Solitude and Leadership

In his discussion of friendship as a form of solitude, William Deresiewicz focuses on only one aspect of friendship: having a safe space to think aloud. Based on his arguments, what other roles might friends have in developing leadership qualities?

Looking at the four forms of solitude that Deresiewicz endorses, what role do you think physical isolation plays in the development of independent thinking? What implications does your answer have for the cadets in his audience?

After using the description of Marlow’s steamship repairs in Heart of Darkness, Deresiewicz lists other kinds of independent work that can lead to new ideas and self-discovery, such as writing a paper for school. He adds that this is only true, however, “if you really put yourself into it” (Paragraph 38). What does it mean to “put yourself into it” in this context and how is this process relevant to the central concerns of the speech?

“Solitude and Leadership” was written in 2009. Since then, electronic media has expanded greatly in examples such as new streaming services, social media platforms, and gaming options. Consider examples not mentioned in the speech and discuss how they would either support or challenge Deresiewicz’s argument.

Identify ways Deresiewicz incorporates narrative elements into his persuasive rhetoric. What purpose do they serve and what are their effects?

Deresiewicz’s assertion that there is a national crisis of leadership is implicitly critical of his host institution, West Point, and the US Army in general. Does his writing style downplay or enhance this criticism? Give specific examples.

To what extent does Deresiewicz elicit an emotional response from his audience? What literary devices are used? What are the effects?

Deresiewicz uses the story of General David Petraeus challenging his superiors to argue that true leadership requires moral courage to act on personal beliefs. Deresiewicz addresses the risk involved, as even General Petraeus was initially penalized. However, in Petraeus’s case, vindication followed, and he had a successful career as a military leader. Deresiewicz does not discuss the possibility of losing the position from which one could leader. To what extent does that danger validate conformity or hierarchical maneuvering? Based on his speech, what do you think Deresiewicz would say?