There certainly exist religious belief systems and religious communities with no clear role for religious specialists — figures of religious authority whose position depends upon religious learning or revelation as opposed to mere administrative acumen. Such communities are, however, very much in the minority. It is much more common to find a number of clearly delineated roles for religious specialization in the average religious community.
Many studies of religious specialists use the ideal types which Max Weber used to differentiate between three basic sorts of religious leaders: the priest, the magician and the prophet. The ideal type of priest is part of a organized religious system which is “concerned with influencing the gods.” The priest is a formal role in a formal system which is engaged in a more-or-less permanent and regular set of rituals. Because of this, the priest’s claim to legitimate authority rests with his or her adherence to traditional or legal requirements for the role.
The magician, on the other hand, may be similarly involved with influencing sprits and gods, but this effort is individual (rather than part of an organized system) and occasional (rather than as part of an ongoing effort or set of rituals). Magicians might be thought of as being specialized in an unorganized and even informal religious system. A magician or sorcerer’s claim to legitimacy rests almost entirely with his or her effectiveness. Tradition certainly plays a role, but due to the largely informal nature of the role, a magician who is unable to “produce” what is promised is one whose authority simply won’t be acknowledged for long.
Finally, the prophet was for Weber an idealized religious figure who is motivated by a “calling” of a higher power which places him or her outside traditional or legal religious structures. If people recognize this person as having any legitimate authority, it is on the basis of his or her personal charisma and the belief that claims to divine revelation are correct. Should enough followers join the following, a social and/or religious revolution may result. Such leaders also typically posses extraordinary powers, described by Weber as:
- “[T]he capacity to achieve the ecstatic states which are viewed, in accordance with primitive experience, as the preconditions for producing certain effects in meteorology, healing, divination, and telepathy.”
It is important to remember here that while a prophet may connect himself to a religious tradition and use it to bolster his legitimacy, ultimately his ability to lead people derives from his personal image among his followers. He may be part of a religious tradition, but he also represents an attempt to break with at least part of that tradition as part of an effort to reconceptualize many basic assumptions, roles, and beliefs.
Sometimes this attempt at reconceptualization may be framed as a renewal and return to older forms; other times it may be framed as a completely new revelation and way of doing things. Neither is entirely distinct from the other and each shares a bit of the other. What characterizes the effort most fundamentally is that it engages religion as a force for social change rather than as a force for social stability — a key characteristic of traditional and legal religious authority figures.
One type of religious specialist which later researchers have focused upon, but which Weber didn’t address, is that of shaman. A typical shaman shares certain characteristics which can be found in all three of the others discussed thus far. Like a charismatic prophet, the shaman derives his legitimacy through personal contact with the divine rather than through standardized religious education or structures, as with the priest.
Like the priest, however, the shaman is engaged in regular and organized religious rituals, very different from the magician. On the other hand, like the magician, the shaman’s legitimacy is also in part dependent upon effectiveness — a shaman who doesn’t “produce” will end up being replaced. Shamans are not separated from the people in the way that priests usually are; instead, they are very much a part of the community’s life.
Even these ideals do not entirely exhaust the sorts of religious specialization that exist around the world. They do, however, cover quite a lot of ground and can help one understand most of the types of religious leaders and religious authority figures that one is likely to encounter.
