"By giving up your authority, you’re exercising your authority." -Ian
"Is it better to be feared or loved as a leader?" -Lindsay
"A mixture of fear and love is needed." -Caitlyn
"If people don’t have a leader, they’d revert to a natural state." -Anthony
"Natural is different for everyone." -Caitlyn
"Natural state can be anything." -Ashley
"SHUT UP AND LISTEN!" -Alex
"No, make me." -Anthony
"This is anarchy." -Caitlyn
[If I may?] Let me bring our attention back to the quotes that I handed out in the beginning. One quote from Robert Paul Wolff seems particularly relevant to the social experiment that we conducted/observed:
. Men are no better than children if they not only accept the rule of others from force of necessity, but embrace it willingly and forfeit their duty unceasingly to weigh the merits of the actions which they perform. When I place myself in the hands of another, and permit him to determine the principles by which I shall guide my behavior, I repudiate the freedom and reason which give me dignity. I am then guilty of what Kant might have called the sin of willful heteronomy.
. There would appear to be no alternative but to embrace the doctrine of anarchism and categorically deny any claim to legitimate authority by one man over another. Yet I confess myself unhappy with the conclusion that I must simply leave off the search for legitimate collective authority. (From In Defense of Anarchism, p72.)
10 comments:
There was a fundamental flaw in your experiment. You did not give it enough time. Giving a group of restless students free range for a few minutes is no different than a class unwinding when it doesn't have to take a substitute teacher seriously.
Ending the experiment promptly and in frustration completely nullified the possibilities of any outcome, and even the observations made during the initial progression of it can no longer be taken into account.
“…enough time…” is that former topic coming back to haunt us? -ah!!
Thanks for sharing your opinion that the experiment should have lasted longer, but there are some misconceptions implied within your post that I’d like to clear up.
First, I timed the experiment to last 15 minutes, although it really lasted for 30 minutes (until the end of the period… the division into two groups ended up being the second half of the experiment). Did anyone notice that the students really ended the experiment themselves when they left the class… in which case I’m really not to blame for ending it prematurely. Anyway, whether it was 15 or 30 minutes, it was more than the “few” you mentioned, and/or the few it might have felt like…
…so was it ‘enough time’?
We can only evaluate whether it was enough time by asking if I accomplished what I hoped to achieve through the experiment. You may recall that I began our meeting by stating (forgive the rough paraphrase), “Today, I want to introduce the topics of Power and Authority… and I want to lead us through a discussion, activity, and some quotes that are meant to open up some questions in our minds in regard to these topics… I DON’T intend today’s meeting to produce any answers… a search for answers will begin next week.”
Within that context, the experiment was long enough, and a success I might add, because it DID provide us with SOME common experiences, observations, and questions that we can begin to explore. The length of the experiment did not nullify the possibilities of ‘any’ outcome as you claim. In fact, claiming the possibility of ‘any’ outcome or effect was nullified DIRECTLY contradicts the first quote we discussed, and Ashley S. was the only one to openly object to the validity of the first quote’s claims (Ashley S… if you’re the anonymous poster above, please ignore the last sentence.)
I acknowledge that the experiment COULD have been conducted with other outcomes in mind, other than the introductory and open-ended ones I hoped for. And some of these other outcomes would definitely require more time… minutes, hours, or even days of more time. Other possible outcomes that a longer experiment might accommodated include:
1. Would the group continue to divide… into two groups, three, or more?
2. Would the group eventually divide to the point where no one is unified?
3. Would anyone be able to ‘rise up’ or be somehow be established as leader, and be able to unify the group? Would this be the result of a democratic, despotic, or tyrannical process? Would they become leader by taking power, or by collectively being given power?
4. Would anarchy be the end result of the experiment, or would anarchy be an intermediate stage through which the experiment passes, on its way to a possibly more ‘evolved’ social order/power structure?
5. In a power vacuum, what types of dormant powers/authorities become the new dominant forms of power? (Without a ‘teacher’ in charge, does the LOUDEST student get his/her way, or does the majority group get its way, or…?)
The list could go on…
The truth is that no matter the outcome or intention of such an experiment, someone will always be able to make the claim that it didn’t last long enough… because the possible outcomes, or the desired outcomes (depending on how you evaluate it) were never achieved. You may not appreciate the comparison, but consider…
We will soon see this reasoning in response to the Iraq war. Bush tells us that we need to keep the troops there longer. The Democrats want to bring the troops home sooner. The Democrats will most likely have their way… and when history attempts to record the success/failure of the war, something interesting will happen: The Democrats will blame Bush for getting us into the war in the way that he did (YOU STARTED the war too hastily), and the GOP will retort that, “We would have helped form a successful democracy in Iraq, but YOU ENDED the war too hastily.” I can hear it now, "The outcome (or lack thereof) is your fault… no it’s your fault… no it's yours...(it’s going to be a messy argument for sure!).
Finally, you claimed that the experiment was ended “in frustration.” If you mean that I became frustrated, and as a result ended the experiment prematurely or with an improper attitude, I’m not sure that’s the most accurate way to describe how it ended. Even though this was an artificial experiment, it had REAL affects upon all those who participated. So REAL in fact, that you should probably know that our meetings this year have become so rambunctious (lacking a focused/serene/sincere/humble search for truth that the last 6 years of P.C. have been able to maintain) that a few tenured members are talking about quitting Philosophy Club…
Now, the quick retort is to say, “Come on, it was just an experiment, get over it.” But this is usually the retort of someone who found their personal power and authority magnified during the experiment. And those people probably wouldn’t mind if the experiment went on for another 15 minutes or 15 hours… hey, they were enjoying newfound personal power, and in some cases, the overpowering of fellow club members. On the other hand, I would suspect that many of the students who were repeatedly ‘stepped on’ and ‘over powered’ in yesterday's discussion felt that the experiment went on for FAR too long.
Both perspectives need to be considered, and I find only one perspective in your anonymous post. Regardless, though, I appreciate your perspective… thanks for sharing it… I hope others do the same :)
The experiment was a good one. I liked how those few who really thought for themselves seperated from the rest, in a real situation thats what would happen. I dont think anybody could turn anthony into a mindless follower once he was freed to be honest. The power of being able to get up and go to the bathroom and just walk out was good, but if you had noticed they all came back. Why? Mr.B's power was still there even though Mr.B said that unless you stop and 'light up a joint' i think it was put. He wouldnt interfere.
Needless to say, the experiment was fun and showed what people would do if they were allowed to be let free. Some would cling to the order that was being had before, And the rest will become their own leaders causing trouble and trying to take power.
Mr.B i look forward to the War argument about starting the war too fast/ending the war too fast...Both sides make mistakes, and they do not like to admit and say that they were wrong. Much fun will be had watching that on tv :D
What are you trying to say, that because I tried to be respectful and tried to contribute to a civilized discussion with the group, that I was NOT one of the “few who really thought for themselves?”
I’m not going to name names, but some of the rebellious separatists are some of the most mindless followers. You see it everwhere in school. In our stupid unoriginal culture. They think they’re so original, so against the man, so free but they’re really way more weakminded. They’re weak cuz they are slaves to their own selfish impulses. Slaves to self. And they don’t even see it or admit it.
The rest of us that you accused of clinging to the old order were just trying to allow other people to be listened to, to have somewhat equal rights. They were the less selfish. And the less selfish people in this world are the real rebels with a cause.
If someone who separates from the rest or leads other to separate from the rest is to be admired, then someone like Martin Luther King must be one of the most pathetic examples of leadership cuz he tried to bring people together despite their differences.
"Was there no communication in this car? Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?"
Come on folks, let's be civilized
"some of the rebellious separatists are some of the most mindless followers." Some would imply that there was more than one. And to consider is that there were five people apart from the larger "more organized" group. Then one of the five was exiled for attempting to be a sort of leader. Thus four remained. Among those four, three have been proven to be some of the most independent of society and would care more for working in a soup kitchen than owning a diamond of any size. I dare say that's more than you can say for yourself and selfishness.
"They think they’re so original, so against the man, so free but they’re really way more weakminded." How the hell do you know what they think about themselves. Who the hell is 'the man' anyhow, he's got nothing to do with a damn thing.I wanted to join them, and was about to when the bell rang, then reality of catching the bus caught up with me. The idea of a more communist group that is more concerned with just having fun than voting for who is going to bark out orders next. Perhaps you should try to know people before blindly judging them and telling them how they think only to write them off as dumb drones before they've taken a breath to speak in your direction.
"They’re weak cuz they are slaves to their own selfish impulses. Slaves to self. And they don’t even see it or admit it." I don't think you're admiting to your own 'slave to self' impulses since you seem to be so preoccupied with them.
"The rest of us that you accused of clinging to the old order were just trying to allow other people to be listened to, to have somewhat equal rights." You aparently aren't very observent either. The whole point of the seperate group was to allow EQUAL rights, not somewhat equal rights. Nobody there to tell you 'no, you can't do that'.
"They’re weak cuz..." No, you're weak 'cuz'...you aren't able to accept the difference of other people just trying to survive like you. Not even willing to observe the things you have in common with them.
I respect your thoughts but i don't think that they were well thought out. I thought that they were out of taste and replied so, with the same kindness you showed the 'other' people in that room.
I agree, with that last post. Did you ever even think Ian, Anthony, Ethan, Ashley were all:
1) Showing what is GOING to happen if people where actually leaderless and all striving to bring peace/order to those that just lost their leader. Ian is a very smart kid, and if you listen to what he says he is usually trying to prove a point.
2) Having fun and saying 'WHAT THE HELL, Mr.B gave up his power why not take advantage of it.' To tell you the truth, i actually think Mr.B EXPECTED that to happen, he didnt even look surprised when they all seperated.
3) Of course there will be more than 1 person striving for absolute power. None of those people would surrender to any power easily because someone tells him/her to.
Ian said, ""Was there no communication in this car? Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?" Come on folks, let's be civilized." I agree with him that post was pretty cold and ill-thought out.
These are a few of the rude things i would take offense to:
rebellious separatists are some of the most mindless followers
"They’re weak cuz they are slaves to their own selfish impulses
Martin Luther King must be one of the most pathetic examples of leadership
Even when they seperated themselves from our group, they showed respect for us. Perhaps you have became a poop-flinging-monkey.
hey, anonymous that is above, YOU FORGOT ME. there were FIVE people outside of the group, not four.
Wow, this volley of anonymous comments feels like a snowball fight in the dark :)
Numbering these anonymous comments might help before I add my own snowballs to the mix…
Anon#1 “There was a fundamental flaw…”
Mrb ‘“…enough time…” is that former…’”
Anon#2 “The experiment was a good one…”
Anon#3 “What are you trying to say…”
Ian ‘“Was there no communication in this car?”’
Anon#4 ‘“some of the rebellious separatists…”’
Anon#5 “I agree, with that last post…”
Annie ‘“hey, anonymous (#5?) that is above…”
Anon#1,
Although I challenged some of the judgments that were implicit to your comments, I really appreciate your perspectives, and thank you for getting this thread going. I hope my incredibly long-winded response wasn’t too much.
Anon#2,
I think that you make some excellent observations and begin to draw some promising tentative conclusions. Perhaps the only statement you might reconsider is your first one (the one that Anon#3 jumped all over), as it certainly implies that those who accepted the leadership that I (mrb) offered were somehow not really thinking for themselves. But then again, the quote by Robert Paul Wolff at the beginning of this thread has some pretty strong words for those who “…accept the rule of others from force of necessity…” Wolff claims that those followers lose that which gives them dignity: their own freedom and reason.
Anon#3
You’ve contributed a rather emotional rebuttal to Anon#2’s comments. The existentialist philosophers of the past century suggest that emotions are to be valued as guides in our philosophical quest for truth and wisdom… so I would encourage you to continue to explore how your emotional responses to your experiences may lead you to the truth. But, like anything else, we need to temper our statements, particularly ones birthed in an emotional moment, with reason and diplomacy… It’s one thing to vent, and another thing to share your frustrations in a way that the person you’re criticizing can hear, understand, and possibly even accept. Ultimately, I think you did more to make broad, inaccurate statements similar to the very ones you were criticizing, than to add to our discussion.
Anyway, I think you make an excellent point in mentioning MLK… perhaps we can spend some time during a future P.C. meeting discussing the leaders we admire, and what their lives have to say about the proper place of personal/social Power, empowerment of the weak/oppressed, and how Authority/Leadership exercised gracefully can benefit all.
Ian,
Thanks for explaining the source of that quote… hope to rent the movie this week, and perhaps the book will follow…
Anon#4
Be careful that you don’t make the same mistake of labeling and over-generalizing that Anon#3 did. I know that your disclaimer at the end says, “I thought that they [your comments] were out of taste, and replied so, with the same kindness you showed the ‘other’ people in that room.”
However, I think the leaders many of us admire (like MLK) were admired for (among other things) not sinking to the depths of those who attacked and/or accused. The “Well, how would you like it if…” defense is a valid one for sure, but from my experience, it is not always the most effective one, as it tends to make the situation escalate…
I had my back to the separatist group, so I don’t know much of what went on, why/how the group formed in the first place, or went on to function after that. But I sense a contradiction in your statement, “The whole point of the separate group was to allow EQUAL rights, not somewhat equal rights. Nobody there to tell you 'no, you can't do that'.” That guiding purpose seems to contradict your group’s action to exile one of its members for “attempting to be a sort of leader.” Is it that no one person can tell the others what to do (or not), but on the other hand, the group as a majority DOES have the right to tell a single member what to do (or not)? That doesn’t quite sound like equal rights, and makes me wonder if a group of individuals can ever attain truly equal rights.
Anon#5
Regardless of the motivations of the seperatists, it’s worth noting that the act of social segregation usually does more to accentuate differences than to resolve them.
Also, because separation includes some measure of isloation, it increases the likelyhood of miscommunication, and that miscommunication can then compound the differences, and before long, a mad divicive cycle is born. When I was in college, my parents separated, claiming that it might help them ‘work out their differences,’ but it did more to feed their misunderstandings and add momentum to a divorce instead of preventing it.
If you’re up for a challenge, you might want to go back to Anon#2’s comment, and try an exercise: Try to take the words of another that you find rude and/or offensive, and see if you can weed out any truth from them… it’s a little exercise that I try someone that I have a hard time listening to and/or understanding because they rub me the wrong way.
Annon #2 and #5 are both me, i just forgot my password :D
Post a Comment