Our first reading organized every theory of leadership that I have studied at Jepson into an entirely new framework. I enjoyed reading about a sort of new definition of leadership and how other theories support/relate to it. In this case, I’m referring to the new definition as “leaders confront and solve problems associated with group survival and well-being”. Out of the seven questions in the leadership cycle (I’m purposely saying cycle instead of model), I was most intrigued by number two. Asking “Where are we?” is a process we often subconsciously perform to gain an understanding of group environment and situation, but I never analyzed its purpose. The way I interpreted it was asking this question helps “set the stage” in explaining past actions and understanding the context for future actions. I also think the use of Flight 93 as an example was a genius way of explaining the question beyond the literal; the question can also be framed as, “What is our current situation?”/ “What can we do where we are at?” in reference to the space. Another part of the article I appreciated was how Harvey questioned his own model with a series of questions to explain his thought process. The question that stood out to me in this section concerned re-framing the questions using first-person singular. While leadership is a group process, we acknowledge that each participant is an individual. When the term individual is thrown around, I tend to focus on the followers as individuals because they are often discredited, ignored or out shined when analyzing leadership. However, this new question forced me to realize that, as individuals, leaders can undergo this cycle on a personal level, without letting it affect their followers. It honestly made the leadership position look lonely.

Two paragraphs into our second reading, the concept of cultural relativism was brought up again (I made this reference in my last post). Practicing cultural relativism means examining texts, theories, works of culture through the lens of the era it was made in. Through understanding what people of that time period thought, believed, and the laws which they were governed by can provide deep insight into pieces of history we analyze today. For example, one cannot understand the successful timing of the civil rights movement without first understanding how Jim Crow laws made the U.S. look to small, minority countries being “wooed” by the Soviet Union. I have no background in Shakespeare or Elizabethan history (not even sure if that’s the right term), but I found the connection between Shakespeare’s Pericles and James’ reputation as king quite interesting. I would not have considered the strong correlation of the plot/characters to the political climate and debate over Union without this article. Through exemplification of English customs and royal etiquette, Shakespeare directly targets James as a ruler. The theme of opposing and warning against tyranny is seen throughout the play but would not be as significant without understanding James’ carelessness with finances, disregard for parliament and actions of appointing Scotsman onto his privy council. Once we analyze the play alongside its historical context, it becomes clear how the two influence each other and why they remain significant in modern times.