On Friday I went to watch the film Rafiki. Rafiki is a Kenyan film that features the daughters of two political rivals, Kena and Ziki who fall in love in a society rampant with homophobia and discrimination. Seeing as homosexuality is illegal in Kenya, the two continuously struggle with hos much affection to show each other. Kena begins flirting with Ziki and soon the pair are going on dates. Ziki’s friends get jealous which leads them to attack Kena and when Ziki helps her with her injuries, Kena’s mom catches them kissing. This is where their romance takes a dark turn. They are both arrested and Ziki is sent to London. A couple years pass and Kena has become a doctor, which was her dream. Kena hears that Ziki is back and they meet and their love has not faded. Before the movie, we were given s brief background of the political weight of this movie. What I thought was really fascinating about this movie is that it was actually banned in Kenya. It was put up for a festival and the director sued the government to let the film be shown. It was unbanned for 7 days and showed to sold-out audiences each showing. It was really interesting for me to see how another society responds to homosexuality. Here in the US there is definitely still a lot of homophobia but nothing like in Kenya. It is a totally different culture around homosexuality and it took it as a learning experience.
Leave a CommentAuthor: Marisa Daugherty
The video was truly fascinating I though. Throughout my education, we never learned about the suffrage movement in must detail so it was all new information. I had no idea that the fight took so long I thought that Susan B. Anthony was by far the most prominent figure in the suffrage movement, but it turns out there more women involved. This was shocking just because it is something that I have never been taught. I think that I often take the right to vote lightly and sometimes don’t do it at all, just because I’m too lazy to walk to the Alumni Center. I think that this video gave me a new appreciation of the effort that went into the right to vote for women as well as men. I voted in the election today and it was so easy, I can’t believe there was a time in history where I couldn’t have filled in those bubbles just because of my gender. The whole idea just seems so far fetched. This paved the way for women becoming more involved in society as well as becoming leaders, though we still don’t get paid the same as men. Women can be CEOs or astronauts there really isn’t anything we cant do if we try hard enough which again I think that I take for granted. I have opportunities that women 5o years ago did not and that i very important to me. I want to be able to make the most out of my opportunities and try and fight the sexism that still exists today.
1 CommentLast night I went to a last lecture series talk by one of the psychology professors. Her basic premise was that being a person is hard. She talked about how in developed nations we have this uncanny ability to be unsatisfied with everything that we have. If we have a job with a $70,000 salary we want a job with a $100,000 salary but when we get that higher salaried job, we aren’t satisfied. We are also highly adept at feeling suffering, whether that be physical or emotional suffering. This ties into the idea that we are never satisfied with what he has and that leads to feelings of inadequacy and disappointment in ourselves. I have struggled with anxiety for years and this whole lecture really hit home for me. The speaker basically described exactly how I feel and told me that it’s both normal and that its ok to let myself off the hook sometimes. She states how in US culture we glorify the hard worker; the person who works late or comes in early or skips lunch. This makes sense but she also said that we glorify that even when there’s nothing for them to be doing that benefits anyone. The example she provided was that students always feel like they should be being productive. If we’re eating at dhall were thinking about why we’re not at the lib working. Everything she said really made sense to me and I really enjoyed going to this. It was way more interesting then I thought it was going to be and I would totally go to another Last Lecture Series speaker again.
Leave a CommentI thought this article was really weird. Honestly, it kinda bothered me how similar the characteristics between good followers and good leaders are. They both need initiative and motivation. Though I didn’t like that part, I thought it was really cool how the article said that both leaders and followers switch roles throughout time and that leadership and followership are more roles than people. For example, if a project manager is with the project members, they are a leader. But if that same project manager is with the CEO, they are a follower that is expected to listen to what their superior has to say. I thought that overall this article was another perspective one how leadership works because it points out that without effective followers, a really good leader can’t do anything. The article used Napoleon as an example. What could Napoleon have done without an army? Nothing. Without followers that are committed and willing to work toward the goal, the efficiency, and effectiveness of the leader isn’t as great. I like to think about this idea in a corporate setting. If a member of a development team is being an effective follower, they make the job of the leader easier, therefore, promoting their interests as well as the interests of their leader. If another member is not being an effective follower, like a sheep, they aren’t going to be seen in as much of a positive light and that is going to make the job of the leader harder. It seems like it is all going in a circle almost. An effective follower can lead to a more effective leader who in turn helps create a better environment for the follower.
5 CommentsI honestly think it’s fascinating how people can be persuaded to do things that they would not otherwise. Jonestown was a community that offered hope and change from normal day to day suffering. Jim Jones knew that and was able to exploit it using his extreme charisma to convince people of his way of life. Jonestown is a very extreme example of what cults can do and the dangers they pose. Jonestown is where the saying ‘drink the kool-aid’ came from, FOllowers were ushered in by drug recovery programs and offers of hope and change that resulted in such complete ‘brainwashing’ that the majority of people in the cult killed themselves. I think the groupthink in this is very apparent. When you have one leader who is telling you what to think and there is a group of die-hard supporters ready to ‘learn’ from this person, no one is willing to question qhat is going on and the choices that the leader is making. This results in large scale bad decisions such as mass suicide. Jonestown is an example of both toxic charisma and group think resulting in a great tragedy and many many unnecessary deaths.
3 CommentsThis week’s article talks about groupthink. Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people who believe similar things put not offending anyone over actually making good decisions. According to the article, groupthink results in invulnerability, rationale, morality, stereotypes, pressure, self-censorship, unanimity, and mind guards. In my AP psych class in high school, we talked about groupthink in a different way. We talked about groupthink being when a group of like-minded individuals comes together and their ideas become more extreme due to the constant confirmation of their ideas. In both definitions, it results in bad decision making which I think is the most significant outcome of groupthink. It leads top people making quick decisions that they didn’t think all the way through or just didn’t give enough time to see every angle or possibility. In the Bay of Pigs example, JFK underestimated almost everything about Casto and the Cuban military. Though the article states that some of that was due to bad intel, Kennedy could have put more time and energy into thinking about his decision as opposed to just sending in the military. I don’t know, it just seems that having a group with differing opinions that can work together and compromise leades to better decision making than having a homogeneous group making all the decisions without thinking about all the possible consequences.
4 CommentsThe article that focuses on transactional leadership says “Transactional Leadership focuses on results, conforms to the existing structure of an organization and measures success according to that organization’s system of rewards and penalties”. I decided to respond to this article because honestly transformational leadership still kind of confuses me. Transactional leadership is a lot more straightforward in my opinion, though it does still have its nuances. Transactional is basically exactly how it sounds, it is a transaction; I give you X so you give me Y. The article used Bill Gates as an example. Apparently, he was a bit of a jerk but his way of managing got results. He did not stand for dumb answers or ideas and focused on getting results and that is how he built Microsoft.
You can also look at people in the office to see a real-life example of transactional leadership. Today in class we talked about how people that we elect to power are transactional leaders. We give them money and our votes for them to fight for what we want. This is not always a good thing. One of my biggest complaints about congress is that large donors have too much power, the NRA for example. They give candidates lots of money in return for that candidate to fight for more lenient gun laws. Instead of fighting for what the people want, which is stricter gun laws and more background checks, congresswomen and men are choosing to support the current system because they get a lot of money from the NRA. This is a more negative form of transactional leadership just to demonstrate that there is no form of leadership that is perfect.
3 CommentsAs I was reading the article with the list of servant leadership traits, I couldn’t help but think about those traits and how they interact with community service. That is what I think of when I hear servant leadership, community service. It teaches you a lot of the characteristics or at least makes you a better person. I’m not saying that if you do community service that you will be a good leader, but I believe that if someone has experiences with people of all different socioeconomic status, race, gender identity, and everything else that can create divisions between people, they will have a better view of the world and how their decisions might impact more than just the people and the community they grew up in. Greenleaf’s article talks about servant leadership and how “It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead”. It is drastically different from the people who choose to lead first. Like I said earlier, I know that I have and I’m assuming other people have learned something when serving others. Volunteering and community service is a big part of my life and I believe that everyone should do it because it gives you a different perspective on life. Personally, it made me more appreciative of what I have but also taught me that you can find joy anywhere. There is no situation that is completely hopeless which just really changed my view of the world and I am grateful for that.
This interacts with leadership because I think that the valuable lessons that my experiences with service have taught me would give me some of the skills I need to prepare myself for leadership. It taught me humility and awareness. I grew up in an affluent area and had never really been faced with anything else until I went on a mission trip to Belize. I was astounded by the joy of the community despite the hardships they experience on a day to day basis and it taught me that other people have different experiences than me and that taught me how to listen. I am excited and willing to listen to others in order to learn more about the world. Sorry, I’m kind of going on a tangent, anyway I think that service can improve the leadership qualities of our leaders and that service leaders have a more well-rounded view of the world that we live in. Therefore they can make better decisions and be a superior leader.
2 CommentsI thought this was honestly somewhat boring to read. It was dry and not super entertaining. But the one thing that I found interesting was when Machiavelli said “states quickly founded, like all other things of rapid beginnings and growth, cannot have deep roots and wide ramifications, so that the first storm destroys them” (106) I thought that this idea is still very prevalent in today’s society in regions that are highly unstable. It can be seen that when a leader is overthrown, not only is it bad for the country, it is bad for the economy and the future growth of the country. This drastic change in leadership styles (usually anyway) causes severe instability and makes the countries around them and the international powerhouses hesitant to send aid. This just creates more problems because there is no chance for them to recover. Machiavelli follows up the earlier quote with “unless, as already said, the man who this becomes a prince is of such great genius as to be able to take immediate steps for maintaining the fortune thrown into his lap, and lay afterward those foundations which other make before becoming princes” (106-107). This basically says that there is a leader who is willing and capable of thinking toward the future and putting down ‘roots’ is the only way that the country will be stable. This is where this quote ties into leadership. There must be a strong leader to help the country then it may be able to be a country that is able to help its people and interact as a force with the world.
1 CommentAs I was listening to the podcast, I was fascinated by the beginning. I am a feminist myself and I loved that they were drawing attention to the fact that the recorded history we have is only a small picture of what actually happened in the past. This depiction that we have only included people of high status, wealth, or in positions of power. But what about the rest of the people in the world? Were their stories not important enough to be passed down or written down? A lot of these stories that we don’t have are the story of women. Throughout history, women have been seen as pretty things that should be seen and not heard. This means that the idea of women is that they weren’t often doing work that actually mattered to the world. They were just having babies and serving their husbands. This podcast sheds some light on a lot of the good that people are doing to try and get women’s stories out into the open. They talk about some of the female scientists that are covered up by the skewed version of history that is heavily dominated by men. I especially liked the example that they gave about the woman who was called the prettiest woman in the world and that’s what people knew her as. She was also an inventor but no one bothered to think about that. She was just seen as a pretty girl and not as the intelligent woman that she was.
This is why I think that the great man theory is just wrong. History was not made by men, it was just recorded by men who didn’t want to share the spotlight. The history that we know is not a full, well rounded, view of what happened in the past it is only one side of the story. There are so many people who aren’t included in the world history that deserve to have their stories told. Women are consistently held back from achieving everything that they could in a world that is built on the ideas and fundamentals of sexism. This is why women in STEM has been a historically low population. It is hard for women to make it in such a male-dominated workforce. Great-Man theory, or the idea that history is shaped by notable men, is no longer, and never truly was, an accurate depiction of what happened in the past
5 CommentsI thought that the interaction between Richard III and what we have been learning in class was really interesting. It’s fascinating that what Shakespeare wrote about so long is still valid. The idea of charismatic leadership and toxic charisma is something that impacted life to the extent that there were plays about it and it is still relevant today. Throughout the different class periods, we have learned about the impacts of toxic charisma and tyranny. I would classify Richard III as having toxic charisma and being a tyrant. He was able to fool people into following him with promises of a better life and land. Basically he was manipulating his right-hand man by telling him that he was gonna get land if he helped Richard. His right hand man never ended up getting the land he was promised.
I believe that he is a tyrant because he used his toxic charisma to gain a place of power. He is also willing to do anything in his power to get that crown. He killed so many people both directly and by influencing other people to do it. He only has regard for himself and his goals which is one of the clear requirements for being a tyrant. He is a clear narcissist who only cares about reaching his goals and doesnt care who he hurts to get there.
5 CommentsIn class so far, we have talked a lot about what it means to be a charismatic leader. At first glance, we think that Martin Luther King Jr. embodied all of them and he did but he was so much more than just charisma. Although he was “a profound and provocative public speaker as well as an emotionally powerful one.” (Carson 29), he was also highly educated. He used his vast knowledge of religion to become a powerful leader with substance behind the charisma. He was also very much a product of his time. Carson discussed a lot about how the responsibilities of the leader of the civil rights movement were very much pushed upon King. This interacts with the conversations that we had in class about nature vs. nurture. I think Kings life and leadership demonstrated the 1/3 born, 2/3 made theory. I believe that he was born with the characteristics of a great leader but the tension between white people and African Americans made the perfect spot for King to grow as a charismatic leader.
King was able to rally crowds around a shared goal. Without him, I think the civil rights movement probably would have happened it just would have been a lot less organized and taken a lot longer. Once people band together and try to achieve goals together, change is much more likely to happen. This idea was also demonstrated during the gay rights movements. Once the LGBTQ+ community became one and began fighting for equality, the elected leaders of this nation actually began to listen. There is power in numbers and once a group of unhappy people finds a leader to organize their beliefs and anger, there is a much higher chance of real change happening.
7 Comments
