A Dominação Carismática em Regimes Democráticos

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Society Pub Date : 2020-11-19 DOI:10.5007/175-7984.2020v19n45p178

Roger Laureano

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article seeks to analyze the possibility of reconciling the Weberian concept of charismaticauthority with contemporary democracies and with leaders who do not break with institutionalnorms. From Weber’s exegetical analysis, we arrive at a definition of charismatic authoritythat is based primarily on the affective relationship of the followers with the leader becauseof his extraordinary character. Contesting other interpretations, we argue that this definition iscompatible with democratic leaders without losing the efficiency of its application to subversivecases. Finally, in addition to Weber, we present some possible applications of the concept basedon three ideal-typical elements: intensity, diffusion and direction of the charism. This model caninclude authoritarian and anti-authoritarian charisms and explain the behavior of followers inmeasures that involve their leaders.

查看原文本刊更多论文

民主政权中的魅力统治

这篇文章试图分析将韦伯的慈善权威概念与当代民主国家以及不打破制度形式的领导人相调和的可能性。从韦伯的训诫分析中，我们得出了魅力权威的定义，这主要是基于追随者因其非凡的性格而与领导者的情感关系。与其他解释不同，我们认为这一定义与民主领导人兼容，同时又不失其在颠覆案例中的应用效率。最后，除了韦伯之外，我们还基于慈善主义的强度、扩散和方向这三个理想的典型元素，提出了这一概念的一些可能应用。这个模型包含了独裁和反独裁的仁慈，并解释了追随者在涉及其领导人的措施中的行为。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.