Blog #2- Charismatic or Rational-Legal Authority or both? M.Weber

In this day and age, in my opinion, our media savvy society can be seen as having two types of authorities. A rational-legal authority is what one would generally think America is run by. This is because in a rational-legal authority, according to Weber, the leaders are elected by the public–electing anchors legitimacy.  So the reason why we agree to certain tasks our President completes is because we trusted and voted for him in the first place. Also, his work is backed up by the law.

But if you look at our President, he can also be seen as a charismatic leader. He is a rational-legal leader because American citizens voted for him on Election day but a charismatic leader because we are loyal and obedient to him. (Not all of America but the democrats who voted for him.) Charismatic leaders, according to Weber, can have good or bad charisma. A few examples of charismatic leaders are: Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and Hitler. Although these three charismatic authorities may not have had the exact same views,  they did have particular beliefs and ideas that people worshipped and praised.

Back to Obama, we can tell that when he first ran for President, he probably figured that he needed to have a good charisma for people to accept him as a rational-legal authority. His infamous “change” and “hope” speeches caught all of Americas attention, especially while being caught up in a recession and a war that was going on for 10+ years. If it wasn’t for his charismatic approach, maybe he would not have won.



3 responses to “Blog #2- Charismatic or Rational-Legal Authority or both? M.Weber

  1. I agree with your point of view, which nowadays people’s vote for President, major, congressman that have good charisma (at least in his believer’s eyes) and good reputation. After the person is elected he or she will become rational-legal because this person is now in the position. All the politician that give out promises before they are elected is a strategy to make people think he is a charismatic leader.

  2. Weber would approach the case of President (and Candidate) Obama in historical terms, looking at changes over time in the nature of his authority (whether it’s based on tradition, rationality/legality, or charisma). He’d probably point to charisma to explain his rise to the presidency and he’d note the shift from charismatic to rational-legal authority, which is typical — charismatic authority is notoriously hard to maintain over long periods of time and when your organization gets more *bureaucratized* (which inevitably happens when a movement or campaign assumes the reigns of power).

  3. I completely agree with your viewpoints about Webers types of authorities and how they correlate to our modern day president. Many of us were convinced to vote for him due to this charisma he had, being that he himself had to endure many of the difficulties we are currently dealing with whether it’s financial or racial issues. The fact that he overcame that and ran for president, gave us more hope and someone who would be able to offer us whats best since he has personally been in our own shoes, unlike the other running candidate Mitt Romney.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s