We have finally arrived at the fourth quality of leadership. In standard Stoicism this quality is known as Sophrosyne (Greek: σωφροσύνη) or temperantia in Latin. In English, we can understand this as temperance, moderation, or self-control. Cicero uses the term decorum for this quality of leadership. The word decor means ‘what is seemly’, ‘beauty’ or ‘grace’. Therefore, by using decorum, Cicero emphasises an aesthetic value to this quality. Behaviour and actions that are temperate, moderate, and controlled are beautiful. Decorum is also linked etymologically to dignitas (worthiness, rank) and therefore refers not only to moderate behaviour, but behaviour that is appropriate to one’s social position. It is difficult to combine all these ideas in one English word. Nevertheless, the English equivalent that I think is most inclusive is ‘appropriateness’. Cicero tells us that this quality is almost synonymous with honourableness itself, the source of the quality of leadership (virtus). He explains that this is because “what is appropriate is honourable, and what is honourable is appropriate” (Off. 1.93). In this way, appropriateness embraces all the other qualities of leadership.
So, what is appropriate behaviour? The answer has a universal and an individual aspect. What is universally appropriate is marked out by the responsible actions (officia) of the other qualities of leadership: wisdom (sapientia), justice (iustitia), and courage (fortitudo). We have seen that there is a minimum responsibility to each of the qualities. One must not assent to things of which one does not have knowledge (wisdom). One must not, actively or passively, harm others (justice). One must take responsibility for oneself if they are capable (courage). It is appropriate for all human beings to stay within these broad boundaries, and it is inappropriate for any human being to step outside them. On a fundamental level, all humans are the same and must abide by the same universal laws. However, on a more refined level, one finds that every human is different. We all have our own personalities which are individual to us. Therefore, there is an appropriateness which is specific to each and every one of us. Cicero states that:
“What is most appropriate for a man is the thing that is most his own.” (Off. 1.113)
As long as one stays within the broad bounds of what is universally appropriate for the human being, the most appropriate thing to do is to follow one’s own individual nature. This does not mean that we can choose who we want to be. What is appropriate for each individual is determined by his personality, strengths and weaknesses. These things are not chosen by the individual but are assigned by nature. We do not create our personalities ourselves. Rather, as we grow and mature, we get to know ourselves better and uncover the personality with which nature has equipped us.
The special function and responsible action (officium) of appropriateness is to control the emotions (perturbationes). This is relevant to universal and individual appropriateness. We know that the emotions threaten the other qualities of leadership and make us act irresponsibly (contra officium). They make us behave unwisely, unjustly, and in a cowardly manner which is universally inappropriate. We will also remember from our previous discussions that the emotions move the inward state (animus) away from rationality (ratio) and nature. In other words, the emotions make us act in ways that are not in line with our true personalities that have been assigned to us by nature. The emotions unsettle us and make us behave in a way that is inappropriate for our individual beings. In this way, controlling the emotions and acting appropriately is the key to contentment, self-realisation, responsible action, and leadership. In fact, being oneself is more important than learning, being generous, and being courageous. Cicero says:
“For we must act in a such a way that we attempt nothing contrary to universal nature; but while conserving that, let us follow our own nature, so that even if other pursuits may be weightier and better, we should measure our own by the rule of our own nature. For it is appropriate neither to fight against nature nor to pursue anything that you cannot attain.” (Off. 1.110)
Human beings have different personalities and talents. Some human beings are naturally more inclined to each of the qualities of leadership. In other words, being ‘good’ cannot be forced. Learning is only worthwhile and appropriate if it comes from one’s true yearning and not from one’s desire to be ‘good’. The same is applicable to generosity (benignitas) and courage. The qualities of leadership and what some might call ‘moral superiority’ cannot be acquired through technique and force. They can only be acquired by letting go of the desire to be ‘morally superior’, and the fear (metus) of being ‘morally inferior’. One must submit to one’s nature. This submission opens the door to inward trust and intuition and enables one to find contentment with oneself and the world.
We must not forget that this idea of appropriateness is social and is recognised and confirmed from outside and not inside. What is appropriate is what is seen as appropriate by others and not what we might think is appropriate. The fact that this submission to the natural self must be seen as appropriate to others might seem counter-intuitive. However, if we look closer this makes much sense. In life, it is easy to recognise the faults in others, while it is very difficult to recognise the faults in ourselves. We can easily see when someone else is acting inappropriately but we cannot see it in ourselves. The irrational emotional state is a defence mechanism caused by a false perception of the self and the world being threatened. We cannot think clearly in such a state, and this is why it is difficult to recognise when we are acting inappropriately. However, for others viewing from the outside, things are much clearer. They are not in the same irrational emotional state and so can better recognise our inappropriate behaviour. Therefore, it should be a sure sign that one is behaving inappropriately if other honourable people see our actions as inappropriate. In this way, the ‘true self’ is only relevant and attainable a social setting. In other words, the true self is meaningless without a social community. In the same way, the social community is meaningless unless the true self can emerge. What is truly appropriate must be seen as appropriate as well.
In a healthy society such people of honour rise to the surface and are easy to find. However, this does not mean that one cannot find contentment or lead in a meaningful way in an unhealthy collapsing society. Honourable people exist in every age. It is human nature. It is only that they are harder to find in an unhealthy society. For you to successfully find your true self, you need the companionship of other honourable (honestus) people who can see something in you when you cannot see it yourself. You must trust these people and take them seriously. The false self will be threatened by them, but they are your medicine. One cannot do it alone.
Via Ciceronis 