Thesis Question

Why does conflict play such an essential role in defining the conscience
of a society and its leaders? How do the different roles played by the
leaders and followers affect conflict and therefore the conscience of the
civilization?

Conflict helps a society define its conscience because:

1. it causes different ideas to come up, different options which make people look to themselves and ask, "what do I want?"

- people must be able to make conscious decisions among real alternatives. so leaders have to work to provide those alternatives and avoid assuming brute power. wait, is a dictatorship with brute power not a leadership at all? because the people aren't being "lead" but... pushed? anyways... since everybody has to kind of decide - even deciding to not decide is a decision - and therefore define their standards of whatever the issue may be, the entire society is defining its own conscience, too. this would be assuming that people as a majority have more power over the conscience of a civilization rather than the leaders.

2. it causes factions, which leaders have to deal with to come to a compromise

- this idea puts the leaders in the position of facilitators. but as facilitators, they are not "perfect" in the sense that no leader could ever be completely impartial on an issue. because leaders are human as well, they have their own opinions and morals affecting the decisions they make as facilitators. a truly impartial one could never exist, because everyone has morals of some sort. so here, the leaders has a larger part in influencing the conscience of the society, if it is true that conflict helps us define our conscience.

3. it makes the society have to work as an entire group, even if it's just people working to oppose each other

- conflict focuses a society's energy into a single topic... okay actually, i'm not so sure about this one

4. it causes leaders to have to make decisions about their own motives and desires, and how much of their personal will they impose upon the followers

- so this is where the amount of influence should come from a leader in settling conflicts. of course, this is assuming that leaders do have power over the conscience of the society. a society which elects its leaders gives them the prerogative to "make the right decision" for them. because there are so many differing opinions, different options one could take on an issue, do many people have to "settle" when electing a leader? because it would be extremely rare that a leader has the exact same opinions and morals as a person choosing them... but then what about the case of dictatorships or monarchies, where leaders aren't chosen at all? WHEN WILL I STOP DILLY-DALLYING ABOUT THIS?

5. it helps the society define the guidelines of 'who controls what?'

- ultimately, is it the leaders with more power over the conscience of a civilization, or the general public?

going back to the prompt&Lord of the Flies...

How does a leader's conscience (or lack thereof) affect the shape of a civilization and each individual's conscience within it? Which has more power over people's conscience - the system of civilization itself or the people running it?

Philosophy I found:

• people provide the initiatives - leaders are only facilitators
• but people can only define their needs, goals, etc. once they have been exposed to alternatives
• leaders must "make conscious what lies unconscious among the followers"
• while they are "only facilitators," they do have a large effect on what the outcome of conflicts are because they have motives of their own
• society can't stay strong unless leaders are in tune with followers

Golding's philosophy:

• leaders can be "good" or "bad"
• at least in the short term, people will follow the brute, dictatorial leader (usually because they have to and also because people always want to conform)
• a heterogeneous society cannot exist without conscience, rules, order
• once conscience is eliminated and innocence is lost (?), people more readily commit acts of savagery