Menu
INTRODUCTION: Let Them Eat Cake!
“LET THEM EAT CAKE!” is one of history’s most famous quotations, popularly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette of France.
The story goes that when she was informed that French peasants had no bread to eat, she supposedly responded: “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche!” More accurately translated, this means, “Let them eat brioche!” Brioche is a rich, buttery French bread.
But here’s the interesting historical twist: Marie Antoinette almost certainly never said it! The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed a similar remark to an unnamed “great princess.” The association with Marie Antoinette emerged much later, in 1843, some fifty years after her execution. Historians believe the story became a convenient way of portraying her as an insensitive, extravagant aristocrat, hopelessly detached from the struggles of ordinary people.
The leadership lesson, however, is timeless. Whether or not she actually uttered those words, the phrase has become one of history’s most enduring metaphors for leadership disconnected from the lived realities of the people it governs. Sometimes, a leader’s greatest failure is not necessarily what they say, but how far removed they have become from the realities their people face. And that is a lesson worth remembering!
REFLECTION (or the Lack Thereof) AT THE REFLECTING POOL
This, to me, speaks volumes about Donald Trump and the Republicans heading into the American midterm elections. There is something profoundly ironic about standing at the Reflecting Pool and failing to reflect on the economic suffering of the people. More importantly, failing to craft a message that acknowledges their anxieties and offers reassurance about their economic realities.
Consider Trump’s November 2 address. The irony is hard to miss:
That is precisely the point Barack Obama was making in his October 24 remarks about Trump’s apparent obsession with gold ornaments, White House ballroom decorations and other renovations. Obama’s criticism was essentially that the president seemed more preoccupied with beautifying the White House than addressing the financial pressures confronting American families. And Trump apparently didn’t get it. Neither, it seems, did much of his administration.
The night before the midterms, when the administration had a precious opportunity to make its closing argument to voters, the occasion was squandered on algae, rusted pipes and renovation details! The irony is almost too rich: to stand at a Reflecting Pool and do anything but reflect!
Staying with the water metaphor, perhaps tonight the political descendants of Marie Antoinette will encounter a tidal #wave that jolts them out of their leadership stupor. A blue wave!
A BAD REFLECTION
Perhaps the most extraordinary detail of Trump’s address was that he actually joked about renaming the Reflecting Pool after himself! That is almost too symbolic to ignore.
The tragedy of leadership is not always that leaders fail to see the suffering of the people. Sometimes, they see it but are so preoccupied with their own reflection that they fail to respond.
At the Reflecting Pool, America needed a reflection on the economy, affordability and the anxieties of ordinary families. Instead, it got a presentation on rusty pipes by rusty leadership. Marie Antoinette may never have said, “Let them eat cake.” But the disconnect her alleged words represent remains very real.
Leadership is not about admiring the reflection of power. It is about reflecting on the realities of the people.
And granted, introspection and self-reflection have never exactly been Trump’s strongest attributes. But what about those around him? Where are the advisers and associates with their heads properly screwed on, courageous enough to offer honest feedback? A leader’s blind spots become even more dangerous when surrounded by people who refuse to hold up a mirror.
CONCLUSION: For Offering Cake, You Eat Pie!
Trump and the Republicans may well be in for a trouncing at the polls tonight. For offering cake, they may end up eating humble pie!
The expression “Let them eat cake” has endured as a timeless metaphor for an elite so disconnected from the realities of ordinary people that it cannot even comprehend their suffering. Though the historical accuracy of the quotation remains questionable, its cultural and political significance has endured for centuries.
There is a leadership lesson here that transcends American politics: When leaders become more preoccupied with the appearance of the institution than with the experience of the people it exists to serve, they have a serious leadership problem.
The people are not looking for leaders who merely admire their own reflections. They are looking for leaders who have the humility to look beyond themselves, the empathy to understand their struggles and the courage to do something about them.
Because ultimately, leadership is not about the splendour of the palace, the gold on its walls or the beauty of its reflecting pools. It is about the people!
Receive update on our weekly post.
INTRODUCTION: Let Them Eat Cake! “LET THEM EAT CAKE!” is one of history’s most famous quotations, popularly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette of France. The
This isn’t my first visit to Tetteh Quarshie’s original cocoa farm in Akuapem Mampong where he first cracked open the soil and deposited his smuggled
Why UTC and GMT are Quite the Same Yet Very Different Here’s why most people today use UTC instead of GMT: Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)
A #DeepLeader lives with nuance, tames tensions and straddles paradoxes. When people talk about ‘mission schools’ in Ghana they typically do not include my alma
4 Comments
Good words, Brother! Campus Ambassadors (of Missions Door) also used The Emotionally Healthy Leader as a basis for discussions last month at its biennial staff forum. I have just a few thoughts that came to mind while reading this blog.
Many leaders of the older generation were taught something quite different regarding emotions, not just in the churches but in the seminaries. It could be called cultural, but at its core it was also theological because it involved one’s view of God. Even at the time I was a “young-un” I found fault with this view, but at that time I was more into pondering than being able to make reasonable arguments
.
Their line of reasoning had its foundation in the immovability of God, supposedly scriptural but highly influenced by Greek philosophy (although that was not readily recognized in conservative, evangelical circles). One element of this doctrine concluded that since God cannot and does not change, he cannot show emotion. Emotions reflect changeability, with our hearts being moved by the circumstances and events around us. Even through Scripture talks about God’s rejoicing over his people and being angry at their rebellion, such imagery was considered anthropomorphic language, with descriptions of God’s character being put into idioms that we mere humans can understand.
The natural result of such reasoning meant that believers, who are given the goal of becoming godly (God-like), must also deny outward display of emotions. Being emotional was considered a weakness, something more inclined to be tolerable in females, who were the weaker sex anyway. [Sarcasm intended.] This one theological teaching ended up controlling not only a lot of human reaction within the church but also creating a lot of guilt. If a leader showed some emotion, he felt obligated to apologize.
The whole issue of anthropomorphic language needs to be reexamined. We are created in God’s image, not the other way around. We have emotions because God has emotions. The difference comes in the way those emotions are expressed. His are pure, the result of a heart that can be moved by the choices of his creation. Our emotions are subject to the corruption of the world. Self-control, a fruit of the Spirit, includes letting the Spirit have command of our emotions—not denying that we have them or that we shouldn’t express them.
We become like the God we worship. If our God has no emotions, then his followers will deny the acceptability of having emotion. If our God does exhibit holy emotion, then emotional maturity in ourselves means feeling and expressing emotions in godliness. We become like our godly Master, the god-man who expressed joy and sadness, thankfulness and anger, all without sin.
Good words, Brother! Campus Ambassadors (of Missions Door) also used The Emotionally Healthy Leader as a basis for discussions last month at its biennial staff forum.
I have just a few thoughts that came to mind while reading this blog.
Many leaders of the older generation were taught something quite different regarding emotions, not just in the churches but in the seminaries. It could be called cultural, but at its core it was also theological because it involved one’s view of God. Even at the time I was a “young-un” I found fault with this view, but at that time I was more into pondering than being able to make reasonable arguments.
The line of reasoning had its foundation in the immovability of God, supposedly scriptural but highly influenced by Greek philosophy (although that was not readily recognized in conservative, evangelical circles). One element of this doctrine concluded that since God cannot and does not change, he cannot show emotion. Emotions reflect changeability, with our hearts being moved by the circumstances and events around us. Even through Scripture talks about God’s rejoicing over his people and being angry at their rebellion, such imagery was considered anthropomorphic language, with descriptions of God’s character being put into idioms that we mere humans can understand.
The natural result of such reasoning meant that believers, who are given the goal of becoming godly (God-like), must also deny outward display of emotions. Being emotional was considered a weakness, something more inclined to be tolerable in females, who were the weaker sex anyway. [Sarcasm intended.] This one theological teaching ended up controlling not only a lot of human reaction within the church but also creating a lot of guilt. If a leader showed some emotion, he felt obligated to apologize.
The whole issue of anthropomorphic language needs to be reexamined. We are created in God’s image, not the other way around. We have emotions because God has emotions. The difference comes in the way those emotions are expressed. His are pure and controlled, the result of a heart that can be moved by the choices of his creation. Our emotions are subject to the corruption of the world. Self-control, a fruit of the Spirit, includes letting the Spirit have command of our emotions—not denying that we have them or that we shouldn’t express them.
We become like the God we worship. If our God has no emotions, then his followers will deny the acceptability of having emotion. If our God does exhibit holy emotion, then emotional maturity in us means feeling and expressing emotions in a godly manner. We become like our godly Master, the god-man who expressed both joy and sadness, thankfulness and anger, all without sin.
Good words, Brother! Campus Ambassadors (of Missions Door) also used The Emotionally Healthy Leader as a basis for discussions last month at its biennial staff forum. I have just a few thoughts that came to mind while reading this blog.
Many leaders of the older generation were taught something quite different regarding emotions, not just in the churches but in the seminaries. It could be called cultural, but at its core it was also theological because it involved one’s view of God. Even at the time I was a “young-un” I found fault with this view, but at that time I was more into pondering than being able to make reasonable arguments.
Their line of reasoning had its foundation in the immovability of God, supposedly scriptural but highly influenced by Greek philosophy (although that was not readily recognized in conservative, evangelical circles). One element of this doctrine concluded that since God cannot and does not change, he cannot show emotion. Emotions reflect changeability, with our hearts being moved by the circumstances and events around us. Even through Scripture talks about God’s rejoicing over his people and being angry at their rebellion, such imagery was considered anthropomorphic language, with descriptions of God’s character being put into idioms that we mere humans can understand.
The natural result of such reasoning meant that believers, who are given the goal of becoming godly (God-like), must also deny outward display of emotions. Being emotional was considered a weakness, something more inclined to be tolerable in females, who were the weaker sex anyway. [Sarcasm intended.] This one theological teaching ended up controlling not only a lot of human reaction within the church but also creating a lot of guilt. If a leader showed some emotion, he felt obligated to apologize.
The whole issue of anthropomorphic language needs to be reexamined. We are created in God’s image, not the other way around. We have emotions because God has emotions. The difference comes in the way those emotions are expressed. His are pure, the result of a heart that can be moved by the choices of his creation. Our emotions are subject to the corruption of the world. Self-control, a fruit of the Spirit, includes letting the Spirit have command of our emotions—not denying that we have them or that we shouldn’t express them.
We become like the God we worship. If our God has no emotions, then his followers will deny the acceptability of having emotion. If our God does exhibit holy emotion, then emotional maturity in ourselves means feeling and expressing emotions in godliness. We become like our godly Master, the god-man who expressed joy and sadness, thankfulness and anger, all without sin. [Carmen Bryant]
Good words, Brother! Campus Ambassadors (of Missions Door) also used The Emotionally Healthy Leader as a basis for discussions last month at its biennial staff forum. I have just a few thoughts that came to mind while reading this blog.
Many leaders of the older generation were taught something quite different regarding emotions, not just in the churches but in the seminaries. It could be called cultural, but at its core it was also theological because it involved one’s view of God. Even at the time I was a “young-un” I found fault with this view, but at that time I was more into pondering than being able to make reasonable arguments.
Their line of reasoning had its foundation in the immovability of God, supposedly scriptural but highly influenced by Greek philosophy (although that was not readily recognized in conservative, evangelical circles). One element of this doctrine concluded that since God cannot and does not change, he cannot show emotion. Emotions reflect changeability, with our hearts being moved by the circumstances and events around us. Even through Scripture talks about God’s rejoicing over his people and being angry at their rebellion, such imagery was considered anthropomorphic language, with descriptions of God’s character being put into idioms that we mere humans can understand.
The natural result of such reasoning meant that believers, who are given the goal of becoming godly (God-like), must also deny outward display of emotions. Being emotional was considered a weakness, something more inclined to be tolerable in females, who were the weaker sex anyway. [Sarcasm intended.] This one theological teaching ended up controlling not only a lot of human reaction within the church but also creating a lot of guilt. If a leader showed some emotion, he felt obligated to apologize.
The whole issue of anthropomorphic language needs to be reexamined. We are created in God’s image, not the other way around. We have emotions because God has emotions. The difference comes in the way those emotions are expressed. His are pure, the result of a heart that can be moved by the choices of his creation. Our emotions are subject to the corruption of the world. Self-control, a fruit of the Spirit, includes letting the Spirit have command of our emotions—not denying that we have them or that we shouldn’t express them.
We become like the God we worship. If our God has no emotions, then his followers will deny the acceptability of having emotion. If our God does exhibit holy emotion, then emotional maturity in ourselves means feeling and expressing emotions in godliness. We become like our godly Master, the god-man who expressed joy and sadness, thankfulness and anger, all without sin.