Transcending Titles: Becoming the Leader People Want to Follow

In First Democracy, Paul Woodruff describes the Athenian democracy; a society where representatives were chosen by lottery rather than election and every man had the same right to speak in the legislative Assembly. This practice must have made the first days of the new Assembly somewhat chaotic, since a leadership figure during the last session may not even be a part of the Assembly this time around, no matter what his prominence or popularity was. In such situations rhetors could “exert special influence without holding public office, simply in virtue of their speaking abilities” (33). This may also be the case in the evolving world where Woodruff hopes the Internet will “grow to give the citizens of modern states a rough equivalent of the rights of ancient Athenians to speak and be heard” (68). How then must a person communicate in the modern world to be able to lead a group of people in a certain direction?

In A Rhetoric of Motives Kenneth Burke writes, “A is not identical with his colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B. Or he may identify himself with B even if their interests are not joined, if he assumes that they are or is persuaded to believe so” (544). The act of identification is not physical, since A and B remain separate entities with separate experiences, rather this is a symbolic act. As Burke points out, A has to be persuaded that he has joined interests with B in order for identification to occur. This implies that in order to get people to follow him, a leader has to communicate a common interest with his audience, and thereby create an artificial unity from diversity. Woodruff explains how Cleocritus was able to unite followers of the tyrants and the democrats by appealing to their common interests and culture as Athenians (83). In a more diverse group of people a leader may appeal to ‘basic humanity’ like Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy did in their internationally published opinion editorial about Libya. However, identification does not always rely upon pre-existing ties of fellowship. Effective leaders are able to create common interests where none may naturally exist. One way to do this is by articulating a vision which, although not initially of interest to the audience, is made interesting by the way it is described and linked with pre-existing interests. In Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games Mitt Romney describes the task of leadership as “creating a vision of higher purpose and . . . offering challenges beyond normal expectations” (xix). He writes this about his leadership in the 2002 Olympics, “Our task was to identify a defining vision, communicate that in a compelling way, and provide the kind of focus that reinforces that vision as a living, breathing thing, not just lip service. And if we were to succeed, it would be because of the commitment to that vision by the entire team, and by the community” (xix). It is interesting to note that without that shared vision highly qualified people will not follow you, even in a corporate setting (59-60). As Romney writes, “Leaders establish vision and values that motivate and create unity of purpose” (20), again it is the ‘vision’ or common interest that creates a group.   

                

Romney’s language describing the unifying vision as a “higher purpose” sounds similar to the kind of leadership we encounter in Plato’s Phaedrus where leadership is not simply exploiting base interests to gain power over people, “dispensing miserly benefits of a mortal kind” (38), but rather a transcending process which brings both leader and follower closer to the gods. This transcendence is at once altruistic and egoistic. One gets personal benefit not by satisfying base passions (the black horse) but by summoning one’s abilities to reach a new, higher level. As Socrates says, “they become winged and light, and have won one of their three submissions in these, the true Olympic games, and neither human sanity nor divine madness has any greater good to offer a man than this” (37-38). It seems the human mind possesses a special potentiality to be fascinated and persuaded by such transcending, perhaps partially because of the great desire we have to experience the sense of purpose and unity such transcending can bring. We are united in something greater than ourselves.

See how composer Eric Whitacre leads a virtual choir of 2000 singers from 58 countries all over the world by unifying them in the transcendent purpose of making beautiful music. These singers have never met Whitacre or each other, yet they are united in a common purpose. He wrote the music and articulated the vision, and they all contributed their parts on individual Youtube videos which together became something transcendent.

Religious Values in the Public Square

The values of a democratic society determine many of its actions. These values are shaped by public discourse. I have found an online article which describes this process very accurately and encourage everyone to read it. 

Religious Values in the Public Square

Here is one excerpt:
"Our public interaction reveals much about who we are as a people, what values we uphold and what kind of society we want to live in. The discourse that emerges from that interaction continually defines what we consider morally acceptable, how we treat others, and how in turn we expect to be treated."

Modern democratic societies generally have a broad public discourse as their ideal, inviting contributions from different ethnic, ideological and religious groups. Yet in many democratic societies religious groups have been marginalized. Despite the fact that many of these have legitimate competence and experience in areas like community building, solving ethical problems and organizing volunteer work, their viewpoints have often been ridiculed, considered obsolete, or deliberately ignored. Some religious communities have as a result become radicalized (as is the case with many Muslim extremists), others have become increasingly isolated from society around them and its development. None of these two options are healthy for a democracy. The result of the first is that citizens of a society turn against it violently because they no longer identify themselves as a part of that society. The result of the second (for religious groups) is an experience of society which resembles that of totalitarianism; the development of society is in the hands of another group of people and the governed have no voice to participate in determining the outcome. 

To quote from the article:
"The issue of religious participation in the public square is essentially a debate about the first principles of civic life: the coexistence between competing human interests, the self-determination of religious communities, the autonomy of individual conscience and the accommodation of diverse beliefs and opinions in public debate. The way we respond to these challenges establishes the parameters of civic interactions and sets the boundaries of our collective and individual identities."

When groups and voices are marginalized or denied access to the public discourse, society as a whole loses. Many examples in the past show how people from these communities have effectively questioned and changed the flow of current public discourse, and as a result societies have improved. Prominent examples include Ghandi, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Reverend Martin Luther King. These are almost universally seen as heroes. They identified conditions, tendencies or movements in their society which were contrary to their deepest beliefs, and they reacted against those with intelligence and power. They identified their passion with their religious zeal. How much poorer would the world be today if these voices had been forever silenced or denied access to the public debate because of their religious origin and motivation?

On the other hand, religious communities and individuals lose when they withdraw themselves from the public discourse. As isolated as they may become, eventually decisions will be made which affect them. Without actively participating in public discourse they often become defined by people who may be ignorant of or even antagonistic towards their views.

A democratic society is ruled by the people, and that includes both secular and religious individuals and organizations. A narrow public discourse leads to a narrow-minded society. Jurgen Habermas, one of the most prominent modern thinkers, wrote, "Among the modern societies, only those that are able to introduce into the secular domain the essential contents of their religious traditions which point beyond the merely human realm will also be able to rescue the substance of the human.”