Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

type of authority (particularly when it is practiced as an authority); the concept of
leadership has been challenging for contemporary North American anarchists, many of
whom assert “we have no leaders”; others, like Jo Freeman 14 , who say this is little but a
way to avoid accountability, and in the chaos allow an informal hierarchy to form. Thus,
some anarchists say that leaders themselves are not the problem, but the centralized of
leadership is. Therefore group-centered leadership is more desirable. 15 Weber notes, and
anarchists would probably agree, that charisma can be revolutionary, but leaders are
mortal. The untimely deaths of Ghandi and King led to a leadership vacuum in the Indian
and Afro-American liberation movements, vacuums that anarchists might ascribe to
individual-centered leadership and not group-centered leadership.
Ironically, in a review of Weber's theory of authority, Blau (1963) states:
There is also an anarchistic streak in charismatic
movements, a disdain for routine tasks and problems of
organization or administration, since the leader's inspiration
and the sacred mission must not be profaned by mundane
considerations. (Blau 1963, p. 308)
Although Blau may be incidentally correct that there is a “disdain for routine tasks” in
some interpretations of anarchism, the whole premise is faulty. Using anarchism (which
he does not do, explicitly) to describe charismatic authority (or even vice-versa) is rather
contradictory, since anarchism refutes the charisma of individual leaders and does not,
per se, reject organization. Indeed, two of the most well-known North American anarchist
theorists, Noam Chomsky and John Zerzan, wholly reject the suggestion that they are
charismatic leaders or idols of the anarchist movement. 16
Finally, legal-rational authority is the embodiment of authority in predictable standards.
Authority derives from the position of the individual, not the individual itself
—“President” Bush is not powerful because he is George Bush, but because he is
[conventionally, at least, not by merit of actually winning the 2000 election] President of
the United States. Thus, in theory, those in power are under the auspice of laws and rules,
unlike charismatic or traditional authority where leaders are not beholden to anything
except themselves or traditional institutions (which they can interpret). Charismatic
authority can become institutionalized (especially after the passing of a leader—such as
Jesus Christ) into a legal-rational form. Anarchists are also at odds with this brand of
authority, since it lends itself to slow change, monolithic behavior, a lack of local
autonomy, and a strong tendency towards bureaucratization (which anarchists view as a
main, anti-social component in present-day capitalist states). As Blau (1963) notes:
Democracy is subsumed under the legal order, although
Weber makes it clear that a legal order is not necessarily
democratic. On the contrary, the prototype of the legal order
is autocratic bureaucracy. (Blau 1963, p. 314)
14 Freeman c.1970.
15 Crass (2001) writes favorably of SNCC's Ella Baker in this regard.
16 Yet, as with charismatic leaders, Chomsky and Zerzan still do get devoted followers.
[ Williams 17 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]