Tuesday, 12 June 2018

Organization

A novelist describes people interacting. He does not merely list kinds of interactions. Poul Anderson, an excellent novelist, did resort to lists in some passages of There Will Be Time because that novel is so condensed or telegrammic, e.g., in Chapter XIV, p. 155:

The Best Form Of Twentieth Century Organization:
reject self-appointed aristocrats;
question received doctrines;
hear and weigh what anyone offers;
maintain channels to carry ideas to the leadership and back.

I would add: "let everyone take a leadership role as far as possible." I do not necessarily mean: "rotate the formal leadership position," although that might be feasible in some cases. I mean that, in practice, any individual who suggests a way forward, makes the first move or sets an example has given a lead and therefore is, at least temporarily and informally, a "leader," who should be respected as such. Potential leaders are everywhere and should be encouraged. They are the antithesis of rulers. A crowd can be a mindless mob or an intelligent gathering - where anyone might give a lead.

Contrast this approach with Wallis' early words to Havig:

"'I am the founder and master of this nation. We must have discipline, forms of respect. I'm called 'sir.'"
-Poul Anderson, There Will Be Time (New York, 1973), VII, p. 28 -

- a self-appointed aristocrat.

3 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I have to disagree with how you understood Caleb Wallis' comment about "forms of respect." In my article "Andersonian Themes and Tropes," I discussed how both Anderson and S.M. Stirling agreed on the rightness of showing a decent courtesy and respect to the formal leaders of a society. I also discussed how Thomas Hobbes comments on this matter in LEVIATHAN suddenly made such seemingly exaggerated gestures as the kowtow and proskynesis make SENSE to me.

The fact I agree Wallis was right about the need for "forms of respect" does NOT mean I agree with his racism.

Sean

Jim Baerg said...

I'm fine with forms of respect only so long as it goes both ways.
A 'leader' who is not polite to a 'subordinate' does not deserve to be leader.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim!

But it does, even if the ways such mutual courtesies are expressed seems strange to us. It depends on what was believed right and customary at particular times and places.

In their book THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV Will and Ariel Durant discussed how that king of France treated everyone he met, high and low, with perfect courtesy.

Ad astra! Sean