I liked the way Harvey started this reading, by pinpointing why leadership is so complex. In general, I liked this reading because it defends why leadership studies are legitimate and important. Out of his seven questions, I found “Who are we?” to be the most surprising and interesting. It is a simple question, but one that may often go unanswered. Context is important, and without it, we cannot be sure that we are doing the correct thing for a situation. Naming this context and group identities is extremely important. This question may seem to divide people in some cases, but for effective leadership, it is meant to unite people. The end of the questions “Do we understand” is also something that I think is easily glossed over. This is the part that a group evaluates that progress has actually occurred. This reminds me of the phrase “history repeats itself.” Without reflection, we are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. Studying the effects of leaders will show which attributes are beneficial to which situations.
I had never questioned the analysis of fictional characters before reading Bezio’s paper. As I mentioned earlier, we have learned before that context matters, and it makes sense that this would change the evaluation of leaders in Shakespeare’s plays. As stated early on in the reading, certain comparisons do not properly encompass important difference. However, considering context, using fictional leaders can be helpful examples. They are certainly me steadfast and consistent than real life examples. A few comparisons from Pericles to Brexit stood out to me. First, Shakespeare’s reminder to the audience that power does not come from God, but from the people. England’s transition from a pure monarchy to a parliamentary system exemplifies this feeling among the people who voted for Brexit, and thus demonstrated power of the masses. Additionally, Bezio made the parting remark to “advocate for what is just even in the face of storms and corruption.” This idea demonstrated in Shakespeare is a very powerful example that leaders would do well to emulate.
I think it is important to reflect on leadership processes, as Harvey stated and you reaffirmed; yet I also feel that it is often left out of leadership roles – hence the repetition of history. This became most apparent to me when reading Bezio’s work because she connected the ideologies of the 1600s to what was being felt and argued over in 2016. It makes me wonder if the exceptionalism that Britain grew to adore and prize is the reason for history’s repetition; that would infer that history is not solely dependent upon leaders’ actions, but also the ideologies of the people.
I also thought that the article did a good job point out how complex leadership really is and that is the precise reason that we need to study it. I think that part of the reason we want and look for a leader is because it is so complex. It is certainly a difficult job to do. It seems that the question of “who are we” is becoming more and more complex is such a polarized America, though it should be uniting us. There are two halves of the country that have distinctly different identities and many other subgroups as well, so this “who are we question” seems very difficult to answer now.
I definitely agree that leaders and groups should look at the past history to determine the progress achieved. I think another way this can be achieved is by looking how other groups achieved the same progress and learn from their mistakes too.
Both fictional characters and interpretations of real-life people in movies, plays, books and tv shows say a lot about the context of both their time and the time in which they were written. The current HBO show, “The Plot Against America” and the book upon which it is based, says as much about modern-day America as it does America in the late 1930s, when the story is set. I think it’s one of the most fascinating ways to analyze history.