The Environment and Economics: No Compromise? -- Part 1

           This essay reviews two important treatises on environmental history: Something New Under the Sun and Blood and Oil.  J.R. McNeill's Something New Under the Sun documents the broad sweep of environmental evolution over the last century, and Michael Klare's Blood and Oil documents the troubled history of the US foreign policy conquests in pursuit of oil.

The developments of the last century were unprecedented. Total population quadrupled, while urban population increased thirteen times, world output increased fourteen times, energy use increased sixteen times, and industrial production increased forty times. All this human activity generated a tremendous amount of waste, including agricultural residue, mine tailings, and emissions into the atmosphere, rivers, lakes, and seas. Wetlands have been drained or filled and highways and cities built. For the first time, humankind is influencing ecology on a global scale. McNeill catalogues the impact of all this activity, from America to Zimbabwe, and finds the results are not all bad. For instance, the automobile replaced the horse, which required more land to feed and whose waste products and carcasses were sources of urban stench and disease. 

Public attitudes changed in the 1950s and 1960s because cities such as London, Pittsburgh, and Osaka grew so polluted that they became almost unlivable. Major selective cleanups have proceeded even as global waste has grown in volume and cities and rivers have deteriorated. Something new under the Sun is an informative, dispassionate treatment that recounts the last century's environmental history with admirable impartiality.

The world's growing economy is dependent on oil: the supply is running out. The US, China, India, and other powers are engaged in an escalating game of brinkmanship to secure its continued flow. This is the premise of Michael Klare's Blood and Oil. The US, with less than 5% of the world's total population, consumes about 25% of the world's total supply of oil. With no meaningful conservation being attempted, Klare sees the United States' energy behavior dominated by four key trends: "an increasing need for imported oil; a pronounced shift toward unstable and unfriendly suppliers in dangerous parts of the world; a greater risk of anti-American or civil violence; and increased competition for what will likely be a diminishing supply pool."

Growing pain? Man and the environment

During the twentieth century, the human race, without intending anything of the sort, has undertaken a giant, uncontrolled experiment on the earth. In time, according to J. R. McNeill in his new book, the environmental dimension of twentieth-century history will overshadow the importance of events like the world wars, the rise and fall of communism, and the spread of mass literacy. 

Contrary to the wisdom of Ecclesiastes that "there is nothing new under the sun," McNeill sets out to show that the massive change we have wrought in our physical world has indeed created something new. McNeill contends that we have refashioned the earth's air, water, and soil, and the biosphere to an extent not seen before.

Something New under the Sun begins with chapters on the lithosphere and pedosphere (the rocky crust of the earth and its soil cover), the atmosphere and the hydrosphere, showing how each was modified by human intervention. Human intervention often meant that soil, air and water were degraded, eroded, polluted or exhausted. He then deals with the biosphere: the space occupied by all living things. They serve as the fulcrum of the book and contain some of its strongest arguments. McNeill tells a story of increasing human mastery. He shows how the co-evolution of species gave way to a process of 'unnatural' selection that made the chances for survival of other species heavily dependent on their compatibility with humans. Some prospered, either through domestication (livestock, rice) or because they found niches in a human-dominated biosphere (rats, crabgrass, the tuberculosis bacillus). Others proved incapable of domestication (bison, the blue whale) or unable to adjust (the gorilla, the smallpox virus) and faced extinction. 

Reviewing the quickening pace of extinction rates in the 20th century, McNeill suggests that we may be in the early stages of a mass extinction on a par with the disappearance of dinosaurs 65 million years ago. But this mass extinction, if it is one, will have a known cause: the activities of a rogue mammal species. Those activities are surveyed in the second part of the book. 

McNeill identifies three major 'engines of change': a steep increase in population prompting migration, urbanization and the search for more resources; a new, fossil-fuel based energy regime; and a belief in economic growth that transcends the lines of political conflict - although the commitment to growth was reinforced by the 'security anxiety' of 20th-century regimes. McNeill criticizes both Capitalism and Communism for their role in the exploitation of nature. He quotes Soviet leaders as saying, 'Let the fragile green breast of Siberia be dressed in the cement armor of cities, armed with the stone muzzle of factory chimneys, and girded with iron belts of railways. Let the Taiga be burned and felled, let the steppes be trampled.' 

It was the Soviet determination to 'correct nature's mistakes' that turned most of the Aral Sea into a life-threatening saltpan. The high environmental costs of imperialism are repeatedly noted. McNeill also shows that decolonization has done little to change the process of rapid deforestation. He contends that whoever governed, shortsighted developmentalism ruled.

(Part 2 to follow...)

Books Reviewed:

1.McNeil, John R., Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World, W.W. Norton & Company, New York and London, 2000.

2.Klare, Michael T., Blood and Oil: The dangers and consequences of America’s growing petroleum dependency, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2004.

Learning from Washington

Effective leadership solutions emerge around problems - change comes from a shared sense of urgency. George Washington’s visionary leadership emerged during the time of America’s birth. He was a great uniter and was crucial in bringing together diverse groups of people and establishing a new nation, where none stood before. Washington’s role became synonymous with the cause of America. He drew on his popularity and symbolic importance to bring unity to a disparate collection of interests and political outlooks. Drawing on lessons learned during the war, when Washington forged the Continental Army into what he called “one patriotic band of brothers,” Washington promoted political unity during the war by mediating the disputes among the army, the states, and the Continental Congress. He continued this work of unifying even after the war as President.

Some of the main lessons that I drew from my research on Washington include:

a. The need and importance to take responsibility for one's own life by controlling one's emotions; Washington had a volcanic temper which, with rare exceptions, he kept under control. Washington was able to control so much externally because he first learned to control himself from within.

b. The importance of constant learning by observing, listening, reading and reflecting; Washington spent much time reflecting or pondering.

c. The importance of civility – essentially basic respect for everyone.

d. The role that morality and emotional maturity can play in enhancing one's natural intelligence and understanding of situations.

e. The inextricable relationship in a democracy between public and personal virtue; the absence of one will always cause a diminution in the other and vice versa.

f. The need in a democracy for all citizens to be good citizens and for the government to be administered in such a manner as to merit the trust of the citizens.

Of all the Founding Fathers of the United States, George Washington alone demonstrated fully the characteristics of a visionary leader and the intellectual and moral capacity, over a long period of time and in the course of manifold difficulties, to maintain coherency between long range ideas and goals and short term actions. The future of society, to a large extent, depends upon citizens and leaders both personally and publicly developing the kind of character so fully and brilliantly seen in George Washington's personal and public lives.

Leadership Lessons from Washington: The Indispensable Man

The following is a review of The Indispensable Man by James T. Flexner.

The Indispensable Man

            James Thomas Flexner originally wrote this biography in four volumes. The book is organized chronologically and proceeds from Washington’s birth in 1732 to his death in 1799. I found the book enriching, and it raised my interest in developing a more sophisticated political understanding  of early American history. Above all I valued this book for its humanization of a legend.The Washington that emerges from these pages is a man of dazzling personal qualities, many failures, passion, strong affections and loyalties, and tremendous character.

 George Washington, in this book, truly comes across as the indispensable man. Without him the revolution would not have been successful, and that if it had been successful, the Nation formed as a result of that American Revolution would have soon come apart and resolved itself into thirteen or more individual competing countries. Washington first holds the Continental Army together against all odds and at the expense of his own health and financial interests. Then after spending eight years in retirement at Mount Vernon, Washington is called back into public life and given the responsibility of first moderating the Constitutional Convention, and then of presiding over a new, fledgling nation with deep sectional and philosophical rifts in opinion, culture and practice. If he could not bring Jefferson and Hamilton and their followers together in the end, he at least managed to keep them from tearing the nation apart while they attacked each other and each other’s ideas and policies. In the portrayal in this book, Washington stands head-and-shoulders above all the other men of his time. Even late in his second term, when the author says several times that Washington is “losing his mental powers” and becoming weak and vacillating, he remains an admirable figure, one who is trying to do his best to serve the nation that has called upon him to give his best years to its service.

            In the book, Flexner takes us through Washington's life from his youth as an obscure younger son from the backwoods of Virginia through his days as a soldier, a general, a planter, and a statesman, to his death in December of 1799. As for character, the Washington of this biography is a self-controlled man, fond of company and friends, but also temperate, quiet, a peacemaker, nevertheless at infrequent times giving way to an enormous temper.

            Disillusionment is good when it is able to get us behind the myths - not in order to tear them down, but — as in the case of learning about Washington — to more fully appreciate the impact of the very human figures made remarkable by history. At every turn America as a young country was in peril; every decision was layered with implications, competing passions, political pettiness, danger. Though this country was established by flawed men, it has not only survived, but risen to meet its ideals – and this was made possible by the pioneering leadership of George Washington. The Washington that emerges from these pages is a man of:

Impressive personal qualities –”The most significant aspect of Washington’s early career was that it took place at all. Every responsibility he assumed required public selection and support. When he was hardly beyond his teens, many of his associates were already convinced that his destiny was importantly linked to the destiny of America.”

Many failures — “Writers have contended that he was so incompetent that he would have been defeated by any other human beings except the dullards the British sent against him… The debate has overlooked the fact that Washington was never really a soldier. He was a civilian in arms.”

Passion and Commitment — In Manhattan in 1776, Washington rides toward the musket fire to find his men in full retreat. “Washington galloped after them, shouted, struck at them with his riding whip, but to no avail. He threw his hat on the ground, crying out, ‘Are these the men with whom I am to defend America?’ And again, ‘Good God! Have I got such troops as these?’ Unwilling to follow the retreat, Washington soon loomed on horseback, alone. Some fifty of the enemy dashed towards him. He watched them without moving. Had not aides galloped up and pulled him away, he would have been killed or captured.”

Strong affections and loyalties — Often betrayed by those close to him, envied, plotted against, and lied about, he was never defeated in his essential optimism and liking for people.

Tremendous character — He does the difficult but right thing without fail. One example: he was the only Virginia founding father to free all of his slaves.

A self-educator — This is evident throughout Washington’s long career as a precedent-setting political figure, but to me the most striking examples are his remaking of his Virginia farm as an entity independent of England, and his ability to learn the value of the ragtag Continental army and develop an ability to use it strategically.

A study in Leadership: His Excellency George Washington

The following is a book review of His Excellency George Washington by Joseph Ellis.

His Excellency

In this book, Joseph Ellis contends that among America’s founding fathers, Franklin was the wisest, Hamilton the most brilliant, Jefferson the most intellectual, Adams the greatest scholar and Madison the most sophisticated politician. Yet they all acknowledged Washington as their superior (although it’s not certain they believed this at all times). Explaining his greatness is a minor historical industry because, unlike his great contemporaries, George Washington rarely explained himself. Joseph Ellis attempts to do just this in His Excellency George Washington.

Great Britain would have avoided plenty of trouble by granting Washington a commission. In leading Virginia troops during the French and Indian War he showed talent, but he was refused commission — a crushing disappointment. Although the war was not over, he gave up his dream of a military career and resigned in 1758.
 Washington belonged to minor Virginia gentry, so marrying the extremely wealthy Martha Custis in 1758 was a step up in a sense for his social standing. He quickly, settled into the life of a Virginia planter: fox hunting, horse racing, gambling and ordering clothes and luxury goods from England. But he also kept a watchful eye on his properties. He was quick to accuse merchants of cheating or to sue over contract disputes, and he grew increasingly angry at mounting bills from his English agent. During this time, his correspondence and diary consist primarily of business matters, lists, weather reports and daily chores. As a consequence, many bored historians have concluded that he lacked depth. Ellis merely concludes that he was sensible. After all, Washington died wealthy, unlike Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and most Virginia aristocrats. More significant, Ellis adds, is that his resentment of England had less to do with unfair taxes than simply with being economically dependent on a nation that refused to treat him as an equal. Dressed in his old uniform, Washington attended every 1775 meeting of the Continental Congress during debate over choosing a commander in chief, quietly letting it be known that he was available. Since he was already chairman of four committees on military affairs and universally respected, he was the obvious — and unanimous — choice.

Most historians agree that Washington made a mess of the defense of New York in 1776, but he then recovered brilliantly with victories in minor engagements at Trenton and Princeton. After two more defeats, he lost Philadelphia in 1777. Then followed the miserable winter at Valley Forge, caused, Ellis emphasizes, more by the inability of colonial governments to supply the army than by the severe weather. Leaving Valley Forge, Washington fought the inconclusive Battle of Monmouth in June 1778. Until Yorktown three years later, other battles occurred but none with Washington in charge. General John Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga, followed by the French alliance in early 1778, made victory inevitable but only in hindsight. Achieving it required a massive infusion of French troops and money, amazing luck and persistent British incompetence. Even more unlikely, it required Washington’s half-starved army to seem threatening to British forces who outnumbered them even after Yorktown.

Throughout the war, Washington appears to be the only founding father who mattered. All European governments assumed that he represented America. After French forces arrived in 1780, their leading officers debated whether or not Washington was a great general. They concluded that it was impossible to tell until he led a proper army. But that didn’t matter as the French loved Washington as a person anyway. Ellis claims that out of Washington’s wartime service came many of his major contributions to the nation. Although he yearned to fight, he had the genius to realize that sometimes, fighting was a bad idea. Waiting and threatening could sometimes be very effective. Ellis adds that Washington’s posture during the Revolution contributed to a general understanding of the importance of civilian government. For eight years he deferred to the Continental Congress and 13 colonial governments, all of which failed him repeatedly. Then he retired — a rare example of a revolutionary general not making himself dictator. That experience, Ellis points out, also led Washington to understand and fight for the ratification of our Constitution. Those years of trying to extract support for his tattered army convinced the general that America desperately needed a central government with power to levy taxes to defend the nation. Revolutionaries disagreed, pointing out that it was taxes levied by a remote central government that provoked America’s revolt. Correctly viewing the Constitution as counterrevolutionary, many vehemently opposed it. Its passage would have been inconceivable without Washington’s support and the expectation by a respectful country that he would be the first president.

Some historians portray Washington as founder of the "Virginia dynasty" that produced four of the first five US presidents. Ellis insists he was not. A Virginia party existed, but Washington did not support it. As the dominant state in the union, Virginia took for granted that its interests came first; its party’s leader, Jefferson, agreed. This meant, for example, that agriculture was all-important, and commerce a bad thing. Washington never took this position, and he never stopped trying to convince Americans that they belonged to a single united nation. He was the country’s first and greatest nationalist — another major contribution to the nation’s sense of self.

It is said that competent historians get their facts right,  good historians draw conclusions - but the best historians have insights. Ellis' insights are very helpful in understanding Washington as a leader. Ellis declares: He was "that rarest of men: a supremely realistic visionary….His genius was his judgment." As a general he made mistakes but not one that put the war at risk. As president, he made all the right decisions. In closing, Ellis contends that His Excellency George Washington was the only great American who was recognized as great as soon as he stepped on the stage and whose reputation has never declined.

George Washington: Founding Father

This post is a review of the book Founding Father by Richard Brookhiser.  

Founding Father

For much of America's history, George Washington was treated as something of a demigod. Early biographers like Parson Weems and Chief Justice John Marshall, however different their styles and scholarly standards, wrote in a spirit of patriotic reverence and described a man seemingly without any flaws. In contrast, few Americans today would consider Washington a demigod. Revisionist historians have tended to paint us a figure of an individual who is all too human—a greedy land speculator, a mediocre general, a suggestible politician. But flagging respect for the first President of the United States has a deeper cause than revisionist literature. As Richard Brookhiser, a senior editor at National Review, argues in Founding Father, the issue is that people now tend to take American nationhood for granted. Many see American nationhood as an inevitable step in the march of a historical trend which determined democracy or imperialism, enlightenment or patriarchy. Along the way, many seem to have lost sight of the fact that “ideas require men to bring them to earth.”

Richard Brookhiser does not try to revive the Washington cult of the 19th century. Nor does he try to reconstruct and defend every important decision of Washington's career. Brookhiser presents a “moral biography” of the first President - an analysis of the extraordinary but altogether human traits that made him so indispensable to the early republic. Aiming to write “in the tradition of Plutarch,” whose accounts of noble Greeks and Romans were a formative influence on the American Founders themselves, Brookhiser tries to give us a portrait that will continue to instruct us today—a task at which he succeeds, but not completely.

The first part of Founding Father assumes the form of a historical narrative. Brookhiser reminds us that Washington personally dominated American public life for nearly a quarter-century, a longer period than any other figure in our history. As Commander of the Continental Army from 1775 until peace with Britain was concluded in 1783, as president of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, and as chief executive from 1789 to 1797, he oversaw the long struggle from independence to nationhood. Entering the political realm as a celebrated soldier, he left as the most admired of civilians—no mean feat in an age equally capable of producing an autocrat like Napolean Bonaparte.

Washington's awareness of his own problematic role in establishing a republican political order provides the central theme of Brookhiser's biographical sketch. Time and again, Washington turned away from opportunities for personal aggrandizement to demonstrate his devotion to popular, civilian rule. The episodes are familiar: his resignation of command immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Paris; his rebukes to those who whispered to him suggestively of monarchy; his reluctance to reenter public life after his military career; and, finally, his insistence on leaving the presidency after his second term. “Washington's last service to his country,” Brookhiser rightly observes, “was to stop serving.” This is something that many contemporary leaders would do well to emulate - especially the leaders in the Middle-East, who continue to cling on desperately to power, at tremendous cost to their population. 

What, then, was the character of the man behind these deeds? This question lies at the heart of Founding Father, and Brookhiser begins to answer it in an unusual but illuminating way: he describes the raw elements with which nature endowed Washington—most particularly, great physical stature and an irascible temper. Washington displayed the former to striking effect in such activities as riding and dancing; the latter he directed into the channels of courage and spirited determination. By means of both, he learned how to make the impact necessary to lead.

As for Washington's “second” nature—the habits and precepts that guided his conduct—Brookhiser properly rejects the notion, favored by many students of the founding era, that he was some kind of self-styled Roman throwback, a Cato in cocked hat and breeches. Washington no doubt did draw inspiration from the public-spiritedness and self-control of the ancients, but their virtues were too “inhumane” to be his standard. A liberal republic required an ethic of a different sort.

Washington found this ethic, Brookhiser plausibly claims, in the “Rules of Civility,” a long set of principles that for years instructed English schoolboys. Some of these rules, which Washington copied out in his own hand as a young man, have not aged well: “Kill no vermin, or fleas, lice, ticks, etc., in the sight of others”; “Spit not in the fire.” But many more reflect the timeless demands of social intercourse in a regime based on the idea of political equality: “Every action done in company ought to be done with some sign of respect to those who are present”; “Artificers and persons of low degree” should be treated “with affability and courtesy, without arrogance.” For Washington, Brookhiser notes, politeness was “the first form of politics.” 

Brookhiser does not shy away from examining some of the more troubling aspects of Washington's character and principles. He finds nothing objectionable, for example, in Washington's seeming obsession with reputation and role-playing. If we today “worry about our authenticity—about whether our presentation reflects who we ‘really’ are”—18th-century Americans attended more to the outside story and were less avid to drive putty knives between the outer and inner man. . . . Every man had a character to maintain; every man was a character actor.”

Yet is concentration on the “outside story,” on the opinions of others, always so admirable a quality in a leader, even a democratic one? One senses a forerunner of today's political spin control in Washington's query to an adviser shortly before the Constitutional Convention: “Inform me confidentially what the public expectation is on this head, that is, whether I will, or ought to be there.” A similar concern for popular standing can be seen at other key points in Washington's career, from his earliest days of command in the French and Indian War to his acceptance of the presidency. In the end, of course, Washington usually did what he considered right rather than what was sure to win applause. Though a firm advocate of freedom of conscience, Washington had difficulty describing an affirmative role for religion in American life. He neither inspired personal religious devotion in others nor successfully attached the national cause to some transcendent purpose, as Lincoln would later do. Instead, one often detects in him the cold instrumentalism of the Enlightenment, as in the following passage from the Farewell Address:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them."

The book closes with Brookhiser's reflection on Washington's status as “the father” of the country. Brookhiser urges us to emulate America's first President—to curb and direct our passions, to treat our fellow citizens with civility and respect, and, above all, to perform the duties of free government no less energetically than we claim its rights. While many have engaged themselves critiquing and deconstructing Washington, and ascribing every conceivable injustice to him and his contemporaries, it is truly refreshing to be reminded what the life of George Washington still has to teach us.

Ethically Motivated Connective Leadership - Case 4

South Africa – Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela is a statesman of real stature. His story is one of outstanding moral courage against seemingly impossible odds, of determination to destroy apartheid, and above all – tireless efforts to bring about reconciliation in his homeland. Mandela reveals many of the qualities of a connective leader. Prof. Jean Lipman-Blumen notes that a connective leadership approach utilizes three different achieving styles – direct, relational, and instrumental. The direct achieving style has been the approach that has been traditionally adopted by leaders. In this style, the leader masters his/her own tasks while achieving progress towards the goal. In the relational style, the leader achieves progress by contributing to team-members tasks. In the instrumental style, the leader maximizes interactions between individual team members and empowers them to work collectively towards success. Lipman-Blumen points that in today’s interconnected world, leaders need to utilize not just one, but rather all of the achieving styles – resulting in a connective style of leadership. For a detailed illustration of the connective leadership model, see figure in my previous posting on connective leaders (Lipman-Blumen, 1996).

Nelson Mandela’s inner strength, magnanimity, confidence in humanity, optimism, patience and tolerance, a strong sense of justice, and an unswerving loyalty to his colleagues are attributes that enhance his connective leadership approach. He was born in 1918, as the eldest son of a Xhosa chief (the Xhosas are the second biggest tribe in South Africa after the Zulus). After training as a lawyer, he joined the African National Congress in 1944 and was a leader of the ANC’s non-violent campaigns against apartheid during the 1950s. After police killed 69 unarmed black protesters at Sharpeville in 1960, Mandela and other Congress leaders abandoned increasingly their hopes for peaceful change. In 1961, they formed the Congress’ military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (The Spear of the Nation). Mandela was subsequently arrested for incitement, and jailed for life for sabotage, which he openly admitted. At his trial, Mandela spoke of ‘the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve, but if need be an ideal for which I am prepared to die.’

            As Mandela began his long sojourn in Robben Island, the harsh outpost of the South African prison system, he resolved that he would not allow this cruel experience to remove his dignity as a person from him. His jailor, James Gregory notes how Mandela stood tall among all other prisoners, as a leader with a spirit that would not be intimidated. After his release from prison, Mandela showed the rare quality of magnanimity, rising above pettiness and resentment. He did not once express bitterness towards the white community for his grim ordeal in the prisons, only against the system that they imposed. Upon his release from prison, he called for the black community to exhibit generosity of spirit and on the day of his election (27^th April 1994), he spoke of the need to give the white minority ‘confidence and security.’ It is such generosity of spirit that makes Nelson Mandela one of the world’s most significant moral leaders since Mahatma Gandhi. One of his greatest achievements has been to work to connect and unite the diverse communities that make up South Africa. With his immense moral authority gained by the patient and magnanimous bearing of adversity, Mandela demonstrates it is possible to be a servant-leader, one who serves by leading and leads to serve. He has shown the world that a lofty and courageous spirit enables a leader to confront difficult situations calmly, rise above pettiness and revenge, and make sacrifices for worthy ends. This can also alter the mood of an entire nation.

            Vision, humility, and courage are the hallmarks of the leadership seen in Nelson Mandela. The characteristics, along with professional competence or ability, are much sought after by free and equal people around the world. 

A Model of Successful Development of Leadership from Within - The Art of Living Foundation

One organization that is working to help leaders and future leaders develop themselves from the “inside out” is the Art of Living Foundation. The Foundation teaches stress-reducing breathing techniques to people from all factions of life including leaders and employees in organizations, aspiring leaders, school children, and communities. These techniques are coupled with meditations and psychological maxims that help people gain the willingness and capability to reframe their approach to life.

Established by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as a non-profit, educational, and humanitarian organization in 1981, the Foundation has chapters in more than 140 countries. The sustainable development projects, trauma-relief, and self-development programs conducted by the organization are reported to have benefited more than 25 million people around the world. By nurturing the spirit of service and compassion in every individual, the Foundation seeks to build a global society that is free of stress and violence.

The breathing techniques taught in the Art of Living program have been researched medically, and are shown to have multiple beneficial impacts such as the reduction of Serum Cortisol (the stress hormone), an increase in the beta wave activity in the brain (showing better integration of the right and left brain), reduction in bad cholesterol (with a simultaneous increase in good cholesterol) among other benefits.

The maxims taught in the program encourage acceptance of diversity, demonstrate and show the complementary nature of opposites such as happiness and sadness, encourage independent thinking and collective action, promote a culture of responsible behavior, and encourage considered responses rather than impulsive reactions to situations.

Through this mixture of breathing techniques, meditation, and maxims that aid day-to-day leadership decisions, the Art of Living program has helped to cultivate a more conscious “inner” core of people encouraging them to be ethical and connective leaders.

Among the most interesting benefits of the program is an acknowledgment of a “heightened sense of belongingness” among the participants, who often report they feel more connected to the people around them, and are ready to take responsibility for the well-being of their communities, their nations, and the world.

In an interview dated August 3, 2003, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar indicated that “the big C of corruption can be countered by 5Cs – Connectedness, Courage, Cosmology (understanding life events in a larger context), Care, and Commitment. A lack of connectedness or sense of belongingness breeds corruption in society. That is why, often, you see people looking for connections, in order to avoid corruption! A sense of belongingness among people, among the community, can root out corruption.”

The Art of Living's programs in essence appear to be designed to promote the above cited 5Cs, and as such offers a promising model to develop the “inner” leader who is both ethical and connective, and determined to act in the best interest of society.