I know I haven’t been updating this blog because I’m too lazy. Years 2 and 3 have been an exciting flurry of business (both work and busy-ness). I constantly spew bite-sized thoughts that stream into my mind on Instagram Stories anyway, and I am remarkably easily bored and excitable, so longer, more considered pieces on Blogger aren’t sustainable. I digress. Many exciting life updates! I’m now officially done with my undergraduate PPE programme at King’s College London. I loved every bit of it: the depth, rigour and intellectual intensity of the course, the international student community, the bustling city of London and all the travel opportunities around Europe. Words can’t do justice to the profundity of the experience. In typical Quincean fashion, I milked everything I could out of the three years: went to Cumberland Lodge (for free) as a photographer with the Philosophy Department in Years 1 and 3, clinched the Principal’s Global Leadership Award (PGLA) in my second year (spending
Upon my return on 13 March, I was overwhelmed by shocking new developments regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. I have since cleared my backlog of reading, kept myself updated with the evolving health situation and settled myself back into life in camp.
Last month, I set out to “gain a better sense of the tensions between Deneen and the Romantics — and analogously, Confucius and Zhuangzi” through my experience in the wilderness. This was in relation to my attempt to review Patrick J. Deneen’s book, Why Liberalism Failed. After all, Victor Hugo defined Romanticism as “liberalism in literature”. Indeed, this proved to be fertile territory. I emerged with thoughts more bountiful than expected. As it was a leadership course, I was made to reflect on different leadership frameworks and styles. Then it hit me. Although these tensions concern human nature and political theory, once leadership is thrown into the melee, all the connections appear. Leadership is intertwined with human nature and political theory. Last December, I wrote that my natural and preferred leadership style is so-called “transformational” and that I could coherently articulate my reasons and motivations behind such a style. Perhaps now is the time.
Part 1: Nature or Nurture — To What Extent Should Followers Be Left to Be Themselves?
At Day 2’s Morning Circle[1], the OBS instructors asked a classic question. Leadership: nature or nurture? Obviously, presenting this dichotomy would almost certainly invite a synthesis of both extremes. Honestly, I scorned the prompt because of this. There was a clear answer: both nature and nurture. So the discussion would have been better if the prompt was from the outset explicitly about determining the nature-factors and nurture-factors, as well as the proportions and mechanisms of action by which they influence one’s leadership style. I will discuss this in Part 3: Nature or Nurture — The Effects of “Nurture” on Leadership Style.
But first, instead of examining the effects of nature or nurture on the leader himself, let us have a sense of the original nature/nurture question in political philosophy. For any kind of nature/nurture debate, we can turn to Chinese philosophy for a better picture of the intellectual battlefield. This is how I noted that Deneen/Romanticism parallels Confucius/Zhuangzi. The central issue here is this: To what extent should followers be left to be themselves (nature) or be subject to some discipline or cultivation (nurture)? If nature outweighs nurture, then we have Romanticism and Zhuangzi. If nurture outweighs nature, then we must ask: How should we nurture? If the answer is rituals, familial relationships and the cultivation of good habits, then we have Confucius. If the answer is draconian laws and strict enforcement, then we have Han Fei and Legalism. If the answer is an economic utilitarianism, then we have Mozi.
Part 2: Romanticism, Human Nature, and How People Should Be Led
Different people have different personalities — individual, personal natures, so to speak. Here it is important to note that although there are as many personal natures as people, “human nature” refers to the common thread found in everyone’s personal nature. One’s conception of human nature informs one’s assessment of one’s personnel. Obviously, for example, if you think humans are intrinsically lazy, you will think your subordinates are intrinsically lazy as well. Our assumptions of human nature are projected onto others, which in turn affects how we treat others, especially those under us. This isn’t new. This is what political theory is all about: why and how should a group of people be organised. Scaling down from the national to the organisational level, one can see how the insights from political theory are relevant to small-group leadership.
Romanticism sprang from post-Kantian German idealism and quickly spread across Europe as an aesthetic, political, ethical and intellectual movement. Despite the existence of regional strains of Romanticism which diverge due to different languages, literary forms and concerns, the general consensus among Romantic scholars is that these differences are superficial:
- Lovejoy (1924) advances the view that regional Romanticisms are distinct, with no common thread.[2] In refutation, Wellek (1964) suggests that the regional Romanticisms differ in form and style but share common philosophical roots.[3] Ferber (2005) tries to synthesise the two, and advocates for a Wittgensteinian family resemblance theory.[4] Porée (2017) provides an overview and evaluation of contemporary approaches which link Romanticism to globalisation.[5]
This is the gap which Deneen has to plug. He misses the possibility that a strong emphasis on the individual can be coupled with an equally strong emphasis on the (both human and natural) environment. That freedom can be self-centred but not egoistic, and certainly not solipsistic.
Despite having led with a “transformational” style since secondary school, I have only acquired the vocabulary to describe it in Junior College. Knowingly or not, I have been Romantically influenced. I value others’ authenticity and freedom. I have faith in intrinsic motivation and self-governance. I do not coerce or reprimand my subordinates because, simply put, they should know better. If they are incompetent and need some hand-holding, I will privately tutor them. Although the aretaphilic assumption is flawed, I will stand by my humanistic approach. The baseline is dignity. The means is empowerment. The end is flourishing. Every project is an adventure.
Part 3: Nature or Nurture — The Effects of “Nurture” on Leadership Style
Retrospectively, the nature/nurture question gains added relevance because of the different leadership styles I witnessed, and my subsequent attempts to abduce the factors causing these differences. Here I must state that subjective, descriptive, non-moralistic, non-essentialist observations and impressions follow, lest my words be misappropriated, repurposed or mobilised for deleterious ends.
Most of my coursemates (a) hail from the Army, and (b) graduated from Polytechnics. I assume that hailing from the Army has a smaller bearing on one’s leadership style than graduating from a Polytechnic. This is due to four reasons. First, in purely temporal terms, three years beats three months. Second, more importantly, the principles of basic training, excluding technical skill acquisition, are the same in all three branches of National Service: the armed forces, police and emergency services. They have acquired regimental discipline in BMT; so have I in POBC. Therefore, when I compare leadership styles between myself and others, the factor which stands out is not what we gained from basic training (because it’s more or less the same everywhere) but the influence from our prior experiences. Drawing a mathematical analogy, the constants cancel upon subtraction.
\[(A+k) - (B+k) = A-B\]
I observed that many coursemates place an emphasis on the appearance of omniscience and omnipotence. A great leader, in their view, looks like he knows everything and can do everything. I don’t disagree. In fact, I would go beyond the perception criterion and assert that the best leaders actually know their stuff, instead of merely looking like they know their stuff. But here’s the catch: they further believe that even if a leader is uncertain, he cannot reveal his uncertainty to his followers. Why? Because concealing uncertainty is reassuring, especially in times of crisis and turbulence.
This view is extremely discomforting to me. Empty reassurances, pace my learnèd friends, are anything but reassuring. The benefits of transparency outweigh those of obscurity; just look at how Iraj Harirchi handled the onset of COVID-19 in Iran. Followers need to know the truth, no matter how disturbing it is.
Confidence in a leader, if it originates solely from the leader’s knowledge or ability, is unstable. No leader is omniscient or omnipotent. Even the most knowledgeable and skilful leader will falter in the face of a sudden turn of events. The followers may panic, but should they abandon ship? There is nothing wrong with a leader admitting that he doesn’t know what to do, so long as he attempts to move the group forward.
Confidence in a leader, therefore, should also originate from the leader’s capability to act despite his lack of knowledge or expertise at some points in time. Emphasising the façade of omniscience and omnipotence ensures that followers don’t panic, but it also ensures that they don’t survive. It is superficial and misguided. In any case, something is seriously wrong if followers are at a loss the moment their leader falters. It speaks of a severe lack of maturity and a pathetic overdependence on the leader.
Nonetheless, I must say it has been a refreshing joy to work with people from different backgrounds. It was a 19-day dialectic of action where we experienced one another’s leadership styles — a welcome change from the typical leadership programmes I took part in at school: discuss leadership with other students in a room, learn some leadership theories, debate politics and policies, draft a few proposals, establish new CCA frameworks and do community service. I don’t know if this is emblematic of the stereotype that Junior College people are more academic and Polytechnic people more practical. But, you know as they say, there is an element of truth in every stereotype. Perhaps the differences in our leadership approaches are caused by the different educational methodologies under which we were brought up — the effects of “nurture” on leadership style.
Part 4: Leadership in National Service
One of my old friends was recently commissioned as a Naval Officer, graduating as the Midshipman Wing Sword of Honour recipient. He also signed on.
As I congratulated him on graduation day, I thought about how leadership is developed in National Service. Following Lowe (2019), it is known that National Service, in tandem with its perpetuation of hegemonic masculinities, promotes a militarised ideal of leadership.[6] The most outstanding officer cadets in National Service get awarded the Swords of Honour and Merit. Of course, there is nothing wrong with organisations awarding top performers; they have every right and reason to do so. But it becomes problematic if one transposes the metrics for assessing leadership in National Service to society at large.
I think it is important to be cognisant of the multifarious value-laden forces to which conscripts are subjected. Receiving the Sword of Honour makes one a good officer, but not necessarily a good leader in other fields. Of course it is arguable that some traits of good officership, such as responsibility and initiative, constitute good leadership anywhere else. But nonetheless, receiving these awards makes one a good National Service leader, and should not be taken to be an affirmation of Leadership-with-a-capital-L.
In order to avoid succumbing to prescribed value judgements, one must first be aware of their provenance. All National Service leadership courses share the noble aim of developing thinking officers. But true thinking officers have a metacognitive, big-picture, even worldly consciousness. I have no fixation with these awards, as I know very well that people who do not receive awards are not incapable of good leadership.
Part 5: My Idea of Leadership: Wordsworth’s Character of the Happy Warrior
This brings me to my final point: my idea of leadership. Last October, when I just got posted to the State Courts, I shared a poem on Instagram. I thought that it would be influential, especially among my former classmates who were on their own National Service leadership journeys. It was William Wordsworth’s 1807 Character of the Happy Warrior — a poem which, I feel, encapsulates the Romantic ideal of leadership which I espouse. Better still, the poem is set in a military context, which makes it all the more relevant. The entire poem is an invigorating cornucopia with glistening gems popping out of every line, as I will briefly show.
The poem opens with the central question which Wordsworth will devote the rest of the poem investigating and answering.
- Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he
That every man in arms should wish to be?
-
—It is the generous Spirit, who, when brought
Among the tasks of real life, hath wrought
Upon the plan that pleased his boyish thought:
Whose high endeavours are an inward light
That makes the path before him always bright;
Who, with a natural instinct to discern
What knowledge can perform, is diligent to learn;
Abides by this resolve, and stops not there,
But makes his moral being his prime care;
-
Who, doomed to go in company with Pain,
And Fear, and Bloodshed, miserable train!
Turns his necessity to glorious gain;
In face of these doth exercise a power
Which is our human nature’s highest dower:
Controls them and subdues, transmutes, bereaves
Of their bad influence, and their good receives:
By objects, which might force the soul to abate
Her feeling, rendered more compassionate;
Is placable—because occasions rise
So often that demand such sacrifice;
More skilful in self-knowledge, even more pure,
As tempted more; more able to endure,
As more exposed to suffering and distress;
Thence, also, more alive to tenderness.
-
—’Tis he whose law is reason; who depends
Upon that law as on the best of friends;
Whence, in a state where men are tempted still
To evil for a guard against worse ill,
And what in quality or act is best
Doth seldom on a right foundation rest,
He labours good on good to fix, and owes
To virtue every triumph that he knows:
-
—Who, if he rise to station of command,
Rises by open means; and there will stand
On honourable terms, or else retire,
And in himself possess his own desire;
Who comprehends his trust, and to the same
Keeps faithful with a singleness of aim;
-
And therefore does not stoop, nor lie in wait
For wealth, or honours, or for worldly state;
Whom they must follow; on whose head must fall,
Like showers of manna, if they come at all:
Whose powers shed round him in the common strife,
Or mild concerns of ordinary life,
A constant influence, a peculiar grace;
- But who, if he be called upon to face
Some awful moment to which Heaven has joined
Great issues, good or bad for human kind,
Is happy as a Lover; and attired
With sudden brightness, like a Man inspired;
-
And, through the heat of conflict, keeps the law
In calmness made, and sees what he foresaw;
Or if an unexpected call succeed,
Come when it will, is equal to the need:
-
—He who, though thus endued as with a sense
And faculty for storm and turbulence,
Is yet a Soul whose master-bias leans
To homefelt pleasures and to gentle scenes;
Sweet images! which, wheresoe’er he be,
Are at his heart; and such fidelity
It is his darling passion to approve;
More brave for this, that he hath much to love:—
- ’Tis, finally, the Man, who, lifted high,
Conspicuous object in a Nation’s eye,
Or left unthought-of in obscurity,—
Who, with a toward or untoward lot,
Prosperous or adverse, to his wish or not—
Plays, in the many games of life, that one
Where what he most doth value must be won:
Whom neither shape or danger can dismay,
Nor thought of tender happiness betray;
-
Who, not content that former worth stand fast,
Looks forward, persevering to the last,
From well to better, daily self-surpast:
-
Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth
For ever, and to noble deeds give birth,
Or he must fall, to sleep without his fame,
And leave a dead unprofitable name—
Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws
His breath in confidence of Heaven’s applause:
-
This is the happy Warrior; this is he
That every man in arms should wish to be.
And I am in concurrence. ∎
[1] 25 February 2020, 0845 hrs, Shed 10
[2] Lovejoy, A. O. (1924). On the Discrimination of Romanticisms. PMLA, 39(2), 229. doi:10.2307/457184
[3] Wellek, R. (1964). German and English Romanticism: A Confrontation. Studies in Romanticism, 4(1), 35. doi:10.2307/25599632
[4] Ferber, M. (2005). Introduction. In A companion to European romanticism (p. 6). Oxford: Blackwell.
[5] Porée, M. (2017). Global Romanticism: Origins, Orientations, and Engagements, 1760–1820 / The Oxford Handbook of European Romanticism. European Romantic Review, 28(1), 86–91. doi:10.1080/10509585.2016.1272872
[6] Lowe, J. (2019). Masculinizing national service: the cultural reproduction of masculinities and militarization of male citizenship in Singapore. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(6), 687–698. doi: 10.1080/09589236.2019.1604329
[7] Legge, J. (1882). Appendix II. In The sacred books of China: the texts of Confucianism, Part II, The Yi King (p. 267). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Comments
Post a Comment