For the Stern and Kalof reading, I have learned about research definitions and terms before, but it was helpful to be reminded of the many details. My research paper for this class is an example of a retrospective case study I believe. I was able to make some naturalistic observations during the show’s season, but most of my information is from the past. I cannot draw conclusions because I am not running an experiment, so I will end with a correlation.
The von Rueden and van Vuaght reading was very interesting. In 102, my class focused a lot on how different leadership styles could be better suited for different situations, but large scale versus small scale was never a large of discussion. The most basic principle is the same: leaders emerge when there is a need to solve a problem. According to this reading, this concept has been the same some basic societies began. In general, the reading says that the ideal leader is an older, stronger man. Characteristics are specific to what a certain culture values, which is interesting to me because it highlights unspoken norms and preferences. In SSS, a potential benefit to being a leader is reciprocity. This is not shared with LSS leadership incentive. This difference seems to show that SSS leadership is more personal. I wonder the different pressures that come from leading a group where so many individuals know you personally versus one that is of a very large scale.
It is easy to focus on LSS leadership because those are the leaders in recent history that are most famous in Western society. It is incredibly insightful to understand how SSS conditions shaped LSS leadership. I think that SSS-type leaders still exist within LSSs. Though some might argue that a university or even a singular classroom does not count as a society, the criteria for emerging leaders may follow SSS guidelines. There are countless connections between different types of leaders. It is very interesting to think of the many reasons they emerge and succeed.
It is definitely soothing to be reminded that we still have SSSs all around us. Our families, classes, and friends can all be SSSs in a way, and it gives me hope in leadership to see how organic and healthy the follower-leader dynamic can be in such situations. I still feel frustrated this this mutual respect seems to be lost in LSSs but … tis life.
The application of these SSS description was also something I was curious about. Since societies are normally a fully functioning web of commerce, food and social norms, a classroom couldn’t be considered but what about a college campus? I do agree that guidelines can be applied in all situations but I want to know more about what qualifies as a SSS.
I think the emphasis on SSSs brings attention to the fact that leadership exists in many more forms than politicians and CEOs. Leadership happens at every scale, both formally and informally.
I agree that even though smaller settings don’t always count as societies, such as a classroom or college campus, they still function under some of the same principles that SSS’s do. I think that the SSS and LSS leadership guidelines can still be present in small scale and large scale groups of people even if they don’t necessarily classify as a society.
I think that this puts leadership into perspective. A lot of people tend to think of leadership as larger public figures, when in fact leadership can exist in much smaller forms that are still meaningful. I agree with your point that certain places (like a college campus) for example is not a society, but there are still structures in place that allow for leadership to form in a similar way to SSSs described in the reading.