Charisma is a curious trait. It, or having it, involves a throng of variables, visible and invisible, that converge into a seductive puddle of quicksand. Verbalizing why someone is charismatic can be hard, but the *sense* that they are is fast-enveloping, before fusing to the stickiest part of your memory.
But really. Defining the thing is abstruse. Being able to read a room is good. Being able to command one is better. Speech cadence that’s not too fast or slow, a fringe concept explained with finesse but without pomp, eye contact that knows when to linger or lull. All of these can be a part of charisma; but there is no follow-able recipe. Which is to say: this is a doozy; let’s keep going.
Charisma personified might be Fran Lebowitz. It’s got to do with her acerbic social commentary and quippy retorts, yes, but it’s also her fluidity. Her every utterance is spouted effortlessly, accessorized often with a hoisted brow and never a trace of compromise. Fran glows with the force of a Christmas tree warehouse. Antithetical to charisma is cyborg billionaire Mark Zuckerbot, replete with beady eyes, gray skin and the sincerity of a dish rag.
Charisma is predicated on charm and confidence—both of which are underpinned by ego. Charisma is entrancing, I think, because it makes its owners *seem* very alive to the needs and nuances of their audience. In this way, it is like a game. But is charisma really so impressive when we consider that self-interest is its impetus, secondary to the fleeting thrills it supplies the spectator? And so, reader! Is charisma not just one type of manipulation? By design, manipulation is tiring to sustain.
Subversive feminist academic and ultimate shock jock, Camille Paglia, ascribes charisma to ease in egotism: “Charisma is the numinous aura around a narcissistic personality. It flows outward from a simplicity or unity of being and a composure and controlled vitality. There is gracious accommodation, yet commanding impersonality.” It’s the collision of gracious accommodation (“I care about you!”) and commanding impersonality (“This is NOT about you!”) for me. A special kind of showmanship that’s at once selfless and selfish.
The fast-talking Paglia—QUITE the skyward egotist herself—goes on to posit that charisma is a phenomenon for nascent lovers, calling it “the radiance produced by the interaction of male and female elements in a gifted personality.” She continues, “The charismatic woman has a masculine force and severity. The charismatic man has an entrancing female beauty. Both are hot and cold, glowing with presexual self-love.” Imagine! A cocky woman (uncouth!*) or a man with soft qualities (gay!**) being vessels for charisma. Without getting into how reductive it is to distill genders down to their most ad-friendly expressions—while also acknowledging Paglia’s view, spouted in 1999, lacks currency—there’s probably some truth to charisma being tied up with the subversion of gender normativity. If you have ever delighted in a woman deftly roasting a deserving man in front of his bros (it’s fun!) or been pleasantly surprised by a man’s generosity of emotion, then you to some degree agree.
*Joking!!!!!!!!!
**I am fucking joking!
But whether entangled with romantic desire or not, charisma is beholden to a familiarity gap between people—to materialize, it needs newness and distance—which is why, for regular people (unlike Fran), it’s usually an ephemeral quality. A disposable panty. A candle in the wind. That’s showbiz baby! Narrow that gap > learn who they bank with > forget about it. Once the pressure to be a gesticulating fountain of anecdotes wanes, you’re left with… all that other stuff. Complaining about housemates (so messy), irritating flexes (I actually enjoy running), commonplace observations (this Sweetgreen order slaps!) — these things are wildly uncharismatic. But can they be okay? Can you be okay with them? Unless you are a torrid sociopath, you can and you will.
[At this point, my brain clings to the phrase ‘the jig is up!’. I then pursue a Google image search of the same name. Here is one of the fruits of my labor. I don’t understand it and it has nothing to do with charisma.]
The gifted personality described by Paglia can really come and go like traffic.
Can a person be consistently charismatic over time? Not no. But for most of us the order is too tall. We need regular concessions to be banal, and by virtue of not being celebrated public figures—these concessions are very available. You have so much permission to be a useless conversationalist! So scurry off, after your convivial banter with the waiter wins you the esteem of six pallid acquaintances, and greet your partner at home with the humdrum chat they have settled for welcome because they love you unconditionally.
On the evening that follows, at their work Christmas party, you will come alive once more. You will speak not of transcendental salads, and instead, engineer a shimmering version of yourself that you later betray. This is fine; everything is fine!
‘it’s usually an ephemeral quality. A disposable panty. A candle in the wind. That’s showbiz baby!’ hahaha <3