An interesting idea. I think the line "...code of honour and behaviour held by such leaders is transmitted undiluted to everybody else" tells us more than anything else. I believe this would qualify as social norms. At least in part. It is understanding what society expects, permits, and values.
"England expects that every man will do his duty" is vague but in a society with a common understanding of the term "duty" it is enough for the men to know what it means. Kitchener knew to raise the flag because honor and duty expected it.
Social norms are not just transmitted from leader to citizen though. There's a feedback loop in democracies. Once citizens permit social norms and values to slip, immoral (for lack of a better word) leaders become more likely to gain power. They are seen to have been rewarded for what was, until recently, bad behavior, and more in society will excuse and adopt that behavior.
The "slippery slope" theory played out in real time.
The decline of leadership in the 1930s was caused by WW1. War causes inverse evolution...survival of the least fit. Almost all of the future elites died on the Somme and similar places. Many of those who survived (Graves and Sassoon are good exanples) were broken.
The result of the slaughter was that the leadership class of Britain was immediately contaminated with imbeciles, buffoons, narcissists and other low quality human dregs. WW2 completed the destruction of the british elite, and the new post war rulers, being as thick as two short Gurkhas, quickly destroyed the country.
And here we are now. Look at the current Parliament from the PM down. They should all be shot, pour encourager les autres.
In my understanding, the the decline in leadership leans far more in the 'brokenness" of survivors rather than the deaths of future elites. The horrors of the Great War, and the collective loss felt by parents and politicians helped shape the interwar "pacifism' and appeasement policies, ultimately for the worse. The scale and technology of the Great War destroyed all illusions of glory on the battlefield, and left the political class in a perpetual catatonic state.
To some extent both of these things are true at the same time. The war obviously slaughtered many elites and many of the people who would have been leaders in various fields. At the same time many of the surviving generation was indeed haunted by what had happened. WW2 really compounded the effect and had the added legacy that politics was basically handed over to systems. And systems have managers not leaders.
I missed this the first time around. Thoroughly delighted you re-printed it. It is an excellent exposition of why many "powers" today do not work effectively in the global arena.
Big letdown to not name the seven or whatever ideas. But the English had nobody but themselves with French help to blame for the rise of fascist bad manners. It was very cynical for Anglo foreign policy to help defeat the Whites and install the Reds during the Russian Revolution in order to have a nation hostile to Germany on the eastern flank of Germany.
Indeed. I have written before about the complete contrast between British foreign policy at the time of the First World War and after, and that of a century earlier after the Napoleonic Wars. In truth the leadership class deteriorated significantly during the early 20th century as the democratic managerial state began to really take shape.
Your title is "The Magic Seven Ideas" and then you emphasize that it's not the intellectual content of these but rather—subtitle—"The importance of knowing how to behave intelligently" and yet you don't give even one example...?!
Neither ideas, nor "how's"?
(And when you feel compelled to respond, "Clearly...", please know that you have probably not been clear.)
A thoughtful and thought-provoking article. It reminds me of the refrain Billy Connolly is so found of saying: "Times may change, but standards must remain!" It harkens to a time when standards, or a standard, was common and understood by all men of worth. Something to aspire to if nothing else. When did this change ("...at a certain point these seven ideas reached their expiry date.")? That would be the meat-grinder of WWI when, through arrogance, innocence, and folly, the "seven ideas" were found to be no match for bullets, barbed-wire, and gas.
An interesting idea. I think the line "...code of honour and behaviour held by such leaders is transmitted undiluted to everybody else" tells us more than anything else. I believe this would qualify as social norms. At least in part. It is understanding what society expects, permits, and values.
"England expects that every man will do his duty" is vague but in a society with a common understanding of the term "duty" it is enough for the men to know what it means. Kitchener knew to raise the flag because honor and duty expected it.
Social norms are not just transmitted from leader to citizen though. There's a feedback loop in democracies. Once citizens permit social norms and values to slip, immoral (for lack of a better word) leaders become more likely to gain power. They are seen to have been rewarded for what was, until recently, bad behavior, and more in society will excuse and adopt that behavior.
The "slippery slope" theory played out in real time.
Excellent point. I will probably write a follow-up piece to this, in which case I shall refer to your comment here.
Would you mind tagging me in it so I know when I can read it?
Will do.
The decline of leadership in the 1930s was caused by WW1. War causes inverse evolution...survival of the least fit. Almost all of the future elites died on the Somme and similar places. Many of those who survived (Graves and Sassoon are good exanples) were broken.
The result of the slaughter was that the leadership class of Britain was immediately contaminated with imbeciles, buffoons, narcissists and other low quality human dregs. WW2 completed the destruction of the british elite, and the new post war rulers, being as thick as two short Gurkhas, quickly destroyed the country.
And here we are now. Look at the current Parliament from the PM down. They should all be shot, pour encourager les autres.
In my understanding, the the decline in leadership leans far more in the 'brokenness" of survivors rather than the deaths of future elites. The horrors of the Great War, and the collective loss felt by parents and politicians helped shape the interwar "pacifism' and appeasement policies, ultimately for the worse. The scale and technology of the Great War destroyed all illusions of glory on the battlefield, and left the political class in a perpetual catatonic state.
To some extent both of these things are true at the same time. The war obviously slaughtered many elites and many of the people who would have been leaders in various fields. At the same time many of the surviving generation was indeed haunted by what had happened. WW2 really compounded the effect and had the added legacy that politics was basically handed over to systems. And systems have managers not leaders.
I missed this the first time around. Thoroughly delighted you re-printed it. It is an excellent exposition of why many "powers" today do not work effectively in the global arena.
Big letdown to not name the seven or whatever ideas. But the English had nobody but themselves with French help to blame for the rise of fascist bad manners. It was very cynical for Anglo foreign policy to help defeat the Whites and install the Reds during the Russian Revolution in order to have a nation hostile to Germany on the eastern flank of Germany.
Indeed. I have written before about the complete contrast between British foreign policy at the time of the First World War and after, and that of a century earlier after the Napoleonic Wars. In truth the leadership class deteriorated significantly during the early 20th century as the democratic managerial state began to really take shape.
“We are not told what these seven ideas actually were. It doesn’t particularly matter.”
Ideas don’t matter.
Riiiiight.
Clearly not what was said. If you are going to comment here then do so honestly, without snark.
Your title is "The Magic Seven Ideas" and then you emphasize that it's not the intellectual content of these but rather—subtitle—"The importance of knowing how to behave intelligently" and yet you don't give even one example...?!
Neither ideas, nor "how's"?
(And when you feel compelled to respond, "Clearly...", please know that you have probably not been clear.)
This totally misses the point.
The ideas of people who can read matter lol
A thoughtful and thought-provoking article. It reminds me of the refrain Billy Connolly is so found of saying: "Times may change, but standards must remain!" It harkens to a time when standards, or a standard, was common and understood by all men of worth. Something to aspire to if nothing else. When did this change ("...at a certain point these seven ideas reached their expiry date.")? That would be the meat-grinder of WWI when, through arrogance, innocence, and folly, the "seven ideas" were found to be no match for bullets, barbed-wire, and gas.