This is an excellent and thought provoking article. It provides historical context on a concept that is timeless yet still not fully understood in the modern da

This is an excellent and thought provoking article. It provides historical context on a concept that is timeless yet still not fully understood in the modern day. My own take away from this article is difficult to state concisely. I see charisma in terms of dominance and submissiveness juxtaposed to activeness and passiveness. If we consider that an active-dominance is oppressive or authoritarian then we can see the object of that active-dominance as passive-submissive which maps onto our idea of victim or weakness. Contrast that to an active-submission which can be seen as worship or devotion and the object of the active-submission is the passive-dominance that this article calls charisma. This formulation suggests that charisma appears as the result of worship/devotion which I have defined as an individual actively choosing to submit. I believe that is why understanding charisma is so elusive. You can't actively be charismatic because by definition the charismatic person is the object of submissive activity.