One of the events I went to was a slave burial ritual. The event took place at a famous slave burial site under a bridge on October 17, 2019. When I first arrived they gave me a pair of headphones to wear throughout the event. We listened to music that didn’t sound like music we listen to nowadays. There were also other people who were part of the event playing instruments like the drums. Right before the event started a lady who had what looked like a smoking torch was performing some sort of cleansing act by waving the smoke around the people attending the event. When the event started the people were all dressed and white and they started by looking up at other people dressed in white on the bridge. The people on the bridge were pointing and looking in the air. I wasn’t sure what was going on at this point. They then proceeded to start what looked like ritualistic behavior under the bridge. They carried this behavior all the way around the opposite side of the bridge and up the stairs around the corner. The behavior consisted of dancing and switching focus to other people dancing. The experience was very interesting and looking forward to going to more.
Leave a CommentAuthor: Jason Neff
In the beginning of the year I went to a play called Appropriate and it was a very interesting play. The setting was an old farm house in a rural area in Kansas. The play started as a man and his girlfriend sneaking into their parents old house. His siblings are also in the house and he ends up finding them there. When one of the kids finds a picture of dead black people in an old photo album the family starts to be really suspicious of the picture. Then later in the play one of the characters finds human remains in a hidden place and the family freaks out. They soon find out that the house used to be a slave plantation and the theme of racism is presented. It was interesting to see the theme of racism be applied to a family that has learned about slavery and to understand that in their past they have had ancestors that were slaveholders.
Leave a CommentIn the reading, “Redefining leadership in the Next Century” McFarland talks about some points that were very interesting to me like when he talks about how he believes that everyone can be a leader it made me think of leaders and that they are after all just a normal person and that anyone can be a leader. The one thing that needs to change is the perception of who can become a leader he says in the reading. This made a lot of sense to me because when he describes the typical leader that is what I think of when I think of a leader. The typical leader figure that we all think it to be which is the autocratic, militaristic model empowering model.
He starts to say that this is the first step in changing how we think of leaders nowadays. He also starts to talk about what qualities leaders in the 21st century should have to be successful. He first states that leaders should have the ability to inspire others and bring out the best in them. I agree that this is true with all leaders so that if you want to be a successful leader than you should bring out the best in people. One thing I noticed is that he said most of your results come from the people themselves which was an interesting viewpoint. I would think that if you were a leader advocating for a change then seeing changes in the government side would be the best place for results. All in all I liked his arguments and viewpoints regarding leadership.
8 CommentsAn ingroup is a social category or a group that you strongly identify with. An outgroup is basically the opposite, it is a group that you don’t identify with. There are a lot of differences between these outgroups and ingroups, these may be the language and speech styles they create or use, their different dress codes, and the different pageants and festivals that are in their traditions and rituals.
When I read about ingroups and outgroups it made me relate the concept to different religions and made me think that religions can be considered to a certain degree an ingroup and outgroup. I can think how ingroups and outgroups can relate to someone’s everyday life and how the groups that they identify with work with the groups that they don’t identify with. Another thing that I found which is interesting was the infrahumanization effect where people express human qualities to members of their ingroup and to their outgroup they tend to show less human like characteristics and more animal like qualities to outgroups.
6 CommentsIn the Fighting for the Vote video they talk a lot about the ongoing seventy-two year long fight for Women’s voting rights. What I found interesting about the video was that in the video they talked a lot about slavery and civil rights as well. They brought up these things because while slaves were getting free and gaining rights, the women felt as if they were going to be left behind when it comes to rights. When black men were in the process of getting voting rights, women were saying how there is no way that free black men were going to have more rights then them so that was the leading cause of them moving forward to try and get voting rights which was something new to me.
With the other articles they both talk about equality in today’s society and in the workplace and the fact that there are more men in higher level jobs than women. The articles also talk about how women would lead differently like encouraging participation and other ways. I found that the second article doesn’t specifically say that women are better leaders but that they lead in a different way and a more interactive way. It reminded me of some great woman leaders like harriet tubman and amelia earhart who are important historical figures to relate to this topic.
Leave a CommentIn “In Praise of Followers” Robert Kelley talks about the different types of followers there are and he also talks about the importance of having these followers follow you. He talks about how followers guide and influence the success of the leader rather than all the work being done by the leader themselves. His main argument is that the followers are just as important, if not, more important than the leader that they support.
I agree with the way that he categorized the followers into five major groups. The sheep, yes people, survivors, alienated followers, and effective followers. It reminds me of some of the followers that follow our president in today’s society. There are the people who don’t like him but accept him as our president, the sheep. There are the effective followers who actively commit themselves to supporting his policies and views. Alienated followers who think about the policies he implements but they don’t actively carry out their role or support. Survivors who just accept him as a president rather than having no president. The yes people see him making policies and believe he is doing his job. All of the different followers are prevalent in today’s society which I found interesting.
2 CommentsIn the podcast I found it surprising that Jim Jones who is known for the deaths of over 900 people had good intentions in the beginning and was an activist for racial equality and other popular problems in his time period. One of the first things he did for his cause was starting a church but this is when it started to go downhill. It mentions in the podcast that he would have these talks in the church and he would talk to them as if he is a living god and refer to himself that way. In his church meetings he would manipulate people into joining his church by using different tricks of sleight of hand. This is where we started seeing the traits of a toxic charismatic and narcissist.
In the podcast one of the things that was said that was shocking was that Jim Jones was a big fan of Hitler and this is especially shocking because he was an activist for racial equality earlier in his life and he actually got the big suicide plan from Hitler and thought of it as the perfect escape out of their lives. An interesting piece of the podcast was that he tested his followers in a sort of ritual called the “White Night”where he would say that he made poisioned Kool-Aide and saw if his followers would drink the Kool-Aide. When I learned that some of the followers drank it, I thought about the kind of qualities someone like Jim Jones possesses in order to convince people to commit suicide willingly. It was surprising to see that someone that went to fighting for racial equality would change their views entirely and plan a suicide that killed more than 900 people. It leaves a couple of questions as to if he was a toxic charismatic or a narcissist or was he both.
2 CommentsIn Irving Janis excerpt of “Groupthink” the author talks about how groupthink is involved when a group of people are together and they have to think about solutions to problems or decision-making about something. Janis talks about in the decision making process that people tend to be more prone to one side of the decision and focus more on agreeing to get a feeling of togetherness thorughout the decision. Janis states that “the symptoms of groupthink arise when the members of decision-making groups become motivated to avoid being too harsh in their judgements of their leaders’ or their colleagues’ ideas.” This was very interesting to me because in some way I believe that everyone has been involved in some degree of groupthink and I found it interesting that the people in the group are more inclined to agree with everyone even if they aren’t sure that it is the right decision.
When talking about groupthink I think it is important because we make decisions everyday and sometimes we make decisions as a group and it only makes sense that when we are in a group, especially if it is a minor situation, we tend to go to the easiest decison, even when we go against our own individual thinking. Janis also talks about norms and how people feel accepted in a group that has increased group cohesiveness which means they are less likely to go against the leader or any other group members. This is relatable to me because I know that I have been involved in some degree of groupthink and to understand that there is a term for the way we thought as a group is interesting.
2 CommentsIn the articles which were similar to the ones that we have read last class, Couto and STU both give their own view on the definitions of Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership. One thing that stuck out when reading STU’s article is when they said, “Simply put, transactional is a ‘telling’ leadership style and transformational is a ‘selling’ style.” This really put into perspective for me, the two ways of leadership that we are focusing on.
It was interesting to hear that transformational leadership was a “selling” kind of leadership in which the leader tries to get people to buy in to what they are saying buy being influential. When I thought about this I thought that this may lead to using toxic charisma when they have their speeches because they want to sell their ideas to their followers. With transactional leadership, they said that they have a “telling” leadership style. I think that this leadership style makes a lot more sense and that it is overall better than having the transformational leadership style.
7 Comments
In the reading the first thing that Robert Greenleaf says is that can a leader and a servant be fused into one role and to answer that question I believe that yes you can merge the two roles into a an effective leader. There were many leaders who have started off from beginnings less fortunate than others. Relating to the reading we had a couple classes ago with Machiavelli in one of the readings said that a leader who gets the leadership position by inheritance is not as an effective leader compared to the leader who gets to that position by his own merit.
When Greenleaf talks about the reading Journey to the East, he talks about a servant named Leo who is out on a journey and he eventually gets lost and is nowhere to be found. One of the explorers comes across him years later and he is said to be a leader of some sort. This story made me think about how if one can person can come out of nowhere especially being a servant and lead people than your beginnings really have no significant effect on who you can be. Being a servant, you have the same experiences and troubles from the same people that you can lead. You have been right there with them through the tough times and that can shape you to be the right leader for the right people.
2 CommentsIn “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli he talks about all the ways to gain leadership in a monarchy and also ways to maintain that leadership in a monarchy. He talks about a lot of key points that caught my attention when reading through it. One of the things he says is that “It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.” (105) This quote seems really important to me because a leader is supposed to bring new ideas and beliefs into action and when that gets shut down immediately than it just seems like a leader cant lead the way a leader is supposed to.
Another interesting point he talks about that made me think about leaders who have gained their position through family lineage is when he said “Those who rise from private citizens to be princes merely by fortune have little trouble in rising but very much n maintaining their position.” (106) This made a lot of sense to me when I read it because I can relate to situations in my life that someone may have gotten something through fortune but has trouble maintaining it because of how little they worked to get where they are or what they have. He goes on to give examples of princes who have worked for the position they want like Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus.
4 CommentsIn the podcast about the Great Man Theory they first start off talking a lot about history and the way that we tell history and they emphasize that it is a choice how we bring about history. They also talk a lot about how women are overlooked in the field of science and how well known male figures get more of the credit and popularity in their work. It makes you think about the women that get overlooked in history, especially women who are minorities.
This has to do a lot with the time period in which the Great Man Theory was in effect which is around the 19th century where women were considered minorities and stayed at home while men were made all the money and were superior. In my opinion the Great Man Theory in the 19th century really put into perspective of how much women were overlooked. She said that through lots of research she ended up noticing that 108 women were notably given credit for their work in the field of science. I found that very interesting when listening to the podcast.
4 Comments
Richard III is someone that we can relate to in class because he is an example of a tyrant. He used ways to win over the people that were morally wrong. The perfect word to describe the ways that he used to get people to follow him is toxic charisma. Charisma is used by almost all leaders and is very useful when campaigning and getting people to vote for you or follow your beliefs. Richard III used toxic charisma when he was crowned, he let all of his people down and went behind their back. Richard III is viewed as being a tyrant to many people because of this trait of toxic charisma.
Someone that can be portrayed as having toxic charisma today is Donald Trump. Many people believe him to have toxic charisma and use it to portray his willingness to change the country positively. Although many people believe that he is narcissistic and selfish. On the other hand some people like him a lot and the stuff he has done for this country. Going back to what makes someone a tyrant, I don’t believe that someone like Donald trump is a tyrant because he hasn’t committed murder or done something dictator-like to be called a tyrant unlike someone like Richard III.
2 CommentsWhat I found interesting in the Carson article was that how closely we tie leaders with having charisma and how useful it is to have that characteristic if you are a leader and with MLK some people have made the argument that he wasn’t a charismatic leader and he avoided using charisma in his oratory. This is unusual because of how much MLK is perceived as a leader and how most leaders have charisma.
To me MLK was one of the most important people in recent U.S history because of his influence in the African American community and how he has made an impact on today’s society. In his speeches some say that he didn’t have charisma and that he steered away from charisma which brings up the question of which qualities and characteristics did he have that he attracted so many followers?
1 Comment