Author: Ryan Leizman

The reading did a good job of explaining the influence public figures, like politicians, have on society’s perception of the media. It appears very problematic the rhetoric that is used by politicians on both sides of the political spectrum because it has an apparent affect on their constituents.  In fact, “…two separate studies, finds that elite attacks on the press powerfully shape perceptions of news bias even if the news itself is unbiased.” (page 17).  The influence from prominent figures, like Trump and Clinton, is real and scary because it can unfairly create bias in well-informed citizens.

A 2009 experimental study shows the existing bias that is existing in our society due to extreme partisan.  The experiment used the same content, but changed the logo to different news sources. The result of the experiment found that, “…Republicans prefer stories with a Fox label (regardless of content) and seem to avoid those with a CNN or NPR label. Democrats are equally likely to avoid Fox stories and instead prefer CNN- or NPR-labeled stories. Thus, partisans evaluated the same content differently depending on the partisan nature of the news source with which it was affiliated. This result aligns with more general findings of selective exposure and motivated reasoning among individuals, in which individuals seek out and avoid information that is friendly or unfriendly, respectively, to their preexisting beliefs.” (page 16).  The affect that partisanship, promoted by politicians, can have on the population is clear and concerning. What is more interesting while there has always been inherit bias among party lines, the delegitimization against the media is a more recent phenomena.  The creation of Fox news and Nixon’s attack on the press set the precedent for the divisions that have created some of the toxic ideologies that political parties have against the news outlets that are supposedly linked to other parties.

4 Comments

The Civil Rights movement and the Anti-War movement were more related than I initially realized.  Who was sent over to fight for the United States was problematic. This is because the draft was inherently racist, in addition to discriminating against poorer Americans.  At one point in the video a narrator said that, “If you’re white, middle-class, and a dean’s list kind of guy, then relax”. The narrator was essentially saying that a college educated white man would not be drafted, which brings up the unequal aspects of the draft itself.  There was strong opposition to the Vietnam war, but the United States established laws that were aimed to prevent drafted men from refusing to go overseas to fight. If a person would refuse to go and fight in the war, then they could be convicted of draft resistant. Muhammad Ali, who was a strong opponent of the draft and the war, refused to fight and as a result lost his heavyweight belt.  The draft resistant laws forced many people, who were ‘randomly selected’, to go fight in a war that they did not believe in or support. 

 

The video about the Anti-War movement is especially interesting to me because I live about thirty minutes away from where the Kent State shooting occurred.  I have learned about the incident over and over again as a student in Ohio, but its impact in the Anti-war movement is still surprising to me to this day. The video mentioned how the Kent State shooting acted as a catalyst of sorts for people, who otherwise would have stayed silent, to speak up against the war This is impactful for me because I always think of Kent State as just a random college in my backyard, but for an incident to occur there and change the course of American history is mindblowing for an Ohioan like me.

3 Comments

The author described Omelas as this perfect utopian society, where there is no need for drugs, war, and everyone is equal.  One of the main points of the story is how everyone in society is equal, but the child in the cellar contradicts this idea. The story describes how the child,  “…is feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective, or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect. It picks its nose and occasionally fumbles vaguely with its toes or genitals, as it sits hunched in the corner farthest from the bucket and the two mops. It is afraid of the mops. It finds them horrible. It shuts its eyes, but it knows the mops are still standing there; and the door is locked; and nobody will come. The door is always locked; and nobody ever comes, except that sometimes–the child has no understanding of time or interval–sometimes the door rattles terribly and opens, and a person, or several people, are there” (Guin, 5-6).  I interpreted that this child in the above section was either autistic or had some sort of mental illness. In Omelas, it seems that a person can not be ‘defective’ in anyway otherwise they are not allowed to be apart of the utopian society. The people of Omelas claim that if they let the child into the real-world, then the happiness of the city would be at risk. What this society does not realize is that despite preaching for equality, they are preventing everyone from being able to join in on their utopia, which in itself is unequal. It is one thing to essentially institutionalize the child, but the people of Omela go out of their way to mistreat the kid. In a society that is supposed to be full of happiness, mistreating people, even if they are not recognized by the society as a whole, demonstrates how the culture is inherently flawed.

7 Comments

One of the readings makes an intriguing point about the different pathways that could have occurred to end the institution of slavery. The author writes how, “It would take either a full-scale slave rebellion or a full-scale war to end such a deeply entrenched system.” I was aware that Lincoln’s emancipation declaration was mainly political move, but I didn’t realize the full extent of his decision. The reading talked about the practicality of freeing the slaves as it mentioned the growing number of slaves, a cause for concern due to past revolts, and the potential for the Union to have the black population on their side. The reasoning behind freeing the enslaved population was a political move that gave both Lincoln and the Union moral high ground in addition to changing the reason for the war from state rights to human rights.

The black population was not freed because white men finally found their moral compass, but rather because the situation forced them to this decision. The reading reflects how the United states, “…would end slavery only under conditions controlled by whites, and only when required by the political and economic needs of the business elite of the North. It was Abraham Lincoln who combined perfectly the needs of business, the political ambition of the new Republican party, and the rhetoric of humanitarianism.” The previously mentioned elite white men changed the narrative for the emancipating the slave population to help paint themselves and the Union in a better way. These rich white men tactically supported the abolishment of slavery in order to not lose their business that depended partially on the Southern states. This reading really was eye-opening to me because I was not aware of the political reasoning and implications of the Emancipation Proclamation, and why Lincoln may have not been the social warrior that we remember him as today.

5 Comments

I think the author makes an interesting point regarding how many political and social movements are motivated by the rich and powerful.  What makes the American Revolution different than other movements is the dynamic between those same elites and the common people. The article mentioned, “…the mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians, for their own purposes. This was not purely deception; it involved, in part, a genuine recognition of lower-class grievances…” (Zinn, 61).  The rich colonists who wanted to get rid of British rule, had to understand the issues all classes faced in order to effectively gain enough support to overthrow the existing government.

The language and aura around the United States’ fight for independence helped to inspire all classes to act against the British.  The elites of cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and New York created a narrative. They painted the British as the main reason for the uneven social structure, temporarily relieving the existing class tension among Americans.  While not completely intentional, much of the language surrounding the revolution painted all Americans as victims of the British, regardless of class, and created an image of equality. Zinn highlights the “All this, the language of popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, indignation at political tyranny, economic burdens, and military attacks, was the language well suited to unite large numbers of colonists, and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England.” (Zinn, 72).  The potential of class equality inspired lower and middle class Americans to act against the British.  

While the rich helped to use certain language and rhetoric to inspire lower class colonists to act, they also were heavily fortunate for the demographics in the colonial cities. Zinn mentions how, “Fortunately for the revolutionary movement, the key battles were being fought in the North, and here, in the cities, the colonies had a divided white population; they could win over mechanics, who were a kind of middle class, who had a stake in the fight against England, who faced competition from English manufacturers.” (Zinn, 65).  The inequality among colonists was ignored because the rich deflected the blame towards the British, which made sense to struggling business and workers who were looking for a scapegoat. The language and demographics were very strategically used by the colonial elites in order to inspire lower class Americans to portray the British as the main enemy.

3 Comments

In Domination/Subordination, I agree with many aspects of the author’s argument around the dominants, but not as much for the section regarding subordinates.  Miller paints the subordinates as almost helpless victims, who have to resort to unorthodox methods in order to react to the prejudice they endure. The indirect methods are mentioned when Miller writes of actions that, “…contain hidden defiance and put ons” (Miller, 228).  This may have been true in a more historical sense, where there were much stricter societal norms and laws to limit subordinates such as women and people of color, but I believe that cannot be applied in today’s society. I believe that there is more opportunity for subordinates to be direct with their dissatisfaction towards their dominant counterparts.  This does not mean that they won’t experience the backlash and danger that Miller mentioned, but much of those consequences can be used as a rallying cry for the subordinates in today’s society.

 

While I believe that Miller limits the potential of subordinates in this day and age, her description of dominants was accurate and insightful.  Miller emphasizes one key point that I believe is very applicable to those dominants who are not striving for temporary inequality: the need to suppress the subordinates.  The dominants, “…prefer to avoid conflict – open conflict that might call into question the whole situation” (Miller, 227). By avoiding conflict, the dominants make an unhealthy societal norm that looks down upon addressing the existing inequalities.  I feel like this can be very applicable to many situations of permanent inequality, such as between men and women. I did not consider this idea of avoiding conflict when I thought of inequalities, but Miller’s article made me realize the dangers about societal limitations on open dialogue.  While I believe that there is more opportunity to speak out about issues today compared to the past, there still is work to be done to establish truly free and open conversations around inequality.

5 Comments

I thought that Bass’s definition of transformational leadership was accurate and made sense. When thinking about Burns’s and Bass’s differing ideologies, I thought about what it realistically takes to transform a follower into a leader. Cuoto dives into the fundamental aspects of the definition when he writes, “Since Bass, transformational leadership is more often used in leadership literature than transforming leadership with the implied change of state of being or character of a leader rather than of a process in which a leader participates.” In my opinion, Bass’s reasoning behind his definition makes more sense because developing leadership skills is a partially determined by the individual’s initiative.  This is because a leader should be developed partially by their own natural abilities.

Yet, I will acknowledge that Burn’s ideology behind transforming leadership is relevant and applicable as well. It is important for the leader to follower relationship to be interactive because it will enhance the growth of the individual.  This is also where I saw the Great Man Theory appear in the differing definitions of transformational leadership from Bass and Burns.  While Bass believes that structure for creating leaders should be influenced by the individual’s own initiative and talent, Burns believes that any individual has the capacity to lead.  In my opinion, the suitable definition of transformational leadership falls somewhere in between these two scholars.  While it is important to develop and teach leadership skills organically, I believe that some people are better suited to lead and hard work should be rewarded.

The fields that are emphasized within the two scholars definitions also determine their differing ideologies. Bass using his ideology more within formal organizations, like businesses, while Burns focuses more on social movements to mold his understanding on how leaders are developed.  The one way relationship between follower and leader may be effective in the military and in certain business, but I don’t believe it should and will apply in every situation.  This is why Burns and Bass should look to combine their ideologies in order to create a more relevant and accurate definition of transformational leadership.

3 Comments

The author’s argument that Washington was showing humility during the letter incident is not accurate.  Rather, it appears that Washington was using his charisma to win over the opinion of his troops. While humility isn’t just limited to an individual’s willingness to be open to new ideas, the story used by Ruscio makes it seem that Washington is trying to establish a better connection with his troops rather than listen to their needs.  Ruscio even goes into greater detail about Washington’s charismatic traits when he writes how, “Historians frequently point to this episode as indicative of Washington’s innate ability to establish a bond, a trait that ultimately led him, in more significant historical moments, to acquire authority and legitimacy, not by exerting power over those he led, but by rejecting formal power.” Ruscio, unknowingly to himself, creates examples throughout this story about how Washington is expressing charisma rather than humility.

Throughout the story, Washington tries to get the angry soldiers to sympathize with him or gain their respect.  For example, Washington, “…was not the general whose authority had been questioned; he was one of them, a fellow soldier, whose integrity had been questioned.”  This may be considered humility in Ruscio’s definition because Washington is being considerate of the troops’ perspective, but I disagree. The example strikes me more of a desperate appeal by Washington to prevent the soldiers from overthrowing him as the leader.  Ruscio even wrote how, “The troops were restless, even angry, and headed down the road of insubordination and mutiny.” Washington’s passionate speech to his troops was in some sense to understand their point of view, but it was more than anything a way to save himself from a potential mutiny.  Ruscio’s definition of humility does not support his claim that Washington expressed humility in the story, but rather the traits of a charismatic leader.

3 Comments

A typical follower will experience occasional indecisiveness or hesitancy to step up.  This idea from the citizen leader article verifies that some are naturally imposed to be leaders, while others prefer to stay in the background.  The importance of leaders are often overstated in society, and the article talks about how it is important to develop more a more active participatory population. While this theory makes sense, it is also important for an effective leader to take initiative.  This action can be taken through understanding the community’s unity and identity because the leader will better be suited to address the needs of the general public. Having a sense of the public’s identity is important because there are certain individuals who are more willing to step up and show the characteristics to be the face of a movement, so being able to lead without forgetting about the common person is very important. 

 

The article talks about how the issue with modern-day leaders is that they seem, “stripped of a communal identity.”  While it is important to develop an active citizen base, it is even more key for a leader to be able to act on the behalf of the public with their best interest in mind.  A leader that has this sense of communal identity will be able to inspire their followers to act, creating a leadership hierarchy within their support system. Though I’m trying to argue that the best leader inspires others into action and creates, I am not disagreeing with the author’s point of the importance of an active citizen base.  Creating a culture of accountability and driven individuals will not only make more effective leaders, but it will make a more efficient society.

4 Comments

Toxic leadership is a subjective idea, but it gets more complicated when it relates to 17th century English society.  Though King Charles actions may have been tyrannical, his legacy paints him more as a man who stood up for his ideals.  One of the articles elaborates on this point when describing how, “Charles therefore managed to present himself as standing ‘more for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges’, turning it into a piece of successful propaganda. Not only did it give him a chance to show the tyranny of the Rump Parliament but it allowed him to paint himself as the honourable, Christian protector of the constitution and of the people.” This speech was obviously a political play in order to ensure the future of the monarchy in England, but at the same time it portrays King Charles as a champion of the people and the Parliament as corrupt.  King Charles’ decision to essentially restart the civil war, causing thousands of deaths, may also have been justified in this context. This is because it not only ensures his, and future royals, rule over Parliament, but shows that his actions were done with the people in mind. I am unsure of King Charles’ leadership because though he firmly believes what he did was necessary to protect the liberties of all English people, his decisions to protect that freedom indirectly caused the deaths of many of those people. In the case of King Charles, I believe intent matters. The readings do attack some of Charles’ actions, but they do clearly highlight his belief that he is doing the right thing for him, the people, and England as a whole.  For all of these reasons, King Charles’ reign should not be classified as a case of toxic leadership, rather misguided ethics or beliefs.

4 Comments

Both readings talk a lot about what tyrannicide means, and the ethics behind the term.  While it may be morally justified to assassinate a dictator-like government official, steps need to be taken to assure that the next government will be just and not make the same mistakes as the previous regime.  One of the documents argue, “In most cases, tyrannicide either brings tremendous instability (as in the contemporary Middle East), or simply turns the tyrant’s successors even more despotic, with fierce persecution against the plotters, and even brutal revenge against the population.” Making sure the next government official isn’t corrupt, and that they have resources in place to effectively lead, needs to be considered before disposing of the current regime. 

I actually learned a lot about a situation in Zimbabwe where tyrannicide may have been a potential solution.  Robert Mugabe, who recently passed away, was formerly the leader of Zimbabwe. Mugabe was extremely corrupt, caused mass poverty, and order the army to kill members of the opposing political party.  The issue with just killing him, when was in power, was that the government power was so concentrated that the next leader would have likely been just as corrupt.

While the climate after the assassination is just as important to a successful government overthrow, the morality of the act should also be considered.  The ethics of killing a person is the gray area of the subject that will divide people. At some point murdering one person to save many is necessary, but the question is when that event should take place.  That’s where the difficult lies because the answer changes depending on the person, some may argue that tyrannicide shouldn’t be an option and democracy will prevail in time. How society interprets the intentions of those trying to overthrow a government by means of assassination will determine if history remembers their acts as liberating or criminal.

3 Comments

The differing definitions of charisma make it a fluid concept, but the ability of individuals to emotionally resonate with others is the key element of the term. A person’s ability to relate to others is the most important and powerful aspect of charisma because it inspires others, thus leading them into action. Riggio emphasizes this point when he mentions how, “…perhaps [the] most important to perceptions of charisma is emotional expressiveness—the ability to convey feelings and emotions accurately and effectively to others. Charismatic individuals use their emotional expressiveness to arouse and inspire others and to spur them to action” (Page 3, Sage). Riggio’s declaration that individuals who can connect to people will cause others to act on their behalf, shows the potential power of charisma.  The ability to get a following, is a common trait of many famous charismatic individuals. Ghandi is a prime example of a charismatic individual, who used his personality and expressiveness to inspire others to act on his behalf during India’s fight for independence. While emotional expressiveness is a potential agent of good, it can be used in much more sinister ways. Hitler comes to mind with the way he was able to agitate the German people over the current state of the country, and inspire them into action against the world and the Jewish population. While Ghandi and Hitler used their ability to connect to people in differing ways, it showed the power that charismatic individuals have over others.  Connecting to others is in fact the true power of emotional expressiveness, and charisma as a whole, because it allows an individual to extend their will out to their followers and have them act on their behalf.  This is why a person who resonates with others is more likely to have success, and in turn be thought of as a charismatic individual

5 Comments

1. Hero
2. Leader
3. Role Model

Leave a Comment