APA 6th Edition Blažević, R. (2003). Stigma i karizma. Politička misao, 40 (3), 128-144. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/23080
MLA 8th Edition Blažević, Robert. "Stigma i karizma." Politička misao, vol. 40, br. 3, 2003, str. 128-144. https://hrcak.srce.hr/23080. Citirano 19.09.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition Blažević, Robert. "Stigma i karizma." Politička misao 40, br. 3 (2003): 128-144. https://hrcak.srce.hr/23080
Harvard Blažević, R. (2003). 'Stigma i karizma', Politička misao, 40(3), str. 128-144. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/23080 (Datum pristupa: 19.09.2021.)
Vancouver Blažević R. Stigma i karizma. Politička misao [Internet]. 2003 [pristupljeno 19.09.2021.];40(3):128-144. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/23080
IEEE R. Blažević, "Stigma i karizma", Politička misao, vol.40, br. 3, str. 128-144, 2003. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/23080. [Citirano: 19.09.2021.]
Sažetak The author analyses the importance of charismatic authority in traditional societies, especially during the so-called watershed times. Max Weber was the first sociologist to explore the concept of charisma and charismatic authority within the context of legitimate political authority. Charisma is a quality of a person because of which they are deemed exceptional and due to which their followers consider them possessed of some rare supernatural and superhuman powers or traits. Such a person is thought of as God-given or laudable and is consequently looked up to as a leader. The author points to the link between stigma and charisma in the study by the German sociologist Wolfgang Lipp. Using his insights as the starting point, the author tries to illustrate his thesis by means of Tuđman’s case. How do stigma and charisma under certain historical circumstances merge in one person, enhancing the final impact on certain historical movements? In every society in watershed periods, when one political paradigm replaces another, when people get confused, stigma and charisma may be the focal points of a new fulcrum, a new identity. Under such circumstances, one must delineate both the outer and the inner boundaries between “these” and “those”, “us” and “them”. These boundaries (ethnic, confessional and national) are time and again confirmed through the glorification the leader and ostracizing “the undesirables” (it is ideologically self-evident who they are, e.g. Jews, Romanies, Croats, Serbs). In wartime, the emotional component is particularly pronounced. The bulk of the population identifies with the charismatic paragon. In such a context, it is a point of pride to be, for example, a Croat. However, this is only perfunctory, a mere ideology for the ignorant and manipulated populace. Under the surface, however, economic/political battles are raging, struggle for the redistribution of power by means of, among other things, getting rid of the competition by ethnic labelling. When stigma becomes a “lethal weapon” of a political movement, the consequences are unpredictable. Both stigma and charisma not infrequently end up in monstrosities. The events on the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s are an obvious example.