I know what boys like
Wednesday 14 September // Suitland, MD 12-4pm
Leadership by itself is a difficult nut to crack, but the issue of Gender and Leadership is even more difficult and as I have seen with this weeks module, more rewarding!
"I know what boys like!"
This weeks module on gender and leadership added to what was discusses in previous classes and modules; namely it focused on the particular traits, if any, that are common to all leaders, but went a step beyond by asking if any of these traits are gendered. Are any of these leadership traits expressed in previous classes usually associated with a particular gender? When I think about a leader having to be nurturing and encouraging, as well as brave and of strong will, who do i expect to have these traits? A man or a woman leader? This is just one of the moot questions presented for the Anthony and Cleopatra module, and the first in a serious of unfolding and revealing questions asked by Dr. Sandridge:
- If any of these leadership qualities are gendered, is it because of innate biological reasons or because of the social norms and constructs?
- How would we go about figuring out the answer to this question?
- If we determine that these traits, or some of these traits are results of social conditioning, how do we change this status-quo and encourage and activate this trait among the other gender?
- Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of Leadership by Mark Van Vugt & Anjana Ahuja.
- In this book the Evolutionary psychologists argue a scientific perspective about the evolution of leadership and the now accepted wisdom on the topic. They explore the physical markers of leadership and what type of leaders people physically want. One example from the book is on the history of leaders in the plains of the African savannas. These leaders "naturally" emerged among tribe members as the physically tallest and strongest of their people. Traits that were essential in hunting, fighting animals and warring against opponents of neighboring regions or even contenders within their own tribe.
- This point of physicality is a relevant and curious for this week's module in that in the forth paragraph, Plutarch makes mention:
"He had also a noble dignity of form; and a shapely beard, a broad forehead, and an aquiline nose were thought to show the virile qualities peculiar to the portraits and statues ofHercules. Moreover, there was an ancient tradition that the Antonii were Heracleidae, being descendants of Anton, a son of Heracles. And this tradition Antony thought that he confirmed, both by the shape of his body, as has been said, and by his attire. For whenever he was going to be seen by many people, he always wore his tunic girt up to his thigh, a large sword hung at his side, and a heavy cloak enveloped him. However, even what others thought offensive, namely, his jesting and boastfulness, his drinking-horn in evidence, his sitting by a comrade who was eating, or his standing to eat at a soldier's table, — it is astonishing how much goodwill and affection for him all this produced in his soldiers.
This is particularly important because it ushers in Anthony's prestige and his right to lead, both in his physical form and in his noble lineage. both form and lineage were important qualifications and indications of one's promise at that time. His jesting, boastfulness and drinking are not characteristic of what we picture today as a Great military commander, maybe one of more sober and serious disposition perhaps, but certainly not a joking man, since war is serious business. But what is striking is that the physical form in what we picture as a leader has not changed much. For a military commander of today, the body of a Herakles statue would no doubt be an indication of his strength to lead and would inspire a bit of admiration among his followers. Why has some qualities of who we picture as a leader changed while others have remained the same. Another important point that is raised after reading Plutarch's paragraph four, is what did the Ancient leaders of that time picture as a promising female leader? And how did female leaders of that time leverage this perception to their advantage?
2. The second book Professor Sandridge introduced us to was: King of the Mountain by Arnold Ludwig.
- Ludwig takes a survey of 1,941 political leaders and finds a strange statistic that only 27 of these leaders are women, and only 13 of these have no immediate ties to the leadership role (they are not the wife or family member of past or current leaders). Ludwig supposes that since women are in no way incompetent at these leadership positions, that it must mean that women don't want these roles. Maybe because these roles are particularly stressful, dangerous, precarious or exposing. But what about why males do it? Ludwig argues that males do it because of their biological drive, because at the most instinctive level, males in both the animal and human kingdoms know that being the leader gives them access to greater chances of reproduction.
- This premise begs the question that if women are not biologically motivated for leadership then what are their roles? What is the reproductive or biological advantage of women becoming leaders? Lets start with the social aspect. In my opinion it could mean two things. A woman in a leadership role of power and influence may have a decreased chance of finding a mate because men may feel emasculated by her, because of the social expectations that men are bound by today of being the bread winner in the family and because of the cultural standards that govern them which says you're not a man if your not earning money. The other reality a woman in a leadership position could face is that she will now exist in a realm of power and influence with other people of similar stature, exposing her to possible mates she may otherwise have not gotten the chance to be court or be courted by. Now the biological advantage women in leadership positions face are very slim. Men are able to have multiple children and still be affected to a lesser extent than a woman having a baby and having to go through nine months of labor. Maternity could mean a loss or deferment of a leadership role. Thus the biological advantage of leadership positions for women could be problematic or even counter intuitive.
A question that is interesting also after doing the reading and discussion in class is whether these traits that have resulted from social constructs have changed from Ancient times until now. In other words, why have some of these societal norms remained constant while so many other norms have stayed the same. During the "You can go your own way" module we did touch briefly on a norm that has existed from the time of Achilles and Agamemnon's falling out, which could be stated as: a man's status is partly derived from the woman he is with. The more accomplished, beautiful and desirable a woman is, the more "social currency" her partner accrues. He is more of a man than his opponents vying for that same woman. He has conquered her. His fellow suitors were "out-manned and out-maneuvered".
In this weeks module we have examined the other side of that coin, another societal norm and a present day adage, which can be stated as: The woman a man chooses as his wife can make him or break him. Here the "break him" takes on special meaning for Anthony in Plutarch's story. In a surprising and skillfull showing, Cleopatra successfully ingratiated herself with Anthony and was held in his good graces. He fell in love with her. She likened herself to the love goddess Venus. If Herakles was the perfect comparison for Anthony, Venus was for Cleopatra. But it is interesting how she won him over, not with cloying sentiment-- although she presented much gifts, money and ornaments of high position-- but with subtly and cleverness and jesting, as such he was fond.
Cleopatra observed in the jests of Antony much of the soldier and the common man, and adopted this manner also towards him, without restraint now, and boldly. For her beauty, as we are told, was in itself not altogether incomparable, nor such as to strike those who saw her; but converse with her had an irresistible charm, and her presence, combined with the persuasiveness of her discourse and the character which was somehow diffused about her behaviour towards others.
One example of Cleopatra's approach in action was when Anthony was out fishing and wishing to impress her had one of his subjects fashion a fish to his line. the next day she invited many subjects to witness the fishing man and had one of her subjects fashion a already salted fish to his line so that Anthony thought he had caught something and pulled up the meal, but none of this was to Anthony's embarrassment as Cleopatra added, "Imperator, hand over thy fishing-rod to the fishermen of Pharos and Canopus; thy sport is the hunting of cities, realms, and continents." Both jesting him and complimenting his conquoring abilities, as if to say that he was better than the meager task of fishing and his talents were suited to much more greater tasks, of which only few men were ably blessed. Her great sense of humor and flattery was one of the traits that won him over, along with her, "ever contributing some fresh delight and charm to Antony's hours of seriousness or mirth." Cleopatra was truly a masterful leader and a human reflection of Venus, for Anthony at least. Many such as Anthony's messenger Dellius realized how much Anthony could be and was swayed by Cleopatra's charms. And it introduced the question of isolation in leadership.
Do Anthony and Cleopatra go too far in humanizing their leadership roles? Do they let their personal feelings and interests get in the way of their responsibilities?
Anthony and Cleopatra had an association called The Inimitable Livers, of which one cook said that the extravagant royal supper that Anthony and Cleoparta feasted on every day was was not for a multitude, but was to please Anthony and a few:
"The guests are not many, only about twelve; but everything that is set before them must be at perfection, and this an instant of time reduces. For it might happen that Antony would ask for supper immediately, and after a little while, perhaps, would postpone it and call for a cup of wine, or engage in conversation with some one. Wherefore," he said, "not one, but many suppers are arranged; for the precise time is hard to hit."
Is this great expenditure ethical? In class on the first week we learnt that a major problem the majority of the class (and Achilles) saw with leadership in the modern and ancient times respectively was the waste of resources and the excessive self indulgence. What made this example of Anthony and Cleopatra even more painful was the fact that while they feasted, his current wife Fulvia was carrying on war with Caesar on her husband's behalf. Parthian's army was gearing up to invade Syria. Anthony was feasting pleasurably on roasted wild boars and partaking in leisurely activity. This introduces another layer of gender and leadership problems. Infidelity. Was Anthony failing in his duties as leader because he was failing in his duties as a man? The perceived duties of a man to not get wrapped around the finger of a woman; to monitor himself, his monies and his pleasures judiciously. Or was Anthony failing as a leader because he was failing as a husband? The expectations and social consequences of his day was much different than ours. Virile men were seen to be great leaders and examples. It showed that they were youthful and healthy and it certainly helped Anthony's case among his friends and soldiers who sought his advice in matters of love and it helped him flaunt his lineage as a descendant of Herakles. He was proud to boast, and probably thought that he was accomplishing and fulfilling his manly duties by being with Cleopatra, although he certainly did not need much more reason than being enchanted by her.
Thursday 15 September // 9:40-11am
In class on Thursday we split into groups and did a close reading of different passages throughout Plutarch's Life of Anthony.
Paragraph 1 details the lineage of Anthony from this grandfather downward. It tells a story about how Anthony's father Antonius Creticus, was a liberal giver but lacked much possessions. He could not help his friend with a loan of money but secretly gave him a silver bowl unknowing to his wife. It was later discovered that the bowl was missing and Antonius then confessed. There is an underlying theme between Anthony's father and himself in that they are both liberal givers, but also that they my have given too much as expressed in the many charitable acts of Anthony and the temper of his mother upon discovering that the silver bowl was missing. The act of secretly giving a bowl away also exposes a gender role in that Antonius could not gie away the bowl freely but had to hide it from his wife, making her vote and power very relevant in their household.
Paragraph 4 describes Anthony's physical form and likeness to Herakles; His drinking and manners and jesting and advice in matters of love that won him favor among his soldiers and the scorn of others. Anthony was a polarizing figure, yet it was his willingness to give that was both a problem(as he would spend liberally) and a great aid in helping to win the favor and loyalty of his friends. His experience in love making increased his manly appeal and in truth raised his status as a leader people could rely on for advice and to listen to them. Anthony was laying a "splendid foundation for his growing strength."
Paragraph 27 we see the introduction of Cleopatra as a major play in Anthony's life and one that would capture and fascinate the man, matching and exceeding him in royal splendor. Her tongue was described as a string of many instruments, as she knew the language of many different peoples and scarcely needed a translator when conducting interviews. She seems a very capable and captivating leader, and besides this was able to read Anthony's character very thoroughly in brief, and adopt a measure of attitude to his liking. This presented a problem because it seems Anthony was so captivated by her that he was blinded. Also Cleopatra's adopted manner disengaged her expected gender role of quiet and submissive and now engaged a manner more "bold" and daring.
The most striking event about Paragraph 76 is not in Anthony's infantry joining forces with Caesar, but it was in Anthony's failed suicide attempt. In Ancient times the noble death was to die in battle. After that, if all was lost and the enemy was enclosing its forces upon you, a suicide attempt was the next best thing. Driving ones sword straight into the heart. Anthony failed at this, first in trying to get his trusted slave Eros to do the job-- Eros slew himself first-- then in trying to do it himself but botching the attempt. So he bled out. All of this was done as he heard false news from Cleopatra that she was dead. So she brought him to her chamber where she enclosed herself. The memory of Anthony is in decline here. He is looked upon with pity by Cleopatra that has seen him fall from grace since (and even before) she advocated his sea battle against Caesar and abandoned him, taking with her the two hundred promised ships. Cleopatra takes the role of sending for him to come to her.
In the closing paragraph 86 we see a few dynamics playing out. The death of Cleopatra. The fading and defaming of Anthony's legacy. The rising of Cleopatra's legacy.
vexed at the death of the woman, admired her lofty spirit; and he gave orders that her body should be buried with that of Antony in splendid and regal fashion. Her women also received honourable interment by his orders. When Cleopatra died she was forty years of age save one, and had shared her power with Antony more than fourteen. Antony was fifty-six years of age, according to some, according to others, fifty-three. Now, the statues of Antony were torn down, but those of Cleopatra were left standing, because Archibius, one of her friends, gave Caesar two thousand talents, in order that they might not suffer the same fate as Antony's.
Anthony's memory and memorials were torn down. Caesar read letters about how well he had spoken to Anthony and how rude his reply was. Were there any ulterior motives for Caesar relating such respect for Cleopatra? It could have been to minimize the memory of Anthony, who had acted unmanly in his botched suicide attempt, and rude towards his wife and Caesar's sister Octavia, and ultimately who had irritated Caesar. The story of Cleopatra holding her hand out for the Asp showed her courage to die and to die successfully. Caesar raised Cleopatra to the level of his rival, against whom Caesar eventually prevailed. But Anthony's memory is reduced to probably discourage any of his followers and sympathizers and to secure their loyalty to Caesar.