Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDr. King and the Cognitive Dimension of Leadership
Senator Hillary Clinton's remarks this month about the roles and accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson provided fodder for countless blogs, opinion columns, and radio and television programs. While many have argued about the intent of Clinton's comments, the discussion has largely glossed over the unconventional nature of Dr. King's leadership and the type of change he sought. Without an understanding of the cognitive dimension of the leadership that Dr. King embodied, we cannot fully appreciate his achievements or hope to effect the lasting changes that our world demands.
The initial comments that Senator Clinton offered about Dr. King and President Johnson (below) stirred controversy in the African-American community and beyond, yielding a debate about whether she was elevating Johnson above King as a hero of the struggle for civil rights.
"I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, 'We are going to do it,' and actually got it accomplished."
Clinton's subsequent expressions of praise for Dr. King's work and appreciation of his sacrifices suggest that she sought not to diminish the role of Dr. King, but rather to claim that change becomes real when a president is committed to enacting legislation and possesses the political skill needed to get it through Congress. For students of politics and politicians alike, Lyndon Johnson remains the epitome of the skillful politician, a fact that supports this reading. Johnson gained renown in the Senate for his thorough knowledge of his colleagues and his ability to obtain their votes for legislation he favored, whether through horse-trading, arm-twisting, or other methods available to the consummate Washington insider. This skill served him well as President and undeniably played an important role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act the following year, overcoming the resistance of many in his own party in the process.
To some, this is the real work of politics: the unsung, back-room work of the tough-minded insider that produces laws that change lives. In such a view, soaring oratory is, at best, a means of drawing a crowd to apply pressure on legislators to vote this way or that, a roundabout way of lobbying the insiders who matter.
But such a view fundamentally misses what Dr. King sought to achieve and how he sought to achieve it. In his mission to ensure that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, Dr. King took a decidedly long view, focusing not on mere lobbying for the legislation of the day, but on defining the moral imperatives of the nation to compel action for generations to come. Progress tends to be fragile and often proves illusory when it is the product of political insiders who fail to engage the broader citizenry. Dr. King, by contrast, led by revealing the hidden truths, narratives, and moral premises that compel action.
At the Rockridge Institute, we have coined the term cognitive policy to describe the set of ideas and values that underlie a legislative or social policy, concepts that must be made real to the public to secure lasting support for a material policy, such as a law. The Social Security Act signed by President Franklin Roosevelt provides a simple example of what an effective cognitive policy can mean. Generations have passed, but most Americans retain a basic understanding that Social Security means that those who are employed today pay a share of their income to extend protection to the elderly because we have a shared responsibility to protect people from insecurities that no one can face alone and that we may one day face. If we call the truths and moral principles that citizens must recognize in order to support change a cognitive policy, then we must regard Dr. King as an exemplar of leadership along this cognitive dimension.
As Van Jones of the Ella Baker Center has observed, there is a reason why Dr. King's most famous speech was not called, "I have a complaint," nor, one might add, "I have a ten-point plan." Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech aimed to define as much as to inspire, retelling the story of America as an unfulfilled promise that history compels us to honor:
"In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.' But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now."
Notably, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom at which Dr. King delivered the address did not have just one purpose, nor did Dr. King's speech that day refer to any pending legislation. No single piece of legislation could fulfill the promise that he articulated. Instead, he gave us a narrative of American history that demonstrated the centrality of struggles that had long been marginalized, and the necessity of actions that had long been deferred.
In an age in which politicians respond to questions by boasting of comprehensive plans on their websites, it would be easy to fault Dr. King's speech that day or his other well-known pronouncements as short on specifics and overly reliant upon an emotional appeal. At least, that is what we might conclude were we to judge him as our politicians tend to judge each other today. Such a view would, of course, be shortsighted. While we have grown accustomed to politicians who campaign for health care legislation, for example, by proclaiming that it will reduce costs by X%, will cover Y million people, and has been endorsed by organization Z, we know that such fact dumps leave us uninspired and move few to action. We must instead identify the moral premises that compel us to act to secure health care for all. Our current knowledge of cognitive science demonstrates why the rational appeals to which most politicians limit themselves fail, something that Madison Avenue has long known. Unlike advertisers, however, our greatest moral leaders, including Dr. King, have been those who engage our emotions and transform the stories we tell ourselves while remaining faithful to our shared values and accurate in their characterizations of our world.
While many praise Dr. King for his inspirational oratory, we must remember that the leadership along the cognitive dimension that King embodied is chiefly about holding fast to the truth, not about rhetorical eloquence. This should come as no surprise given Dr. King's study of satyagraha, the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, which can be translated as "holding the truth." Satyagraha is often described as non-violence, and is more frequently used to describe the types of demonstrations that Gandhi and later King organized. (In that context, Dr. King referred to it as "soul force.") But satyagraha also means speaking truths and revealing moral imperatives without fear, though they may challenge the preconceived notions of one's compatriots and may offend those who hold greater physical force.
We are often asked at the Rockridge Institute about how to "frame" an issue to support a policy, such as withdrawal from Iraq or action to protect our climate. While we welcome such questions and continue to answer them, it is important to recognize that framing issues accurately and enacting cognitive policies that define moral premises are not new. Rather, the cognitive science upon which our work depends has just begun to reveal the genius that is at work when a leader such as Martin Luther King Jr. transforms our understanding of our world and the role that we must play in it. Politicians who believe that people act (or should act) dispassionately based upon rational analysis would do well to delve deeper into the meaning of Dr. King's life, as well as recent discoveries in cognitive science that demonstrate that emotions and morality are integral to our reasoning.
Evan Frisch is the Rockridge Institute's Technology Strategist.
14 Comments so far
Show AllGreat - so who among the candidates TODAY is framing IRAQ as a nightmarish and supreme offense against humanity from the start - not just an error in judgement but a premeditated act -- of conspiring to start a war of aggression, and then doing so. A war justified by lies.
Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime -- because it is the crime from which all other war crimes follow.
The popular story of struggle for civil rights is bookended by photos of the march on Selma and MLK speaking at the Washington Memorial ... It leaves out the firehoses, the police on horseback billyclubs in hand. It leaves out the threats, the menacing, activists being tailed when driving at night. It usually leaves out Jim Crow LAWS, in favor of talk of "discrimination" and "prejudice," as if it were some "personal choice" voluntary sorta thing. It leaves out all white juries. It mentions lynchings, but leaves out kangaroo courts. It leaves out the consequences of being too conspicuous of having to live in fear of firebombs through the front window, having to move again and again. While King's "nonviolence" and work for "peace" are lauded, civil disobedience has largely disappeared from the story, except for college kids integrating lunch counters.
The story needs to be taken out of mothballs. Just like Rosa Parks DIDN'T sit up front because she was SO VERY TIRED ... The civil rights struggle was not some miraculous sea change or awakening... it was the product of years of effort. See also, The Sentencing Project, The Innocence Project, just for a starting place with regard to institutionalized racism alive and well today.
We're not done yet. How do we get that ball rolling again?
For those of you who still doubt the sincerity of John Edwards, please take a few minutes to read the letter below from Martin Luther King, III that so eloquently expresses why John is running.
January 20, 2008
The Honorable John R. Edwards
410 Market Street
Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Dear Senator Edwards:
It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.
There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.
I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.
You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.
I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.
From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.
I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.
So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.
Sincerely,
Martin L. King, III
Why is it that public policy based on sound 'cognitive policy' seem to be in reverse these days? Has MLK just become a soothing icon to ease our conscience?
Perhaps a speech based on "I have a nightmare' would capture the attention of our fear primed populace!
The web of political economic and cultural actions are like the invisible hand moving full speed ahead while tiny tugs of reason don't seem to amount to much.
Does morality figure into cognitive policy? Why is the mood so dark?
Welcome to the new dark ages.
Welcome to jihad and the chosen who
Welcome to the opiate…. the pie high sages.
Welcome to fundamentalists everywhere,
No matter which jealous God they spew.
Marked in by the corporate few
The divide and conquer crew.
Arm the jihadists
Arm the likudists
Arm insurgents everywhere
It's all good for the corporate few.
Welcome to the compassionate baby burning crew,
The same few who have a monopoly on God's wrath,
the same non-being corporate crew who push
war profit for the us(US), the few.
Welcome to the wrathful God
For who, we're the chosen, the many few
The who,.. who push war profit
For my prophet (profit) told me to.
Welcome to the new dark age crusade,
The under god, …. Born again bombers
Have 'endarkenment' for you.
Welcome to the Ghengas Khan of the shining city on the hill.
So enlist and you'll have virgins too.
Pass on depleted U
So you and your kin
Can enjoy the rapture too!
Welcome to the new dark ages
Welcome to the opiate of the people
Welcome to the jihad and the chosen who
For your profit (Prophet) told you to.
Direct online democracy can make every man a leader. We need good examples like Dr. King, not leaders for the oligarchy to kill.
I have felt recently that (aside from MLK's later political activism) MLK's personal courage and sacrifice have been ignored ... his willingness to put himself and his family in jeopardy -- which was very real and went on for YEARS -- on principle.
His example encouraged and emboldened a whole generation of African-American (and others, thank you very much) citizens -- regular people who had well-founded reasons to fear repurcussions -- on the job, in their towns, to themselves, their family, their kids in school, etc.
This was very serious business -- not only the fear of being considered "uppity" -- but also, during the McCarthy era, of being considered a communist sympathizer ... There were (and in some industries still are) many "blacklists" aside from Hollywood. Being "politically active" even in the mildest forms could result in advisements, warnings and threats -- and quite easily loss of employment.
Dr. King died with his work unfinished -- He went to Memphis ** despite ** the threat. I am appalled by how his story has been air-brushed into some armchair comfortable intellectual/theological journey. It was that, and so much more.
Johnson was enabled by King -- without King, Johnson would never have had the opportunity to pass the Civil Rights Act -- but, yes, political action and public opinion (short of violence/insurrection) are insufficient to EFFECT change -- see also, our glorious Democratic "majority" in congress. Despite overwhelming public opinion, change/policy shift has not been forthcoming.
[At this point, it's overdue to appreciate Eisenhower's willingness -- however reluctant -- to violate "state rights" to bring in the U.S. ARMY to stand toe-to-toe with the state militia to integrate Little Rock
-- "In 1957, in the wake of the Brown decision, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower enforced the Supreme Court's 1954 school desegregation order by sending troops to Little Rock, Arkansas when the Governor of the state resisted allowing black students (known as the Little Rock Nine) to attend the previously all-white Little Rock Central High School. President Eisenhower used United States Army troops, when Governor Orval Faubus had mobilized troops from the Arkansas National Guard to prevent it, setting a precedent for the enforcement of court orders relating to racial integration by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government."" -- from wikipedia
No amount of "public sentiment" or demonstration or civil actions could have "made it happen", imho, without injury or loss of life. ]
The personal/political sacrifice/jeopardy endured by all these individuals -- who had families and likely other futures in mind -- are a dimension which should not be written off as "politically expedient." It's more than that -- it's even beyond safely "walking the walk"... it's "putting your ass on the line."
I leave it to the reader to decide how this is relevant to the current presidential campaign derby ...
Mr.King spoke and helped bring a small measure of equality to black people but he did little to change the American mind. The American mind choses presidents. The controllers shape the American mind ,not by altering it as some think, but by appealing to its values in a way that benefits them. For example, you like religion, let me show you some religious relics. You can't sell these relics to people who aren't religious.
The opportunist plays to the weaknesses of his mark. So it is with the circles of power, they ride the beast. But it is the character of the beast that matters most, not the riders, MLK or otherwise. Dr.King saw the US as an aggressor in the world, as indeeed it has been for quite some time. Why are Americans so belligerent? It is because they have separated themselves from the world. Like their predecessor, the Puritans, who burnt Shakespeare's Globe theater as sinful, Americans see the world as evil and themselves as pure. So they separate. Let me give you some examples.
AMERICA: This name belongs to all people of ther continent, but Americans din't even think about that. Granted that a good alternate name is hard to find.
Soccer: The world is united by soccer. Every country, except some overwhelmed by American influence loves soccer. American's don't. They prefer to play games nobody else plays.
Food: Few Americans go abroad but when they do, they are known for seeking their own food. When they colonize, they separate themselves from the colonized and bring their food with them. They expect people to speak English.
Music: Americans listen only to their own music. They think there is no other.
Film: As above
The World series: So named but involves only one country.
Metric system: Only Americans refuse to change.
Health care: Americans scoff at systems that are better than their own. They must have they're own version, imbued with their sense of individualism, even if it is inferior.
Health: alone among the industrialized nations, the US has double the infant mortality rate and is worse than Cuba.
While the world moves beyond religion, the US moves toward it. There is now talk of creationism and making the constitution conform to God'd laws. Alone, the US is going backwards.
The problem is not the leaders, it is the people. Changing the leaders won't help, you have to change the people.
The debate about the roles of Dr King and President Johnson are pointless. Dr King made and publicized the ethical case for reforms, and Johnson responded to the public mandate. Politicians may very occasionally do unpopular things because they know them to be right, but they nearly always wait until public opinion leaves them little choice. But I think Dr King would have been disgusted with Hillary for her unrepentantly hawkish, if rhetorically obfuscated, support for the Iraq war, her lobbying Bill against humanitarian intervention to save Albanians and Rwandans from genocide and for her uncritical, unconditional support of Israel's violent, unjust and unlawful treatment of the Palestinians. Hillary might find Dr King useful as an icon, a stage prop in her dog and pony show, but she continues to repudiate what he stood for.
Right on! This excellent statement gives weight to ML King's profound talent as a definer of what we need as national principle. LBJ was smart enough to understand King and to bring about legislation to accomplish some of what King defined. I am not a fan of Hillary, and I'm voting for Obama, but she never intended to diminish King's luster nor depreciate his giant accomplishments. Nor did Obama play any role in the initial charges against her, which were simply politics as usual - - trying to score a point by deliberate misinterpretation of the words of a candidate.
I have a dream -- that some day the Left will gather up the courage to demand a true accounting of the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.
In 1999 the King family won a Memphis jury verdict that King was killed as a result of conspiracy. There is ample evidence that the CIA and FBI were involved.
Leftists talk about "institutional analysis" (as opposed to "conspiracy theories") but I believe the CIA and FBI are institutions. Members may come and go, but they persist. They are part of the War Machine, which still rules in Washington with disastrous results.
Meanwhile the peace movement and the Left in general are treated with contempt by the Washington Warlords.
"While we have grown accustomed to politicians who campaign for health care legislation, for example, by proclaiming that it will reduce costs by X%, will cover Y million people, and has been endorsed by organization Z, we know that such fact dumps leave us uninspired and move few to action. We must instead identify the moral premises that compel us to act to secure health care for all."
That is one reason I fully support Dennis Kucinich as a politician and modern day satyagrahi. He is not afraid to shine light on the dark and hidden truths which underlie American politics (which is probably why the mainstream media work so hard to keep him out of the debates- you wouldn't want American's to actually THINK that the status quo is something that needs a major overhaul) :)
He's got the moral courage to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, even if it is dismissed as a bad career move, as well as the carefully outlined plans on his website. Dennis Kucinich is not simply advocating for a US Department of Peace, a withdrawl of the US from Iraq, for universal health care, he is also calling for a moral change in American politics which would enable such wonderful changes to become reality.
Go Dennis!!
Well, isn't that something. We all have a part to play... parishioners, politicians, parents and poets. All people, contributing in their small way...
Bill Moyers offers some perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFlXpoA-MQY
Great article. It may have taken a president to get civil rights legislation passed, but it took a moral giant to give the president the needed internal strength and drive.
Cognitive and altruistic leadership is at the heart of essential social transformation. It is the need of the day. Cognitive practices, such as meditation, forster the expansion of one's conscience and mind towards all-embracing benevolence. For those interested in the benefits of meditation for social activism and leadership, here is a brief acticle about it:
http://www.meditationspace.org/Friend.html