Charisma is perceived by many to simply be the ability to positively influence others by connecting with them physically, emotionally, and intellectually. It is what real leaders have that can inspire you and draw you to them that can cause you to perform beyond expectations to accomplish their goals. In my answer I will be examining the different dimensions to the arguments that intend to investigate the real meaning of charisma, its relevance today and in light of history and different traditions of philosophical thought, what exactly my understanding of the term implies. Though, the understanding of the term charisma can only really be established after placing it within a theoretical and contextual framework. To me this means that inherently charisma is not a concept based solely on the individual characteristics of a person but a phenomenon involving the relationship between a charismatic leader and his or her followers. Probably the most famous and widely used definition of charisma was written by Weber, meaning, 'a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.' Thus, according to Weber, charismatic leadership is a form of legitimate domination basically centred on the belief of the exceptional sanctity of one person, not accessible to the ordinary person, and their ability to partake in heroic, extraordinary acts. However, he also felt that charismatic authorities can be precarious simply because if their charisma is not proven they may be doubted. 'Before receiving his calling, the leader must have some germ of charisma latent in him (Weber 1968a, 400), but later he maintains power solely by proving his strength in life; to be a prophet, he must perform miracles' (Weber, 1946, cited in Oakes 1997). With no specific qualifications or elections the charismatic system of domination is inherently unstable and short lived, but potentially revolutionary. Weber referred to the process of maintaining the charismatic relationship as the routinisation of charisma, that is, what happens when a leader's charisma is thinly dispersed throughout the followers who act in the leader's name, typically after he has died. It may survive many generations and underlie a stable social order, but it is conservative and is not a force for social change (Miyahara 1983, cited in Oakes, 1997). A famous example is that of Christianity where a small band of people with one charismatic leader led to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the European Christian tradition, leading in turn to bureaucracy and routinised events and celebrations. Weber wondered whether charisma might arise from some mental illness, but he rejected the notion. 'Instead, he spoke of an "emotional seizure" that originates in the unconscious of the leader and results in three "extraordinary" emotions: ecstasy, euphoria, and political passions' (Oaks, 1997). However, Weber's research into charisma and charismatic authorities has been interpreted in various ways and when expanding the argument as to whether charisma is based on characteristics and behaviour of the individual or is to be understood as a relational concept one would most obviously link it to the arguments between the psychological and sociological schools of thought. The question asked then is if charisma is a personality attribute or the social recognition of a claim, that is, if charisma is a psychological personality type or indeed simply a social phenomenon. Weber can be said to come close to Freud's theory of society in which repression is seen as necessary for civilized life. Freud suggested that charisma involves a transference of the feelings of love and dependency associated with the father to the leader thus by submitting to and gaining the acceptance of the leader/father, the follower obtains forgiveness for his guilt over his Oedipal desires and so the rage and anger associated with the father are also brought to light in this process. Lindholm, another prominent psychoanalyst, argues that charisma is a response to identity dislocation; when people's identities become insecure or unsatisfying, they long for the kind of security and bliss that can be achieved through romantic love or through charisma. Deep problems of self-identity tend to be latent within the leader who gains an identity by the merger with his or her followers. Therefore charisma is most likely to arise in circumstances where identities are fragmented and insecure such as societies in crisis or transition, people in poorly-defined stages of life (college freshmen, adolescents or people in mid-life crises,) and people in highly individualistic societies. Both arguments from Lindholm and Freud can be said to understand the term from the point of view that circumstances affecting the individual have led to certain characteristics and behavioural patterns making the person charismatic. Oakes, a psychologist critically analysing Weber's work, also makes an interesting point as a critique to Lindholm's writing, that Weber did not celebrate charisma as a solution to the emotional emptiness of conformity but saw its value as a tool for social progress Closely linked to psychoanalysis is the psychological school of thought exhibited well through Kohut's study of a difficult class of disturbed patients with narcissistic disorders, noticing similarities between them and charismatic leaders. While initially noticing extravagant self-confidence and an extraordinary lack of self-doubt they were often clear-headed and perceptive and could also be very persuasive or even accusative. In time, though, their confidence began to give way to vain boasting and a naive sense of invincibility, unable to admit to a gap in their knowledge or ask for advice and help. They were also revealed to have little or no conscience or sense of guilt. 'Their relations with others were characterized by a sense that others were merely extensions of their own egos.' Their extreme self-containment and self-absorption, along with their confident social manner, made them very appealing to others, who seemed to warm to some part of themselves that they recognized in these figures. It was this "mirroring" process in which a strong figure sees others as parts of his self, while the others see themselves in him, that alerted Kohut to a narcissistic explanation of charisma. This psychological interpretation attempts to pin-point specific qualities in individuals that makes them charismatic and thus understanding the term would also involve relying on the notion that it is only personal characteristics and behaviour that make an individual charismatic. However, the 'failure to distinguish the sociological concept from personal attributes is at the core of a number of corrupt or dilute applications of the term' (Wilson, 1975) charisma. Weber's concept denotes a quality not of the individual, but of a relationship between believers and the person they believe. If one adheres to Weber's definition of charisma one could also argue that while some individuals who enjoy some measure of marginal prestige in the eyes of their fellows have a 'reputation for reliability and competence as "charismatic"' build good social relationships through these personal qualities, no element of the supernatural is involved. In Wilson's opinion, though, Weber gave relatively little attention to primitive cultures, as the former held the notion that the belief that a charismatic leader would arise may be a tradition, and may indeed have had its origins, among such people. Examining Wilson's text gives one insight not only from the historical perspective of charisma, but also, interesting criticism of what its meaning is widely believed to be today. 'The utility of the concept implies the reality of the phenomenon - not the phenomenon of divinely inspired men, but of the historical reality of widespread belief in such men and in the transcendent nature of their endowment with power. That belief is an important social fact and a force in social development' (Wilson, 1975). Wilson's observations can be extended to form a basic criticism against the argument of charisma as a natural characteristic inherent in some individuals. The fact that few of us today believe that individuals ever receive divine power, or that there are fundamental, mystically determined unequal distributions of ability among men and women 'reveals an irony' as many in the past have believed in what he calls a 'superhuman nobility'. While it may always have been an illusion, individuals needed to believe and so they did. One could argue that in the future we will be better able to identify the charismatic demand before the time of a charismatic leader. Weber saw charisma as providing a break in existing social relationships. While natural catastrophes, famine, plague, or drought may have provided occasions, the most frequently observed circumstances of charismatic phenomena appear to be the conditions promoted by wars or 'the clash of cultures.' One could thus argue that while charisma is undoubtedly a cause of social change it also strongly appears to be a response to it. Many researchers have pointed out that at the time Hitler came to power Germany's economy was extremely weak and in need of a turn-around. Another example is of the charismatic leader Malcolm X. While many believe his oratory power was the main feature of his charisma, it has to be acknowledged that just before the Black Muslim movement, the economic position of many African Americans in America was appalling with many of their rights being trampled on and thus perhaps Malcolm X's charismatic power came more from the fact that he was simply at the right place and at the right time. Linked closely to Weber's concept of charisma are the ideas of the other founding fathers of sociology: Marx and Durkheim. By combining Durkheimian notions of the sacred and of 'collective effervescence' with the Marxist view of Napoleon's coup in France [where it could be argued that Bonaparte represented the interests of the poorest] we are able to see an alternative view of charisma, not as that of a leader but as a quality projected on to a leader by virtue of situation, opportunity, and events. For example, Bill Clinton was seen as a great leader who possessed charisma while he was initially in power; however, while charismatic power was projected upon him, it was later retracted proving that many great leaders are created only by their followers. While most examples of charismatic leaders may be taken from various spheres of society, charisma, by Weber was used fundamentally as a religious concept; although in his usage it need not involve a notion of the divine, nevertheless it remains a form of spiritual energy oriented to otherworldly ideals. Today, however, the concept of charisma is applied more widely in the political, legal and cultural institutions of our society. The problem of modern charisma, argued by Bensman and Givant [1975], is that charisma is nowadays manufactured by mass communications which rationally create an image of the leader as a charismatic figure. They feel that to a certain extent, this 'tendency is inevitable because of the nature of modern bureaucratic societies which would not allow the kind of personal relationship between leaders and followers about which Weber wrote'. It can be argued that today, charismatic leaders are the products of media experts who constantly train them in the art of oratory and to 'create an aura of an extraordinary person in order to enhance the likelihood of the imputation of charisma occurring... The modern charismatic leader simply has a far wider range of tools with which to project an image' (Bryman, 1992). Most recently, 'One World Week', an event organised by University of  students hosted a talk by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, believed to be one of the most recent charismatic leaders today. Methods ranging from a large international following created largely through modern mass communication to something as basic as a large, reclining chair on stage, giving the appearance of authority, have been used to promote the feeling of power extended through charisma. While it is very feasible that charisma will continue to exist in our society, one where 'the element of personal trust that has, in so many respects become either redundant or increasingly difficult in the modern world' (Wilson, 1975), the understanding of the term is somewhat less easy to locate. A modern understanding of the term has been examined in depth by House (1977) who sees it as an 'explicit combination of personal traits, leader behaviour and situational factors' (Bryman, 1992). After viewing the arguments between prominent psychologists and psychoanalysts versus sociologists, the different institutions of our society that charismatic authorities can be found to exist in and with the perspective of time my understanding of charisma can perhaps be found inside both Weber and House's definition. While I believe that certain skills of persuasion and empathy cannot be learnt by just anyone, the emergence of a charismatic leader depends largely on the situation and the belief of his of her followers. Not to be located simply with a religious connotation the term charisma can also perhaps be applied to leaders in other, but especially the political context, most often to refer to those who have helped bring about some of the greatest risings and revolutions our world has seen. 