JOSE A. SUAREZ. JOURNALIST
Now that everyone is talking about the future of Pedro Sánchez, it is appropriate to clarify the subtle differences between bosses, ringleaders, and bullies, and how we have transitioned from the former to the latter in recent Spanish history.
Marvin Harris, in his book «Bosses, Ringleaders, and Bullies,» analyzes the evolution of authority figures in human societies. From tribal leaders to complex modern hierarchies, Harris explores how authority and power have shifted hands and forms throughout history. A central point in his argument is the transition from leaderships based on merit and personal influence to systems where coercion and power accumulation prevail.
In his book, Harris suggests that in traditional societies, leaders emerged due to their abilities to unite the group, their wisdom in difficult times, and their capacity to mediate conflicts. These chiefs did not possess absolute power; instead, their influence was limited by social norms and public opinion. In contrast, «ringleaders» represent a transitional phase where a consolidation of power and resources begins to be seen within the community.
The shift to «bullies» marks a radical change, where authority figures impose their will through fear and intimidation. Harris argues that this paradigm shift has profound implications on how a society is structured and governed. He refers not only to governance in political terms but also to the influence of these «bullies» in economic and social realms.
Applying this analysis to the current political context, we can see how, in some cases, we have moved from leaders whose authority came from their ability to represent and articulate their community’s needs, to figures who rely on coercive power and demagoguery to stay in power. In times of crisis or instability, the «bully» often emerges as a savior promising order and security, but at a high cost to democracy and individual freedoms.
Contemporary politics, in various places around the world, shows leaders who have risen and maintained power not through consensus and the common good, but through polarization and confrontation. These modern «bullies» often exploit social tensions and manipulate information to create a common enemy or scapegoat to justify their aggression and control over society.
What Harris leaves us with is an invitation to reflect on the kind of leadership we want and how the power structures in our societies enable or prevent the rise of true leaders who seek the common good. In an ideal world, leaders would be those who promote social cohesion, justice, and the well-being of their citizens, rather than those who seek power for its own sake. The question for reflection is: How can we design our institutions and societies so that the former, not the latter, prevail in politics?
In the eternal ideological debate between left and right, we might be missing a deeper perspective rooted in our own biology and evolution as a species. Science has shown that Neanderthals did not become extinct in an absolute sense; rather, they mixed with Homo sapiens, leaving a genetic legacy that persists in us. This poses a fascinating metaphor.
The metaphor invites us to consider that our ideological differences might be rooted in something older and more fundamental: the varied survival and adaptation strategies of our ancestors.
ADVANCE OR RETREAT?
In the dawn of humanity, survival depended on the ability to work in a group; being part of the pack was essential for hunting, defense, and rearing. Group cohesion was not only desirable but necessary. In recent decades, integration into large packs, or two blocks, has become crucial for citizens to empower themselves, but increasingly, the lone wolf who thinks for themselves has less power to think and act with their own view of reality, leading many to integrate into the two large packs as it suits their future survival.
Contrasting with those times, today, the ‘pack’ often translates into a mass that follows popular thought currents, sometimes driven by individuals or groups with specific skills to manipulate, persuade, and sometimes deceive.
The influence of social media and mass communication has enhanced this dynamic. In an interconnected world, ideas spread rapidly, and with them, the possibility to shape group thinking that can be directed and molded by those who master these tools. Individuality, in this context, can be subjugated to the pressure to belong and adhere to the majority opinion.
However, the ability to think critically, to question, and to formulate one’s own ideas has not disappeared. It remains a valuable resource and, I would say, increasingly necessary. The resistance to being an unconditional part of the pack and the ability to discern the truth in a sea of information and disinformation are indispensable qualities in the contemporary citizen.
The future of society depends on the collective, to allow ideas to confront and mix in constructive dialogue, rather than being suppressed under the uniform tread of the pack. Recognizing and respecting the complexity of each individual is, perhaps, one of the greatest challenges we face in our ongoing evolution as a species.