Humanists and Generalists

"Planning" and "security" have become twin watchwords in the mid-twentieth century. Despite the tension, and occasional contradiction, between these two terms, their popularity shows no signs of diminution. Yet, when applied to humanists and generalists, both concepts have only limited validity. Their significance is even less apparent when we speak of leaders and leadership in these fields. We have no yardstick to measure the utility of humanists and generalists in society. Therefore, no method exists for estimating a quota appropriate to their numbers. In both fields, voluntarism is essential; compulsion is futile; control impairs or destroys values; and even guidance has limited scope. As planning is so difficult as to be of doubtful utility, security is also of dubious significance, particularly when applied to leadership. There are no quantitative measures of achievement; no time and motion studies have any relevance whatever. Even gen erally accepted qualitative measures do not exist. Every statesman, however eminent, has had his opponents and detrac tors. Every artist has had his critics, often savage ones. Every scholar's work is revised by his successors, if not by his con temporaries. Leadership in these areas is the product of per sonal qualities of many sorts; it is almost correct to say no two are alike. Leadership arises from circumstances, often not only beyond the potential Ieader's control, but even beyond his power to influence. Humanists and generalists must remain unplanned, and unpredictable, elements in our society.