24-08-17 Le nostre riflessioni

 

 

Se vuoi inviaci una breve nota contenente un insegnamento emerso dalla tua esperienza oppure un commento alle riflessioni che trovi in questo sito. Perché la nota sia pubblicata inviaci un tuo curriculum. Se vuoi pubblicare anche il tuo curriculum autorizzaci esplicitamente (clikkare qui per inviare note e commenti)

 

 

 

Argomenti

 

POLITICA : DESTRA vs SINISTRA

 

SOCIETA' - Lavoro Manuale

 

SOCIETA' - Leadership

 

SOCIETA' - Organizzare un Gruppo Dirigente

 

STORIA - Leadership e Fascismo

 

  • POLITICA : DESTRA vs SINISTRA. A me sembra che la questione sia semplice. E' di sinistra chi rispetta ogni persona importante o modesta, geniale o di ridotte capacità intellettive, splendida o ripugnante che sia.

Tutte le altre connotazioni  che vengono associate alla qualificazione di destra e o sinistra mi sembrano inadeguate. Esse infatti possono includere comportamenti contraddittori sia per effetto del modo non rispettoso con cui si perseguono fini anche lodevoli, sia a volte per la difficoltà di valutare se le stesse finalità della azione siano realmente rispettose della persona.

 

Quindi per sapere se si è di destra o sinistra basta domandarsi se si è sinceramente rispettosi del modo di essere degli altri. Molte persone di destra pensano di essere di sinistra  e viceversa. Un semplice test comportamentale può derimere ogni eventuale dubbio

 

Azione Classificazione
Fare attenzione al punto di vista altrui  
Offrire il proprio tempo per risolvere problemi di terzi  
Organizzare le risorse per servire al bisogno  
Unire le forze per difendersi dalla violenza  
   
Mentire per profittare  
Rubare ai poveri  
Ostentare  
   
   
   

Ritorna ad argomenti

 

 Credo che il lavoro tecnico e quello manuale favoriscano la amicizia per effetto del comune interesse a superare l'ostilità delle cose, mentre il lavoro burocratico tende a creare rivalità e rancori a causa del senso di possesso delle cose. Per vivere insieme felici dovremmo sempre cercare di costruire delle cose (C.Paretti)

Ritorna ad argomenti

 

Nessuno può comandare senza avere a fianco collaboratori, alleati, consiglieri, responsabili di settore insomma dirigenti di secondo livello e ciò avviene a tutti i livelli dai vertici politici alle grandi organizzazioni pubbliche, fino alle imprese piccole e grandi. La storia che si studia comunemente trascura o tratta superficialmente questi uomini e i criteri di scelta adottati dai leader  sarei lieto di ricevere storie, aneddoti e case history di ogni tipo di organizzazioni. Mi sembra un tema interessante per un sito che vorrebbe presentare dei dibattiti colti. Naturalmente vi chiedo di qualificarle citando le fonti ed inviando un vostro breve curriculum che se vorrete potrà essere reso pubblico.

Ritorna ad argomenti

 

  • SOCIETA' - Leadership

    Cercando l'esatto significato del termine leadership, ho potuto costatare i limiti di vikipedia dove emerge il senso più discutibile del termine, cioè che la leadership sia una caratteristica individuale, una sorta di qualità  personale in se positiva che distingue un uomo dagli altri. In pratica in giro nel web la leadership viene menzionata come una dote indicativa di superiorità di una personalità rispetto alle altre.

    Poiché non ho fatto una analisi sistematica considero la mia osservazione solo come una impressione, da Vikipedia comunque mi aspettavo qualcosa di più.

    Consultando la Britannica e la Treccani si ha una definizione più accurata dalla quale emerge che la leadership dipende dal combinato disposto delle caratteristiche delle persone che appartengono al gruppo e dalla natura delle circostanze in cui il groppo opera - come si evince osservando l'etimologia della seconda parte del termine (ship nel quale si evidenzia il ruolo del mare, delle tecnologie, delle abilità ecc)

    Sulla base della lunga esperienza e dei molti grandi uomini che ho avuto la fortuna di vedere da vicino, all'opera in diversi settori e condizioni, mi sento di dire che 1) la leadership è una caratteristica del gruppo in quanto ciascuno esercita la propria parte di leadership (aspetto evidente sopratutto nella prima parte della definizione presente in Vikipedia), e che, a parità di gruppo, 2)  le circostanze cambiano il valore della leadership, come emerge da un'infinità di "case history" di gruppi vincenti successivamente falliti perché la loro leadership non era consona ai nuovi processi da governare.

    Dunque la leadership indica in modo generico la capacità di un sistema di organizzare le sue risorse in modo ottimale per raggiungere un determinato obiettivo.

    Le diverse tipologie di leadership indicate in vikipedia non hanno di per se un valore positivo e non devono considerarsi come un obiettivo formativo, ma, secondo me, sono solo un descrizione sintetica di alcune tipologie di comportamento collettivo utili sopratutto ad evitare di utilizzarle nella maggior parte delle circostanze.

Per comodità del lettore esse sono qui di seguito riportate:

  1. Leadership come focus della dinamica di gruppo, il leader viene visto da alcuni autori come protagonista, punto di polarizzazione, centro focale di gruppo. La tendenza che si riscontra in queste prospettive di studio è di considerare il concetto di leadership strettamente legato a quello di struttura e dinamica di gruppo;
  2. leadership come personalità e suoi effetti: questa definizione fa parte della teoria dei tratti secondo la quale si devono ricercare le caratteristiche che rendono alcune persone più capaci di altre nell'esercitare la leadership. Gli studiosi ricercano una definizione che descriva più le caratteristiche che il leader deve possedere per essere tale, piuttosto che una spiegazione del termine leadership;
  3. leadership come l'arte di indurre il consenso. La leadership è definita come l'abilità di manipolare le persone così da ottenerne il meglio con i minimi contrasti e la massima cooperazione attraverso il contatto face-to-face tra leader e subordinati; viene quindi vista come un esercizio di influenza unidirezionale, il gruppo e i suoi membri vengono messi in secondo piano e considerati soggetti passivi;
  4. leadership come esercizio dell'influenza, l'utilizzo del concetto di influenza segna un passo decisivo nell'astrazione del concetto di leadership; gran parte degli studiosi che operarono negli anni cinquanta utilizzarono definizioni affini. Il concetto di influenza implica una relazione reciproca tra individui, non necessariamente caratterizzata da dominio, controllo o induzione del consenso da parte del leader;
  5. leadership come comportamento, questa definizione, caratteristica dell'Organizational Behavior, emerse nello stesso periodo della precedente; I ricercatori cercarono di spiegare quali fossero gli atti e i comportamenti caratteristici dell'esercizio della leadership, quelli propri di un individuo orientato alle attività di gruppo;
  6. leadership come forma di persuasione: è un tipo di definizione che cerca di rimuovere ogni implicazione alla coercizione, focalizzando invece l'attenzione alla relazione con i seguaci. Più recentemente la strategia persuasiva è stata indicata come una delle modalità di leadership;
  7. leadership come relazione di potere: per spiegare questo tipo di affermazione, gran parte degli studiosi che l'hanno adottata hanno utilizzato due soggetti di riferimento, A e B, simulando tra loro relazioni di potere; se A induce B ad attuare dei comportamenti per raggiungere un comune obiettivo, allora A ha esercitato leadership su B;
  8. leadership come strumento per raggiungere l'obiettivo: quest'idea è comune a molti studiosi che l'hanno inclusa nelle proprie definizioni, ma alcuni più di altri hanno centrato la loro sul raggiungimento dell'obiettivo; Questi studiosi considerano la leadership come forza principale per stimolare, motivare e coordinare coloro che si muovono per raggiungere un obiettivo comune;
  9. leadership come fattore emergente dell'interazione: ciò che differenzia questa affermazione dalle precedenti è il nesso di causalità; in questa si nota che la leadership viene considerata un effetto dell'azione del gruppo e non più un suo elemento formante. La sua importanza sta nell'aver messo in evidenza che la leadership emerge dal processo di interazione tra individui e non avrebbe ragione di esistere senza di esso;
  10. leadership come ruolo di differenziazione: fa parte della teoria dei ruoli secondo la quale ogni individuo interagendo con altre persone o con un gruppo gioca un ruolo, solitamente diverso, dagli altri individui. Diversi autori utilizzano definizioni che vedono nella leadership un attributo che differenzia i membri all'interno di un gruppo;
  11. Leadership come l'iniziazione di una struttura, con questa affermazione si vuole intendere che la funzione di leadership è indispensabile per l'avvio di una struttura e per il suo mantenimento

Ritorna ad argomenti

 

STORIA - Leadership e Fascismo

The leadership principle (Enciclopedia Britannica)

Fascists defended the Führerprinzip (“leadership principle”), the belief that the party and the state should have a single leader with absolute power. Hitler was the Führer and Mussolini the Duce, both words for the “leader” who gave the orders that everyone else had to obey. The authority of the leader was often enhanced by his personal charisma.

The leadership principle was also conceived to apply at lower levels of the political and social hierarchy. Fascist organizations sometimes exhibited the so-called “corporal syndrome,” in which persons willingly submit to the authority of those above them in exchange for the gratification they derive from dominating those below. Japanese fascists believed that owners of stores and workshops should exercise “paternal” authority over their assistants, clerks, workers, servants, and tenants. Subordinates were not permitted to organize themselves into unions, and the small bosses assumed the leadership of town and village councils. As historian Masao Maruyama notes, this mind-set affected the way many Japanese shop masters viewed their nation’s foreign policy in the 1930s: “The resistance of the East Asian peoples to Japanese imperialism aroused the same psychological reactions among them as the resistance of their subordinates in the shops, workplaces, and other groups under their control. Thus they became the most ardent supporters of the China Incident [the Mukden Incident (1931), in which Japanese troops seized the Manchurian city of Mukden] and the Pacific War.”

The “new man”

Fascists aimed to transform the ordinary man into the “new man,” a “virile” being who would put decadent bourgeoisie, cerebral Marxists, and “feminine” liberals to shame. The new man would be physically strong and morally “hard,” admiring what was forceful and vigorous and despising everything “weak” and “soft.” As Hitler described him, the new man was “slim and slender, quick like a greyhound, tough like leather, and hard like Krupp steel.” The new man was a man of the past as well as the future. Italian fascists held up the soldiers of ancient Rome as models, and Bertrand de Jouvenel praised the “brutal barons” of the Middle Ages and the original conquerors of Europe, the Franks. “Fascist man,” he wrote, was “a throwback to the warrior and propertyholder of yesteryear, to the type of man who was the head of a family and a clan: When this type of man ceases to win esteem and disappears, then the process of decadence begins.”

Drieu La Rochelle believed Hitlerian man to be superior to Democratic man, Marxist man, and Liberal man. “The Hitlerian,” he wrote, “is a type who rejects culture, who stands firm in the middle of sexual and alcoholic depravity and who dreams of bringing to the world a physical discipline with radical effects.” The new man was also a Darwinian “realist” who was contemptuous of “delicate” souls who refused to employ harsh military or political measures when they were required.

During World War II, in a speech to an SS unit that had executed many Jews, SS chief Heinrich Himmlerreminded his “new men” that they needed to be emotionally as well as physically hard: “Most of you know what it means when 100 corpses are piled up, when 500 or 1,000 are piled there. To have gone through this and—with exceptions due to weakness—to have remained decent, that is what has made us hard. I have to expect of you superhuman acts of inhumanity.…We have no right to be weak.…[Our men] must never be soft. They must grit their teeth and do their duty.”

Glorification of youth

Fascists praised the young for their physical strength and honoured them for their idealism and spirit of self-sacrifice—qualities, they said, that were often lacking in their elders. Fascists often presented their cause in generational terms. As the young Goebbels declared, “The old ones don’t even want to understand that we young people even exist. They defend their power to the last. But one day they will be defeated after all. Youth finally must be victorious.” De Jouvenel described fascism as a “revolution of the body” that reflected youth’s hunger for discipline, effort, combat, and courage. The young, who loved “strong and slender bodies, vigorous and sure movements, [and] short sentences,” consequently detested middle-aged, pot-bellied liberals and café verbosity.

Partly because they made concerted appeals to young people, fascist parties tended to have younger members than most other rightist parties. The leadership of the Nazi Party, for example, was relatively young, and junior officers in the German army often went over to fascism sooner than senior officers.Corneliu Codreanu, leader of the Iron Guard in Romania, was only 31 when he founded the movement in 1930, and his major lieutenants were in their 20s. Similarly, Primo de Rivera was only 30 when he founded the Falange, and in 1936, 60 to 70 percent of his followers were under 21.

Education as character building

Fascist educators emphasized character building over intellectual growth, devalued the transmission of information, inculcated blind obedience to authority, and discouraged critical and independent thinking that challenged fascist ideology. According to Nazi writer Herman Klaus, the teacher “is not just an instructor and transmitter of knowledge.…He is a soldier, serving on the cultural and political front ofNational Socialism. For intellectuals belong to the people or they are nothing.” The ultimate aim of Nazi education was not to make students think more richly but to make them war more vigorously. As the Nazi minister of culture in Prussia wrote, “The National Socialist revolution has replaced the image of the cultivated personality with the reality of the true German man. It has substituted for the humanistic conception of culture a system of education which develops out of the fellowship of actual battle.” Teachers who did not practice these principles or who appeared skeptical of Nazi “idealism” were subject to dismissal, often as a result of reports by student informers.

Decadence and spirituality

Some of the ugliest aspects of fascism—intolerance, repression, and violence—were fueled by what fascists saw as a morally justified struggle against “decadence.” For fascists, decadence meant a number of things: materialism, self-indulgence, hedonism, cowardice, and physical and moral softness. It was also associated with rationalism, skepticism, atheism, humanitarianism, and political, economic, and gender democracy, as well as rule by the Darwinian unfit, by the weak and the “female.” For anti-Semitic fascists, Jews were the most decadent of all.

The opposite of decadence was “spirituality,” which transcended materialism and generated self-discipline and virility. The spiritual attitude involved a certain emotional asceticism that enabled one to avoid feelings of pity for one’s victims. It also involved Darwinian notions of survival of the fittest, a belief in the right of natural elites to upward social and political mobility, and accommodation with members of the upper classes. It prized hierarchy, respect for superiors, and military obedience. It was forceful toward the weak, and it was “male.” The spiritual attitude was also hateful. In 1934 Ernst Röhm, leader of the SA, worried that Germans had “forgotten how to hate.” “Virile hate,” he wrote, “has been replaced by feminine lamentation. But he who is unable to hate cannot love either. Fanatical love and hate—their fires kindle flames of freedom.” De Jouvenel agreed: “Any sentiment less vigorous than hatred indicates a lack of virility.

Violence

Fascists reacted to their opponents with physical force. Primo de Rivera maintained that “no other argument is admissible than that of fists and pistols when justice or the Fatherland is attacked.” Before he came to power, Mussolini sent his Blackshirts to assault socialist organizers throughout Italy, and later he sent many leftists to prison. Hitler’s storm troopers served a similar function, and Nazi concentration camps at first interned more Marxists than Jews. Nor were dissident conservatives spared Nazi violence. Hitler’s infamous “Blood Purge” of June 1934, in which Röhm and other SA leaders were summarily executed, also claimed the lives of Kurt von Schleicher, the last chancellor of the Weimar Republic, and his wife, who were murdered in their home. To his critics Hitler replied, “People accuse us of being barbarians; we are barbarians, and we are proud of it!” In Romania, Codreanu’s “death teams” engaged in brutal strikebreaking, and, in France, Drieu La Rochelle glorified military and political violence as healthy antidotes to decadence. Beginning in 1931 Japanese fascists assassinated a number of important political figures, but in 1936, after a government crackdown, they renounced such tactics. In the United States in the 1920s and ’30s, the Ku Klux Klan and other groups sought to intimidate African Americans with cross burnings, beatings, and lynchings.

 

Extreme nationalism

Whereas cosmopolitan conservatives often supported international cooperation and admired elite culture in other countries, fascists espoused extreme nationalism and cultural parochialism. Fascist ideologues taught that national identity was the foundation of individual identity and should not be corrupted by foreign influences, especially if they were left-wing. Nazism condemned Marxist and liberal internationalisms as threats to German national unity. Fascists in general wanted to replace internationalist class solidarity with nationalist class collaboration. The Italian, French, and Spanish notion of integral nationalism was hostile to individualism and political pluralism. Unlike democratic conservatives, fascists accused their political opponents of being less “patriotic” than they, sometimes even labeling them “traitors.” Portuguese fascists spoke of “internal foreigners” who were “antination.” In the 1930s some French fascist organizations even rejected the label “fascist,” lest they be perceived as beholden to Germany.

In France, immigrants—particularly left-wing immigrants—were special targets of fascist nationalism.Jean Renaud of French Solidarity demanded that all foreigners seeking residence in France be rigorously screened and that the unfit be denied entry “without pity”—especially social revolutionaries, who made France “not a refuge for the oppressed but a depository for trash.” In 1935 La Rocque blamed Hitler for driving German refugees into France and condemned the “foolish sentimentality” that prompted the government to accept them. He also criticized France’s naturalization policies for allowing cities like Marseille and Paris to be inundated by a rising tide of “undesirables.” France, he declared, had become the shepherd of “a swarming, virulent mob of outlaws,” some of whom, under the pretext of fleeing Nazi persecution, were really infiltrating France as spies.

Scapegoating

Fascists often blamed their countries’ problems on scapegoats. Jews, Freemasons, Marxists, and immigrants were prominent among the groups that were demonized. According to fascist propaganda, the long depression of the 1930s resulted less from insufficient government regulation of the economy or inadequate lower-class purchasing power than from “Judeo-Masonic-bolshevik” conspiracies, left-wing agitation, and the presence of immigrants. The implication was that depriving these demons of their power and influence would cause the nation’s major problems to go away.

Populism

Fascists praised the Volk and pandered to populist anti-intellectualism. Nazi art criticism, for example, upheld the populist view that the common man was the best judge of art and that art that did not appeal to popular taste was decadent. Also populist was the Nazi propaganda theme that Hitler was a “new man” who had “emerged from the depth of the people.” Unlike left-wing populism, fascist populism did not attribute workers’ hardships to big business and big landowners and did not advocate measures such as progressive taxation, higher pay for industrial and farm workers, protection of unions, and the right to strike. In general it spared the wealth of the upper classes—except that belonging to Jews.

Revolutionary image

Fascists sometimes portrayed their movements as “new” and “revolutionary,” an image that appealed not just to the young but to older literary modernists such as Filippo Marinetti, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound,Wyndham Lewis, William Butler Yeats, D.H. Lawrence, and Paul de Man. However, dozens of fascist writers also praised cultural traditionalism, or “rootedness.” Under the Third Reich, Goebbels subsidized an exhibition of modern art not to celebrate its glory but to expose its decadence; he called it simply the “Exhibition of Degenerate Art.” Fascism’s claims to newness did not prevent its propagandists from pandering to fearful traditionalists who associated cultural modernism with secular humanism,feminism, sexual license, and the destruction of the Christian family.

Antiurbanism

Fascists also pandered to antiurban feelings. The Nazis won most of their electoral support from rural areas and small towns. In Nazi propaganda the ideal German was not an urban intellectual but a simple peasant, and uprooted intellectualism was considered a threat to the deep, irrational sources of the Volk soul. Jews were often portrayed—and therefore condemned—as quintessential city dwellers. In 1941 La Rocque commented: “The theory of ‘families of good stock who have their roots in the earth’ leads us to conclusions not far from [those of] Walter Darre, Minister of Agriculture for the Reich.” Romanian fascism relied heavily on the support of landed peasants who distrusted the “wicked” city. The agrarian wing of Japanese fascism praised the peasant soldier and denigrated the industrial worker.

Ritorna ad argomenti

 

 

  • ........
  • ........
  • .....

Ultimo aggiornamento: 24-08-17