LDST 101-01 Leadership and the Humanities Autumn 2010 Peter Iver Kaufman [email protected]; 289-8003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From quotes to questions: Martha Nussbaum: “When we meet in society, if we have not learned to see both self and other . . . imagining in one another inner faculties of thought and emotion, democracy is bound to fail because democracy is built on respect and concern, and these in turn are built on the ability to see other people as human beings, not simply as objects.” Nussbaum thinks democracy depends on mutual respect, which depends on our capacities to empathize profoundly. And she holds that only studying the humanities can develop those capacities. Conceivably, she’s right; perhaps the humanities will keep you from objectifying others. But, truth be told, scholars frequently make a case for the humanities by exaggerating the contributions of history, the visual arts, literature, philosophy, and music to personal sensitivity and democratic deliberation. Is Nussbaum exaggerating? What do you expect the humanities to contribute to leadership studies? And what is your reaction to Nussbaum’s further claim that the humanities--more effectively than casual experiences and/or travel and studying social psychology--will enable us to refine what she calls our “narrative imagination,” which she equates with our “ability to think what it may be like to be in the shoes of a person different from oneself--to be an intelligent reader of that person’s story, understand[ing] the emotions and wishes and desires that someone so placed might have”? Is that extent of empathy really possible? Through study? Keith Thomas: “The humanities offer an indispensable antidote to the vices which inevitably afflict a democratic, capitalist society. They counter the dumbing down of the media by asserting the complexity of things . . . and they challenge the evasiveness and mendacity of politicians by placing a premium on intellectual honesty.” Really? Thomas has a rather ambitious agenda for the humanities. Is it more ambitious than Nussbaum’s effort to promote reciprocal understanding or empathy? Can the humanities somehow take on the media and effectively challenge sly, evasive politicians? How might the humanities put a premium on honesty? Reinhold Niebuhr: “In political and moral theory ‘realism’ denotes a disposition to take into account all factors in a social and political situation, which offer resistance to established norms, particularly factors of self-interest and power. In the words of one notorious ‘realist,’ Machiavelli, the purpose of the realist is ‘to follow the truth of the matter rather than the imagination of it; for many have pictures of republics and principalities which have never been seen.’ This definition of ‘realism’ implies idealists are subject to illusions about social realities, which indeed they are.” Are idealists ill-equipped to be effective leaders or change agents because they underestimate resistances? Given their sense of the formidable character of “resistances” and of the pervasiveness of self-interest, might realists be tempted to accept “established norms” that need changing or to grow deaf to legitimate calls for change?Phil Ochs: “So good to be alive when the eulogy is read. The climax of emotion, the worship of the dead.” Can we recognize “greatness” in a leader while s/he lives and leads or are all eulogies of current leaders premature? Is there something in us (the worshippers) that compels us to deny our leaders the pleasure of hearing their eulogies or is it just common sense to let time pass before we look for a basis to judge the competence, effectiveness, and virtue of our leaders? Francis Bacon: “Learning doth make the minds of men gentle, generous . . . and pliant to government.” Really? “Pliant,” perhaps, but occasionally defiant. What kinds of learning were commended in early modern political philosophy for citizens (or followers)? For leaders? How might Nussbaum or Thomas reply to learned Francis bacon? Immanuel Kant: “One must take *people+ as they are and not as uninformed pedants or good-natured dreamers fancy that they ought to be. But ‘as they are’ ought to read ‘as we have made them.” Does Kant’s statement, “as we have made them,” seem too controlling? Does it undermine the notion of human nature? When should leaders listen to people, taking them “as they are” as well as where they want to go? And when should leaders lead people--their constituents--where they may not want to go--or, as Kant might have said, remake them? Robert Penn Warren: “You don’t ever have to frame anybody, because the truth is always sufficient.” Is corruption inevitable? Has Penn Warren given his protagonist, political leader and “boss,” Willie Stark, an idea about the sordid character of public service that resembles Niebuhr’s “realism” but is, in truth, unrealistic as well as cynical? In this section of LDST 101, we’re going to raise these questions as well as others that you’ll find in the schedule portion of the syllabus. We will raise those questions--but not because the answers lay at the foundation of leadership studies. I believe that the asking does. The asking along with the conversation generated by our inquiries should draw our various premises into the open, problematize some answers we might take for granted, prompt intriguing encounters with problems, problem-solvers, and a number of issues we might otherwise have left unexplored. We’ll spend a few sessions contemplating why we’re here (in a class on leadership foundations, at a university, at this university, and on this planet--certainly several sessions should be sufficient). Then we consider whether and why we need leaders, and we try to find standards with which to measure the effectiveness and integrity of leaders. We’ll talk with some “old masters”--Machiavelli, Thomas More, Shakespeare. We’ll visit with folks, in fact and fiction, sifting problems and formulating public policy more recently. We’ll look at the influence of rhetoric, the issues surrounding race and religion that pose challenges for leaders in and of a pluralistic society, and we’ll conclude by registering and evaluating the ways term limits might