Individualism and Family

Following a discussion I had today I thought I'd write a longer blog post on this concept. I have had talks with loads of people in my life around various aspects of this so - warning: If you don't want to read a longer post on this just move on now :-)

Basic Unit

One of the things that I have observed with interest when living in different countries is the difference of unit count. The concept that family or network means more in certain societies than others which are more individually based is neither news nor particularly exciting. However, I do have some particular thoughts on what this leads to in a society, which I consider rather hidden and unintentional. Put simple, in Italy, where I used to live, the basic unit of society is family. Family can be large or small, include grandparents and friends, or just be a single mother and her daughter. In Norway, where I am from, the basic unit of society is the individual. It doesn't matter if you are an old man, a divorced woman, a 12-year old kid or a 30 year old married man. Society is constructed around the individual. Disclaimer: This doesn't mean family is not important, or that people don't care about their closest friends - it's just a different unit. Just like it doesn't mean that in Italy people don't look out for themselves, or build their own lives, or have independence.

Relationship with the state:

In my understanding the relationship people have with the state, or government is directly correlated to the unit. Where the family is the basic unit, the loyalty lies with that extended unit - whether it extends even to a village or a region of "us". Where individuals are the unit, the loyalty lies with the state - in the sense that each individual needs the state specifically. Disclaimer: This doesn't mean that in Norway people are more or less patriotic, nor does it mean that Italians don't have a relationship with the state.

Rights and obligations:

One of the consequences I see is the development of the concept of rights of the individual versus the state: The individual has rights versus the collective, which are very strong. While the obligations are often less observed, and there is a development towards less obligations, they are still clear. It is an obligation to pay taxes. To take care of individuals by the state (meaning taxes). An obligation of politicians to be accountable. At the same time there are few obligations versus family as a unit. On the other hand these obligations are strong and clear in Italy. It is an obligation to take care of the family - sometimes against the state as well.

Good or bad?:

While there are many excellent aspects of the individualistic concept, there are also many negative consequences. I will not write much about the positive, as usually Norway is described as "best country to live in" etc. etc. The negatives, however, are worth pointing out. Often these are either neglected, not seen as part of the whole structure or culture, or simply dismissed as individual choice. I will name a few without going into detail - and they all come from the deterioration of family as a concept as I see it:

• rising divorce rates
• children outside marriage/couple structures (mum and dad concepts disappear or change)
• social interaction
• obligations towards other people (not structures)
• loneliness amongst elderly people not taken care of by their family (instead obligation of state)
• abortion as a solution to free sex
• hardship when falling outside society (drug addicts f. ex.)

Now, what does all this mean? It probably we need to revisit our concepts of freedom of choice. What structures are unintentionally broken down which society then cannot rebuild?

Leadership in politics

I am not a big fan of politicans, and I guess I don't distinguish myself too much there. I truly believe that the difference politicians choices make are quite limited on an individual scale (bare with me - I am not talking about dictatorships here). Only the individual has the ability to create happiness for himself, whatever that means. Therefore I see politicans as facilitators of this.

Make sure you don't mess things up too much. Make sure people have the freedom and possibility to change their own destiny without the possibility of reducing their fellow mans space of freedom. Ensure freedom and justice, and trust the individuals.

However, in what direction the individual chooses to take himself to pursue happiness is subject to surroundings. And that is where true leadership comes into play.

Bold moves, bold statements. Inspiration. Showing direction. This speech by Barrack Obama struck me as particularly appropriate.

(move to 13 minutes)

Defining leadership is not easy in my opinion. Defining management is quite alot easier.

Management in some way or form refers to managing resources in my book. That may be human or other resources. Effectively and conciously managing these resources to produce the desired results is hard, of course.

Leadership on the other hand has primarily to do with direction. You lead somewhere. Also, it most definitely has to do with people - you lead people. These to aspects mean that there are essentially two things any leader must posess. First of all the ability to clearly see a vision and stake out the direction to get there. Secondly the ability to get people sharing that vision and willingly moving in that direction.

Once you know where you want to go, and people want to follow you, you can start working. That's where the management part comes into play. There is no use talking of great visions and inspiring people if you are not enabling action towards that goal. However, management requires a hands-on approach. You can only manage what is around you, available to you. Therefore, the more people you are leading, the less of a percentage of them you can manage. You manage your direct surroundings, who then manage theirs etc. But the leadership has to transcend these immediate limits for there to be any effect!

What impresses me about Obama is his relentless ability to clearly stake out a direction and a path in which he leads. He also has the ability to make people want to move in that direction. Leading a country means he has to get people seeing his vision. He has to communicate that constantly and enable people to want to move in that direction.

What is harder is the management. When will we know whether this management actually moves the resources and this huge country towards this direction? I think it can take years before any sort of sobereyed appraisal of that can be made.