Hundred is a leader, not a ruler. He issues practical instructions which are complied with because they work and because they come from the wise Hundred who would lose his following if he became senile. He would not have to be deposed because he does not occupy any formal or official position in the first place.
When Zero says "No..." to a direct order:
"Hundred surrendered, having lived long enough to recognize unbendable negation." (p. 228)
Hundred has neither the means nor the will to coerce Zero. He continues to address the immediate crisis, directing other members of their community.
Leadership is inherent in social interactions. You give a lead every time you make a suggestion that is accepted. Sometimes a leader steps forward, risking that he will not be followed, but never stands back to order others forward nor has he the means to do so. We lead by example.
13 comments:
This is a characteristic of small-scale societies where everyone knows everyone well, and where immediate cooperation is an ingrained habit.
It doesn't work beyond that level.
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree with Stirling--the kind of "leadership" you admire so much simply doesn't and cannot work beyond the level "...of small-scale societies where everyone knows everyone well, and where immediate cooperation is an ingrained habit." Beyond that you are going to need formal lines of authority, hierarchies, ranks, rules, regulations, laws, etc. Iow, "leaders" becomes "rulers," which in this sense means those whose authority is defined by rules.
Ad astra! Sean
I was not on this occasion arguing for leadership against rulership on the larger scale. If that is to come about, then much else in society will have to be transformed as well.
Kaor, Paul!
And that's where we cannot agree--because human beings are simply not like that. Humans are too contentious, quarrelsome, strife prone, etc., for that kind of "leadership" to work on a large scale.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I was not arguing for it at this stage.
We need to understand ourselves better than that. We are not just quarrelsome etc. That is completely one-sided. We are also cooperative. It is not only possible but now urgently necessary to find out how that positive side can be developed further. I heard the figure of a trillion and a half dollars quoted as spent on stealth bombers. We are certainly capable of better than that.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But "cooperation" has many meanings and uses. Gangsters cooperate for committing crimes, the Communists and Nazis cooperated in running their gulags and death camps, etc.
Good, if those stealth bombers help to keep at bay aggressive powers like Russia or China, I'm all for them!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course cooperation can be used for good OR evil. We have said this before. It is fundamental to humanity. And it can be used for good.
No, we do not need expensive stealth bombers while the climate declines and poverty increases. These are completely wrong values. Each world power says that the others are aggressive. A lot of people are disillusioned with this game.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I feel the need to sometimes stress how badly "cooperation" can be used.
Considering how Russia is trying to conquer their country, the Ukrainians would disagree. Or Taiwan considering how China menaces that nation! Hardheaded realism is needed, not futile "disillusionment."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not futile. A lot of people want real change. You can quote all the bad things the Russians and Chinese do. That just shows that they are imperial powers.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I firmly believe that the kind of ambition and competitive aggressiveness leading people to build empires of all kinds is a permanent part of human nature. And can show up at any time in anyone. I don't believe the kind of "real change" you hope for is possible. Also, we need that kind of aggressive competitivness--because it's one of the urges or drives leading to innovations of all kinds: artistic, literary, scientific, technological, economic, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Artists etc do not need to be aggressive or competitive. Motivated and dedicated, yes.
I firmly believe that our species is differentiated by the fact that it has changed its environment with hands and brain and has changed itself into homo sapiens in the process and therefore can continue to change further.
I believe that the kind of real change that I hope for is possible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That is simply not true, artists can be aggressive and competitive, esp. when competing against other artists. Michelangelo notoriously comes to mind as one example of that.
We simply can't agree--about the likelihood of the kind of change you hope for.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But my point was that artists do not NEED to be aggressive.
But I am not trying to get us to agree. That obviously is not going to happen.
This time I did not start out trying to have this argument but we had it anyway.
Paul.
Post a Comment