Dignity in LOs LO21688

AM de Lange (amdelange@gold.up.ac.za)
Fri, 21 May 1999 09:01:36 +0200

Dear Organlearners,

In a couple of weeks Nelson Mandela will retire as president of South
Africa. Many people all over the world consider him as one of the great
leaders of the twentieth century. What is the key to his success? The fact
that thirty years ago he tried to overthrow the South African government
with a bloody revolution? The fact that he fought against the ideology and
policy of apartheid? The fact that he spent more than twenty years in jail
for believing in the ideal of a nonracistic society? The fact that he is a
son of Africa who is following the path of panafricanism? The fact that he
is wise which sometimes comes with old age?

We have had many a dialogue in this list on leadership. Various criteria
(vision, misson, empowerment, qualities.......) of leadership have been
identified, weighed and ordered. When we use these criteria in studying
Mandela, it is clear that he is a textbook case for leadership. Yet, how
did he become a leader among the leaders -- a "deep leader"? Was it
serendipity (blind luck)? Was it a conspiracy between other leaders of the
world to further their own cause? Was it a charming personality which came
through the news media? Was it the need of people to have idols like
Princess Dianna or Mother Theresa?

I have never had the opportunity to meet president Mandela in person.
Before 1992, because of his isolation invoked by the government, I thought
of him as an enigmatic and probably dangerous person. Since then I had
sufficient opportunity to study him through the media and books. Gradually
the key to his "deep leadership" became clear to me.

People revere Mandela as an outstanding dignitary -- as someone who has a
high official standing, nationally and internationally. But Mandela is a
dignifier who dignifies EVERY person he comes into contact with. His own
dignity has grown as he proceeded with the dignification of his fellow
humans. Many opportunists want to become leaders in the worlds of sport,
arts, academy, business, politics or religion to usurp the tokenised
dignity which comes with that office of leadership. But Mandela did not
want to become president because he reckoned that he was too old to
execute the office of precidency with dignity.

What is dignity? The word comes form the Latin word "dignis" which
means WORTHY. In my own mother tongue Afrikaans we use the word
"waardigheid". It works like this:
"waarde" = worth
"waardig" = worthy
"waardigheid = worthyness ("worthyhood")

But, sadly, Afrikaans also shows how immature we think about dignity.
We have
"hoogwaardigheidbekleer" = dignitary
where
"hoog" = high
"kleed" = cloth
"bekleed" = clothed
"bekleer" = holder ("clother")
Thus
"hoogwaardigheidbekleer" = high-worthyness-holder.

Dignity is not something which you can wrap around yourself once you
become the holder of an office because the garment is kept in that office.
You have to earn dignity by serving other people through sweat and blood
because their inherit dignity requires it. Dignity is the fruit of bravery
-- you have to be brave to connect with people who have been boxed in or
made outcasts by society in any of its walks.

Just as dialogue and judgement cannot go together, dignity and judgement
also cannot go together. To use strong logical language: You can either
dignify or judge, but you cannot do both. They are mutually exclusive
acts. It is for this very reason that we so easily confuse dignity with
the "cloak which comes with the office". Nether the cloak, nor the office,
can be judged.

Why are dignity and judgement mutually exclusive acts? Judgement has to do
with measurements (evalutations) -- finding the actual magnitude (value)
of some observable (extensive quantity or intensive quality). A Measuring
Instrument is used ti find the magnitude. The MI has to be calibrated. It
means that the MI has to have more than one magnitude. The measuring is
to determine to which magnitude of the MI the magnitude of the observable
corresponds. In judgement the MI has only two magnitude like true-false,
good-bad and pretty-ugly. In physicial science the MI can even have
millions of identified magintudes -- the more, the greater the precision.

Now, whether we measure with a two magnitude scale or a million magnitude
scale, both quantum mechanics and irreversible thermodynamics have taught
us a very important lesson. Every measurement, how tiny it might be,
disturbs the system irreversibly. Measurement changes the system. From
irreversible thermodynamics we learn something even more astounding -- the
less the available magnitudes to cover the complete scale, the greater the
disturbance of the system. It means that when we use a two magnitude
scale, the disturbance of the system is the greatest. (If any of you
fellow learners wants me to explain it, just ask.)

Obviously, with a one magnitude scale, there is logically no reason why we
should measure (discern differences). Furthermore, since we now know that
measurement disturbs the system, measuring with a one magnitude scale is
utter foolishness. When we dignify a person, we accept that the person has
worth. We do not assume that the person has a fixed worth because we need
to measure at least twice to falsify this assumption. Neither can we even
assume that the person's worth is changing for the same reason. In other
words, we have to accept that worth, like the person, corresponds to a
"becoming-being". Crazy nonsense? No. Light is a "becoming-being". Do we
not speak of the "lightness of *being*"?

To end this contribution. This is what made Mandela such an outstanding
leader. He accepted every person as a source of light. This is also what
we must do if we want an organisation to emerge into a LO.

Best wishes

-- 

At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>