Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
History and Evolution:
By William E. Steinman:
Part 10, Superior Dominant:
May 26, 2003:
Last time, I touched briefly on the idea of the dominant male
control mechanism in government. Before I go on with the political,
spiritual, and philosophical developments of mankind I want to
explore this idea of dominants a bit further. I think understanding
dominants is the key to understand how governments rise and fall.
With respect to this, several questions arise. What is a dominant?
Who is a dominant? Are there different types of dominants? Are
all leaders dominants? How can we relate the dominant to the superior
person?
Let's begin with a backward glance. Throughout history those who have acquired power have attempted to create conditions such that their offsprings could also acquire power. There have been various methods used for this, the simplest being brute force succession by appointment. In more recent history we have things like special schools for the offsprings of the successful. In getting our kids into these special prep schools and universities, money becomes a tool. If we can buy an admission for our kid, why not? Never mind the fairness of it. These schools were not created to be fair, just successful.
That kind of success takes money and the parents are happy to supply it. In any way we can we attempt to enhance the opportunities for our offsprings. These things feed on themselves. If the graduates are successful, that reflects on the school. When the school is seen as successful, the graduates are more likely to be sought after and become successful. And so it goes.
Without quite knowing what they are doing these successful people are trying to turn their kids into dominants, people with power. If nothing else, their offsprings do acquire the manner and trappings of successful people. They learn to assume the bearing of the noble born. Following the European tradition, they assign themselves to a higher class of humans by virtue of their wealth. In our culture, they will often be mistaken for true leaders or dominants.
The true dominant leader, the one who actually rises to a situation through effort, is not a product of the European tradition. He is an almost purely American phenomenon. This person is the combined product of native intelligence and will. This is not necessarily intelligence as measured by a static test. It is a more dynamic thing. It is the ability to see a gestalt in a changing situation and respond appropriately. We sometimes assign the labels clever or shrewd to these people. In fact, I believe it is more like genius.
When you combine this kind of insightful intelligence with a strong will, you have a true dominant leader. Horatio Alger notwithstanding, our best example of that kind of person remains Benjamin Franklin. With him, we try to create the image of a very nice, frugal, kindly person who succeeded through effort. For sure, he was all of these things. However, much of his success came from his ability to outsmart other people. If playing the bumpkin would help, he would manage it. I want to be clear on this idea of dynamic intelligence combined with will. Intelligence by itself has very little value. Without will it produces engineers and bookkeepers, but not leaders, not dominants.
The true dominant leader will seek and acquire power. This does not mean that all those who acquire power are dominants. Some people just acquire power by accident or by appointment. This happens in cases of succession as with kings. It also happens in industry wherein cowards appoint people who are not a threat to them. Let us set the industrial example aside for another essay and continue with governmental situations.
Until now I have been talking about the dominant leader. This is the power dominant. He is a powerful person, not necessarily a good person. I believe it is also possible for a person to be a latent dominant. This is the person who steps up and takes charge in a crisis. If they are successful we sometimes call them heros. They will be featured on local TV as the good person of the week or some such nonsense.
Quite often, when we look at these people, we find not just a latent dominant, but a superior person. We find, in fact, someone with increased consciousness who cares about people and issues. Herein is the difference between the power dominant and the superior person. The power dominant thinks of himself and his power. He is basically selfish. The superior person is outward directed. He is basically selfless. Unfortunately this person is almost always some kind of thoughtful introvert. This kind of person can remain latent for their entire life, unless a crisis forces them to act.
I believe we get the best of both when we infrequently find a combination of the power dominant and the superior person in the same person. Let us call this a superior dominant. The superior dominant is one who is better able to cope with an ever changing universe. His goal is to continue improving that coping ability. He ultimate goal is to guide all humans toward becoming superior people. He is good in that he cares about the higher values, universal peace for example.
Let me borrow some lines from the Gaffer's Philosophy. There are many different names for this individual. In Jung's work, he is called the individuated man. L. L. Whyte defines his unitary man. Maslow discusses the self actualizing person. I have come to prefer identifying this type as the superior dominant. She or he is, if you will, a super conscious person.
This is the person we desperately need. It is one of this type who can step up and lead us. This is the person who will set the example and demand our very best behavior. It is possible that this person does not yet exist in pure form. Perhaps she never will because I am defining a perfect superior dominant leader, a completely superior person. We can think of this behavior pattern as a goal to approach. Perhaps there are some people somewhere who are close to this ideal. If so, I hope they come forward.
Approaching this behavior pattern is what I see as the goal of consciousness raising. It is a goal worthy of our most dedicated effort. This is the person we must all eventually become. This is the godlike human of the future. We want to become what we were when we were a child, but with all of the knowledge and wisdom we have accumulated since then. We do not want to regress to childhood. We want to become childlike in our outlook, so the world becomes new and wonderful again.
Superior dominant is a good name for this person. That is the name I will use in this series. That's what our founders were. That is what we need now. That is what mankind has always needed. Without them we end up with Bush and Gore. Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I believe JFK was the last true American dominant. If he was truly superior will never be known because he was murdered. Before him, we must go all the way back to Truman and the forties for a real dominant.
We must differentiate between bureaucrats such as we now have
and dominants. Bureaucrats acquire power by playing a game. Dominants
are not granted power they take power. They take charge when conditions
are ripe or have degenerated somehow. Most bureaucrats will have
enough sense to step aside in that situation. Dominants take charge
and get things done. Not everyone will like a dominant, but they
will usually do what the dominant tells them to. I believe that
most healthy people will like superior dominants. The very, very
small people will hate them.
Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
|
|
|
|