To Lead or Not to Lead

Leadership, as much as love, preoccupied Shakespeare in his dramatic writings – most probably because the precarious state of Protestant England desperately needed good leadership to keep it safe from military attacks from abroad, and civil strife at home.

Interestingly, Shakespeare did not romanticise leadership as some wondrous quality of an idealised character. Instead, he drew from historical accounts of who had led well and who poorly, and developed an instructive conception of what would make a leader we should follow (and what should ring alarm bells).

Let us start with the negative things we should look out for.  For Shakespeare, the key problem is character weakness – the inability to hold true to what one has good reasons to commit oneself to. Lear might have been a good leader once, but with age, he became prone to losing his temper, falling for flattery, and handing over power to those who were the last people he should trust.  Othello was widely recognised as a noble and effective military leader, yet his susceptibility to jealousy opened him to easy deception by Iago, and he was all too ready to condemn Desdemona to death without checking out accusations with due attention. Macbeth was a loyal, respected warrior until obsessive ambition turned him into a usurper of the throne and murderer of children.

More illustrations are to be found with Hamlet, whose indecisiveness over what he should do for the sake of his family and country meant all was lost in the end; with Brutus, whose naïve reluctance to deal resolutely with Caesar’s supporter, Antony, as he did with Caesar himself, resulted in his failure to save the Roman republic; and Coriolanus, whose arrogance in thinking it beneath him to seek to engage the hearts and minds of the people in securing political power led to his humiliating downfall.

By contrast, good leadership is exemplified by a steadfastness in judging matters judiciously, forming plans with a careful understanding of what others are thinking, and executing them with resolve.  Look at how Octavius was presented in Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra – calmly, quietly, he plotted his course to form tactical alliances and corner enemies. Ever focused on securing the support he needed to move towards his goal, he was the master of his emotions, never the other way round. Similarly, Prince Hal showed that to be serious in becoming a good leader as he ascended the throne as Henry V, he jettisoned his youthful rowdy sentiments and committed to exercising his duties with unwavering dedication.  Importantly, for both Hal and Octavius, they did not hesitate to part ways from people who were once close to them but could no longer be trusted (in the case of Falstaff and Antony respectively).

Good leadership is not just a matter for kings and emperors either. Portia is undoubtedly the most impressive character in The Merchant of Venice for her composure, clear thinking, and ability to take charge of the most challenging situations. Whether it was dealing with the suitors to her (and her inherited fortune), providing a haven to an eloping couple, or using her legal skills to save the life of the seemingly doomed merchant, Portia would navigate her way forward in a calm and informed manner, even as others felt there was no hope.

Under very different circumstances, Rosalind – in As You Like It – was banished with nothing but her wits to live on, and as she ventured into a land of strangers, swiftly took charge of every tricky situation that arose. Her ability to inspire confidence, to manage other people’s misunderstanding, and to bring about satisfactory outcomes renders her a natural leader others will follow. But lest we think it is charm and humour that hold the key, we should remember Paulina from The Winter’s Tale. She saw through the king’s absurd accusation against the queen, resolutely stood up for her, and guided the king through years of penance back to a possible reconciliation. Dour and firm, Paulina was another exemplar of leadership as determination informed by evidential assessment.

To lead well – Shakespeare tells us – keep in mind the concerns of others as well as those of one’s own, do not let emotions run wild, shun fears and temptations, check serious claims scrupulously, focus on the desirable outcomes, and act with clear resolve. 

Prithee render these essential requirements for every politician and CEO.

Educating Insular Minds

Most people would agree that anti-social behaviour – from taunts and intimidation to exploitation and violence – should be curbed. But what can education do about it?

One way to approach this problem is to focus on the degree of mental insularity that needs to be overcome. There is a wide spectrum of propensity for interpersonal engagement amongst the young. At one end, there are those who empathise with others, respect their concerns, are well disposed and equipped to talk things through even when there are disagreements, and seek others’ views before acting in ways that may affect them. At the other, we have those who tend not to register others’ feelings, are often oblivious to their perspectives, rigidly refuse to discuss or even listen to contrary arguments whatever the evidence, and act as they please regardless of what others may think.  

The challenge for educators is to help the young develop in the direction of reducing their mental insularity and becoming more inclined and able to engage with others constructively. There are three key components to achieving this:

·      Empathic Thoughtfulness: moving the learners’ moral sensibility outwards through an expanding circle so they can appreciate how others might feel, and are more disposed to take the wellbeing of others into consideration.

·      Cognitive Thoughtfulness: developing the learners’ critical and collaborative reasoning skills so they have a better understanding of the roles of objective evidence and logical argument, and can deliberate with others in assessing what warrants belief.

·      Volitional Thoughtfulness: cultivating the learners’ control of impulse and lethargy so that they are disposed to act appropriately in light of the informed views of others, and avoid irresponsible choices.

What does this entail in practice? Above all, it calls on educators to adopt techniques that can take individuals out of a state of ‘closed mindedness’ and show them the positive experiences of mutual concern, collaborative reasoning, and inclusive decision-making. 

For example, instead of celebrating only one type of ‘success’ (e.g., formal test results), young people should have the opportunities to learn about the valuable contributions each other can make. Where there has been transgression, restorative justice methods should be applied to ensure the transgressors learn from those they have hurt and change their mindset and behaviour in the future.

There should be lessons on how to sift through and evaluate sources of information to gauge their reliability; explanations of how objective scientific and scholarly investigations actually work; case studies of serious distortion and deception in the media; and team exercises in cooperating to find provisionally acceptable answers. 

Debates, which focus on the skills to press for one claim or its opposite regardless of its overall merit, should always be supplemented by sessions that nurture abilities for conflict-resolution and consensus-building. More widely, decisions on a range of issues that affect the students in a class, their school, or the wider community, should be made through democratic engagement – which may involve elections, participatory voting, or deliberative conference.

Insular minds ignore the suffering, reasoning, and perspective of other people when these are critically relevant to how one should behave. Learning to engage with others as we need them to engage with us must be at the heart of education.

Premier Diversity

It is noticeable that people who rely on ‘information’ sources which have a not so hidden agenda of spreading negativity about immigrants, refugees, ‘non-whites’, ‘aliens’, tend to subscribe to the notion that there are ‘too many foreigners’ in the country already, and we need to stop more ‘coming in’ and making everything worse.

Some commentators – and quite a few politicians – seem to think that this means that xenophobia is so deeply rooted that it would be unwise to go against it. Instead of pointing out how people with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds have been helping us in countless ways socially and economically, everyone is supposed to meekly nod and mutter ‘we must have fewer of them’.

But are people really that xenophobic? What if, despite whatever anti-foreign diatribe is pumped out, people get to see for themselves the positive difference individuals with foreign ancestry make – week in, week out?

Welcome to the English Premier League – widely considered the most exciting, and certainly the most watched, football league in the world.  A recent count puts the number of foreign players (those not eligible to play for the England national team) in this league at almost 66%. Furthermore, many of the English players in the league have parents or grandparents born outside the country. Are football fans upset with their clubs fielding so many non-white, or non-UK born players? Far from it.  They are lifted by the higher quality of football on display, the greater competitiveness, and at the level of the national team, it is acknowledged that the skills and mentality of England players have been immeasurably raised by regularly training and playing alongside their impressive club teammates who have joined from abroad. 

If any politician wants to campaign to get rid of ‘foreign’ players from the Premier League, they are not going to get very far. Imagine them bemoaning these ‘aliens’ taking English jobs, when there are so many true born English folks who are unemployed or on disability benefit, and who should be trained up to take over from the likes of Haaland, Salah, and Casemiro. People love their football heroes, they adore what they bring to their teams, and they won’t put up with any disrespectful attempt to remove them.

But is this because football is uniquely immune from racist and xenophobic attitudes? Hardly. Before the 1970s, it was rare to see a black player in any of the teams in the top division. Abuse was hurled at the few black players who were selected. Pundits did not want foreigners coming in to weaken the intensity of the English game. What changed?

When managers and clubs began to realise they would have much better teams with quality players regardless of their skin colour or country of birth, they started to recruit accordingly. As the fans witnessed the superior performance and impact, they embraced a league that had become outstanding, not in spite of, but because of its diversity – in skills, temperament, background, experience, and adaptability.

We must not let manipulators twist the facts about immigrants and their descendants, but ensure the good work and added value brought by people of diverse backgrounds are widely known. As in football, in every field of human endeavour, we are much better off when we welcome what others can contribute, rather than trying to exclude them out of sheer prejudice.

Communities: the way we could be

Some people idealise past communities as what must have been the embodiment of a wonderful time – stable, calm, guided by reassuring traditions. Others dread the talk of ‘community’ because they find in so many communal/neighbourhood settings signs of prejudice, discrimination, and oppressive hierarchies. 

The truth is that communities have the potential for mutually supportive relationships and a positive sense of belonging which embraces diversity. However, that potential can only be realised if inclusive and cooperative relations are backed by the prevailing culture, rules and institutional practices. Otherwise, there is always a danger that marginalisation and exploitation could become the norm in a closed-off structure.

When politicians sing the praises of communities, we should go beyond the rhetoric to see if they are championing communities that are realising their social potential through collaborative working, or they are actually promoting the idea that communities riven by divisions should be left alone to deal with their own problems.

The latter type of politician, out of cynicism or naivety, will tell us that the more is left to communities to sort out for themselves, the better it would be for all concerned.  Public expenditure can be reduced, taxes cut, and people will learn to rely on themselves.  In practice, the more communities are deprived of wider political and economic support, the less likely they can ever escape from poverty, poor health, and their generally unenviable quality of life.  The mantra of pulling oneself by one’s bootstraps rings hollow to those who are having to walk barefoot down a stony path.

No one wishes to deny that communities can do a lot for themselves, but ultimately whether that is enough to lift them towards a better future is connected to the type of partnership arrangements they enter into with public bodies as well as among themselves.  This does not mean that there should be large-scale programmes set up in communities with centrally directed funding, targets, and intensive monitoring.  Instead, what the accumulating evidence of successful community-based transformation around the world tells us is that real partnership has to be built on the sharing of trust, information, and power.

With public investment and the proper statutory framework, community organisations have been able to develop community land trusts to provide genuinely affordable housing, set up anchor facilities to meet local needs, and run community enterprises that generate income to help pursue neighbourhoods’ priorities.  Mutual support schemes such as time banking thrive when they are financially backed rather than left to their own devices with no public funding.  Regeneration programmes deliver more cost-effective outcomes and higher satisfaction when public agencies ensure they are shaped by the informed input and continuous feedback from the communities concerned.

It is now widely known that suspicion and misunderstanding that so often undermine partnership working between government bodies and community groups can be significantly reduced through the use of inclusive dialogue techniques, responsive engagement processes, and shared objective-setting.  Community learning, backed by trained facilitators, can help people explore the real causes of the problems they face, and work together in formulating viable solutions. And trust can be built by replacing rigid target-setting and inflexible monitoring with adaptive planning processes and responsive evaluation.

Whatever the sceptics out there may think, the facts speak for themselves.  State-community co-production, guided by the aforementioned collaborative approaches, has led to a wide range of improvements such as: higher levels of both actual and perceived community safety; the development of multi-stakeholder cooperative models in the health and social care sector that result in better care and greater affordability; more effective outcomes and enhanced dignity in tackling food insecurity; and sustained progress in dealing with environmental challenges relating to energy, transport and air quality.

Communities should be encouraged to do what they can to improve their quality of life.  But how much they can actually do is inseparable from the political choices that are made.  Political leaders who want to work with communities as partners and are prepared to listen as well as propose when it comes to solving problems, will find that their joint endeavours have a much better chance of bringing about the kind of transformative changes informed citizens seek.  

--

Find out more from: 

Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons for community-based transformation in the age of global crises (Policy Press, 2021)

Con Politics & the Hate Parade

Con politics is a mutated form of conservatism.  Conservative thinking is generally cautious about big societal changes, and tends to oppose them unless most people have in time come to see that the changes are actually quite harmless, or indeed beneficial for society. Con politics, on the other hand, pushes without hesitation for big societal changes whenever these are likely to strengthen further the self-centred clique of powerful people who steer it – even if that would be harmful for others in society. 

The changes Con politics implacably opposes are those that could diminish its proponents’ wealth, status, or ability to keep taking unfair advantage of others – in such cases, it does not matter if most people are persuaded that the changes are necessary to reduce the suffering of those who have endured much pain and mistreatment, or there is mounting evidence that they will help improve life in general, Con politics would vilify such changes as utterly unacceptable. 

To win votes, and avoid being exposed as callously self-serving, Con politics rallies support by weaponising hate against two types of target: the vulnerable scapegoats and the ‘do-gooder’ enemies.

Top of the list for scapegoats are immigrants and refugees, who will be routinely mentioned with the prefix ‘illegal’. The substantial contributions they can make to the economy must be ignored, instead they should be prevented from getting any paid work, and then blamed for being a drain on public resources. Resentment against ‘foreigners’ (even if their families have lived here for generations) and their ‘alien’ customs is to be stoked. Absurd schemes to deter people coming from abroad (except for the wealthy ones who are likely to donate to Con politics) should be concocted to keep them out, lock them up, or fly them away to far off land.

Next on the scapegoats list are people on low pay or unable to get a job, and have to resort to claiming benefits to make ends meet. They are to be indignantly denounced as ‘cheats’ and ‘scroungers’. Anyone denied decent pay is to be branded as ‘lazy’, the homeless are to be told they have only themselves to blame, and those who cannot work because of their illness or disability are to be slammed for lying about their condition and have all support withdrawn if they do not get out of their sick bed or wheelchair and start looking for work.

More scapegoats are to be found amongst those who live a ‘non-traditional’ way of life – women who want to have opportunities truly equal to those available to men, homosexual couples who want to get married, anyone not conforming to ‘conventional’ notions of gender and sexuality, etc – they are all reviled for violating precious principles and long revered customs.

Along with the scapegoats, Con politics targets the ‘do-gooders’ who dare to press for changes that will help the disadvantaged, and promote reforms that will alter power structures and prevailing practices to improve life for people in general. Trade unions that champion the workers’ cause, politicians who seek to bring in progressive policies, campaigners for the rights of those who are discriminated against, advocates for curbing corporate greed to protect the planet, lawyers who challenge oppressive measures, international organisations that uphold standards of fairness and decency – they are all presented as despicable enemies who should be loathed as dangerous radicals and shut out with perpetual disdain.

Why so much hate? Well, since sympathy with the plight of those who have the toughest struggle might lead to support for giving them help, Con politics wants to turn them into hated scapegoats that few will want to assist with public resources. As for the ‘do-gooders’, if people would listen calmly to their reasons and evidence, they might end up siding with them and their reform ideas. But manipulate people into hating them, that would ensure the case they make – however sound – would be rejected without even getting a hearing.

No wonder the rallying of Con politics is basically one long hate parade.

Citizen Democracy: what’s in a name?

For many people democracy is just about asking a defined group to choose from a number of options, and the option with the most votes would be selected for implementation. But if we remind ourselves that the purpose of democracy is to share power equitably so that those affected by an important decision can influence that decision, then it is clear that the conditions under which the process of identifying and selecting options is carried out matter greatly.

‘Citizen Democracy’ is the name for any power structure which meets the conditions needed for democratic influence to be distributed and exercised properly. These conditions are:

·      Shared Civic Commitments: without such commitments, people choosing purely on selfish, tribal, sectarian basis would lead to social and political fragmentation.

·      Mutual Respect: without safeguards against stigmatisation and discrimination, some would be held back from effective participation.

·      Engagement Capability: without the capability of understanding the issues, the options put forward, or how to make one’s views count, one would not be able to engage meaningfully.

·      Reliable Information: without reliable sources, exposures of false/misleading information, or deliberative processes to resolve conflicting views, one would lack an objective basis to decide.

·      Equal Participatory Opportunity: without support for equal participation, votes may not count equally in different areas, barriers could be erected against disadvantaged groups, while much greater influence could be handed to those with superior wealth.

·      Public Accountability: without robust accountability arrangements, irresponsible leaders could use corruption, intimidation, and secrecy to go against what people want to happen.

Although many developed countries not under authoritarian rule would describe themselves as ‘democratic’, what they have is a multi-party electoral system, which to varying degrees fall short on many of the six conditions outlined above. When critics complain that democracy can lead to undesirable outcomes, what they are bemoaning is a system which endorses certain political outcomes that go against the interests of the people, because it is not a functioning citizen democracy.

If we want the proto-democratic arrangements that are in place to be developed into a system of citizen democracy that truly leads from people’s thought-through concerns to the most supported public policy outcomes, then we must press for substantial improvements in education, regulation,and organisation to get us much closer to fulfilling the six conditions.

Education needs to do much more to raise critical understanding of, not just political institutions and processes, but how to assess sources of information, deliberate in collective enquiries, navigate the language and procedures of public bodies, and engage in policy development.

Regulation’s priorities would include removing iniquitous barriers that hinder disadvantaged groups from voting, curtailing the influence of wealthy donors, eliminating unfair advantages set up by partisan legislatures, restricting the spreading of malicious misinformation, and penalising those who abuse the power of their office.

Organisational improvements are required in terms of training in inclusive engagement for those in public office, provision of suitable participatory options, support for community development and partnership working, rooting out discrimination, and cultivating shared objectives.

Citizen democracy does not presume all decisions should be made via direct, representative, or deliberative democratic arrangements. It does not set down what kind of majoritarian threshold is to be applied in all cases. What it demands is that power structures affecting people’s lives should enable people to influence in a fair and meaningful way how the power in question is assigned and exercised.

--

‘Citizen democracy’ has also be termed ‘civic-communitarian democracy’ or ‘communitarian democracy’. For example, see Time to Save Democracy.

Pathways to Human Connections

History has taught us that only through learning to cooperate do human beings get to improve the chances of their attaining a better quality of life together. It is vital we explore and adapt different forms of structures, rules, customs, and so on, in order to discover what kind of social, economic, and political connections would help us meet the challenges we face more effectively than if we were left to our own devices.

In her book, Journey to Hopeful Futures, Helena Kettleborough sets out a series of pathways to take people forward in developing those connections that would displace despair by hope. It is an impressive and wide-ranging work that brings together reflections on diverse cultures, examples that illustrate a variety of ways to thinking through complex issues, and exposition of an array of techniques that should be applied to personal and group learning.

At one level, this exemplary handbook introduces readers to the many forms of learning that are vital for better connections to be built, and mutual understanding to be enriched. It provides a most accessible guide for anyone interested in finding out more about the significance and utilisation of value-based learning; inter-disciplinary learning; orientation towards problem-solving; participatory engagement; lifelong learning; and action research. Instructively, it treats them, not in silos, but as interwoven strands of a holistic approach – well illustrated (in chapters 7 and 12) by the approach of North West Together We Can, where Kettleborough worked in the 2000s.

At a deeper level, Journey to Hopeful Futures articulates an outlook which is rooted in what may be termed a naturalistic notion of spirituality. For people with whom such a notion resonates, the book acts as a companion in exploring the emotionally charged steps that may be taken towards that spiritual worldview. They would find references that range from the tiniest creatures on earth to the cosmic vastness, from personal experiences to cultural memories, illuminating in helping them see everything in the ‘Sacred Earth and Cosmos’ as connected in a spiritually meaningful way.

However, it should be pointed out that ‘spirituality’ may not always work well as a unifying notion. Some people’ spiritual experience is framed in terms of their relationship with a sentient omnipotent being who cares only for humans (or in some cases, only the ‘chosen ones’). Some people care for others but see that as a matter of being true to their human nature, and not related to anything beyond interpersonal relations. Some people can be persuaded to cooperate through enlightened self-interest but not out of deference to some cosmic ideal. Some people support biodiversity but would not worry too much if disease-carrying mosquitoes were about to become extinct. 

Kettleborough recognises that not everyone relates to a spiritual worldview, and her book encourages readers to create their own journey through exploring creative learning exercises, ongoing individual reflection, and tapping into other resources that are signposted. Importantly, the book’s exposition of participatory learning in its diverse forms shows how people with different worldviews can work together even if they persist with holding onto their own worldviews. People do not have to have a spiritual sense of awe and wonder about the world in order to engage in forms of learning that enable participants to raise their shared understanding and assessment of what can be reliably believed and acted on. With the help of Journey to Hopeful Futures, they will discover much more about how they can in cooperation with others better tackle issues such as the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, and multiple social challenges

It is empirically established that cooperative learning is more dependable than any other approach in problem-solving. And whatever worldviews people hold, they can adopt this approach to learning. Of course, there may well be people who, irrespective of the evidence, insist on invoking groundless assumptions and arguing arbitrarily, but where that is the case, rather than trying to appeal to their sense of spirituality, the focus should be on learning what can be effectively appealed to for them to recognise the need to engage in cooperative problem-solving.

--

To find out more about Journey to Hopeful Futures: a handbook, by Helena Kettleborough, (Centre for Connected Practice, 2023), go to: https://c4cp.net/blog/project/journey-to-hopeful-futures-a-handbook/

More on cooperative learning and participatory engagement can be found in ‘Lessons for Tomorrow’s Communities’:  

https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2021/07/lessons-for-tomorrows-communities.html