Fw: Re: rn,wsn> Laurence Cox re: theory & praxis

This msg includes a fwd msg from Richard N. Hutchinson re: the subject
and includes my reply.  Marguerite @ Fix Gov.

Mr. Hutchinson writes: 

<Effective leadership is important, but I don't believe any of the
examples
provided are examples of charismatic leadership.  The organizations
presented are all mainstream lobbying organizations, fully routinized and
bureaucratized.>

I suspect that 'charismatic leadership' is to the 'passionate follower' 
what 'beauty' is to the 'eye of the beholder.'

One of the things that I left out of my post, which properly titled would
be 'organization building,' was to note that all of the listed
organizations, (which are quite successful at this time with the
exception of the Christian Coalition whose leader dropped out as you
note) began with leadership that had the ability to 'gather people around
in sufficient numbers and mobilize them into efficient units -- first at
the individual and community level, then progressing to the regional
level, and then finally into a fully organized cohesive national effort
which resulted in financing the campaign and getting out the vote for the
political candidate(s)' campaign.  Most, if not all of these
organizations, incorporate some form of 'education' or service into their
program which benefits the organizations followers and serves to keep the
groups intact as they pursue common interests together.  The senior's
program educates and mobilizes through their media magazines and EMILY's
List recruits, trains and funds women in politics -- all in addition to
their prime purpose.  While these organizations may all be 'mainstream
lobbying organizations, fully routinized and bureaucratized,' they also
serve as examples of 'successful organization building' wearing a generic
label.        

What I am suggesting here is that if the 'Seattle movement' is to
succeed, a leader must be able to step out of the darkness and form a
light (platform) that shines not only on environmental issues but on
social and economic issues as well as on achieving world peace and
stopping globalization in its present form.  And to bring together
differing factions of people worldwide united in purpose.  The critical
issues we face today are global issues which the people of the world must
now address together.  In the end, we shall probably find that there is
no 'them' or 'us' as ecological systems collapse knows no bias.  We may
find that we are all naked in the light of Mother Nature's wrath as she
turns on us.  

Courage and solidarity may be enough to see us through this crisis.  But
as in every battle, we, the people of the world need a common cause to
fight for and a leader to hold us to courage.  Several names come to mind
including:  Ralph Nader, Fr. Thomas Berry, and David C. Korten, as ones
who may have sufficient grasp of all of the issues and be acceptable as a
leader by all members of the Global Village.  We need a 'Ghandi' - a
'Martin Luther King' - to issue a battle cry that can be heard around the
world.    

marguerite 

Here is Prof. Hutchinson's original message.         

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
To: Marguerite M Hampton <ecopilgrim@juno.com>
Cc: renaissance-network@cyberjournal.org, wsn@csf.colorado.edu,
         laurence.cox@may.ie, FixGov@egroups.com, assherer@cs.com,
         Editor@IslandTimes.com
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 13:14:43 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: rn,wsn> Laurence Cox re: theory & praxis
Message-ID:
<Pine.HPX.4.21.0012091307070.17996-100000@orion.u.arizona.edu>

Effective leadership is important, but I don't believe any of the
examples
provided are examples of charismatic leadership.  The organizations
presented are all mainstream lobbying organizations, fully routinized and
bureaucratized.

To specifics -- Ralph Reed is anything but charismatic.  He is apparently
quite capable, but split with the Christian Coalition because he was more
centrist and pragmatic than they wanted, anything but a firebreathing
charismatic.

When it comes to the environmental movement, there are definitely
charismatic leaders -- David Brower, who just passed on, is a great
example.  He led the Sierra Club, then Friends of the Earth, and then the
Earth Island Institute, continually challenging the bureaucratic
organizations he helped create, and moving on bringing followers
attracted
to him as a person (the definition of charisma) rather than an
organization.

The lack of success of the environmental movement has more to do with the
enormity of its target (industrial capitalism) than a lack of charismatic
leaders.  (And on the other hand, anyone who remembers the air and water
pollution of the 1960s, before modern environmental legislation, knows
that there have been solid accomplishments, even if not nearly enough.)

Richard Hutchinson
Asst. Prof of Sociology
Weber State University
Ogden, Utah