LEADERSHIP: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE
Author(s): Howard Gardner
Source: SAIS Review (1989-2003), Vol. 16, No. 2 (Summer-Fall 1996), pp. 109-122
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45345703
Accessed: 27-08-2023 20:06 +00:00
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to SAIS Review (1989-2003)
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LEADERSHIP:
A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE
Howard Gardner
At the end of November 1943, Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin assembled in Tehran for their first face-to-
face meeting. Victory for the Allied powers was already within grasp.
Accordingly, the three leaders planned strategy for the invasion of
Normandy and discussed questions, such as the way they should deal
with the Nazi leadership and the fate of Poland in the post-war era.
The famous photograph of the three seated on a veranda embodies
a prototype of leadership-in-action: powerful persons making decisions
that affect the lives of millions. At the time of the summit, the physicist
Albert Einstein was at his desk at the Institute of Advanced Study in
Princeton, pondering the nature of matter. Working alone, shunning
publicity for the most part, Einstein was apparently far removed from the
concerns and activities of political figures, such as Churchill or FDR Yet
Einstein's insights into the relations between matter and energy provided
the intellectual capital upon which the atomic bomb was constructed. It
Howard Gardner is Professor of Education and Adjunct Professor of
Psychology at Harvard University, Adjunct Professor of Neurology at the
Boston University School of Medicine, and Co-Director of Harvard Project
Zero. The recipient of many honors, including the MacArthur Prize
Fellowship, Mr. Gardner is the author of 14 books. His newest book,
Leading Minds : An Anatomy of Leadership, is now available from Basic
Books. [©Howard Gardner, 1996.]
109
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
110 SAIS Review SUMMER-FALL 1996
can be argued that it was the detonation of this weapon, at least as much
as the conversations among the titans, that determined the denouement of
the Second World War and the shape of the world in the decades ahead.
The creator Einstein and the three summit leaders may seem far
removed from one another. I argue, however, that insight can be gained
into both creativity and leadership by examining such individuals together.
I define leadership as the capacity of an individual, or group, to change
the thoughts, feelings, and actions of a significant number of individuals.
Figures such as Churchill or his Conservative successor Margaret
Thatcher are direct leaders ; they lead by telling stories that affect other
individuals and by embodying the stories in the ways that they conduct
their own lives. Thus Churchill and Thatcher both told stories about the
need to preserve the past grandeur of Britain; and both indicated their
reverence for Britain and exhibited personal courage in their daily lives.
Individuals such as Einstein or Picasso or Virginia Woolf are indirect
leaders', they lead by creating a product - works, theories - that affect
other individuals involved in the same domains or disciplines. Thus the
manner in which Einstein formulated questions affected fiiture physicists,
just as Woolf s style of writing affected subsequent authors of fiction.
To explore the relations between indirect and direct leadership, I
investigated prototypical indirect leaders, such as Einstein and T. S. Eliot;
exemplary direct leaders such as Churchill and Gandhi; and individuals
who occupy a space between indirect and direct leadership, such as J.
Robert Oppenheimer, physicist turned director of the Manhattan Project,
Margaret Mead, anthropologist turned public educator, and Jean Monnet,
the founder of the European Community. The results of this investigation
were reported in Creating Minds (1993) and Leading Minds (1995).
Indirect leaders tell a story that is relatively sophisticated. Indeed,
sophisticated stories, such as the theory or relativity or stream-ofconsciousness writing, may prevail over less sophisticated ones, such as
a belief in absolute time/space and straightforward narration. Indirect
leaders can function in a milieu where expertise is assumed.
In contrast, direct leaders need to speak across disciplines to a wider,
more heterogeneous public. In most cases, they are reduced to telling
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LEADERSHIP: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE 1 1 1
stories that are uncomplicated. Only rarely does one encounter a stoiy of
some complexity that endures - in Mahatma Gandhi's case, the
demonstration that antagonists in a struggle can work together and can
both be ennobled by the struggle.
The Centrality of Stories
From my perspective, the ability to tell a story is fundamental to the
effective leader, and particularly to the direct leader. The power of the story
is conveyed in Two Words, an evocative short story by the Chilean writer
Isabel Allende. The heroine Belisa Crepusculario is a beautiful young
woman from a desperately poor background who made a living selling words.
She sold verses for five centavos, wrote love letters for nine centavos, and
for twelve centavos, invented insults that could be directed toward mortal
enemies. By her literary talent, she can be seen as an indirect leader.
Belisa Crepusculario's life changes dramatically when she is seized
by the Colonel. After his men almost kill her, the Colonel explains the
reasons for this wanton treatment. "I want to be President," he declares.
"To do that I have to talk like a candidate. Can you sell me the words for
a speech?" Belisa agrees to create the requested tapestry of words. The
illiterate Colonel memorizes and delivers the speech; the audience is
"dazzled by the clarity of the Colonel's proposals and the poetic lucidity
of his arguments," he wins the election; and since this is a love story, the
two protagonists live happily ever after.
Art anticipates life and, sometimes, even social science. From
my perspective as a psychologist, Isabel Allende has touched on the
most essential feature of ¡effective leadership: the capacity of a leader
to create a story that affects the thoughts, feelings, and/or actions of
other individuals. The Colonel may well have good ideas and be an
appealing personality, but unless he can somehow capture the ideas
in a coherent narrative that makes sense to people and spurs them to
think and to act differently, his leadership cannot bring about significant
change. Without the power that persuades people to behave in a certain
way, he is at most a mere manager. Belisa, the indirect leader, feeds the
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
112 SAIS Review SUMMER-FALL 1996
words that she has created to the Colonel, a direct leader, and he succeeds
in mobilizing his diverse populace.
Leadership has been investigated by many scholars, of course, and
their conclusions can be presented in alliterative terms. Various scholars
have focused on the importance of power, the attainment and deployment
of power, policy, the pursuit and implementation of a certain set of policies;
the role of the public, leadership must generate a rapport with the audience;
and personality, leaders have the need to dominate (often to compensate
for felt personal deficiencies).
Each of these perspectives has validity and none should be ignored,
but they all neglect a crucial component : leadership occurs in the human
mind - it is essentially a cognitive phenomenon. Leaders either devise
their own stories or use stories that already exist in the culture (or are fed
to them by a Belisa-like figure), developing or revising them in some way.
If leaders are to be effective, they must embody the story in their own
lives. Leaders tell stories on many topics, but their most essential story is
one that (re)defines the identity of the audience members.
If a leader simply had to enunciate a story to an empty mind, he or
she would have an easy assignment. In fact, however, all normal human
beings (leaders no less than followers) have minds that are fully stocked
with stories, drawn from history, culture, or the immediate family
environment. Any new story, indeed any old story, must compete with
the stories that are already well-entrenched. Indeed, we see cognition
directly at work when one set of stories in the mind competes, in Darwinian
fashion, with a new story that has just been introduced - and ultimately
the former or less often, the latter become the conventional wisdom. It is
a singular achievement when leaders succeed in conveying a new story,
in having it understood as such, and in redirecting the thoughts and
behavior of their typically unsophisticated audiences.
Examples from the Recent Past
Recent British and American history provide vivid examples of leaders
who were effective storytellers. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LEADERSHIP: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE 1 1 3
told approximately the same stories, with approximately equal success.
According to Thatcher's narrative of identity, Britain, a once proud and
grand nation, had lost its way; she could help to reorient that once great
nation. Reagan reflected the same themes, featuring many of the same
heroes and villains. When no Falklands War presented itself, he
manufactured a teapot-sized crisis in Grenada.
The unschooled mind - the mind that has no expertise in policy - is
impatient with subtlety, ambiguity, paradox, or relativism. Some leaders,
and I would include both Reagan and Thatcher in this category, are quite
content to present such a simple message; indeed this was the idea behind
the aptly nick-named "Star Wars Program," which was admired by both
individuals. (In fairness, their eventual efforts to achieve a rapprochement
with Gorbachev's Soviet Union requires a more sophisticated narrative.)
In addition to being able to tell a story well, the leader must embody
the story in his or her life. To the extent that the leader seems hypocritical
or inauthentic, the story - no matter how skillfully conveyed - will soon
lose its efficacy.
From this perspective, Margaret Thatcher emerges as one of the
major leaders of our era. Let us look at her accomplishments in more
detail. To begin with, she had a simple and powerful story to tell: "Britain
has lost its way, and I know a new and better way." She identified a grand
vision from the past (Britain as a leading country in the world - successful,
heroic, entrepreneurial); an ensemble of admirable persons (hard working
entrepreneurs) and practices (the untrammeled operation of market
forces) that could help place Britain back on its feet, and a "counter-story"
set of socialist villains (intransigent unions, fùzzy-minded internationalists,
self-indulgent intellectuals). Thatcher was helped in conveying her stories
by certain unanticipated events - the Falkland War, the bombing at the
Brighton Party Congress, poorly-crafted labor strikes - she was aided
even more by the fact that she seemed to embody the stories that she
was telling. After all, if a woman - indeed a grocer's daughter - could rise
through her own efforts to the status of leader of her nation, why couldn't
English men and women pull together to advance their own interests and
those of their nation?
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
114 SAIS Review SUMMER-FALL 1996
Several aspects of the Thatcher story recur in the stories of other
leaders. Thatcher was acutely aware of the importance of having supporters
who felt themselves similarly attuned to the country's needs; she was always
asking of an individual, "Is he one of us?" It might seem that it is always
better to have an "inclusive story" that involves more people, but that turns
out to be wrong. Stories that are too inclusive end up alienating one's core
supporters. It is no accident that Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by a
fellow Hindu rather than a Muslim; that Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated
by a disillusioned Jew rather than by a Palestinian; and that Martin Luther
King, Jr. lost his leadership role when he left the American South and
attempted to represent all poor people, not just African-Americans.
Thatcher also showed the importance, at critical points in her life, of
confronting authority. While managers "get along by going along," leaders
need to be willing to risk unpopularity in the service of their major goals.
From an early age, future leaders are comfortable in challenging those in
positions of authority - not necessarily in an abrasive way, but in a way
that reflects the fact that they have thought through the issues and have
something to say.
Perhaps most importantly, Thatcher exhibited the ability to address
the "unschooled mind." Political leaders who attempt to tell complex stories,
sprinkled with the intricacies of expertise, are open targets for rivals who
have a simpler story to tell, a story that speaks more directly to the
unschooled mind. Margaret Thatcher was well-informed and could argue
subtle points with experts, but she never lost sight of the fact that her
primary audience was the ordinary "man on the Clapham omnibus." In
this she resembled her friend Ronald Reagan who, unlike Thatcher, was
rarely burdened with an expert's knowledge of any policy domain.
Influential leaders cast large shadows, limiting the options open to
those that follow them. The leaders in the period following World War II
were necessarily seen in contrast to such giants as Churchill and deGaulle,
two direct leaders who, incidentally, were effective indirect leaders as well.
Similarly, leaders in the post-Cold War era invite comparison to
impressive figures like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LEADERSHIP: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE 1 1 5
As the most influential leader of post-war England, Maigaret Thatcher
powerfully shaped the options left to John Major. He had to relate to her
story, "England had lost its way, and I have charted the right new course;"
and to her fearsome, technicolor embodiment of that story, "The Lady's
not for turning." As her hand-picked successor, Major could not afford
to deviate too far from Thatcher's legacy. At most, like George Bush in
the aftermath of Ronald Reagan, he could offer a "kinder, gentler, version
of Thatcher's message." He could not afford to alienate true-blue
Thatcherites who wanted nothing to do with Europe; but at the same time,
he had to broaden the Conservative's base of support by appealing to
individuals who could not swallow the harsh morsels of the Thatcher diet.
Still, Major needed - and felt the need - to put forth his own identity.
It did not make sense for him to try to occupy Margaret Thatcher's
persona; his own history is too divergent from hers to make this plausible.
While Thatcher clearly saw herself, and was seen by others, as
extraordinary, John Major had to stress the ways in which he is similar to
the common man. In one sense this was not difficult to accomplish because
he is, in fact, a much less colorful, a much grayer personality. But unlike
Harry Truman Major is not entirely comfortable in his role as a common
man. He is ashamed of his own impoverished past, uncomfortable with
the snobbier aspects of the establishment and the aristocracy, and not
entirely sure where Thatcher's credo ends and his should begin. As
Thatcher might put it, his embodiment is wobbly. In fairness to Major, it
must be said that no one who follows a larger-than-life figure, such as
Thatcher, has an easy time. Still, if he had a clearer message and could
embody it less ambiguously, Major would likely be a more effective leader.
Tony Blair, Major's Labour counterpart, cannot escape responding
to Margaret Thatcher in one or another way, because she has, in fact,
framed the nature of political debate in Britain during the 1990s. But while
Major must remain within striking distance of Thatcher's credo (lest she
lash out at him again), Blair has the luxury of choosing his words and his
distance. Moreover, Blair is aided by the fact that his immediate Labour
predecessors, Neil Kinnock and John Smith, had already spurned the
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
116 SAIS Review SUMMER-FALL 1996
perceived extremism of the Tony Benn wing of the party. This move left
Labour much less vulnerable to the kind of union-bashing and ridiculing
of socialist policies that Thatcher had indulged in with surprising success
during the early years of her regime. Indeed, much more readily than Major,
Blair can comfortably adhere to those aspects of the Tory line that have
become consensual, while distancing himself from the unattractive excesses
of the Thatcher program and the Thatcher rhetoric. It is no wonder he
has absorbed what is left of the Social Democratic Party.
With considerable help from able thinkers in his "kitchen cabinet,"
Blair has crafted an attractive message, one that combines the traditional
appeals of both Labour and Conservative parties. As he describes it,
government can encourage individual aspirations while promoting a strong
and healthy community. It is possible to be efficient and just and optimal
to pursue both ends vigorously. He is also an attractive person - indeed,
some might protest that he is too attractive! It is not quite so clear whether
Blair embodies the message that he conveys. While comfortable with his
working-class constituency, he appears much more an Establishment figure
than Major, and his decisions about his friends and schools for his
children cast doubt on the extent to which he could be confused, as Major
could easily be, with the ordinary citizen. One asks, as one asks of Bill
Clinton, how sincere this skilled and colorful speaker really is.
Leadership in the United States , circa 1996
Turning to the American scene, leaders in the wake of Ronald Reagan
also have had to create a story that resonates with the American public.
My own analysis suggests that any contemporary political leader in the
United States has had to situate himself or herself with respect to two
axes. The first axis, which I will call the Time Axis, concerns one's
relationship to history. Phrased in the terms of the question: Does one look
primarily to the past, for the key to a successful society, or does one look
primarily to the future? The second axis, which I will call the Agent Axis,
concerns the key to the solution of pivotal problems. Again phrased in
terms of a question: Does one look to the government for the solutions,
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LEADERSHIP: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE 1 1 7
or does one rely on the market? It is possible to describe the key poles
of these axes in neutral terms:
Past Orientation
Government ••••••••••••• Market
Future Orientation
However, most politicians and pundits prefer to nuance these poles
in positive or negative ways. Consider these connotations:
Past orientation (Positive): Community values, the Founding Fathers
Past orientation (Negative): Out of touch, Claustrophobic
Future orientation (Positive): Modem, Cool, Unlimited potential
Future orientation (Negative): Technocratic, Mechanistic, Cold
Governmental orientation (Positive): Helping hand, Safety net
Governmental orientation (Negative): Hand-out, Stifling initiative
Market orientation (Positive): Invisible hand, Fair to all, Dynamic
Market orientation (Negative): Darwinian, Brutal, "Law of the jungle"
Audience members readily pick up these connotations. One reaches
contrasting evaluations of a policy - such as, free trade - if it is described
as dynamic and fair to all, than if it is seen as brutal and embodying
the law of the jungle. Similarly, a new institution like the Internet can be
justified as promoting community values, or criticized for injecting a
mechanistic coldness into the usually warm relations among people.
Certain terms are sufficiently potent that they are generally
appropriated by representatives of the contrasting poles of an axes. Thus
traditionalists, futurists, 18th century liberals of the right and 20th century
liberals of the left all wrap themselves in the mantle of being "American."
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
118 SAIS Review SUMMER-FALL 1996
Only to the avowed internationalist or the dogged multiculturalist can
"American" be seen as less than an unalloyed "good."
Are these axes truly independent of one another? Or is traditionalism
perhaps connected to a market orientation? In fact, it is not. As one scans
the contemporary political landscape, one finds prototypical figures
occupying each of the four quadrants created by the axes.
Past Orientation
Jesse Jackson Jesse Helms
Bill Qinton? Bill Ginton?
Robert Dole
Government Perspective • • • • Market Perspective
Bill Ginton? Bill Ginton?
Robert Reich Newt Gingrich
Future Orientation
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LEADERSHIP: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE 1 1 9
This exercise in political cartography reveals that the two figures
from the South, both of whom happen to be named Jesse, are most
comfortable embracing traditional values. (Of course, the traditional values
that they embrace, such as religious faith, do not necessarily lead them
to embrace the same policies). Where they contrast is in their assessment
of the legitimacy of government intervention; except perhaps for tobacco
subsidies, Helms is critical of the government role, while Jackson looks
to the government to produce a more equitable society. Robert Dole spent
the first months of his campaign occupying the space near Helms, but has
more recently been moving toward the center of the grid.
Two more academically-oriented figures, Robert Reich and Newt
Gingrich, herald the importance of a future orientation, deeming it the key
to America's productivity. But where Gingrich wants to free the enterprise
system from governmental control, Reich favors industrial policies that are
best initiated by the government. Interestingly, Reich began political life
as an indirect leader, and Gingrich has drawn heavily on the writings of
the Tofflers.
Most Americans do not favor extreme positions on either of these
axes. We may enjoy the ranting and raving of a pure market supply sider,
or an "old-fashioned" socialist, but we actually want government to have
a role that is moderate and flexible. By the same token, we are ready to
embrace future technology, but prefer to do so while rooted in traditional
community values.
For this reason, the political figure who succeeds in placing himself
or herself centrally on this grid is in the most favorable position to win
elections and, perhaps even more, to govern successfully and to avoid
"gridlock." In this regard, it is instructive to contrast the two figures often
discussed in the realm of presidential politics.
Whether spontaneously or in a calculated manner, Colin Powell
managed to strike a fine balance between the opposing pulls on each axes.
Perhaps more importantly, he has appeared to embody that balance in
the way that he has led his own life: a government servant, friendly to
entrepreneurship; a man rooted in his community, yet comfortable with
new technologies.
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
120 SAIS Review SUMMER-FALL 1996
In his days as one of the founding New Democrats, Bill Clinton also
appeared to strike the proper balance between these contrasting
forces. He too aspired to be at the center of the grid. Yet, we have now
seen too many Bill Clintons, located at various times in all four quadrants.
It may be true that one is more likely to appeal to various audiences
if one can highlight the concerns of one quadrant in one setting, and
of another quadrant in another setting. But, unless the electorate feel
that a political leader has a basic rooting somewhere on the grid, that
leader is unlikely to be credible in the long run.
Why Leaders Are Still Necessary
It has become fashionable to question the need for leaders. Culture
critics point to the evil that leaders inspire (Stalin, Hitler, even Churchill,
in the views of some); social historians stress the previously neglected
power of ordinary people; postmodernists see the leader as a retrograde
or even inchoate concept; Utopians look to an age where leadership will
be shared or even prove unnecessary, as individuals voluntarily cooperate
for the common good.
Occasionally stimulated by these critiques, I do not believe them. As
a psychologist investigating the biological basis of behavior, I note the
universal tendency among primates, and especially male primates, to create
dominance hierarchies and to base one's behavior (and even one's stress
levels) on one's position in the hierarchy. As a student of child development,
I am impressed with the fact that our behavior is strongly molded - for
good or ill - by these influential elders with whom we come into contact.
And as a long-term observer of different historical and cultural epochs, I
am convinced that a single leader can make, often has made, an enormous
difference. Think of the 20th century without Hitler, Lenin, or Mao Zedong.
On my analysis, while indirect leaders can choose their register freely,
any direct leader must start by speaking to the unschooled mind. If not,
he or she is quickly ignored or discredited - this is what has happened to
overly subtle leaders., like the American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.
However, there is no similar requirement that the leader remain at this
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LEADERSHIP: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE 1 2 1
simplistic level. The leaders whom I most admire sought to educate the
unschooled mind, to convey a more complex way of thinking that might
actually prove beneficial to the wider society.
The heroes of my study turn out to be Mahatama Gandhi and Jean
Monnet, two men who attempted to enlarge the sense of "we." Monnet
devoted his life to the proposition that Europe need not remain a set of
battling nations; by joining economic and political forces, and perhaps
linking across the Atlantic as well, European countries could achieve
more and do so peacefully and harmoniously. To make this case, Monnet
had to overturn views established over the millennium as well as the
argument of committed nationalists, like Charles deGaulle and Margaret
Thatcher. Gandhi devoted his life to exemplifying the idea that individuals
of different races and ethnicities need not oppose one another violently.
They could contend non- violently and in the best case, the parties to a
dispute could be strengthened through the clash of perspectives, of story
and counterstory.
Gandhi and Monnet also inspire me because of their attitude toward
their stories. They were each willing to work tirelessly for their goals,
remaining flexible on means, but resolute in the pursuit of core aims.
Monnet declared, "I regard every defeat as an opportunity," and lived in
accord with this precept. Gandhi worked for decades to refine his method
of satyagraha, freely admitted his mistakes, but never deviated from his
chosen path. And, as an impressive embodier, he never asked his followers
to do anything unless he was willing to do so himself
So long as human beings have any desire to change their situation,
we will cherish those individuals who can point us in a new direction and
show us how to get there. This is not to say that leaders can act without
followers; indeed, leaders are often inspired by their followers, stimulated
by their enemies, and rescued - or thwarted - by the contingencies of fate.
In the present era, we stand in urgent need of inspiring leaders. Ours
is a time of increasing uncivility - a time in which we search in vain for
examples of what a civil society is like. I am reminded of Gandhi's remark,
when asked what he thought of Western civilization - "Fine idea," he
quipped, "I think that it ought to be tried." Part of America's recent
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
122 SAIS Review SUMMER-FALL 1996
infatuation with General Colin Powell stems from the belief that Powell
embodies aspects of civility which are absent in an era dominated by
negative campaigning and character assassination. The Monnets and
Gandhis do more than point us toward civilization - they show us what it
is like to be civil human beings.
This content downloaded from 130.65.1.49 on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:06:13 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms