I'm all for positive, bottom-up change. But I think it's an
overstatement to suggest, as Walter put it, that "ALL REAL CHANGE IS
ONLY ACCOMPLISHED BOTTOM-UP".
Sometimes, leadership from the top matters. FDR and his New Deal
effected real, positive change. Hitler's Nazism effected real, negative
change. LBJ certainly had a huge effect on the lives of millions, in
both positive and negative ways.
Sometimes, programs matter. Social Security has dramatically reduced
poverty. Head Start has significantly improved the lives of millions of
poor children.
I suppose one could argue that the New Deal, Nazism, Social Security and
Head Start were somehow "bottom up" changes, since they obviously
reflected the needs, desires and fears of ordinary individuals. But
they also obviously were affected fundamentally by leadership. Nazism
might be understandable in light of the economic problems facing Germany
before WWII. But it was not inevitable. Same for the New Deal, and
many other important social initiatives. Different leaders could have
taken their nations in different directions.
Pirsig (or, more precisely, the narrator in ZAMM) emphasizes the role of
the individual. This is fine, to the extent that it encourages us to
take personal responsibility for improving ourselves. But it's wrong,
to the extent that it discourages us from trying to improve society --
and to the extent that it denies the importance of quality leadership in
moving societies toward higher social quality.
Bruce
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST