短诗四首
海啸
************************
海啸了,有人看见灾难
有人看见大幸运
在灾难中庆幸生命复活
挂在树上的孩子
长大了,在一个光辉灿烂的瞬间
阳光下的孩子对黑暗说:
你何以让星星
沉默!
让他们没有翅膀的身体
漂流?划过时间
在历史上分配荣誉
和死亡
海回答星星
说,我们是孩子的母亲
我们吞噬了她
一个昨天还在外遇的女郎
她和大海做爱
在浪花的皮肤上留着血痕
和爱情之
盐
大海是红色的
绝望的珊瑚,干燥如大地的喘息
沙漠的沙字符,写上海事奇遇的故事
讲着
岛屿
那是孤独挂在树上的颜色
十个小时里
天地配合
奏响哀歌
浪花的皮肤上,终于有了血痕
水珠,眼睛,沉船
神迹摆弄成碎片
齑粉
在图画上
在海域上
她们组合
他们,重新组合
巴黎
******************************************
秋天,巴黎在春天的气息中度过
而在春天
塞纳河泛滥薄情的肃杀
一曲图画般的歌曲
取下图画
和几朵鲜花
糅在鼓声里
敲击着
融化
他们的女人
是美的制作和执行毁灭的人
秋天,裸体面对树林的主干和云
面对骨瘦如史的文字和
那些文字塑造的
男人,和男人泪
他们小心地走过圣人和他们白色的教堂
在高地后面
穿墙而过的一块石头
被女人的手
抚摸
被我
抚摸
我看见画画的小广场
我被画入画中
从我的身上接连下行的台阶
离开的落日
昭示铁塔
和铁塔上直落街面的自杀者
据说,那是老拉斯蒂聂的音符
像气球不会跌落
他的垂线
横躺在
兰波的
诗歌里
一个影子
拉着狗
穿过巴黎镜子的反面
正面,是谁在掩饰悲剧?
是那条狗的斑纹
还是希拉克?
十字架
**********************************************
他们枪来的
方尖碑上写着埃及的历史
和文字
革命
躺在残废军人院前面
永久碧绿的草坪上
死去?
我
站在树下
读女人
和绿叶
一辆虚拟的马车
隆隆而过
里面坐着被通缉的两个犯人
和一匣保盒
拱顶石
是眼睛
视野开阔
直视边缘:一道霞光掩饰的圣杯,或者
圣杯的影子
我的东方情结
在影子里跳跃着
呼喊着
没有他们的解释
我就知道了答案:
。。。。。。
革命
圣堂
和美
是顺流而下的偶然
河道里泛起1789年
我的1789年
不是数字
巴赫
********************************************
巴赫不解释,不回答,不喧嚣,不愠怒
他只是呈现
呈现
无法呈现的
呈现
一条蛇垂落在窗棱上
上帝和魔鬼的对位
准确而贻误世界
几千年,几千秒
无人关注杀人的游戏
是在对位中完成的
那时还有欢乐颂
涂着浓厚的脂粉
穿着阿迪达斯时髦的运动鞋踏响香协力舍大道
把时尚风吹进一个饥饿垂死的孩子的耳鼓
说:死亡赋格是适时完成的,没有错位
在非洲
或者亚洲
巴赫,他面对哥特大堂到达顶峰
那时,仰望是一件习惯
人们幻觉着物质
或者物质由此幻觉
今天,人们何以
把幻觉
当作幻觉呢?
昨天的屠杀
今天演化了
她的仪式
是地球上一个小足球的世界
在小世界上弧形划过
欢呼雀跃
人们呼喊着
顶着天地
顶着性
和性亢奋的
压抑
留神人变成神的日子
打开诗歌里
被忽略的
密码
- 坐在纸箱上想起疯了的朋友们(海子)posted on 01/01/2005
坐在纸箱上想起疯了的朋友们
旧菊花安全
旧枣花安全
扪摸过的一切
都很安全
地震时天空很安全
伴侣很安全
喝醉酒时酒杯很安全
心很安全
====
这两天在忙别的诗,看到自立的海啸,我也抄一首海子的旧诗附和。 - Re: 坐在纸箱上想起疯了的朋友们(海子)posted on 01/01/2005
谢谢我这诗唯一的对话者xw,。。。。。。 - posted on 01/01/2005
关于印尼大水
十二万人
一个数字
我哀悼
仅此而已
今天看新闻知道印尼发生地震 引发海啸 死亡人数达12万人 还不是最终统计 预计要15万人 面对人类灾难 我觉得无话可说~~只有缄默
ZILI兄看了你的诗 想说什么 但是 有更沉重的东西压在上面 所以没敢说话
我想大家可能也多少有点同感吧 毕竟语言是苍白的东西 面对现实显得多么无力~~
ZILI兄 新年快乐 想起那句话:我死后,哪怕洪水滔天。很轻浮 可是 毕竟生活在继续 我们过我们快乐的新年 为地球角落的苦难者祈福吧 安慰自己:)
XW前辈可不是唯一的对话者呀 很多人用沉默注视你 只是感觉不到罢了——我经常这么吓唬自己 吼吼:P - posted on 01/01/2005
地球的歌剧
腐尸是诗
浮尸是诗
地震与海啸是一首大诗
人间的苦难
都是
血淋淋的诗
岩石的心脏中
有一阵悸动
热海风吹拂着苦涩的泪水
地球的合唱
是为掀开人类心灵上
一幕歌剧?
撕裂的心灵啊
何以慰籍?
2005/1/1
=====
自立好!今晨再读一遍海啸,写得极好,尤其是筑境。
我也不能老抄别人的诗,自己再挤出十四句,把自立和海子的风格合
一合,揍成一首诗。
玛雅给的题目“地球的歌剧”,极有诗意与戏剧性,当时我就想起伯
恩斯坦那部歌剧,讲里斯本大地震的,可见人心通戚!
其实西方的诗人和哲学家,都愛接近火山、地震、海啸之类的,非常
有探索精神。扯远了。。。
但是这么好的一个题目,理应该来一首诗才说得过去。
上回玛雅转久无音讯的红河的诗信,昨天我也收到失踪了几个月的赋
格从泰国灾难地寄来的信,可见世界已经很小,在自然灾难面前人心
立现的共鳴!
离朱,在下不敢妄受“前辈”称呼。
自立、离朱新年都好!
- Re: 自立短诗四首posted on 01/02/2005
离朱,象罔新年好!沉默的大多数,新年好!
谢谢指正诗作。但是所谓地球的歌剧这个比喻,我似乎不大接受。歌剧是娱乐娱情,地震海啸是灾难,没有内在的联系;只能说地球吼叫了,发疯了,等等,其实,地球也没有发疯。我们是在自然中,就没有歌剧;我们在历史中,才有歌剧和悲剧——施本格勒?
象罔诗歌拜读。待细细琢磨一下再评。 - Re: 自立短诗四首posted on 01/02/2005
是为掀开人类心灵上
一幕歌剧?
地球的音樂﹐應該涵蓋人類心靈的筑造﹐人類用心靈共鳴的筑造-歌
劇﹐撫慰被自然撕裂的心靈﹔這又成了人類給地球最好的贈禮﹐成為
地球音樂的一部分-地球的歌劇。
當然這是一幕活生生的人間戲劇了﹐劇中也有自立﹐還有賦格。
這樣解通不通呢﹖
- Re: 自立短诗四首posted on 01/02/2005
觉得你们两个有点站在逻辑里面(自立)和外面(象罔)讲话的意思,不在讲同一个事。我好像更能理解自立的意思。
自立的短诗很跳跃哦,让我想到策兰后期的诗,全是短词的组合,不太容易看得懂。
我也有一首,受了彭斯的影响,只求朴实和顺畅。倒是最容易懂的。马上就贴。 - Re: 自立短诗四首posted on 01/03/2005
谢慢板。恐怕现代诗的技术操作之一是跳跃;这是分行的一种理由?还有内容上的延伸,是多位视角的一个体现;当然也有蒙太奇效果。(蒙太奇效果有两种,一种是爱森斯坦的冲突式,另一种是叙述式,以后的电影很少冲突式了。) - Re: 自立短诗四首posted on 01/11/2005
自立的诗我还在着磨,语言中有一种简潔的力量,含蓄!
我很想学,但不知从何下手,总觉得有点尼采,有点荷尔德林,但显
得更瘦,自立能不能推荐一些东西?
比如《巴赫》这首诗里暗藏了许多东西,却又不容易明了,这也是确
然的。
如自立用白话陈述战争与杀人,就没有这诗里隐述得好。
海子有一句诗,一切都不曾发生过。。。
- posted on 01/12/2005
象罔,诗歌创作关键是找到(或者说创造)意象。这个意象的出现其实就是音乐里类似主导动机或者主题一,主题二一类的东西;其他是过渡,衔接,之间如果没有过渡也是可以的,一再说过的小桥流水人家,之间就没有过渡;庞德的地铁,之间也没有;而过渡,是类似电影手法的,是几个镜头的搭配,之间可能是衔接,可能是对峙或者互相解释的。这类例子很多。
诗歌就怕叙述,就是把行与行之间宝贵的空间感觉给叙述化了,塞满了,拖沓了,不珍惜分行的“纪律”,散文化了,就是一行行“说”下去,没有截至,就是散文化。
诗歌是一个比喻,一个象征,有许多修辞手段,尼采有一本修辞学的书,就说得很好。这个修辞其实不是或者不仅仅是修辞,词,都是历史语境造就的,要有一种历史现实的搭配才好。就是我说的增值效应:一个美丽,可以是丑陋的隐语,反之亦然。所谓后现代就是这个增值,是所谓结束的开始和开始的结束;或者是莫扎特所谓 一下子听见所有 (hearing everything at ones)。所以,每一个词的应用是所有词的应用,就是,不要只是以为一个词可以说明一件事情,而是一个词,接合上下文,说明很多事情。如李白的月亮,就不是客观的或者主观的月亮,是月亮的多元月亮,诗歌的月亮,等等,就是词的多义性。庄子的蝴蝶,西方诗歌里的许多词,也是,如圣经里的典,就是类似李白月亮的多义性典故,不是历史,也是历史,是诗歌里的词。
还有最关键的,是灵感。灵感是,如果你一下子感觉到一个词,一个象征扑面而来,你就可以敷衍诗歌的结构了。如果找到一个意象,就可以上下文来编织他,如果没有找到,要“等待”他(我忘记是谁这样说过),不是讲解他,阐释他。
当然了,就像我们谈过的,观念入诗不是不可以,比感性和景观入诗要难。英国玄学派,是说感性的理性和理性的感性的。人生自古谁无死,就是讲一个道理,但是也是诗;这个很难写;不如 秋水共长天一色 好写。其中是一股气;气吞山河了,出句成诗;无气力,不可以成诗歌。气力,包含很多情绪,情调,意见和见解,但是要有气在之状态。没有状态,不是诗歌。学问,不是诗歌。但是又不可以烂情,没有分寸感。没有分寸感,是新式诗的毛病:如惠特曼,白壁德最看不起。
暂时想到这些。仅供象罔参考,一笑! - Re: 自立短诗四首posted on 01/12/2005
自立,你这几段论的太棒了,浅显易懂, 我是觉得你这几天特别的聪明了。吃了什么聪明药? :) - Re: 自立短诗四首posted on 01/12/2005
我啥药没吃。告诉玛雅,我讲的都是常识啊。是八十年代诗人常常说的那些说法。如蒙太奇啥的,他们一直说的。意象,也是那时讨论很多的。我是在回忆啦。
现在我脑袋里的东西,你们说难懂啊,头皮发硬啊,就不敢说了。。。。。。 - posted on 01/12/2005
当然了,就像我们谈过的,观念入诗不是不可以,比感性和景观入诗要难。英国玄学派,是说感性的理性和理性的感性的。人生自古谁无死,就是讲一个道理,但是也是诗;这个很难写;不如 秋水共长天一色 好写。其中是一股气;气吞山河了,出句成诗;无气力,不可以成诗歌。气力,包含很多情绪,情调,意见和见解,但是要有气在之状态。没有状态,不是诗歌。学问,不是诗歌。但是又不可以烂情,没有分寸感。没有分寸感,是新式诗的毛病:如惠特曼,白壁德最看不起。
好 此段论如行云流水 漂亮
其实偶感觉中国这种象形文字演化来的文字符号最适合画面化 和景致化的诗歌
前两天看林语堂的《吾国吾民》里也讲中国诗简直就是山水画 自立兄是在承接古典韵味呀 中国的现代诗似乎与音乐的联系不大 可是从自立兄所述音乐与意象的关系似乎很大 这样就是波德莱尔所谓的通感吧?
还有请教自立兄“一种是爱森斯坦的冲突式”这个蒙太奇是什么效果的?
我以前一直以为蒙太奇就只是画面的切来切去和美女特写呢:)呵呵
“过渡,是类似电影手法的,”是从前叙事诗 和史诗的用法吧?还有描述式的语言 此时无声胜有声 大珠小珠落玉盘……
我是小孩瞎掺掺 说的可能都是驴唇不对马嘴的东西 吼吼
- Re: 自立短诗四首posted on 01/12/2005
巴赫不解释,不回答,不喧嚣,不愠怒
他只是呈现
呈现
无法呈现的
呈现
这个好 道可道非常道:) 喜欢这首 因为看不懂
海子那句诗也好 你们经历过的可能在我们这里没有发生 自立兄有空谈谈小说的技巧吧 偶N度迷恋小说:) - posted on 01/12/2005
“气”说合我意。
好诗要有一股贯穿始终的中气,这样诗才立得起来,不然就散了。
bb wrote:
当然了,就像我们谈过的,观念入诗不是不可以,比感性和景观入诗要难。英国玄学派,是说感性的理性和理性的感性的。人生自古谁无死,就是讲一个道理,但是也是诗;这个很难写;不如 秋水共长天一色 好写。其中是一股气;气吞山河了,出句成诗;无气力,不可以成诗歌。气力,包含很多情绪,情调,意见和见解,但是要有气在之状态。没有状态,不是诗歌。学问,不是诗歌。但是又不可以烂情,没有分寸感。没有分寸感,是新式诗的毛病:如惠特曼,白壁德最看不起。 - Re: 自立短诗四首posted on 01/12/2005
现在我脑袋里的东西,你们说难懂啊,头皮发硬啊,就不敢说了。。。。。。
说说,接着说,听不懂也要听,是我笨,脑袋跟不上自立的新思维~唉,我不够前,也不够后,前不着村,后不着店,前不够古典,后不够共产 :) - posted on 01/12/2005
CHARISMA
Trait Approach - Charisma has been studied as a trait (Weber, 1947) and as a set of behaviors (House, 1977; House & Baetz, 1979; House & Howell, 1992). The trait approach to charisma looks at qualities such as being visionary, energetic, unconventional, and exemplary (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Harvey, 2001; House, 1977). Charismatic leaders are also thought to possess outstanding rhetorical ability (Harvey 2001: 253).
Theatrical Approach - Most recently charisma is being rethorized as theatrical. What are the behaviors that leaders and followers do to enact attributions of charisma for various audiences (internal and external to the firm)? For example, Howell and Frost (1989) began to study the ways verbal and non-verbal behaviors can be acted out to lead follows to attribute more or less charisma to leaders. They trained actors in a lab experiment to verbally and nonverbally exhibit behaviors identified as charismatic versus structuring and considerate (See Behavioral Leadership Study Guide). Charismatic leaders voiced overarching goals, communicated high performance expectations to followers, and exhibited confidences in follower ability to meet those high expectations (Howell & Frost, 1989: 251). In their charismatic character roles, actors were coached to use nonverbal cues such as extended eye contact, using vocal variety, speaking in a relaxed posture, and using animated facial expression. The more structuring and considerate leaderly-characters said the same lines buy with less dynamic non0verbal cues.
Impression Management - Charisma was revisited to look at its impression management behaviors or what House (1977) had called "image building." Studies by Bass (1985, 1988, 1990) suggest that charismatic leaders engage in impression management to construct an image of competence, increased subordinate competence and subordinate-faith in them as leaders. Bass argues that charismatic leadership is less likely to emerge or flourish in a transactional (bureaucratic) culture, and is more likely within a transformational culture (See X dimension of XYZ In the Box Leadership Model). Here, we want to explore ways in which leaders act charismatic, and co-create organizational scripts in which promote such attributions by a variety of audiences (inside and outside the firm).
A Theatrical Perspective on Charismatic Leadership - Charisma is dramaturgical, a theatrical role played by a leader that is jointly constructed with followers, as well as by suppliers, competitors, and customers (Gardner & Alvolio, 1998). Gardner and Alvolio's (1998) dramaturgical perspective is that charismatic leadership is an impression management process enacted theatrically in acts of framing, scripting, staging, and performing.
Framing - a quality of communication that causes others to accept one meaning over another. (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996:xi). For more on framing see Goffman (1959, 1967, 1974). Goffman (1974), for example, describes frames as being our conceptual or cognitive views of particular situations. Leaders with their followers socially construct reality through framing techniques Conger (1991) says include presenting the organization's purpose and mission in ways the energizes followers. For example, Steven Jobs mission for his computer company, NEXT, is to "revolutionize higher education" but just "build computers" like his competitor IBM. Gardner and Alvolio (1998) say that in framing their vision, charismatic leaders choose words that amplify audience values, stress importance and efficacy, and if necessary, will denigrate their opponents (e.g. competitors). Erving Goffman portrays everyday interactions as strategic encounters in which one is attempting to "sell" a particular self-image. This also extends to the charismatic leader framing a definition of the organizational situation and vision.
Scripting - the development of a set of directions that define the scene, specifies the actors to be cast, outlines expected behavior, and cues when events occur and actors enter and exit (Benford & Hung, 1992; Gardner & Alvolio, 1998). Scripts supply the collective definition of the situation (plot and the dialog in Aristotle's terms). Scripting is what leaders do to direct and setup the scene before a performance. In McDonaldization, scripts are written to integrate activities in a very repetitive and integrated way, with few spaces for improv (See Image Theatre study guide; McDonaldization Study Guide). The point is leaders can exercise control through theatrics not only by performance, but by the scripting and rescripting of cast member dialog and by changing the plot of the situation. The pre-performance and off-stage aspects of leadership is casting roles, scripting dialog, rehearsing, and direction the action. The charismatic leader cast themselves in the role of the visionary leading the assembled characters in pursuit of their vision, while not falling victim to the trickery and schemes of their antagonists. The charismatic leader's scripted plot is to save the day, to rescue people from antagonists. Gardner and Alvolio (1998) include dialog and directing as aspects of scripting:
Dialog - Aristotle defined dialog (or diction) as the verbal and non-verbal exchanges among characters. Dialog is a resource to express character, plot, and theme of the charismatic leader script. The dialog of Martin Luther Kin has a pace, rhythm, repetition and style that leadership researchers have identified as charismatic (Conger, 1991). "Let freedom ring."
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
Another example: General Douglas MacArthur would prepare for a guest, or a group by memorizing every fact he could about topics they were supposed to know as expert. In his flamboyance style, he would then dazzle them with his expertise and breadth of knowledge. MacArthur worked on his dialog, both in the office and on the floor of the Senate, to give a charismatic performance, often speaking his dialog from memory.
Directing - Leaders are directors for performances. This can include rehearsals by leader and staff to give desired impressions. After September 11th, President George Bush, rehearsed with speech writers and coaches to give a more heroic leaderly image to his public. Karen Hughes, his
Director of Communication was able to work with Bush to rescript his role as leader to deal with the changed expectations of followers, who wanted a confident and dynamic, yet stern and forceful leader. Changes in direction included using props in speeches (President George W. Bush grabbed a bullhorn to gave support to search and rescue workers who were looking for survivors at the World Trade Center site (September 14).) It included posing his facial features in a more determined look, with the same determination of a Churchill or FDR (presidents who had rallied their followers in times of national crisis) [See Antenarrative Framing of President Bush in Post-11].
Staging - charismatic leaders stage-manage their performances. General George Patton always his pearl-handled pistols. General Douglas MacArthur wore strangely formed hats and a long pipe. Both wore uniforms that were dramatic in their stage-effect. Mahatma
Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Mother Teresa are also often called charismatic. What did they have in common? Not just passion for a cause, commitment, vision, energy, courage; they all have dramatic stage-effect. General MacArthur would get himself photographed on the front lines, and sometimes ahead of those lines, to be an charismatic inspiration to his troop. Gandhi wore clothing he knit himself as an inspiration and example to others to defy British colonial rule; at that time Gandhi and his followers were prohibited from manufacturing their own cotton clothing
Performing - Show time. The charismatic leader takes the stage to enact scripted dialog and set up the frame to construct their charismatic character. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi are examples of exemplifying trustworthiness and moral responsibility; to be examples to their followers of the non-violent characters they expected followers to imitate. Gandhi's fasting and dress were examples of the self-sacrifice and discipline it takes to change the world. Charismatic leaders sometimes engage in self-promotion to appear competent, powerful, determined, innovative, etc. They may also perform in ways that promotes their vision of the future, and promote the organization or cause they lead/serve/embody. Performing according to Goffman (1967) also includes "facework." Facework can be the defensive protection of self-image, as in saving-face. This includes giving accounts that control the damaging of scandals. It can also be the personalization of a cause. Public face and personal face relate to leadership, saving-face after a faux pas.
The point of this elaboration is that leadership is theatrical. In the case of charismatic leaders, there is framing, scripting, staging and performing. This relates to two aspects of leading. First, there is performing, learning the dialog, the verbal and non-verbal language and poetics of leadership. Second, there is directing, writing and editing the script, casting the characters, setting the stage to create the charismatic effect.
Harvey's (2001) study of Steve Job's charisma at Apple Corporation raises several important points.Jobs uses exemplification (embodying the ideal of being morally responsible, committed to the cause, and taking risks) and self-promotion (and less often organization-promotion) to enact his characterization of charismatic leadership (Harvey, 2001: 257). When leaders cast themselves in the charismatic roles and their followers are cast as allies in pursuit of the charismatic leaders vision (Gardner & Alvolio, 1998: 42; Harvey, 2001: 254), there are three contradictions.
First, the charismatic leader balances self-consistency over the longer term with the desire for shorter-term social goals. In the In-The-Box model of leadership this is X, how transactional (short term) and how transformational (long-term) to be.
Second is the "exemplifier's paradox," and the "self-promoter's paradox." The exemplifier paradox is being "one of us, but not one of us (Harvey, 2001: 258). Self-promoter's paradox, is to be charismatic you must promote the glory of your leadership skill and ability; but to do it too much and people find it more pompous than charismatic. It is an apparent conflict in the charismatic leaders' tendency to construct personalized versus collective accounts of aspirations, accomplishments, and histories; leaders attribute extraordinary personal power to themselves or to the accomplishment of followers. In the In-The-Box model of leadership this is the Y dimension, how to manage the contradictory desires of "will to serve" and "will to power."
Third, there is the issue of voice. In the In-The-Box model of leadership this is the Z-dimension. Does the charismatic leader become the sole voice of the enterprise (taking credit for everything accomplished), or do they give voice to the efforts of others' work.
Fourth, there is the dark side. Goffman (1967) proposes the idea of "facework," how the leader justifies actions that could be (or are) negatively evaluated by others. There is face work the protects the self-image of the leader, and other facework that guards the self-image of the organization. There is the opposing forces of the positive and the negative sides of charisma. Yukl (1999) argues that charismatic leadership research has dismissed the dark side, lead by Burns' (1978) interpretations of charisma as a heroic form of leadership that is absent of conflict. Yukl points out that charismatic leaders also use manipulative behaviors, such as "exaggerating positive achievements and taking unwarranted credit for achievements," "covering up mistakes and failures," "blaming others for mistakes," and "limiting communication of criticism and dissent" (1999: 296).
A min point is that charisma is a co-constructed theatrical event. It takes casting of both leaders and follower roles, antagonists and protagonists (e.g. competitors who are enemies) to bring off the charismatic drama.
Weber 1947 Charisma Max Weber 1864-1920
Weber had a more trait approach to leadership. According to Weber: charisma is 'a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which s/he is set apart from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader'.
Charisma is one of several ideal types of authority. The others are bureaucratic and feudal. Weber observed that the capitalist entrepreneur has three choices: be charismatic, feudal, or bureaucratic. For most leaders, the bureaucratic choice has been made.
An extension to Weber would be to look at how charismatic, bureaucratic, and feudal are differently acted by leaders.
DARK SIDE OF CHARISMA
Charismatic Leadership: Claiming special knowledge and demanding unquestioning obedience with power and privilege. Leadership may consist of one individual or a small group of core leaders. Charismatic leadership has its dark side.
Problems
Hitler and Charisma by Lindholm
Charisma and Cults
Heaven's Gate
Is Amway a Cult?
Short Introduction to Lysenkoism (Lysenkoism as a cult)
by Nikolai Bezroukov
Cult Mind Control
References for your reading pleasure.
House, Robert 1977 Charisma
"Charismatic Leadership: Strategies for Effecting Social Change," C. Marlene Fiol,
Drew Harris, and Robert House, 1999.
"The Rise and Decline of Charismatic Leadership," Chanoch Jacobsen and Robert J.
House, 1999.
House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt.Sc L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge: 189-207. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Baetz, M. 1979. Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 1: 341-423. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. 1992. Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3: 81-108.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. 1993. Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions: 81-107. New York: Academic Press.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. 1991. Personality and charisma in the U.S. Presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 364 396.
Bass 1985 Charisma
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. 1988. Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness: 40-77. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1990. The multifactor leadership manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Goodheim, L. 1987. Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world-class level. Journal of Management, 13: 7-19.
Conger & Kanungo 1987 Charisma
Conger, J. A. 1989. The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Conger, J. A. 1990. The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics. 19(2): 44-55.
Conger, J. A. 1991. Inspiring others: The language of leadership. The Executive. 5(1): 31-45.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review,12: 637-647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (Eds.). 1988. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, Jon
Howell, J. M. 1988. Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness: 213-236. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 891-902.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43: 243-269.
Theatrics of Charisma
Gardner, William L., & Avolio, Bruce J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23: 32-58.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday-Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1 opening page of book
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Articles on Web
WHAT EXACTLY IS CHARISMA? Fortune (1994) List of CEOs who have it
GEORGE WASHINGTON, GENIUS IN LEADERSHIP
By Richard C. Stazesky Was George Washington charismatic?
The Charismatic Leader (From my "Getting Down to Business" column in the The Electric Enneagram at Enneagram Central)
On charisma and need for leadership Vries,R.E. de; Roe,R.A.; Taillieu,T.C.B. 1997 nr.18, PDF (85 Kb), PostScript (920 Kb)
HUMAN MATERIALISM: A PARADIGM FOR ANALYZING SOCIOCULTURAL SYSTEMS AND UNDERSTANDING HUMAN BEHAVIOR - Paul Magnarella There is a section of paper comparing Hitler and Gandhi on charisma.
- Re: haha.copy a CHARISMA.算是一种诗人英雄的气质所需要的条件。posted on 01/12/2005
汗~~~自立兄在线:)但是 这是虾米~~~~~~~~~哎
看不懂 走了:( - posted on 01/12/2005
让谈诗人。诗人就是一种作诗时候的英雄。而英雄观是 卡里斯马 的一种表现。无论英雄要表现自己是超人,还是犬儒,都要有一个瞬间是 卡里斯马。
这个说法来源于马科斯。韦伯,他首用?也许。
当然,他不是在说诗歌,实在是说俺们中国人的实用性性格——和他们以为的诗歌性格当好相反——但是我们的诗人却在中庸里,也 卡里斯马 一家伙,而且一点不比他们差。这个就很有意思。
俺自己也没有完全理解,在努力理解中庸式的英雄;这个就费解了,要头皮发硬起来;俺自己就是总是头皮发硬的。
卡莱尔是说诗人是英雄之一种的。所以,把这个词的英文介绍于此。
如果看了这个介绍,我们的诗人英雄今天晚上就会产生,也说不定呢! - Re: 离朱,别走啊!posted on 01/12/2005
卡里斯马~~~??
怪怪的名字 韦伯不是那个官僚主义 和实用主义的家伙么?
那他这里的英雄~~~也不是古希腊的英雄了 是弱肉强食里的暂存者的现代英雄?
咱们的诗歌 也中庸么~~~?李白或者谢灵运陶潜那时似乎是天人合一的调调多呀
当然 李白是受了儒家学派的严重腐蚀了 有不少鸣士不平的诗 ——可这好像也是屈原以下的传统吧 ~~反正没觉着咱们的诗里太中庸 ——读的少的关系吧 哈哈 偶就有一本《唐诗精品》 加起来200多首唐诗~~~~~~:P 多的一首没读过~~ - Re: 离朱,别走啊!posted on 01/12/2005
离朱 wrote:
卡里斯马~~~??
就是个人魅力。 气的另一种说法。 比如说克林顿有chrisma,克里没有。
chrisma是一个高贵的灵魂,是理想主义,是精神气,贵气。
离朱小弟,正在给你写有关刺青的,你给我个E好吗? - posted on 01/12/2005
啊哈 韦伯是不是意思说所有诗歌不过胜利者拿来骗人的幌子
就像尼采的东西瞬间制造一个美的假象 因为美事实上有时是被英雄的追随者诠释的 是一种理想主义的欲望在文字间被实现 或者为了这实现而高唱的赞歌?
因为每个人都有个理想生活 也自然就产生了种理想思想 而这思想在适合的土壤气氛中被同化夸大和展示在表面时便成了诗歌的另一种形式 ——革命 西方的诗歌
包括史诗 好象都和咱们的不同吧?咱们的诗是“述而不怨” 他们存留下来的好象有许多是大众的不满堆积起来的愤怒 和另一种犬儒的田园式的逃避的向往
可是纯音乐的诗有多少呢?茨威格说荷尔德林的诗是纯音乐的 除了德语体现不了他的美~~~不知道是怎么回事 ——既不懂音乐 更看不了德语~~
偶还是玩点简单的吧 试着写小说:) - Re: 离朱,别走啊!posted on 01/12/2005
太谢谢了 玛雅JJchengshuyu@eyou.com
我真的非常喜欢刺青 因为里面就是有一种气~~~
看来上面偶胡言乱语都说得风马牛不相及~~~把整个贵族精神强拉到阶级斗争上了
哈哈 不过也好玩 以前偶曾大言不惭的吼过:错误也是一种创造~~~!
玛雅JJ偶现在正写《神错·钢之罪》 明天早晨能打完前三分之一左右到网上来
现在就写到这么多 花了一个多星期 估计全写完要过完年 等打上来麻烦你看一下值得评的话就说点什么~~~当然 得等全写完的~~~:( 唉写的好累的说 - posted on 01/12/2005
自立好论。记下来了。
后面的卡里斯马说就玄了。。。俺最怕诗人气质的领袖,诗人钻到政治领域(毛,卢梭 。。。)宁可要个平庸乏味的官僚。把人当字那样排方阵,随时添一个,又毙掉一个 。。。 可不是好玩的。卡里斯马们还是玩弄语言安全得多。
bb wrote:
象罔,诗歌创作关键是找到(或者说创造)意象。这个意象的出现其实就是音乐里类似主导动机或者主题一,主题二一类的东西;其他是过渡,衔接,之间如果没有过渡也是可以的,一再说过的小桥流水人家,之间就没有过渡;庞德的地铁,之间也没有;而过渡,是类似电影手法的,是几个镜头的搭配,之间可能是衔接,可能是对峙或者互相解释的。这类例子很多。
诗歌就怕叙述,就是把行与行之间宝贵的空间感觉给叙述化了,塞满了,拖沓了,不珍惜分行的“纪律”,散文化了,就是一行行“说”下去,没有截至,就是散文化。
诗歌是一个比喻,一个象征,有许多修辞手段,尼采有一本修辞学的书,就说得很好。这个修辞其实不是或者不仅仅是修辞,词,都是历史语境造就的,要有一种历史现实的搭配才好。就是我说的增值效应:一个美丽,可以是丑陋的隐语,反之亦然。所谓后现代就是这个增值,是所谓结束的开始和开始的结束;或者是莫扎特所谓 一下子听见所有 (hearing everything at ones)。所以,每一个词的应用是所有词的应用,就是,不要只是以为一个词可以说明一件事情,而是一个词,接合上下文,说明很多事情。如李白的月亮,就不是客观的或者主观的月亮,是月亮的多元月亮,诗歌的月亮,等等,就是词的多义性。庄子的蝴蝶,西方诗歌里的许多词,也是,如圣经里的典,就是类似李白月亮的多义性典故,不是历史,也是历史,是诗歌里的词。
还有最关键的,是灵感。灵感是,如果你一下子感觉到一个词,一个象征扑面而来,你就可以敷衍诗歌的结构了。如果找到一个意象,就可以上下文来编织他,如果没有找到,要“等待”他(我忘记是谁这样说过),不是讲解他,阐释他。
当然了,就像我们谈过的,观念入诗不是不可以,比感性和景观入诗要难。英国玄学派,是说感性的理性和理性的感性的。人生自古谁无死,就是讲一个道理,但是也是诗;这个很难写;不如 秋水共长天一色 好写。其中是一股气;气吞山河了,出句成诗;无气力,不可以成诗歌。气力,包含很多情绪,情调,意见和见解,但是要有气在之状态。没有状态,不是诗歌。学问,不是诗歌。但是又不可以烂情,没有分寸感。没有分寸感,是新式诗的毛病:如惠特曼,白壁德最看不起。
暂时想到这些。仅供象罔参考,一笑! - posted on 01/12/2005
謝謝自立﹗
自立說得好﹐自立說得高﹐我還是怕一步跳不上去﹐時日漫長﹐唉﹗
但自立指示的確實是一個大方向。。。
喜歡這種含蓄有力﹐又不失精神與靈性的語言。這仿佛出自德國浪漫
派﹐精神與力﹐仰之彌高呀﹗
尼採那本書沒見過﹐孤陋寡聞。(我還以為尼採的書收全了呢)
關于惠特曼的詩﹐我也有相似的感覺。但對于玄學派﹐我怕與個人的
出生有關系。比如薩士比亞就年輕﹐就很喜歡普魯塔克。但丁的晚年
是會有點玄學派的﹐可他年輕時一樣的青春。
中國六朝時的富家子們都愛談玄的。
歌德不喜歡過重的意象﹐甚至浪漫主義。與他的好友洪堡比﹐卻已經
夠象征的了﹗荷爾德林很意象﹐有點玄學﹐有力量。。。但他在天文
與氣像方面也不能與洪堡相比。
讀荷爾德林的詩論《論詩歌類型的區別》﹕
抒情的﹐表面上為理想的詩歌按其意義是天真的。它是延續一種情感
的比喻。
敘事的﹐表面上為天真的詩歌按其意義是英雄的。它是偉大追求的比
喻。
悲劇的﹐表面上為英雄的詩歌按其意義是理想的。它是一種靈性觀照
的比喻。
抒情詩在其基調中是較為感性的詩﹐這種基調包含一種最輕而易舉的
統一﹐因此抒情詩在外表上並不追求現實性和明朗優美﹐它甚至避免
感性的銜接和摹寫(因為純粹的基調正傾向于此)﹐在形象及其組建
上樂得奇妙並且超出感性之外﹐在雄健而強勁的不和諧中﹐它既不像
在理想的圖畫中那樣失去它的現實性和生命力﹐也不像在較為直接的
表達中那樣失去升華的趨勢﹐這一強勁而雄健的不和諧音統一升華與
生命﹐一方面它不能並且不願流于感性﹐另一方面不能也不願否定它
的基調﹐否定這清情的生命﹐它消解了身陷其中的矛盾。
如果它的基調趨向雄健﹐內容較豐富﹐好比品達的一首致菲西忒*狄
亞哥拉斯的頌歌﹐這就是說﹐基調相對地于情志上沒有什么可喪失﹐
那么它的開始為天真的﹐如果基調趨向理想﹐較接近藝術的性格和非
本真的音調﹐這就是說﹐相對地在生命力上沒有什么可喪失﹐那么它
的開始為英雄的﹐如果基調是至為深情的﹐在內容上﹐然而更在升華
﹑在內容的純粹上若有所失﹐那么它以理想的方式開始。
在抒情詩中的着重點落在較為直接的情感語言﹐着力于深的情志﹔而
動靜舉止着意于雄健﹐朝着理想的方向。
敘事的﹐按其外表為天真的詩歌﹐在基調中是更具有莊嚴的激情﹐更
加英雄豪放的詩﹔因此它在吖P﹐在藝術性格中不甚追求強勁﹑邉
和生命﹐而是追求細膩﹑寧靜和形象性。基調與藝術性格的對立﹐本
真之音與非本真的比喻之音的對立﹐消解于理想中﹐在理想中詩一方
面不像在狹隘的藝術性格中損傷生命﹐也不像在基調的較直接的表達
中有失平和。基調也可能是來自不同的氛圍﹐如果它趨向理想﹐在生
命力上沒有什么可喪失﹐相反具有較強的組織的稟賦﹐整體的天賦﹐
那么詩歌能夠以它的基調開始﹐以英雄的基調開始﹐“女神啊﹐吟唱
他的怨恨”--從而成為英雄史詩。
如果強勁的基調較少理想的天賦﹐相反與天真的藝術性格有較多的親
緣性﹐那么以理想的方式開始﹔如果基調具有足夠的本真性格﹐而不
得不在理想的稟賦﹐然而更在天真的稟賦上有所欠缺﹐那么它以天真
的方式開始。如果是詩的精神統一並且溝通一首詩的基調和藝術性格
﹐如果必須最大限度地保持這種精神﹐而它在敘事詩中是理想的﹐那
么敘事詩必須最大限度地停留于這種精神﹐相反﹐着重點最大限度地
落在強勁的基調上﹐方向朝着天真的藝術性格﹐一切都必須集中于此
﹐在此顯示自身並且個性化。
悲劇的﹐于外表是英雄的詩歌﹐按照其基調是理想的﹐這種類型的所
有作品的根據必然是一種靈性觀照﹐而靈性觀照就是那種與所有生命
的統一﹐別無其他﹐雖然有限的性情沒有感覺到這種統一﹐它只是在
至高的追求中被預感到﹐但是精神能夠認識它。。。
(再打下去怕鑽到雲霧中去了。。。)
====
看來詩有許多種類﹐與去年抄的喬伊斯差不多呢。但他提供的格式很
好﹐比黑格爾說的具體多啦。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation