Just figured I'd post a mini-meta-update in between longer and more topical posts: I've gone from "writer's block" to "writer's frenzy" recently, which is definitely a good thing as far as I'm concerned (I think my brain goes through periods of processing followed by periods of suddenly being able to find language for things that I've been processing for a long time).
I find that I tend to write more (and better quality material) when I don't worry too much about "balancing" my topics for this blog; right now I'm sort of in a brain/cognition/robot/philosophy phase, so I'm following that particular muse a bit, so to speak.
I'm working on a bunch of different things right now, including the rest of the "Robot Monsters" series which I hope to have posted by this weekend, along with an experimental fiction/philosophy piece involving cats and dogs arguing about essentialism. I haven't written much about longevity lately, I realize, but I am planning something in that department as well -- I'd like to discuss the brain in the context of aging, which ought to be interesting.
Also, I'm still enjoying Farscape -- up to Season 3 at this point, and it just got really weird. I was thinking that one thing I like a lot about this series is that there's no real "hierarchy" on the ship -- the crew are extremely diverse (they're all from different planets, literally!), but they've all managed to sort of learn to live with one another, without organizing into some kind of funky power structure. I've never been comfortable with hierarchy in any form -- I think authority ought to be specific, largely expertise and experience-based (rather than based on a person's ability to "bully" their way into being in charge of others, or charismatically manipulate their way there).
On Moya (in Farscape), each character does have his or her own "authority" in certain areas, and the other crewmembers do learn over time whose judgment to defer to in matters concerning particular skill/expertise areas, but there's not just one person at the "head" barking orders to everyone else all the time. Characters aren't constrained by "official rank" because they don't have any rank that matters on Moya. Additionally, it's kind of refreshing to see characters working together because they choose to as opposed to because of some over-arching "mission" foisted upon them collectively from the outside. You see the characters falling in and out of mini-alliances all the time, but neither joining nor departing these alliances is a major event or tragedy; it's just sort of how things are. It's nice to see.
I realize it's a TV show we're talking about here, and that maybe this kind of arrangement only really works well for small groups, but I so wish humans could get out of this whole obsession with hierarchy. Maybe I'm partly just frustrated with it because the trappings of hierarchy don't make sense to me cognitively, but it would be such a pleasant world if people could stop playing power games and just, you know, go about living their lives, cooperating as it makes sense to do so, and not owing any kind of bizarre fealty to those who claim to be "above" them. Again, I do think it's reasonable for people to have subject and skill-based authority -- but I see a big difference between respecting someone's skill and having to basically see them as your "superior" in a more general sense.
My elementary school teachers used to get mad at me because (in their words) I "didn't seem to realize when I was addressing adults". And I never knew what that meant at the time, but I'm guessing now that maybe I just wasn't giving off the "submission signals" they expected to get from children. Or something like that. Anyway, I know I'm no political strategist (and I'm not trying to propose international policy here, I'm just sort of rambling), but seriously, I think my "ideal world" would be one in which the whole concept of power was rejected completely and people were just people. Not likely to happen in real life, but at least I can watch TV shows where it happens on spaceships.
4 comments:
Anne,
Have you read An Anarchist FAQ?
http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
de thezier: No, I hadn't read that...I will, though, and I thank you for the URL.
Hmmm, very interesting post. I don't mind rambling in the least, in part because I'm something of a rambler myself (as you may have noticed).
Actually, it's kind of funny that you bring up the issue of power structure and situational leadership, since my Dad (who has a ph.d. in dramatic theory and is a former university communications professor) and I have been disussing something along these lines lately. I think you're right that ideally leadership and superiority should be based on skill and knowledge as opposed to an arbitrarily designed hierarchy system (most seemed to be set up based on the quality of your work, your connections within a company, and how much you flatter your supervisor *sigh*). For example, my Father is currently a Librarian, but before that he was a consultant and curator for a Historical Society. His background consists of roughly twelve years in the theater industry, thirty years of university-level professorship, and a number of side projects involving oral history, photography, and a fair amount of computer work in various fields and situations. At the Library where he works, he is not only a librarian but the webmaster and is heading a local Oral History project. When it comes to these things, he is left mainly to do as he sees fit, and is allowed to place emphasis on subjects that he feels need more research, archiving, and/or preservation. When it comes to general Librarian responsibilities, he folows the lead of his colleagues. He also has a colleague who teaches ASL to both children and adults. It is a Library that follows a set-up very much like you describe, although they do have a head librarian who must give the go-ahead before anything is done (she usually gives it). I think this is a wonderful set-up, and one that I would thrive in--when I am discussing subjects like rhetorical analyses, logical fallacies, basic drama theory, neuroscience/neuroethics, womens' rights history, deaf rights, human rights, genocide and eugenics history, I am in my element and lead the discussion. In groups where we are building something or creating a school project, I prefer to follow and do what other people tell me what to do--and do it well. I am simply more comfortable to follow than to lead in that particular type of situation. I really wish that people who like to lead all the time would come to the understanding that sometimes it is better for them to follow--nothing's worse than a leader who doesn't know a lot about the topic at hand--ugh, painful!
You may or may not have noticed that school systems focus on leadership education. This is because parents like to hear that they have a dynamic child who is an excellent leader, not a quiet one who is good at doing what she is asked to do--even if he or she does it phenomenally well. Some people prefer to be on the road and actually doing the stuff instead of holding the reins from the sleigh. It is unfortunate that most people don't recognize the importance of being both a capable leader and a follower, as well as recognising when to be what in what kind of situation. I hope you followed that.
I tend to feel more comfortable with my teachers than with my classmates. It's because I've grown up on a street with no other children but me and my brother, and also because my parents treated me the same way they would treat any other adult they communicate with--they treated me with respect, patience, and they didn't "dumb down" their language for me. As a result, my language skills are far more developed that most teenagers my age, which tends to isolate me a little. I seem to have the opposite problem that you did--I never adjust my language to suit the age and intellectual level of the person I'm speaking to (it never occurs to me to do so), so my classmates get frustrated when I'm talking to them the same way I talk to my very academic-oriented parents.
I'll also apologize in advance for the ramble to come... I'm sure you'll all understand.
The military introduced me to a seemingly rigid hierarchy of leadership that turns out to be very malleable (depending on individual expertise and potential, traits you and kakalina have mentioned). It hasn't effectively changed with the times (being based mostly on Napoleonic military code) but it is still functional.
Anyways,
Followership IS leadership in that effective leaders must be able to differ to experts in the decision-making process. This is where personality, psychology and group dynamics comes into play. Individual leadership derives from positional (hierarchal), intellectual (theory, technical knowledge), and charismatic (emphatic) potential to get people to do what you want them to do (that is, have their wants equal yours). I think of it as a triple-helix-like structure, the individual strands of leadership intertwining into a unique "leader equation" for each person. This means some people are naturally more effective leaders (at any given time), by virtue of their combination of traits. This can't be helped. People simply aren't created equally, necessitating a leadership structure that allows naturally skilled individuals to progress (something the military doesn't do particularly well) so they can be more effective, more often. The nuances that change the leadership equation in minute (and sometimes radical) ways are endless... (which is why I find it endlessly interesting). Thanks for getting my mental gears working with your blog and discussion...
Scientific American Mind had an interesting bit back in August on leadership... check it out.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-new-psychology-of-leadership&page=1
Post a Comment