Search results

Tristan Bunnell began teaching International Baccalaureate economics at the International School of London in 1990. He is currently head of economics at the Copenhagen International School. He was awarded his MA in school marketing and development from the University of Surrey in 1993. He obtained his doctorate on ‘public relations activity as an indicator of the unique nature of international schools’ from the University of Southampton in 2003. He has published a number of articles about distributed leadership, marketing strategy and public relations activity in international schools. His current research interests include global curricula developments, especially the growth and development of the International Baccalaureate.

The aim of this chapter is to argue that charisma is a collective representation, and that charismatic authority is a social status that derives more from the “recognition” of the followers than from the “magnetism” of the leaders. I contend further that a close reading of Max Weber shows that he, too, saw charisma in this light.

I develop my argument by a close reading of many of the most relevant texts on the subject. This includes not only the renowned texts on this subject by Max Weber, but also many books and articles that interpret or criticize Weber’s views.

I pay exceptionally close attention to key arguments and texts, several of which have been overlooked in the past.

Writers for whom charisma is personal magnetism tend to assume that charismatic rule is natural and that the full realization of democratic norms is unlikely. Authority, in this view, emanates from rulers unbound by popular constraint. I argue that, in fact, authority draws both its mandate and its energy from the public, and that rulers depend on the loyalty of their subjects, which is never assured. So charismatic claimants are dependent on popular choice, not vice versa.

I advocate a “culturalist” interpretation of Weber, which runs counter to the dominant “personalist” account. Conventional interpreters, under the sway of theology or mass psychology, misread Weber as a romantic, for whom charisma is primal and undemocratic rule is destiny. This essay offers a counter-reading.