The Frightening Power of Charisma
You don’t have to try very hard in order to see the power in being known: prestige, influence, and authority among other vaguely threatening adjectives. But underneath the surface level acknowledgement of this, what is truly going on? Why do people have influence? How do they acquire it? Why and how do we, as a population, enable famous people to interject themselves and their ideas into our lives on a daily basis. Whether it be Barack Obama, Ariana Grande, or Snoop Dogg, we feel a common tie between the foundations of every celebrity, but what is it?
Charisma. Not just the friendly, witty, personable traits that make someone charismatic, but the deep-rooted social and cultural systems that bind together fame and power. Max Weber introduced the theory of charisma as a form of domination in a series of sociological papers throughout the 1920s and 1930s. He recognized charisma as a tremendous force, with a sense of power so strong it deserved its own study of social science. This not only helped popularize charisma as a colloquial expression but also introduced one of the earliest analyses of charismatic power.
Power is divided into three categories: patriarchal, bureaucratic, and charismatic. Patriarchal power represents tradition, conservatism, and succession through bloodline. Bureaucratic power embodies a more progressive, rational, systemic counterpart with succession based on merit. While these two forms of power are inherently oppositional, they are both very ordinary. They represent the norm, and the systems already in place. Charismatic power on the other hand demonstrates something vastly more important: a disruption of either of these forms of power. Think Madonna, Steve Jobs, Princess Diana, all of whom acknowledged either the patriarchal or bureaucratic systems and chose to radically cast them aside in favor of something separate. Essentially every single powerful person on this planet can be placed into one of these categories. Society isn’t as complex as we like to think: it's merely a textbook reimagined in three dimensions.
Charisma translates from Greek as “divine power,” so it would logically follow that it is an inherent characteristic of a person to be charismatic. Something innate, something you truly are. In reality, the opposite is true. Charisma is a sociological construction that relies on reception. It is society that deems you charismatic, not some individualistic divinative gift. If you have all the money in the world, but nobody takes your currency, you are, in fact, broke. So what determines what we latch onto? What sticks and why?
You will find that charisma arises when patriarchal or bureaucratic systems begin to fail or become monotonous, allowing a charismatic leader to sweep in and offer a solution. The 2008 financial crisis provided Obama the opportunity to step into office. The Great Depression aided Rosevelt’s Green New Deal. Weary people, tired from the tension of COVID, latched onto Charli XCX’s messy and carefree album, Brat, which dominated the charts and culture for over a year. Chappell Roan’s massive rise to fame perfectly synchronized with Donald Trump’s reelection in 2024. Now this is not to say that Chappell Roan or any other is not extremely talented or does not deserve her fame, but rather that her talents, and politically relevant persona were eagerly accepted by audiences around the world.
However, nothing exceptional lasts, and Chappell Roan can only break the norm for so long, before she either fades into obscurity or is deemed normal by the public. Charisma, while extremely powerful and captivating, is very unstable and unsustainable. Charisma resists longevity, while true fame outlives a person’s life. Success is succession. Thus how can they allow their fame to last after they are gone? To combat this, celebrities must undergo a process called routinization, in which they transform the power they’ve garnered into a more stable form of power, either patriarchal or bureaucratic. This conversion of power can be seen across all forms of media, from pop culture to politics.
Pop stars create brands to imprint themselves onto a platform more stable than relevance and popularity. For example, Selena Gomez founded Rare Beauty, Jay-Z started his record label Roc Nation, Kim Kardashian created Skims, and Gwyneth Paltrow created Goop to name a fraction of the brands out there. Taylor Swift appeared to be taking Olivia Rodrigo under her wing to carry out her legacy into the next generation, until Rodrigo distanced herself from Swift in order to harness her own name. Politically, it was clear Donald Trump was attempting to groom his children for succession (unsuccessfully), and George H. W. Bush raised George W. Bush to continue his fame. When Fidel Castro died, his charismatic impact did not die with him, instead it became the Cuban Communist Party, proving that when successful, routinization can allow a name to transcend all ties to the physical body and the confines of time, and become an eternal representation of a person’s impact.
History proves that society exists in an endless cycle of this phenomenon: ordinary → crisis → charisma → routinization. Because while bureaucratic and patriarchal power are stable, they do not create change. Charisma is the heartbeat of humanity, the driver of creation and destruction, both generating empires and beating them down, raising cities and leveling them. Without charisma, all progress would stall and society would be reduced to a limp, frail shell of its former glory, so while we may endure an eternity of growing pains and wreckage, charisma will always sneak its way back into civilization, bringing with it transformation and evolution.
