Since the concept of charisma entered into the language of social sciences and political practice, there have been significant evolutions and variations in its functioning. Max Weber himself distinguished «true» and routinized charisma, not arguing, however, that the routinization of charisma could lead to its complete disappearance as a type of domination. Nevertheless, by the middle of the 20th century, the line of thought and practice had prevailed on the desirability of the fastest possible, most preventive restraint of charisma and its political projections. However, the subsequent emergence of a whole galaxy of powerful charismatics has produced a new vector of interpretation. Ronald Glassman considers charisma as entirely «manufactured», and this is what the authors of numerous manuals on «development» of charisma and «personal magnetism» believe. At the same time, Edward Shils overturns the Weberian distinction of the «true» charisma, preferring to call it «intense» or «concentrated», and the routinized, calling it «dispersed», «attenuated». According to Shils, the initial, moreover «normal» form of charisma is the second one. This turns out to be the case because charisma is not, in fact, produced by one or other charismatic on his own, but by the center of the society that serves as the arena for its activities. There are societies — so there are centers. There are centers — so there is charisma. There is charisma — so there are charismatics. The concept keeps working. Yet in the first quarter of the 21st century, there are no outstanding political charismatics. It can be assumed that this deficit is related to the progressive loss of faith in the very existence of any politically significant transcendences, which according to Shils provide conditions for the construction of macrosocial centers. Can we imagine the conditions in which charisma and charismatic domination could be revived? Logically, yes. A part in this revival could be played by a shock of unprecedented strength and a priori unforeseeable nature, one which would make mankind believe once more in the presence of vitally «serious things» in their lives, that is, in things having «transcendent importance», «thought to be fundamental, that is, which affect the fate of human beings on earth, in life and in death» (Shils). In the absence (or in expectation) of immanent or transcendent shocks, it would be worth undertaking the task of operationalization of the known but not well-researched antithesis of «dark», «negative», and «light», «positive» charisma, primarily by studying their relative survivability and ability to regenerate.