Solitude and Leadership

While William Deresiewicz is known as an essayist, “Solitude and Leadership” was originally delivered orally as a persuasive speech. As such, it is composed of short, direct sentences. Statements that would likely be written as complex sentences in an essay are broken up by periods, and many sentences begin with conjunctions. This allows for verbal pauses, and phrases often stand alone for emphasis. 

Similarly, although the speech shares many concepts with Deresiewicz’s earlier critique of the Ivy League, “Solitude and Leadership” is tailored for his audience of first-year cadets at the US Military Academy. He begins with the premise that his listeners are at West Point to become leaders. He then promises insight into how this can be achieved. His arguments eventually reached a wider audience, but Deresiewicz speaks directly to the cadets, referencing their training regimen and supporting his claims using military examples. Along with the writing style mentioned above, Deresiewicz connects with his audience by showing that he understands them and their unique challenges.

Deresiewicz divides his speech in half, first establishing the attributes of leadership and then discussing how they can be developed. The two sections share a basic structure in which Deresiewicz begins by identifying impediments to developing leadership capacity. He then offers solutions, and each half ends with a sense of urgency and a call to action. This organization serves to highlight current problems and establish the importance of the proposed remedies, although Deresiewicz concedes they will be difficult to attain.

Deresiewicz introduces the jarring metaphors of “hoop jumpers” and “sheep” after elaborating on the extensive admissions requirements for an institution like West Point—which requires strong academics, a medical exam, a physical fitness assessment, and a nomination from a congressional representative or a prior service connection. He explains that students at elite schools have been trained in bureaucratic success rather than leadership. Deresiewicz emphasizes that the cadets are entering one of the world’s greatest examples of bureaucracy, the US Army. He portrays success in such a system as being the antithesis of leadership. Deresiewicz begins using the term “you” as he describes the process of conforming to advance in such a hierarchy. He concludes that “it finally comes to seem that […] you have nothing inside you at all” (Paragraph 14). He then breaks the tension by stating that the cadets can decide to adopt a different relationship with the bureaucracy.

Deresiewicz proposes that it’s possible to break the bureaucratic pattern and develop leaders who think independently and have the courage to question the establishment and act on their beliefs. He supports his argument with the example of General Petraeus, although the example also highlights the risk involved. Despite its difficulty, Deresiewicz’s solution is coupled with urgency. He describes the country’s dearth of leadership as a crisis, pointing to recent failures both at large corporations and in the US military.

The second half of his speech, which describes learning to think independently, opens with what hinders such thinking. Deresiewicz critiques the role of multitasking and electronic media in the cadets’ lives. They are constantly bombarded by distractions, which are barriers to the original thought that leadership requires. Tension increases as Deresiewicz lists difficult questions the cadets face or soon will face, questions requiring the type of original insight and personal commitment that comes only through independent thinking.

Deresiewicz references several literary works, such as Heart of Darkness and Emerson’s essays, to support his argument that solitude is necessary for independent thinking. He admits that solitude is not easily attained at West Point, but he again bolsters the urgency of his proposal, stating, “Waiting until you have to confront [difficult questions] in practice would be like waiting for your first firefight to learn how to shoot your weapon” (Paragraph 48).

The speech’s frequent use of questions supports Deresiewicz’s insistence on independent thinking. He repeatedly asks the students to formulate explanations or solutions on their own. At times, such questions give the cadets opportunities to ponder contradictions or new concepts for themselves before Deresiewicz provides his interpretation. At other points, the questions are left unanswered. In both cases, Deresiewicz’s use of questions provokes the independent thinking that he endorses.

Deresiewicz highlights apparent contradictions in his proposal, such as between solitude and leadership or solitude and friendship. Likewise, he concedes that he is advocating solitude in an environment that affords little of it, while also suggesting nonconformity in a setting of strict military regimentation. This use of contradiction and paradox invites the cadets to break from conventional wisdom, play with new associations, and formulate original ideas. Again, Deresiewicz uses literary devices to provoke the type of thinking he explains and champions.

Deresiewicz carefully fleshes out his concepts and uses excerpts from Heart of Darkness as illustrations. Reference to a well-known book (with film adaptations) makes Deresiewicz’s nontraditional theories more accessible. For example, after challenging the conventional idea that leadership means simply advancement, he reads the protagonist Marlow’s description of a manager who cannot lead. Likewise, when proposing that solitude is not always mere introspection, he uses a passage in which Marlow gains insight during solitary manual labor.

Deresiewicz uses multiple techniques to establish his reliability. He often anticipates objections, questions, and concerns, acknowledging them in a straightforward manner. For example, he concedes that the cadets have very little opportunity for solitude or independence, but he insists that the fact that they are training to be army officers is the reason they must adopt his proposal. Likewise, he recognizes that the process he endorses can be scary and risky, validating the fears of his audience, but he maintains that the value and urgency of the result outweigh the hardships.

Many of the elements mentioned above also serve to grab and maintain the listeners’ attention, another important factor in persuasive rhetoric. For example, Deresiewicz opens by addressing the seeming contradiction in his title, invoking intrigue, a process that is repeated with the introduction of subsequent paradoxes. Likewise, the use of questions, both rhetorical and answered, engages the audience in a more interactive experience. Finally, as Deresiewicz is speaking directly to and about the cadets, rather than abstractly about college students in general, many of his questions evoke current or impending conflicts specific to the lives of his audience members. This indicates a personal investment in sustained attention, which itself is a key component of the type of thinking Deresiewicz advocates as essential to true leadership.