So I come from a short lineage of commanders, so to speak. I don't have much data beyond two generations up, so I can only sketch a small pattern. ( You can substitute "command" with "control", "lead", or something else if you like. )
Generation 1 : WHAT IS COMMAND :
hard times, make strong folks :
having no prior economic need for command, various encounters with trauma organically instill in the agent a fear of the absence of command.
Generation 2 : WHY IS COMMAND :
strong folks, make good times :
command is explicitly taught to this generation as necessary, but this generation may lack the economic context for it, leading to branched review / philosophy.
Generation 3 : WHY SHOULD I COMMAND :
good times, make weak folks :
the question / philosophy of command, is explicitly taught to this generation, but this generation may lack both the economic context which gave rise to command, and the economic context which gave rise to questions about command. This results in a general ambivalence about both, why command is necessary, and why the philosophy of command is necessary.
I'm in gen-3, of course. And I was raised to command - though by adolescence it seemed that the skill of command was trivially easy, and there was nothing mysterious about how it works, not was it a necessarily component of my own happiness. In other words, by my 20s, the main thoughts I had about command were, --> jump : to the title/ first line of this text
No comments :
Post a Comment