Further evidence of the foregoing bias shows up in a variety of places in Oakes' book, but, perhaps, one of the clearest expressions of this slant comes in the conclusion when Oakes asks, and, then, answers a question:
“But is the prophet really an enlightened spiritual being? If this question asks whether the prophet has personally experienced with the fullness of his being – with his feelings and his relationships – a spiritual reality, then, the answer appears to be no. Indeed, quite the opposite is true; it is the very shallowness of the prophet's feelings and relationships, his pervasive narcissism that prevents him from ever entering into a genuine relationship with another, or ever having anything other than pseudo feelings for others.”
The foregoing statements may be quite accurate in their portrayal of the individuals whom Oakes actually studied in the field, and, as well, this sort of characterization may even be true of many of the religious, revolutionary, and charismatic personalities about whom Oakes read during that phase of his research. In addition, Oakes is making an important point when he makes the quality of behavior a crucial, defining feature in determining whether, or not, someone should be considered to be a fully realized spiritual being.
Nonetheless, one hesitates to apply his conclusions across the board to any and all 'prophets'. Although Oakes does not say so directly, the implication of his foregoing perspective tend to extend to such spiritual luminaries as: Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna, David, Solomon, Joseph, Abraham, and a host of others (peace and blessings be upon them all) who are considered to be emissaries and prophets of Divinity.
To be sure, in the context of Oakes' study, the aforementioned remarks concerning whether, or not, prophets are spiritually realized human beings is primarily intended to refer to those individuals who fall into the category of 'charismatic prophet'. However, and as will be developed shortly, because Oakes' idea of charisma is, itself, problematic, a variety of difficulties arise in conjunction with his belief that, in general, 'prophets' are not really enlightened spiritual beings.
Part of the problem here is that some of the previously noted characteristics which, supposedly, differentiate between messianic and charismatic prophets raise some questions. For example, Oakes claims that one of the distinguishing features of a charismatic prophet is that such individuals tend to identify themselves with the Godhead, and, so, one might be puzzled about the idea of prophets not being spiritually realized human beings when one remembers that Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: “I and my Father are one” (this is a statement of tawhid/unity, not identity or incarnation).
Is Oakes prepared to claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not only an unrealized spiritual being but, as well, was, if one accepts Oakes' logic, a charismatic prophet who was narcissistic and incapable of forming genuine, sincere, loving relationships with other human beings? If so, where is the evidence for this, and, if not, then, perhaps, his theoretical framework will have to be modified accordingly.
Or, consider another possibility. According to Oakes, two of the characteristics of a charismatic prophet involve (a) locating Divinity within, rather than through external channels, and (b) filtering one's relationship with 'being' through a set of impersonal forces rather than through a personal relationship with a 'God'.
Presumably, on the basis of the foregoing, one might be required to place 'the Buddha' (peace be upon him) in the category of a 'charismatic prophet' since Buddhism is often portrayed, rightly or wrongly, as filtering one's relationship with Being through non-theistic forces of, to some extent, an impersonal nature. Yet, if one does this, is one forced to conclude that 'the Buddha' (peace be upon him) was a spiritually unrealized human being who was inclined to narcissism and only capable of having pseudo, shallow relationships with other individuals?
Similar questions arise in conjunction with some of the remarks made by Oakes concerning the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). For example, Oakes indicates (page 182) that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was among a group of historical personalities who led successful movements and passed away with their integrity intact – i.e., no scandals. Oakes also identifies others who he judges to be like the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in this regard – e.g., Father Divine, Phineas Quimby, Prabhupada, Kathryn Kuhlman, and Ann Lee – that is, 'prophets' who led successful, scandal-free movements.
These are individuals who did not self-destruct as is the tendency of many individuals who may fall into the category of 'charismatic prophets. Yet, at another juncture in his book (page 94), Oakes seeks to use Muhammad (peace be upon him) as an example of a historical prophet who, in Oakes' opinion, “played the part of a wounded innocent”, by going into seclusion, in order to manipulate his wives into accepting his “dalliance with a slave girl”.
Oakes does not provide any evidence to support his interpretation of the foregoing judgment. He states the foregoing as if it were an obvious fact and beyond question.
However, why should one accept such a judgment or interpretation? Why should one suppose that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was 'playing' the role of a 'wounded innocent'? Why should one suppose that he was trying to manipulate anyone? Why should one suppose that his relationship with the 'slave girl' was a mere “dalliance”?
Oakes is using a number of pejorative labels in reference to the Prophet. Where is the independent evidence which indicates that any of his ways of describing the situation are evidentially warranted rather than expressions of Oakes' arbitrary biases being imposed on something about which he has no genuine insight or understanding?
For Oakes, one of the defining features of charismatic prophets is their capacity for, and willingness to, manipulate others. Indeed, one of the features which, supposedly, permits us to differentiate 'messianic prophets' from 'charismatic prophets' is the amazing social insight possessed by members of the latter category -- a capacity which, according to Oakes, allows such individuals to, in a sense, know which buttons to push in order to maneuver people in a desired direction.
Consequently, as was the case with respect to the implications -- for both Jesus (peace be upon him) and the Buddha (peace be upon him) -- of Oakes' foregoing quote concerning the lack of spiritual enlightenment in relation to 'prophets', once again, one is faced with an implication which paints Muhammad (peace be upon him) as someone who, according to the implications of Oakes' logic, may have been spiritually unenlightened, narcissistic, manipulative, and capable of only superficial, shallow relationships with others.
One of the arguments which some individuals have leveled against theoreticians like Freud is that he used his understanding of abnormal behavior and psychopathology to set the tone for what he considered to be healthy, normal psychological development. According to such critics, when one starts with a certain kind of sample set -- namely, people suffering from pathology -- one may not be able to validly make the transition from: what that sample says about the nature of the people in such a sample, to: claims concerning the psychology of human nature in a population of people who do not suffer from such pathology.
Similarly, by using certain, arbitrarily decided-upon, behavioral and functional characteristics of individuals as the basis for labeling various individuals as 'prophets', one might wish to pause for a moment and ask whether the behavioral and functional characteristics being cited really are reflective of how an actual 'Prophet' might think, feel, act, or be motivated. Even if one wishes to argue that the latter considerations should not shape and orient a study in psychology, nevertheless, one still needs to take note of the lacunae which are, potentially, present when a researcher tries to do an end around, or ignore, the idea of 'authenticity' with respect to someone who claims to be, or is perceived to be, a prophet, and, as a result, employs arbitrarily chosen criteria to shape the operational definitions one uses to establish categories, differentiate individuals, and orient one's research.
If the definition of a 'prophet' does not necessarily reflect historical and/or traditional considerations, and if the sample being studied does not necessarily reflect historical and/or traditional 'realities' concerning the lives of Prophets, then, one should, at the very least, raise a caveat concerning the validity of applying the results of a given study -- like that of Oakes -- to a larger population containing some individuals who may actually be individuals who were appointed by Divinity to pursue goals, purposes, and activities which are in contradistinction to Oakes's operational definition of 'prophet' and who are neither necessarily delusional nor under the influence of one, or another, fantasy with respect to their relationship with Divinity.
What difference do the foregoing considerations make with respect to understanding the idea of 'prophetic charisma' or the psychology of revolutionary, religious personalities? As it turns out, perhaps a great many problematic ramifications may arise as a result of such considerations, and this might be most clearly described and explained through an examination of the way in which Oakes talks about two other themes: charisma and narcissism, within the context of a theory which claims to be directed toward helping us understand the nature of: 'prophetic charisma'.
I do not feel it would be distorting Oakes' position to say that, to a major extent, the phenomenon of charisma is, for him, an expression of, and rooted in, the phenomenon of narcissism. At least, this does seem to be the case as far as the idea of the psychology of religious personalities is concerned – both with respect to 'prophets' as well as their followers.
Oakes indicates that someone can be referred to as charismatic when she or he is perceived to embody something referred to as “ultimate concerns”. This embodiment of ultimate concerns may be in relation to either oneself or others, however, the meaning of 'ultimate concern' tends to vary from person to person.
However, when an individual has extraordinary needs (and extraordinary needs is linked to the formation of a nuclear self early which is colored by, among other things, narcissistic forces) in relation to whatever a given 'ultimate concern' may turn out to be for that person, then, according to Oakes, the perception of the embodiment of that ultimate concern in another human being gives expression to an extremely powerful magnetic force of attraction. This conjunction of 'ultimate concerns', 'extraordinary needs', and the 'embodiment' of such concerns in a person who, as a result, is perceived to be a vehicle for: accessing, being in proximity to, and/or realizing such ultimate concerns, is considered, by Oakes, to be at the heart of the phenomenon of charisma.
Although the foregoing description does not specifically limit charisma to spiritual contexts, nonetheless, Oakes does believe that charisma constitutes a spiritual power with a considerable potential to revolutionize society. Moreover, he believes charisma has the capacity to spiritualize the extraordinary needs and ultimate concerns of those who are seeking to have their needs and concerns fulfilled.
It is hard, at this point, to understand just what Oakes means by the idea that charisma can spiritualize ultimate concerns and extraordinary needs. If a given ultimate concern is not already spiritual in nature, or if an extraordinary need is not already rooted in spirituality of one kind or another, then, how does charisma, per se, spiritualize either ultimate concerns or extraordinary needs? What does it mean to spiritualize something?
Furthermore, since Oakes has indicated that charisma is a function of the perception that someone embodies the ultimate concerns of oneself or others, and since he has indicated that charisma is a function of the perception that someone will serve as a means to the fulfillment of one's extraordinary needs, then, one wonders about the precise dynamics of how either charisma, or its alleged spiritualizing dimension, works. After all, on the basis of the foregoing considerations, charisma seems to be something which is conferred on a given human being – e.g., a prophet -- as a result of the perceived embodiment of one's (or another's) ultimate concerns in, say, a 'prophet' due to the extraordinary needs of the one doing the perceiving.
If the foregoing characterization of things is correct, then, charisma is not something which a 'prophet' possesses. Rather, charisma arises -- and, sometimes, Oakes appears to suggest as much -- when the right alignment of 'prophet', 'ultimate concerns', 'extraordinary needs', and perception takes place. As such, charisma is a function of the dynamics of a certain kind of relationship between two, or more, people.
What a seeker brings to the equation are: ultimate concerns, extraordinary needs, and a perceptual mind-set which is actively or passively looking for something that resonates with those concerns and needs. What a 'prophet' brings to this dynamic are: his or her own kind of extraordinary needs, together with a set of qualities which not only resonate, to some degree, with the concerns and needs of the seeker, but which, as well, are perceived to have something of a supernatural-like aura about them -- that is, there is something about the relationship which appears to be largely inexplicable, magical, mysterious, and resistant to any kind of easy explanation … something which is experienced as seductive, alluring, magnetic, compelling, and somewhat mesmerizing.
One of the qualities which Oakes believes plays a significant role in the felt presence of charisma is the 'prophet's' talent for observation and an accompanying special ability to derive, from such observations, penetrating insights into the nature of on-going social dynamics as well as the extraordinary needs and ultimate concerns of individuals who engage the 'prophet'. Someone once remarked that one society's technology may appear like magic to another society which does not understand the principles through which such technology operates, and, similarly, when someone does not understand how a given person has arrived at her or his insight into one's extraordinary needs, ultimate concerns, or the surrounding social dynamics, then, the individual with insight may be perceived as someone who has magical-like, supernatural-like capabilities and powers simply because one may not understand how such insight is possible.
Do some 'prophets' actually have psychic, occult, extrasensory, or non-ordinary powers of perception? Oakes does not believe so.
He believes everything is explicable through the manner in which ordinary abilities and talents may be developed to an amazing degree by individuals who have extraordinary needs. These needs are dependent for their fulfillment on the existence and use of such capabilities.
Oakes maintains (page 188) that a charismatic relationship begins with a seeker's surrender and trust. According to Oakes, only later does the seeker begin to project her or his own ultimate concerns onto the 'prophet' and through this projection become 'fused' with the person of the 'prophet' to such a degree that the 'seeker' interacts with the 'prophet' as if he or she were an expression of one's own inner, deeper, more essential 'self'.
If so, this leaves unanswered the question of why someone would trust or surrender to another individual without some sort of substantial motivation for doing so? Apparently, Oakes seems to be saying that trust and surrender arise prior to, and independently of, the establishing of a charismatic relationship which, according to Oakes, revolves around the dynamics of 'extraordinary needs', 'ultimate concerns', and the perceived embodiment of these qualities in the person of the 'prophet' -- something which Oakes claims happens later in the relationship and, therefore, does not appear to be the initial reason why someone trusts and surrenders to the 'prophet'.
According to Oakes, charisma spiritualizes a relationship. Yet, somehow, trust and surrender -- which, presumably, are essential to any sort of spiritual relationship -- take place, on Oakes' account, before the main component of a charismatic relationship -- namely, the perceived presence of the embodiment of ultimate concerns -- is established.
The foregoing sequence of events appears somewhat counter-intuitive. A more likely explanation would seem to involve the possibility that the felt or perceived presence of charisma is what helps induce someone to trust and surrender to a 'prophet', and, if this is the case, then, Oakes may be mistaken about when the projection of ultimate concerns on to a 'prophet' takes place.
Furthermore, one wonders if it is so much a matter of a 'seeker's' projection of ultimate concerns onto the 'prophet', as it may be a matter of such ultimate concerns actually being reflected in, or resonating with, some, or all, of the words and behaviors of the 'prophet'. In other words, is one to suppose that the perception of the embodiment of ultimate concerns in another human being is merely a delusion in which nothing of those ultimate concerns actually is present in what a 'prophet' says and does, or should one assume that, to varying degrees, something of a substantive nature concerning such ultimate concerns is actually touched upon by the teachings and actions of the 'prophet'?
To be sure, a seeker could be mistaken. For example, a seeker might believe that something of his or her ultimate concerns was present in what the 'prophet's said and did, only to discover, subsequently, that such was not the case or that whatever was present was being expressed in a fraudulent and manipulative manner. Or, a seeker initially might believe that a given 'prophet' could serve as a venue through which the seeker's extraordinary needs and ultimate concerns could be realized, only to, later on, come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the 'prophet' could not actually assist one to fulfill one's extraordinary needs or ultimate concerns. Alternatively, a seeker's first, cursory impression of a 'prophet' may have led the seeker to believe that the prophet and she or he shared a set of common concerns, values, and the like, only to realize, upon closer inspection, that the two, despite initial impressions, really aren't on the same page with respect to a variety of issues, concerns, goals, and values.
However, such mistakes are not necessarily delusional in character. They are beliefs that come to be, hopefully, constructively modified in the light of subsequent experience … something -- that is, constructive modification -- to which delusions are inherently resistant.
As such, it is not ultimate concerns, per se, that are being projected onto the prophet/leader/teacher. Instead, what is being projected is a hope concerning the potential value of what may ensue in relation to one's ultimate concerns by linking up with someone claiming to be a prophet/guide/leader.
Trust and surrender are offered in exchange for a promissory note, of sorts, about future considerations in conjunction with the fulfillment of extraordinary needs and ultimate concerns. The felt presence of charisma is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as an indicator that someone -- namely, a prophet/leader/teacher -- can satisfy the conditions of that promissory note. The felt presence of charisma, justifiably or unjustifiably, tends to create certain kinds of expectations concerning the fulfillment of ultimate concerns and extraordinary needs in the future.
| Part One | Next | Part Four | Part Five | Psychology Menu |
|
