Author: Jacob Kapp

The Last Lecture series gives faculty at the University of Richmond the opportunity to speak on a topic as if it was the last lecture they would ever give. I listened to Dr. Laura Knouse, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Richmond, give her “last” lecture entitled “Being Human is Hard.” Dr. Knouse’s points really opened my mind. She talks about how being a human in today’s society is harder than it has ever been because of modern technology. Dr. Knouse explained that we should be able to make ourselves happy all the time with access to much information. This is not the case, though. I have never lived in a time where information was not available in the blink of an eye, and Dr. Knouse’s talk pointed out problems that I didn’t even know I had simply because I have never experienced anything else.

Dr. Knouse then moved on to talk about a more personal topic. Her son was diagnosed with autism, and this was one of her greatest fears while she was pregnant with him. She struggled with the idea that she would not be able to connect with her son. She said that “giving others a window on your own authentic struggle, your vulnerability, is one experience that can free others to choose a vital life for themselves.” Basically, Dr. Knouse suggests that by being open with your struggles, you can help somebody with your own. It is ok to be vulnerable and accept imperfection.

Leave a Comment

The play “Pure Confidence” relates directly to the topic of dominants and subordinates that we covered in class. The permanent in equality in this performance was between white slave owners and black slaves. The dynamic between the dominant and subordinate did not exactly line up with Miller’s view, though. Miller claimed that once a dominant was established, the subordinate was labelled as defective. In “Pure Confidence,”the slave had an outstanding talent of jockeying, and this talent was a large part of both the slave and the slave owner’s identity. However, the play did have some parallels with the Miller reading. Miller also claimed that when subordinates develop characteristics such as competency or intelligence, there is no way for them to apply them in a productive way. For example, Simon Cato, the male slave, makes enough money to buy his own horse, which he hopes will make him enough money to buy himself out of slavery. Even though Cato is proactive in his attempt to free himself, his slave owner makes his price impossible to pay, thus proving that he cannot apply his intelligence in a productive way.

Another theme that is present in both Miller’s work and in “Pure Confidence” is that subordinates often know more about dominants than vice versa. At the beginning of the play, Cato is able to manipulate the slave owners by striking deals and racing for different white men. His knowledge of the behavior of the white men allows him to maximize his profit to get what he wants.

Leave a Comment

I went to Michele Norris’s talk about her initiative called the Race Card Project on November 8^th. Before opening up a question and answer session, Norris explained the main ideas behind her work. She asks people to write a six-word sentence on a notecard about their personal perspective on race in America. She shared several of the cards she has received, and many of them were moving. One, in particular, stuck with me: “There are no categories besides humans.” I think these six words embody the Race Card Project at its root; at the end of the day, if everyone saw each other as equals, race would not be such a taboo in this country.

Norris mentioned how college campuses are often the most diverse environments we experience in our lives because as we get older, we move into more concentric circles. This is definitely something I am going to keep in mind as I continue the next four years here.

Finally, the most meaningful part of the presentation was seeing how listeners interpreted Norris’s words during the question and answer section. One student asked Norris if it is possible to move forward without addressing the past. Norris responded without hesitation. She said trying to move on without addressing the past would be like driving without looking in the rearview mirror. Trying to shove our country’s ugly past under the rug will not improve anything. Norris added on to her analogy by pointing out that the objects in rearview mirror are also closer than they appear, meaning that the system-imposed racism in our country is more recent than it feels. She specifically brought up Jim Crow legislation, and that even though it is no longer in place, you cannot legislate what is in someone’s heart.

Leave a Comment

This reading by Howard and Jane Giles discusses intergroup communication perspective. The division between ingroups and outgroups was a main point of this reading. Ingroups is a social category that you identify with, while an outgroup is a social category that you do not identify with. While this seems like a simple concept, life is not always so black and white. In certain environments, you could be a part of both an group and an out group. The example the reading provided was about how Korean Americans feel like outsiders when they go to the place that they identify with most in the United States.

I realized that since coming to college, there are certain things I identify with when I’m at home that I don’t really identify with here. For example, the music I listen to with my family and friends at home is different than the music I listen to with my friends at Richmond.

This article also mentioned intersectionality, which we talked about in class earlier in the semester. In short, intersectionality is the connection of certain identities – like race, gender, or ability – and how they overlap to create an individual identity.

 

 

3 Comments

At the beginning of Part 1 of the videos, a Lucretia Mott made an impression on me: “Not every man is a tyrant, but the law gives every man the right of tyranny.” It was interesting way to look at the problem, and I had never looked at it this way before. However, following the theme of the past few classes, my view of  the women’s rights movement completely changed. While we had been taught that abolitionism and women’s rights went hand in hand in high school, we never discussed how the women’s rights movement turned racist. Even though the thought process of the shift towards racism was completely morally wrong, one could see how the movement went down that path. Before the Civil War, the women’s rights movement and abolitionism were fighting for the same rights, so it made sense for them to team up and fight for freedom together. After the end of the war, though, black men were given the rights that both groups fought for. It seems like the shift towards racism was almost out of jealousy, and the way this racism manifested itself was upsetting, to say the least. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the most respected women in the fight for women’s suffrage, referred to African-Americans by using racial epithets, yet she is still held in high regard in history classes across America.

5 Comments

Robert Kelley’s article “In Praise of Followers” discusses the qualities a good follower has, specifically in a business setting. What I struggled with most in reading this article is that in a way, the best followers are good leaders. Their commitment to play their role to the best of their ability motivates their colleagues, and their bosses trust them to delegate responsibility.

In high school, I read a book called Good to Great by Jim Collins for a capitalism class. In this book, Collins points out that in order for a business to go from good to great, you need to get “the right people on the bus.” Collins’ beliefs are in line with Kelley’s in that followers are just as, if not more important than the leaders, and the followers Collins describes fit the same description as Kelley’s “effective followers.”

One thing that surprised me in this article was how different followers could have different motivations. Kelley writes how some followers fully embrace the role of a follower, and find virtue in this role. They recognize that being someone has to be a team player, and they take satisfaction in “helping further a cause, an idea, a product, a service, or…a person.” This motivation can be categorized as intrinsic. Kelley then argues that being motivated by extrinsic forces like moving up the totem pole of a company are just as valid. At first, I found these extrinsic motivators to be less intrinsic, but I realized this evaluation was unfair. If a person has ambition to move up in the company, they won’t be able to do that by trying outshine coworkers at point possible. They way someone moves up is by doing everything right with 100% effort. In other words, being an effective follower is the best way to move up in a company.

3 Comments

The story of Jim Jones and Jonestown is one of deception and manipulation. Jim Jones’s personality was contradictory; even though he was a huge advocate for civil rights and racial equality, one of his childhood role models was Adolf Hitler. Tony and Albert from the podcast “Big Ideas” describe how Jones was drawn to the preciseness in the discipline and order of the Nazis, while most kids wanted to act like American soldiers. His persona of a benevolent preacher was also a façade, as he engaged in extramarital sex and heavy drug use. Furthermore, he acknowledged and justified these things to his congregation.

 

Whether his actions were genuine or not, Jones could be extraordinarily kind to his followers. He did his best to know every single member of his congregation, and when someone needed help on bills or rent, he would often times rally his followers around this person to help them.

 

In today’s polarized political environment, I think that it is incredibly important that we do not “drink the Kool-Aid.” It should go without saying that a mass murder-suicide is unlikely in our modern era, but with today’s mudslinging campaigning style dominating politics, it is crucial that we maintain the ability to see both sides of an argument. Evaluating each sides’ motive is the first step, and it further than concluding that they just want to win a particular position.

 

 

 

 

 

3 Comments

In his article “Groupthink,” Irving Janis explains the flaws of group thinking, or groupthink as he calls it, and suggests a few remedies to it. The main problem with groupthink is that the opinion of the majority can smother the opinion of the minority, especially in situations where unanimity is required. A group can turn into its own little society; norms are established relatively quickly, and a sense of loyalty to the group makes challenging these norms difficult. Janis categorizes this phenomenon as pressure. He suggests nine remedies to counter the effects of groupthink when making a decision in a group setting. The overarching theme present in all nine is the importance of objection. Placing a priority on objection forces the group to face any possible downfall in a plan, and this creates, in theory, watertight decisions.

 

The plot of Thirteen Days revolves around the issues that present themselves in a group setting. The movie dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis, in particular, a period of high tension in American politics as it followed the failure of the Bay of Pigs. One thing that stuck out to me in this movie was how it was important to recognize that every member of a group has a different perspective, as well as a personal agenda. Most members of the groups in Thirteen Days represented a department of the government, so JFK had to take in everyone’s input while keeping this in the back of his mind.

6 Comments

In his book Leadership, Richard Couto goes into detail about transformational leadership. In particular, he claims that it could be impossible to be an effective transformational leader on a small scale. I disagree with this claim; he argues that the examples of transformational leadership (MLK, Susan B. Anthony, etc.) are too far out of reach of ordinary people. If we use Bass’s simple definition of transformational leadership, I could see how it could be applied in smaller scale settings and still be effective. Dr. Bezio described transformational leadership as a “positive feedback loop” where leaders and followers push themselves to higher motivation and morality. I don’t think it’s a stretch to see this in an office setting. In fact, I think transformational leadership is in itself effective.

 

STU Online explores how transactional leadership can lead to results. More specifically, it describes how the inherent structure of transactional leadership leads to results. I found two of the examples especially interesting. Norman Schwarzkopf was a leader in the military during the Vietnam War, and even though he was wounded twice during the conflict, he was able to use the rigid structure of the military to maintain a successful unit. Vince Lombardi was also mentioned, recounting how his Green Bay Packers would run the same plays over and over, and he still had success when his opponents knew which plays he would run.

 

5 Comments

Most of, if not all of my leadership experience has been through athletics, and servant leadership is something that is emphasized from the start of any athletic career. It manifests itself differently in every sport, but the main idea, to paint with a broad brush, is that no one is too important or too skilled to be put above their teammates. A leader of a team demonstrates this asset off the field more than on it. The captains should be the ones who clean the bus after an away game, or clean up the field after practice. This sends the message that they are putting their teammates before themselves. In turn, this makes them more approachable, especially to younger players, and this builds overall team camaraderie.

 

Greenleaf and Spears talk about servant leadership in a more general setting. Greenleaf references Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the Eastto show what exactly is meant by servant leadership. In this story, Leo does the grunt work for his crew, and when he disappears, the whole mission falls apart. Later, we find out that Leo was actually the leader of this mission. This directly ties to our previous conversations about humility in leaders; humility is the principle that servant leadership revolves around. Followers will not support a leader who puts himself first. Followers want a leader who will genuinely care for them, and servant leadership is the best way for a leader to prove this to their followers.

6 Comments

Machiavelli’s The Princeis basically a blueprint of what a successful leader looks like. For the most part, I think Machiavelli’s work lays out what most people think of in terms of an effective leader in the highest position of power. The one, miniscule thing I did not agree with was his claim that a leader that comes into power through fortune has trouble maintaining their power. The entire monarchy in England disproves this; for nearly hundreds of years, England was ruled by a monarchy where the next seat on the throne was either given to someone in the family or someone who was designated by the monarch, barring conquest, of course.

 

Other than this claim, I found The Prince to be pretty reasonable. I was impressed with Machiavelli’s explanation of how a leader can be feared yet maintain the popularity of their people. Machiavelli asserts that if a leader had to be either loved or feared, it is better to be feared. When I read this at first, I thought this directly contradicts his claim that in order to be an effective ruler, one must have their people behind them. However, he explains that fear and absence of hatred can go together. If the ruler can exercise their power without infringing on the property or liberty of his citizens, this balance is possible. Machiavelli further clarified his point that being feared is more secure than being loved by explaining that being loved is up to his people and is out of his control. Conversely, being feared is up to the ruler and in his full control.

 

Lastly, a topic that we discussed in class resurfaced in this reading. Machiavelli recognized that it is difficult for a leader to have all the traits he described as essential to a successful rule. He maintains that it is really the perception of having these traits that is important. In talking about the 6 characteristics of charismatic leaders, we concluded that it’s the appearance of confidence that really matters, and it is unimportant whether or not the leader is actually confident.

4 Comments

The Great Man Theory, to put it simply, is the idea that the most influential men in history  were great leaders because of certain personality traits they possessed. The Great Man Theory completely cuts out women, and this Lady Science podcast dives into the problems it presents, specifically in the context of science. So many women have gone unrecognized, and it is because this theory guided the general public in what to value.

 

The most interesting point that was brought up in this podcast was that even if we looked back through history to find great women, we would be looking for women that held the same characteristics as “Great Men.” This means that only a handful of women would reach this bar, which is obviously an unfair assessment of the contributions of women in history. This is painfully evident in the story Marilyn Ogilvie, the episode’s guest, tells. Two students in one of her classes decided to research women in science, and the only woman they could find enough material on was Marie Curie. Of course, it is assumed that this is because Marie Curie holds many of the qualities of men working in science.

 

At the same time, if we were to search for more women contributors, we would be looking at the more privileged women. So, in my mind, the question becomes what makes a person great? In this podcast, there doesn’t seem to be a clear answer. It appears that every class, gender, and race has to be assessed with different standards. This would make it easier to compare people within their class, gender, and race, but it would make it nearly impossible to compare people across different classes, genders, or races. Then again, history is not exactly cut and dry. In my opinion, there is not really a right way to gauge the importance of one person over another, but there are certainly wrong ways.

 

 

 

 

5 Comments

In every sense of the word, Richard III is a tyrant. In class, we discussed how a leader had to either illegally seize power or abuse their power for personal benefit to be considered a tyrant, and Richard does both. We also determined that a tyrant knows that they are a tyrant. In the movie, there is a scene where Richard wakes up in the middle of the night, drenched in sweat, and proclaims that he is a villain. In her paper, Bezio compares Richard to United States President Donald Trump. While Trump is often called a tyrant in the media, I believe that giving him this title is a bit of a reach based on these three criteria. Although there is some controversy as to whether Trump was involved in collusion to win the office, I think it is fair to say that Trump did not illegally usurp power. In his interviews from the 80s and 90s, his tone makes it seem like he genuinely believed he would make a good president, not for pride or to boost his ego, but because he thought he saw ways to make America profitable. Finally, we will never know for sure whether or not he sees himself as a tyrant; I have a feeling that even he did, he would not be very forthcoming about it, especially ahead of another election.

 

While I do not believe Trump is a tyrant, I do believe that he has some tyrannical tendencies. One could make the argument that it is a politicians job to influence the public, but I think that Trump’s mudslinging strategies against his challengers reaches into the manipulation category. During his campaign, Trump exemplified the idea that “all press is good press.” To his credit, his strategy worked. His outlandish accusations against his opposition, sexually and racially charged comments, and his celebrity status were enough to get the attention of voters, and his idealistic promises were enough to get many of those voters to support him. One behavior is not enough to earn a label like tyrant, but it is hard to deny that Trump possess traits that one might describe as tyrannical.

5 Comments

On the surface, Martin Luther King, Jr. seems like the prototypical Charismatic leader. He was an extremely skilled public speaker who motivated millions of people during a time of oppression. However, I was surprised after reading these two articles that this was not necessarily the case. It was shocking to read about MLK’s flaws; it always seemed like he was this untouchable idol, but learning that he was unfaithful to his wife and struggled with self-confidence, he became more human. Carson also points out that King’s prestige was more of a force than the power he actually had, which goes along with the idea that appearance is more important than reality in the case of a Charismatic leader.

 

Regardless of his flaws, King possessed many of the traits of a Charismatic leader that we discussed in class, the two most important being style of communication and emotional intelligence. Carson explains that King’s delivery method when he was speaking was like a pastor in church, but the ideas he was communicating were rebellious and non-traditional. This provided King’s audience with a sense a comfort, allowing King to pass along his message without immediately being met with resistance. Carson also describes how King was able to reach both black and white audiences effectively. Obviously, this was a difficult task given the social climate at the time, and it shows how emotionally aware King was of who was listening to him.

3 Comments

Leave a Comment