There has been some talk about the "messianic" nature of the Obama campaign. My often dialogue partner markcronan has done a post on precisely this topic. However, what I think sociologists like myself can contribute to this discussion is a clear theoretical understanding of what is really going on and I'd like to that now.

I turn to the work of Max Weber, one of the fathers of modern sociology. Weber argues there are three types of change. Traditional change which operates within the current status quo, beaurucratic change which functions on effective power distribution through compartmentalization and charismatic change which offers radical change. It is charismatic change which is the area I want to focus on for these comments. Here I reference the work of the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu implicitly. The thing about charisma is that it is focused on the prophet. But the prophet is not the end of the story. Chrisma is actually dependent on three important parts: The prophet, the message and the audience. All three of these things are important, but at some level the least important of these is the prophet. The prophet is the instantiation of the message, its primary carrier, and the bearer of the message. They may have personal appeal and be great speakers, but certainly they do not have to be and history shows us both kinds of people. Such personal appeal is neither necessary nor sufficient for charisma, but is often the case certainly. What's key however is the message and the audience. The message must have an audience and the audience must be receptive to the message. Social theorist Louis Althusser calls this process "appellation": The message calls to the individual and the individual recognizes themselves in the call of the message. Althusser argues this is the way all ideologies work. But it helps us recognize the mechanism by which the message calls to the audience. If a large enough audience recognizes themselves as called by the message, as named by message, hears a message that addresses and speaks to them then their act of recognition imbues the prophet with Charisma. It is that correllation of messenger with message which strikes and audience as their own that makes the charismatic prophet.

This is the sociological mechanism by which the charismatic prophet is formed. To make the point from the other side, look at Alan Keyes. Certainly Keyes is a firey speaker and perhaps the most able republican debator. As Tucker Carlson said in the 2000 republican primary season, when Keyes debates he always wins, even if no one (meaning the audience) agrees with him. And therein the point is made. Despite Keyes obvious personal magnetism and speaking prowess his message had no audience so he could not become a charismatic prophet (at least not yet).

This sociological analysis then instructs us on how a charismatic prophet is made. And this is the mechanism of every agent of charismatic change be it Ghandi, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr. and yes even Hitler. Regardless of which example you choose the sociological mechanism is the same, a correspondence of message and audience incarnated in a messenger brings about charismatic change, radical change.

Now, if the mechanism is the same what distinguishes a Ghandi from a Hitler? What differentiates a good prophet from a bad prophet? And here the only way to make those distinctions is based on message. Hitler had a message of nationalist anger and scapegoating which blamed the plight of the German people on Gays, Communists, Gypsys and most especially Jews. Hitler's message was of purity and the elimination of the "mongrel" races. Contrast that with the message of Martin Luther King Jr., his was a vision of freedom for everyone, a dream of world when people would "be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin." Both were charismatic prophets, both had a message that called and audience to whom an audience responded. Both were herald in their time. But the reason MLK is a hero in history and given his own national holiday and Hitler is reviled in history as a monster is not because one was a charismatic prophet and the other was not sociologically speaking. It was the difference in message. One was a message of Hope the other a message of Hate. One was a message of division the other a message of coming together.

With this background then let us turn to Barack Obama. Is Barack Obama a charismatic prophet? Certainly by the criteria we have laid out above most probably. Whether he turns out to actually be one will depend upon whether is able to make radical change, but undoubtedly he has a message and an audience that is responding to it. The remaining question is whether that audience is large enough to effect that change. But clearly the mechanism is in play. So is he a good prophet or a bad prophet? Here we must look at his message. A read of his The Audacity of Hope gives us an insight into his message. One hears the themes that are echoed through his campaign. It is a message of bringing people together. That we as a people are tired of a politics that divides us. That we have been engaged in a caveman politics, beating one another over the head with clubs and for all that, all we have is a national headache. Our problems languish unsolved and our current politicians have been most effective at fighting each other to a draw. But that that division heightened by the punditocracy, the ADD media, and the echo chamber of talk radio and the blogosphere is not really what our lives are about. We go to work, and hang out with people who view the world differently. We are a mix of different ideals and backgrounds, races and creeds and yet we are all Americans. We all believe in some basic ideals encapsulated in the preamble "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That all sides have a point, that the varied interests need to be balanced and that government needs to be of the people, by the people and for the people. This is the basic message of Audacity of Hope and it is not a message of hatred, bigotry or division. If we must, as sociology teaches us, base our judgment on the message and not the mechanism then this is a message that I do not fear.