![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
genderjumperWithout going into the long version, suffice it to say I have a problematic relationship with leadership. As someone who is tall, male-ish, articulate, and white, I have often found myself elevated (dare I say privileged) in ways that did not necessarily match my skill set or even my emotional fitness for the moment. (It gets even more complicated when I step into such a role because I am qualified, but distrusting of my would-be followers because I haven't yet demonstrated why I'm a good fit.)
I posit that leadership (and by this I'm not sure if I mean all leadership or just leadership as I internalized it across my first 40ish years on this planet) is a parasocial relationship: people make assumptions about your knowledge, skills, and integrity, and then they may take it personally when you inevitably fail to live up to their expectations. They will sit quietly when you take a public stand, they will follow your tribulations without offering a comforting word, and they will pile up on you if the winds of popularity ever shift away from you.
As such, I have triggers around leadership, especially when it feels nonconsensual. I have worked hart to cultivate and practice my ethics and skill set and I take great offense when people want to trust me based on "vibes" (which is usually just unchecked misogyny, racism, and elitism).
My triggers with leadership have always been entangled with my discomforts with masculinity -- internal and otherwise -- and I suppose that means my understanding of leadership is more or less masculine as well. (There's a complicated tangent here about my first job out of college, but honestly it's more about what I didn't internalize than what I did so I'm going to skip it for now.) I'm not saying I think all leaders are masculine, but I am saying that when people made me more of a leader than I consented to be, they invariably made me more of a man than I was comfortable playing.
Yet there have been times when I want a space to exist where people can connect, where participants should claim a stake early and often, and when I want to build community with like-minded folks SO THAT I CAN HAVE COMMUNITY. These efforts have always failed because I was afraid to enforce my vision or I moved too fast and people disengaged or not enough people ever even tried to take part for it to matter.
Carl Sagan said, "If you want to make an omelette, first you must create the universe." I've always read that as a somewhat flippant recognition of how many extraordinary physics have come together to establish your breakfast concern, but today I find myself wondering if no, we really do need to establish the universe before we can establish spaces and purposes within.
Anyway, a new direction recently emerged for me to consider:
A lover read my tarot and told me I needed to stop getting hung up on it and instead seek out a matriarchal leadership. And I love this idea but I have no idea how to operationalize it. (One of womanism's foundational documents puts forth the idea of a "luxocracy" -- leadership by light -- but I recall it as aspirational rather than practicable and found nothing useful.) I suppose all I have to go on so far is the handful of true leaders and heroes I've ever known and how they were always driven by their love and support of others -- reciprocated or not -- and a vague sense that matriarchal leadership is less likely to be recorded or celebrated in a holiday (which resonates nicely with the Tao Te Ching).
No idea where this inquiry will lead (or even begin), but figure I'll share it here in case ideas emerge...
I posit that leadership (and by this I'm not sure if I mean all leadership or just leadership as I internalized it across my first 40ish years on this planet) is a parasocial relationship: people make assumptions about your knowledge, skills, and integrity, and then they may take it personally when you inevitably fail to live up to their expectations. They will sit quietly when you take a public stand, they will follow your tribulations without offering a comforting word, and they will pile up on you if the winds of popularity ever shift away from you.
As such, I have triggers around leadership, especially when it feels nonconsensual. I have worked hart to cultivate and practice my ethics and skill set and I take great offense when people want to trust me based on "vibes" (which is usually just unchecked misogyny, racism, and elitism).
My triggers with leadership have always been entangled with my discomforts with masculinity -- internal and otherwise -- and I suppose that means my understanding of leadership is more or less masculine as well. (There's a complicated tangent here about my first job out of college, but honestly it's more about what I didn't internalize than what I did so I'm going to skip it for now.) I'm not saying I think all leaders are masculine, but I am saying that when people made me more of a leader than I consented to be, they invariably made me more of a man than I was comfortable playing.
Yet there have been times when I want a space to exist where people can connect, where participants should claim a stake early and often, and when I want to build community with like-minded folks SO THAT I CAN HAVE COMMUNITY. These efforts have always failed because I was afraid to enforce my vision or I moved too fast and people disengaged or not enough people ever even tried to take part for it to matter.
Carl Sagan said, "If you want to make an omelette, first you must create the universe." I've always read that as a somewhat flippant recognition of how many extraordinary physics have come together to establish your breakfast concern, but today I find myself wondering if no, we really do need to establish the universe before we can establish spaces and purposes within.
Anyway, a new direction recently emerged for me to consider:
A lover read my tarot and told me I needed to stop getting hung up on it and instead seek out a matriarchal leadership. And I love this idea but I have no idea how to operationalize it. (One of womanism's foundational documents puts forth the idea of a "luxocracy" -- leadership by light -- but I recall it as aspirational rather than practicable and found nothing useful.) I suppose all I have to go on so far is the handful of true leaders and heroes I've ever known and how they were always driven by their love and support of others -- reciprocated or not -- and a vague sense that matriarchal leadership is less likely to be recorded or celebrated in a holiday (which resonates nicely with the Tao Te Ching).
No idea where this inquiry will lead (or even begin), but figure I'll share it here in case ideas emerge...
Tags:
no subject
Date: 2024-01-09 01:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-01-11 09:21 pm (UTC)