, Chapter 3, Part 1:4; orig. publ. 1922]

Bureaucracy
The purest type of legal power is the bureaucratic administrative staff. The group leader occupies his position of authority either by appointment, election, or succession. But his authorization is based on "competence." The administrative staff as a whole consists of individual officials who have the following characteristics: 1.) They are personally free, but they are obliged by impersonal official duties. 2.) They are part of a strict official hierarchy. 3.) They possess certain official "competencies." 4.) They are under contract, but in principle they are free to choose, as long as they demonstrate specialized qualifications.

286