Sociology Discussion Responses Response to Post #1

Your post illustrates the extent to which effective leadership is an essential component of most change-based initiatives. Regardless of the nature of the changes at issue, achieving meaningful objectives in relation to necessary or desired changes is largely dependent on the effectiveness and commitment of leaders. I would also agree, generally, that leadership as not as dependent on or as much a function of personal characteristics and attributes as was once thought. Certainly, there are various personality traits and social skills that are indispensable for a given individual to be successful and influential as a leader; on the other hand, some of the types of changes that you described probably require much more than any combination of particular leadership qualities at the individual level.

Specifically, fundamental social change movements, such as the Civil Rights causes of the Civil Rights era of the 1960s require a fundamental commitment to principles and values, largely irrespective of personal qualities and attributes. In some respects, the more noble and selfless the nature of the social change objectives, the less important charisma and personality (by themselves) are to the success of the leaders. Generally, leaders of social movements do benefit from the qualities and characteristics traditionally associated with leaders; however, it is probably the case that important social change movements are more dependent on the integrity and commitment of the leaders to the change objectives than they are dependent on those traditional characteristics of good leaders.

Response to Post #2

I would agree with your conclusions that advocacy and leadership are both necessary components of the process of militating for meaningful social change. I would also agree that those types of changes, as evidenced by the long road to...

However, I would not necessarily agree that leadership and advocacy necessarily always produce social benefits (assuming that I understood what you meant in your opening paragraph). Certainly, the history of the Twentieth Century alone documents the degree to which both leadership and advocacy can be used to militate for social (and other) changes that are not beneficial to the community but which are completely evil.
In my opinion, it precisely because both leadership and advocacy are capable of being misused and misapplied to initiatives that promote evil instead of social good that it is a mistake to separate the teaching of leadership (or advocacy) skills in the abstract and outside of the realm of substantive values. In principle, the more influential a given individual can become, the more damage he or she can inflict on the human community to the extent that individual has not learned objective values simultaneous with lessons on leadership or advocacy.

Response to Post #3

I would agree with your explanation that leadership, advocacy, and social change can be effectuated at both the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels. On the other hand, I am curious (if I understand your post correctly) why you suggest that leadership and advocacy at one level (i.e. microcosmic) are necessarily any different from one another at another level (i.e. macrocosmic). It would seem to me that, in principle, leadership and advocacy are the same concepts whether they involve small numbers of people involved in operational issues (such as distributing sleeping bags, as you mentioned) or working toward more meaningful and large-scale issues (such as important social change). I would agree that leadership is important at both levels and that advocacy is less of practical concern anytime…