Preserving charisma in institutional reform: a sociological approach - Common Understanding and Vision: Continuing the Discussion

It is generally agreed that human beings are gregarious animals, tending naturally to form groups with their fellow beings. But it is important to note that this type of spontaneous group cannot be considered as an association. Before a human group can be considered as a social body, a process of construction must take place, resulting in a minimum scheme of social organization. By this process human beings are said to move from the "natural state" to that of an elementary social order. In other words, men and women begin to join together in objective bodies calling for a measure of social engineering. In so doing, they reveal not only their capabilities but also their relationships of power and mutual dependence. These human associations may be short-lived, flexible, with no great impact on the lives of those belonging to them. Or they may exert an undeniable influence both on the existence of the individuals whom they comprise and on the groups of which they are constituted. When a human group displays solidity of this kind, which enables it to endure through changing historical circumstances, it is said to indicate the beginnings of an institution.

For social scientists, a social institution appears when a group of individuals moves from the "natural state", in which they are driven by their enthusiasms, instincts and immediate needs for survival, to a "social state" in which they join together. The process of institutionalization has a subjective and an objective dimension. The former reflects the awareness of those constituting the group of a shared need to form a social entity to express a collective consciousness. This consciousness of forming a community together, of wanting to remain together, prompts them to affirm the specific ties that bind them. This constitutes the subjective, spiritual dimension of an association that is becoming an institution. It denotes its character, its style of being. In this sense, from the sociological point of view, we may speak of the existence of an institutional charisma. The characteristic instability of natural manifestations of the spiritual power of human persons or associations is channelled into an order by agreement among the members of the association that is turning into an institution.

At this point the other dimension of the process of institutionalization comes into play. This marks the transition from subjectivity to the objective reality of the institution. This is when, in public life, the human being becomes a "citizen". The spiritual force which caused a group of individuals to join together must be formalized; and this is done by constructing laws, decrees, rules, statutes which are adopted by mutual agreement to regulate the life of the association as it becomes an institution.

These two dimensions of the process of institutionalization are always in a relationship of tension and complementarity. When the subjective, charismatic element predominates, movement predominates over form. On the other hand, in situations where the institutional form has become extremely rigid, the weight of the established forms shows itself in a more or less developed bureaucratic mentality, reflecting the will to objectify charisma.(1) When the charismatic dimension predominates over institutional form, the irrational element is uppermost. When the reverse is true, the danger is that the institution may lose its way in a complicated labyrinth of rationalizations (constitution, rules, codes of behaviour, etc.). In either case the imbalance inevitably has an adverse effect on the strength of the institution. This is why it is essential to maintain the tension between the two dimensions while promoting their complementarity.

This of course is easier said than done, especially when it comes to maintaining the vitality of the institution in the midst of historical changes. Because institutions are the product of human socio-political engineering, they are bound to be affected by historical conditions. Very often they were built to enable particular groups to respond to the Challenges of specific conditions. When changes take place that remove or suspend the context in which an institution was originally founded, it becomes an anachronism, the expression of a vitality that once existed but no longer does so. If an institution is to maintain its vitality it must conserve its charisma and, at the same time, carry out reforms that enable it to express this in a concrete form.

Historical changes in our times

The Austro-British historian Eric Hobsbawm has attempted to interpret what he calls "the short twentieth century",(2) which he sees as stretching from 1914 to 1991 -- a period, incidentally, which more or less coincides with the great period of development of the modem ecumenical movement. Before reflecting on the relation between ecumenical institutions and the historical changes now taking place, let us look briefly at Hobsbawm's ideas on the course of events during the century now drawing to a close.