People in authority wants to hav e submissive followers why
Answers
Answered by
1
This is a fascinating essay about submissive and dominant personalities and their corresponding challenges of psychological regulation in a frustrating world. Regrettably, his writing is challenging to understand, both because of use of undefined terms and the failure to give concrete examples. We have annotated this version with what we think he is saying, and added aglossary. See also Personality.
This editing is incomplete, so there isn't an entirely consistent indication of which is the original text. In sections that have been annotated, the original text is inset as a quote. In sections that haven't been annotated, the entire text is from the original. The topic headings are also additions here, not in the original (which had only the numbers.)
The concepts of submissive and dominant temperaments seems to be fairly widely recognized anecdotally to have something to do with sexual relationships, and Paul Rosenfels in particular seems to have been found a particular following the Gay community. However, it seems submission/dominance has gotten very little attention in any research literature that we have found. We find this puzzling because the concept of submission/dominance is much more general than sexual relationships or personality types, and seems to be very valuable for understanding the emotional foundations of cooperative social relationships in general.
This dominance/submission is not the same as sadism/masochism. Submissive people don't necessarily like to be ordered around, and dominant people aren't necessarily hungry for power. The key idea is the core motivation. Rosenfels' dominant person is a social engineer, trying to change the world for better by figuring out how to get people to work together. A dominant person has a vision for the future, and always needs to have a plan. A submissive person takes a more passive accepting attitude toward the world as they find it, sometimes working to understand the world, sometimes just doing their own thing. Submissive people make good followers because they don't bring a lot of conflicting visions along with them. In our American cult of individualism and dominance, leadership is highly valued, and there is little respect for followership.
When Carl Marx said that he didn't want to understand the world, he wanted to change it, that is a classic dominant motivation. We say that if you try to change the world without understanding it, you're setting yourself up for a lot of failure and frustration. But at the same time, real social change is such a big thing that nobody understands it, and actual progress has mostly come about through sheer persistence, trying things until you hit on something that works, then trying to figure out what you did right so you can do it again.
This editing is incomplete, so there isn't an entirely consistent indication of which is the original text. In sections that have been annotated, the original text is inset as a quote. In sections that haven't been annotated, the entire text is from the original. The topic headings are also additions here, not in the original (which had only the numbers.)
The concepts of submissive and dominant temperaments seems to be fairly widely recognized anecdotally to have something to do with sexual relationships, and Paul Rosenfels in particular seems to have been found a particular following the Gay community. However, it seems submission/dominance has gotten very little attention in any research literature that we have found. We find this puzzling because the concept of submission/dominance is much more general than sexual relationships or personality types, and seems to be very valuable for understanding the emotional foundations of cooperative social relationships in general.
This dominance/submission is not the same as sadism/masochism. Submissive people don't necessarily like to be ordered around, and dominant people aren't necessarily hungry for power. The key idea is the core motivation. Rosenfels' dominant person is a social engineer, trying to change the world for better by figuring out how to get people to work together. A dominant person has a vision for the future, and always needs to have a plan. A submissive person takes a more passive accepting attitude toward the world as they find it, sometimes working to understand the world, sometimes just doing their own thing. Submissive people make good followers because they don't bring a lot of conflicting visions along with them. In our American cult of individualism and dominance, leadership is highly valued, and there is little respect for followership.
When Carl Marx said that he didn't want to understand the world, he wanted to change it, that is a classic dominant motivation. We say that if you try to change the world without understanding it, you're setting yourself up for a lot of failure and frustration. But at the same time, real social change is such a big thing that nobody understands it, and actual progress has mostly come about through sheer persistence, trying things until you hit on something that works, then trying to figure out what you did right so you can do it again.
Answered by
6
Answer:
Explanation:
People in authority prefer to have submissive followers because they have an inferiority complex as they have a poor opinion about themselves. They have no courage to stand up for their rights and are always exploited. So,
if any authority do anything with them, submissive people lack the courage to speak up and this becomes the advantage for the authority.
Similar questions