What a difference a man (or woman) can make.
What a difference a man (or woman) can make.
In my last posting I linked the BBC’s problems to the exaggerated power of those deemed to have talent and this in turn to a broader questioning of the role of ‘genius’ in culture and science. Writing about the credit crunch and the downfall of some of the big beasts of the banking world, John Kay made a similar point in the FT last week. Kay writes:
I sent my posting to my free market liberal sparring partner John Montgomery. He agreed with me about the status of celebrities, which he sees as a consequence of post-modernism (isn’t that shooting the messenger John?), but he found my questioning of the contribution of individuals very suspect. Referring to artistic geniuses such as Joyce and Cezanne, John says that anyone who rejects the idea that they changed the history of culture must be doing it ‘for political reasons and collectivist ideology’.
If the polls are right we will start finding out tomorrow how much one person can change history. John McCain may be distancing himself from George Bush but it is difficult to see why things in the US would change greatly if he won. In contrast, President Barack Obama would be expected to make a major difference to his country.
Any complex change results from many things, including other change. So we like to keep life simple by giving responsibility to one person. Behind the enthusiasm for Obama is the sense that a politician can, in addition to whatever legislative and policy changes they make (remember the US federal government has only limited influence on many domestic issues) have an effect on the national mood. Why might this be?
My suggestion is that there are fundamental ways of viewing ourselves, other people and the wider world (as regular readers know I start from cultural theory’s four categories). Each of us contains these perspectives but in differing degrees and at different times in different contexts. They exist not just at the level of ideas but also reflect hard wired cognitive systems. For society in aggregate, events and opportunities (the latter often provided by emerging techniques and technologies) favour some of these ways of seeing and acting over others. At certain times, both for the individual and the collective, there comes a moment when it feels like we are in transition between perspectives. At those times powerful communicators can have an important role. One example might be the way that Margaret Thatcher spoke to many people’s desire to move from the hierarchical-egalitarian assumptions of post-war corporatism to an unashamedly individualistic way of being.
If we listen to one voice, act on that voice and in doing so elect someone who speaks back to us using the same voice, it can mark a genuinely significant shift. So Obama can make a difference not because he is a great man (although he may prove to be) but because he can speak to a latent desire for change that has built up in the US over many years. I think he will win but – and here there are sad lessons to learn from New Labour – his first and possibly toughest task will be to deal with the expectations that have built up around him.
The survivor in any bureaucracy, private or public, is not the person who gets things right – rarely a popular figure – but the one who attaches himself to success and distances himself from failure. In the clumsy hands of Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, this behaviour is so transparent as to be almost comical. But Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, deserved the label “maestro” for the skill with which he deployed this strategy for two decades. Like Napoleon, “he did nothing harmful to the progress of the battle, he inclined to the most reasonable opinions, he made no confusion, did not contradict himself, did not get frightened or run away from the field of battle, but with his great tact and military experience carried out his role of appearing to command, calmly and with dignity”. But, just as Napoleon’s run of victories ended at Borodino, Mr Greenspan’s ran out in the credit crunch.
I sent my posting to my free market liberal sparring partner John Montgomery. He agreed with me about the status of celebrities, which he sees as a consequence of post-modernism (isn’t that shooting the messenger John?), but he found my questioning of the contribution of individuals very suspect. Referring to artistic geniuses such as Joyce and Cezanne, John says that anyone who rejects the idea that they changed the history of culture must be doing it ‘for political reasons and collectivist ideology’.
If the polls are right we will start finding out tomorrow how much one person can change history. John McCain may be distancing himself from George Bush but it is difficult to see why things in the US would change greatly if he won. In contrast, President Barack Obama would be expected to make a major difference to his country.
Any complex change results from many things, including other change. So we like to keep life simple by giving responsibility to one person. Behind the enthusiasm for Obama is the sense that a politician can, in addition to whatever legislative and policy changes they make (remember the US federal government has only limited influence on many domestic issues) have an effect on the national mood. Why might this be?
My suggestion is that there are fundamental ways of viewing ourselves, other people and the wider world (as regular readers know I start from cultural theory’s four categories). Each of us contains these perspectives but in differing degrees and at different times in different contexts. They exist not just at the level of ideas but also reflect hard wired cognitive systems. For society in aggregate, events and opportunities (the latter often provided by emerging techniques and technologies) favour some of these ways of seeing and acting over others. At certain times, both for the individual and the collective, there comes a moment when it feels like we are in transition between perspectives. At those times powerful communicators can have an important role. One example might be the way that Margaret Thatcher spoke to many people’s desire to move from the hierarchical-egalitarian assumptions of post-war corporatism to an unashamedly individualistic way of being.
If we listen to one voice, act on that voice and in doing so elect someone who speaks back to us using the same voice, it can mark a genuinely significant shift. So Obama can make a difference not because he is a great man (although he may prove to be) but because he can speak to a latent desire for change that has built up in the US over many years. I think he will win but – and here there are sad lessons to learn from New Labour – his first and possibly toughest task will be to deal with the expectations that have built up around him.
Please sign in below if you already have an account (your username will be your email address).
Don't have an account?
If you are a Fellow, please sign up for an account now to gain access to Fellows-only areas of our website.
Problems logging in? Forgot your password?
If you cannot login, or have forgotten your password, please go to our Password Reset page to change your password.
If this doesn't work, or you have any other queries regarding your account, just give us a call on +44 (0)20 7451 6927. Alternatively you can also email the Fellowship team.
Share