Searching for Charisma Authenticity in the Weberian Charisma: A Radical View

1. Introduction

Charisma, as theorized by Max Weber (1864-1920), is a term that has exerted influence far beyond the discipline in which the concept first appeared. The use of the term "charisma" has expanded not only in political studies, exploring the authority and legitimacy of power, but it has also found application in various other disciplines, including theology, sociology, anthropology, management, leadership, and even psychology. The widespread influence of the charisma concept spans all these disciplines, leading many scientists to conduct empirical and theoretical studies to study and interpret this concept. In Weber's work "Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft," charisma is introduced as a central concept in the theory of domination within a power authority, where a person is obeyed based on a belief in the legitimacy of their right to influence (Joosse, 2017).

Political scientists and sociologists have spent decades researching this phenomenon. Since the 1960s, the term charisma has increasingly been used to refer to the contemporary understanding of charisma as a special innate personal quality that distinguishes certain individuals from others and attracts others to them. The articulation of the meaning of Weberian charisma seems to be considered normal and given when the concept is mentioned and used. Charisma is regularly accepted as the quality of an extraordinary individual, a superpowered individual, a superhuman with capacities not shared by others. The common usage in the second half of the twentieth century was directly caused by the spread of interest in Weber's theory.

Contemporary research in the last five years shows that the charisma phenomenon continues to develop with various study aspects, such as the study of non-verbal communication on charisma (Pauser, 2018; Keating, 2020), neuroscience of charisma (Schjoedt, 2011; Wang, 2019), gender and charisma (Chin, 2020; Joosse and Willey, 2020), the dark side of charisma (Fragouli, 2018; Zhang, et al., 2020; Masyhuri, 2022), charisma in sport (Delaney, 2020), charisma of fruit (Moubayed, 2023), and discourse of charisma (Wright, 2020) are studies of interest to researchers with many aspects being studied. Unfortunately, many theoretical approaches to charisma have failed in their efforts to provide an explanation of the new ontological meaning of the concept of charisma. In contrast, current approaches seek to uncover leader charisma and explain its essence in the form of concrete behavior and learnable skills (what a leader does and what a leader is like). Wright's (2020) research on charisma and democratic discourse provides a breakthrough by using a new approach to understanding charisma, namely by employing a rhetorical approach to the term.

Thus, apart from the work of Wright and a few previous researchers, most of the existing work on charisma to date still adheres to Weber's conception, emphasizing the aspect of special personal qualities inherent in individuals, such as individual magnetism, magnetic charm, or the ability to command followers, albeit with various modifications. Weber's perspective, which perceives charisma as fixed and final, tends to overlook the contingent nature of dynamic charisma. It fails to recognize charisma as something subject to change and partially fixed, especially within discursive practice.

As a result, many individuals remain confined to the understanding of charisma as an extraordinary personal quality, seen as the "correct" and "normal" meaning. Consequently, it appears that there is a gap that challenges Weber's assumption that charisma is an inherent personal quality, assuming consensus between the charismatic subject and followers regarding the structure forming the individual's personal quality. Researchers challenge the presupposition that individual quality standards are inherent, asserting that these standards are not given by the individual but are socially and discursively constructed. Employing the Poststructuralist Discourse theory approach of Laclau and Mouffe, it is argued that the construction of charisma discourse is dynamic across various spaces and times.

This article explores the concept of charisma within the framework of Weberian theory, particularly focusing on the dynamics of authenticity within charismatic leadership. It offers a radical perspective that interrogates established notions of charismatic authority and examines how authenticity influences the construction and maintenance of charismatic hegemony. This article seeks to uncover the nuances of charisma authenticity and advocates for a reevaluation of conventional paradigms within Weberian charisma hegemony. The article delves into how charisma is interpreted in a religious context, beginning with an examination of Paul's letters and extending to explanations in the New Testament. It explores the elements shaping the meaning of charisin ancient Greece, Hebrew (Jewish) culture, early Christian times and islamic concept of charisma. These elements, such as Grace, Graciousness, and Gratitude, contribute to a new approach to studying charisma within a reciprocal system, presenting a valuable perspective for examination.

2. Method

This study adopts a literature review methodology to explore the concept of charisma. A literature search was performed across multiple electronic databases, including, google scholar, scopus, jstor and other sources, to identify related articles both those published in the past and the most recent articles. Full-text articles of potentially relevant studies were retrieved and assessed for inclusion in the review.

The exploration of the term "charisma" in this article begins by tracing its origins in early sources, namely the ancient Greek and Roman traditions during the Hellenistic period. This investigation considers linguistic variations and specifications of the word's meaning, differences in articulation between meanings, and the influence of culture, mythology, and beliefs of that time.

3. Results

3.1.  Weber's Concept of Charisma and Weberian Hegemony

Embarking on our exploration of charisma, we delve into the origins of the concept as shaped by Weber's profound insights into the dynamics of power. Weber, a pioneering figure in social sciences, introduced charisma as a distinctive quality within an individual's personality, setting them apart from ordinary individuals. This extraordinary quality is imbued with supernatural, superhuman, or uniquely exceptional powers, as expounded in his magnum opus, "The Theory of Social and Economic Organization" (Weber, 1968).

These powers were apparently inaccessible to ordinary people, but were considered to be of divine origin, and on their basis the individual in question was treated as a leader. In its development, the theory of charisma gave rise to a debate between two perspectives, namely the Weberian perspective, including neo-Weberian and the non-Weberian perspective, which then became the basis for the analysis in this research.

The debate regarding the conceptualization of charismatic authority often involves three different views, among Weberian theorists. The first view, represented by charisma studies such as Bass (1985); Bryman (1992); Kets de Vries (2004) This view explains that the personal qualities of charisma include having extraordinary power related to far-sighted vision, rhetorical and aesthetic skills. According to Ladkin (2006), leaders like this have a basic recognition of something that ordinary people cannot have, namely something that comes from a transcendent gift (given from god). But in its development, first-hand charisma theorists, such as Bryman (1992), expressed the theory that a leader's charisma is born, and not made." This type of leader displays strong physical strength and mental abilities and a positive personality. Leaders are strong in spirit, self-confidence, and in influencing and persuading others. Furthermore, Kets de Vries (2004) considers the idea of charisma to be a transformation of leadership, which suggests that effective leadership depends on personal charisma, consisting of certain skills or traits in leaders including moral vision, coupled with sensitivity to the demands of the context (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass & Steidlmeier 1999).

The second view is represented by the work of Deveraux (1955); Shills (1965); Kanter (1968); Tucker (1968); Dow (1969); Miyahara (1984); Trice and Beyer (1986); Hartog (1995); and Ladkin (2006). Strengthening Weber's (1947) concept which explains that a leader's charisma will depend greatly on the validation (legitimacy) of his followers. According to this view, charisma can occur in the practice of power relations between leaders and their followers, where leaders in particular can develop strong emotional attachments to their followers. for Shills, Weber places too much emphasis on the extraordinary aspect of charismatic individuals, as if this special quality naturally exists in individuals, even though charisma is something that is given, and requires recognition and legitimacy from its followers. The third view, represented by the works of Gerth and Mills (1946), Blau (1963); Friedland (1964); Wolpe (1968); Conger (1997); This view argues that the relationship between charismatic leaders and followers is based on how the leader can apply the power of this charisma in various situations faced by society and how the leader implements a set of ideas to become a solution to the crisis. Therefore, charismatic leadership occurs only when followers believe that they have found some individual solution to the problems they face. (Jones, 2001: 763)

The charisma debate, especially from Weberian circles, is always linked to the affirmation of an individual's extraordinary personal capacity, for something that is given. Although there are other classifications that include the last two views in the neo-weberian view, for example Jermier (1993), there is some irony in the phrase neo-Weberian, because one aspect of its meaning here involves a re-examination of Weber's main writings to enrich the concept about Charisma. Even though there is a diversity of analysis, Weberian and neo-Weberian works see charisma as always being linked to the rise and fall of personal qualities.

The next classification is non-Weberian charisma, the classification referred to here is how the attention of charisma researchers no longer focuses on the Weberian and Weberian conceptualization of charisma as previously explained, there are several very essential things that are different which constitute criticism of Weberian works. It would be very difficult to separate Charisma from Weber's conceptualization of Charisma, several studies have tried to distance themselves from this theorization by trying to criticize or use a different perspective from previous work. Of the works above that study charisma, very few studies have emerged that pay attention to non-Weberian perspectives, several works such as Deconstruction of charisma: Calas (1993); Discourse of charisma: Takala (2013); Dark Side of Charisma: Fragouli (2018) is one of the few works that uses a non-Weberian perspective in reading charisma. This article tries to elaborate on the search for the word charisma which has always been directly associated with the theory of Weber and his followers with all its modifications.

Table 1. Some Perspectives from Modern Charisma

Source: Literature data processed

3.2. Tracing The Roots of Charisma: Back to the Original Sources

John Potts (2009) in his book History of a Charisma, traced the history of the roots of the word charisma and found information that charisma has historical links with Jewish culture, early Christian times and as far back as Greco-Roman culture during the Hellenistic era. The important thing in his search results, Potts found that charisma is related to the root word charis (χάρις), a word in Greek, which is widely interpreted and interpreted as a spiritual gift and in ancient Jewish culture is related to the word hen (hnn), with the same meaning. Although the meanings and uses of these two words operate in different cultural settings, they are united in the term charisma as developed by Paul in the mid-first century. According to Potts, charisma subsequently reappeared, much later, in a variety and emphasis in the use of different meanings of charisma in the twentieth century such as what was later popularized by Max Weber.

Misunderstandings often occur in understanding the meaning of charis, so it often causes preconceptions and prejudices in initial use to reach an idea of the basic meaning of the concept of charis, for this reason it is necessary to test examples and try to find what elements they have in common, what situations caused the Greeks to use one word to apply to a variety of situations. It is also important to explain some of the emphasized uses of the word charis in communication, namely the meaning that refers to the relationship of exchange of favors. (Scott, 1983). This study does not intend to explore the meaning of charisma by involving too much in the theological problems that occur, although it cannot be ignored, exploring the meaning of charisma in explaining the origins of charisma is more emphasized by elaborating and showing a historical perspective, namely involving the context of space and time in which the concept charis is used so that the meaning of charis can follow the development of changes.

3.2.1.  Charis in the Hellenistic Tradition: Charis in the Reciprocity system

In the Greek tradition, the multifaceted meaning of "charis" encapsulates a rich tapestry of concepts, deeply intertwined with notions of grace, mercy, and reciprocity. Across various discourses, including mythology, philosophy, and literature, "charis" assumes different dimensions, each contributing to its profound significance. Homer (849-799 BC) and Hesiod (700 BC), ancient Greek poets, delve into the essence of "charis" through their epics, particularly in the portrayal of physical beauty. "Charis" encompasses not only outward attractiveness but also the notion that such beauty is bestowed by the favor of the gods, implying a divine grace. This idea of divine bestowal extends to acts of benevolence, such as Athena's granting of grace to humans, illustrating the interconnectedness between giver and receiver.

John Barclay's interpretation further elucidates the complexity of "charis," suggesting that "gift" might be a more apt translation. According to him the Greek word charis, which is often translated as “grace,” has a plural meaning. It describes (1) the attitude of a giver, (2) the giving itself, and (3) the attitude of a recipient. For news, charis means fellowship and goodwill towards the person who receives the act of kindness. For the recipient, charis means the favor received and the gratitude resulting from this favor. A thank you note is an important social act, it can result in a return of a gift, or acknowledge that the recipient is bound to the giver (gift) (Pott, 2009).

The mythological context, as depicted by Hesiod, introduces the Charites goddesses, personifications of grace, beauty, and charm. Their symbolism embodies the virtues of joy and refinement, enriching both divine and mortal realms.  In Other side, Seneca's philosophical discourse on benefits underscores the principle of reciprocity inherent in "charis." He elucidates the interconnectedness of giving and receiving, emphasizing the moral obligation to reciprocate kindness and maintain honor. Marcel Mauss further explores this concept, positing that all acts of giving entail implicit expectations of reciprocity, thereby cementing social bonds and reinforcing societal norms.

Through these diverse perspectives, "charis" emerges as more than a mere word; it embodies a profound philosophy of reciprocal relationships, where acts of grace and kindness form the bedrock of social cohesion and honor. This ancient concept continues to resonate, offering insights into the complexities of human interaction and the enduring importance of mutual respect and benevolence.

3.2.2. Charis According to Greek Philosophers

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Sophocles as well as several other Greek philosophers in this case agreed that charis, grace or grace is something that represents virtue and benefit to mankind. In his work Rhetoric, Aristotle (384-322 BC) explained that charis can be defined as helping someone g who is in need, not for any reward, or for the helper's own benefit, but for the person helping others, in this context, the meaning of the word that is emphasized is firstly on the aspect of generosity and generosity of the giver (generosity), and secondly is on the aspect of the giver's feelings, namely how a benefactor feels happy about the gift. Charis, according to Aristotle, is a feeling possessed by the person who possesses it is said to provide a service to him who needs it not in return for something or another may provide some service to him but it is done for the sake of the recipient.

Like other philosophers, Sophocles (496-406 BC), in his work Ajax (522) stated: "Goodness (charis) always gives birth to goodness (charis)", according to Sophocles the core of the charis view is the idea of reciprocity. Sophocles describes the concept of how one person's kindness will give rise to the goodness of others. Sopochles explains that every person who accepts kindness and understands how to show acceptance of that kindness will become a friend who is better than anything else in this world. Since charis is proportional not to what a person deserves but to what he needs, this reciprocity is rooted not in retributive justice but generosity.

In general, Greek philosophers supported an honor system of appreciation and gratitude, while sometimes some of them questioned whether such a system articulated true virtue. Aristotle considers that charis as a pleasure (an act of favor or pleasure) has valuable status as an act worthy of gratitude, but only if the benefactor has the right motive: that is, beyond self-interest. An ethos of reciprocity governs the relationship between the benefactor and his or her beneficiaries. Reciprocity or reciprocation for acts of generosity by benefactors, creates a network of obligations that is a matter of honor for both benefactor and beneficiary. By coining his terminology theology of grace, it appears that Paul deliberately chose to articulate his understanding of charis against the theological and social beliefs of the eastern Mediterranean city-states of benevolence.

3.2.3. The Concept of Charis in the Hebrew (Jewish) Religious Tradition

In the 3rd century BC, the word charis was recorded as starting to be translated into Greek from the Jewish cultural word hen (goodness, grace) which is widely used in the Hebrew Old Testament Bible (Potts, 2009). In the Greek Old Testament which is sometimes called the Septuagint or LXX (seventy) uses cháris to translate the Hebrew word hen which sometimes means grace in the sense of charm, attraction 61 times, but more often shows kindness, good intentions, especially in the phrase masa' hen be`ene, to gain favor in one's eyes, that is, to please one who thereby becomes benevolent. The Hebrew noun hen is connected with the Hebrew verb hanan (loving, kind, loving), used mainly with God as the subject, but according to Torrance (1948), the word hen in Hebrew does not contain the meaning of gratitude (gratitude) as stated in is in the meaning of the word charis.

The concept of charis in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible includes a series of complex nuances described previously. meaning both giving favors or goodness and finding goodness in the eyes of God or superiors. If God responds to a request, then the generous act described as charis refers to God's mercy and compassionate disposition. In the Septuagint or LXX, charis is also sometimes used for other Hebrew words, for example, twice for rahamim (tender mercy, compassion), three times for rason (kind love), and twice for hesed (loyalty, filial love with which relatives or those bound by agreement must help each other, or actions arising from it).  Younger Jewish religious traditions also affirm the idea of reciprocity in the gift-giving process. The word hesed, which is defined as loyal love, is a word used to express love that is built in a covenant (berith). translated as loyalty in the connotation of God being consistent (steadfast) is not just a feeling of warm affection towards others, but it is rooted in a covenant relationship with the expectation of loyalty for all parties involved in the agreement. hesed allows the person who has it to survive to keep the agreement. Hesed also shows the existence of a reciprocal relationship (Panjaitan, 2018).

In several studies, the Jewish concept of charis has differences between the Jewish concept of charis and the Greek concept of charis. This distinction is caused by differences in how words are used in different contexts, as well as differences in viewpoints, culture and traditions between Jews and Greeks. The differences in views of Greek culture and Hebrew culture often give rise to differences in the meaning of the word charis. Willian Barret (1958) explains that there are differences between the patterns and perspectives of the Greeks who were influenced by Hellenism and the patterns and viewpoints of the Jews with Ibrani culture. According to him, the most prominent difference in perspective between Greeks and Hebrews lies in the concepts of doing and knowing. Hebrews are more likely to carry out things through practical and concrete actions in life, while for Greeks, knowledge has a major role. Correct behavior was the primary goal of the Hebrews while correct thinking was the primary goal of the Greeks. The Hebrews elevated moral goodness as the meaning and essence of life while the Greeks placed it in a position below intellectual goodness, the striking difference being between practice and theory, between the moral man and the theoretical or intellectualist man (Barret, 1958; Hindarto, 2016).

3.2.4.  The Concept of Charis in Paul's Notes: The Theological Meaning of the Word Charisma

If we explore the understanding of charisma as a gift in the sense of a particular individual's personal qualities with a strong theological meaning, this concept can be found to originate from Paul's New Testament writings. In his letters, written in Greek in the mid-first century AD (50-62 AD), Paul gives the word charisma a religious meaning. He uses charisma to mean grace given by God. The term is closely related to the older Greek word charis, which occupies an important role in Paul's theology as God's gift that offers salvation. Paul uses the word charisma to signify various gifts including spiritual and supernatural abilities resulting from this divine grace.

According to Paul, the definition of charisma is not just formulated and is influenced by many things. James Harrison (2003) in his work Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context argues that the context of the goodness of the charis concept in Greco-Roman times was the background to Paul's understanding of divine and human grace. Paul wrote the word charis over 100 times in his letters to different individuals and congregations around the Roman Empire. Greek and Roman converts who read or heard this word would have understood it in a very different context than we do in the 21st century, and their understanding of what Paul and others meant by “the grace of God” could have been very different. Understanding this first century context helps explain what being under grace truly meant for a follower of Jesus Christ (Harrison, 2003).

In Paul's message, charis (grace) as a stand-alone word in the Bible can be used as a greeting with high meaning ("Grace and peace be upon you"), as a description of how God conveys powerful favors, as an expression of undeserved divine action obtained. kindness, and others. That may be familiar to us. But to the ears of a Greco-Roman citizen or a Greek-speaking Jew who would hear or read this word in a biblical context, its meaning would describe something we do not usually consider today, namely a strong relationship between the giver of a gift and the recipient of that gift. Paul and other New Testament writers often reflect this meaning when they mention the word charis (grace).

Despite the differences between the Old and New Testaments regarding the bestowal of spiritual gifts, Christian theologians including Paul considered spiritual powers to be the link between the ancient Jews and the contemporary Christian church. The Hebrew people especially the prophets, with their vision of a future outpouring of the spirit in the messianic age, were said to be vindicated in the person of Jesus, and in the spiritually empowered apostles. The only force that connects the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, the apostles and the institutional church is considered the Spirit. This idea was expressed in the earliest Christian literature, becoming a central feature of Christian theology.

3.2.5. Charisma in the Islamic Concept: Barakah and Karamah

The concept of charisma is not well known in Islamic terminology, in the Koran the term charisma does not appear with the word kharisma, although the Greek term charisma (charis/ χάρις) has been adopted in several languages, but in Arabic, this term is not found, in the Aramaic tradition which is the root of the Arabic language, the same term as the Greek charisma is not found. In translation, charisma in Arabic is interpreted as Jadibiah referring to the meaning of personality or attractive attitude, its use is greatly influenced by the context in which the term is used, and several words are used to show different meanings.

The closest analogy to Greek charisma in the Islamic concept is the term barakah, which mean the power that comes from God, which bestows physical abundance and prosperity, as well as psychological happiness. Etymologically, the word barakah comes from the Arabic word barakatun which means blessing, happiness and profit. Other terms for blessing in Arabic are mubarak and tabaruk. The term barakah means God's gift that brings goodness to human life, and if we translate it into English, it is combined with the word grace. In Islam, especially in the mainstream Sunni tradition, both charisma and barakah are concentrated in the Koran and in the person of the Prophet Muhammad. As Lindholm (2013) notes, “a sense of charismatic bond with the Prophet draws Muslims into the community of believers and simultaneously gives them a growing sense of spiritual self.

The meaning of Barakah between happiness and usefulness is of course very different, happiness is closely related to the soul and feelings of an individual, while usefulness is related to the influence of something else in all aspects. This kind of difference in interpretation is the same as the difference in interpretation of the verse on barakah. Within Muslims themselves, the interpretation of the concept of barakah is not single, it can be different and sometimes one interpretation and another are very contradictory. Some Muslims from traditional Sufism and Sunni circles consider blessings and blessings to be important concepts in life, although the main source of blessings is from the Al-Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet but blessings can also be obtained from selected people who have the privilege and advantage of knowledge and morals from the teachings of the saints and ulama.

Another analogy that is also close to the word charisma is the word karamah, this word can be interpreted as special grace, which linguistically means glory or honor. The word karamah comes from the Arabic word karama which means, among other things, honorable, noble, generous and virtuous. In the world of Sufism (Sufi) karamah is understood as a privilege given to selected people who see in them something strange and extraordinary. Karamah can also be understood in a contextual sense as an extraordinary event beyond logic or reasoning and ordinary human abilities, which will only happen to someone who has the position or rank of wali (someone who is loved by Allah). In the Sufism tradition, the concepts of karomah and kewalian are two main things that are very important, at a certain stage someone who is gifted with karamah at a certain level can be considered and get the title of waliyullah (guardian of Allah). The meaning of guardian in Sufism terminology means a guardian is a person whose obedience is continuous without being harmed.

Table 2: The Context of Charisma

Source: Literature data processed

4. Discussion: Returning to the Authenticity of Reciprocal Charisma

In the previous section, it was explained at length how the social context in which the word chariswas used and developed in the Hellenistic period continued until the early centuries AD. During this period, chariswas associated with activities that marked a system of reciprocity, patron-client relationships, friendship, and public benefit (public benefaction). It was also discussed how philosophers explained that charis could mean both benefit and pleasure, with limited understanding in the Jewish religious tradition, while more theological concepts can be traced in Christian teachings, especially in Paul's teachings and the islamic value of barakah and karamah.

The articulation of the meaning of charis in the genealogical discourse of the concept of charisma involves many elements that compete in the process of interpreting "charis." The early Greeks had an integrated understanding of these fragments as part of one experience. The meaning of charisis formed from the events experienced by them, which are then constructed from each other as "charis," a story about moral or aesthetic beauty, a story about disarming weapons; it breaks down barriers of self and demands that beneficiaries reach out to others. This study combines a highly capable discussion of different sides of these important concepts with a grand vision of their integration into a coherent whole: charis serves as the moral glue of their societies, connecting other central moral ideas (Pots, 2009). Thus, charis becomes a kind of central marker (nodal point) connecting the elements of honor, justice, retribution of gifts and hospitality, respect, and admiration. Tracing the long history of the roots of the word and the original culture of charisma has given rise to various interpretations and articulations of the meaning of charisma.

The history of charisma can be read through its various linguistic transformations, providing some indication of the extraordinary journey undertaken by previous people, involving experiences of events that became constitutive factors in the emergence of the meaning of the word or social and political factors that contributed to the timing of its semantic shifts. The meaning of charisma in historical records of this term does not always have the same understanding. Since the root word charisma first appeared, it turns out that charisma has experienced ontological dislocation several times, which in Laclau's theoretical view, charisma has always experienced conflict and struggle for identity. This dislocation allows charisma to experience changes in meaning that are diverse, dynamic and adapt to discourse in each place and time. This shows that even though the battle for the meaning of charisma is won by one particular source and experiences temporary fixation, in the end new markers will emerge that try to provide an articulation of the meaning of charisma.

Charisma is read from a poststructuralist perspective as contingent, not fixed and open to interpretation, charisma as reality and identity as mentioned by Derrida is always delayed and not final. According to Laclau charisma is a field of simple relational identities that never succeed in forming themselves completely, because relations do not form a closed system, on the contrary, on the other hand the inherent antagonism between the presence of whatever is given to a particular identity and the absence that prevents the full constitution of the identity it opposes and with thereby showing its contingency” (Laclau, 1990).

This reading of the structure that mediates the phenomenon of charisma is often overlooked because so far, when people analyze charisma, they focus more on the subject of charisma, and do not see the phenomenon of the operation of charisma as a social reality that is always a reciprocal relationship. Even though there is an explanation that charisma is a relationship between a charismatic subject and his followers, the explanation is less satisfactory, because it does not explain how the social context not only forms individuals/subjects who have charisma, but also prepares the formation of subjects who submit/obey that charisma.

The phenomenon of charisma is always present to us when there is a subject who is charismatic and there are other subjects who are or are not subject to that charisma. This shows that charisma does not only talk about individuals who we say are charismatic subjects, but we can also see the phenomenon of charisma in a reciprocal relationship between a charismatic subject and other subjects who are or are not subject to that charisma. The issue of charisma is understood not merely as an individual quality, but as an individual's quality in a certain specific structure, how this individual is placed in relation to the social context in which he is located, the individual is a social subject, the individual cannot be seen as his own individual, he is always part of larger context, he is always an individual social subject.

However, if we look further, the character of charisma is not always interpreted as an explanation of the concept of a charismatic individual on the one hand and the recognition of other individuals (followers) who believe in it on the other hand. Charisma also has a reciprocal character, namely reciprocity between the individual subject who has charisma and the subject who recognizes that charisma. the reciprocal character of the construction phenomenon becomes the reality of charisma. This reciprocal dimension operates before the phenomenon of charisma appears. For example, charisma is interpreted as something good, beautiful, etc. This is good and beautiful for the subject who receives it, not just because of the charisma of the subject.

Charisma only works within the same symbolic structure, it only works on people who have the same reference to charisma. Or even though it is in the same symbolic structure but the fantasy that supports it is different, this shows the operation of certain constructs that shape the quality of a person's charisma in a certain context. What is considered normal by one structure does not mean normal by another structure, in other words the meaning of charisma in one structure will be determined by a different logic. In essence, the discussion emphasizes the intricate interplay between historical, linguistic, and socio-political factors in shaping the concept of charisma, highlighting its dynamic and multifaceted nature within society.

5. Conclusion

This article has historically and empirically demonstrated the perspective that charisma is not solely interpreted as an inherent property of individuals (individual proverty), as theorized by Weber. Instead, it can also be viewed as a reciprocal relationship, generated situationally through the process of social interaction. Charisma is constructed within the dynamics of social relations, where exchanges occur due to mutual complementarity. Approaching this from a poststructuralist discourse theory perspective allows for a different, more nuanced explanation of the charisma concept and seeks alternatives to the hegemony of Weberian charisma.

The exploration of the reciprocal element in the operation of charisma aims to unveil other possibilities within Weber's concept of charisma, particularly in terms of its social construction. This includes understanding the logical aspects underlying how charisma functions in power relations between leaders and followers. Consequently, this research hopes to contribute to the further development and study of charisma, not only within the realms of leadership and management but also as a valuable addition to the exploration of power relations. Specifically, it aims to enrich the fields of political sociology and political psychology in the future.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to this research.

Funding: Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent Statement/Ethics Approval: Not applicable.

Acknowledgments: This study was supported in fully by a grant from Indonesia Endowment Funds for Education (LPDP) and Center for Higher Education Funding (BPPT). The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of funding agencies.