Review, by TSAS Affiliate Dr. Jeremy Littlewood

It is widely assumed that terrorist groups or cells are formed and held together, at least in part, by a leader and, given the violent, clandestine, and law-breaking nature of the objectives of such groups ‘leaders’ and their ‘followers’ must have formed a bond that is sufficient to draw an individual out of normal (law abiding) society and into terrorism. Drawing on existing literature on radicalization and case studies of certain groups and cells the authors draw attention to the inferred nature of the leader-follower relationship and the role of charisma in both bringing groups together and retaining organizational command and control.

The most important aspect of this article is the focus on how charisma is understood and used by scholars in terrorism studies. In basic terms, how charisma is misunderstood would be more accurate, since the term is neither consistently nor systematically used, according to Hofmann and Dawson: ‘the concept of charisma is invoked in these [terrorism] cases, [but] the discussion often cleaves to the limited popular understanding and little awareness is displayed of the social scientific research on charismatic authority. The failure to pursue the term further has led to a diffuse and inadequate usage of the concept in terrorism studies.’ As they note, ‘we must start by gaining a better grasp of the problem, noting where and how the concepts of charisma, charismatic leadership, and charismatic authority are used and abused in the literature on terrorism.’

However, their article is not solely a critique; rather an attempt to assist others in providing a more coherent and systematic foundation for future enquiry based on scholarship in other disciplines. In that respect, the article is further confirmation of the requirement for inter- and multidisciplinary approaches to the study of terrorism and counterterrorism.

Readers seeking a detailed case-by-case assessment of terrorist groups and their leaders, and more specifically the charismatic authority of such leaders, will therefore need to look elsewhere since the article is not a summation of existing research on specific individual leaders or groups. More accurately, readers seeking such an article will need to conduct the research themselves because the central point of Hofmann and Dawson’s assessment is that charisma is a term often invoked or assumed by those seeking to explain radicalization rather than systematically and coherently understood and applied across the literature. What the article offers, therefore, is not “answers” to who is charismatic, but a framework for understanding charisma and its role, and limits, based on qualitative and empirical approaches in other disciplines and the study of new religious movements. Such a foundation is important because, as they note, ‘many models of radicalization skirt around the edges of charismatization. They hint that charisma plays a consequential role in the radicalization process.’ Indeed, ‘References to charisma, no matter how inchoate, keep cropping up in the literature because leadership matters in the emergence and operation of international and homegrown terrorist groups, and there is the persistent sense that the leadership in question is extraordinary.’

How we understand, and identify, charismatic authority, has significant implications for counterterrorism in terms of radicalization, countering violent extremism, counter-narratives, and responding to both domestic and transnational terrorism. While the limited terrorism cases used are understandably on al Qaeda and al Qaeda-inspired and affiliated terrorism, the research has implications for ethno-nationalist, left wing, right wing, and single-issue terrorism, particularly if the assumption that small cells and groups will pose the most likely threat to democracies in the near future is correct. Moreover, there are hints of implications for countering the phenomenon of ‘foreign fighters’ within this study. Overall, researchers seeking additional knowledge and understanding of charismatic authority, however, will leave the text more informed and with a better understanding of knowledge gaps that remain to be filled in the public domain.