An Exploration of a More Thoughtful Public

By Rebecca Duncan
In response to the class entitled:
Honors 230: Leadership, Democracy, and a More Thoughtful Public
Instructor: Professor Roger Soder
December 19th, 2015

In his book The Language of Leadership, Roger Soder claims that leaders not only need
to persuade their audience, but also need to aid in fostering and interacting with a more
thoughtful public. I think the common person may be unfamiliar with the term more thoughtful
public, so what is a more thoughtful public, and why is it important to leadership? This paper
will examine the meaning, significance, and maintenance of a more thoughtful public.
This exploration is in response to some of the propositions Professor Soder asserts
regarding leadership. His assertions are implicit in his book, but were explicitly stated in the
syllabus for his class Leadership, Democracy and a More Thoughtful Public that he teaches at
the University of Washington. First, Professor Soder asserts that leadership involves at its base
the creation of a persuaded audience; but beyond that, leadership involves creating and
sustaining a more thoughtful public, a public capable of rising above itself. Soder continues that
a more thoughtful public must not only be created and sustained, but, given that things inevitably
fall apart, must be recovered and reconstituted. In addition, Soder claims that leadership always
has a political context; leadership in a democracy is necessarily different than leadership in other
kinds of political regimes. Finally, Soder declares that leadership always involves assumptions
(tacit and acknowledged) about human nature. This paper will respond to these propositions by
defining a more thoughtful public, determining its significance, and discussing the origins of a
more thoughtful public. In addition, I will be evaluating Professor Soders claim that a more
thoughtful public ought to be fostered through the public school system, and analyzing how a
leader can best sustain, recover and reconstitute a more thoughtful public.
Defining a More Thoughtful Public
Let us begin by answering the first question: what exactly is a more thoughtful public? I
believe this question is best answered by contrasting a more thoughtful public with that which it
is not: a persuaded audience. Both a persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public describe a
group of people, people who receive information from leaders and react in some way, but that is
where the similarities end. A persuaded audience is a passive group of people who are obedient
to their leaders, very rarely think critically about information they receive, and are reliant on
authority. A more thoughtful public, on the other hand, is characterized by skepticism,
independence from leaders or authority figures, and often conducts public discussion of ideas
presented by leaders. Some of these contrasting characteristics can even be deduced from the
names persuaded audience and more thoughtful public.
For instance, let us compare the connotations of audience versus the connotations of
public. When you picture an audience, you might picture an auditorium of people quietly
sitting and watching a film or play, or maybe even people watching a comedy show or dancing at
a rock concert. These people, however, seldom interact with the film, actors, comedians or
musicians. They just stay in one spot and receive the entertainment or information. A public,
however, may include an audience, but I do not believe the word public necessarily connotes
passive listeners. To me, the word public relates to things that are accessible to all, so the
public referred to in more thoughtful public includes everyone, and implies more action than
the word audience does. Soder addresses this difference in his book, stating that an audience
in this sense can be seen as a passive recipient of the message of persuasion, whereas a public
gives us a sense of an aware community, active and alert and more than willing to look into
things and askance at things. This idea of the public as a community implies somewhat lengthy
and consistent interaction between members of the public, which is something that does not often
happen with an audience. A public participates in discourse, whereas an audience does not. We

can also contrast the phrases persuaded and more thoughtful. If someone is persuaded, we
think of their opinion of something being influenced by an outside source. While persuasion does
imply some level of thinking on the part of the person being persuaded, a member of a more
thoughtful public would be, quite literally, more thoughtful about a decision. Perhaps they would
be more skeptical of the information they received, take more time to consider it, and would seek
out other sources of information on a particular subject besides just the information from the
person trying to persuade them before coming to a conclusion.
The following is an example that will, hopefully, provide a clearer distinction between a
persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public. Compare two people who are watching an
infomercial, maybe for something like the ShamWow. (If you are not aware, the ShamWow was
a towel enthusiastically advertised on television several years ago to be extremely absorbent,
much more so than a regular towel.) After a few minutes of a spokesperson describing the
incredible absorbing power of the ShamWow, demonstrations of how the ShamWow can be used
to soak up cola stains, wash a car and quickly dry a wet sweater, and anecdotes from satisfied
customers, the people watching are provided with a number to call or a website to purchase the
ShamWow. A persuaded audience member would make the decision of whether or not to buy the
ShamWow at that moment, basing their decision solely on information from the commercial,
with little thought and without discussing the ShamWow with others or searching for additional
information. A member of a more thoughtful public, on the other hand, might write down the
number or website of where to buy the ShamWow and use those resources to seek further
information. They might also discuss the ShamWow with their family and friends, reflecting
personally and with others on whether or not the ShamWow was, realistically, a good purchase
and if they really needed it. In addition they could be skeptical of the validity of the claims made
by people in the commercial. Then, and only then, would the member of the more thoughtful
public decide on whether or not to purchase the ShamWow.
I think this example elucidates the distinction between a persuaded audience and a more
thoughtful public. A persuaded audience passively receives the information provided to them,
with very little critical thought as to the validity of information or the quality of an idea. A more
thoughtful public is a community that thinks critically about the information it receives,
questioning whether or not it is sound, discussing it with their colleagues and gathering
information from other sources before finally forming an opinion. These are the key
characteristics of a more thoughtful public.
Now that we know what a more thoughtful public is, we can answer the next question:
why do we want a more thoughtful public? And perhaps even more importantly, why would
leaders want to foster a more thoughtful public?
The Significance of a More Thoughtful Public
It is more likely that a more thoughtful public, as we defined it above, would thrive in a
democratic society. Therefore, the question is this; is a more thoughtful public helpful to a
democratic society? What really is the purpose of a more thoughtful public? I think we can find
several reasons. Not only is the fostering of a more thoughtful public the ethical choice, it is also
the pragmatic choice when considering the success of an organization or country, in the long
term and the short term.
In his book, Soder concludes that the creation and fostering of a more thoughtful public is
the ethical choice made by a good leader. Soder moves past his first chapter in which he argues
that a good leader must be able to persuade its audience, stating that in a democratic civil

society, merely creating a persuaded audience does not provide solid ethical and political
grounding. It isnt ethical enough for a leader to just persuade her audience. She must also allow
them to make their own decisions. In addition, Soder quotes Professor Ralph Lerner regarding a
more thoughtful public, who notes that an electorate that expects its representatives to behave
like lapdogs will get what it deserves creeping servility not what it needs. Lerner implies
that an electorate, or a leadership body, needs a more thoughtful public for some reason. Why
would this be?
I want to argue that a more thoughtful public is essential to helping leaders maintain and
advance the groups they lead and creates a future for the current style of democracy. The traits of
a more thoughtful public (independent, critical thinkers, free information seekers and participants
in discussion) are also traits that lead to innovation in many fields, such as the sciences. If a
group of people can act independently of authority figures, have free reign to seek and critically
analyze information, and can discuss their findings with other thoughtful individuals, societies
can advance much faster in terms of medicine, policy, industrialization and economic growth.
Not only that, but a more thoughtful public fosters the growth and grooming of new leaders, who
(by being members of this more thoughtful public) would gain an appreciation for the democratic
system and would be able to function well as a leader of a democratic society. A member of a
passive, persuaded audience in a despotic society would not easily be able to rise to the role of an
effective leader if given the opportunity, because they would not have the skills of critical
thinking and independence. The presence and growth of a more thoughtful public prevents
stagnancy in a society and secures that societys future in the long run.
Some might argue that, especially from a short-term perspective, a more thoughtful
public, by its own nature, threatens the authority of a leader because of its independent nature
and critical thinking. If the public is able to think for themselves and evaluate that which their
leader is trying to persuade them of, they could theoretically overthrow the leader. However, if
the leader is (as we are assuming in this paper) acting ethically, and if the more thoughtful public
is also acting ethically, then their ability to think critically and discuss the leaders actions and
opinions amongst themselves would result only in just action regarding the leader; a leader
would not be undermined unfairly. In addition, a more thoughtful public acts as a very effective
and important source of feedback for a leaders ideas. How the public responds to a proposal will
give the leader foresight as how effective or accepted that proposal will be amongst her
followers.
From this demonstration the pragmatism of a more thoughtful public in short-term and
long-term situations, and the argument for the ethical soundness of a more thoughtful public
from the perspective of a leader, we can see the importance of a more thoughtful public to a
leader and to her organization or society. Now that we have determined its relevance, we must
determine the sources of a more thoughtful public.
The Origins of a More Thoughtful Public
A more thoughtful public comes from a combination of an assumption that humans
naturally have free will, and the presence of a democratic political context. The following section
will respond to two of Soders claims; that leadership involves assumptions about human nature,
and that leadership always has a political context.
We have already clarified that a more thoughtful public has four main elements:
1. Active nature/independence
2. Critical thinking
3. Information seeking outside of info provided

4. Discussion/discourse
All four of these characteristics are connected by a particular element; autonomy, or free will.
For a member of a more thoughtful public to think for herself, criticize an idea presented to her,
look for other information and talk with others about the information presented, she has to have
the choice to do so. Therefore, the notion of a more thoughtful public is, in part, supported by the
idea of free will. This means that, for humans to be members of a more thoughtful public, free
will must be part of human nature.
This is a response to one of Soders propositions that leadership always involves
assumptions about human nature. If a leader wants a more thoughtful public to exist (I will
explain why a leader would want it to exist a few pages from now), they need to assume that free
will is a part of human nature, or at least that, due to human nature, humans are capable of
learning to act on free will. Therefore, it follows that a more thoughtful public also ought to exist
in a political system that allows (or even encourages) autonomous action. So, what kind of a
system would that be?
Soder posits that leadership always has a political context, so it follows that a leader
hoping to foster a more thoughtful public would be acting in a particular type of political context.
The political context needs to be one that allows and supports the individuals free will, and also
allows and supports the four necessary conditions for a more thoughtful public: independence,
critical thinking, free information seeking from other sources, and discussion. Given current
governments that exist, it seems that the governmental structure that would most fully support
the growth of a more thoughtful public would be a free and open democracy.
In order to analyze the success of a more thoughtful public in different situations, well
compare the actions of a more thoughtful public in a democratic culture versus a despotic
culture. First, information seeking is inherently different in a despotic society versus a
democratic one. In a despotic society where all information is filtered and controlled, free
information seeking to create a fully formed opinion is nearly impossible. In a free, open,
democratic society, however, free information seeking would be much less of a problem.
(Compare, for instance, Chinas firewall to internet access in the United States). Discussion is
hampered more often in despotic societies than in democratic ones for the same reason
information seeking is hampered: the government has a lot to hide in order to maintain control of
its citizens actions and thoughts. If discussion is allowed, the rule of the despot could be
undermined by the people. In a democratic society, however, the government is built around the
public and its representatives being able to discuss key topics and issues. The elements of
independence and critical thinking are also essential to effective discussion, and thus would be
oppressed in a despotic society. In fact, the four traits of a more thoughtful public connect rather
directly to three of the conditions that Soder argues are necessary for a democracy: respect for
civil discourse, free and open inquiry, and freedom. Therefore, we can conclude that a free and
open democratic society would best support the existence of a more thoughtful public, whereas a
limiting, despotic one would stifle it. This means that leaders need to be very careful about what
kind of a society they are leading, because, according to some political thinkers, a society can
become somewhat despotic without a leader intending it.
Alexis de Tocqueville, a nineteenth-century French political thinker and historian, noticed
a pattern in human behavior that can lead democratic societies down a despotic path. This pattern
has not only been noticed in leaders, but is also due to the mass public and their use of free will.
While we have already mentioned the importance of free will to fostering a more thoughtful
public, we have only talked about how a leader or type of government can foster and affect that

free will. We have not discussed how the members of that public themselves impact their free
will. A more thoughtful public can be undermined if the people stray away from free will. Some
people may be confused as to why this would happen. Alexis de Tocqueville writes about people
willingly giving up their free will to the government in favor of enjoyment and happiness
without the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living. Tocqueville argues that, while it is
possible for humans to exercise their free will, they often opt to give up their free will, given the
chance, in return for being taken care of and trying to stay in perpetual childhood. There is a
tendency to lean towards contentment and away from free will. This is a phenomenon
Tocqueville describes as soft despotism, and he warns democratic countries to be wary of
falling into the trap of democratic despotism. So, if, as Tocqueville suggests, people may not
even want to exercise their free will, what do we do?
According to Raymond Aron, a French philosopher, sociologist and political scientist,
people need to develop a sort of taste for free will in order to fully appreciate it and stay away
from the orderly, gentle, peaceful slavery that Tocqueville warns of in soft despotism. Aron
argues that it is not enough to have the institutions of freedom: elections, parties, a parliament.
Men must also have a certain taste for independence, a certain sense of resistance to power, for
freedom to be authentic. Therefore, leaders ought to find a way to foster and develop that taste
for independence in order to foster a more thoughtful public. What kind of place or institution
would bear this responsibility? Professor Soder argues that it ought to rest on public schools.
Creating a More Thoughtful Public through Public Education
At the end of the fourth chapter of his book, titled The Political Context of Leadership,
Soder argues that attention to schools is an important part of leadership and that schools have
much to do with the creation and sustenance of a free, democratic society, which in turn, fosters
the creation and sustenance of a more thoughtful public within that society. Why does Soder see
public schools as the place to foster that learning? What is the reasoning behind this choice, and
is there a different way to approach fostering a more thoughtful public?
In chapter 10 of Professor Soders book Developing Democratic Character in the Young,
entitled Education for Democracy, Soder argues that for a democratic civil society to be
successful, its members need to define conditions that are necessary for their democracy to work.
He lists eleven conditions that he perceives are necessary for a democracy to function properly.
They are as follows:
1. Trust
2. Exchange
3. Respect for Equal Justice Under Law
4. Respect for Civil Discourse
5. Recognition of need for E Pluribus Unum
6. Free and Open Inquiry
7. Knowledge of Rights
8. Freedom
9. Recognition of the Tension between Freedom and Order
10. Recognition of the Difference Between a Persuaded Audience and a More Thoughtful
Public
11. Ecological Understanding

Soder concludes that creating, sustaining, recovering and improving a democracy starts with
teaching the values of a democracy in schools so that democracy naturally follows as those
students grow up and become old enough to participate in politics.
Notice that, out of the eleven conditions that Soder proposes are necessary for a
democracy (which is an earlier version of the set of conditions he presented in The Language of
Leadership), he includes the aforementioned respect for civil discourse, free and open inquiry,
and freedom in his list. Therefore, he has included three of the main prerequisites for the
fostering of a more thoughtful public. He also includes Recognition of the Difference Between a
Persuaded Audience and a More Thoughtful Public as a necessary condition for democracy, so
we can see Soder argues that there is a certain reciprocity between a more thoughtful public and
a democratic society. For Soder, the notions of a more thoughtful public and a democracy are
tightly intertwined; it is very difficult for one to exist without the other. It follows that we ask
this question: if a more thoughtful public depends on a democratic society, and vice versa, where
does it start?
This might seem like a which came first; the chicken or the egg? kind of a question.
However, Soder provides us with his answer in The Language of Leadership; he wants leaders to
intervene in fostering that more thoughtful public. As I mentioned before, he argues that leaders
should take
an active part in ensuring that schools are doing more than producing students who have
high test scores. The creation of good schools as places for the enculturation of youth into
a democracy does not require the total preoccupation of every leader. But attention to the
schools is an important part of leadership, involving more than just that one-day visit to
the classroom every year or so. Leaders need to support efforts to ensure that schools are
effective in preparing the young for citizenship in America.
Not only does Soder argue that leaders should care about the education system, he thinks leaders
need to be very involved in ensuring quality education for the youth in their communities. Some
might wonder, however, to what degree teaching democratic ideals should be a focus of
education, especially for younger children.
An interesting question to ask is the following, which may be a bit convoluted: is
teaching children to appreciate values like freedom, discourse, and other democratic ideals
actually limiting their freedom? In a way, it might be, because we are trying to teach or foster
specific values at all. Imposing a certain view of the world upon people, even if it is intended to
benefit them in the long run, is limiting that persons choices in regards to values and worldview.
To provide a counter-argument to Professor Soder, I would like to suggest that the role of schools
should be to teach students basic academic skills and life skills, but should not include explicitly
teaching the importance of democratic values to students. My hesitance comes from the fear that,
if a specific curriculum was formed around teaching students to appreciate elements of a
democratic society, it would become too close to intentional conditioning. In my opinion, schools
ought to open doors for students, allowing them to explore many ways of viewing the world, and
the idea of schooling students to later shape society in a specific way does not open doors for
them, it only closes them. While this fear may be unfounded, I can easily see a curriculum for
democracy becoming a preaching of values that requires students to regurgitate the same values
they have been taught with little deviance from what the teacher has taught; in my dramatic
imagination, its almost like a futuristic dystopian society. Another scary thought is that, in Nazi
Germany, Hitler also realized the importance of education to the future of his power and of the
Nazi regime. Teaching the necessary elements of a democracy in schools by no means makes

someone a fascist, but it is worth noting that teaching values could, potentially, become
indoctrination.
While bearing this in mind, I would like to point out an assumption in my previous
counter-argument that could affect what I perceive as teaching, challenging my argument.
Upon reflection, I have a particular perception of traditional American public school teaching;
students sitting in rows at desks as a teacher explains concepts and theories at the front of the
classroom. More often than not, especially when the students are younger in age, there is very
little discourse or question and answer between the students and teachers. Sir Ken Robinson, the
English author, speaker and international advisor on education, argues that we have a problem
with our education system; the problem is that the current system of education was designed,
conceived and structured for a different age. Sir Robinson goes on to say argue that we have a
system of education that is modeled on the interests of industrialism and in the image of it
Schools are still pretty much organized on factory lines; ringing bells, separate facilities,
specialized into separate subjects. We still educate children by batches; we put them through the
system by age group. As Robinson points out, our current system of public education is
outdated and we are in need of a change. Because of my assumption that public schools are all
like this, and that they wouldnt be changing, I concluded that a factory-like learning style would
lead less to a fostering of appreciation of values and more to indoctrination of our children.
Perhaps, then, we need to alter the system of public education, not just the curriculum.
So then, if teaching democracy in the curriculum of the current school system is
problematic, and the system itself is problematic, then perhaps we ought to change the system of
education. In our current time frame, this could be the role of leaders; to implement changes in
the structure of the education system. In fact, I can think of multiple ways in which designing the
education system in a certain way can encourage adoption or appreciation of democratic values
without making it explicitly part of the curriculum. One example from my personal experience
relates back to Raymond Aron and his idea that people need to have a certain taste for
independence, a certain sense of resistance to power to truly appreciate freedom. I think Aron is
trying to say that, in short, you wont be able to value freedom if you dont know what life is like
without it, what its like to struggle and work and wait for it. I can relate to this idea with my
personal experience as a student at public school.
As I progressed from elementary school to college, I appreciated the new freedoms
allowed me every year or so; in fourth grade I could choose to work on the school newspaper, or
be on the track team, or both; in middle school I could forecast for a few elective classes; in high
school I could almost completely customize my schedule and join clubs; and now, in college, I
am almost completely on my own. The amount of freedom I was allowed throughout my
education grew over time. I have a great appreciation for the freedom I have now to shape my
education and my life, and I might not have had that without the structure and lack of freedom
from earlier in life. This is one way in which freedom as a condition for democracy could be
fostered in schools, and perhaps public schools systems could be purposely designed in a way
that does something similar for other conditions and values that will foster a more thoughtful
public.
Another example can be seen for the element of respect for civil discourse, a condition
for a democracy and for a more thoughtful public. While lecture-style classes may be effective or
necessary for some subjects, there are several subjects in which the structure of teaching can be
much more flexible. For instance, history classes and literature classes, especially as students
enter middle and high school, can benefit greatly from somewhat free class discussion and

Socratic seminars in lieu of traditional lecture. I think discussion can be built into the structure of
the education system like freedom was in the previous example, with more and more discussion
based learning as students move through the years to build an appreciation for civil discourse.
This is also a situation in which teachers can help to build an appreciation for critical thinking
skills by praising innovative thinking; in many upper-level history and literature classes, not
everyone has to, or ought to, share the same right answer. With this model, the hope is that an
adequate respect for civil discourse, and perhaps an appreciation for critical thinking, is fostered
by the time a student reaches their senior year of high school (legal adulthood).
Pragmatically, fostering appreciation for democratic values in schools makes sense
because it is a government-run institution that the majority of youth attend until they are about
eighteen years of age; the age at which they are legally able to vote (at least in the United States)
and participate in the legal process. This is the time when their role as a member of a more
thoughtful public will become most impactful; it is the first time their opinions based on the
persuasion and information of political candidates will have a great effect.
So then, we can conclude that leaders ought to be involved in the public school system
because they can be extremely helpful for fostering an appreciation for democracy and
mentoring the next generation of the more thoughtful public. By having a say in the structure of
the school system, as opposed to the curriculum, we can help students appreciate conditions for a
democracy (and, consequently, conditions for a more thoughtful public) by helping them develop
a taste for them. This, then, should be an area of great importance to a nations or
organizations leaders, because it is marks the beginning of a new more thoughtful public.
Next, we have to ask what happens after those years in public school. How should a
leader go about sustaining a more thoughtful public? In addition, given that things eventually fall
apart, how should leaders recover and reconstitute that more thoughtful public?
Sustaining a More Thoughtful Public over Time
According to Professor Soder, leaders cannot stop thinking about a more thoughtful
public after its beginnings. Rather, leaders need to be concerned about the state of a more
thoughtful public as it continues over time. Part of sustaining, by definition, is continuing the
situation and conditions in which you started something. Therefore, part of sustaining a more
thoughtful public is ensuring that the conditions created by the democratic school system
discussed above are consistent with what members of a more thoughtful public can experience
after public school. Although leaders cannot force people to participate in a more thoughtful
public, they can certainly encourage it by providing many different opportunities to foster the
traits of a more thoughtful public. Leaders can take an active role in creating opportunities for
young people to discuss current social and political issues, provide outlets for people to think
critically, and help create a base for peoples basic needs so that they can continue to be
independent. This could take the form of helping to establish leadership student organizations at
universities, connecting volunteer and politically active organizations, like the Red Cross or the
Kiwanis, to public middle schools and high schools. This will help young adults keep the skills
required for a more thoughtful public as a part of their life long into the future.
Long-term thinking is required for sustainability, especially in the case of sustaining a
more thoughtful public. However, long-term thinking is usually very challenging for humans.
Some people, such as Stewart Brand, have started to tackle this problem of getting people to
think in the long-term. Stewart Brand is a writer and editor who began the Whole Earth Catalog
and co-founded Global Business network. He is also one of the founders of the Long Now
Foundation. The Long Now Foundation is an organization that was founded in 1996 with the aim

of fostering long-term responsibility in the world. In selections from his book The Clock of the
Long Now, Brand discusses the importance of long-term thinking, why it is so difficult for
humans, what we can do to make it the norm, and how we can foster long-term responsibility.
Brands concern is that people want to save the world, but have to be long-term thinkers to tackle
our biggest problems. He writes, Nobody can save the world, but any of us can help set in
motion a self-saving world if we are willing to engage in the processes of centuries, because
that is where the real power is. This is definitely an important mindset for members of a more
thoughtful public and for leaders hoping to sustain a more thoughtful public; we have to think
about the more thoughtful public that will exist, not only ten years from now, but one hundred or
five hundred years from now.
Long-term thinking is even more difficult when were talking about electing leaders; in
many organizations, leaders are only in their position for a few years before their term ends.
However, the decisions that each leader makes can affect people in the organization for decades
to follow. Therefore, when a more thoughtful public is making a decision, they need to be aware
of the long-term consequences of their choices. In turn, leaders need to be aware of how they can
ensure a more thoughtful public will exist and persist for a long time, even after their time as
leader. This is vital for the ethical creation of a more thoughtful public and the success of an
organization.
In addition, providing more thoughtful publics with a sense of a long now can also
have added benefits in regards to critical thinking and civil discourse. If we think in the long
term, argues Brand, problems that we see initially as very difficult appear to become easier.
Brand gives the following example to illustrate his point:
The learning theorist Seymour Papert tells of a group of friends eating lobsters at a
Boston fish house. The question came up, Can anyone eat a lobster without making a
mess? Papert reports, A brain surgeon at the table did it. It took him two hours a
completely eaten lobster with a perfect absence of mess. He took the time appropriate to
the job, which he knew about. It wasnt his skill. It was his patience. Two hours was the
difference between impossible and easy.
So, then, if we want our more thoughtful public to be tackling the bigger, more complicated
problems of the world, such as climate change or crippling poverty, we should teach them
patience so we can sustain not only the public itself, but all the work it does over the new
generations of more thoughtful publics. Although the individuals who are members of the more
thoughtful public will change over time, a leader should be able to sustain the goals and
achievements of that public over time. That is yet another part of what it means to sustain a more
thoughtful public.
Given that a leader knows how to create a more thoughtful public, and subsequently
sustain it, we must discuss the inevitable next step: the collapse and rebuilding of a more
thoughtful public. Professor Soder points out that it is a part of life that things fall apart, so the
falling apart of a more thoughtful public at some point in time is very likely. Now we must ask,
what should a leader do when this happens to reconstitute and reconcile that more thoughtful
public?
Recovering and Reconstituting when Things Fall Apart
An immediate answer to the above question is that a leader could just start all over. She
could go back to the elementary schools, slowly start rebuilding an appreciation for democracy
through revised school system structuring, until she has fostered a new more thoughtful public.

10

However, this would not only take a very long time to come to fruition, it would not truly be
rebuilding or reconciling, which a leader needs to do in this situation. Why should a leader
rebuild and reconcile instead of just starting over? Because, so argues Soder and Brand, you need
to address the past.
Soder and Brand agree that the past, whatever it holds, cannot be ignored and has to be
dealt with in some way in order for a person or an organization to move forward. Soder notes
that our natural response when things fall apart is to react negatively, in anger, fear, or just plain
irrationality. After examining the attempts for reconstitution in numerous times and places,
particularly in South Africa after the apartheid, Soder concludes that a better reaction would be to
recognize the past but not live in it. He says that we have to acknowledge the past while not
getting bogged down in it. Andwe have to find ways to allow people to honor the past while
transcending it. Brand also addresses our treatment of the past in his book; while he argues that
we take comfort in the past, he also concedes that the past is often far from pretty. He cites
Marxist historian Walter Benjamin, who writes with sufficiently unblinking hindsight, foresight
may go well. We need to be very careful when we look back at the past, but it can help us
prepare for the future.
In addition, Soder argues that, on an individual level, there needs to be mutual
forgiveness for reconciliation and reconstitution to occur. He argues that forgiveness is
important, no matter what form it takes. It can be indirect, but often people require formal
apology, and forgiveness is not unilateral; it is a mutual feeling. Often the process of forgiveness
between two people requires outside help and takes a lot of time. This is especially true in the
case of forgiveness between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, in which was very convoluted in
nature: The reconciliation ultimately involved John and Abigail Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and
their good and faithful friend, Benjamin Rush, with Rush operating with patience, imagination
and more than a bit of subterfuge. Forgiveness can be complicated, but Soder argues that it is
definitely worth it. In order for a more thoughtful public to be rebuilt, the leader must forgive the
individuals in the public who allowed the collapse, and the members of the public must forgive
the leader for causing or not preventing the collapse in the first place. Trust must be reestablished
between both parties for reconciliation and reconstitution to be successful. (Note that, referring
back to the section on building more thoughtful publics in schools, Soder also asserts that trust is
a necessary condition for democracy, and is therefore a probable trait of a more thoughtful
public. However, this essay will not delve deeply into whether or not that is indeed the case.)
When a more thoughtful public falls apart meaning it becomes a persuasive audience,
or perhaps even Tocquevilles image of people as a flock of timid and hardworking animals
with the government as its shepherd under soft despotism a leader has to do something about
it. A leader has to acknowledge the past and forgive whoever or whatever is responsible to move
forward. Only then can she rebuild, going back to the beginning and salvaging whatever she can
from the middle to hopefully create a stronger and even more thoughtful public.
Concluding Thoughts
In conclusion, a more thoughtful public is a group of autonomous critical thinkers that,
when they are being persuaded by an authority figure, seek out alternative sources of information
and discuss their thoughts with one another before forming an opinion. This is imperative to the
success of leaders and the groups they lead. A more thoughtful public and a democratic society
have a reciprocal relationship, with one supporting the other, due to the numerous commonalities
in the conditions necessary for the existence of a democratic society and a more thoughtful

11

public. I agreed with Roger Soders claim that a school is the best avenue for fostering a more
thoughtful public. However, I cautioned that leaders need to be prudent about how democratic
values are incorporated into the educational system in order to respect students autonomy. In
addition, we can conclude that sustaining, recovering and reconstituting a more thoughtful public
requires long-term thinking, opportunities for participating in a more thoughtful public after high
school, an appreciation of the past, and the capacity to forgive and rebuild when things fall apart.

Works Cited

12

Brand, Stewart. The Clock of the Long Now: Time and Responsibility. New York: Basic, 1999.
Print.
Changing Education Paradigms. Perf. Sir Ken Robinson. YouTube. The RSA, 14 Oct. 2010.
Web. 17 Dec. 2015.
Soder, Roger, John I. Goodlad, and Timothy J. McMannon. Developing Democratic Character
in the Young. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001. Print.
Soder, Roger. The Language of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001. Print.
Tocqueville, Alexis De, and George Lawrence. Democracy in America. Chicago: Encyclopdia
Britannica, 1990. Print.