Introduction: Defining Charisma and Post-Truth

Max Weber famously defined charisma as “a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary” (cited in Potts 2009: 127). Charles Lindholm defines it thus: “the admiration offered to glamorous movie stars, exciting sports heroes, and Kennedyesque politicians – adulation which goes far beyond mere admiration of someone with special expertise” (1990: 9). Moving beyond the traditional Weberian analysis of charisma, Stephen Jaeger sees charisma as

Further, “[T] he effect of charisma is ‘enchantment,’ engaging the whole range of meaning of that word from a shallow moment of pleasure (‘Enchanted to make your acquaintance’) to a spellbound state of participation and imitation, to idolatry and transformation” (9).

The Oxford Dictionaries (2016) defined post-truth as an adjective “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” The language of reporting and information lacks any reference to facts, truths, and realities. Bruce McComiskey in Post-Truth Rhetoric and Composition writes:

When a Bollywood star exudes the charisma effect, I suggest, the “scene” is ripe for the adoring audience to affectively believe in the star, whether it is in Salman Khan's innocence or Sanjay Dutt's “reform” in prison, in Karan Johar's sexuality, in Alia Bhatt's low intelligence, or in sharp contrast, Aamir Khan's image of the “thinking star.” Charisma, then, is primarily an affective condition, an appeal to the sentiments.