“Leaders and Followers”
History has its unique way to express the historical evidence, as something very important and interesting. From very routes of human existence people had two basic relationship: leader and follower, what they thought would help them to create better society; or people just followed a strong leader and gave their responsibilities to the person who could create a place where they can live and prosper. But unfortunately this basic institution of leaders and followers brought not only good but also the bad. What humanity knows and achieved by now is because of efforts, thinking, beliefs, ideas, inventions and even mistakes of peoples of the past. Interestingly enough, people could not look forward without knowing the past, but either way, they did the same mistakes as their ancestors but for other reasons and beliefs. Leadership and follower can be seen in every institution and in various ways: like religious beliefs, in economics and politics, in family and society. John Locke said that person’s freedom consists of three things: life, liberty and property, and if one of those things are threatened the person can rebel against his/her leader. What is the most important aspect of this basic institution is that it tent to be interchangeable and very ambiguous.
Leadership is ‘very simple,’ a person gains power for different reasons: power, mind, genetics, and appeal, and rules over people and directs them to better life. In reality this idea of leadership almost does not exist. There are three different leadership types that are most practiced in the past and the present. The first type of leadership is the Traditional one, which is the type of leadership that came through tradition and it is not questioned or challenged, because it is the way it should be. The perfect example of Traditional authority is the book, “A life of her own” by Emilie Carles. In this book Emilie tells her readers about her life in her family and outside of her family: basically we can say that it is an autobiography of a woman who lived in France in 1900s. Her autobiography portrays many interesting historical documentation about France at those times: the city life and the country life. But what is most interesting in the book is that how she describes the family relationships of her own family. The Traditional authority lies within the walls of her house and it is the man’s authority over his household. The father represents the Traditional authority figure whose actions must not be challenged and whose desires must be fulfilled, as she says, “my father was a strict Catholic, an old-fashioned man who had not traveled or read. Nothing mattered to him but work, obedience, and respect for tradition.” What she is mentioning here is that his father was a person for whom keeping tradition was very important. The Traditional authority within its walls means that, for example, in France the father figure was of the charge of the family and his responsibilities included to take care of the family members, make sure that the family has all their needs, make sure that the family members behave properly in the society and within their house, and finally make sure that his family doing their part of the work—meaning their responsibilities. The father figure had to be sure that the family has everything that they need and for that purpose he must do what ever it take to fulfill his task. Emilie’s live was not easy and her family struggled through the years to have food, roof and cloths. Her father did his side of work to keep his family in good health and that includes farming and smuggling. Emilie’s father had Traditional authority, because it was the way of the society, it came from past, their ancestors lived under those rules so must they, and it was considered Traditional as nobody could challenge it—that was the way of the life and it was unwritten rule of the society. Another example of Traditional authority, and maybe most...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document