The cornerstone and source…
… of all mental discomfort and constriction: memory.
Thoughts on Paranoia #1
At the heart of the Paranoiac lays not a deviation from or a poor relationship to reality – for then we seem to be at a loss for giving an accurate account of reality as such, and to what degree is every person paranoid and justified in that paranoia. A different approach to paranoia may be somewhat interesting. An approach from primarily the paranoiac’s relations with other people, and secondarily from their interactions with the environment.
Their suffering seems to stem from an unstable ego-formation, or more theoretically they have not ‘properly’ established the inner-outer distinction, the you-me distinction – I will be using ego-formation to encapsulate this distinction.
Example A: a paranoiac would be unaccompanied on the train and a glance would be thrown her way by someone sitting opposite, as a response to which a fear/anxiety would arise leading to a thought-process that grounds the fear/anxiety. She would reason the gesture as one of a possible threat to her equilibrium: be it social, psychological, emotional and/or physical.
The subject’s thought-process would be very much reasonable, but would not encapsulate the necessary width of reasoning which could lead to the loss of the anxiety/fear. For example, the thought-process may go as such,
“they are looking at me, what do they want, they want to harm, I know that look, I’ve seen it before. I must harm them before they harm me, or run.”
The reasoning is the link she draws between a previous look from a possible stranger that lead to an event which was imprinted in her memory, and to the current situation. The reasoning is narrow, not wide enough for her to realize the other factors that make up the current situation and what distinguishes this situation with the one in her memory. Although there may be links and similarities between then and now, there are by all means differences. One difference being the setting, the other being the person etc. All these contribute to the width of reasoning that could help the paranoiac alter the thought-process. Yet, one needs to be wise enough to ask, is this width of reasoning enough to quell the paranoiac state? It seems that paranoia is more than a process of reasoning – the thought process does not fully encapsulate a person’s relationship to paranoia. The paranoiac state may either be preceded or accompanied by a feeling, a sense of the state, a sense of paranoia. This sense either precedes the reasoning and causes it, or comes hand in hand with it. Nonetheless, it is by all means clear that the width of reasoning is stopped in its tracks, for in any other (non-paranoiac) context this person would display the reasoning capacity required to reach the above width.
Now the question would arise: what relationship does this have to reality? Further, why is the reasoning stopped from being taken to its conclusion, to the width necessary for the possible loss of the anxiety? And what role does the ego-formation play in this? We remember that ego-formation is characterised by a strong grounding on the inner/outer distinction. Yet, what picture does this paint for us concerning reality? This distinction is key only to a social setting, in living with and interacting with other people, this is the only existential import it harbours – an import we do well to hold carefully. It would not do much if we lived in the jungle, a black panther appeared in the distance gazing at us and we didn’t experience the situation named above regarding the panther. Yet, this is precisely the point where we need to establish some distinctions that allows us to oscillate between the close proximity of an anxious thought-process, and the width of a ‘normal’ thought-process. The first distinction will have to take its bearings from the question: what’s the key difference between the paranoid and the normal thought-process, and could the feeling of paranoia serve as this difference? The second distinction will ground itself on the use of reality, that modern Science seems so happy to hold dear. It is not enough for us to have one and only one understanding or perspective on reality-as-such, and calling it reality, then maintain that all illness arises from a deviation from this reality. Reality-as-such (to be more correct, having a grasp on reality-as-such) is impossible without paradox and contradiction given a being that has capriciousness of thought – because we could find a mode of life where example A would be reality. Thus, notion of Reality-as-such is best left as a limiting point to our discussion.
The best we can do is not speak of reality-as-such, but carefully distinguish different types of reality, or modes of the real, which would of course imply that the real is fluctuating and contingent on certain factors. Thus, if we are to speak of reality, we must carefully distinguish and bring out a particular reality, which I would call a social reality, from reality-as-such. A mode of the real characterised by living with others in a particular setting – implying that even the social reality would have its own mini-modes of social reality, whose hinge-point, of course, would be other people. For example: living-with people during peace, during war, during a particular setting and mood e.g. in a bar, in the living room etc. The inner/outer distinction holds sway only in a social reality. Reality-as-such would then remain nothing but a theoretical boundary point, like Kant, out of which we bring out certain modes of the real. In other words, the source of the real, but always concealing of itself as source. However, we are pushed to take this further and carefully distinguish between a whole array of possible modes of the real, whose possibility rests on a criterion for distinction between that particular mode and the real-as-such that is not rigid and fixed, but on the contrary fluid and moving (changing) – a distinction between a criterion that is temporal and one that is atemporal. The criterion we use to distinguish between real and unreal, must itself begin from temporality. The setting itself would play a big role as will the persons’ state(s). The setting conditions the mode of the real as much as the mode of the real in the person’s thoughts conditions the setting. Reductionism in our approach to paranoia will miss this tension and relationship, and lead us from the concrete to the abstract. Thus, missing completely the role of paranoia and completely undermining its sense, the distinction between the feeling and the thought-process.
For example, it is just as much her interpretation (thought-process and sense) of the look that man gave her that makes the mode of the real, and also the man’s interpretation of the look he gave her, and the look he received in return from her, plus the overall setting that makes the mode of the real in that situation. Them two both and the setting contribute to the mode of the real that is the situation.
Let S be Setting, I1 and I2 be the two interpretations, and let MoR be the mode of the real:
MoR = (I1 + I2)S
The situation would have its own relationship to both people, as such it would contribute to their interpretation and the overall MoR. The interpretation encapsulates their states entirely, I take state to mean both feeling (sense) and thought-process.
Reality-as-such would be a point where both these contributions fall into a temporal whole so to speak encapsulating both their past and future, but also the past and future of the universe – it would be fully holistic and encapsulating. Otherwise we forget all talk of reality-as-such and speak only about social reality. The social reality of this situation is their interpretations, which is of course mediated by language and governed by what we call customs and laws. Thus, all talk of reality concerning the person is best to be aware of its boundaries and limits, to distinguish carefully between the holistic picture of the real-as-such and the holistic picture of the social. The latter already being governed and mediated by certain anthropic tools e.g. language, and linguistic thought. This social reality however, faces a most difficult battle with particular human states that fall partially outside the tools’ overall field, but just inside to be able to attempt to translate it and set it straight. Such states as paranoia, depression etc. The tool of language fancies itself potent enough to be able to translate these states and fathom ways through trial and error of bringing them under the field it happens to be a tool of: the field of the being with others, the social. It attempts to give them an inner/outer distinction that is mediated by the social mode of the real, and uses that as a criterion for all action and interaction. Of course, this will make a person ‘healthy’, but only healthy in living with others, as concerns others, not healthy overall and in themselves. It makes people function, in a social sense, it by no means offers, contributes to or guarantees anything more. The person may still have the states, but now also has a means of combating them, of fighting her sense of paranoia with reasoning and/or self-torment in the form of pills or procedures, or even isolation.
The sense may be fought, but no social tool can guarantee its absence. The tool is only capable of bringing it under itself, to collect it within its pile and make it fall in its vicinity, it can do nothing more. It is a gatherer, not a transformer.
… more to come
Megalomania
The Megalomanic seeks fervently to ’socially’ drown the deep inferiority he has bestowed himself in a private setting. Alone he feels the most incapable, whilst in the eyes and face of others he switches himself into the appearance of the most capable. Megalomanics are fascinating people, somewhere and somehow they lack that acceptance of self and love of self that’s so important to a healthy and content mind.
The Bourgeois, the Seducer and the Lover
The room is lit with a piercing glow, whose source is the vertically affluent lamp above their TGI Fridays cubicle. It is a most unpleasant evening; cold, wintry and the raindrops batter at your skin with every step you bravely decide to take in the deluge. Dinner seemed the most convenient option for these three and their ‘lad’s night out’. The food had long been over and they were now enjoying a beer or two, and a conversation most becoming of three bachelors out on a Friday night. Jack speaks of the dates he’s been in with the recent woman in his life. Jack’s a very down-to-earth kind of fellow, quite introverted, polite, well educated and successful in his field – Accounting and Finance. Mark on the other hand, is a very energetic and extroverted man, left school very early, but made the most of his life in all areas, a live-fast kind of guy – he now works for an Estate Agency and owns a few properties here and there. Ren on the other hand is an eccentric fellow, not much is known about him. Ren is the kind of man who lurks in the shadows beaming with light to one and all – they’ve become accustomed to his peculiar ways.
Jack: She’s 5”4, blonde and hazel eyes. We met during a conference, she works for the sales guys on the third flour. We’ve been on three dates so far, I really don’t want to mess it up.
Mark: You’ve had sex?
Jack: No, not yet. Her idea. She says she doesn’t want to rush things and that she doesn’t sleep with guys until she’s ready. She’s had too many bad experiences in the past.
Mark: So what did you say to that?
Jack: What could I say? I accepted. I like the girl, I don’t meet many like her. She’s out of my league I tell you! Plus, I really like her, I want to be in a relationship with her.
Mark: You can’t be serious? Fuck that! I mean… yeah, fuck that! You want a relationship without sex? You’re going the right way about it. This girl is having sex with someone else while you wait, I promise you. Girls don’t want to wait, and no they’re not worried about rushing things. They’re worried that there are only two kinds of men in the world: nice guys and bad boys. They don’t believe in the in-between, so what they do is they arrange the nice-guy for one show, and the bad-boy for the other show. One is the fashion show, the other is the fuck-show. My good friend you’re headed for the fashion show, you’re heading for the husband category – the nice guy with the good job but who she knows can’t excite her, but can definitely take care of her.
Jack: What are you talking about? She’s not like that.
Mark: If you think so, she’s done her job well. Jack get it together buddy, if you want something from a woman, tell her! Don’t hold your feelings back because you don’t want to offend. Be true to yourself.
Jack: I don’t want to offend her though. You know what girls are like about these things, they don’t want to feel like hoes.
Mark: Hehehe, au contraire! They love to feel like hoes! They just don’t like to think they are hoes. Jack, I am not saying make her feel like a hoe, I’m saying don’t deny and hide yourself and your feelings in hope that it will get you score-points from her! That’s ridiculous, be true to yourself and to her – it’ll turn her on even more. Then seduce her, of course.
Jack: What? No way! Girls don’t want to be seduced, they want to be courted and complimented. You buy her dinner, treat her like a lady, be polite, nice and caring. That’s how you charm a girl.
Mark: Jack. You’ve got it all wrong. Somewhere, somehow you’ve been misled. Women love to be seduced, they love to feel desired and naughty. They love to feel alive. Forget the other bullshit. Don’t date her. Do what I do: meet her, make her laugh a little, take her for a coffee, blow her mind then blow her brains. After tell her how it’s going to be and no other way, no reasons either; she don’t like it, then she can go. What those things are are entirely up to you: marriage, relationship, friends with benefits, just friends etc.
Jack: You use women. I don’t want to be associated with that repute. I refuse to make women objects and playthings. I don’t want to take advantage of women.
Mark: There is no advantage my good friend. All is fair. Love is a game, you either play to win or play to lose – either way it is down to you. Play the game and lose, but get better, or don’t play the game and always lose forever. Every woman you will meet will play a power-game with you, there’s no avoiding it. We are hierarchical creatures, even love is a hierarchical relationship. You are either a master or a slave, a creditor or a debtor. Choose Jack.
Jack: No way, that’s bullshit. I don’t believe that, I believe in Romance.
Mark: Romance is the battlefield of love. It is where the war is settled, where you either win or lose. The more romantic you are, the worse it is, the true romantic hides his romance from the world, but blinds his woman and his woman alone with its torch. The true romantic makes a gesture that is seen by her and her alone. A gesture that the world looks upon and sees nothing, but she looks and sees the world. That is how you win Jack, by giving her what she has never had but always dreamt of and yearned, that’s how you gain power over woman – that is how you seduce her. And she wants this with every fibre, every ounce of her body and soul. Whoever lied to you about what women want, ignore them, they don’t know women. I have a feeling women themselves told you what they want, but evidently failed to tell you that what they want is what they feel, not what they think. Women are flawed in that they know when it is there, and they forget when it is gone; they cannot think their feelings, but they can feel their thoughts. This is the paradox that is woman. Understand this paradox, and you will have women at your feet.
Jack: …
Mark: Trust me about this, let’s ask Ren, he’s the thinker amongst us. Plus, you’ve been awfully quiet Ren, why so? Why not speak? I know you know all this, I know your potential, I even know your heart. It hurts you doesn’t it Ren?
Ren: You’re a fascinating guy, Mark. You are right, everything you say is absolutely right. The world and woman is as you say it is. You’re well read, and you’ve listened to me well in the past – listened and applied most affluently it seems.
Mark: If but you had the courage to practice what you know Ren, you would be unstoppable, and I know you know and can do more. Women would weep for you upon mere contact with you. Yet, for some bizarre reason, you struggle with yourself like our friend Jack here. You refuse to accept the truths you understand, and you know them for truths.
Ren: Truth is a hefty concept Mark, you know how I feel about big concepts like that, hehe. Speaking of concepts, there are two categories of concepts Mark. These two categories is why I do not speak, and why I know what you say works and is right. The last two and a half thousand years have been spent on trying to eliminate one category in favour of the other. Now, people like me, are trying our hardest to revive that category, to give it life once more. This is why I do not practice what I understand. Because although things are like what you say, it doesn’t in any way imply that they can’t be otherwise or that they should be as such. A fact is that powerless, it works only once it has passed, apart from that a fact is useless. Even facts are interpreted and brought to bear upon the person who interprets.
Mark: You’re too smart Ren, if only you stopped and lived for a second. If only you switched your head off and lived what you understand, if only you tasted that bit of life that I tasted with your help. That blonde, that brunette, that red-head…
Ren: I am not smart, not at all, I just have too much energy to burn. Too much passion. Too much heart, that it cannot be satisfied as easily as you assume and as easily as your very own heart is satisfied.
Mark: Women love you. Every woman I’ve introduced you to always asks me about you, she always wants to know, and I never know what to say. What do you do to them? And why don’t you finish what you start? They are always disappointed by your distance and lack of involvement – disappointed and turned on, they love your mysterious ways. Yet, they always think that you are too good for them, they think that you do not fancy them. I am always bewildered, for I do not know what to tell them, for you do not speak about it to nobody.
Ren: There are two categories of concepts: concepts of reason and concepts of passion. These are things I have never spoken to you about, and these three things are precisely why you are right and also why you are wrong. Love, Faith and Self are the three concepts of passion, the only ones I can think of, that stop me from talking. In their presence I tremble and am likely to weep, sometimes with joy, sometimes with melancholy, other times just laugh or fall completely silent. These three I cannot speak of, my heart screams at their mere mention and my body is consumed by a current and I cannot control myself and the emotions arising from their mere mention or presence. These words are glitches; mere glitches in language, and I have no idea how they found their way in – for they’re furthest removed from language than anything. I cannot speak of women Mark because although what you say is true, you make one and only one assumption: that you know two of the three concepts inside out and can manipulate them to seduce. You claim to know the Self and Love. What you know is what the women you meet know but a little more, a little more that I gave to you and nobody gave to them. You will meet your match though Mark, someone will seduce you. I speak not of those three, for they are not be spoken about, they are to be lived, felt, experienced, cried over, laughed over, angered over, desired…
Mark: Why is it that what I do works to give me what I want though, and what I do is what I know; what you’ve helped me understand?
Ren: It works because we’ve spent the last two and half thousand years making sure it would work. We’ve conditioned ourselves to make it work. We’ve brought reason to passion and sold it at a cheap price. Where once Love was something people celebrated and died for, now Love is being sold to the highest bidder, sometimes to the lowest. Where Self was something respected and admired, now it likewise is being sold and made a science of. We’ve made automata of people and then wonder why these things work so mechanically. We wonder why prejudices are so consistent and why we’re in an age where if it wasn’t for drugs or alcohol, a ripple of suicides would spread from one corner of the industrial globe to the next. We see all these things, and like idiots blame the symptom, we think its the symptom’s fault, unbeknownst to us that the symptom is not the disease – it is not the source. We’ve been trying to cure symptoms for much too long, we’ve forgotten that a symptom is a sign, not the thing that does the signalling. I do not speak because I weary of this, I weary of the mediocrity. So I sit here and wait, just wait for a light, something that makes me come back out of the depths, out of the shadows, where it’s safe but lonely for people like me. Meanwhile I wait and do what I can to aid us to reach that day, where we’ve finally surpassed this painful torpor we’ve entered, this mechanic existence we’ve bestowed ourselves with. I wait.
Mark: What about the power relationship you spoke to me about, and how power is more seductive when it’s subtly taken, than when given, especially with women. That has to be something real and eternal.
Ren: That is the plant with the deepest roots into our social existence. Power is the biggest and most necessary illusion. I told you a truth that aided you to live in a time where that truth had its import, but all truths are in their context and made so by relations with other things that condition it as much as it conditions them. Power cannot play a role without people, but it does so nonetheless because people have erected it as something beyond them – as a possession. The most powerful person is the one who doesn’t understand what power is, who has forgotten the very concept and it plays no role in their life. The one who has forgotten it, by becoming it. One doesn’t give or take power, one is power. To be power is to forget all games, all war. Only he who is not powerful goes to war, and they go to war for power – because they lack it, or, which comes to the same thing, they need more of it. If you were power and power was you, why go to war? Power seduces only those who have power and those who do not. Power can’t seduce someone who is power. This is the problem Mark. I cannot seduce women. I cannot even date them like Jack does. I cannot even admire them. I can’t do any of those things. All I can do is love them, such that when I hear the word Love, or see a woman that my body desires, I am stunned, I see eternity. I see life itself and I am stunted. Unable to speak and unable to move, I am only able to be drenched in the vision, consumed by the experience. Be in utter awe, in utter love, in utter desire. And I cannot, not even for a minute, think it through, I am lost in it and right after I forget what happened.
Mark: …
Jack: … I don’t understand.
Mark: In other words, he is crazy.
Ren: Hahaha!
It was getting late, and they all had engagements in the morning. Ren was preparing a presentation. Jack has family guests over from abroad. Whilst Mark had a hot girl pass by for a coffee in the afternoon and he was always a late sleeper.
The fleeting words of a sharp silence…
“You know you’re ready for Love, when and only when you’ve found mother and father in yourself and not in the beloved. Until then, tears, anger, frustration, hate and nihilism are your eternal courtship and currency of every romantic encounter.”
The Eternal Struggle of Humanity
*Ok Fred, you’ve persuaded me. Even though I do not see a possibility of this happening in this way, it is perhaps the best way.*
People are torn asunder by themselves. People’s biggest battle is not the world, but themselves. People even in this time and age suffer from the debris of customs, alas, from customs themselves. People must find a way to sever themselves from jealousy and their need for love in another. People must find a way to not seek their identity in another, or they will never know happiness with another or with themselves. People’s struggle is this: they cannot find themselves in themselves, they must always seek themselves in another. People need to break this vicious circle, or they will never be happy. They must find a way to love themselves; regardless of anyone else.
Now more than ever woman needs man, to help her realize this. And man needs woman to help him realize this. This and only this is where and when man/woman must prove himself/herself, all other proofs are idiosyncratic and nauseating. Now more than ever man/woman must be strong enough in him/herself to allow her/him the space to be her/himself without him/her or anyone else in the world. People must attain their individuality independently of other people especially him/her, so that she/he can more fully experience life, herself and him (and vice verse). They must do this or else they are doomed to never become a woman/man, and remain a little girl/boy through their fear and desire for secutiry. Security will kill them, because it allows them a way to escape from herself and run into another, a mask, in the form of him/her or a simulacrum they have created for themselves to hide from themselves; from facing themselves.
This is the eternal struggle, and one hopes for the birth of a kind of man/woman that can allow and aid this to happen, one prays day and night. For the cornerstone of humanity is not philosophy, not science, not politics etc… but the constituents that make all the prior and humanity itself possible: woman and man, and/or, man and woman.
Iker’s untimely visit
This little story is that of Iker and his ‘hallucinatory state’, for such is the power of language ladies and gents. It can render experience to nothing more than a mistake, an error, a psychological faux pas that needs correcting.
Iker left his home one evening in the blistering rain, each droplet fell maliciously on his face and stung him like little needles. On and on he went into the darkness that was sugar-coated with this prickling sensation. The feeble street lamps falling behind him. He could almost feel them waving him goodbye as darkness engulfed him the more he kept moving. He’d had enough, enough, enough. Too much of the same, not little of difference. He was exhausted, the world troubled him, from the inside-out. He saw no perfection anywhere, no wonder, no joy, no beauty… it had all decayed into the dark-grey tarmac and the insecure faces of the masses, including his own; it too had taken upon itself a grey complexion. His raison d’être had exhausted him entirely. Nothing was left for him no more, nothing could rescue him, not even a woman. Alas, to him, she was lacking among the crowd of anything-but. He had decided to walk, for unfortunately his options could not lay bare in front of him like these lamps that stood proudly and this darkness that engulfed them. So march on he did. Walking and walking, unawares of where his legs would take him, even though he knew full well where the road was leading. He abandoned himself to his feet. Completely given over… let go in total surrender to the forces he had once feared. He entered what this stupid vehicle we call language denotes as: automation, what a sickly and dead word… it makes him regurgitate.
The roads pass him by, the lamps leave him, the darkness begins to touch him more prominently. All of a sudden his thoughts kick in, he knows where his feet are leading him: the river. The river, he thinks. He’s been here before in those moments where his soul could not bare the burden it has placed upon itself; in those moments where his life lay morbid at his feet. Yet, there was something different about that night, his soul had two representatives: the eagle and the snake. The eagle in him had a broken wing, the snake in him had a broken tooth. He was lost, his powers torn in half, and each step down the needle-infested road was akin to a devastating limp to him. Time had become a burden to him. He had been imprisoned by himself in a temporal chaos. Each twist, each turn, each step, each word eroded his soul and left him with the most interesting of souvenirs – tears. Why tonight though, and why the river? – he thought. What was so special about tonight’s painful journey to the same river – the place that had become his cleanser, his true home? He didn’t know, he just kept walking. He arrived at last at the scenery. Ah, it was majestic, regardless of the brown/dark-grey look that this water possessed, which left something to be desired. There was something appealing to its movement. He stood there, with his hands on the rail slowly getting cold and hurting. In that moment the pain went away and was replaced by sudden numbing of his whole body. He felt himself losing himself, feeling disappeared, thoughts disappeared, he felt one with the flow of the river. Time had almost stood still and simultaneously sped up.
In that intense moment everything felt liquid and his head began to feel light, his visual field had a smudged aura about it. This feeling had a nostalgia to it, he’d felt like this before. Shuffling through his head a connection made itself transparent. He’d felt like this that one time when he had smoked copious amounts of marijuana. Yet, this one was somehow different, he hadn’t touched any intoxicant that day. He was completely clean. He began to worry about himself, what was going on in this moment? His thoughts kicked in and took control of him in his fear. He moved back and sat down on the bench, and as he sat down he was back to normal. Yet, he felt strange, like he had lost something. Nothing was normal about it, he felt closer to normality in that smudged moment. He wanted his mind to disappear again. He placed his head on his hands, his arms on his knees and then slowly moved his palms to his cheeks. Looking down at the floor he began to mourn his loss. He gave up, his soul flickered for the last time – he shed a tear of goodbye to himself. As he did this, he took a deep breath and lifted his head slowly with his eyes closed in pride. Exhaling he opened his eyes. There was a smudgy vision in front of him that the tears had subtly clouded. He whipped them away and began to see what was an utter impossibility. Sitting on the railings he was just now holding fiercely and in pain was a little child with what looked like a snake wrapped around his arm and an eagle standing head high on his shoulder. The child had a smirk on its face and at the sight of Iker it extended a little smile and winked at him. Iker began to cry tears of joy. He had finally understood.
Psychotherapy
Psychotherapy fails at one critical thing, which leaves it caught with its pants down: the distinction between what is normal and what is apparent. It cannot find this in consensual repetition of empirical data, as there is no ‘ought’ from ‘is’. Thus, unless Psychotherapy provides an irrefutable ’meaning’ of the subject, or of at least something to do with the subject, it will render itself as a pseudo-science. It cannot do this however, because it is intent on building on thin air through its inductive processes mixed with statistical analyses, as such it is stuck with the same faith in 60% positive outcome; which is wholy insufficient for knowledge, and barely so for pragmatic purposes.
In effect the Doctor says to the client, here’s a pill (or procedure) which will make you like everyone else, even though I don’t know if that is the solution to your problem, hopefully that is what it is and what you want.
On Leadership
As this post is concerned with theoretical and practical work from other psychologists, I shall mention all the names I can that have been a contribution to my understanding of the concepts at hand. This is pretty much a regurgitation of what I have learned regarding Social Psychology theories on Leadership, with a personal critique at the end. As far as I am aware, I have not plagiarized the critique and the rest of the text is simply a regurgitation of others’ work, and their names will be mentioned at the end or during. Should the issue of plagiarism arise in the reading of the critique, let me know, for sometimes it is possible that two people can think the same thing without ever having come into contact with one another, or with each other’s work. A classic controversial example is the Newton & Leibniz story, which is still debated to this day about who was the pioneer of differential calculus, and who was the thief. Digression aside, now back to the issue at hand; before we commence, much thanks to my course Lecturer (R.T. Smith) for her extensive help and inspiration in the subject – as well as for her notes =).
Considerable work has been put into Psychology (Social in particular) regarding leadership, and nearly all the work I have come across considers the individualist perspectives, through trait and personality theories, or the collectivist approaches regarding group dynamics (e.g. status) between group elements. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but the explanatory weight on this scale hangs heavy on the side of the group dynamics.
The Individualist Perspective
In the individualist approach there is a distinction drawn between apparent leaders and non-leaders. After forming this distinction the sensible approach to defining the leader is by observing the differences between the two and obtaining a general framework for the definition of the Leader (work done by Stodgill, 1948,) e.g. the Leader has x qualities that is universal to all leaders, creating an identity of the leader grounded in qualities/traits. However, as is often the case with contingent induction (it is argued elsewhere of a necessary induction for further information see Kripke, Naming & Necessity), and all contingent traits, it fails to hold as necessary and the traits are discrepant and inconsistent. Also, we find a decline in influence of Leaders with the qualities postulated by Stodgill, over time and change; coming to the conclusion that the qualities are not the necessary component of Leadership. Thus, this approach to leadership loses, as Bales noticed, its explanatory strength in the face of time.
To make matters simpler for the critics, a new dimension to the individualist approach was added: that of the functionality of the leader (Simonto, 1980). This dimension argues that personality traits are not enough to account for the Leader, the situation has an equal amount of strength on the formation of the Leader e.g. the situation demands a person who is excellent at ‘x’, and that person can lead via his/her ‘x’ ability. This adds functionality to the Leadership explanation, but also bringing with it the fundamental importance of the ’situation’ that will cause many problems to the different approaches.
Currently we’re only dealing with the ‘Leader’ as a person and this has massive implications. A study by Lippet and White (1943) brought to light more leader-follower interaction through likability of a particular ‘type’ of leader. They found three distinct ways or manners of Leadership exemplified by the words, Autocratic (aloof, organized, strict and task-oriented; direct approach), Democratic (encourages follower engagement, acts synonymous to a member as opposed to a leader; indirect approach) and finally, Laissez-faire (allows the group to act of its own accord, and is minimally available or engaged). The first two were more task-oriented in distinction to the last; the last is attributed as portraying more closely the situation of a no-leader.
The Collectivist Approach
This is the collectivist attempt at accounting for the Leader; its approach is grounded on the assumption that leadership implies participation in a group, or membership of a group with at least one more element. Directly linking to the previous study, there is a distinction in the likability studies that brings forth a more collectivist approach. The main thing taken forward that lead to collectivist theories was the assumption that: if there is a correlation between likability and Leadership effectiveness, as observed by the three types, then the interaction between leader and follower is essential. Bales (1950), after finding that the democratic was favoured to the Autocratic inferred from the likability distinction between the first two an even bigger distinction, grounded in personality, between the task specialist (brining back the initial formulation of exemplary functionality desired as a leadership quality by the situation) and socio-emotional specialist. The former arises from the assumption of the importance of productivity, or the completion of the group goal. Whereas the latter considered more the interaction between elements and the contribution of elements in the goal; it helped elements feel more engaged with the outcome. (The latter hides assumptions orienting towards Self-Categorization Theory (SCT), and leading to Social Identity Theory, as well as other social psychology theories) Bales’ work was extended by Katz & Khan (1952) which showed the distinction is not fixed, and as such Leaders can aspects of each. Implying that this is not a distinction of personality as much as a distinction of approach; further implying that approach can be altered and mixed.
Staying with the likability angle and as such with the collectivist approach and the leader/follower interaction as the basis for Leadership effectiveness, a previously mentioned element in the individualist approach is added. This is the importance of the situation and the contingency approach, initially working as a critique against the Bales distinction. Fiedler (1967) inferred that there are hierarchical situational factors that affect the Leader’s influence and effectiveness, in order of importance: 1st, leader-member relations, 2nd, task structure, 3rd, position power. The three are put in order of importance and value, the 1st being the most valuable, the latter two less so than the first, and the 2nd more so than the 3rd etc. Fielder inferred that as the situation varies this hierarchy can change, favouring the 2nd more than the 1st etc. This often happens in times where task orientation is the key goal of the group that the leader is a part of, a good example of this is Winston Churchill’s leadership capabilities and influence/effectiveness during the times of War, and his decline during the times of Peace.
The next step is another towards the burial of all Leadership theories; the notion of the follower being a disguised leader, or in the words of Che Guevara: in the end, the people (followers) shall have the last word. This idea is fueled from the supposition that the leader is not without a follower, or one presupposes the other. Thus, there is a conditional relationship between leader and follower. SCT through Hogg and Duck (1997) extends this by postulating that the Leader is an exemplary of the group norms and characteristics, in other words, the man/woman that best shows who or what we are; the prefect so to speak. Thus, without the Follower the Leader is nothing, and the leader is grounded on the follower, showing a reduction of the Leader to the group/follower. Prototypical Leadership approach has strong explanatory grounds for effectiveness, indicating the importance of group identity. The more clear and distinct the group’s identity, and the adherence of the Leader to this identity, the more effective he/she is, and the more likely to be influential. (Fielding and Hogg, 1997)
We find then that SCT’s theory of prototypicality is able to encapsulate almost all aspects of leadership; from effectiveness (via the follower), to traits via the group identity/norms and to the situation likewise via the group norms (although the situation is presupposed and seldom talked about in prototypical leadership) and the group itself. This approach then condenses the leader to the group, in that whatever is of the group will be of the leader; as such the importance is shifted from the Leader to the follower, and subsequently the collection of followers (the group). In this reduction we find that Leadership is after all a matter of the follower or collection of followers; primarily because the leader is not possible without the follower. Thus, crudely speaking, the follower is the true leader and the leader is really just a follower.
Critique
The above are all studies done a posteriori with little to no a priori* attempts, after all Psychology does fancy itself a science and values the strength of empirical evidence in obtaining conclusions regarding theories. The critique I bring forward will attempt to deal with only the presuppositions and the assumptions of the Leader, and in the hope that we will come to some kind of an identity statement for the Leader a priori; however, it is possible to obtain identity statements a posteriori, for example, Water is H2O, (refer to Kripke for further understanding). Although that is altogether too bold as well as too optimistic, we shall try non-the-less; for it is in going too far that we find how far we can go.
The problems with the above theories is that they all attempt at an identity statement through a reduction, that always leaves them presupposing one or more things. We find the trait theory presupposes the situation, then the situation overlooking the importance of the follower/leader distinction and/or interaction, as such not being able to grasp the whole series of events that are necessary for all Leadership. Each theory grasps an aspect but, all of them miss the fundamental notion that Bales caught a glimpse of in his critique of trait theory; the notion of time and the situation.
First we ask what a Leader is; the common sense definition. The initial answer is that a Leader is somebody that leads (a tautology). Yet, that is insufficient because we are just uttering nothing; thus, the next question is: what is presupposed in the notion of ‘leading’? The answer is the opposing word of following; a leader can’t lead without being followed. As such and through this approach we deduce the importance of the leader/follower distinction and more importantly the necessity of one for the other. Leaders and Followers are distinct but at the same time necessary for one another; no leader without follower, no follower without leader (no leading without following etc.). Thus, we find that the Leader presupposes the follower; what was initially observed in the likability experiments and the inference of the three types of leaders.
So far we have: a Leader is somebody that leads, implying that there is somebody that follows; the next question is which came first the leader or the follower? Or is this a perfect self-enclosed circle impenetrable to all other questions? Leading and following implies at least two people, one doing the leading and the other doing the following. In this implication rests a further implication of a group; where a group is defined as two or more people with an equivalent goal/purpose. In this case the goal and purpose is the direction that the leader leads his followers in. We then come to the underlying assumption behind all leader/follower interactions, the assumption of a group. A group comes with its own presuppositions: the group norm, a number of similar people/elements and a purpose. Prototypical leadership theory rests on this presupposition, that Leaders and followers are a group.
Thus, we can reduce the leader down even further, to the group and the group norms. Although Leaders have influence over group norms and changes within the group or to the group, in the end, power of numbers guarantees that the group (followers and Leaders alike) decides the power of the Leader. Thus, as Che Guevara realised, it is the followers that decide the leader, and the followers are the bigger part of the group (in so far as leader < follower). The only problem however arises when there is only one follower, and thus, only one person being lead, by another who is likewise a single person. In the end, the relationship between the two is necessary; one is needed for the other. The real question would be, who does the relationship favour; the real answer is none, but we know that without leaders there are no followers, without followers there are no leaders. We know however, that the leader can be eliminated and a new one can be appointed from the followers, but the followers can’t be eliminated because then the leader is nothing (if and only if there is a single leader as opposed to a tribunal). The assumption underlying this is that there are more followers than leaders, and under these conditions the followers are in favour due to their numbers; hence Che Guevara’s notion of leadership. However, under the anomalous condition of only one leader and only one follower, this becomes an issue because conflict between the two makes it difficult to arrive at an understanding of what can occur. It would lead to relying on other theories to describe the dynamics behind dominance and submission that is assumed to be the cornerstone of all interactions between two people, and leadership and followership in groups with only two elements. Thus, it would make things easier for our current purposes to remove this anomalous situation from our critique and deal with larger groups.
There is a further relationship between the leader/follower distinction, one arising from the presupposition of the necessity for a group (excluding the anomaly) with its norms, elements and goal. This is the presupposition of a situation; a group implies a direction, a goal, and as such the goal brings with it a situation in response. A goal is always in response to a situation; as such the situation in this case is irreducible. Before this, we have to ask some questions: if the group decides what and who the leader is, can we eliminate the leader/follower distinction altogether and deal with the group; can we reduce the leader to the group? If we reduced the leader (and follower) to the group, then we have a problem of having to account for group changes outside and beyond inner-group dynamics and this would cause some issues. We even have to account for how the group came to be if we are to eliminate and reduce the elements to the group; we would have to appeal to contingency. We would not be able to account for influence and change originating from within, or even from without, for we have reduced all possibilities of influence when we reduced the elements. It would seem that we have the need for another component, one that was touched upon by Bales, but Bales did not realize the importance of it. All groups and elements alike are bound by a situation, a time, a history, a constitution and temporality in which they find themselves in. What is the situation? It is a broad term indeed, and hard to pin point. The situation would be the history underlying the formation of the group, it would be the reason why the elements have the commonality that lead to their forming a group. It would encapsulate the goal of the group and as such the hierarchical model in Fiedler would also be reduced, for changes in the hierarchy can only arise from a situation. The situation is the set of conditions or state of affairs preceding that lead to the formation of the group with its elements, or the changes thereof. Always presupposed in any given relationship between human beings, and thus under this category fall the leader and follower, is the concrete situation. The group then presupposes a situation, a temporality, a moment in time that is preceded by a past that possibly worked as a prerequisite for the formation of the group. In a sense then we can say that the leader is always presupposed in, and preceded by, the situation; but likewise the leader can cause the situation, and thus cause the next leader.
To sum up, we obtained the follower from the leader, and established a necessary relationship between the two. Then we found that this could not account for certain aspects and inferred the group as the presupposition over this relationship. Further, we couldn’t reduce or account fully for dynamics between follower and leader in a group to the group itself without having an element that brought with it time, and as such be able to account for change. Thus, we concluded that the situation is the primary component that holds weight over the group, with its dynamics, goals and elements – elements here encapsulating the Leader and Follower. As such there is a transition from Leader to Situation, then from Situation to Leader, and so on regressively with time; e.g. the reasons why an Autocratic Leader may be more favoured in a situation of War, and a Democratic in a situation of Peace etc. a real example would be the ineffectiveness of Winston Churchill during peace, and Mahatma Gandhi during war. We know not which came first for that is an ontological question and beyond our scope as well as our intention. The moment we try to grasp one however, we lose all the others that preceded it and could have caused it. As such we miss all the primary causes or reasons for a particular Leader and Situation at a particular time. Say we have Leader x3, and we infer Situation x3, but in doing so we have already lost the Leaders and Situations x2 to x0 that preceded and could have caused them, as such missing vital information for understanding. However, regardless of our inability to account for pretty much anything and explain a current state of affairs because of the others that preceded and could have caused them; this model still serves to describe the interplay pretty well. We can skip all metaphysical questioning and likewise lose the hope of getting answers to why questions and as such be able to explain fully, but simply we can just describe and hope that this is sufficient for our predictions and inferences. The explanatory strength of a particular theory may never be absolute but it serves its job pretty well on the current circumstances, and can predict sufficiently well. Even if it is not what the theory claims to offer, what it offers is good enough for utility.
———-
*A priori literally means ‘before experience’, a posteriori means ‘after experience’.
