"...'leadership' must be a wrong term, in a society where nothing compelled the individual except the individual's own self. 'Initiative?'" (p. 109)
I suggest that "leadership" and "initiative" are exactly the right terms if the leaders/initiators do not and cannot compel. Rulers compel. Leaders lead, "give a lead," by example and advice. I think that this meaning of leadership is transparent but it seems that it is not obvious to everyone because we also call our rulers "leaders."
A ruler stands or sits back and orders others forward into danger whereas a leader steps forward and sometimes risked not being followed. They are opposites.
20 comments:
Except that is a formula for defeat.
Depending on the circumstances. I am talking about campaigns, social movements etc. Of course a command structure is necessary in specifically military conflicts!
Kaor, Paul!
Again, I have to disagree because I consider your views about "leaders" to be unrealistic. You cannot run any kind of complex society with the kind of ad hoc, amateur "leaders" you desire. You are still going to need rules, laws, regulations, and leaders whose authority derives from them. Meaning leaders who become rulers.
And there's no getting away from the fact compulsion, or the threat thereof, will often be needed. Such as for controlling crime. Or for enforcing traffic rules like stopping for red lights!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
At this stage, I was merely describing leaders and contrasting them with rulers, not advocating a society without rulers. I do think that such a society is possible longer term but not right away.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
A distinction without any difference, in real life. And, no, all human societies, without exception, have had and will have laws, rules, regulations. Not always written down, customs can be as strong as laws.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely true! And when too many laws and rules get broken for too long then human societies start catastrophically disintegrating--we get chaos and anarchy. Then comes war lords and strong arm rule.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
All societies have not had laws, rules and regulations. These took time to develop. And how societies have been is no guarantee of how they will be in the (hopefully) long term future.
Paul.
Paul: all societies do have rules.
The -enforcement- mechanism varies; it may be the bureaucracy of a formal State, it may be unwritten community expectations (meaning you'll be attacked or shunned or driven out if you don't comply), it may be mixtures.
If you read the Icelandic sagas (the ones dealing with Iceland) you see that the Icelandic Republic wasn't actually a "state" in our sense of the word. It didn't have an army or police force and the 'government' didn't have even a theoretical monopoly of violence.
But they most assuredly had laws. The Alting made the laws, and various part-time judges passed judgments.
Every free man was responsible for helping to enforce them. Eg., if a man was outlawed, anyone could kill him -- and his family couldn't demand vengeance or wereguild compensation for his death.
When the system broke down it was through escalating blood feuds; eventually they petitioned the King of Norway to come in and establish peace.
Rules in that sense, yes. Not always laws or regulations.
Paul: what's a law but a rule that's enforced?
A law is indeed an enforced rule but the enforcement is an extra social layer.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe all human societies, without exception, have rules and laws. All that differs, sometimes, is the method of enforcement.
The Icelandic commonwealth broke down after about 1180 because the feuds and vendettas between rival chieftains and clans passed all tolerable limits.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There were not yet "laws" before there were legislatures etc. We can make some distinction between "rules" and laws" instead of just making them a single phrase, "rules and laws."
Paul.
One set of inverted commas missing.
Kaor, Paul!
But you don't always need legislatures to have laws. In eras where absolute monarchies were the norm, the king or emperor could legislate.
I still believe the distinction you insist on to be one with no real or practical difference.
Ad astra! Sean
Well, ok, in that case, the king or emperor is the legislator and thus a one-man legislature.
Kaor, Paul!
I should have mentioned that even in such cases there would be complications and nuances. Customary law and precedent often set some limits on how widely an absolute monarch would or could legislate.
Ad astra! Sean
The Alting passed laws.
Enforcement was by consensus.
That worked as long as there -was- a consensus.
But Icelandic society accepted a degree of lethal conflict that we wouldn't.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And that broke down during the Sturlung Age when that degree of lethal conflict became intolerably high. Which was why the Icelanders were eventually willing to accept Norwegian rule.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment