DADA5 - ARTICOLI
GOOD AND BAD LEADERS: AN EXAMPLE FROM AMERICAN TELEVISION
by Fred Roberts
Introduction
This paper will attempt to establish a profile of the good
vs. the bad leader, including the socio-cultural conditions
behind the leadership process. These points will be
illustrated using an insightful example provided by late
1950's television in America.
A theory put forth by Robert Wicklund (in press) describes a
continuum of perspectives which influence behavior. The two
poles are multiple and orienting perspectives. A person
with multiple perspectives considers all aspects of a
situation, including the perspectives of others. He
recognizes that there is not one black and white answer to a
particular problem, rather many different ways of looking at
it. In other words, a tolerance of ambiguities or
consideration of the social surrounding. An orienting
perspective, on the other hand, sees only one absolute
response to a situation and does not recognize other
alternatives or viewpoints. This perspective reacts to a
situation as being unambiguous and has a particular goal in
mind. A primary factor influencing the choice of
perspectives is threat. Threat refers usually to a feature
of the actual physical or biological environment, but can
also be imagined.
These thoughts can be seen as an extension of the body of
research and definition on authoritarianism. There a
connection has been made between threat in the environment
(political or economical) and the rise of authoritarianism,
especially the selection or acceptance of an authoritarian
leader.
Adorno, et al (1950) categorized several main aspects of
authoritarianism. Authoritarians admire power and strength.
They are cynical and contemptuous towards others. They are
ready to accept unscientific or superstitious explanations
of events. Submission to the in-group (intolerance towards
deviations from the norm) is another important aspect as is
aggression towards those who deviate.
Sales (1973) operationalized these aspects in the form of
economic and social indicators in America and found positive
correlations between amount of threat in the environment and
the authoritarian trends. In this case the 1920's were seen
as a relatively non-threatening period while the 1930's were
seen as being relatively threatening. This was replicated
in a second study comparing the early 1960's
(non-threatening) to the late 1960's (threatening).
McCann and Stewin (1984) found a positive connection between
threat as measured by economic indicators and the selection
of authoritarian leaders. The inaugural addresses of
American presidents from 1924 through 1980 were examined for
authoritarian content. Jorgenson (1975) found a similar
parallel between threat indicators and authoritarian content
of television program during the period in America from 1950
through 1974. Padget and Jorgenson (1982) discovered a
positive link between superstition and the amount of threat
present in Germany during the years 1918 through 1940. They
define superstition as irrational beliefs based on fear or
ignorance and operationalized it in terms of publications in
that area.
In a study focusing on authoritarian attitudes towards high
achievers Feather (1993) found that authoritarians with a
low self-esteem tended to favor a fall of such achievers
(tall poppies) whereas the authoritarians having a high
self-esteem approved of the achievers. A second study
linked authoritarianism with right-wing voting behavior.
Definitions
Before answering the questions "What characterizes a good
leader?" and "What characterizes a bad leader?", the
following consideration must be made. The logical
conclusion is to say that orienting or authoritarian leaders
are always bad and that non-authoritarians i.e. those
having multiple perspectives are always good. The
authoritarian theories and the multiple vs. orienting
perspectives theory make no explicit qualitative judgement
of these two spectrums, though implying that the multiple
perspectives pole is usually to be desired. The question
"is a leader good or bad?" would not necessarily match the
question "is a leader effective or not?". An orienting
response in times of crisis may have a valid survival
function whereas multiple perspectives could hinder
necessary action. To say that orienting is always wrong
would be in itself a very orienting response.
In light of this, it appears to me that a distinction should
be made. There are two types of realities: physical
realities and social realities. They have been defined as a
spectrum and have been extensively studied by social
psychologists in connection with group pressure and
conformity. Physical realities can be experienced directly
through the senses: i.e. the length or size of something,
or to use Wicklund's example, the physiological indicators
of when one has eaten enough. A multiple perspectives
approach to physical realities can have negative
consequences: if I am building or designing something, I
have to orient to physical qualities, otherwise the pieces
won't fit together. A multiple perspectives approach to
eating (ignoring the physiological signals that one has had
enough) can lead to obesity. Social realities, however, can
not be tested reliably by the senses. Here an orienting
approach can have negative consequences (hurting an innocent
victim) while multiple perspectives take into account the
ambiguity of the social reality. Perhaps a good leader is
one who knows when to orient.
For the sake of this paper a good leader will be defined as
one who in ambiguous situations attains multiple
perspectives, a bad leader is orienting. The orienting
responses take the forms described by Adorno (cynicism,
aggression, submission to authority, etc.). Good leaders
have a better chance of flourishing in times of non-threat,
i.e. times of prosperity, full employment and safety.
During times of actual or perceived threat the masses demand
an orienting leader. They want answers and they want action
regardless of whether or not the answers and action are
rational. It is an almost superstitious way of dealing with
the threat. This may be illustrated by the following
example: If I am healthy I am satisfied with my physician.
I have no interest in non-scientific medical treatments:
laying of hands or the practices of other quacks. But if I
develop a chronic illness against which my physician can do
nothing, this is a threat. Suddenly I am willing to go to
anyone who can promise results and I will lower my opinion
of my own doctor, especially if he correctly ridicules the
treatments I am interested in. This is analog to political
and economical threat. During times of high unemployment or
times of war the people demand a leader willing to do
something, no matter if the ensuing action is irrational or
not.
Unfortunately, history has delivered too many examples of
orienting and the rise of authoritarian leaders during times
of threat. The most obvious example would be Germany during
its turbulent period in 1932 and 1933. McCarthyism could
previal in America during the early 1950's, despite the
voices against it, because of the hysterical fear of
communism. A lesser known example is described by John
Hersey (1988): the situation of Americans of Japanese
descent following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
This was a period of high threat. An invasion was feared,
as well as sabatoge from the Americans whose appearance was
oriental. There was, incidentally, no actual evidence of
such criminal activities by this group, but a
well-established history of prejudice against them. The
military commander in charge of the west coast, Lt. Gen.
John L. DeWitt, a bad leader in the definition of this
paper, led an unfounded campaign against the
Japanese-Americans and succeded, despite the intervention of
sane voices in high places, in having these Americans
rounded up and placed in concentration camps further east.
In general, the threat creates a situation in which
something has to be done, action is demanded. Anyone who
acts, irregardless of how senselessly, will be accepted as a
leader.
Example
During the late 1950's and early 1960's a popular series
written by Rod Serling known as "The Twilight Zone" was
broadcast on American television. The series presented
phantastic and subtle horror stories. One classic episode,
"The Monsters are Due on Maple Street", dramatized a
situation which can be seen as allegoric to the general
situation of a good leader losing control during times of
threat and being replaced by a bad leader who offers the
orienting solutions demanded by the threatened group.
The story takes place on a typical street which could be
anywhere in America or the world. The key figures are Steve
and Charlie. Steve is a good leader, respected by his
neighbors, someone they look up to and look to for answers,
and his answers are always reasonable, a tall poppy.
Charlie, on the other hand, does not enjoy this status. But
then the street is thrown into an ambiguous threat
situation. The power goes out, the telephones and all
motors cease to function. The threat becomes magnified as a
little boy offers the explanation: aliens from another
planet are responsible and what's more, they've planted a
family among us to help them take over. Charlie picks up on
this orienting explanation and leads the group in the search
for the alien family. Steve remains rational, but has lost
his support. The group is threatened and it listens to the
leader which offers the easiest answers. Here now will
follow a summary and analysis of key statements and
situations in "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street".
The program begins with a scene of non-threat: an ice cream
vendor, children laughing and playing, neighbors washing and
repairing their cars, watering the lawn, etc. It's a late
summer afternoon. Then a "meteor" passes over the street
and the power, including motors and telephones, goes off.
The neighbors congregate. Steve is puzzled, Charlie is
nervous. They decide to go downtown to check on the
situation. The child offers the explanation of aliens
coming and having planted a family in the street. Steve
ridicules this. Charlie listens and a threat begins to be
perceived by the other neighbors who appear all very unsure
of the situation. They are waiting for an answer.
Suddenly, one of the neighbor's (Les') car starts by itself.
We hear a series of statements from the other neighbors
which demonstrate the shift of perspectives: "His car
started somehow", "How come his car started like that?", "He
never did come out to look at that thing that flew overhead.
He wasn't even interested." Charlie: "He always was an
oddball." Another neighbor:"Why didn't he come out with the
rest of us to look?" Charlie decisively: "What'd'ya say we
go ask him!" Charlie is in the forefront as the neighbors
almost stampede over to Les. Steve: Wait a minute! Wait a
minute! Let's not be a mob!", tries to stop the orienting.
This is a key scene which shows the switch from multiple
perspectives to orienting. The use of labels, in this case
"oddball", is indicative of an orienting, black-white way of
thinking. Charlie offers a solution, to question Les. The
group's focus of attention is no longer on themselves,
rather on extraneous factors. They become a mob.
Les: "You all know me, we've lived here for five years...We
aren't any different from you." Lady to Les: "If that's the
case, explain why-" Steve tries to interrupt. Charlie wants
to hear it. She's seen Les in the early morning hours
looking up at the sky, as if waiting for something. It's
simply a case of Les having insomnia and walking out on the
porch. One can see here the embodiment of Adorno's idea of
authoritarian aggression. The in-group is ready to move
against someone who does not fit their norm. This idea
recurs throughout the entire story.
Charlie's wife: "It just doesn't seem right, keeping watch
on them. Why, they're our neighbors. We've known them ever
since they came here. We've been good friends." Charlie:
"That don't prove a thing. Any guy who'd spend his time
looking up at the sky early in the morning, there's
something wrong with that kind of a person, something that
ain't legitimate. Under normal circumstances we'd let it go
by, but these aren't normal circumstances. Look at that
street: nothing but candles. It's like going back into the
dark ages."
Charlie, as the authoritarian leader, describes in a few
sentences Adorno's concepts of authoritarian submission and
aggression. Deviation from the norm cannot be accepted.
Other nuances are contained here, as well. The statement
about the dark ages makes a very ironic observation. It is
the sacrificing of multiple perspectives itself which has
thrown them into the dark ages. The finishing touch is the
ungrammatical way in which Charlie speaks, thus symbolically
demonstrating his ignorance.
Steve talks to Les and his wife. Les' wife: "Why this whole
thing is some kind of madness." Steve: "That's exactly what
it is, some kind of madness." Charlie to Steve: "You'd best
watch who you're seen with, Steve. Till we get this all
straightened out you ain't exactly above 'spicion yourself!"
Here we see a repitition of the concept of authoritarian
submission.
One neighbor: "What I want to know is what are we going to
do?" This key question shows the inherent pressure to do
something in a threat situation, a question apparently on
the minds of all the neighbors. Steve then questions
Charlie's authority: "There's something you can do Charlie.
You can go inside and keep your mouth shut!" Charlie: "You
seem pretty anxious to have that happen Steve. I guess we
ought to keep an eye on you, too." Another of the neighbors
follows Charlie: "I think everything might as well come out
now. Your wife's been doing a little talking, Steve, about
some of the odd things you've been doing." And so Steve
becomes a victim of the authoritarian aggression, as his
assembling a ham radio in his basement is made suspect.
Steve answers: "Let's get it all out. Let's pick out every
idiosyncrasy of every man, woman and child on this whole
street," and says later, "You're all standing out here all
set to crucify somebody. You're all set to find a
scapegoat. You're all desperate to point some kind of a
finger at a neighbor. Well, believe me friends, the only
thing that's going to happen is that we're going to eat each
other up alive!" This sums up quite eloquently what threat
can do. Through an adherence to arbitrary norms it brings
to life a destructive intolerance.
The neighbors seem to listen to Steve, but then someone
approaches. Charlie panics and grabs a gun. Steve tries to
stop him but Charlie shoots, killing one of the neighbors
who had gone to the next block to see if everything was
alright there. Charlie: "I was only trying to protect my
home." Then the orienting responses are out of control as
the electricity switches on and off selectively. Steve
tries to keep control to the end: "What's the matter with
you people, now stop!" as the neighbors run amok destroying
each other.
In the end we are shown two aliens on a hill overlooking the
street and learn what it's all about: "Understand the
procedure now? Just stop a few of their machines...throw
them into darkness for a few hours and then sit back and
watch the pattern... They pick the most dangerous enemy
they can find and it's themselves." Unfortunately, this
observation is all too accurate.
Conclusion
As shown by the example of "The Monsters are Due on Maple
Street" and by countless real situations, orienting ideas
and bad leaders will flourish during times of threat. Good
leaders and multiple perspectives have their best chance in
the absence of threat. This is the thinking of main
theories having to do with authoritarianism and the overview
describing multiple vs. orienting perspectives.
References
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., &
Stanford, R.N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New
York: Harper.
Feather, N.T. (1993). Authoritarianism and attitude toward
high achievers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 152-164.
Hersey, J. (1988). A mistake of terrifically horrible
proportions. in J. Armor & P. Wright (eds.), Manzanar.
London: Martin Secker & Warburg.
Jorgenson, D.O. (1975). Economic threat and
authoritarianism in television programs: 1950-1974.
Psychological Reports, 37, 1153-1154.
McCann, S.J., & Stewin, L.L. (1987). Threat,
authoritarianism, and the power of U.S. presidents.
Journal of Psychology, 121, 149-157.
Padgett, V., & Jorgenson, D.O. (1982). Superstition and
economic threat: Germany 1918-1940. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 8, 736-741.
Sales, S.M. (1973). Threats as a factor in
authoritarianism: An analysis of archival data. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 44-57.
Serling, R. (1960). The monsters are due on Maple street.
Stories from the Twilight Zone, New York: Bantam Books.
Wicklund, R.A. (in press). Physical/biological orienting
vs. multiple psychological perspectives.