What is a Leader?

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

What is a Leader?

Introduction: Framing the Question

You cannot define anything without words. Just so, you must use a pre-existing object to relate a new object relative to it to "define" the new object in an a priori context; one must use examples, parables, metaphors and similes to introduce a "new" idea by listing its ingredients and giving their audience familiarity to the idea's origins in their initially discovered environment. The best example of this method of which I, personally, have become aware is the writing style of the "Bahir," a source-text of Hebrew QBLH from the first century AD, some 2000 years ago, in which the phrase is often repeated, "What is this like?" In that context, the question is asked of some example from scripture and then the next of a circle of Rabbin answers by comparing the verse to some other such example from the same data set (in that case, the Torah). This method provides logical "interior consistency" to a data-set by making all aspects of it "self-referential" to one another. It does NOT, however, prove the data-set "true." A data-set may express perfect "internal consistency" and be entirely "self-referential," flawlessly accurate in continuity, etc. and yet still be entirely a fiction. As ascribed to Hitler, the quote "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it" segues us smoothly into the topic of what constitutes a "Leader" in human society. However, as I am attempting to introduce prior to consideration of this topic, even a "Leader" who is defined as "good" by fitting all the "best" examples of such from the data-set of human society MAY yet be objectively seen as "evil" by those to whom this data-set is inapplicable as an accepted belief.

Part 1: Standard Definition of Leadership (Argument from Examples in Human Society)

A Leader is, by definition, followed. If no one follows an individual, that individual cannot be considered a "Leader." It remains possible to become a leader posthumously, and to live one's entire life without being considered one, however. There are cases of mountain hermits whose works, following their deaths, were discovered and became "Leaders." These instances are few compared to the alternative case, in which one is a popular "Leader" while alive, and the cases of individuals being living "Leaders" is likewise rarer than the opposite case, in which an individual lives their entire lives without being considered a "Leader" at all. Thus, we define the "Leader" role as applying to fewer individuals than not, and in this manner begin to graph the geometric relationship between the few individuals who have become "Leaders" in human society as apart from the rest who do not.

A Leader is, thus, alike the pinnacle of a triangle whose opposite base-leg is defined by the sum total of all those who willingly "follow" that individual. Related symbols of such from human history's lexicon thereof include the burial mound, the ziggurat, the pyramid, the missing pyramid capstone or archway keystone, as well as the "eye of providence" above the pyramid with a missing capstone, as appears today on the US "Great Seal" on the reverse side of our paper money. The comparable form of this symbol from geometry occurring in physics is the creation of "wake" or waves behind an object as it moves through a fluid or gaseous medium. The so-called "Doppler" shift to sound-waves, causing them to compress as their emitter approaches and expand as it retreats, applies as well to the light emitted from distant galaxies, causing a "blue-shift" as they approach and a "red-shift" as they retreat.

A Leader must thus, in order to attract followers to themselves individually, be of an "attractive" nature toward the "common man" or toward the average human in society as they are defined as more commonly "followers" than as "leaders." Affiliated adjectives applicable to leaders who have mastered the "law of attraction" include: "magnanimous," "charismatic," "cunning," "sly," "private" and "reserved." Traits applicable to "wise leaders" who are aware of this necessity for their remaining popular in this role include being "quick to assist comrades, yet slow and deliberate in consequential judgements," as well as being aware that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

However, it should be noted again that these traits arise following a "Leader" and apply to them only from the point of view of those, thus, who willingly follow them. Just as "wake" follows a boat that is cutting across the surface of water, but remains inconsequential to plotting the course of the boat's rudder, these traits applicable to "leaders" are assigned to them by those who "follow" them, and are NOT necessarily applicable to themselves from the point of view of human society's "Leaders" themselves. Just as a pyramid is built from the base up, and not from the top down, it follows that to be a "Leader" requires not only facing one's own fears by scaling "mount doom" and architecting one's own "castle perilous" atop it, but requires that those who "follow" one must fall and die in order that their bones become the ladder that "Leader" may thus ascend. Just as the popular saying goes presently, "do what you love and the money will follow," so it is implied that to succeed in human society and to become a "leader" among humanity, one must focus only on their own personal goals, and trust the safe assumption that the "common man," alike cannon fodder in warfare, will simply remain of surplus supply to allow one the means to achieve any imaginable ends.

Thus, it is this "inner struggle" (sometimes called the "white man's burden," and called by Hitler "Mein Kampf") that causes the "wise leader" their reserve in consequential judgment. It is what sets apart a "Leader" from their followers, and makes one individual a "great man" from the perspective of subsequent history and makes many others "lesser men" by comparison. Contemplation of the fact of human mortality is, in the context of human society, ascribed ONLY to "leaders" who, on occasion and in order to do so, retreat from their role into solitude in order to "face death" and to contemplate the nature of their own inevitable futility against its doom; a futility which is then, by such "philosopher kings," argued as generally applicable to the remainder of their followers, to all human society in general, to all humanity, as well as to all living beings universally. It is reasoned, thus, though never admitted in civil society, that the more deaths one is responsible for causing, the more their soul is burdened with this "inner struggle" and the responsibility to generate a "raison d'etre" or "reason for being" as a justification, ex post facto, to give meaning for the deaths they cause, and which inevitably occur to all living beings regardless of their role relative to any given "leaders" as such.

The real responsibility of "leaders" in human society is thus not only to invent laws for others to follow, but to generate new ideas for why people MUST follow, as explanations for the nature of mortal life. As it has been said, "the only constants in life are death and taxes," so too must any new "Leader" seek to add to this, not any new requisites - for such would be rejected as callous by the "commoners" or "ein volk" - but new explanations for the same old requirements; new causes to follow toward the same inescapable goal, Death itself, and that "self-defeat" so allegedly craved by those who "follow" and whose names history so quickly forgets.

Part 2: the Hypocrisy of All Leaders relative their Popularly Assumed Responsibilities

Because to accomplish the ultimate goal of all "leaders" and provide a final "meaning of life" as the conclusive and unchanging "Truth" for all life would resolve the requirement by human society for any "leaders" as such, and would thus result not only in that "leader's" own sacrifice by other "leaders" (as is the case with all of the "Prophets," including Jesus, of the original monotheist concept in western civilization), but would have resulted in the conclusion of requirement in humanity and human society for people to fall into the roles of either "leader" or "follower," for any "leader" in human society to have accomplished or to be able to accomplish this goal is patently impossible, by definition. Thus, it is ultimately the futility and inescapability of these social roles that is the highest philosophical topic any "leader" may address in the form of their guilt for having caused so many murders to occur as they all have, and not the true nature of "life and death" as their followers may freely continue to assume.

Human society requires the roles of "leaders" and "followers" to occur, however humanity itself does not, and "life" in general - expressed as any and all individual living beings - certainly does not. However, humanity is addicted to its society and can no more be hoped to part from it than one may hope a drone insect may evolve to become free from control by the queen of its hive. Human society preys on luring humanity into such "lowest common denominators" of behavior as these drone-like social roles, and presents itself quite nakedly as the "lesser of two, equally necessary, evils," the alternative being called by it "anarchy," "chaos" "wild nature," "sin" and the "id."

Thus, once an individual human has been thrust into the role of "leadership" from a historical point of view, they cease being the individual human they, themselves, may wish to be, and become, at least partially, a "public persona" responsible to the "people" who serve them for providing them an excuse for doing so as a "reason for existence." This fatal choice, expressed by Julius Caesar in the phrase "alea iacta est" upon his crossing of the Rubicon and bringing his legions of troops into Rome, is, itself, the form of suicide that is, by ALL "leaders," then projected onto the "masses" as their reason for living and for their inescapable servitude.

Because humans in society are required, by the laws of human society, to follow leaders or else to become leaders themselves (as the saying "lead, follow or get out of the way" seems prevalent at all times), it is entirely irrelevant what the "followers" expectations of their "leaders" are. If a slave expects their master not to abuse them, and thinks they may earn this treatment by the servile placations demanded anyway by their social station, they are mistaken in so doing; a "Master" is free to abuse their "Slave" regardless of that slave's expectations, and likewise, no "Leader" has EVER, nor can EVER, live up to the standards, shared by ALL followers for their leaders, that would alleviate the need in humanity for following any other "leaders" than they, themselves, alone.

Part 3: the Contradictory and Oxymoronic Archetype of a "Morally Good Leader"

It is a frequent assumption as an additional trait of "philosopher kings" and "wise tyrants" that they, during their times of private seclusion and personal introspection, contemplate the nature of what constitutes a "good leader." This assumption is, of course, equally arbitrary and as usually false as any other expectation impotent followers may shoulder their empowered leaders with, and as easily, by any and all leaders, ignored. Nevertheless, on rare occasions throughout history, the idea has been given some thought, and the following general conclusions have been reached.

A "morally good leader" would be one, regardless of such conditions having never been met by anyone, and probably being impossible in reality, that fulfills the expectations of their followers: one who "serves the servants," and who enacts only popular legislations brought to them by the majority. As mentioned, to accomplish this to its utmost extent is impossible, as it would liberate humanity from their social addiction to playing the roles of leaders and followers entirely. The role of the "good leader" is, thus, associated with the concept of "liberator" and "emancipator," even though this merely underscores the hypocritical nature of these socially archetypal roles. As it is impossible for a "leader" to set their "followers" free of being followers without losing their followers' respect for themselves as a "leader," the association of a "leader" with the role of "liberator" is false and futile. If a "leader" becomes a "liberator," in truth, they must also cease being a "leader" themselves.

The most commonly attributed trait by followers of what constitutes a "morally good leader" is the individual's recalcitrance to accept and adopt the social role of leadership upon and for themselves. If an individual does not wish nor want to be a "leader," and attempts to reject the role yet cannot overcome their own attractive "magnetism" and "chemistry" toward others, they are usually seen as a "good leader" by their followers. If an individual seeks to affiliate themselves with "followers" in general, and does not crave to lead them, they are generally seen as more a "good leader" than not. This reveals the underlying moral hypocrisy behind admiration of "leadership" in human society.

If the "reluctant warrior" is "better" or closer to being a "morally good leader," and if a "leader" loathes their role as such and, for doing so, is considered "closer to the people," then the role of "leader" IS, whether in society deemed "necessary" as such or not, a moral "Evil" in such a way that it CANNOT be rectified to moral "Goodness" by ANY individual whom fate would thrust into such a role as to attempt to do so. Thus, there IS NO SUCH THING as a "morally good leader," NOR CAN THERE EVER BE ONE. If being a "follower" is deemed a moral "good," then being a "leader" is, by default, an immoral "evil." If to be a "common man" and a "good citizen" means to be "innocent," and the requisite of being a "leader" is to murder and to contemplate one's guilt for their rise to power, then there cannot be any such thing as an individual who bridges this gap or whom embodies and ennobles both these social roles. You MAY be both a "leader" among your contemporaries, AND a "follower" of both elder and current scholars, but you MAY not be a "liberator" of your own followers AND a "leader" at the same time. Thus, being either a "leader" AND / OR a "follower" is not as wise, as moral, nor as "good" as being neither. The "morally best" option relevant to "human society" is for any individual to "opt out" of it.

Conclusion: What is a Leader?

If those closest to being "morally good leaders" are leaders only by accident, and who "lead by example" alone, they share this trait in common with the rest of all leaders who are, at best, morally ambivalent and historically obsessed: they do not look back. All leaders, thus, both those seen as "morally good" by their followers AND those seen as "immoral and evil" by history's memory of them, keep dear to their bosoms the parable of "Lot's Wife" who, while fleeing from Sodom, looked back over her shoulder in regret and was, in consequence, transformed by her own God, whom was destroying Sodom for its sinful ways, into a pillar of salt.

In modern human society, all citizens are "leaders" to some degree or another, and all citizens are "followers" to some greater or lesser degree in relation to their situational social roles as well. Neither those who "lead" nor those who "follow" may ever be totally free of one another, and so human society is comprised, more or less exclusively, of this polar opposite, binary, twinned pair of social roles.

What ALL citizens of human society have in common, whether leaders or followers the majority of their life-times, is their inability to, during their few times of personal introspection, confront universal mortality and conclusively solve the riddle of "the meaning of life." While such a task MAY fall, instead, to those "prophets" who hermitage in mountain caves, it is unlikely their works can inspire a society hell-bent and bound on the destruction of all possible "liberators" to accept itself as being a detriment to human evolution, to life in general, and, at best, an impediment to achieving true knowledge of the "meaning of life." If, as these "hermits" and "prophets" protest, human society itself is evil, then there may be NO salvation of any of its citizens from their ultimate responsibility for the murders and the futility of its laws celebrated as resulting from or, more usually, blamed only on its "leaders." In other words, ALL those who enjoy the spoils of war are equally as guilty as their "leaders" who ordered the war be commenced for the pointless killings committed in warfare. War is immoral and, as one of human society's typical leaders once said, although such a belief may be attributed as shared by them all, "war is the health of the state." If war is, as it truthfully is, "evil," "immoral" and "wrong," then the "State" and human society that depend upon it are equally to blame for its crimes against humanity.

The ONLY difference between an individual citizen in human society whom history remembers as a "leader" (whether "good" or "evil") and one whom history forgets as merely one of a multitude of "followers" is this: the "leader" is both aware and in favor of the "necessary evils" of human society. However, it is upon the heads of ALL individual citizens in human society, whether "leaders" or "followers," that blame for profiting from the war-crimes usually blamed only on "leaders" rightly falls. Whether you are a "follower" and benefit in silence, or a "leader" and benefit popularly, proudly and publicly, ALL humans in modern society are war criminals, sinners and guilty for the murders and atrocities committed in their collective name, under the banner of "human society" or "civilization" as a whole. In the same way that "war" is immoral, and yet a necessity of "leadership" in human society, human society as a whole, for rewarding "leaders" and punishing "followers," is "evil" as a whole. There are zero exceptions to this rule within the data-set of human society.