It's been an enjoyable, if solitary, evening, the solitude more noticeable for having shared a meal yesterday for the first time for two weeks.
I like to read while eating, but I prefer the reading matter to be disposable. So my home-made cottage pie and peas was accompanied by Scientific American's reporting on the latest studies of effective leadership qualities. And, of course, a varied selection of music from last.fm (those who haven't yet come across this genius bit of web 2.0, see me afterwards), which I have discovered provides a very diverting combination of classical and early-to-mid jazz when asked to provide artists similar to George Gershwin. Just right as background. Then, having a lime which needing using, I accompanied a gin and tonic with a chapter on Albert Camus.
By coincidence, the two pieces of reading material dovetailed quite neatly. The key quote from Camus was "tyrants conduct monologues above a million solitudes". This was taken to mean that those with absolute power choose to impose a consciousness of that power by forcing their thoughts on others, and the very banality of those thoughts is an exercise of power in itself. Nobody else is to be allowed any individuality of thought, and the worthlessness of alternative thought is emphasised by the meaninglessness of the monologue over the top of it.
Does this sound at all familiar to anyone who knows the brethren?
By contrast, the scientific investigation of leadership chimed more with my own conclusions in saying that effective leaders are governed as much by their followers as vice versa. This study concluded that while charisma and personal qualities were useful in leading others, the most important quality was an ability to identify with the masses and have them identify with you. This is kind of obvious, if you think about it: who is more likely to inspire loyalty, someone who feels like "one of us", or those who set themselves apart? Even so, it is surprising the extent to which fellow-feeling overrides competence.
This is something I've often thought about the brethren leadership, that actually there isn't as much freedom of action as might be thought. The secret to the power is not top-down, although it is easy to see it that way, but more bottom-up, as the ultimate expression of the essence of brethren-ness. The commands which have caused the most trouble in the past have been those that didn't seem to be what those immersed in the system could recognise as a logical moving on from existing brethrenism.
That means that real noticeable leaps need careful groundwork beforehand, and that is a lesson that seems to have been learnt, as can be seen in the current changes in technology. With enough shifting of the background attitudes, and reinterpretation of previous statements, even what may seem to be a ridiculous about-turn from outside can be made to feel inevitable on the inside. But that rather proves my point. Real absolute power could simply decree the change. Leadership is obliged to take the temperature of the following mass.
Perhaps that explains the evident enjoyment of absolute power demonstrated in the ability to foist a never-ending sequence of banal thoughts on the loyal followers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Some would argue that benign dictatorship can be the most effective means by which the peoples' best interests are served. Sultan Kaboos in Oman as a current example and Moses in and out of Egypt in the past illustrate the point. The difficulties arise either when the incumbent is a bad person (quite common) or is corrupted by power; or when the succession, often to a family member, involves an inappropriate selection. Perhaps none of the incumbents in EB have ever been up to the standard set by JND.
I just love the image of a lime lying around which needed using.
I've been meaning to ask this for some time. Why is the clock and calendar on this blog so many hours out?
I was going to leave the time mysterious, but it's begun to get irritating now.
When setting up the blog in the first place, I had an choice of time zone. Not wanting to be too helpful, I took the tongue-in-cheek option of "south pole".
It's back to "London UK" now. The times may not always be helpful, though, because I don't always post what I write when I write it.
South Pole time worked for me ;-)
“. . . those with absolute power choose to impose a consciousness of that power by forcing their thoughts on others, and the very banality of those thoughts is an exercise of power in itself. Nobody else is to be allowed any individuality of thought, and the worthlessness of alternative thought is emphasised by the meaninglessness of the monologue over the top of it.”
This was a completely new idea to me. I had noticed the banality of some leaders’ thoughts, and assumed the most obvious explanations for it, but never before did it occur to me that banality and meaninglessness might serve some purpose. I must think about that.
Post a Comment