In 1982, the Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho but no less charismatic. Schnabel stated that Rawat's charisma was in a certain sense routinized (inherited) charisma, but that this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization.[1]
Ron Geaves, a Professor of Religion at Liverpool Hope University in England who is one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat,[2] writes that Prem Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis of his authority.[3]
Melton refers to Rawat's personal charisma, as one of the reasons for the rapidly spreading of his message among members of the 1960's counterculture.[4] The Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho but no less charismatic. Schnabel stated that Rawat's charisma was in a certain sense routinized (inherited) charisma, but that this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following; there, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization.[1] Lucy Dupertuis, chair of the department of sociology at the University of Guam,[5] describes Rawat's role as Master as emerging from both theological and experiential aspects, and as not being the sole focus or generator of charisma; he also observed that charisma was not an impediment for some devotees to discover that they have learned the "experience of God" on their own and drift away, not in in disillusionment but in fulfillment.[6]
David G. Bromley describes the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits, and presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation, which is then exploited by the media to discredit charismatic claimants in the eyes of the general public. [7] Bromley describes Prem Rawat and other founders of new religions, as being held in awe by their early followers, who ascribed to them extraordinary powers that set them apart from other human beings—in the words of Max Weber, a "prophet" or bearer of charisma who proclaims alternative or new revelations. Bromley asserts that recent scholarship gives emphasis to social construct aspects of charisma, rather than relaying solely on individual personality.[8] Pylarzyc observed that the distribution of power and authority in the DLM, was officially based on the charismatic appeal of Maharaj Ji, which he describes as being somewhat ambiguous, and that many followers were not certain about his position in the organizational scheme of the movement, or the claim that he was the only true spiritual master. [9]
Ron Geaves, a professor of religion and one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat,[10] writes that Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis of his authority.[11]Hunt, describes Rawat's charisma in a similar manner, observing that the notion of spiritual growth is not derived, as is traditionally the case with other gurus, from his personal charisma, but from the nature of his teachings and the benefits to the individuals.[12]
Melton refers to Rawat's personal charisma as one of the reasons for the rapid spread of his message among members of the 1960's counterculture.[4] The Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic. Schnabel stated that Rawat's charisma was in a certain sense routinized (inherited) charisma, but that this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following; there, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization.[1] Lucy Dupertuis, chair of the department of sociology at the University of Guam,[13] describes Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from both theological and experiential aspects, and as not being the sole focus or generator of charisma; she also observed that charisma did not prevent some devotees from discovering that they had learned the "experience of God" on their own, and to drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment.[14]
David G. Bromley describes the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not to suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits. He presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation, which is then exploited by the media to discredit charismatic claimants in the eyes of the general public.[7] Bromley describes Prem Rawat and other founders of new religions as being held in awe by their early followers, who ascribed extraordinary powers to them that set them apart from other human beings – in the words of Max Weber, a "prophet" or bearer of charisma who proclaims alternative or new revelations. Bromley asserts that recent scholarship gives emphasis to social construct aspects of charisma, rather than relying solely on individual personality.[8] Pylarzyc observed that the distribution of power and authority in the DLM was officially based on the charismatic appeal of Maharaj Ji, which he describes as being somewhat ambiguous, and that many followers were not certain about his position in the organizational scheme of the movement, or the claim that he was the only true spiritual master.[15]
Ron Geaves, a professor of religion and one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat,[16] writes that Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis for his authority.[17] Hunt describes Rawat's charisma in a similar manner, observing that the notion of spiritual growth is not derived, as is traditionally the case with other gurus, from his personal charisma, but from the nature of his teachings and the benefits to the individuals applying them.[12]
Proposal 3
===Charisma and leadership===
Several scholars refer to Max Weber's classification of authority when describing Rawat as a charismatic leader. This type of leadership, in Weber's words, rests "on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him."[18]
Melton refers to Rawat's personal charisma as one of the reasons for the rapid spread of his message among members of the 1960's counterculture.[4] The Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic. Schnabel remarks that although Rawat's charisma was partly routinized as it resulted from a hereditary succession, this type of routinization played a negligible role for his Western followers; there, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization.[1] Meredith McGuire sees formalization resulting from Rawat's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States.[19] Lucy DuPertuis, a sociologist and follower who assisted James V. Downton with his book about the Divine Light Mission, described Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru, adherents' first-hand experiences of the Master, and communal accounts and discussions of the Master among devotees. Her ultimate assertion is that imputation of charisma is an active, conscious, changing process which, in this context, involves non-cognitive modes of perception. She also observed that Rawat's charisma did not prevent some devotees from discovering that they had learned the "experience of God" on their own, and to drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment.[20]
David G. Bromley describes the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not to suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits. He presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation, which is then exploited by the media to discredit charismatic claimants in the eyes of the general public.[7] Bromley describes Prem Rawat and other founders of new religions as being held in awe by their early followers, who ascribe extraordinary powers to them that set them apart from other human beings – in the words of Max Weber, a "prophet" or bearer of charisma who proclaims alternative or new revelations. Bromley asserts that recent scholarship gives emphasis to social construct aspects of charisma, rather than relying solely on individual personality.[8]Thomas Pilarzyk, a sociologist, wrote in a 1978 paper that the distribution of power and authority in the DLM was officially based on the charismatic appeal of Maharaj Ji, which he describes as being somewhat ambiguous, and that many followers were not certain about his position in the organizational scheme of the movement, or the claim that he was the only true spiritual master.[21]
Stephen J. Hunt observes that in Rawat's case the notion of spiritual growth is not derived — as is traditionally the case with other gurus — from his personal charisma, but from the nature of his teachings and the benefits to the individuals applying them.[12]Ron Geaves, a professor of religion and one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat,[22] states that Rawat is not a renunciate, and he has made great efforts to assert his humanity and take apart the hagiography that has developed around him. He further writes that Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis for his authority, and that Rawat could only be defined as charismatic in the sense of charisma having an antagonistic relationship with tradition.[23]
Proposal 4
===Charisma and leadership===
Several scholars referred to Max Weber's classification of authority when describing Rawat as a charismatic leader.[19][1][24] This type of leadership, in Weber's words, is "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him."[18] In Rawat's case, the factor "exemplary character" is seen as irrelevant: Schnabel characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic;[1] according to Geaves, "Rawat is not a renunciate" and "he has gone to great lengths to assert his humanity and deconstruct the hagiography that has developed around his life."[25]
As for routinization, that is, in Weber's sociological analysis, the compound of factors with which charismatic authority can be consolidated and which ultimately leads to a more formalized or bureaucratic type of leadership: Schnabel remarks that although Rawat's charisma was partly routinized as it resulted from a heriditary succession, this type of routinization played a negligible role for his Western followers.[1] McGuire sees multiple elements of formalization resulting from Rawat's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States.[19] In 2006 Geaves writes that Rawat could only be defined as charismatic in the sense of charisma having an antagonistic relationship with tradition.[25]
[...]
Proposal 5
Lucy DuPertuis, a sociologist, describes Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru, adherants' first-hand experiences of the Master, and communal accounts and discussions of the Master among devotees. Her ultimate assertion is that imputation of charisma is an active, conscious, changing process which, in this context, involves non-cognitive modes of perception..[26]
Proposal 6
===Charisma and leadership===
Several scholars have referred to Max Weber's classification of authority when describing Rawat as a charismatic leader..[19][1][24] This type of leadership, in Weber's words, is "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him."[18] In Rawat's case, the factor "exemplary character" is seen as irrelevant by Schnabel who characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic [1]. Geaves states that "Rawat is not a renunciate" and "he has gone to great lengths to assert his humanity and deconstruct the hagiography that has developed around his life." Geaves also asserts that in a Weberian context Rawat could only be defined as charismatic in the sense of charisma having an antagonistic relationship with tradition.[25] Schnabel remarks that although Rawat's charisma was partly routinized, as it resulted from a hereditary succession, this type of routinization played a negligible role for his Western followers.[1]
Bromley refers to the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not to suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits. He presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation, which is then exploited by the media to discredit charismatic claimants in the eyes of the general public. [7] Bromley describes Prem Rawat and other founders of new religions as being held in awe by their early followers, who ascribe extraordinary powers to them that set them apart from other human beings – in the words of Max Weber, a "prophet" or bearer of charisma who proclaims alternative or new revelations. Bromley asserts that recent scholarship gives emphasis to social construct aspects of charisma, rather than relying solely on individual personality.[8]
Dupertuis, working from the statement that “in Weber's formulations, charisma clearly appears in the eyes of the beholders” concluded that Rawat's role as a Master emerged from both theological and experiential aspects, and was not the sole focus or generator of charisma. Dupertuis also observed that charisma did not prevent some devotees from discovering that “they had learned the "experience of God" on their own, and to drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfilment”.[27] Pilarzyk, observed that the distribution of power and authority in the DLM was both officially and symbolically based on what Pilarzyk termed the “somewhat ambiguous charismatic appeal of guru Maharaj Ji”. Pilarzyk considered that “the development of the DLM in America had substantiated Wallis' contention that cults are inherently fragile social institutions which are constrained from effective institutionalization by internal factors”.[28] McGuire, referencing Pilarzyk, and noting Weber, saw multiple elements of formalization resulting from Rawat's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States[29]
Proposal 7
===Charisma and leadership===
Several scholars refer to Max Weber's classification of authority when describing Rawat as a charismatic leader.[19][1][24] This type of leadership, in Weber's words, rests "on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him."[18]
Melton refers to Rawat's personal charisma as one of the reasons for the rapid spread of his message among members of the 1960's counterculture.[4] The Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic. Schnabel remarks that although Rawat's charisma was partly routinized as it resulted from a hereditary succession, this type of routinization played a negligible role for his Western followers; there, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization.[1] Meredith McGuire sees formalization resulting from Rawat's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States.[19] Lucy DuPertuis, a sociologist and follower who assisted James V. Downton with his book about the Divine Light Mission, described Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru, adherents' first-hand experiences of the Master, and communal accounts and discussions of the Master among devotees. Her ultimate assertion is that imputation of charisma is an active, conscious, changing process which, in this context, involves non-cognitive modes of perception. She also observed that Rawat's charisma did not prevent some devotees from discovering that they had learned the "experience of God" on their own, and to drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment.[30]
David G. Bromley describes the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not to suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits. He presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation, which is then exploited by the media to discredit charismatic claimants in the eyes of the general public.[7] Bromley describes Prem Rawat and other founders of new religions as being held in awe by their early followers, who ascribe extraordinary powers to them that set them apart from other human beings – in the words of Max Weber, a "prophet" or bearer of charisma who proclaims alternative or new revelations. Bromley asserts that recent scholarship gives emphasis to social construct aspects of charisma, rather than relying solely on individual personality.[8]Thomas Pilarzyk, a sociologist, wrote in a 1978 paper that the distribution of power and authority in the DLM was officially based on the charismatic appeal of Maharaj Ji, which he describes as being somewhat ambiguous, and that many followers were not certain about his position in the organizational scheme of the movement, or the claim that he was the only true spiritual master.[31]
Stephen J. Hunt observes that in Rawat's case the notion of spiritual growth is not derived — as is traditionally the case with other gurus — from his personal charisma, but from the nature of his teachings and the benefits to the individuals applying them.[12]Ron Geaves, a professor of religion and one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat,[32] states that Rawat is not a renunciate, and he has made great efforts to assert his humanity and take apart the hagiography that has developed around him. He further writes that Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis for his authority, and that Rawat could only be defined as charismatic in the sense of charisma having an antagonistic relationship with tradition.[23]
(p. 99:) [...] persoonlijke kwaliteiten alleen [zijn] onvoldoende [...] voor de erkenning van het charismatisch leiderschap. [...] de verwende materialistische en intellectueel weinig opmerkelijke Maharaj Ji. (p. 101-102:) Tegelijkertijd betekent dit echter [dat] charismatisch leiderschap als zodanig tot op zekere hoogte ensceneerbaar is. Maharaj Ji is daar een voorbeeld van. In zekere zin gaat het hier om geroutiniseerd charisma (erfopvolging), maar voor de volgelingen in Amerika en Europa geldt dat toch nauwelijks: zij waren bereid in juist hem te geloven en er was rond Maharaj Ji een hele organisatie die dat geloof voedde en versterkte.
[...] personal qualities alone are insufficient for the recognition of the charismatic leadership. [...] the pampered materialistic and intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji. At the same time, this means however that charismatic leadership, as such, can be staged to a certain degree. Maharaj Ji is an example of this. Certainly, Maharaj Ji's leadership can be seen as routinized charisma (hereditary succession), but for the followers in America and Europe this is hardly significant: they were prepared to have faith specifically in him and Maharaj Ji was embedded in a whole organisation that fed and reinforced that faith.
^Geaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62
^ abcdPartridge, Christopher H. (2004). New religions: a guide: new religious movements, sects and alternative spiritualities. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-522042-0.
^DuPertuis, Lucy, Cross-Cultural Teaching of Sociology, Teaching Sociology, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 152-156
^Dupertuis, Lucy, "How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission", University of Guam,Sociological Analysis 1986, 47, 2.111-124
^ abcdeHammond, Phillip E.; Bromley, David G. (1987). The Future of new religious movements. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. pp. p.36. ISBN0-86554-238-4. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ abcdeBromley, David G. (2007). Teaching New Religious Movements (Aar Teaching Religious Studies Series). An American Academy of Religion Book. pp. p.156. ISBN0-19-517729-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Pilarzyk, Thomas . The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Autumn, 1978), pp. 23-43.
^Geaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62
^ abcd Hunt, Stephen J. Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp. 116–7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN0-7546-3410-8
^DuPertuis, Lucy, Cross-Cultural Teaching of Sociology, Teaching Sociology, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 152-156
^Dupertuis, Lucy, "How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission", University of Guam,Sociological Analysis 1986, 47, 2.111-124
^Pilarzyk, Thomas. The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Autumn, 1978), pp. 23-43.
^Geaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62
^ abcdWeber, Maximillan. Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Originally published in 1922 in German under the title Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft as cited in Siebers, Tobin (1993). Religion and the authority of the past. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. pp. p.228. ISBN0-472-08259-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ abcdefMcGuire, Meredith B. Religion: the Social Context. Belmont California : Wadsworth Publishing, fifth edition, 2002, ISBN0-534-54126-7, Ch. 5 "The Dynamics of Religious Collectivities", section "How Religious Collectivities Develop and Change", sub-section "Organizational Transformations", p. 175 – first edition of this book was 1981, ISBN0-534-00951-4
^Dupertuis, Lucy, "How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission", University of Guam, Sociological Analysis 1986, 47, 2.111-124
^Pilarzyk, Thomas. The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Autumn, 1978), pp. 23-43.
^ abGeaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), (2006), Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62. "Online version at the "Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies Association" website"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-06-14.
^ abcDuPertuis, Lucy. "How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission" in Sociological Analysis: A Journal in the Sociology of Religion. Chicago: Association for the Sociology of Religion, ISSN 0038-0210, 1986, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 111-124. At JSTOR – Web version at rickross.com
^ abcGeaves, Ron. "Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji)" in Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies - Volume 2, 2006, ISBN978-1-4196-2696-5 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, pp. 44-62. Web copy at asanas.org.uk
^Dupertuis, Lucy, "How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission", University of Guam,Sociological Analysis 1986, 47, 2.111-124
^Dupertuis, Lucy, "How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission", University of Guam, Sociological Analysis 1986, 47, 2.111-124
^Pilarzyk, Thomas. The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Autumn, 1978), pp. 23-43.
^McGuire, Meredith B. "Religion: the Social Context" fifth edition (2002) ISBN0-534-54126-7 Chapter. 5 "The dynamics of religious collectivities", section “How Religious Collectivities Develop and Change’’, sub-section "Organizational Transformations" page 175
"As Weber pointed out, the long-term impact of a movement hinges on transformation of bases of authority and leadership from a charismatic mode to either traditional or legal-traditional rational structures. When a movement becomes established, there is a strong tendency for the organization to calcify around the memory of the early dynamism; its own tradition becomes the rationalization for why things should be done in a certain way.
Early stages of a movement organization involve simple structures such as the charismatic leader and followers or leader, core followers, and other followers. The transition to legal-rational structures is typically accompanied by the elaboration and standardization of procedures, the emergence of specialized statuses and roles, and the formalizing of communication among members. The early years of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) in the United States were characterized by rapidly growing, loosely affiliated local ashrams (i.e., groups of devotees, usually living communally), united mainly by the devotion to the ambiguous charismatic figure of Guru Maharaj Ji. As the DLM became increasingly structured and centralized, leadership and power focused in the Denver headquarters. The guru's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States resulted in greater formalization: rules and regulation for ashram living, standards for recruited "candidates", and pressure toward certifying movements teachers. " (Thomas Pilarzyk ‘’The origin, development, and decline of a youth culture religion: An application of the sectarianization theory’’ in Review of Religious Research 20,
^Dupertuis, Lucy, "How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission", University of Guam, Sociological Analysis 1986, 47, 2.111-124
^Pilarzyk, Thomas. The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Autumn, 1978), pp. 23-43.
