Quantifying and Qualifying Charisma: A Theoretical Framework for Measuring the Presence of Charismatic Authority in Terrorist Groups

Abstract

In the past four decades, there has been increased multidisciplinary scholarly interest in the study of charismatic authority. However, there has yet to be any systematic examination of charismatic authority in the context of terrorism, despite widespread acknowledgment of the importance of charismatic leaders in the recruitment, radicalization, and operation of terrorist groups. This article seeks to contribute to future empirical research by presenting a theoretical framework for measuring the presence of charismatic authority in terrorist groups that is based on Max Weber's seminal work on legitimate domination (herrschaft) and on theoretical insights drawn from the study of charismatic authority in new religious movements. The framework is then applied to an illustrative case study of the relationship between charismatic authority and the radicalization process within the far-right terrorist group "the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord." The article concludes with a discussion of findings and suggestions for future research.There is a common story told by speaking coaches, self-help "success" gurus, and Internet bloggers interested in corporate leadership. It begins after an evening dinner attended by a nameless young lady and by British political rivals William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli. When asked her opinion of both men, the young lady responded: "When I left the dining room after sitting next to Mr. Gladstone, I thought he was the cleverest man in England. But after sitting next to Mr. Disraeli, I thought I was the cleverest woman in England." 1 In her description, the young lady echoes countless accounts of individuals who have come into contact with a charismatic leader. It is an experience that is primal, mysterious, intensely personal, and evokes powerfully complex emotions. As the above quote suggests, charismatic leaders are adept at making those they meet feel in some way special, chosen, or unique. At the same time the experience is highly subjective and abstract, and it is often difficult for most people to pin-point what it is exactly that makes a particular person "charismatic." These comments reflect recurring problems within the study of charismatic authority: how exactly do charismatic leaders move and influence their followers to engage in risky behaviors? How is it, despite the ubiquity of charismatic individuals in society, only a select few manage to cultivate a loyal and devoted following? What exactly distinguishes a charismatic leader from other types of leaders? These questions have been explored in varying degrees in the context of new religious movements (NRMs), management studies, anthropology, sociology, political science, and psychology. 2 Yet within terrorism studies, charismatic authority has not been analyzed in a systematic or empirical manner to date. 3 This has not gone unnoticed. Recent scholarship acknowledges the gap in the literature in regard to charismatic leaders and their role in the operation of terrorist groups and the radicalization process. 4 T...

Dangerous Speech and Dangerous Ideology: An Integrated Model for Monitoring and Prevention

“…45 Or they may carry particular 'epistemic' authority in light of audiences' dependence on them for information that is deemed credible. 46 Even where there is no vocational basis for influence, a speaker may acquire influence with charisma, 47 or a persuasive speaking style that skillfully deploys rhetoric 48 and mobilizes an audience's affective inclinations.…”

Evaluating Terrorism within The Framework of Weber’s Ethics, Action and Authority Concepts

“…Charismatic leaders are one of the most significant factors determining the existence of terrorist organizations. Hofmann (2015) criticizes the lack of studies on charismatic authority in relation to terrorism and presents 14 indicators to measure the presence of charismatic authority in terrorist groups. The first three indicators are (1) conditions that lead to charismatic authority, (2) social structure and management of charismatic authority and (3) conditions and motivations that lead to the bureaucratization or routinization of charismatic authority that transforms it into into traditional or legal forms.…”

The study of terrorist leadership: where do we go from here?

“…With some few notable exceptions (Gendron, 2016;Hofmann and Dawson, 2014;Hofmann, 2015Hofmann, , 2016Ingram, 2013;Rinehart, 2009), the vast majority of research on terrorism that references "charisma" tends to employ it in a colloquial sense as an analytically unhelpful demonstrative or explanatory device. Furthermore, much of the current research displays superficial knowledge of the complex dynamics involved in the formation and maintenance of the charismatic bond between leaders and followers (see Barker, 1993;Dawson, 2002Dawson, , 2006Gardner and Avolio, 1998;Hofmann and Dawson, 2014;Hofmann, 2015;Joosse, 2006Joosse, , 2014Friedland, 1964;Wallis, 1982;Weber, 1968). This suggests that there is a large gap in knowledge of how truly charismatic terrorist leaders may influence various social and strategic processes within their groups.…”

“…With few exceptions (e.g. Abrahms and Potter 2015;Freeman, 2014;Hofmann, 2015;Ingram, 2013), current terrorism research is limited to passing interest in the dynamics of leadership within the frameworks of larger case studies (e.g. Juergensmeyer, 2003;Nesser, 2009;Stern, 2003), or has been blinded by "great (wo) man" theories of leadership which emphasize the importance and magnitude of individual leaders while often downplaying the greater socio-political context within which terrorist groups operate (e.g.…”

“…Multiple scholars of terrorism have noted that leadership is an important component in recruitment and radicalization toward violence (e.g. Hamm, 2013, p. 113;Hofmann, 2015;Horgan, 2005, pp. 33-34;Nesser, 2009, p. 88;Wiktorowicz, 2005, pp.…”