Kara Haney
12/10/18
Honors 230
Meeting Democracy:
Becoming Better Leaders and a More Thoughtful Public
It’s 2018, and America is currently one of the most powerful countries in the world. The choices made within our country have a global impact. Worldwide, societies have to react to our own when we make change or take action, and those reactions can have both positive and negative consequences. America also has a lasting impact. What we do today will change what happens in the future. We have a great amount of power, and with great power comes great responsibility. However, we aren’t meeting the challenge well enough. We still remain in a short term, individual mindset. However, we do not live in a short term, individual world, and we cannot live like we do. In order for us to be good, responsibility wielders of such power, we need to become a better society. In order for us to became a good democratic society – a society that looks out for its people, those impacted by it, and future generations – it is necessary that we become better leaders and a more thoughtful public. In order to better take care of ourselves, those around us, and the future, it is necessary that we become a society that is capable of rising above itself.
Democracy in America
Of all political regimes, a democracy is one of the more difficult to uphold and sustain. A democracy is a form of government by the public, where power is either exercised directly or through elected representatives. In a democracy, leaders and the public fit hand-in-hand. They are made to balance out and correct each other so that – ideally – they are each continuously improving the other, resulting in a society that is capable of rising above itself. It requires considerable collaboration between both leaders and the public to keep such a regime functioning. More so than any other political system, a democracy requires that its public takes on responsibility. Not only does the public elect its own leaders, but – in order to truly sustain a strong democracy – the governed individuals need to have an understanding of democracy and be an active part of it within their respective communities. This is to true to having a good democracy– to aim for becoming a better society.
As previously mentioned, a democracy is a difficult political structure to uphold. Because of this, we should ask: is it worth it? Before having any thoughts on how to improve as leaders and individuals within a democracy, it’s important to understand what exactly a democracy is and why we want one in the first place, as opposed to other types of civil societies. In Developing Democratic Character in the Young, Roger Soder looks at democracy in comparison to other kinds of civil societies. He mentions that different civil societies have varying ideas of justice and of what “should be done,” oftentimes leading to violent or amoral ends. Many of these kinds of societies, such as anarchy, illustrate freedom, but freedom without rules, or freedom where each person plays by their own rules. In such societies, freedom is present in a chaotic and unstructured form that, generally, causes more harm than good. On the other hand, a democratic civil society presents freedom in a guided manner. There are rules and conditions that coexist with democratic freedom, which presents the necessary tension of finding the right balance between freedom and order.
In considering democracy, it is important to also look at the other end of the spectrum: despotism. There are fundamental differences between democratic and despotic societies. In spite of some necessary similarities between the two, there are a number of distinctions that can be made. These differences change the entire dynamic of society, and what it means to be both a leader and a member of the public under each regime.
A despotic society – that is, a society led by an authoritarian leader with power to make unilateral changes regardless of the will of the people – is characterized by fear. Because power is heavily centralized, many leaders take advantage of the lack of consequences that comes with possession of it. Without accountability, there is little reason to worry about ethical and ecological contexts. As such, one might say that “anything goes.” In a despotic society, it’s common for there to be a lack of regard for human life and fairness, where both may be thrown away without question. Bribery and force are used in place of persuasion, and fear is used as a means of stamping out potential threats to those in power and the system in place. Amongst citizens, anonymity is chosen over individuality, and silence is chosen over open communication. Even in knowing the state of society, nobody will acknowledge it. It is like a blatant brick wall that everybody pretends not to notice. In the face of a constant threat of punishment, the society submits to unfairness and remains suppressed through fear.
Regarding 1800’s Russia – a considerably despotic place at the time – marquis de Custine said: “only silence and fear reign.” He remarked on the incredible unity with which Russians held their silence and lied blatantly to each other, even while each knowing full well the truth. Out of fear, their individual thoughts and words were held at bay. As Custine noted, the truth is of no use in a society controlled by force, bribery, and fear. Laws were not respected nor enforced, and so order was kept by personal connections and bribery as opposed to freedom and justice. In considering this manner of societal order, Custine remarks, “fear can never be the soul of a well-organized society; it is not order—it is only the veil over chaos.” Such is the way of a despotic society.
In contrast to despotic societies, a democratic society hosts freedom and open communication. Unlike a despotic government, power is spread amongst all eligible citizens. Although it is not necessarily spread equally, the unified power of the public enforces the accountability of their leaders, making force and fear unsustainable practices. Because fear is not an option in keeping order, the justice system is employed to maintain laws, and the public is ruled by consent rather than out of compliance. Leaders in a democratic society are elected by the public, meaning that – in concept – leaders are representative of the governed; and, rather than a wall existing between leader and public, there is a crucial connection. Varied information is open and available to the public, and it is generally safe – encouraged, even – to use that information to consider things critically and form an individual opinion. Overall, democracy encourages individualism and an absence of fear.
Leaders and the public take on very different roles in despotic societies as opposed to democratic societies. Within a democracy, the roles of both leaders and the public require a considerable amount of responsibility and commitment. While the public needs to be politically and socially active, leaders need to help the public have access to resources and knowledge that will help them better take on those responsibilities. More than just societal roles, there are also details that need attending to in a democracy that those living in a despotic society don’t need to be concerned with. Because the public has as much power as it does in a democracy, leaders need to keep up a good image and be persuasive to gain the approval of their followers. A despotic government, set up as it is, requires none of these details.
In establishing America as a democratic, rather than despotic, society, it may seem clear that America is already doing something right. What else is there to accomplish? Where else is there to go? Well, while indeed America is a democratic society, it is not a direct democracy. Rather, it’s a democratic republic; meaning that, while American people get to elect their own representatives, they are not often allowed to take part in other critical decisions, such as lawmaking. So, while we are founded on democratic principles, there are limits to what we have now. We have a starting point, but we need more than just a society governed by the people. We need to create a society that understands what it means to live within a democracy, we need people who are capable and knowledgeable of how to govern themselves, and we need leaders who can navigate democratic values and guide America to a better future.
In order for a democratic regime to be established and function properly, it is necessary that a number of conditions are met. Democracy does not simply exist, naturally, in the world; there are certain characteristics and systems that allow it to occur. Just as water and sun are conditions for a flower to grow, so too does democracy have a set of requirements. Although there may not be a definite list, a compilation can be made to acquire a reasonable understanding of these conditions. Roger Soder shares one such compilation, citing twelve democratic conditions that must be adhered to. As follows, these are: trust, exchange, social capital, respect for equal justice under law, respect for civil discourse, recognition of the need for E Pluribus Unum, free and open inquiry, knowledge of rights, freedom, recognition of the tension between freedom and order, recognition of the difference between a persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public, and – finally – ecological understanding.
These twelve conditions are critical to both leaders and the public within a democracy. Considering that they are necessary aspects of a democracy, and having established that sustaining a democracy is a collaborative and active effort, it makes sense that leaders and the public should exhibit characteristics that reflect these conditions. In order for a democracy to exist, the people under the regime must reflect characteristics that enable the conditions to be met. However, as with democratic conditions, such character does not exist naturally and without guidance. In order to embody democratic character, it must first be learned. How, though?
Again, we return to Roger Soder, who touches down upon this notion of democratic education in the book Developing Democratic Character in the Young. Soder asserts that, in order for a standard of democratic character to be taught, it makes sense for America’s education system to be reworked to reflect those needs. More than just producers of high test scores and social workers, Soder argues that schools need to be active participants in creating good leaders and independent citizens. In order for a society to be self-governing, it needs to learn to understand, somewhere, the requirements of that responsibility. In order to ensure that the public is armed with the knowledge to secure the democratic conditions, the public must, somewhere, be taught that knowledge.
With such a system, it is possible for America’s public to become more responsible and capable of self-governing; it is possible for the democratic conditions to be fully realized; and it is possible for a more thoughtful public, a public capable of rising above itself, to emerge.
A More Thoughtful Public
A more thoughtful public is a critical part of creating a better democratic nation. In order for a democratic regime to exist, the citizens within it must have a working understanding of democracy and the knowledge to protect both it and their freedom. An understanding of the demands and tensions of a democratic regime needs to be had throughout society in order to maintain it. In order for a country to truly be self-governing and sustainable, the public must first understand its needs, be capable of doing what needs doing, and take an active role in society. A more thoughtful public is aware of the responsibility it has in voting in good representatives, and realizes that its leaders are likely to reflect what is deserved according to how and who voted. For a democracy to truly understand and value its own democratic quality, the public must be more than the servants of the people they elect. Their job must not be done after they have turned in their voting ballots. As previously noted, theoretically those voted into office as representatives will reflect what the public deserves. In order to get what they need, the public must be deserving of the needs being fulfilled. America’s public needs to become more educated and more involved, and willing to take on more responsibility than they currently bear, in order to create – and deserve – a better, more sustainable, society.
In considering a more thoughtful public, it is necessary to make the distinction between a more thoughtful public and a persuaded audience. The former is a key aspect of a good democratic regime, and an adept leader puts effort and resources into its creation and sustainment. The latter occurs when the public becomes too comfortable and relies too much on its leaders, and is a characteristic of a failing democracy. While a persuaded audience lives passively within its society, a more thoughtful public is aware of its responsibility and puts effort into bearing the weight of it.
A persuaded audience is a passive existence, in agreement with those leading it without actively considering its compliance. When decisions are made by those in power, individuals within a persuaded audience are unlikely to disagree or voice dissent. Information passed down by leaders isn’t likely to be critically evaluated, and information is rarely sought outside of what is directly given. Rather than two groups in collaboration, when an environment contains both leaders and a persuaded audience, the latter tends to only be a source of applause for the former.
In contrast, a more thoughtful public exhibits awareness and consideration in political and social matters. They actively seek information beyond what is explicitly told, and critically surveys the information they find. When they witness their leaders partaking in something they disagree with, they will hold their leaders accountable. Beyond themselves, a more thoughtful public takes seriously matters of both present and future, and is capable of thinking about things in the long term. Individuality of thought is a critical aspect of a more thoughtful public, and in this manner they are critical and questioning of both themselves and their leaders. Because of this nature, a more thoughtful public cannot exist within a despotic society; and, oppositely, without a more thoughtful public a democratic society cannot last.
There exists between these two extremes a spectrum. In our efforts to rise above ourselves, we need to shift closer towards becoming a more thoughtful public. However, there are ways in which we hold ourselves back – or are otherwise hindered – that makes doing so even more challenging. Turning to Dostoevsky, we catch sight of the Grand Inquisitor, who has something to say on the subject.
The Grand Inquisitor appears in Dostoevsky’s book The Brothers Karamazov. Set during the Spanish Inquisition, Dostoevsky’s dialogue imagines Christ having returned to earth. Upon discovery by the Grand Inquisitor, Christ is quickly imprisoned, sentenced as a heretic. In explanation, the Grand Inquisitor says that Christ’s ideals – freedom for the people – are working against the church’s; that is, Christ’s offer of freedom undermines the church’s commitment to authority.
Christ desires for people free will and free choice – the opportunity to believe or not believe, follow or not follow – at their own discretion. His commitment to preserving mankind’s freedom goes so far as to keep from giving into the temptations of Satan, which would have revealed his power and authority beyond a doubt and sealed the people’s faith. However, Christ’s drive for freedom, the Grand Inquisitor claims, is a direct misunderstanding of mankind’s true desire. According to the Grand Inquisitor, people would rather hand over freedom to someone of authority than bear the responsibility of freedom for themselves.
Continuing on this line of thought, the Grand Inquisitor states that freedom to mankind is like a burden too heavy to bear. Very few are wise enough and disciplined enough to properly wield freedom, and in the end fragile mankind only ends up hurting and tormenting itself. Contrary to freedom, the Grand Inquisitor states, people would rather have security and unity, and would give anything for those two things. Above all, people cannot bear to stand on their own, and a free person is constantly looking for something before which to bow down: something into whose hands they can put their freedom and control, and take in return security and unity. There, then, is the Grand Inquisitor’s main claim: that mankind cannot handle freedom – does not even want it – and would willingly give in to the security of authority rather than be tormented by it.
Alexis de Tocqueville has more to say on the subject. During the same time that Custine went north to Russia, Tocqueville went the other direction towards 1800’s America to survey the democratic regime they had in place. What he found was a little of something else, something a little despotic, even while still being democratic. How might a democracy be despotic? Tocqueville answers that himself, noting a unique breed of despotism that can grow within democratic societies. He suggests that the oppression that can arise in a democracy is inherently different from the kinds of oppression that one can see throughout history under other regimes. The difference, he says, lies in the fact that, historically, despotism has presented itself in a harsh and focused manner, where its touch is heavily tormenting to a few but its reach is limited; whereas, in a democracy, Tocqueville sees despotism as being softer and less clear, with a milder presence but affecting a great many people.
Tocqueville warns of the persuaded-audience inducing affect of democratic despotism. Specifically, he warns of despotism in America’s democracy appearing like a shepherd to sheep. Like a shepherd, the government will strive to make its flock content, fulfilling its needs, directing its issues, and securing its happiness. It will take care of every small detail of its flock’s life, ridding the flock of any need for responsibility and care, trivializing the importance of free choice. By directing and facilitating all aspects of its flock’s lives, it will end up softening and bending each individuals’ will towards its uniform path. The shepherd will emphasize its flock’s enjoyment, and by taking care of all greater matters, ensures that it’s flock’s focus lies in pursuing its more trivial desires.
On the other side, like a flock the public will feel content to remain sedentary and taken care of. They will rise out of their passiveness only to decide upon a new shepherd, then they will subside back under the gentle control of a new master. They will be content in thinking that they have practiced their independence well and enough, simply by choosing who shall maintain their pastures. Tocqueville mentions that the people in democratic societies are looking for a unitary, protective, and all-powerful government that is elected by the people, rather than looking to be self-governing. He also states that the two greatest things they desire from their government are guidance and freedom. Both of these, however, exist in tension with each other, and finding a balance that allows enough dependence without the threat of democratic despotism is challenging. Tocqueville states that he, himself, would much rather choose liberty in small matters than great ones, if some type of freedom must be chosen. According to Tocqueville, the greatest danger in this kind of despotism is the control over small matters. When even the most minute details are ruled over and controlled, society becomes stagnant. There is not destruction, but there is also not birth; there is not harsh repercussion, but there is inhibition of action; there is not direct tyranny, but there is such a hindering and stifling of society that “in the end each nation is no more than a flock of…hardworking animals with the government as its shepherd.” How such a people, who are so reliant on their government and isolated from the matters of their own affairs, can wisely choose who is best suited to lead them, Tocqueville wonders.
Both the Grand Inquisitor and Tocqueville discuss a human tendency to be passive and give in to authority. Despite constantly asking for freedom, humans – according to the Grand Inquisitor and Tocqueville – really want something more like a benevolent dictatorship. Their wants lie more in being able to chase trivial personal desires, while somebody else takes care of details and difficult things. Democratic despotism surfaces from this idea. People have a tendency to be more passive than active, and to take on less responsibility as opposed to more. Especially when under duress, the public is more willing to succumb to passivity and pass on all fear and uncertainty to their leaders. These qualities of a despotic democracy directly relate to a persuaded audience.
So, how do we battle the human tendency to be passive, and to choose security and easy living over freedom? Again, we return to Soder and his notions of democratic education. If we want a society that values democracy, then we need to raise citizens in an environment that teaches them how to do that. Understanding our own responsibility – to not become passive, to live by democratic principles – is crucial in keeping from allowing ourselves to become a persuaded audience, and in keeping away the Grand Inquisitor.
Good Leadership
Good leadership is the subject of a number of discussions and arguments. What exactly is “good” leadership? How do we become “good” leaders? Is it a skill that can be taught, or is it a specific characteristic that people are born with? These, among others, are common questions to come across. In considering good leadership, this paper’s explicit aim is to provide groundwork for leadership that is both ethical and effective. This includes persuasion and information seeking in both an ethical and effective manner. Among other aspects of good leadership is the ability to create, sustain, and rebuild things.
Firstly, it’s important to understand that good leadership is, indeed, a skill. Nobody is born with all the qualities that a good leader has. In fact, any good leader has had to learn how to be such. Certain personality traits and characteristics can certainly help achieve mastery over leadership skills, but theoretically everyone is capable of good leadership. The idea that leaders are born is part of the reason why good leadership skills are not widely taught. People see good leadership as being beyond their scope, or irrelevant to their lives. Perhaps that is why good leaders are so hard to find. Once again returning to our education system, the teaching of leadership skills is one among many ways in which our society could better prepare its citizens to be good leaders and a more thoughtful public.
With ethical and effective leadership as a goal, it’s important to understand the necessary ethical and ecological context that comes with being a leader. Ethical context lies in the necessary ethical element that comes with any choice made; meanwhile, ecological context is based on the manner in which all choices affect the general web of life. An individual leader’s placement within these two contexts is critically important. No matter what a leader is doing, choices must be made, and all choices carry an ethical and ecological nature. Throughout any leadership position, decision after decision must be made. What to do, how to do it, who’s going to do it, and so on and so forth. The choices a leader makes reflects on them and their intentions. How they treat their public, what their goals are, how they solve problems: it all gives an indication of their view of the world, others, and themselves. The ethical and ecological background of a leader will have an effect on how they are viewed and what they can do in the future. For instance, somebody who has a history of saying they’re gong to do something and not keeping that promise is likely to, at some point, lose credibility with their public. As a result, future promises will not be trusted and respect for that person’s responsibility, integrity, and intentions will dwindle. Particularly in a democracy, it is critical to be aware of this constant ethical and ecological context.
In a democracy, persuasion is necessary. Because force is not a viable strategy, the approval of others is necessary in getting things done. Without persuasion, leaders in a democracy would have nobody to lead. Therefore, being able to make others see a certain viewpoint and provide support is an important leadership skill. In persuasion, things like pathos, ethos, and logos are major factors in whether or not others will be persuaded. There are other factors as well, such as usage of language. One example of persuasion can be found in the story of Philoctetes. Philoctetes has been cast away, abandoned on an island by Odysseus and the Greeks. Years pass, and Odysseus and his crew realize that, in order to win the Trojan War, they must first get ahold of the magical bow that Philoctetes possesses. Stealing it, however, is not an option, as it will lead to certain death. In order to retrieve it, Odysseus’ companion Neoptolemus is sent to meet Philoctetes and make him willingly give away the bow. In order to do so, Neoptolemus has to persuade Philoctetes to trust him. Immediately, Neoptolemus recognizes Philoctetes as an isolated and lonely man. In order to persuade him, Neoptolemus forges a bond of solidarity with Philoctetes by citing deep hatred of Odysseus and the Greeks, making himself seem brotherly and trustworthy in Philoctetes’ eyes. In forging a common ground between them, Neoptolemus gains Philoctetes’ trust and is able to steal the bow.
There are many complications involved in persuasion that make it a difficult thing to deal with. First off, persuasion can easily have a negative affect on the relationship between the persuader and the persuaded. It’s easy in persuasion to seem as if the persuader is looking down on the persuaded, or manipulating or harming them for their own benefit. People naturally have a negative viewpoint of persuasion, as they associate it with the generally harmful notions of trickery, manipulation, and lying. Persuasion also carries many ethical question marks. When is it okay to persuade somebody, and what affect does the manner of persuasion have on its ethicality? Is it okay to manipulate and lie to somebody in order to serve another purpose? Returning again to the story of Philoctetes, we find a number of questionable things occurring. Philoctetes has been betrayed by Odysseus and Greeks, and has spent years in isolation and pain because of their traitorous actions. Odysseus decides that it is necessary to return to Philoctetes and betray him once again. Neoptolemus manipulates and lies to Philoctetes, lifting him up and once again tearing him down, all in order to get the bow. In this situation, is it okay to harm and lie to Philoctetes in order to retrieve the bow, if it means that a war will end? If not, then what? How do we decide what is okay and what is not in such a situation? These are questions that must be considered when engaging in persuasion.
As equally important as persuasion is information seeking. Within any sphere, information seeking is important; in leadership especially, it is absolutely critical. In order to understand anything about the who’s, why’s, where’s, and how’s of leadership, information must first be sought. Doing just that, however, is a complicated task – especially when bound within an ethical context. There are dangers in seeking information, as well as difficulty in getting the right information when it is needed. While having access to a lot of knowledge is critical to a leader in making informed decisions, it is equally important that the information gathered is done so in a cautious way. Seeking out too much knowledge can be harmful, as not all information is information one wants to have, and too much of it can be overwhelming. However, it is necessary to seek out some knowledge to have a good sense of the world around you. A middle ground is most desirable, but difficult to achieve.
In unraveling this, one finds five strategies of information-seeking that are particularly relevant to a leader. First, the world is full of flatterers. It is wise to be cautious of people who may only tell you what you want to hear, and not the truth. Second, people often withhold information in an effort to protect themselves. Sharing knowledge that individuals have may have a great affect on them. Third, hierarchy may hinder truthful information from reaching more powerful ears. People lower on the ladder are cautious about interacting with those superior to them, and won’t always act or speak sincerely when around them. Four, it is wise to keep one’s mind from being swayed by optimism and preconceived notions. An overly optimistic mindset will not be open to certain realities, and the goal of information is to have a better grasp of reality and truth. Fifth and final leads once again back to the ethical element of information seeking. That is, there are many ways of obtaining information – from simply googling it to kidnapping and torturing somebody – and based on the manner and context, how one goes about it reflects on their character. Ultimately, there’s no formula to perfect information seeking. However, having an arsenal of strategies to obtain knowledge is wise.
Seeking information is not free, and information will always cost something to be gained. When a leader engages in something to seek out information, there will always be consequences and complications. For instance, when we seek information, we are engaging in an exchange relationship with others, which is a fine-tuned cycle of giving, receiving, and repaying that must be attended to for as long as the exchange goes on. Another cost is that, in seeking information, oftentimes information is given away; people can deduce a lot from the kind of information that is being sought, the mannerisms with which it is being sought, when and where it is being sought, and so on.
Among an endless list of leadership skills, the ability to persuade and the ability to seek information wisely are near the top in terms of prevalence and importance. However, there are a number of other things that a leader can – and should – concern themselves with. For instance, characteristics like patience and empathy are always good qualities to have. Also, knowing oneself and one’s values is critically important. Without it, it’s far too easy to not know where to go, or even in which direction to head. It’s far too easy to become like the English writer George Orwell, who once upon a time was a young, angry, and uncertain policeman in 1920’s colonized Burma. He was an isolated and torn man, a man who hated the British for colonizing Burma but also hated the Burma who hated him, as an English policeman. When one day he was sent to deal with a rampant elephant that was tearing up the town, he was met with the unexpected choice: shoot it or let it live? Initially, his mindset was to simply keep it from causing more damage until it’s owner could return; however, the townspeople wanted the elephant shot. In his torn mindset and uncertainty – in his desire to be respected by the people he sympathized for – Orwell felt swayed by the voices of those around him, and became like a puppet on their string, shooting the elephant and forcing upon it a slow and painful death. Knowing oneself and one’s values is important because it’s easy to hear voices when one’s own voice is not strong enough to form clear words.
Ultimately, being a leader is about making wise decisions. It’s about understanding the public, the environment, what needs to be done, and how best to get there. That comes with a whole lot of baggage and details to unpack. From information seeking to persuasion, leadership is a complicated task. However, educating oneself on good leadership and practicing good leadership is an important step towards becoming a better leader, a leader that is able to control oneself and one’s position enough to both guide the public and enable the public to be more thoughtful and proactive.
Sustainment and Reconstruction
It’s one thing to create something. Good leadership, a more thoughtful public, a strong democratic society: these can all be created. However, it’s of little use to consider these within a short-term span. There’s only so much that can be done with these in the scope of a hundred years, and what then? We’d be back to where we started. With a responsibility for the future and future generations, it’s necessary that we think of things in the long-term. With that comes the concern that things must not only be created, but also sustained. Creation and sustainment: these are two very separate ordeals, and the concerns of one are not the concerns of the other. Furthermore, it is inevitable that something at some point in time will fall apart. When that happens, we need to be able to rebuild what has been broken. So, beyond simply being able to sustain what we have, we also need to be able to reconstitute it.
There are fundamental differences that can be made between creation and sustainment. However, the most important distinction to make is the difference in time length, and the variance of predictability that comes with that. Creation is a short-term event that has a finish line. With an end-goal in mind, it’s easier to make decisions and come up with a plan because there’s a vision to work towards. Steps are more distinct and easily plotted out. Sustainment, however, is by nature an indefinite and long-term event. There is no final goal to achieve, and in this aimless state it can be difficult to keep going. In addition, there is no knowing what troubles one might encounter in sustaining. There’s an uncertainty to sustaining that doesn’t exist within the sphere of creation. Even while in creation there will be troubles, they are by nature limited, and can often be predicted beforehand. However, sustainment – indefinite as it is – experiences a never-ending, ever-shifting source of troubles that can be difficult to predict. This is one more reason why it is important to constantly be seeking information and surveying the environment.
Because it is so difficult to do anything without a goal in mind, it can be helpful in sustaining to set small goals in an effort to keep things going. Keeping things from becoming stagnant is important, and change can not only provide a solid goal to reach for, but also provide an opportunity to improve upon what is already established.
Reconstitution is, in itself, a great beast. No matter who you are or what organization you belong to, it’s fate that – eventually – things will fall apart. Disasters will happen; they cannot stopped, only prepared for and worked through. When disaster does strike, it is necessary that a leader is able to navigate through the storm and come out alive at the other end. On top of merely surviving, a leader must be able to repair, improve, and sustain what existed before the disaster. Furthermore, in considering a more thoughtful public, it’s important that they do not let themselves slide into being a persuaded audience when things go wrong.
There are a number of clichés when it comes to how people respond to things falling apart. Among these responses are tactics such as ignoring the problem, running from the problem, and attempting to remove people or elements that are involved in the problem. In few instances do these truly dig out the root of the problem; more often than not, such responses end up exacerbating it. As a leader, it’s best to take caution in such situations and properly scope out the issue before addressing it. Understanding why things are escalated – what began the issue, and what were the motivations behind it – and elaborating a proper, individual means of response is crucial in settling problems.
The most common place for things to go wrong is in relationships between people. On any level – from global to individual - problems are often derived from tension between various parties. In such situations, reconciliation is often – not always, but often – a critical part of fixing the problem. Without reconciliation, it is most likely that the problem will not be entirely rooted out and will remain festering, to appear via means such as macroaggressions and violence – potentially raging up once more in the future. Reconciliation comes most often from the forming of positive, respectful, and nonviolent relationships between contentious parties. In order to form these relationships, it is necessary that all parties involved are given a voice, are listened to, and their problems and issues acknowledged. Past transgressions need to take form and be given proper attention, rather than be left to rest. While often outside parties are required to help achieve these renewed relationships, it is critical that reconciliation comes from the parties and individuals involved in the problem, rather than an outside affiliate. Only then can true forgiveness be achieved and relationships renewed and reshaped.
Calming destabilized situations is a difficult prospect, especially with reconciliation in mind. First, a leader needs to be able to take apart a problem and understand its roots. Then, when a solid understanding is had, they must be able to develop a means of fixing it. More than fixing it, a leader must be able to sustain the productive environment that allowed positive change and, even further, improve upon it. As a leader, building a stage and giving room for all party’s voices to be heard is often an important way to go about reconciliation. A democratic-like environment that is open to truth, openness, and critical inquiry needs to be cultivated to allow for such a stage to be created. Patience, imagination, and care should be taken by leaders in their attempts to instigate reconciliation. However, as noted before, when a leader is not directly involved in the tense relationships, they should take a backseat in the forgiveness process. A leader’s job is not to change the hearts of the people involved, but to create an environment that allows for reconciliation to occur.
In order to be concerned with sustainment and reconstitution, we need to have an eye on the bigger picture, an eye on the more distant future. Being prepared, both as leaders and as a public, for the necessary tasks of sustainment and reconstitution will help in making them more achievable goals.
Conclusion: Looking to the Future
America has a considerable amount of potential. We have a system that allows us to change, to be free-thinking, to become better. We have resources, access to information, and education. Becoming better leaders and a more thoughtful public is within our capabilities. However, first we need to acknowledge that there is indeed a responsibility here that needs to be attended to, and that becoming a society that rises above itself is necessary in meeting that responsibility. There is no step-by-step guidelines to become a society that rises above itself, no manual for good leadership or more thoughtful publics. It’s a matter of understanding what a democracy is, of being aware of the complications and ethics of good leadership, and of knowing the role of the public within a democracy. Again, there is no set way to achieve any of these things. However, incorporating them into our education system may be a wise way to start. By teaching our children about democracy, leadership skills, and public responsibility, we will begin to create a more thoughtful, self-aware, and introspective society. In other words, we will be one step closer to a society that can rise above itself.
Comments