A Case for Uncertain Faith?: What makes for a bad vision.
Photo Cover of Rees' book
I was haunted by a thought when I heard Laurence Nees (NPR : 'Auschwitz: A New History') describe how Nazi followers passionately shared their leader's vision, and how they organized and operated around that vision. He described a Nazi organization that in many ways resembles the type of distributed, self-motivated, and innovative leadership that many businesses and organizations endeavour to achieve today. Most Nazi followers did not follow orders in fear. Assuming that such a vision operational model is neutral for evil or good, then my thought was what makes for a good vision versus a terrifying one? Or how does one not get swept up in such a nightmare? Because as the Nazis demonstrated visions are not only a powerful motivator, but can lead to inexpressible tragedy.
Nees has surprisingly fresh insight on Nazism and Auschwitz that developed since new information from former-Soviet countries became obtainable (e.g. Goebbel's diary, progressive set of building plans of Auschwitz camp while run by the Nazis) and as more candid interviews were held with former Nazi members who were no longer risking their post-war careers.
Nees states that for the most part Nazi followers carried out their grisly tasks because they felt it was the right thing to do and it wasn't out of a fearful obedience, (as opposed to what was occurring in two other totalitarian regimes of that era: Stalin and Imperial Japan). What struck me the most was how the Nazi vision and faith was so shared among its followers and therefore together they were so horribly constructive to deliver on their vision's ends.
The language used by Nees to describe this powerful use of vision and faith reminds me of the language so often sought in today's businesses, nations and religious organizations. He describes people who were inspired to come up with creative answers and even competing with one another. No one was known for losing their career in the Nazi Party because they came up with something too far-fetched but rather they feared to say that it could not be done. They would managed by objectives rather than top-down directives; telling regional leaders to carry out the "Germanization" of Poland in whatever manner seems best to them without fearing the need to answer the Fuhrer on how it was done at a later time. The Nazi party was effective at empowering and mobilizing their followers toward their vision's goals.
Nees commented that within a decade a nation that while economically depressed was otherwise a comparatively strong, liberal constitutional democracy without any anti-Semitic laws could quickly be turned in to such a killing menance. Being asked whether he had learned what most holocaust scholars seek which is an explanation as to why all this happened, Nees responded that while it is still elusive to him, he now has a fear of people or communities who hold to an absolute or certain faith. In the past, he thought this could be good, but now he is not so sure.
What makes for a bad vision? Is there a good vision? Is there a case for being absolutely certain on anything?
Certainly how a vision encompasses both means and ends is essential, and then ultimately what comprises the value system. What cannot be compromised? What is worth killing for, or I think better suited what is worth dying for? What is worth living for?
Photo Cover of Rees' book
I was haunted by a thought when I heard Laurence Nees (NPR : 'Auschwitz: A New History') describe how Nazi followers passionately shared their leader's vision, and how they organized and operated around that vision. He described a Nazi organization that in many ways resembles the type of distributed, self-motivated, and innovative leadership that many businesses and organizations endeavour to achieve today. Most Nazi followers did not follow orders in fear. Assuming that such a vision operational model is neutral for evil or good, then my thought was what makes for a good vision versus a terrifying one? Or how does one not get swept up in such a nightmare? Because as the Nazis demonstrated visions are not only a powerful motivator, but can lead to inexpressible tragedy.
Nees has surprisingly fresh insight on Nazism and Auschwitz that developed since new information from former-Soviet countries became obtainable (e.g. Goebbel's diary, progressive set of building plans of Auschwitz camp while run by the Nazis) and as more candid interviews were held with former Nazi members who were no longer risking their post-war careers.
Nees states that for the most part Nazi followers carried out their grisly tasks because they felt it was the right thing to do and it wasn't out of a fearful obedience, (as opposed to what was occurring in two other totalitarian regimes of that era: Stalin and Imperial Japan). What struck me the most was how the Nazi vision and faith was so shared among its followers and therefore together they were so horribly constructive to deliver on their vision's ends.
The language used by Nees to describe this powerful use of vision and faith reminds me of the language so often sought in today's businesses, nations and religious organizations. He describes people who were inspired to come up with creative answers and even competing with one another. No one was known for losing their career in the Nazi Party because they came up with something too far-fetched but rather they feared to say that it could not be done. They would managed by objectives rather than top-down directives; telling regional leaders to carry out the "Germanization" of Poland in whatever manner seems best to them without fearing the need to answer the Fuhrer on how it was done at a later time. The Nazi party was effective at empowering and mobilizing their followers toward their vision's goals.
Nees commented that within a decade a nation that while economically depressed was otherwise a comparatively strong, liberal constitutional democracy without any anti-Semitic laws could quickly be turned in to such a killing menance. Being asked whether he had learned what most holocaust scholars seek which is an explanation as to why all this happened, Nees responded that while it is still elusive to him, he now has a fear of people or communities who hold to an absolute or certain faith. In the past, he thought this could be good, but now he is not so sure.
What makes for a bad vision? Is there a good vision? Is there a case for being absolutely certain on anything?
Certainly how a vision encompasses both means and ends is essential, and then ultimately what comprises the value system. What cannot be compromised? What is worth killing for, or I think better suited what is worth dying for? What is worth living for?
posted by Pepper | 11:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home