re: "So why then do we continue to choose war to try to solve our differences?"
I know this is self-obvious, but I'll say it. I guess that alternatives to war, like negotiation, are more difficult. Looking at ten principles of servant leadership over at Butler University's site
http://www.butler.edu/studentlif.../
principles.htm
you realize how much of servant leadership is based on difficult communication ideas. Take #2 "Empathy," and figure with some people it's probably easier to punch them in the nose, instead of trying to see the world through their eyes.
I don't like it, but I can imagine that a leader who has an army has an option to end a frustrating, difficult discussion. Launch a war.
My American history is pretty vague, but I believe George Washington actually led troops into battle while he was President. (Was it the Whiskey Rebellion?) I would guess if you're the guy that actually has to lead troops into battle, it might give you additional motivation to negotiate a solution.
Tom, one other thing...I think there's a political tendency to label people as weak or disloyal who want to negotiate through problems, instead of war. I think we have to be on guard for this kind of labeling, both if we're being labeled or we're the labeler.
For instance the people against the Iraq War in 2003 were sometimes harshly labeled "appeasers." If you talk with supporters of Barack Obama, that opposition is now labeled as courage.
I'm not saying of course that negotiation is always something that should be pursued no matter what instead of war. But I do think negotiation can be far more courageous than starting a war.
War is never a good answer, but if you truly understand its intent, it is sometimes the only answer. War's intent is not to kill or destroy, its intent is to force a specific action. If you consider war in that context, we do war on a daily basis without guns and yes, even as servant leaders. Sometimes the right thing for a leader to do (serving at its essence) means that we have to "force" an action. The difference is that hopefully we don't do it with guns and gunpowder.
Negotiation is and should always be the first step "unless" there is imminent danger at hand for ourselves or a friend. But if negotiation fails and you know that the outcome of that failure with no further action will be an adverse on the least privileged in society, then how do we serve?
Some of the finest servant leaders I have worked with wore the uniform of a warrior. They served to prevent war, but would not hesitate to pick up arms if that was what was required for them to serve others.
War is not a goal, it should not be an outcome, it is a tool of last resort as long as the cause is of noble purpose and intent. Are there wars going on that don't meet that definition, you bet, have there been wars throughout the history of our world that don't fit that definition, you have to know it. Does that mean that ALL war is counter to servant leadership, in my opinion, no.
Bo,
Thanks for your comments.
Do you have some examples of wars the actually resulted in benefits to the least privileged in society? I can not think of any.
It seems to me that the least privileged inevitably pay the highest price as a consequence of war.
No action is not servant leadership, and therefore not justification for choosing war as a viable option, ever. It is my believe that servant leadership practiced as preached by Robert Greenleaf would result in outcomes where war would not even be considered or needed. Our problem is that we do not practice it.
I do agree that warriors can become servant leaders, but I would never equate the practice of war with the practice of servant leadership. I also do not believe that servant leadership is ever about "forcing" a decision on someone else - that is coercion.
And one more side thought is that the best of intentions, never justify the worst of actions, or in other words the end does not justify the means. How we act is who we become.
I offer the U.S. itself as an example. I offer the Civil War.
If the least priviledged were under oppression (slavery in the south) would it not be servant leadership to put yourself forward or in sacrifice to eliminate the oppression?
I personally do not believe that Greenleaf would agree with you. I have had numerous conversations with the Greenleaf Center's CEO Kent Keith as he is a partner in some of our work, and can not see that he would agree with that premise either.
War in and of itself is not evil. It is the construct in which it is used that allows our judgement of good or evil. Servant leadership is about sacrificing (or setting back) my needs for the needs of others. War can be and is sometimes, just that!
I am a veteran of Desert Shield and I do not like war, not do I think it is the preferred means for solving all issues or situations, but I also do not think that war automatically works against what Robert passionately believed.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree!
Bo,
Thanks for the additional thoughts. I appreciate your taking the time to delve into the topic deeper.
I just want to make clear that anything I post on this blog is purely my opinion and in no way is meant to speak for other people or organizations, which probably goes without saying.
When I speak about war as it relates to servant leadership, I am speaking about the practice of using force to kill, injure, or disable people, or destroy their property or means of livelihood to get them to submit to another's will. What ever reason a group may use to justify its choice of going to war, does not change what the practice of war is about.
From what I understand about servant leadership, I cannot understand how the practice of war as I defined it, could ever be equated with servant leadership, as professed by Greenleaf.
One of the few example's that I have come across in Greenleaf's writings of someone he believed practiced servant leadership was the eighteenth-century Quaker John Woolman.
According to Greenleaf (from his essay Talking and Listening in the book Seeker and Servant)"For thirty years, Woolman spent all the time he could spare from earing his living, traveling afoot or on horseback up and down the East coast talking gently and nonjudgmentally to Quaker slaveholders (who were numerous and affluent), with the aim of persuading them to free their slaves. By 1770 no Quakers held slaves. What if there had been more than one John Woolman carrying on this gentle persuasion for the hundred years prior to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861?"
I don't think Greenleaf asked this question because he thought that the Civil War was a good example of servant leadership. I might be taking liberties here, but I think Greenleaf was trying to point out that if more people had practiced servant leadership, slavery could have been done away with in a peaceful manner, that would not have left a rift between the people's of this country that still lingers more then 150 years or so after the war.
Greenleaf also goes on to point out : "Woolman's methods stands in sharp contrast to that of others who profess nonviolence but whose tactics are coercive. The flaw in nonviolent coercion is that it sometimes breeds violence and does not foster friendship. Woolman's approach, in which he did much listening, builds friendship and does not leave disruption or violence in its wake."
I read this to imply that acts of coercion, violence, etc., are not what Greenleaf saw as servant leadership.
Just some more thoughts for what they are worth, which is probably not a lot.
Tom
Tom, I appreciate your comments and thoughts and I don't completely disagree. However, I look at servant leadership through a much wider lense and look at the root of the actions (heart) as well as the actions themselves. I would agree that influence and pursuasion would be preferred by all, but I also believe that a key element of servant leadership is a willingness to sacrifice for the good of least priviledged lest more of them die or be born into oppression.
As I said in an earlier post, war is not a preferred method, but war in and of itself is not evil, but can be from noble cause to serve humanity, especially if humanity is at risk.
In a previous post you used Christ's actions in the temple to show coercion, in the context that you used it, it could be called coercion, however, in the context that it was meant to be used, it was a message for his followers more than the traders He kicked out. I use that example to show that depending on the perspective used to view a situation, some could call war the antithesis to servant leadership, while others might call it the epitome.
Great dialogue and based on what I have read, your posts are worth much more than you give yourself credit for.
Commenting by HaloScan
