Questioning Everything Propaganda
In an era marked by deepening polarization, systemic injustices, and heated debates over identity, power, and accountability, traditional leadership approaches often fall short. They tend to emphasize confrontation, labeling, and division, which, while cathartic in the moment, rarely foster lasting change. Instead, what if leadership focused on unity as its guiding principle, acknowledging the world's wrongs without condemning the individuals entangled in them? Drawing from a profound discourse on racism, supporter dynamics, and the pitfalls of associative assumptions, this article introduces the Validative Leadership Model—a framework that separates personhood from actions, prioritizes validation over opposition, and seeks to build bridges through understanding and common ground.
This model emerges from real-world conversations that highlight the tension between calling out systemic evils and preserving human connection. For instance, discussions around figures like Elon Musk and his supporters often devolve into accusations of "closet racism" or anti-labor sentiments, as seen in critiques of Musk's public statements and actions. Yet, as the discourse reveals, labeling entire groups risks perpetuating the very divisions that allow injustices to thrive. The Validative Leadership Model offers an alternative: a modal attitude that confronts wrongs head-on while creating space for transformation.
The foundation of this leadership model is a clear-eyed recognition of systemic issues. Racism, for example, is not merely an individual flaw but a "systems thing" that "shapeshifts between skulls," persisting through institutions, policies, and cultural norms even when individuals deny their complicity. This perspective aligns with historical and ongoing critiques of power structures, such as those rooted in colonial legacies or modern fascist tendencies. In the United States, this manifests in disparities in labor rights, gun policies that disproportionately affect marginalized communities, and media narratives that amplify division.
Leaders operating under the Validative Model do not shy away from these realities. They name the wrongs—whether it's support for figures accused of spreading racist ideologies or the ignorance that sustains fascist regimes—without resorting to blanket condemnations. Instead, they view these as opportunities for intervention. As one participant in the discourse noted, "Ignorance itself [is] what they rely on." This acknowledgment sets the stage for constructive action, emphasizing that wrongs are often the product of upbringing, misinformation, or self-centered power dynamics rather than inherent evil.
At the heart of the Validative Leadership Model is the revolutionary idea of distinguishing a person's inherent worth from their behaviors or beliefs. This separation is not about excusing harm but about creating pathways for change. Labeling someone as "inherently bad" or a "racist" boxes them in, reinforcing their defenses and entrenching divisions. As articulated in the discourse, "By labeling them bad people gives them no opportunity to change and rather charges them up in their cliques."
This principle draws from psychological insights into human motivation. People adopt harmful attitudes for varied reasons: shielded upbringings, ideological indoctrination, or unmet needs like security and belonging. Leaders who separate personhood from actions approach these individuals with curiosity rather than judgment. They ask "why?" repeatedly, like a persistent five-year-old, peeling back layers to uncover root causes. This deconstructive perspective reveals "uniformity in shapes and forms," showing that what moves people is often universal—fear, desire for power, or a quest for identity—rather than the labels we assign.
In practice, this means reframing confrontations. Instead of opposing the person, leaders oppose the action while validating the underlying humanity. For example, when addressing supporters of controversial figures, a validative leader might say, "I see your passion for innovation stems from a desire for progress—we share that. But let's explore how certain policies harm others, and why that might not align with your values." This avoids alienation and opens doors for dialogue.
Opposition, while necessary for accountability, often leads to "defeat of personhood," creating vacuums filled by more of the same behavior. The Validative Model flips this by prioritizing validation—affirming the person's experiences and motivations as a starting point for change. Validation is not agreement; it's a tool for empathy that disarms defenses and fosters unity.
The discourse illustrates this vividly: "Bring people out of those associations by common grounds." Rather than bombing bridges metaphorically, leaders build them. They speak "in tongues," adapting language to fit the other's "shoe," ensuring messages resonate without condescension. This approach recognizes that "light here is refracted to wrong. To them it is their light." By validating the perceived righteousness in others' views, leaders create space for self-reflection and transformation.
Consider applying this to real-world leadership scenarios:
In Organizational Settings: A CEO addressing workplace biases might validate employees' fears about change ("I understand job security feels threatened in this economy") before guiding them toward inclusive practices, reducing resistance and promoting unity.
In Social Movements: Activists combating systemic racism could validate the economic anxieties of working-class supporters of divisive policies, then highlight shared interests like fair labor rights, drawing them away from harmful alliances.
In Political Leadership: Policymakers could engage gun rights advocates by validating self-defense concerns while addressing disparities in enforcement, leading to more equitable reforms.
This modal attitude—rooted in abstraction and objectivity—avoids emotional escalation. As the discourse advises, when emotions run high, pause or shift subjects to maintain constructive dialogue.
The Validative Model is most effective when leaders embody it through their actions. "Influence by example" is key: demonstrating unity as a "light" rather than wielding division as a "sword." Leaders who practice this become drops in an ocean of change, welcoming transformation because "the ocean welcomes it" rather than shoving it into isolated ponds.
Evidence supports this efficacy. Studies on conflict resolution show that empathetic approaches reduce polarization and increase cooperation. In divided societies, leaders like Nelson Mandela exemplified separation of personhood from actions, validating former oppressors' humanity to forge reconciliation in post-apartheid South Africa. Similarly, modern figures who prioritize understanding over condemnation have bridged ideological gaps in labor and civil rights movements.
Critics might argue this model risks enabling wrongdoing by delaying accountability. However, it complements justice systems: while perpetrators face consequences ("put the perpetrators in a box"), supporters are engaged validatively to prevent future harms. It's not analysis paralysis; it's strategic empathy that accelerates sustainable solutions.
In a world where history "rhymes" with present injustices—from racist regimes to surges in hate speech—the Validative Leadership Model offers hope. By acknowledging wrongs, separating personhood from actions, and choosing validation over opposition, leaders can transform ignorance into understanding, division into unity. This is not naive optimism but a pragmatic, solution-oriented framework that recognizes human complexity.
As the discourse concludes, this insight is "universal and builds a better approach by attitude." For leaders in business, activism, politics, or everyday interactions, adopting this model means leading with light, ensuring that change ripples outward, inclusive and enduring. In doing so, we move beyond fracturing people and toward healing a fractured world.