Nelson Mandelas behavior and Language Basing on the Ego Development Theory - Essay Example

Analyzing Nelson Mandela’s behavior and language basing on the ego development theory al affiliation) Introduction Psychobiography involves the study of historically important persons over the entire period with the aim of reconstructing and uncovering their lives basing on psychological theory. Nelson Mandela was one of the most recognized and revered leader in history. He was widely recognized for his compassion, forgiveness and humility as well as their effect on the success of anti-apartheid and his leadership styles. The paper will focus on analyzing Nelson Mandela’s behavior and language basing on the ego development theory. Unitive development in relation to ego development theory Mandela had arrived at a stage of unity development. While he remains exceptional rare unity leader, it is more shocking by what is to the observers and followers of Mandela’s leadership. Features assigned to Mandela are more aptly described as projections and side effects. Those characteristics are projections other than unitive perspective and not characteristics of Mandela (Habermas, 1995). What separates nelsons Mandela‘s leadership from most other leaders in the world is not only based on the presence of lauded features such as forgiveness and humility? It is a lack of distinction that makes the appearance of such characteristics at the first perspective. In the absence of concomitant relationship and necessary distinction to understand as illusion the approach that Mandela took to involve all people in the country in the development of new South Africa. The key to understanding his leadership role in the transition period of the country from the apartheid regime is through the irony of believing from the unitive perspective. While Cook- Greuter’s ego development model was utilized in assessing the leader’s development, his approach will not be included in the paper (Asmal, Chidester and James, 2003). However, the idea of unitive development will be extending, having in mind that Cook- Greuter herself accepted that it was not quite evident that unitive development mechanism could be explained or measured. Only a better understanding of the unitive level of development is required to evaluate the life of Nelson Mandela. Experiences have however indicated that attempts to discuss unitive development as will be in the paper leads to experiences in ironies, paradoxes, and contradictions. Various studies have also suggested that if contradictions, irony, and paradoxes are not experienced then the individual may not be focusing on unitive development but instead projecting understanding on unitive development (Bateson, 2002). Forgiveness is the most recognized and lauded characteristics of Nelson Mandela even though not all people believe that the leader was forgiving. The claim that Mandela was unforgiving is with derision, questions and the typical statement basing on his political pragmatism. That the leader was not forgiving is a heuristic device. It is a sign that directs to a region in which the sign itself has less meaning. Unitive is both the territory and the sign, but it is the irony that the sign is based on. There is something about delineating developmental stages in which distinctions and boundaries collapse. If unitive development comes with the loss of unity as a difference of meaning, then unitive development comes with a loss of boundaries that delineate one thing. It is therefore not shocking to observe that most assessments of unitive development are never unitive them. From the perspective of unitive approach, there are views that are considered non-unitive. It is ironical that it is challenging to handle the partial understanding since any understanding will emerge from within what unity is rather than transcend aimed at understanding it (Ashmore and Jussim, 1997). If forgiveness was applied as a distinction to Mandela, it would seem that he was forgiving. Mandela was resentful and angry of the offense of others at various time, especially when was he was being detained. He however, came to have less or resentment to the offenders at a later date. The two forms of assessment, however, indicate that forgiveness is never an applicable distinction. It will otherwise be difficult to explain from a non-unitive point of view. The differences outlined above are not based on the passing of resentment and anger but in the unitive perspective of what constitutes or rather does not make up an individual. It is more descriptive to suggest that Mandela let go his ideas and approaches of what constituted a person then he put to an end anger and resentment towards those people who supported apartheid (Bateson, 2002). Mandela indeed seemed to have retained the loathing based on the occurrences of the past. In one of the interview, the leader stated that even some of his actions in the past were unforgivable even though people find it difficult to imagine that. Nelson Mandela believed that in order to change people, the entire system must first go through change. From unitive point of view, the word person cannot be said to be responsible for his own becoming. However, the environment in which people originate from is not based on their making. It is therefore challenging to see any of the antecedent situations creating a person to be the one creating the character itself. An individual is considered a manifestation of a whole. Mandela went to the extent of suggesting that it could be a mistake to separate his self from the national party (ANC). He did not assert that it would be a mistake separating his actions and ideas from the national party (Ashmore and Jussim, 1997). He said that it could be a mistake separating his self from the side. In some of his speeches, however, Nelson Mandela addressed people by use of ‘We’ instead of I. In most of the psychological studies conducted on Mandela, he did not seem to consider himself as the one who brought to an end the apartheid regime instead he indicated that he was just a manifestation of apartheid and fought against it. Attributing forgiveness to Nelson Mandela from a unitive point of view is not a wrong or an incorrect perspective. However, for absence of the better explanation even forgiveness is of unity based on unitive experience. In other words, what is considered to be forgiveness in the case of Nelson Mandela is the lack of meaningful distinction and experience necessary for forgiveness; Instead, Nelson Mandela does at times seem to reference, the created nature of boundaries around forgiveness. The leader most emphasized in the spirit of forgiveness rather than forgiveness itself. He asserted in one of his speeches that forgiveness was one of the goals towards a beautiful South Africa. Unitive experience has most often been utilized in place of the unitive perspective or unitive development. The idea of a unitive view is, however, misleading. Where a perspective demands delineation, demarcation, and distinction, the unitive experience is devoid of them except the fact that their use may still be witnessed to arise from unity (Ashmore and Jussim, 1997). Unitive experience can be as experienced absence than the presence of something that can be made distinct. The ideas of a different unitive level, as well as unitive perspective, are as the non-unitive view. Most have people have experienced unity just similar to the one described as unitive development. Even though such experiences can become more common trait, most reconstruct such unitive experiences through more ephemeral and standard modes of existence in order to fit dominant models of the mind (Asmal, Chidester and James, 2003). A study of its nature and measurement indicated that thoughts, behavior, and actions are as arising from the whole of an individual and not the willed intention. The person in question will seem much like they did from earlier levels of development and in the past. The tendrils of the past still affect the actions of the person. Nelson Mandela would seem to be one of the people in which extraordinary circumstances led to unitive individual becoming a leader. It is unlikely for a unitive person to become a leader. Most unitive individuals are often found not to engage in the pursuits, goals and concerns of ordinary humanity as Mandela did. Mandela indeed showed some aloofness that would have made it impossible for him to become a leader (Bateson, 2002). However, his followers reframed his aloofness into recognizing characteristics such as political pragmatism, forgiveness as well as humility. For example, he applauded the ANC executive committee for rejecting the pre-democracy national anthem through voting. Reconciliation is the process of ensuring two groups can remain compatible. It is not about having a concern on only one of the sides. In fact the reconciliation cannot be about one side but rather indoctrination or assimilation (Ashmore and Jussim, 1997). Additionally, Mandela never seemed to be concerned with the pursuit, goals of either side. In fact, more often than not, Nelson Mandela often worked to destroy imagined parties through challenging imagined distinction. He always fostered unity and was against divisions. Mandela observed thoughts, roles, behaviors, states, and feelings and realized that they were aspects of the role played and manifested in people. Conclusion The theory of Servant leadership is often misunderstood and mischaracterized. A servant leader may be concerned about being of service. Service is often reframed to fit into the perspective of an individual’s ego. Service is to be directed to one’s sense and not on others. One of the questions mostly asked is how a person can become unitive (Ashmore and Jussim, 1997). Mandela was a servant leader. Theories of servant leadership most often argue that service is to the servant leader’s ideas and actions yet Mandela took a different perspective and became successfully in leading people towards developing a beautiful South Africa. References Ashmore, R. D., and L. Jussim .(1997). ‘Self and Identity: Fundamental Issues’. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Print. Bateson, G ( 2002). ‘Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity’. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Print. Asmal, K., C. Chidester, and W. James. (2003). ‘Nelson Mandela: In His Own Words’. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Print. Habermas, J.( 1995).Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Lendhardt, C., Nicholsen, S. W. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Print. Read More