Search results

More than a century after Max Weber's Vocation Lectures, the idea of charisma is still commonly associated with a leader's personal qualities. This personalistic and—as I argue—simplistic understanding of the Weberian theory of charisma was perpetuated, especially in leadership studies, during the twentieth century by political scientists, social psychologists, and sociologists. Generally overlooked is the fact that the Weberian notion of charisma comprises diverse and fundamental metapersonal meanings that transcend individual qualities and revolve, among other things, around a specific combination of public positions, temporal contexts, and collective expectations. After framing the ambivalence of the concept of charisma within more fundamental and fertile ambivalences of Max Weber's epistemological approach, this article demonstrates that metapersonal understandings of charisma actually prevailed in Weber's writings prior to his late—and pedagogical— Vocation Lectures and series of newspaper articles. In the final part, I deduce from Weber's writings a repertoire of metapersonal forms of charisma in politics, and I conclude that, when contemporary political leaders seek to activate such charismatic processes in order to pursue essentially charismatic forms of legitimation, important implications can arise regarding the unstable balance among liberal democracies, populisms, and authoritarianisms.

Among both scholars and practioners, the critical importance of framing processes in the realm of deliberative democracy has been neither formally acknowledged nor adequately studied so far. The purpose of this theoretical article is to craft and define the analytical concepts and methodological tools necessary to shed light on this complex relationship. After introducing the notion of 'deliberative frame', which is examined across two distinct framing processes – 'primary' and 'derivative' (or secondary) – this article presents 'deliberative frame analysis' (DFA) as a qualitative method which can uncover the 'meta-frame' and the specific issue framings (or the deliberative 'frames') within a deliberation. This is achieved by examining selected elements both of the organizational context and information materials, and will be illustrated by the example of a famous deliberative poll carried out at European level. Finally, the introduction of authentically competing frames (i.e. 'counterframes' and not merely counterarguments) into the deliberative setting, along with the structural possibility for 'reframing' in the course of the deliberation, is indicated as a substantive precondition for neutralizing the overall framing effects and thus avoiding a heavily biased deliberation outcome. The article therefore offers a more comprehensive understanding of framing processes as a key challenge for deliberative politics, particularly as regards the legitimacy claims of its various experiments and practices, which are increasingly common in most established democracies.

AbstractWhen the immigration issue has been strongly politicized, prejudice toward minority out-groups can be profoundly imbued with politics, to the point that citizen responses to partisan cues about immigrants tend to operate on the basis of a 'political sympathy/antipathy bias'. This article demonstrates that there is a direct causal relation between the nature (i.e. contents and sources) of political communication over immigrants and voters' responses. Drawing on an experimental design based on ITANES (Italian National Election Studies) 2018 election survey data, it isolates the effect that the voters' ideology and party alignments, as well as the partisan source of a message, exert on manifestations of ethnic prejudice, operationalized as the refusal to accept a plausibile and counter-stereotypical statement about immigrants. It concludes that even a mere symbolic change in communication by those party actors (i.e. the League) which 'own' the issue would suffice to attenuate hostility toward out-groups, to the extent that it results from sustained partisan rhetoric and mobilization.

Despite increasing gender realignment in voting behavior of most Western democracies, women are usually believed to have disproportionally supported Silvio Berlusconi's right-wing party in Italy. Using a pooled dataset based on six post-election surveys (one for each general election between 1994 and 2013), we find only spurious evidence for such a traditional gender gap in voting. Going beyond a mere 'gender gap' approach, we then look for possible intra-gender differentiation. We find that housewives tend to present those attitudes - voting for the center-right, more leader-oriented -, which were traditionally imputed to 'women'. Showing the importance of this 'intra-gender occupational gap', we conclude that heterogeneity among women should be taken more seriously by research that combines gender and electoral studies. [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]

Among both scholars and practioners, the critical importance of framing processes in the realm of deliberative democracy has been neither formally acknowledged nor adequately studied so far. The purpose of this theoretical article is to craft and define the analytical concepts and methodological tools necessary to shed light on this complex relationship. After introducing the notion of 'deliberative frame', which is examined across two distinct framing processes – 'primary' and 'derivative' (or secondary) – this article presents 'deliberative frame analysis' (DFA) as a qualitative method which can uncover the 'meta-frame' and the specific issue framings (or the deliberative 'frames') within a deliberation. This is achieved by examining selected elements both of the organizational context and information materials, and will be illustrated by the example of a famous deliberative poll carried out at European level. Finally, the introduction of authentically competing frames (i.e. 'counterframes' and not merely counterarguments) into the deliberative setting, along with the structural possibility for 'reframing' in the course of the deliberation, is indicated as a substantive precondition for neutralizing the overall framing effects and thus avoiding a heavily biased deliberation outcome. The article therefore offers a more comprehensive understanding of framing processes as a key challenge for deliberative politics, particularly as regards the legitimacy claims of its various experiments and practices, which are increasingly common in most established democracies.