Well, nothing of any substance happened on the final episode of Kid Nation, so we won't bother you with a summary.
You may wonder, and many commenters have asked, why we have we spent so many entries writing about this pseudo-unscripted "reality" show?
Part of the reason was watching a show that we knew was going to be a train wreck before it was ever aired. No one would really leave 40 kids in the middle of the desert, alone, to try to fend for themselves. Since there was bound to be adult monitoring, there had to be adult guidance or influence into how the kid based community would evolve.
More to the point, the WayneWho staff wanted to look at the issue of "experience" as it applies running any type of group or organization. This was a perfect opportunity, pre-edited into small bits, to watch a political experiment unfold. Consider it the "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" experiment for the government/management arena.
What we learned along the way was, whether elected or appointed, the majority of those who had a leadership title expected that the title was what got things done. In most cases, the titled leaders relied heavily on the Journal entry that was provided for them each episode to guide their decisions and actions, very rarely even debating the impact of what the Journal called for. By the second half of the season, the tagline of "we read the Journal..." regularly elicited groans and other sounds of displeasure from the townspeople. As the episodes wore on, we also notice the trend of title leaders defending the Journal and the decision they made based on it with out considering other thoughts or ideas. Alternate points of view were often ignored in favor of the Journal entries.
Should we have expected anything different? These, after all, were individuals who had never done anything like this before. The actions of both the title leaders and the townspeople descended very quickly into an adversarial relationship with only brief moments of unity and teamwork shining through during scripted competitive events. Did the pre-destined class structure of community create the results we watched, or was the outcome created by clever editing?
Meanwhile, the true leaders were, almost uniformly, those who jumped in and got their hands dirty and did the work that, in many cases, others in the town did not want to do. They were recognized by their peers for getting things done and not for debating issues. They were the ones who got things done while the titled leaders claimed the success for themselves. They had no "experience" that drove them to make sure things happened, but more of an uncanny sense of vision and direction. We have to wonder if the Founding Fathers of our Country would have exhibited these same traits as children?
This brings us back to local reality. We have a number of opportunities in the coming year to select those who will represent us in important decisions from the community level to the national level. Many of those who wish to fill those positions will announce to the voters that they have the "experience" to do the job. They will not only claim that they have the "experience" to do the jobs, but that they have been "tested" and "vetted" to lead us in a direction that only they understand. We encourage you to dig into what that "experience" entails. Is it the "experience" of sitting in the audience watching others agree to information and courses of action that have been presented to them? Is it the "experience" of job shadowing with current and past elected officials to learn the traditional practice of government that has put us on the path we are now on? Or is it the "experience" of building, creating, and doing that will indicate to us that they are the candidate that will take action to get things done?
The answers are yours.
You may wonder, and many commenters have asked, why we have we spent so many entries writing about this pseudo-unscripted "reality" show?
Part of the reason was watching a show that we knew was going to be a train wreck before it was ever aired. No one would really leave 40 kids in the middle of the desert, alone, to try to fend for themselves. Since there was bound to be adult monitoring, there had to be adult guidance or influence into how the kid based community would evolve.
More to the point, the WayneWho staff wanted to look at the issue of "experience" as it applies running any type of group or organization. This was a perfect opportunity, pre-edited into small bits, to watch a political experiment unfold. Consider it the "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" experiment for the government/management arena.
What we learned along the way was, whether elected or appointed, the majority of those who had a leadership title expected that the title was what got things done. In most cases, the titled leaders relied heavily on the Journal entry that was provided for them each episode to guide their decisions and actions, very rarely even debating the impact of what the Journal called for. By the second half of the season, the tagline of "we read the Journal..." regularly elicited groans and other sounds of displeasure from the townspeople. As the episodes wore on, we also notice the trend of title leaders defending the Journal and the decision they made based on it with out considering other thoughts or ideas. Alternate points of view were often ignored in favor of the Journal entries.
Should we have expected anything different? These, after all, were individuals who had never done anything like this before. The actions of both the title leaders and the townspeople descended very quickly into an adversarial relationship with only brief moments of unity and teamwork shining through during scripted competitive events. Did the pre-destined class structure of community create the results we watched, or was the outcome created by clever editing?
Meanwhile, the true leaders were, almost uniformly, those who jumped in and got their hands dirty and did the work that, in many cases, others in the town did not want to do. They were recognized by their peers for getting things done and not for debating issues. They were the ones who got things done while the titled leaders claimed the success for themselves. They had no "experience" that drove them to make sure things happened, but more of an uncanny sense of vision and direction. We have to wonder if the Founding Fathers of our Country would have exhibited these same traits as children?
This brings us back to local reality. We have a number of opportunities in the coming year to select those who will represent us in important decisions from the community level to the national level. Many of those who wish to fill those positions will announce to the voters that they have the "experience" to do the job. They will not only claim that they have the "experience" to do the jobs, but that they have been "tested" and "vetted" to lead us in a direction that only they understand. We encourage you to dig into what that "experience" entails. Is it the "experience" of sitting in the audience watching others agree to information and courses of action that have been presented to them? Is it the "experience" of job shadowing with current and past elected officials to learn the traditional practice of government that has put us on the path we are now on? Or is it the "experience" of building, creating, and doing that will indicate to us that they are the candidate that will take action to get things done?
The answers are yours.
1 comment:
There are groans of displeasure around here every Tuesday night!
Post a Comment