Key Arguments

• Weber asserts that 'Pure charisma is specifically disconnected from the economy (wirtschaftsfremd)', defining it as a 'calling', 'vocation', 'mission', or personal 'task' rather than an occupation seeking income.
• In the pure type, charisma 'disdains and rejects the economic exploitation of the gift of grace as a source of income', even though in practice this is often only an ideal.
• He distinguishes prophets (and their disciples) as more typically indifferent to property and gain, whereas military heroes and their retinues seek booty, and plebiscitarian rulers or charismatic party leaders require material resources and the 'material lustre of rule' to reinforce prestige.
• So long as the genuinely charismatic type dominates, there is 'only scorn' for traditional or rational everyday economic activity and for securing a regular income through ongoing economic work.
• Charismatic rule is 'typically provisioned' by various forms of patronage (gifts, foundations, bribery, honoraria), begging, looting, and extortion—practices that are irregular and episodic rather than the basis of a rational income stream.
• From the standpoint of rational economic organisation, charismatic rule is 'typically “uneconomic,” repudiating any kind of involvement in everyday life'; at most, it can register 'irregular, casual employment'.
• Weber notes that waiving economic concerns can permit some charismatic lives to rest on rentier existence, which in the case of artistic charismatic disciples (e.g., the Stefan George circle) tends to confine membership to the economically independent.
• He cites religious examples: the Jesuit refusal of church office as a rationalised expression of the discipleship principle; heroes of asceticism, mendicant orders, and fighters for faith as paradigmatic charismatic types; and the fact that almost all prophets have relied on patronage.
• Weber also reinterprets St Paul’s dictum 'If any who did not work, neither should he eat' as directed against parasitic missionaries rather than as an endorsement of 'the economy', and stresses that the 'lilies of the field' comparison concerns the extent of possible disregard for future economic care, not economic rationality.

Source Quotes

This is as true of the purely “plebiscitarian” charismatic ruler (Napoleon’s “rule of genius” in which plebeians became kings and generals) as it is of prophets or great warriors. 4. Pure charisma is specifically disconnected from the economy (wirtschaftsfremd). It represents, wherever it occurs, a “calling,” a “vocation” in the emphatic sense: as a “mission” or a personal “task.”

Pure charisma is specifically disconnected from the economy (wirtschaftsfremd). It represents, wherever it occurs, a “calling,” a “vocation” in the emphatic sense: as a “mission” or a personal “task.” As a pure type, it disdains and rejects the economic exploitation of the gift of grace as a source of income—although this is often more an ideal than a fact.

It represents, wherever it occurs, a “calling,” a “vocation” in the emphatic sense: as a “mission” or a personal “task.” As a pure type, it disdains and rejects the economic exploitation of the gift of grace as a source of income—although this is often more an ideal than a fact. It is not that charisma is always indifferent to property and gain, something that is more typical of prophets and their disciples (see below).

The military hero and his retinue seek out booty, the plebiscitarian ruler or charismatic party leader needs the material resources for power, while the first seeks in addition the material lustre of rule as a means of reinforcing his prestige. So long as the genuinely charismatic type prevails, there is only scorn for traditional or rational everyday economic activity and the realisation of a regular “income” through continuing economic activity directed to that end. Instead, charismatic rule is typically provisioned by various forms of patronage—on a grand scale with gifts, foundations, bribery, and honoraria; or on the one hand by begging, on the other, by looting or violent or (formally peaceful) extortion.

So long as the genuinely charismatic type prevails, there is only scorn for traditional or rational everyday economic activity and the realisation of a regular “income” through continuing economic activity directed to that end. Instead, charismatic rule is typically provisioned by various forms of patronage—on a grand scale with gifts, foundations, bribery, and honoraria; or on the one hand by begging, on the other, by looting or violent or (formally peaceful) extortion. From the perspective of rational economic organisation, charismatic rule is typically “uneconomic,” repudiating any kind of involvement in everyday life.

Instead, charismatic rule is typically provisioned by various forms of patronage—on a grand scale with gifts, foundations, bribery, and honoraria; or on the one hand by begging, on the other, by looting or violent or (formally peaceful) extortion. From the perspective of rational economic organisation, charismatic rule is typically “uneconomic,” repudiating any kind of involvement in everyday life. Given its complete inner indifference to this, it can merely “register” irregular, casual employment.

Given its complete inner indifference to this, it can merely “register” irregular, casual employment. By waiving all economic concerns, a rentier existence can form the basis for some kinds of charismatic life. But this tends not to apply to the normal charismatic “revolutionary.”

But this tends not to apply to the normal charismatic “revolutionary.” The refusal of church office by Jesuits is a rationalised application of the principle of being “disciples.” It is plain that to this belong all heroes of asceticism, mendicant orders, and fighters for faith.

It is plain that to this belong all heroes of asceticism, mendicant orders, and fighters for faith. Almost all prophets have been supported by patronage. The well-known saying of St. Paul, “If any who did not work, neither should he eat,”25 was directed against parasitic missionaries, and in no respect endorses “the economy,” but only suggests that each individual has a duty to provide for his or her own support on an occasional basis.

Almost all prophets have been supported by patronage. The well-known saying of St. Paul, “If any who did not work, neither should he eat,”25 was directed against parasitic missionaries, and in no respect endorses “the economy,” but only suggests that each individual has a duty to provide for his or her own support on an occasional basis. The real charismatic comparison involving “the lilies of the field” was not literal but concerned only the degree to which taking no care for the morrow was a possibility.

The real charismatic comparison involving “the lilies of the field” was not literal but concerned only the degree to which taking no care for the morrow was a possibility. On the other hand, it is conceivable that, with mainly artistic charismatic disciples, their detachment from daily economic struggle would normally restrict membership to those who were “economically independent”—hence, rentiers (which is true for the Stefan George Kreis,26 at least in its initial intention). 5.

Key Concepts

• 4. Pure charisma is specifically disconnected from the economy (wirtschaftsfremd).
• It represents, wherever it occurs, a “calling,” a “vocation” in the emphatic sense: as a “mission” or a personal “task.”
• As a pure type, it disdains and rejects the economic exploitation of the gift of grace as a source of income—although this is often more an ideal than a fact.
• So long as the genuinely charismatic type prevails, there is only scorn for traditional or rational everyday economic activity and the realisation of a regular “income” through continuing economic activity directed to that end.
• Instead, charismatic rule is typically provisioned by various forms of patronage—on a grand scale with gifts, foundations, bribery, and honoraria; or on the one hand by begging, on the other, by looting or violent or (formally peaceful) extortion.
• From the perspective of rational economic organisation, charismatic rule is typically “uneconomic,” repudiating any kind of involvement in everyday life.
• By waiving all economic concerns, a rentier existence can form the basis for some kinds of charismatic life.
• The refusal of church office by Jesuits is a rationalised application of the principle of being “disciples.”
• Almost all prophets have been supported by patronage.
• The well-known saying of St. Paul, “If any who did not work, neither should he eat,”25 was directed against parasitic missionaries, and in no respect endorses “the economy,” but only suggests that each individual has a duty to provide for his or her own support on an occasional basis.
• On the other hand, it is conceivable that, with mainly artistic charismatic disciples, their detachment from daily economic struggle would normally restrict membership to those who were “economically independent”—hence, rentiers (which is true for the Stefan George Kreis,26 at least in its initial intention).

Context

Point 4 of §10, where Weber examines the relationship between charismatic rule and economic life, including religious and artistic examples, and interprets Christian scriptural sayings sociologically.