The new state : $b Group organization the solution of popular governmentFollett, Mary Parker
Science
The new state : $b Group organization the solution of popular government
Follett, Mary Parker
Democracy; Political participation; Social psychology; State, The
But at the same time that we offer fully what we have to give, we must
be eager for what all others have to give. If I ought not to go to my
group feeling that I must give up my own ideas in order to accept the
opinions of others, neither ought I to go to force my ideas upon others.
The “harmony” that comes from the domination of one man is not the kind
we want. At a board of directors’ meeting once Mr. E. H. Harriman said,
“Gentlemen, we must have coöperation. I insist upon it.” They
“coöperated” and all his motions were put through. At the end of the
meeting some one asked Mr. Harriman to define coöperation. “Oh, that’s
simple,” he said, “do as I say and do it damned quick.”
There are many people who conscientiously go to their group thinking it
their duty to impose their ideas upon others, but the time is coming
soon when we are going to see that we have no more right to get our own
way by persuading people than by bullying or bribing them. To take our
full share in the synthesis is all that is legitimate.[6]
Thus the majority idea is not the group idea. Suppose I belong to a
committee composed of five: of A, B, C, D and myself. According to the
old theory of my duties as a committee member I might say, “A agrees
with me, if I can get B to agree with me that will make a majority and I
can carry my point.” That is, we five can then present this idea to the
world as our group idea. But this is not a group idea, although it may
be the best substitute we can get for the moment. To a genuine group
idea every man must contribute what is in him to contribute. Thus even
the passing of a unanimous vote by a group of five does not prove the
existence of a group idea if two or three (or even one) out of
indifference or laziness or prejudice, or shut-upness, or a
misconception of their function, have not added their individual thought
to the creation of the group thought. No member of a group which is to
create can be passive. All must be active and constructively active.
It is not, however, to be constructively active merely to add a share:
it must be a share which is related to and bound up with every other
share. And it must be given in such a way that it fits in with what
others are giving. Some one said to me the other day, “Don’t you think
Mr. X talks better than anyone else in Boston?” Well the fact is that
Mr. X talks so well that I can never talk with him. Everything he says
has such a ring of finality, is such a rounding up of the whole
question, that it leaves nothing more to be said on the subject. This is
particularly the kind of thing to be avoided in a committee meeting or
conference.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account