The Rogaviki are polyandrous. When a wife died, the husbands decided to stay together for the children's sake but could not find a mature new wife so settled for a much younger one!
"Josserek noticed how this man, as senior husband, took leadership in this particular family. His impression was that a wife usually did. However, 'leadership' must be a wrong term, in a society where nothing compelled the individual except the individual's own self. 'Initiative?'" (p. 117)
"Initiative" is a good word but so is "leadership." Rulers compel. Leaders give a lead, for which they need initiative. Residents of a street campaign, e.g., against the building of an office block that would overshadow their back yards. One resident writes to the press and city councilors, prints and distributes petition sheets, books a room for a public meeting, invites speakers, chairs the meeting, organizes a demonstration to lobby a council meeting, addresses the council meeting if invited to do so etc. She has given a lead, is a local leader and has not compelled anyone.
17 comments:
Operations of the sort you're mentioning are dependent on rules that are enforced by... force. The fact that we're so used to those structures of compulsion that we don't notice them doesn't mean they're not there.
Mr Stirling,
The campaign seeks to influence the city council which can enforce its decisions? OK. But I still think that the leader of the campaign has not compelled her fellow campaigners.
Paul.
She's relying on the protection of the State, for starters: otherwise people who don't like her would just beat her up or kill her.
Kaor, Paul!
But Mr. Stirling's comments explains very well why I cannot agree with your too open ended definition of "leader." The lady you were taking about, like it or not, was depending on laws and customs ULTIMATELY enforced by the state, under threat of force, actual or potential. This is so obvious and plain to me that I'm baffled that you seem unable to see that!
Nor do I think a "leader" is all that different from a "ruler." They both give ORDERS, after all, if acting from or thru formally defined positions or offices. Again, ultimately, force (actual or potential) is what makes those orders REAL. Else they would be mere empty words.
Sean
Sean,
I do see it but I still differentiate leaders from rulers. A group of friends have no plans for the evening. One says, "Let's eat out," and the others agree. He has given a lead.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the example you gave is not truly an example of anything except a very casual, unimportant example of someone making a SUGGESTION. That is not the kind of "leadership" or "ruling" that sets thousands or hundreds of thousands of people into DOING things and moving nations or societies.
Sean
Sean,
Someone who leads a mass campaign can only do so because the masses are concerned about an issue and welcome a lead in that direction. They are in no way being forced. Other people try to initiate campaigns and get nowhere.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but I still disagree. A "leader" who leads a mass campaign could do so successfully only if protected by laws and rules ultimately enforced by the state. Also, that kind of "leader" is not the same as institutionalized leaders/rulers.
Sean
Moral leadership example:
People wait for a bus on a busy street. Their bus approaches. They witness an act of cruelty across the street. They hesitate to cross a busy street, miss their bus and confront the perp. One steps forward. A few fellow the one. More follow the few. The rest follow the more. The first guy gave a lead and took a risk. He had no power to order others forward while he remained behind.
Sean,
That kind of leader is not the same as a ruler. My point.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I understand and admire that kind of "moral leadership." But it's only a temporary, transitory, short lived kind of "leadership" with no lasting, long term effects (except possibly, to the persons immediately involved). It's nothing like the kind of "leadership" shown by a governor, prime minister, president, king, or even a dictator, acting thru the formal or de facto powers held by them.
Seam
Sean,
Yes, but I think that "leader," in my sense, is a legitimate description of Rogaviki wives because they are not rulers.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the PHEROMONES emitted by Rogaviki women to attract men to them makes it easier for their leadership, however defined, being accepted. That might be a kind of "compulsion."
Sean
Might.
Kaor, Paul!
It sure looks like a kind of "compulsion" to me, if this "attractiveness" of the Rogaviki women makes non-Rogaviki men do things they would not voluntarily do, absent the "attractiveness."
Sean
Sean,
Yes. Since the Rogaviki are not human, I should not apply my conceptions of human leadership to them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I was also reminded of S.M. Stiring's four Draka books, esp. DRAKON. We see in that book how Homo drakensis used pheromones emitted by them to help control non Draka. But the Samothracians had developed chemicals which nullified the effectiveness of Draka pheromones.
Sean
Post a Comment