6003 - ANDELSON

Routinization of Behavior in a Charismatic LeaderAuthor(s): Jonathan G. AndelsonReviewed work(s):Source: American Ethnologist, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Nov., 1980), pp. 716-733Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/643478 .Accessed: 04/07/2012 13:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to American Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthro

http://www.jstor.org/stable/643478?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

central

Text Box

Seminario Doctorado - Campagne 2014 19 Cop.(6003)

routinization of behavior in a charismatic leader

JONATHAN G. ANDELSON-Crinnell College

Process and the importance of processual analysis have recently attracted increasing comment in anthropology. Turner (1977) traces much of the ultimate inspiration for this to the work of Van Gennep, who has obviously influenced Turner himself. Another of the ancestral figures who addressed processual questions, but whose work generally has been

ignored by anthropologists, is Max Weber. This is particularly surprising since Weber was interested in cultures around the world and at various levels of complexity. An important part of Weber's (1968[1922]) thinking about process is contained in his writings on legiti- mate domination, particularly his seminal theory of charisma and its routinization, which had the virtue of stimulating other scholars to do further research on the issues Weber raised.

Recent studies of charismatic leadership have, however, failed in two ways to provide satisfying elaboration of Weber's original ideas. First, only some aspects of the theory have received attention, notably the circumstances surrounding a charismatic figure's appearance.1 But as Willner and Willner (1965:80) point out, Weber himself was more interested in routinization processes, which have received little consideration. Tucker (1968:753), for

one, has attributed this to the vagueness of the routinization concept. A second, perhaps more serious, shortcoming involves the lack of coherence among the various studies. This

problem has been noted by other writers (Bord 1975; Cohen 1972; Dow 1969; Friedland

1964; Ratnam 1964). The lack of coherence at the general level is attributable to a lack of

rigor in particular studies, which tend to be speculative and post hoc. Bord (1975) has gone farther than anyone to rectify this by developing a model to analyze characteristics of communication in situations of emerging charisma.

This paper documents an instance of waning charisma in the Amana Society, a sectarian

community in Iowa. The society originated in Germany as the Church of True Inspiration

Processual studies in anthropology can benefit from a consideration of Max Weber's theory of charisma. Two charismatic leaders in the sectarian and formerly communal Amana Society of Iowa have always been regarded by members as possessing different degrees of charisma. A statistical analysis of the inspired revelations of the two leaders reveals that the testimonies of one were highly patterned. The patterning is indicative of the "routinization of charisma" process described by Weber and is accounted for by the historical particulars of the case. Loss of creativity is identified as one factor in the routinization process. [processual analysis, change, communitarian societies, charismatic leadership]

Copyright ? 1980 by the American Anthropological Association 0094-0496/801040716-18S2.30/1

716 american ethnologist

and was centered around the preachings of several charismatic figures called Werkzeuge (singular: Werkzeug). These men and women were alleged to be divinely inspired, revealing God's will to the faithful through formal utterances called testimonies. The Inspirationists, as members of the sect call themselves, have recognized 14 Werkzeuge since the church's

founding in 1714, 2 of whom were active after the sect settled in Iowa: Christian Metz

(1794-1867) and Barbara Heinemann Landmann (1796-1883). Landmann's death left the

community's spiritual welfare in the hands of church elders. The arguments put forth in this paper grew out of discussions I had with informants

about the two Amana Werkzeuge. Although Metz and Landmann held the same formal status in the sect, and although both died before the birth of any still-living Inspirationists, my informants all held Metz in higher esteem. When I asked why this was so, the answers were vague: "Metz's gift was a higher one," or "Landmann's testimonies had less love in them." Metz is said to have loved children, and they sought him out; but children feared Landmann and crossed to the other side of the street when they spied her coming. This assessment is expressed formally in that an annual commemorative service is held for Metz but not for Landmann. The difference seems to be a perpetuation of beliefs that have existed in the community for some time. Metz's grave is the only one in the Amana cemetery to have a double-sized plot.

Such a situation is not uncommon. Disparities often exist between the amount of charisma attributed to two holders of the same status, even when the position itself is defined by its charismatic quality. Attempts to account for such disparities-when they are made at all-usually focus on the sociostructural origins of the individuals in question or on "personality" differences between them. However, the latter factor is felt by some in-

vestigators to lie outside the realm of objective explanation. Sociostructural explanations, while useful, seem incomplete when dealing with situations which so clearly depend on the

qualities of individuals. The following analysis emphasizes individual differences between the two Amana

Werkzeuge. This analysis is possible because an unusual body of evidence-the testimonies given by the Werkzeuge-permits an objective demonstration of those differences. The

analysis focuses on Landmann's position in the community before and after Metz's death in 1867. I will present evidence that Landmann's status had always been less secure than

Metz's, and I will argue that without his active support her relationship with the elders and the members was altered. Although she remained a Werkzeug, her leadership became more routinized, as revealed in objective differences between her inspired testimonies and those of Metz. In the final discussion, I inquire into the cause of the routinization and its

significance.

historical background

The Church of True Inspiration emerged in the wave of Pietist reform that swept Ger-

many in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Pietists sought God and spiritual improve- ment through a return to Apostolic Christianity. At the same time, they believed that Old Testament prophets still walked the earth, providing an ongoing manifestation of the divine

presence. In the Church of True Inspiration, inspired Werkzeuge directed the activities of the faithful and bound them into congregations scattered through southern Germany and Switzerland. They distinguished themselves from other Pietists by emphasizing a distinc- tion between true and false inspiration.

Following the death of the first great inspired leader in 1749, the sect experienced a decline in spiritual zeal until a reawakening in 1817 brought the group new Werkzeuge and

routinization of behavior 717

a new enthusiasm. The Lord's first call came to Michael Krausert of Strassburg. Krausert was not an Inspirationist; but following a vision in which he spoke with God, he was directed by friends to one of the sect's congregations. There he found a group of young ac- tivists, including Christian Metz, who believed he was truly inspired. Members of this group began to travel with Krausert to other congregations in an attempt to revive the faith. The next year, 1818, an uneducated Alsatian servant maid by the name of Barbara Heinemann came to the Inspirationists looking for an explanation of a vision she had had. In inspiration Krausert judged her visitation to be true, and she was accepted as a Werkzeug by the group of reawakened members.

For the next five years conditions in the group were unstable. Krausert quarreled with Heinemann, lost the power of inspiration, and was ordered to leave the community. Ful-

filling a prophecy of Heinemann's, Metz became inspired; after giving only two testimonies, however, he lost the gift at the time of Krausert's excommunication. Three years later, Heinemann fell in love with an Inspirationist by the name of George Landmann, but she abandoned plans to marry him when the elders threatened her with banishment. In 1823 Metz became inspired for a second time. Five months later Heinemann ceased being inspired; she subsequently married Landmann and was temporarily banished. From then until 1849 Metz was the only Werkzeug in the community.

Inspired revelation in the 1830s directed the members to gather on four estates in the

province of Hessen, Germany, and later to move to America, first to New York State (in 1843), where they formed the Ebenezer Society, and subsequently to Iowa (in 1854), where the sect has since resided. While living on the German estates, the Inspirationists established cooperative business enterprises for the benefit of members. In New York, a "com-

munity of goods" was adopted for reasons of economic expediency (purchasing land and materials and paying passage for the brethren still in Germany), but the communal arrange- ment was sanctified in 1846 through divine revelation.

In 1849 Barbara Heinemann Landmann began receiving inspiration after a lapse of 26

years. For a time the faithful expected other Werkzeuge to appear. In the 1840s, the son of an important elder manifested the motions generally associated with inspiration. Metz directed two testimonies to the young man in 1848, prophesying he would receive inspiration, but the prophecy was not fulfilled.

Resettlement in Iowa began in 1854 and was completed in 1863. In Iowa, the society grew until it consisted of 7 semiautonomous villages on 26,000 contiguous acres of farm and timberland on either side of the Iowa River in Iowa County. The villages ranged in size from 100 to 400 residents, comprising a total population of approximately 1,700 individuals.2 Each village had its own farm, bakery, meat market, and craft shops, and the larger villages contained sawmills, flour mills, a calico-print mill, and two woolen mills. Members worked in the businesses without pay, but they received food, clothing, and lodging from the society, as well as small spending allowances. Surplus production from the farms and mills was sold outside the community.

The paramount authority in the society was the Werkzeug, whose inspired revelations might pertain to temporal as well as spiritual matters. Beneath the Werkzeug in authority, and in charge of all aspects of community life, was a 13-member Grosser Bruderrath (great council or board of trustees), which was elected by members from the divinely appointed body of church elders. Village-level affairs were administered by a local Bruderrath of from three to six elders appointed by the Grosser Bruderrath.

Metz died in 1867. Landmann remained inspired until her death in 1883, but no new

Werkzeuge, true or false, appeared either during her lifetime or afterwards. After her death, control of the society's spiritual and temporal affairs was entirely in the hands of the church trustees and elders, who exercised it prudently for nearly 50 years.


The Inspirationists abandoned communalism in 1932 in favor of a joint-stock corporate organization. The theocratic structure of old Amana was separated into church and business branches: while Amana retains its sectarian character, this is no longer the most visible aspect of the community as it once was; nor can the corporation's boundaries be

regarded as coextensive with those of the church, which no longer claims the allegiance of all of the Society's residents. Since 1960, the corporation and private individuals have

capitalized on a growing tourist trade, and today the Amana villages display a bucolic, but modern, prosperity. Most church members believe that the group has become too worldly to be again favored with divinely inspired direction.

the Werkzeug and charisma

The most important social position in the Church of True Inspiration was that of Werk-

zeug (literally "instrument"). In the context of Inspirationist theology, the Werkzeug was an instrument of the Lord, someone who conveyed divine will and divine decrees to the people and who stood in relationship to the Lord "just as the tone of a trumpet is to the trum-

pet." The Werkzeuge spoke not through free will but through the will of the Holy Spirit. They were thus said to be "inspired."

No temporal authority could be above the authority of God. Thus. a Werkzeug's inspired pronouncements were deferred to by all other authority figures. It would be incorrect, however, to consider the Werkzeug as no more than a principal elder. The basis of the

Werkzeug's authority was directly supernatural, while that of the elders, who were appointed through inspired revelation, was mediated by their own temporality and fallibility. The truly inspired Werkzeug was infallible. Furthermore, although only men became elders, both men and women could be Werkzeuge.

The faithful in Amana believed that Werkzeuge were subject to divine inspiration at any time, but the overwhelming majority of divine visitations occurred during church services. With little warning, the Werkzeug began to tremble, and a mysterious presence filled the room. Then, sometimes standing, sometimes kneeling, with eyes open or shut, and speaking in what witnesses say was an unnatural voice, the Werkzeug conveyed the Word of the Lord to the congregation. The powerful impact of this is eloquently stated in a description of Christian Metz by a contemporary observer:

It is surprising to see his motions, kneeling down and standing up, which are of such a nature as if an unseen being held him and joined him; also, in these states, he goes out with closed eyes between the benches and knows everyone as though through feeling. And the prophetic quality of this, combined with the faultless, humble character of Christian Metz and the testimony, and the trust of the experienced and wise members, whose honesty cannot be doubted, makes the members of this community live in a bond of brotherhood which is so strong that they will submit to every privation for the sake of Cod and this Word, which for them is one and the same thing (Duval 1948:261; transl. R. Seifert).

Such episodes left the Werkzeug drained of energy and the congregation in a state of

spiritual and emotional arousal. The Werkzeuge have the classic attributes of Max Weber's "charismatic leader." Weber

(1968:241-242) defined charisma as

a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a "leader" ....

It is recognition on the part of those subject to authority which is decisive for the validity of charisma. This recognition is freely given and guaranteed by what is held to be a proof, originally

routinizatlon of behavior 719

always a miracle, and consists in devotion to the corresponding revelation, hero worship, or ab- solute trust in the leader.

The Werkzeug's power was individual, extraordinary, and supernatural. It was validated by public recognition which consisted of devotion to continuing revelations.

Although the Werkzeuge had charisma, authority in Amana was not purely charismatic; it had become partially routinized. Weber considered the routinization of charisma a normal part of social process. Pure charismatic authority, he argued, is always ephemeral. It exists in statu nascendi, "in a state of becoming." Pure charisma is incompatible with routine and with all systematic economic activity; it is an antieconomic force (Weber 1968:1113). It is also a force of what Turner (1969) calls "antistructure." Associations of

people cannot hold together under such conditions indefinitely. Eventually a strong desire arises "to transform charisma and charismatic blessing from a unique, transitory gift of

grace of extraordinary times and persons into a permanent possession of everyday life" (Weber 1968:1121). This desire is particularly pronounced following the death of a charismatic leader, but Weber (1968:1121) was clear on the point that a degree of routinization can and usually does occur during the leader's lifetime as well.

To find pure charismatic authority among the Inspirationists one must go back to the sect's beginnings. Only then was charisma truly unencumbered by precedent; only then did it exist in a state of becoming. As soon as the newly inspired leaders appointed elders to

help govern the sect, noncharismatic authority principles were introduced. Even the

reawakening of 1817, which revived charismatic principles, had to deal with preexisting structures and a well-developed set of traditions. Another factor compromising pure charismatic authority was the birth of a second generation. Rather than spontaneously acknowledging the Werkzeuge's legitimacy, as their parents had done, the children of In-

spirationists were socialized to accept the inspired leaders. If the effect is the same, the

principle behind the affiliation is different and is not part of true charisma. Pure charismatic authority was reduced even further in the 1830s when the Inspirationist

Church changed from a strictly spiritual organization-a congregation-into a community with economic needs and interests. This period of gathering on estates in Germany was one of consolidation and organization, of forging the structures and routines of community life. The sect's leaders became concerned at this time with the members' material needs. By 1854, when the Inspirationists first came to Amana, charisma had clearly become part of a continuous institution, and to that degree it was routinized.

the testimonies

The Werkzeuge's charisma issued originally from unsolicited and uncontrolled visitations by the Holy Spirit and carried over into all of their social interactions with the faithful. It was the basis of their authority and was reaffirmed each time they were inspired. One became a Werkzeug by receiving true inspiration.

Inspirationists identified two types of inspiration: Einsprache (the written word) and

Aussprache (the spoken word). There is no indication that one was systematically regarded as more sacred, but Aussprache was seen as a special gift. It was also significantly more common. Aussprache had two recognized components: the Bezeugungen, or messages (which Einsprache also had), and Bewegungen, or bodily movements associated with its

delivery. Certain other features, including pitch, tone, and volume, do not fit into either

category but function more like the Bewegungen. The two components of Aussprache interacted to produce an emotional and probably

cathartic effect on the congregation. The vocabulary, syntax, metaphors, and imagery of


the Bezeugungen, all of which showed affinities to the language of the Bible, related the testimonies to past moral and religious training and communicated a notion of the supernatural associated with that training. The paralinguistic features enhanced the impact of the testimonies. Society chroniclers stress the autonomy of the body movements, at- tributing them to supernatural forces. The effect served to separate the Werkzeug as a person from the content of the testimony. This signaled to the congregation that the message being delivered was divine. All of the Werkzeuge could, of course, talk apart from the influence of inspiration. When they did, the bodily movements and auditory phenomena associated with inspiration were absent.

The Werkzeuge delivered more than 2,000 testimonies after the reawakening in 1817, including 1,300 after arriving in Iowa in 1855. Scribes recorded the testimonies, which were printed and periodically bound into books. The books were available to church members, and elders read selections from them at every church service. The individual testimony varied in length from 300 to 1,200 words. Each bore a number and was preceded by a short

precis, in German, written by the scribe shortly after the testimony was given. For example:

No. 5. Homestead the 16th of July, 1865 Sunday morning in the services, as the people stood for a prayer, the following testimony of the

spirit of the Lord came through Sister Barbara Landmann to this community as a lament over the reluctance here to do the Lord's bidding.

These short paragraphs are particularly useful in supplying information about the time, place, and occasion of the testimony. In theory, testimonies could occur at any time and in- volve any subject; the vast majority, however, were given during church services and involved the spiritual condition of the faithful.

the Amana testimonies

If Metz had more charisma than Landmann, if Inspirationists viewed his inspiration as a higher gift than hers, evidence of this should appear in the testimonies, which were the basis of a Werkzeug's authority. This hypothesis led to a detailed statistical analysis of the testimonies given by Metz and Landmann between 1855 (the year the Inspirationists first arrived in Amana) and 1883 (the year of Landmann's death). The analysis verified the hypothesis. It revealed that the testimonies of the two Werkzeuge, ostensibly the product of the Holy Spirit, differed in striking and significant ways. The procedure for the analysis, which involved making cross-tabulations of several variables, is described in the Appendix.

Landmann's testimonies in the aggregate differ from Metz's in several ways, but more particularly the testimonies she gave before his death in 1867 differ from those she gave afterwards. Landmann began giving testimonies in Amana in 1859, on visits there from the Ebenezer community in New York. Not until 1862 did she reside in Amana on a full-time basis. Landmann delivered 768 testimonies in Amana, which is 64 percent of the total number of testimonies given there. Of this number, 82 (11 percent) were given before Metz's death-an average of 15 per year or about one every 24 days-and 686 afterwards-an average of 40 per year or one every 9 days. With this increase, Landmann's output came closer to Metz's annual average of 54 testimonies. Landmann's annual output began to decrease slightly in 1873, the seventh year after Metz's death, when she was 77 years old. In no year before 1883 did she deliver fewer than 29 testimonies.

The proportion of testimonies Landmann gave in each of the seven Amana villages changed after Metz's death (see Table 1). Metz most often became inspired in Main Amana, partly because failing health curtailed his travel. Before his death Landmann lived


Table 1. Number and percentage (in parentheses) of testimonies given in each Amana Village by Metz and Landmann.a

Metz Landmann Landmann (1859-67) (1859-66) (1867-83)

Main Amana 311 (61.7) 20 (25.3) 27 (39.3) East Amana 17 (3.3) 4 (4.9) 66 (9.6) Homestead 29 (5.7) 33 (40.2) 85 (12.4) South Amana 46 (9.1) 10 (12.2) 63 (9.2) West Amana 42 (8.3) 7 (8.5) 68 (9.9) High Amana 34 (6.7) 3 (3.7) 64 (9.4) Middle Amana 25 (5.0) 5 (6.3) 69 (10.0)

Total 504(100.0) 82(100.0) 686(100.0)

a See Appendix for explanation of variable.

in Homestead and, not surprisingly, delivered most of her testimonies there. After 1867 the

distribution of Landmann's testimonies changed in two notable ways. Main Amana became

the most common site for her inspiration, due simply to her moving there (without her hus-

band) and taking over Metz's residence. Except that she continued to slightly favor

Homestead when traveling out of Main Amana, she delivered an almost identical proportion of her testimonies at each of the other villages. This consistency is quite significant and will be explored below in more detail.

The distribution of Landmann's testimonies among the various church occasions differed

from Metz's (see Table 2). Metz became inspired most often at regular church services,

Unterredung services, and at small meetings. The distribution of Landmann's testimonies

before 1867 was generally similar, except that she did not very often become inspired in

small meetings, and she never had Einsprachen (written testimony), the two of which ac-

counted for over 20 percent of Metz's testimonies. After Metz died, the distribution of

Landmann's testimonies changed to favor certain special church services: Liebesmahl,

Bundesschliessung, and especially Kinderlehre. Together these comprise one-fourth of her

testimonies, whereas they accounted for only a small fraction of Metz's. The special Unter-

redung service was also more important for her than for Metz. At the same time, she

became inspired less often at regular church services. Landmann seems to have favored the

Table 2. Number and percentage (in parentheses) of testimonies given on different church occasions by Metz and Landmann.a


Regular service 185 (36.7) 27 (32.9) 111 (16.2) Funeral service 38 (7.5) 8 (9.8) 57 (8.3) Einsprachen 22 (4.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) Elders' meeting 24 (4.8) 2 (2.4) 51 (7.4) Unterredung 108 (21.4) 30 (36.6) 234 (34.1) Liebesmahl 3 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 57 (8.3) Holiday service 32 (6.3) 11 (13.4) 45 (6.6) Bundesschliessung 3 (0.6) 1 (1.2) 14 (2.0) Kinderlehre 7 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 97 (14.1) Small meeting 82 (16.3) 3 (3.7) 19 (2.8)

Total 504(100.0) 82(100.0) 686(100.0)



less frequent, highly ritual-laden occasions, while Metz favored the regular or informal, less ritual-laden occasions.

Some of this difference is due to routinization in the scheduling of special services which occurred late in Metz's life or after his death. Under Metz's leadership, Kinderlehre was held irregularly at the discretion of inspiration; the same was true of Bundesschliessung until 1866. Liebesmahl was an important and unpredictable event while Metz lived and was held only twice before 1867. Unterredung was an annual event, but in some years it began later or lasted longer than it did in others. After Metz's death, the occurrence of these services became more closely tied to the calendar. Liebesmahl was held every other year on precisely the same days; Kinderlehre was held every year in September and October (except in 1875, when, inexplicably, some of it was held in July); Unterredung was held every year in

January and February; and beginning in 1866, the year before Metz's death, Bundesschliessung was held every year on Thanksgiving Day.

Another difference between Landmann's testimonies before and after 1867 is found in the specific groups to which she addressed testimonies (see Table 3). Before Metz died, Landmann became inspired before the sub-Assemblies (Versammlungen) in church (four divisions in a village's congregation based on level of piety) more than Metz did and more than she spoke to the entire congregation of a village (General Assembly). After 1867 the proportions reversed dramatically, and Landmann gave far more testimonies before General Assemblies than before sub-Assemblies. This shift is found in regular church services (some of which were for General Assemblies and others for sub-Assemblies), Unter- redung services (in which a concluding service brought together all of the small groups already examined separately), and Kinderlehre (a two-part ceremony consisting of a morning service with members of the Third Assembly, for young adults, and an afternoon service for the whole community). The shift indicates a preference for large gatherings rather than smaller, more intimate ones. The one possible exception to this involves inspiration in the presence only of the elders. The frequency of Landmann's addresses to this small group increased after 1867.

Perhaps the most striking feature of testimonies to be revealed by statistical analysis is the pronounced pattern in Landmann's inspiration after 1867. Testimonies given by both Werkzeuge before 1867 do not show this pattern. Although these early testimonies cannot be said to have occurred randomly, there is no indication that they were given according to a schedule. Almost immediately after Metz's death, however, Landmann's inspiration

Table 3. Number and percentage (in parentheses) of testimonies addressed to various groups by Metz and Landmann.a


First Assembly 54 (10.7) 14 (17.1) 23 (3.4) Second Assembly 16 (3.2) 5 (6.1) 16 (2.3) Third Assembly 36 (7.1) 10 (12.2) 36 (5.2) Children's Assembly 4 (0.8) 0 (0.0) 9 (1.3) General Assembly 150 (29.8) 25 (30.5) 339 (49.4) Other combinations 50 (10.0) 8 (9.6) 56 (8.2) Elders 65 (12.9) 5 (6.1) 157 (22.9) No congregation 97 (19.2) 3 (3.7) 15 (2.2) Missing data 32 (6.3) 12 (14.6) 36 (5.2)

Total 504(100.0) 82(100.0) 686(100.0)


routinlzatlon of behavior 723

assumed a highly regular quality. The distribution of her testimonies in any given year closely resembled the distribution of testimonies she had given the year before.

This contrast between Metz's and Landmann's testimonies exists in virtually every variable. Some examples are given below.

example 1. testimonies given In West Amana Metz 1858 to 1867 (5, 7, 9, 3, 6, 3, 2, 3, 2)

mean = 4.45; standard deviation = 2.30 Landmann 1859 to 1866 (0, 1,1, 2,1,1, 0, 1)

mean = 0.875; standard deviation = 0.6 Landmann 1867 to 1882 (5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)

mean = 4.125; standard deviation = 1.00

example 2. testimonies given In Unterredung services Metz 1858 to 1867 (13, 9, 2, 20, 15, 10, 11, 22, 6)

mean = 12.0; standard deviation = 6.0 Landmann 1859 to 1866 (0, 9, 0, 4, 4, 6, 2, 5)

mean = 3.75; standard deviation = 2.86 Landmann 1867 to 1882 (16,13,13,12,15,14,14,14,13,15,14,14,14,14,

14, 14) mean = 13.85; standard deviation = 0.895

example 3. testimonies given In October Metz 1858 to 1867 (4, 5, 0, 2, 4, 1, 8, 5, 1)


mean = 0.875; standard deviation = 1.06 Landmann 1867 to 1882 (3, 3, 7, 3, 5, 4, 3, 3, 5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4)


example 4. testimonies given before First Assembly Metz 1858 to 1867 (4, 2, 6, 3, 10, 5, 9, 9, 8)


mean = 1.75; standard deviation = 1.92 Landmann 1867 to 1882 (4, 4, 0, 2, 0,2,0, 2, 0, 3, 0,2,0, 2, 0, 2)


After 1867, the only time during the year that Landmann was inspired before the First

Assembly was at Liebesmahl. The regular biennial pattern in this case is due to the biennial

scheduling of Liebesmahl after Metz's death. With monotonous precision Landmann addressed the four sub-Assemblies at Liebesmahl in the pattern 2-2-2-1.

example 5. Unterredung testimonies given in Main Amana After Metz's death,

testimonies were delivered to the various Amana villages more regularly than while Metz

lived and they were delivered according to the occasion. Shown below are the numbers of

Unterredung testimonies delivered in Main Amana by year by either Werkzeug:


1859 to 1866 (8, 7, 1, 10, 5, 6, 4, 9) mean = 6.25; standard deviation = 2.74

1867 to 1883 (4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2) mean = 2.12; standard deviation = 0.828

Other data reveal constancy in the number of Unterredung testimonies everywhere after 1868. Each year, 13 or 14 testimonies were given at Unterredung services throughout the society, one to the elders in each village and one at the Schlussversammlung (a concluding ceremony for all members) in each village. During 16 years in 7 villages (a total of 112 separate Unterredungen), the number of testimonies given per year per village deviated from 2 only 11 times. Similarly, every year after 1868, 7 testimonies were given at Kinderlehre, 1 in each village.

Landmann's testimonies are highly regular and predictable. From 1867 to 1882 she delivered 11 to 15 testimonies in Main Amana in odd-numbered years, and 17 to 22 in even- numbered years, the difference resulting from the biennial Liebesmahl. From 1867 to 1871 Homestead received an average of 8 testimonies per year; all other villages averaged 5 per year, including 2 at Unterredung, 1 at Kinderlehre, and 2 at other church services. From 1872 to 1875 Landmann gave an average of 4 testimonies per year at every village except Main Amana, 2 at Unterredung, 1 at Kinderlehre, and 1 at another kind of service. After 1875 her average of 3 testimonies per year at every village except Main Amana included 2 at Unterredung and 1 at Kinderlehre, addresses to other kinds of services being eliminated. Nothing resembling this pattern of distribution existed while Metz lived.

The foregoing information should suffice to demonstrate that, at least in the scheduling of inspiration, major differences exist between Metz and Landmann and also for Landmann before and after 1867. I have gone into some detail because these differences are unam- biguous and not a matter of interpretation.

The content of the two Werkzeuge's testimonies is more difficult to analyze. This is particularly true of what may be called the spiritual content of the inspirational message, which defied rigorous coding. The material content, including references by a Werkzeug to individuals, places, or events, was less problematic. Differences in the content of Metz's and Landmann's testimonies are summarized below.

1. Metz named specific members of the congregation five times more often in his testimonies than did Landmann.

2. Well over half of the individuals named by Metz were being reprimanded or warned about sin or misbehavior; most of the individuals named by Landmann were being appointed to some community office (elder, teacher, etc.); in fact, she made more inspired appointments than did Metz.

3. Metz spoke far more often than Landmann about economic concerns and state or na- tional politics, although the number of such references for either Werkzeug was small (53 for Metz; 19 for Landmann).

4. Metz spoke about a greater diversity of spiritual themes (e.g., grace, human sinfulness, God's goodness) than did Landmann.

discussion

What have the objective differences between Metz's and Landmann's testimonies to do


with the esteem in which the two were held by their contemporaries and by modern Inspira- tionists? And what do the differences reveal about the nature of charisma and its routinization? Landmann's testimonies reveal greater regularity than Metz's in three areas: scheduling of special services, distribution of testimonies in time and space, and the spiritual content of testimonies. What caused this regularity? And what did it signify? To answer these questions I must turn to the social situation in Amana to see in greater detail how the community responded to the two Werkzeuge. I will first consider Landmann's status in the community before 1867, then the possible reasons for her status, and finally how Landmann's

position in the community was affected by Metz's death. First, the society's records contain several thinly veiled references to Metz's dominance

over Landmann, as well as to the members' preference for him personally. Metz's precedence is seen in complaints lodged with him by members over certain of Landmann's actions. Her pronouncements were occasionally overruled by Metz, but his were never ap- pealed to or overruled by her. Second, before 1867 only Metz made inspired decisions that affected the whole community. The decision to move from New York to Iowa, and its im- plementation, were his. So were all announcements to hold special fasts and the major church services of Liebesmahl, Kinderlehre, and Unterredung. Finally, all elders appointed before 1867 were named in inspiration by Metz. Only once, in 1863, did Landmann attempt to appoint an elder. The man refused, but accepted two years later when named by Metz (Heinemann 1925:363). Not until after Metz died did Landmann assume this particular function of a Werkzeug.

Disgruntlement is reported among some elders over the recognition of Landmann's inspiration, both in 1818 and 1849, and also over her performance as Werkzeug years later. This is clearly shown by an incident which took place in 1862 in Ebenezer. A strong disagreement between Landmann and the head elder-over an issue not disclosed in the account-"came so far that she felt that she had no more sphere of activity. She was in a subdued condition and wanted to be released from her office as Werkzeug" (Scheuner 1900:749). Metz's solution at the time was to bring Landmann to Iowa, thereby solving the particular dispute but not the underlying problem of relative authority. Several years later, in 1868, Landmann took an opportunity to assert herself over the same man, who was then head elder in Middle Amana. Because of his illness, the other elders wanted to postpone the Unterredung there, but Landmann overruled their wishes and ordered that the Unter- redung be held without him.

Why was Landmann's status inferior? Several reasons can be suggested. Resistance to Landmann may have stemmed originally from her sex. Although women were among the sect's founders, none until Landmann had held a position of real importance for long. The Inspirationist Church retained elements of Pauline misogyny; women were viewed as men's spiritual equals but as inferior to men in temporal and practical affairs (see Andelson 1979). Since the office of Werkzeug combined temporal and spiritual ministrations, some men, particularly elders, may have resented Landmann's abrupt rise to power.

Other reasons might have been Landmann's poverty, lack of education, and origin outside the Inspirationist Church. While none of these characteristics were particularly sen- sitive issues by themselves, their combination perhaps stigmatized an individual who had pretensions of receiving divine visitations. Here, the community's records are of little help. Some Inspirationists unquestionably felt their earlier opinions of Landmann were vin- dicated when she fell from grace and married George Landmann. Others may have been scandalized by such behavior in a Werkzeug and turned against her.

For these reasons, it is perhaps surprising that Landmann enjoyed as much status in the community as she did. To argue that she was chosen by God can be only a partial explanation; other Werkzeuge had fallen from grace, and she had virtually driven the Werkzeug


Krausert out of the community herself. A more likely explanation is that she had the support of the strongest figure in the community: Christian Metz. Shortly after Landmann lost her inspiration in 1823, Metz promised her through inspiration that it would return. Years

later, on 21 November 1849, the Lord spoke to the community through Metz, saying He would "again open the mouth of My servant Barbara." A week later an inspired Metz said, "So speak, when you have received a word of reminding and punishment, yes reprimand, out of my grace," and Landmann answered in inspiration, "I am in your hand as a drop of water, as a particle of dust." There followed an amazing exchange between Metz and Land- mann, both in inspiration, adding to each other's sacred words, sometimes finishing each cther's sentences. From then until he died, Metz gave Landmann unequivocal backing in her role as an instrument of God.

While Landmann always deferred to Metz's "higher gift," he consistently conducted himself with humility towards her and the congregation. If he occasionally reprimanded her for being overzealous, it was done privately and in such a way that she admitted

wrongness in her actions. Several times he sought Landmann's opinion about community issues and incorporated her ideas into his treatment of the problem. He also maintained a

sense of his own fallibility, acknowledging his shortcomings publicly. Metz gave the follow-

ing testimony in 1859 in Amana:

0, the soul of the Lord has spoken and says today, Wake up! Even Werkzeuge can fail if they don't stand freely enough in my grace. This you should recognize in your new surroundings [Iowa], my maidservant [Landmann] and my vassal [Metz], and you should now begin another way, so that you can take back that which comes out of your human nature and seek the damage in your own hard- heartedness, which can only be made soft through a new grace in pure love and in heartfelt humility (Scheuner 1869:196).

Metz portrayed himself, and is portrayed in the society records, as passing through a series

of personal struggles during his life in which he was forced to overcome self-will. Some of the same tone is present in Landmann's writings and testimonies, but she is less self-

effacing than Metz, especially in her public utterances after his death. Metz's death in July 1867 marked the end of a 50-year period of innovation and change

in the Church of True Inspiration. The reawakening, the gathering, the migration to America, and the removal to Iowa constituted major disruptions requiring adjustments of a social and a psychological character. Furthermore, except for the adoption of communalism, the problems faced by the community during this period were related to external causes-persecution, the strain of relocation, economic hardships, the Civil War, and the advent of the railroad.

In contrast, the period after Metz's death until the reorganization of 1932 was one of relative stability in the structure and functioning of the community. It was a time when the old solutions were applied with decreasing efficacy to a new set of problems, many of which were internal. These problems began over the acceptability of the new head

Werkzeug. The death of a revered leader often leads to problems over the question of succession.

In the early stages personal claims on the charisma of the chief are not easily forgotten and the con- flict between the charisma of the office or of hereditary status with personal charisma is a typical process in many historical situations (Weber 1968:252).

This is a fair description of what happened in Amana. Almost immediately there were signs that the community was not prepared to accept Landmann's leadership as a complete substitute for Metz's. One of the Grosser Bruderrath's first decisions was to hold regular monthly meetings. Before that, meetings were held only when some need arose or when Metz ordered them through inspiration. Since no explanation accompanied this decision, the reasons behind it can only be conjectured. It is possible that the elders anticipated an

routlnlzatlon of behavior 727

enlargement of their responsibilities, or it may have been that they were attempting to pro- tect their own authority against encroachment by Landmann. Alternatively, they may have been moving to limit Landmann's role themselves.

Landmann's testimonies from August 1867 suggest a temporary instability in relations between the Werkzeug, the elders and the members. Dissensions and disputations arose in

many quarters; Landmann seems to have been faced by rebellious and uncooperative members and by elders who were not ready or willing either to control the members or set an example for them. Between August 3 and August 10, Landmann delivered eight testimonies, probably the greatest number in such a short period of time (outside of special church services) in the society's history. On the morning of August 4, Landmann spoke to the local elders in West Amana:

The members should not be allowed, when I have to contradict the elders, to talk about it, but they should learn to realize and condemn that they sometimes act like slanderers. When the elders get a lesson from the Lord, the members act like slanderers and tattle-tales (Scheuner 1870:85).

She went to High Amana the same afternoon and chastised the elders. "You elders should work together in love. Otherwise you cannot be recognized as helpers in the vineyard of the Lord" (Scheuner 1870:85). On August 5 Landmann had a strong testimonial for the members in East Amana:

The spirit of grace, who is still among you, says, when I look into the den of the murderers and I see the one who hates his brother, there lives no love but self-love. I want to ask if there is no healing to be found that can check that great misunderstanding in the community at East. Should I not say, "You are no community of the Lord, but you are a community of the wicked"? (Scheuner 1870:88).

The frequency and intensity of these testimonies are unmatched by anything in the

Society's history after 1822. They indicate that the elders were not in harmony with one another, that they were doing their jobs inadequately, and that the members were talking about it, all signs of deteriorating relationships in the community. The testimonies also

represent Landmann's attempt to establish clear lines of authority, with herself in Metz's vacated position. The disagreements among the elders alluded to in two of the testimonies

may have involved differences over what those lines of authority were to be. Metz's death exposed ambiguity in the authority hierarchy that had been disguised dur-

ing his lifetime. The testimonies of August 3 to August 10 suggest that Landmann used in-

spiration to express her authority. Subsequently, the situation returned to normal, at least on the surface. On August 16 Landmann traveled with other elders to Homestead to renew the Unterredung, which had been interrupted by Metz's illness and death. She became more active as a Werkzeug than she had been while Metz lived, although the Bruderrath also became more active. From time to time she gave testimonies contravening the elders, but they never overtly challenged her authority.

The absence of overt challenges from the elders does not mean Landmann had suc-

cessfully assumed Metz's position in the community. Three pieces of evidence suggest otherwise. One concerns the objections members continued to have to some of Landmann's testimonies. For example, in 1880 she issued an unusual order for the destruc- tion of all nonfruitbearing trees in the villages because they were nonproductive, hence idolatrous. Such trees, she said, belong in the woods. This order nettled many members at the time it was given. Landmann occasionally affronted individuals whom she reprimanded publicly. Several times she chastised members for buhlerei (a word connoting illicit sexual liaisons); once she charged the eldest daughter of a family with making the community into a Hurenhaus (whorehouse). Such accusations, true or not, were hard to accept passively. Some members resisted what they viewed as unfair or unreasonable statements from Land- mann by malingering or withdrawing from the community. In 1877, testimonies and elders'


proclamations were issued concerning the growing unwillingness of some members to work. The Society's records mention 1877 as a year in which numerous members "who did not want to obey" left the Society. In 1882, the year before Landmann's death, more members left for the same reason. Metz never faced such problems, which suggests that Landmann may actually have been losing authority. She once publicly criticized a new teacher in one of the villages for ineptness. The outraged man walked out of the service and went home to pack his belongings. He was dissuaded from leaving the community only by a sympathetic elder who arrived with an armload of published testimonies and said, "Look, see where I got a lesson? Do not let it bother you." This statement itself indicates a

weakening of the authority principle. Landmann's failure to attain the status that Metz had in the community is indicated in-

directly by her appointments of church elders. Of the 42 elders she appointed, 32 were close consanguineal or affinal relatives of one or more living elders.3 In contrast, only 18 of 39 elders appointed by Metz between 1855 and his death, and 42 of 79 elders appointed in the 25 years after Landmann's delth by the Grosser Bruderrath, were related to living elders. In her appointments, Landmann favored members of a small, intermarrying group of families whose men ran the affairs of the community, both as members of the Grosser Bruderrath and as managers of the larger businesses in the society. She thereby helped perpetuate the authority of those families already in power. This might mean that her own

authority depended on theirs: either she used appointments as a way of earning the support of those in power or they, wanting to preserve for their descendants the privileges they en-

joyed, exerted pressure on Landmann to make the appropriate appointments.

Finally, there are the aggregate characteristics of Landmann's testimonies, including the

quality of regularization, which we are at last in a good position to understand. From the

patterning of the testimonies alone we might construe that Metz's leadership was erratic and unpredictable, while Landmann's became stable and reliable. The historical facts do

not allow such an interpretation. We know that Metz was a stronger leader than Landmann

and that his death made her situation more difficult. His death also initiated patterning in

her testimonies. In this light, another explanation is needed. There is, in the absence of pattern in Metz's testimonies, the suggestion of spontaneity,

of greater flexibility, of specific response to specific stimulus. The patterning of Landmann's testimonies, on the other hand, implies less spontaneity and more rigidity. Beyond that it suggests an increased separation between the inspired word and the situation surrounding its delivery. This is seen most clearly in the routinization of special church services. Under Metz, the occurrence of such rites as Liebesmahl and Kinderlehre depended on the spiritual condition of the congregation. Metz frequently scheduled a service and then canceled it at the last minute because the members were not "spiritually prepared." The occurrence or nonoccurrence of special church events thus conveyed important infor-

mation to the faithful. Under Landmann the occurrence of special services was automatic and did not depend on external factors. The predictability of special services meant their occurrence transmitted less information.

Landmann's testimonies also transmitted less information due to their patterned delivery. It might be objected that in order for this to be true the pattern would have to be

perceived, at least subconsciously, by members of the community. While some members

might have perceived the pattern, it is not necessary that they did so for the information content of the testimonies to be lower. Landmann's testimonies could not have been as

responsive to community events as Metz's were. Since they occurred "on schedule" they could not produce as great an impact, nor could they be used by Landmann to deal effec-

tively with any but routine problems. Problems which arose "between testimonies" stood

routlnizatlon of behavior 729

little chance of receiving prompt attention. The narrower content of her testimonies was an added limitation.

Whether a high degree of responsiveness was necessary after 1867 is debatable. Under Metz's leadership, the Inspirationists had already dealt with the major problems of becom-

ing established. By the time of his death they had achieved a degree of prosperity and

security not known before. But the argument that the routinization of Landmann's testimonies reflects a more secure and stable situation in Amana is unwarranted for two reasons. The regularization of Landmann's testimonies occurred too abruptly to be ex-

plained entirely as a reflection of changing conditions. Furthermore, as noted above, internal problems in the community increased after Metz's death. This increase could be due to

objections people had to Landmann's style of leadership, or it could be due to a decrease in the responsiveness of her testimonies to community events.

Two other characteristics of Landmann's testimonies should be mentioned in this context: her preference for addressing large groups and the infrequency with which she

reprimanded individuals in church services. These characteristics reinforce another impres- sion about the regularization of her testimonies, namely, that Landmann was withdrawing from close contact with the rank-and-file members. Her preference for addressing large congregations meant less intimate contact between herself and individual members of the

community. The small number and often harsh character of her personally directed testimonies did not help to bridge the gulf this created. Finally, the regularity of her testimonials can easily be construed as a way of creating distance between herself and the members. Although the analysis of individual motivations is not my major concern, one could speculate that Landmann's patterned conduct served an ego-defense function

against anxiety and insecurity over the demands of the new situation. Under Landmann the

relationship between Werkzeug and congregation became a formal, nonspontaneous one, the Werkzeug's part of which was fulfilled through rigid and stereotyped behavior.

conclusions

What contribution can the study of charismatic leadership make to current an-

thropological concerns? Charisma, as Weber described it 60 years ago, unquestionably is a

process of the kind anthropologists have been urged to study. The rise of charismatic leaders and the routinization which legitimizes their successors is "an endless series of

negotiations among actors about the assignment of meaning to the acts in which they joint- ly participate" (Turner 1977:63). Charisma is not just the special qualities of a leader nor the

recognition of that leader by a group of followers. Rather, it is the relationship between the two-leader and followers-as influenced by the qualities of the leader and the attitudes of the followers (Spencer 1973). This relationship is defined processually or, as Turner (1977)

expresses it, is continuously negotiated. In light of this, what does routinization mean? Weber and the modern processualists dif-

fer. Where Weber (1968) saw the waning of charisma as the attainment of structure and per- manency, process analysis would not: "the seemingly fixed is really the continuously renewed" (Turner 1977:64). Can these views be reconciled? How can we measure degrees of routinization?

Jerome Bruner (1979) in an essay on "The Conditions of Creativity," has written that "effective surprise" is the hallmark of a creative enterprise. Effective surprises have "the

quality of obviousness about them when they occur" (1979:18). Although Bruner is writing about artistic creativity, something of the same quality exists in the appearance of pure charisma. Above all else, charisma is a creative enterprise. By combining old elements in


new patterns, charisma produces effective surprise; it works with such power that the new

patterns have the quality of obviousness to those who follow the charismatic leader. Put

another way, the new patterns are sacred in Rappaport's (1971:69) sense of the word: they have "the quality of unquestionable truthfulness imputed by the faithful to unverifiable

propositions." Routinization brings an end to effective surprises. The more routinized charisma

becomes, the less novelty it creates.

When the tide that lifted a charismatically led group out of everyday life flows back into the chan- nels of workaday routines, at least the "pure" form of charismatic domination will wane and turn in- to an "institution"; it is then either mechanized, as it were, or imperceptibly displaced by other structures, or fused with them in the most diverse forms, so that it becomes a mere component of a concrete historical structure (Weber 1968:1121).

When a very young charismatic leader dies suddenly, the shift to routinization may be

abrupt if his followers emphasize the codification of his teachings. In the Church of True

Inspiration routinization was more gradual. Periods of high creativity alternated with

periods of low creativity. By the time the Inspirationists arrived in Amana, creativity was on

the wane. Metz's death diminished it further. Under Landmann, the community followed

the direction Metz established for it, and her leadership produced few surprises. Landmann was less revered than Metz; possibly because of that she lacked both his self-

confidence and his humility. This resulted in a pattern of leadership, particularly evident in

her testimonies, which minimized novelty and creativity. I suggest that Landmann feared

creativity because it might, in her hands, result in what we could call "ineffective

surprises." Rather than producing "a shock of recognition after which there is no longer astonishment" (Bruner 1979:18), ineffective surprise simply produces a shock. Landmann's

few attempts at creativity (the tree episode, for instance), seem to have produced just this

effect. Instead, she retreated into pattern. The behavior she adopted was mostly unob-

trusive; it affirmed the sanctity of things as they were, or as Metz had left them. It was also

less cybernetic, a fact which led back to, and reinforced, the relationship she had with the

community. She behaved in ways which can be seen as a defense against feelings of in-

feriority in a role which she felt should have been supreme. The members of the communi-

ty helped to shape this behavior by their responses to Landmann's leadership. The mutually determined definition of her role is reflected in the patterning of the testimonies she gave.

Routinization, in this view, means a loss of creativity but not an absence of process. It

can be useful or detrimental, appropriate or not, depending on the situation. The kind of

routinization that occurred in Amana-in which the behavior of a charismatic leader

became routinized-may be uncommon. We need to know how else routinization takes

place and more about the forces which institutionalize charisma. Unlike some others, I do

not believe the concepts are too vague to be useful. They are elucidated by, and in turn

may help to elucidate, process theory in social science. The data I offer in this paper show

that objective measurements of routinization are possible; my analysis of the data leads

me to propose that creativity is a variable characteristic of process.

notes

Acknowledgments. The computer analysis on which this paper is partially based was done with the help of Michael J. Levin and was first used in my doctoral dissertation for the Department of An- thropology, University of Michigan. Roy A. Rappaport, William D. Schorger, Conrad P. Kottak, and Max D. Heirich provided valuable criticism. Ronald J. Kurtz and Ralph A. Luebben read and com- mented on an earlier version of this paper. The fieldwork on which the larger study was based was conducted during 1971, 1972, and 1973.


1 Shils (1965) has argued that Weber dealt with only one aspect of a larger phenomenon in his treatment of charisma. In this view, the work of contemporary social scientists might be seen as even more specialized than I am claiming. Nevertheless, the studies we do have (e.g., Ake 1966; Apter 1968; Berger 1963; Dekmejian and Wyszomirski 1972; and Oommen 1967) provide useful and interesting data. Of interest to anthropologists is Wilson's The Noble Savages (1975) which includes a lengthy chapter on charismatic leaders in less-developed societies.

2 The seven villages are: Main Amana, East Amana, Homestead, South Amana, West Amana, High Amana, and Middle Amana.

3 The new elders were related to other elders in the following ways: as brother, son, nephew, first cousin, brother-in-law, and son-in-law.

references cited

Ake, Claude 1966 Charismatic Legitimation and Political Integration. Comparative Studies in Society and

History 9:1-13. Andelson, Jonathan G.

1979 Sexual Separation in Communal Amana. Ms. Files of the author. Apter, David

1968 Nkrumah, and Charisma and the Coup. Daedalus 97:757-792. Berger, Peter

1963 Charisma and Religious Innovation: The Social Location of Israelite Prophecy. American So- ciological Review 28:940-950.

Bord, Richard J. 1975 Toward a Social-psychological Theory of Charismatic Social Influence Processes. Social

Forces 53:485-497. Bruner, Jerome

1979 On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University. Cohen, D. L.

1972 The Concept of Charisma and the Analysis of Leadership. Political Studies 20:299-305. Dekmejian, Richard H., and Margaret J. Wyszomirski

1972 Charismatic Leadership in Islam: The Mahdi of the Sudan. Comparative Studies in Society and History 14:193-214.

Dow, Thomas, E., Jr. 1969 The Theory of Charisma. The Sociological Quarterly 10:306-318.

Duval, Francis Alan 1948 Christian Metz, German-American Religious Leader and Pioneer. Ph.D. dissertation. Depart-

ment of German, State University of Iowa. Friedland, William H.

1964 For a Sociological Concept of Charisma. Social Forces 43:18-26. Heinemann, George

1925 Inspirations-Historie, Vol. 6 (1906-14). Amana, IA: Amana Church Society. Oommen, T. K.

1967 Charisma, Social Structure and Social Change. Comparative Studies in Society and History 10:85-99.

Rappaport, Roy A. 1971 Ritual, Sanctity and Cybernetics. American Anthropologist 74:59-76.

Ratnam, K. J. 1964 Charisma and Political Leadership. Political Studies 12:341-354.

Scheuner, Gottlieb 1869 (comp.) Jahrbuecher der Wahren Inspirations-Gemeinden. Vol. 39 (1859). Amana, IA: Amana

Church Society. 1870 (comp.) Jahrbuecher der Wahren Inspirations-Gemeinden. Vol. 42 (1867). Amana, IA: Amana

Church Society. 1900 Inspirations-Historie. Vol. 1 (1867-76). Amana, IA: Amana Church Society.

Shils, Edward 1965 Charisma, Order and Status. American Sociological Review 30:199-213.

Spencer, Martin E. 1973 What is Charisma? British Journal of Sociology 24:341-354.

Tucker, Robert C. 1968 The Theory of Charismatic Leadership. Daedalus 97:731-756.

Turner, Victor 1969 The Ritual Process. Chicago: Aldine.


1977 Process, System and Symbol: A New Anthropological Synthesis. Daedalus 106:61-80. Weber, Max

1968 [1922] Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, eds. New York: Bedminster Press.

Willner, Ruth Ann, and Dorothy Willner 1965 The Rise and Role of Charismatic Leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science 358:77-88. Wilson, Bryan

1975 The Noble Savages: The Primitive Origins of Charisma and Its Contemporary Survival. Berke- ley: University of California Press.

Submitted 24 August 1979 Accepted 8 January 1980 Final revisions received 28 February 1980

appendix: variables and their attributes

Two sorts of variables were coded: scheduling and content. Seven scheduling variables are relevant to the present discussion.

1. Werkzeug: Christian Metz and Barbara Landmann were the only active Werkzeuge. 2. Location: In Germany testimonies were delivered in dozens of different communities, large and

small. In America they were restricted almost entirely to the villages in which the Inspirationists lived, first the five villages of the Ebenezer Society in New York, and then the seven Amana villages. In this study only testimonies in the seven Amana villages were included (Main Amana, East Amana, Homestead, South Amana, West Amana, High Amana, and Middle Amana).

3. Year: An appreciable number of testimonies began to be given in Amana only after 1858, when Christian Metz moved there permanently. Testimonies continued to be given until 1883, the year of Landmann's death.

4. Month 5. Day of week 6. Occasion: The occasion could be one of the 11 regular weekly church services, a funeral service, a

written testimony (Einsprache), an elders' meeting, a meeting involving only the Werkzeug and a small number of associates, or one of several holiday services (Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost, and the fall harvest). Four other important services were: Unterredung (yearly spiritual examination); Kinderlehre (a service for young members); Liebesmahl (communion); Bundesschliessung (renewal of the covenant).

7. Group Addressed: Inspirationist congregations were divided into four grades, or Versammlungen, subcongregations which approximated age groupings but which also reflected the level of piety of the members. Advancement from a lower to a higher Versammlung was attendant not only on age but on marital status and church attendance. Demotions also occurred, being ordered through inspiration or by elders as a form of punishment. The Versammlungen of each village met together for some religious services (Allgemeine Versammlung) and separately for others. Many testimonies were given at meetings of one or another Versammlung and directed to members of that Versammlung only.

Content was divided into spiritual content (religious messages) and material content (practical or temporal messages). Spiritual content was coded using a set of key words, e.g., human sinfulness, God's goodness, the nature of evil, divine wrath, wakefulness, redemption. Despite the large number of categories-over 20-the terms were quite broad and their utility was therefore compromised.

Material content was substantially less ambiguous, and coding was consequently of greater value. One variable simply identified whether or not material content was present. Four specific categories of material content were also coded: (1) aspects of membership in the community (banishments, reinstatements, appointments, promotions and demotions, marriage, individual misbehavior and reprimands, etc.); (2) economic matters; (3) the community's interaction with outsiders; and (4) general community affairs (calls for a fast day or a special church service). Primary and secondary content were coded for each testimony. Also coded was whether individual members of the congregation were named in a testimony.


Documents

6003 - ANDELSON