Author: Quinn Maguire

My grandfather’s thing was the news. He watched Fox pretty much all day long. I never really understood it because I would sit there and watch with him sometimes and the same story would pop up over and over again. “Breaking News” would tick across the screen but no real new information would follow. I think because of this, and articles like “Attacking the Fourth Estate” that I am much more cognizant about where I get my news. Love my grandpa, and where and how he got his news definitely had something to do with how he was raised and generational differences but he probably could have benefitted from a few days of watching MSNBC or maybe taking a break from the whole TV thing.

Something I think this article does a really good job of is stressing the fact that distrust in the media and “fake news” as a political campaign platform did not start with Trump and distrust between elected officials and the journalists questioning their every move is natural. In a world where news is instant and sometimes even reporting before things actually happen, the economic competition of news outlets is more intense than ever and will probably continue to intensify. Personally, this makes me not want to watch the news at all. I think there is a difference between watching and reading the news. I like to think I am up to date on what is happening but I also put a lot more effort into finding multiple sources that cover certain events and combine sources to find out the actual truth. What is tricky is that the kind of news you watch is easier to fit into your day than reading many many articles. Convenience is key and I think people choose convenience to get half the story instead of choosing to put in the effort to get the whole story. I think the articles suggestions to research how attacking the press affects how citizens seeking information and how it affected their beliefs about government regulation of news outlets especially in this next election.

10 Comments

Earlier this month I had the amazing opportunity to attend the Legacies of Emancipation Event at the Virginia Museum of History and Culture Christy Coleman. Initially I expected the event to talk primarily about the legacies of emancipation, obviously, but I was amazed at the fluidity of conversation between Tanehisi Coates, a world renowned author, and Manisha Sinha, a lesser known but no-less credible historian from the University of Connecticut. Both guests talked at length about the myths surrounding the emancipation proclamation and how slavery never officially ended but instead morphed from a de jure to de facto practice and not just in the “Deep South”. After 30 minute or so of the panelists talking about their respective work, the moderator Chirsty Coleman (who contributed her own inspiring opinions and experiences as CEO of the American Civil War Museum) opened the floor to questions from the audience. A few of my SSIR classmates raced to the aisles to ask questions but I decided to sit and listen. I will never forget the question one woman asked. She began the question with a statement she had seen on some social media platform that said ‘slavery is better than what is happening in our country today’. The crowd gasped almost simultaneously and Tanehisi Coates sat there shaking his head for a good tow minutes. At first I was surprised and kind of disturbed that someone said that but at the same time I began to think things I have learned about in both my SSIR and LDST 101 that point out lots and lots and lots of things that are wrong with our country. The overall consensus from the panelists was that there is still a lot to do in terms of the legacies of emancipation and the remaining de facto institutionalized racism and the writing of history, but to say life for African Americans in 2019 is worse than life in the 1800’s is a massive claim. I think it is easy to go down a rabbit hole of finding things wrong with our country, especially with media exponentially infiltrating our lives more and more, but it is also important to reflect on all the progress and amazing people that have devoted their lives to making our country and our world a better place.

Leave a Comment

For one of my three events I chose to attend the social movement brown bag discussion this past Friday. Although I attended this event with the intention to learn more for my sociology class, I quickly able to turn apply what I was learning to the themes and lessons we have learned in LDST 101. The panel for the discussion included representatives from Virginia Organizing, Art 180 and Defenders for Peace, Justice and Equality. Students from a sociology class here at UR asked questions to the panelists. One question that I felt could be directly related to leadership was a question about how does each organization define success and how does each organization plan to grow in the near future. The responses across panelists were not the typical answers I would have assumed (not that these panelists were any typical individuals at all). I found it very interesting that even with very similar end goals (promote social diversity and equality in Richmond and the greater Virginia commonwealth), each organization had very different approaches to reach this goal. This reminds me of the articles we read about how women would lead differently and how the question we should be asking is ‘who are the appropriate leaders for specific positions or movements in order for them to be effective”. Obviously not all social movement organizations can have the same leaders; that would be impossible. I think one thing that makes social movements so challenging to work in and for is that they require a special kind of charismatic, ultra-determined, self-less individual to lead them. These characteristics can take different forms, but I think this event definitely made me see and appreciate the diversity of leadership while learning about important people and their work in a city and institution that effects me directly.

Leave a Comment

I learned a lot about the Vietnam War and the protests surrounding it in my APUSH class in high school and the violence and live footage of brutality still surprises me. At one point I knew the timeline of the actual war and each significant bombing in Vietnam but I think there more important information to get out of the Vietnam War era is the power of rhetoric from both sides of the conflict (the government and the citizens…not the US and North Vietnam).

One example of the powerful rhetoric used by the protester-side was the statistic shared by MLK Jr. He said something along the lines of ‘we have spent almost $230 on each enemy we kill abroad but only spend about $50 per person who lives in poverty in our own country’. I think this is extremely powerful because it demonstrates the power of aversion and diversion by the government that somehow labels international threats as more deadly than domestic ones. One thing I have learned about in this class and many of my other classes this year is that the US has a lot of work to do on its own before we can go trying to fix other places. Entering Vietnam was definitely the first mistake but mistake after mistake is what made people angry and dug the government into a deeper deeper hole of distrust.

From the other side however, the government, one part of the video that struck me as particularly powerful rhetoric was when Nixon said that the only people who can beat America are Americans themselves, not the North Vietnamese. At first I was perplexed by this comment, but then I realized it was a response to the protests across the country. I can definitely see how protesters felt they needed to resort to violence (for example throwing rocks at the National Guard at Kent State) but the response of deathly violence of guns to something like rocks is alarming to me.

Overall, I think the use of strong rhetoric from popular leaders on both sides of the protest conflict has shaped our countries views on the conflict as a whole as well as how the media can influence decisions almost too well. Now, it seems as if there is a “breaking news” story every five minutes on the news. We are lucky to live in a world where there are lots of ways to read about and view news, but if we are not careful, it is easy to get fed too much of one side of every story.

5 Comments

These stories are what I think of when I think of humanities. At first I struggled with how to connect the readings to leadership (I know leadership can really be applied to anything) but after a little more reflection, I understood.

The Omelas story reminds me very much of Plato’s Allegory of the cave. Children and adults who never see the child in the cell are like the people in stage one of the cave looking at the shadows but not realizing the shadows are not real. Once people see the child in the cell they are on their way out of the cave. The author describes how when people see the child they either become incredibly sad and then move on or become so incredibly sad they walk away and only they know where they are walking. I think this has a lot to do with leadership especially leadership of social movements. Injustices in society are brought to people’s attention because they involve injustices. We label people who see or suffer from these injustices and then act to combat them as leaders and we label people who see them and walk away from them as cowards or ignorant.

 

As for the lottery, I definitely picked up more of a women in leadership conversation starter. The fact that men ran the show and were the only ones capable of picking a number and determining their fate is not news but it still contributes to the narrative of a patriarchal society. The fact that the person chosen as the lottery winner (yet more like loser) was a woman only strengthens the story’s patriarchal themes. The rules that say a woman cannot pick a number and daughters must draw with their husbands family seem outlandish yet REAL laws and REAL policies we have as a REAL society say very similar things (ie, signing on a credit card to prove income or marital rape exemptions). We have learned a lot about marginalized groups throughout the semester and The Lottery is just another example of how women are part of the marginalized.

Overall, these short stories don’t seem like much on the surface but after a few more close-reads, they tell a lot about women, society, laws, mindsets, and of course leadership in the humanities.

3 Comments

I cannot decide if I wish I were surprised by these articles or not. As a part of my SSIR class, we have learned a lot about uncovering the intentionally buried stories of history especially surrounding the historic African American and slave history and culture in the United States and specifically here in Richmond. Sadly, not much surprises me anymore.

The more I read about our country’s true history, the more I want to find out more. Some new things I learned and was interested but simultaneously appalled by was the description of Lincoln’s opinions and how they changed depending on election timing and audience. Like many other leadership myths we have debunked (the founding fathers, MLK, JFK, Washington) we like to think Lincoln was a really genuine guy, maybe a little depressed about his son’s death, but a good guy who sadly got shot at a theatre. Upon further inspection, Lincoln’s First Inaugural Adrress, as Zinn calls is, “was conciliatory toward the South and seceded states” (189). Not that I am surprised considering the constant deconstruction of American legends I am seeing in many of my classes, but now I feel like we don’t really have anyone left. Super pessimistic and sad, I know, and no leaders are perfect, but Lincoln? Honest Abe?

In the second article, one point that stuck out to me was when Zinn talks about Montgomery being “the beginning”. Zinn describes that Montgomery:

“forecast the style and mood of the vast protest movement that would sweep the South in the next ten years: emotional church meetings, Christian hymns adapted to current battles, references to lost American ideals, the commitment to nonviolence,  the willingness to struggle and sacrifice”. (451)

I completely agree with this statement. Over fall break I went to Montgomery with my SSIR class and visited the Equal Justice Institutes creations of the National Memorial for Peace and Justice as well as the Legacy Museum: From Enslavement to Mass Incarceration. What both of these places and many other historical markers around Montgomery and Selma describe is that Montgomery definitely set the tone for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. Not just because of the bus boy coats and not just because Hoyt Street Church, but because what happened in other cities around the nation were dioramas and mini-replications of what happened in Montgomery.

 

Overall, these articles were enlightening yet also pretty depressing. It is sad to think that stories and myths of leaders have been engrained into our society for so long. I think it is our duty as scholars and especially scholars of leadership to question the legitimacy of the American story and not only bring out the truth but also bring out why we covered up the truth for so long. Only then can we move on and use our best judgement to improve how we record our history today.

6 Comments

Growing up as a Bostonian, I was pretty much taught that the British were evil monster tyrants and the great people of the best colony fought their little hearts out to make the evil Brits sail back across the Atlantic. Fourth of July is the best holiday and pilgrims were cool. I now know this is pretty one-sided the amazing new government the new United States created was not all that great or original. The claims of the post-revolutionary United States are extremely lacking in factual evidence, but Zinn’s piece on tyranny gave me a new perspective on why it was so wrong.

The ideas of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” sounds great on paper but upon further examination these terms can be as restrictive if not more restrictive than what the British imposed on the colonies in the first place. Maybe because the new system was “American” and new to them we was why it appealed to its citizens so much, but people only really have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not infringe on others’ life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

The United States may be better off now than it was before, but we are mot definitely not a just, completely equal, perfect society. We still have injustice, we still have leaders who don’t always put our needs first, and immerse disparities in health, wealth and happiness. Not that I have not thought of the United States as a bit broken from other readings in this class, but I think Zinn sheds a new light on how our specific society has been unequal since its foundation, even despite its claim that they replaced control with freedom and oppression with representation.

6 Comments

After watching Thirteen Days and reading Janis’ “Groupthink”, I can now see how connected the two are. I watched the movie first and read the excerpt a few days later. As I was reading Janis’ excerpt, I was able to connect at least one scene to many of Janis’ claims, especially the 8 main symptoms of groupthink.

It is easy to look back and say JFK and his cabinet made the right decicions but watching the thirteen days unfold scene by scene, meeting by meeting. But no matter how many correct decisions they made, the Cuban Missile Crisis is a prime example for groupthink of high-level governmental decision making. In groups and out groups between civilians and military personnel, cabinet members and other government officials are always a part of politics but when looking for them, these in groups and out groups become more and more apparent in times of crisis and heightened stakes.

One scene that stuck out to me as a prime example of groupthink was when JFK and his cabinet were going over the different plan options. Members of the cabinet put fourth their opinions: blockade or air strikes. One member of the cabinet suggested to do nothing, claiming that ‘some one had to put their head on the chopping block here’. To this JFK told his press secretary to write speeches on both blockade and air strike options, completely disregarding the option of non-action.

This is directly related to Janis’ claim that unanimity is a symptom of groupthink. Janis describes that through unanimity, “to avoid such an unpleasant state, the members often become inclined, without realizing it, to prevent latent disagreements from surfacing when they are about to initiate a risky course of action” (368). I agree that unanimity made JFK disregard the in-action plans, but I also think JFK and his cabinet did realize that they were actively avoiding and preventing disagreements. As a result of the very unsuccessful Bay of Pigs, inaction was not really an option. The fact that the cabinet member who proposed the inaction plan felt like he was sticking his head out on the chopping block reiterates the presence and weight of groupthink in high stakes political decisions, especially during the thirteen days of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

1 Comment

The importance of the leader-follower relationship is captured in the ideas of transformational and transactional leadership. In his chapter, James Burns explains that pure power can be removed from the leader-follower relationship but leadership is not. I saw this as an explanation for the difference between charismatic leaders as opposed to toxic charismatic leaders. In Bass’ piece on transformational leadership, he explains, “charisma was too much associated with dictatorship and pseudo transformational leaders such as Huey Long, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler” (19). From this we can still define these leaders as toxically charismatic but maybe a better definition is one of pure power instead of leadership. Bass goes on to explain that abusive charismatic leaders do not exhibit the same “individualized consideration” as a socially concerned leader with regard to transformational leadership. I think this is a really important point that proves leadership cannot necessarily be defined with dichotomous terms. Leadership is a continuum where leaders can be different variations of charismatic, transformational, transactional, among other traits. That is why leadership is so hard to define. In fact Bass event admits that some of the best leaders are both transactional and transformational. Overall, I think the more we read about leadership and the more qualities we learn about, the more difficult it is to define leadership but the easier it is for us to understand that leadership is truly a study of people and history in their specific context rather than a bunch of definitions and criteria.

6 Comments

On Tuesday (September 24th) I attended the first event in the Sharp Viewpoint Series. The speaker of the evening was Sarah McBride. She is the press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign which is the largest LGBTQ advocacy and lobbying group in the United States. She is a graduate of American University, running for Delaware state senate and she is also a transwoman.

Sarah began her speech with telling her own story of how she came out to her family and her university. She came out to her school in an op-ed in the school newspaper and shared that the support was overwhelmingly positive which she also recognized was not the norm for many LGBTQ people, especially people who are trans. I never though about it this way but Sarah said that people in general are less accepting of trans people than gay people because most people know how it feels to love someone or love someone they are not supposed to, but most people do not full understand the identity crisis trans people go through. Her story was very moving and she spoke with such eloquence and passion it was easy to follow her emotions both in the moments she was retelling and during the speech.

One quote from the event that really stuck with me was when Sarah said people claim being anti-LGBTQ under the guise of religious freedom but religious freedom should not be a “sword to harm already marginalized people”. This is an example of intersectionality we talked about in class. Transpeople, especially trans women are subject to transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, sexism and more.

Sarah left the audience with two very powerful pieces of advice. One: there is no wrong way to be you. And two: you are powerful. Everyone has insecurities but if you accept and replace those insecurities with pride, bullies will see that power and become jealous.

Sarah is a great example of a leader. She has not only taken on local leadership but has taken her personal experiences and beliefs to the national level through her work with the Human Rights Campaign and her campaign for Delaware senate. She is an example of a charismatic leader who recognized her circumstances and rose to be the voice of people like her and people who support her.

Leave a Comment

I believe humility is an important characteristic for all people to have or at least understand. After reading Ruscio’s piece on humility, I now see how humility is one of the most important characteristics to good democratic leaders. Kennedy, Washington and Lincoln are some of the most recognized democratic leaders and they for sure embodied humility at some point during their terms.

I think that humility is a forgotten virtue in civilian life in general bus especially in the political sphere. Today we want political leaders to have new ideas, be firm, decisive, strong and powerful. Strong-willed people can still be humble however it is becoming less and less common to have both. In a world where people must fight and be their own advocates, humility is more often replaced with confidence and pride, sometimes in excess.

We have talked at length about perception in this class. In relation to the perception of confidence with charismatic leaders, what matters more: how we see leaders or how they see themselves? With confidence and charisma, it matters that we perceive the leaders to be confident even if they see themselves as self-conscious. However Ruscio claims that with humility, it matters only that leaders see themselves as imperfect. I disagree with this statement because a leader’s personal belief of humility can and probably is different than what the public perceives as humility. If Trump thinks he is humble, does that mean it does not matter what the rest of the country thinks? Perception plays an important roll in all leadership characteristics but I think it is more important in the case of humility than charisma.

6 Comments

There are lots of “ingredients”, as Gardner put it, that make up a leader. From earlier readings in the semester, we know that leaders can be successful, charismatic, toxic, tyrannical, and sometimes just straight up not good at their job. One new ingredient to add to this recipe of leadership is the follower.

According to Gardner, “the state of mind of followers is a powerful ingredient in explaining the mergence of the charismatic leader”. Followers and their state of mind can, and most of the time do, have almost as much influence on a leader as a leader has on their followers. Whether you think the follower-leader relationship should be a formal or informal one is up to debate, but the interwoven relationship between leader and follower is undeniable.

It is interesting to note that in recent decades, it seems as if people support leaders who help them arrive at their own judgements. Maybe in other places of the world, but in America, there seems to be a lot more polarizing arguments rather than arriving at one’s own opinion across a plethora of topics: healthcare, college tuition, immigration policy and the list goes on.

I also found it interesting when Mabye says that theories such as trait, organizational, vision, situational and power theories threaten the idea that the leader can be one of us or among us, putting them up on a literal and metaphorical pedestal. The crises confronting society are on a continuum and so should the relationship between leaders and followers. The dichotomy of the leader and follower titles is what can ultimately get us into trouble of resorting to a “Great Man”-“divine right is above the law leadership theory” we have worked so hard to abandon with democracy and citizen leadership.

Actions speak louder than words and actions of leaders influence actions of followers which again influence the actions of leaders. It is an ebb and flow of relationship between following the leader and leading the follower.

1 Comment

 

Leave a Comment