Welcome to the class blog! The John Jay - Vera Fellows Program is a collaborative effort between John Jay College and the spin-off agencies of the Vera Institute of Justice, combining an internship and participation in a seminar taught by faculty from John Jay's Interdisciplinary Studies Program. (To see a video about the John Jay - Vera Fellows Program, click here.) Part of the seminar experience is weekly participation in the class blog, which keeps the conversation going from week to week and will be a place for you to share your thoughts and concerns about the materials discussed in seminar as well as the internship experience. The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the Vera Institute of Justice or its spin-off organizations. While the blog is open to the public and anyone, theoretically, can comment, only class members and invited guests will be able to post. You can also look for us on our student and alumni page on Facebook.
Each student has been assigned one week to write the "post." Please post within 24 hours after class. Every week, each student must comment on the post (feel free to comment more than once). Please comment by Monday afternoon to allow time for further questions and responses and so that we can read all the entries before class.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Hello Everyone,

During this week's seminar, we touched base on leadership through a simple but thought-provoking exercise. I personally felt the exercise highlighted the roles individuals assume in society. For instance, I quickly associated the leadership roles with individuals who push toward change and making an impact to one community or another. By making the effort and taking the first steps, the leaders accumulate followers and move towards achieving the proposed change. Of course, this is an ideal sort of relationship between the two because there are instances where it is simply not that easy. Most importantly, during our conversation, Simmone said something that really stood out to me. She stated, "Sometimes being a good leader is knowing when to follow". I agree with her statement because as it was evident in our exercise, assigned roles can potentially hinder and take away from the natural rhythmic relationships societies possess.

On another note, while reading the testimonies of "In a Grove," I could not help but associate the scenario with our criminal justice system. I envisioned the actors of the system and the hardships they encounter when trying to solve cases. How are we supposed to know who is telling the truth, for instance, in a criminal case? Who are we supposed to believe and why? What should our outcomes be based upon, evidence, mere testimony, etc.? As any lawyer would say, "It is not what you know, but what you can prove". But is that the way in which we should base our decision? How does subjectivity and objectivity come into play?

One last thing, while reading the testimonies, I could not help but re-read paragraph two of page seven which stated, "You kill people with your power, with your money. Sometimes you kill them on the pretext of working for their good. It's true they don't bleed. They are the best of health, but all the same you've killed them. It's hard to say who is a great sinner, you or me". (-Tajomaru's Confession) It was such a powerful statement and always goes back to the same question, what are the motives of those who push for social justice?

I look forward to reading your comments.

-Ana
Posted by at

15 comments:

Unknown said...

Ana,

thank you very much for your post. I also enjoyed our conversation about leadership and I am happy you continued the conversation online.

Spencer brought up the point that if the leader is strong enough, people will follow. I must disagree. I can not think of one leader in history that created change that a mass of people did not already want but only did not have the courage to attempt to attain (I invite anyone who can think of one to do so). The courage for the final push is where leaders are separated from followers, but there must be a group already unhappy with the status quo for a leader to emerge. In other words, leaders are not precursors for social change,but are the final step to achieving it. In fact, most leaders are born and bred in the environment that yearns for the change, adding to their enthusiasm and vigor for it. Leaders emerge to channel and focus the groups energy in a way that organizes the entire group into a single unified movement. I simply can not see how a leader, no matter how charismatic, can rally a desire for change when no one wants the change. Who would follow?

September 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM
Spencer said...

First, I want to say that Ana brought out some really good points when comparing the reading to the current sentiment in the criminal justice system as to what "you can prove happened" rather than finding out what actually did happened in solving this murder mystery. But before I delve into the reading, I will respond to what seems to be the start of a good debate me and Anthony will being having about leadership until one of us can convince the other to change their perspective. Let the debate begin!

My view on leadership is that a good leader, no matter the circumstances of the time, can gain support for his or her own agenda. Leaders are like salesman in their ability to feed off of the desires and insecurities of people to convince them that a change needs to be made. The same way advertisements can make you feel inefficient or unhappy without a product that you know you do not need is the same idea behind leadership persuasion. Another example is of politicians who convince us of problems that do not necessarily exist (Pres. Bush and the weapons of mass destruction) that they say they will supposedly solve while they are in office. But with that said, I will let others respond with their two cents....

September 15, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Alisse Waterston said...

There's so much food for thought in Ana's post that we can have at least 3 conversations/discussions. For now, I've got a response for Anthony and then some questions for everyone. My response and questions are also related to and lead directly from Spencer's post.

Response to Anthony's invitation to name a leader in history that created change that a mass of people did not already want but did not have the courage to attempt to attain: Hitler.

Questions: How does propaganda fit into "leadership" agendas and strategies? What is the role of what Marx called "false consciousness"? What does it mean when someone says "the people" as Anthony notes? Who are these "people"? Are they all of one mind? If we make broad, generalized statements about "leaders in history" what are we forgetting? leaving out? ignoring?

September 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Unknown said...

Ana, thank you for your post.

I guess that there is no way us to really identify the motives that drive people who do social justice work. Judging from your tone, though, it appears that you have misgivings about the sincerity of some actors who push for social justice. So I would like to ask: even if the actors in social justice work have some ulterior motives, does this mean that we should discredit their work? Do social justice leaders with genuine motives achieve better outcomes than their insincere counterparts? If so, why?

In response to Anthony and Spencer, on the issue of leadership, I strongly believe that the credibility of a leader to his followers is determined by the authenticity of his or her mission. More often than not, as Anthony posits, such a mission is defined by the de-facto followers, who are all but waiting for the emergence of a leader who shares that common mission. Certainly, the Germans found this embodiment of an authentic mission bearer in Hitler, and accordingly, assisted him in perpetuating his agenda. However, I must also add that simply fulfilling the criteria of authentic mission does not guarantee that every leader’s agenda is just.

In a quick Internet search on false consciousness, I found the following clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvtNflDXYQw which seems to provide commentaries on this idea of false consciousness, which Professor Waterston introduced to the on-going discussion. I am sure that our Professors can offer more insight on this concept that is relevant to the current discussion.

Looking forward to reading all your posts.

September 15, 2013 at 7:00 PM
Apollonia said...

(1/2)First of all, thank you Ana for starting off this thread and continuing on the discussions we had in class!

I would like to jump in and talk a bit about leadership, as this seems to elicit different ideas and responses from our colleagues. Along with Spencer, I, too, believe that regardless of the situation, a leader will always emerge to fulfill their agenda. We should also be mindful that depending on the circumstances and the situation that a society might be in, the kind of leader that will emerge will always change. For example, if there weren't an underlying sentiment of distrust coupled with a fractured German society, Hitler wouldn't have been able to emerge as the leader he was. He was able to (as James mentions) convince the public to assist him in his own agenda by warping the tensions of German society to fit his vendetta against those identifying with being Jewish. This process occurs frequently by leaders who are charismatic and able to pass their own agendas by convincing the public of it's importance to the greater good of the whole.

I could go on and on about the importance of acknowledging this, because being self-aware and analytical of every situation that is placed before you by government and various leaders allows us to break down systems that do not work in our favor and instead work in the interests of the leaders at hand. When we aren't aware, we fall into the traps of the "false consciousness" that Professor Waterston brings up.

(My post was too long and had to be divided into two posts! Sorry!)

September 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Apollonia said...

(2/2)This is especially true when speaking of (yes, I'm going to bring it up again) patriarchy and our rape culture. In the testimonies as told in "In A Grove," we have to be aware of the factors that play into the narrations of the incident that occurred in the grove. Factors such as patriarchy, gender roles, and the culture of sex within the Japanese society in the 1920's.

A quick Internet search led me to this website (http://www2.gol.com/users/friedman/writings/p1.html) that has a little bit written about Japan's history and a segment on women in the 1920's. The leaders of Japan in 1920 prescribed women to be subservient to men, and act essentially as the property of men, and this explains my persistence in that the woman in the story was raped. A woman's "virtue" (and, let's be honest, entire being) was solely placed on the "value" of her vagina. A woman was considered to only be good for housekeeping and procreation-- so when the robber raped (yes!) the woman, it was only natural (of course, I am not the woman, so I am only assuming) for her to want the husband or the robber killed (and this request happens in all three accounts of what happened).

This is from the website: Women did not have the vote, (universal suffrage for men came in 1924) and they still suffered from the vestiges of Samurai culture which kept them subservient to their husbands. They could not divorce their husbands, while they were subject to easy divorce by their husbands. The Mainichi, a Japanese newspaper, commented on the position of Japanese women during the 1920's: "...Japan maltreats and insults her women to a graver extent than any other country on the globe."

This is why I've rejected the idea that was being thrown around in class that perhaps she just wanted to leave her husband, or that she quite possibly was having an affair with the robber, because it is what the leaders in 1920's Japan would have wanted you to believe (and I'm sure their assumptions of her "intentions" would have been much more extreme). This is how rape culture works. There is a set role people have to play in order to fulfill the larger agenda that is advertised to be beneficial for the "greater good", but this agenda, no matter how it's fed to society, can be detrimental to some.

So while in a time of chaos, there are leaders that rise to the occasion to "save" society, if the members they are supposed to serve-- the "followers"-- don't question the leadership at every turn, we begin to perpetuate the dangers of unchecked power.

Looking forward to reading more posts!

September 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Simonne Isaac said...

Hi all,
Class discussion was exhilarating. I totally agree with Apollonia's comment in the last paragraph "So while in a time of chaos, there are leaders that rise to the occasion to "save" society, if the members they are supposed to serve-- the "followers"-- don't question the leadership at every turn, we begin to perpetuate the dangers of unchecked power." That is why leadership is so crucial. I think one of the marks of being a good/great leader is being constantly aware of that human flaw and thus do self-analysis and self-evaluation to reduce to chance of becoming a "monster" and thus negating all the good intentions and work (that probably was once noble).
To comment on the motives of the leader: It is true that there are times that leaders seek to establish agencies to serve/meet a social need or sometimes to add to his/her resume. I've encountered people that have caused me to wonder if their motives were the latter and I've also encountered people whom I'm convinced really want to meet a social need. I've finally concluded that since no one can truly know what's in someone's heart, I'll stop worrying too much about it since whatever the driving force, sometimes the end MIGHT justify the means. I say this because if the motive is make oneself look good in the eyes of man, then great efforts will be taken to promote that agenda and the recipients will benefit anyway. And if the motives are pure i.e. there is a genuine desire to help, then great efforts will go toward that goal and the end result will be the same, the services for those in need will be met. Of course it does not always work like that but often times it does. I think the most important thing is to provide the necessary services that will help to empower those that need the services.I say this conflictingly because as discussed in class, sometimes we may think that we are easing one problem but we sometimes create another and sometimes we try to address what we may think is the problem, when that might not really be the core issue.
I can go on and on because I have many thoughts but I'll stop there for now. The comments made are very thought provoking. I've realized that we can go on and on and examine issues from many angles and we can confuse ourselves. Since no one know what others truly feel, we can go on the evidence, history or any other criteria can be used to determine truth but there is one core element that we should never forget to implement...that is instinct, some call it a gut feeling, some say a sixth sense, some say the Holy Ghost, some say a Superior force, whatever the terminology we feel comfortable using, the bottom line is that it seldom leads us wrong. We should incorporate it in our assessment and decision making process.

September 16, 2013 at 6:26 AM
Professor Reitz said...

Thanks to Ana for getting us started and a full "right on, sister!" to Apollonia for such a good example ("rape culture") of how individuals, groups, governments and leaders, all working in their various domains, can enable destructive narratives, can make the unthinkable thinkable (and therefore actionable). I also appreciate the historical perspective here. Apollonia gives us the context of the time of the writing of the story (1920s), which sounds like it was a time where women's roles were being examined (as opposed to the more restrictive Samurai times in which the story is set) in the context of suffrage. Maybe Akutagawa wrote the story about this older, traditional culture because it was a safer way of making criticisms of his contemporary society.

I wonder if Professor Waterston might speak a bit about how, if at all, false consciousness is different from what me might, post-Orwell, think of as "group think."

To James's and Simonne's point about whether insincere motives can lead to desirable outcomes, I am put in mind of the politics surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment (dramatized in the recent Spielberg movie, "Lincoln"). We might like to see that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Amendment abolishing slavery happened because people finally woke up to the inhumanity of slavery. I'm sure that represents some portion of the public mind, but not all. The EP was passed after a key Union military victory to demoralize the Confederacy and discourage foreign intervention in our Civil War. It was as much (if not more) about military strategy than it was about humanitarian principles and yet, who would quibble with the outcomes of that document? Similarly, the 13th Amendment was part savvy use of political capital (Lincoln had just won re-election), military strategy (there could be no negotiated peace that would allow slavery to continue), earnest life-long efforts of Abolitionists, and so on. But again, no one would quibble with the Amendment.

As to Anthony's question of whether a leader is out front or represents a culmination of the will of the people, you can read Lincoln in either way. He was much lambasted for his delay tactics by all sides throughout the war -- a failure of leadership many thought -- as he sought to understand the will of the people and the direction of the country. But he also made stark decisions (such as allowing generals to run up the body count, or the passage of the 13th Amendment). Maybe it is impossible to assess "leadership" outside of a deep understanding of the context in which it takes place.

September 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Prof. Stein said...

Thank you so much for starting this exceptionally thoughtful blog, Ana. I, too, was drawn to the quote you cited. The discussion that has ensued begs all kinds of questions about the definition, quality, and nature of consciousness, as well as its relationship to intent and, ultimately, culpability.

So far, I see at least four types kinds of consciousness that have become conflated in our discussion. This is no surprise, as they dwell in the mind and, like all psychological variables, are difficult to tease apart. Often, we only have the testimony of the actor, which we attempt to place in his or her broader personal history (Tajomaru’s criminal biography, for example) and particular cultural milieu (Apollonia did a masterful job of documenting this). Whereas in real life we have “facts”-or think we have them, as In a Grove demonstrates-in psychology we have perception, conception, states of consciousness, and historicizing (crafting a narrative that “feels” true). I want to introduce into the discussion this other level of analysis of subject motivation and culpability in the social justice sphere.

ULTERIOR MOTIVES: James introduced this in countering the argument that people fighting for social justice may have an agenda other than doing good. When you read about social impact bonds this week, you may ask whether it is right for social do-gooders to invest in programs based on a financial incentive.

UNCONSCIOUS MOTIVES: This is when people believe that their motivation springs from a pure stream but, in reality, things are rarely this simply. So, for instance, some people voting for Hitler may have been out and out anti-Semites but most were probably not consciously prejudiced. Still, the agenda he promised, because it included barring Jews from certain professions, for instance, created new opportunities for those who were unemployed and feeling shut out. Place that in a cultural setting that historically had supported a variety of anti-Semitic notions, and you have a segment of the populace willing to embrace (at least unconsciously) a new leader who looks like he will empower them.

SPLIT CONSCIOUSNESS: To me, we are all Jekyll and Hyde. While we cling to a black and white assessment of things and have trouble tolerating ambivalence (that is why everyone is so upset that there is no resolution to the In a Grove narratives), in most instances, we have deeply mixed feelings about things. For example, we want to help offenders and feel their incarceration is irrational and harmful but, at the same time, we desperately want to be safe and we-perhaps irrationally-fear offenders and wish they were locked up forever. We are always engaged psychically in suppressing one of these sets of feelings so that we can resolve cognitive dissonance.

FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS: Refers to the way that social and political dictates get under our skin so successfully that we come to believe they are our own creation. For example, we believe that we behave in a “masculine” or “feminine “ way because of our biology. It feels so completely natural that we must have been born this way. But, in truth, the vast majority of supposedly masculine or feminine behaviors has been socially programed into us and has no biological basis at all. Similarly, we may “believe” in the truth of working hard and advancing (in America, anything is possible! We have equal opportunity!) However, the truth may be that we only have an equal opportunity to fail because the system is largely rigged in favor of the 1 percent. Our belief is an example of false consciousness.

Anyway, sorry to complicate things further but I think that these are important distinctions to make.

September 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Imtashal Tariq said...

The 'mirroring exercise' was such a wonderful experience. Spencer had mentioned in class,"what is a leader?"-- Now, I come across questioning what is a leader and what is leadership? Is being a good leader knowing when to follow?

The reading of In the Grove underpins the notion that individuals should not stick only to objective outlooks because the purpose and formation of right and wrong will not be objective. This story gives firm guidelines on how to approach situations when I am dealing with clients. After reading this I recognized that I should not start my internship with a one-sided approach and that my experiences may be supportive to helping others. I think this reading for all of us, informs us that our views are not always right or wrong entirely, and that we must be humble enough to persistently assess our own views.

Question: How does this story translate into reality, our internships?

September 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM
Jaraed said...

Hello Everyone,

The “mirroring exercise” from class showed a very important function to how a leader and those who follow have a unique relationship. People who proclaim themselves a leader have trouble following someone else’s direction and there is opposition. Those who find it comforting to follow are able to do so with ease. The part of the exercise where no one had a role was difficult at first, but produced an amazing result. When people’s focus was not on having a role, the exercise became seamless, and as a result, the exercise had rhythmic flow. What made the exercise resonate with me even more was the connection to social justice and the vision of an organization. The vision of an organization is much like the leader’s actions in the exercise. The leader is trying to get the follower in this case to mirror their actions (the vision). The leader also has a chance to learn from the follower by mimicking their actions. As Simmone states, “Sometimes being a good leader is knowing when to follow". That statement is the essence of the exercise how being a leader is as much about being in control, as learning from the people that you lead.
Our discussion of the story, “In a Grove” by Ryunosuke Akutagawa has a common thread with the mirroring exercise. As a class, we tried to pick which testimony is the most believable. The lead testimony, which the majority selected, was Tajomaru. By the majority choosing his confession, it leads the discussion. The confession shapes the story so that all other confessions must support Tajomaru’s. As a class, we allow the story to lead the discussion so we attempt to find interlocking threads that are in the other testimonies. Similar to the exercise, Tajomaru’s testimony is the vision and all the other accounts are the followers. I pose this question, “How would the vision of the story change had the majority chosen another testimony as the lead?”

September 16, 2013 at 9:00 PM
Unknown said...

One thing I have noticed throughout the leadership discussion on this blog is that we continuously refer to leaders as one who pushes, or garners support for, “their” agenda. I can’t help but take issue with this type of language when referring to the agenda a leader is pushing, especially when remembering the importance our professors placed on the words we use to articulate our ideas in the first class.

The issue I have with this type of language is that I feel as though when making the agenda being pushed by a rising leader into something they can own to be problematic. I found a quote online that says “The difference between a leader and a tyrant is that a leader works hard for the sake of everyone else, while a tyrant makes others work hard for him (or her).” I feel as though when we refer to the agenda being pushed by a leader as something that is his or hers alone, we are ultimately excluding the population the leader is serving as ones who benefit from that agenda. Then if we assume that the leader is truly the only one to benefit from the agenda being pushed, we end up not dealing with a leader at all, but a tyrant.

With all this being said I am not necessarily saying the correct language would be to say “everybody’s” agenda instead of “the leaders” agenda, I am simply saying that I think there is a problem when we make the goals a leader is trying to accomplish into something they can own, and our language plays an important part in whether or not we do that. I am unsure of what the proper use of language in this situation would be, but I welcome anybody to comment with suggestions.

September 17, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Apollonia said...

Michael, absolutely. I'm glad you made that distinction between a "leader" and a "tyrant" because I think this is where we sometimes blur the lines.

For example, I find that, as a country, we have a hard time looking in on ourselves and critiquing the policies/actions that we take in order to accomplish something on our agenda than we do when looking at other countries. It seems to be easier for us to label leaders in the Middle East as tyrants, while our participation with drone strikes are sometimes easily ignored and justified.

So while objectively, we might not condone some aspects of how our "leaders" produce change, we're more likely to, as Simonne states, "stop worrying too much about it since whatever the driving force, sometimes the end MIGHT justify the means." This mindset allows us to insulate ourselves from worrying too much on whether or not our leaders have our interests at mind. This, I feel, introduces the concept of False Consciousness-- our belief in our leaders carrying out what is best for us as a whole, and thus, when we see similar actions being carried out by others (but we don't internalize it or believe it benefits us) we see it objectively, and therefore see them as tyrants.

In distinguishing the concept of leader and tyrant, we now have to be objective and constantly question our "leaders" motives. Are they leading us, or are they tyrants concealed by our own false consciousness?


September 17, 2013 at 3:06 PM
Unknown said...

This is a great discussion and there are so many different ideas. What stands out to me, though, is the possibility that our leaders intentionally create "false consciousness" to further their goals. I, personally, believe that this is very possible and very real. As Apollonia said, we are so caught up in our undying faith in the American government, we often find ourselves hesitant to criticize or question its actions. Then, If we do criticize, our "Americanism" is questioned. This is especially true for us non-whites. We very often even see our government as immune to committing evil, and find some justification for all its immoral actions. While the U.S. is preparing to go to war with Syria for using chemical weapons on its people, the American populace fails to question the government's hypocrisy. During the Iraq war, the U.s. military used chemical weapons in Fallujah on civilians. Yet, many of us continue to look to the U.S. government as the "world police".

In response to Ana's quotation, which resonated with many of us, I think it is relevant to Sturz and his work as a social entrepreneur. As we said before, Sturz, particularly in his Times Square project, possibly displaced thousands of people, in pursuit of " a greater good. " Likewise, even if we assume that the detective truly had good intentions, he may have had many casualties in his career, some as a means to a "good" end. I think that this is the case, however, with almost any position of power, because hard decisions must be made and there is almost never a win-win situation. Where we draw the line, though, is the tricky part.

September 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM
Alisse Waterston said...

Wow! What a great, nuanced discussion!!! This is what the Vera seminar is all about--raising more questions than we can answer. That's a good thing since reality is too complicated to reduce to easy explanations (even though we may yearn for the knowable). Yet the discussion allows us to get a bit more clarity, as the latter posts by Professor Stein, Michael and Apollonia indicate.

Can't wait for tomorrow!!!

September 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)