Back to William's Archives.
The Dominant:
September 23, 2002:
In my reading, I often read philosophers and political prognosticators
of one kind or another. One thing which impresses me from these
readings is the number of glowing predictions of idyllic futures
for the lot of man. Marxism is one of these that many of us now
know did not work out well. In fact, what came of it was a great
deal of pain and suffering for a great number of people. I wondered
what all of these thinkers were missing and why their predictions
did not come true. I have concluded that all of them failed to
take into account a basic political truth. That is the existence
of what I call the dominant.
This, I believe, is one political truth which will always manifest regardless of the political, religious, or philosophical theory currently in vogue. That is, in any group, there will always be a dominant. In addition, in any group, there can be only one dominant. If there is more than one, it will be a temporary condition. The group will quickly rearrange itself so as to resolve that. This is not something we can control. It is part of the instinctive animal nature. It is true of chickens, work groups, and street gangs alike.
What makes a street gang cohesive is not outside pressure as the do-gooders would have us believe. It is the existence of a dominant within the gang. Outside pressure comes after the fact. It does have influence, but the dominant is what makes the gang a gang instead of a bunch of kids hanging out. He is the pole around which the others rally. Without him, there could be no gang.
The group will always acquire the ethics of its dominant whatever they are. It is he who identifies it and keeps it cohesive. This is the key to dealing with gangs. We need only influence one person to influence the behavior of the gang. In that, we should consider the notion that the gang leader might rather be admired than scorned. Perhaps we could then make it possible for him to become a part of the community rather than its adversary.
As a culture, we have never intellectually accepted this concept of the dominant. Yet, we comply with it every day even as we deny it intellectually and emotionally. Primitive cultures have no problem accepting a chief or elder. It was only when we became civilized and supposedly free that we began to deny the obvious. What we ought to do is accept the fact and arrange our culture accordingly. This does not mean that we need accept monarchs. It does mean we should acknowledge the dominant and look to the best in him for leadership.
The perfect dominate will function by consent rather than force. This is one way to recognize a dominant. People will willingly act to carry out his directions. He is not a dictator, but a facilitator. If people comply because of force or threats of force, we do not have a true dominant. We have a despot, industrial manager, or a fool, possibly all three. Then the true dominant must find more subtle methods, perhaps behind the scenes as did Rasputin.
One of the things which spoiled our last presidential election is that neither of candidates was a true dominant. I believe the true dominants were, and still are, hiding behind them. This made the election very difficult and confusing for all of us. I believe we instinctively perceived that both candidates were weak. I believe we are paying the penalty for that now in a poorly concealed power struggle which is misdirecting our national focus. I would much rather have a true dominant, even a blatant dominant like Roosevelt, than whatever is behind the scenes now.
This dominant concept is also why Marxism had to fail. It is not possible for a government to wither away because the dominant will not allow it. When Marxism disrupted the government of Russia, it created a power vacuum. When a government is disrupted the situation will quickly degenerate to anarchy. That is a power vacuum. A power vacuum is an inherently unstable situation. Anarchy will then be displaced by Tyranny. A dominant will move in. Then democracy will have to wait a long time. I know of no case in history where Tyranny evolved into a viable democracy. To displace tyranny, another disruption is necessary. We have recently witnessed such a disruption in the Soviet Union. I hope we will soon see another one in China
Now consider another of the reasons that many companies are mediocre rather than outstanding. It is that they ignore the natural dominant and try to force suck-ups into positions of power. In that situation, the influence and power of the dominant will be severely mitigated. He will not be able to inspire others to excellence as easily. The workers will understand this instinctively. They will not be as energetic and productive when they know their true leader is being suppressed. To be sure, if he has options, the true dominant will not remain in such a situation.
Truly smart managers, will quickly recognize the dominant and create the space he needs to function. In this case the dominant will become the true leader. The manager will become the titular leader, satisfied with accepting the credit which accrues from staying out of a good leader's way. As I said, the perfect dominant will function by consent. If he needs to operate by force, he is not a true dominant. He is more than likely an appointee of some kind, or a despot. The dominant may exercise his power subtly or blatantly, but he is always present.
In a perfect representative democracy, the leader would be a true dominant. In too many cases, in our democracy, he is not. He is a power monger of some kind. Looking at history, it is not difficult to recognize the leaders who were true dominants. They usually come to the fore and excel in times of crisis. Churchill and Roosevelt are prime examples. Stalin, on the other hand, maintained his power by force. We can notice this phenomena in our military in a time of crisis. The real leaders will step up and the bureaucrats will step aside. World War Two was a prime example of this. Patton was a true dominant and Eisenhower was a smart manager/ bureaucrat.
Sane management will seek out dominants and bring them to power.
Insane management, the general case in America, will attempt to
suppress the dominant or dispose of him some way. Usually manager
will tend to promote a person who is not a threat to him. Dominants
are threats to every entrenched bureaucrat near them. A dominant
is a threat to power because he acquires it naturally. Perhaps
sane management is too much to hope for in America. Still, hope
does not cost anything.
Back to William's Archives.
|
|
|
|