The misconception among those who regale their libraries with tomes dedicated to the fine leaders of history is that history is dominated by men. To be sure, there have been and continue to be a good number of fine leader who happen to be males. But we must remember an old adage: the victors write history. This is not to imply that there has been a concerted war against the female of the species, but indeed, there does seem to be some kind of conspiracy involved.
When we consider the matriarchal structure of primitive Celtic cultures, and indeed if we are to believe the tales of Herodotus and the Amazonian state (some say in modern-day Ukraine, some say Asia Minor), then how is it we know so little about so great a many women who led nations and tribes -- and men? The ascension of patriarchy seems to have necessitated the diminishment of matriarchy.
We should never forget that history is, at best, a speculative field. We can only tell so much from the archeological record. To be sure, we can only know so much from an alphabet or even an epic poem. That countless women have been cast into the abyss of history is a foregone conclusion. We shall never know the struggles and military accomplishments of countless queens and matrons. Indeed, we shall never know their tenderness or their travails.
When leadership is so intermingled and impossibly entangled with militarism, the roots of leadership and what it means to lead a people is forever entrenched in the notion that to lead is to kill or have killed. Leadership is not simply leading others to their final glory. It is understanding and knowing your people, your compatriots. It is leading the way for crops to be planted, cattle herded, families protected and fed.
The act of leading men and women to slaughter is an act that subverts what it means to truly lead. That new generations of women are seeking out the rhetorical and academic underpinnings of leadership is comforting. To know your enemy, for lack of a better word, is to understand the challenge before you. To understand how military endeavors subvert the people and undermine the ability to truly lead is to understand how to lead people beyond the "us and them" paradigm and towards a greater, more perfect harmony.
When we consider the matriarchal structure of primitive Celtic cultures, and indeed if we are to believe the tales of Herodotus and the Amazonian state (some say in modern-day Ukraine, some say Asia Minor), then how is it we know so little about so great a many women who led nations and tribes -- and men? The ascension of patriarchy seems to have necessitated the diminishment of matriarchy.
We should never forget that history is, at best, a speculative field. We can only tell so much from the archeological record. To be sure, we can only know so much from an alphabet or even an epic poem. That countless women have been cast into the abyss of history is a foregone conclusion. We shall never know the struggles and military accomplishments of countless queens and matrons. Indeed, we shall never know their tenderness or their travails.
When leadership is so intermingled and impossibly entangled with militarism, the roots of leadership and what it means to lead a people is forever entrenched in the notion that to lead is to kill or have killed. Leadership is not simply leading others to their final glory. It is understanding and knowing your people, your compatriots. It is leading the way for crops to be planted, cattle herded, families protected and fed.
The act of leading men and women to slaughter is an act that subverts what it means to truly lead. That new generations of women are seeking out the rhetorical and academic underpinnings of leadership is comforting. To know your enemy, for lack of a better word, is to understand the challenge before you. To understand how military endeavors subvert the people and undermine the ability to truly lead is to understand how to lead people beyond the "us and them" paradigm and towards a greater, more perfect harmony.
0 comments:
Post a Comment