30 pages • 1 hour read
William DeresiewiczSolitude and Leadership
Nonfiction | Essay / Speech | Adult | Published in 2009A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
The Importance of Asking Questions
Asking questions is both a central theme and a rhetorical tool throughout William Deresiewicz’s speech. The difference between answering questions and formulating them is key to the author’s definition of leadership. Likewise, grappling with tough questions is identified as essential to learning to think independently. Deresiewicz’s personal use of interrogative sentences both illustrates and stimulates this process.
Deresiewicz challenges conventional ideas of leadership, such as those that equate it with bureaucratic success. The “hoop jumping” required for entry into an elite university or advancement in a bureaucracy involves giving correct answers to questions. While the author acknowledges this practice as key to hierarchical maneuvering, he differentiates it from both leadership and real thinking. He contrasts managers, who can sustain routines but not question them, with leaders, who can formulate questions and have the courage to answer them. Deresiewicz explains that reassessing and challenging old ways of doing things lead to original ideas and new paths. General David Petraeus’s story of reevaluating his superiors’ strategies and creating a new field manual exemplifies this relationship between asking questions and leadership.
Deresiewicz argues that asking questions is not merely the mark of a true leader but also an essential step in becoming one, and he acknowledges that it can be difficult. He refers to television, magazines, and social media as distractions that allow people to “avoid the difficult and troubling questions that being human throws in your way” (Paragraph 31). His examples include whether one is on the right path and if one’s beliefs have changed. The forms of solitude the author endorses are intended to provide space and time for asking such questions—and finding oneself.
The author argues that facing tough questions in solitude is the only way to be prepared to both ask and answer questions as a leader. There is a sense of urgency in his proposal. The final four paragraphs include eight interrogatory sentences addressing real-life scenarios the cadets may soon face in which they would need to know themselves well enough to make difficult, independent decisions. By asking questions, Deresiewicz illustrates the need for the cadets to do so on their own.
The Role of Others’ Thoughts
In his discussion of learning to think independently, Deresiewicz addresses the role of others’ thoughts. Outside opinions and information are identified in many forms, such as books, social media, newspapers, and conversations between friends. Despite its endorsement of solitude, “Solitude and Leadership” does not advocate avoiding interpersonal exchanges. Rather, it encourages managing such communication and reconceptualizing relationships.
Deresiewicz explains that learning, while valuable, is not the same as thinking. Absorbing another person’s ideas or memorizing information compiled by someone else is not true thinking. Only after conventional wisdom is discarded can new associations and original ideas be formed. Deresiewicz sees today’s flood of electronic media as a hindrance rather than an aid to thinking as it produces a constant bombardment of “other people’s thoughts,” whether as messages, posts, tweets, or news articles; he describes this phenomenon as “marinating […] in the conventional wisdom,” which blocks original ideas (Paragraph 39). This passage reflects the Transcendentalist orientation of the speech. Insight comes not from outside (from adopting the opinions of others) but from looking within and trusting one’s ideas.
In one of Deresiewicz’s counterintuitive statements, he labels friendship as a form of solitude and a conduit to independent thinking. He argues that sustained, intimate discussions between trusted friends can enable introspection, as doubts, feelings, and questions are explored and discoveries are made. In this sense, the thoughts of others are viewed as a valuable part of learning to think. Quick exchanges on social media are termed “distractions” and set in opposition to friendships.
Similarly, Deresiewicz identifies focused reading of books as conducive to thinking. Although books contain other people’s ideas, he describes them as carefully crafted works that invite prolonged concentration. Moreover, they often introduce views from another era that can unsettle habitual thought patterns and lead to original ideas.
Deresiewicz explores the complex relationship between thinking independently and encountering someone else’s thoughts. He stresses the importance of being able and willing to question conventional wisdom to both sharpen one’s beliefs and change the status quo. While external ideas are not always a hindrance to this process, Deresiewicz concludes that leadership requires solitary decision-making and accountability.
Courage and Risk-Taking
In his emphasis on original analysis, Deresiewicz encourages reconsideration of the conventional wisdom surrounding several common concepts like leadership and thinking. Similar nuance is applied to notions of courage and risk-taking. Speaking before a class of West Point cadets who have just begun their training to become army officers, Deresiewicz discusses different types of courage and risk-taking that he considers essential to the development of true leaders.
Deresiewicz addresses the idea of “physical courage,” noting that it exists abundantly within his audience. He makes several references to the intense demands of the cadets’ training and the danger they may face in their military careers. However, he introduces another form of courage: “moral courage.”
He first uses this term when relating the story of General Petraeus’s career. Deresiewicz explains that Petraeus exhibits true leadership because he possesses its two essential components: an ability to think independently and the moral courage to advocate for his beliefs. Petraeus showcased these qualities when he challenged his superiors in Iraq, and Deresiewicz explains that “bureaucracies don’t like that sort of thing” (Paragraph 25). Here, the risk is clear; Petraeus’s subsequent assignment seemed to forestall future advancement.
Deresiewicz states (sarcastically) that rising within a bureaucracy usually means avoiding “stupid risks like trying to change how things are done or question why they’re done” (Paragraph 14). He argues that, in a military context, acts of moral courage may mean risking the loyalty of subordinates, the esteem of fellow officers, or the approval of high command. Deresiewicz mentions several hypothetical scenarios, such as needing to question a superior, and asks the cadets to consider if they would have the courage to act on their beliefs in such instances.
Deresiewicz argues that solitude can help identification of one’s true beliefs, which are the basis of “moral courage.” However, self-discovery requires courage. Introspective questions can be scary, and opting to face them directly in solitude can be daunting. Moreover, one form of solitude, intimate friendship, involves risk and vulnerability as embarrassing, taboo, or unpopular ideas are discussed. Deresiewicz views many forms of electronic media as distractions that are used to avoid the risk-taking of introspection. By his definition, true leadership requires courage on two levels: first to think independently and then to act on it.
