By Nassir Ghaemi; New York, NY: penguin (2011); Reviewed by JOHN GRYS
A First-rate Madness was recommended by a sociologist friend of mine, and though the title and general thrust of the book intrigued me, I’m not sure I was prepared for the opening salvo: “In times of crisis, we are better off being led by mentally ill leaders than by mentally normal ones” (p. 2). The rest of the book unpacks this statement in a way that not only makes sense, but becomes very convincing.
Currently specializing in academic psychiatry, Nassir Ghaemi serves as a professor at Tufts Medical Center in Boston as well as being a Clinical Lecturer at Harvard Medical School (www.nassirghaemi.com). His specific area of expertise is mood illnesses, especially bipolar disorders. He brings these weighty credentials to bear on his study of eight great political, military, and business leaders: W. T. Sherman (bipolar), Ted Turner (bipolar), Winston Churchill (depression), Abraham Lincoln (depression), Mahatma Gandhi (depression), Martin Luther King, Jr. (depression), Franklin D. Roosevelt (mild manic), and John F. Kennedy (mild manic).
Three ingredients contribute to the selection of these leaders. First are the various aspects of mental health that each leader contributed to the overall understanding of the specific illness. Second is the significance of the particular contribution to their respective domains of leadership. The final ingredient included is the strong documentary evidence. Ghaemi then identifies the comparison “homoclite” leaders, that is, those who would be considered normal. The book then organizes itself around these comparisons in relationship to specific elements.
Four key elements involved with manic and depressive illnesses can serve leaders well, especially in a time of crisis: realism, resilience, empathy, and creativity. Specifically, the professor points out that depression can assist in making leaders more realistic and empathic, while mania can contribute to creativity and resiliency. Indeed, it is the abnormality of the moods that defines the mental disorders in these cases, not their ability to intellectually stay in touch with surrounding reality.
The author persuasively argues his case in this work. He utilizes primary sources, where possible, while keeping his promise not to make it a psychohistory. His attempt to connect the discipline of psychiatric study with leadership study helped me to realize why it might have been that, according to many, Winston Churchill could serve as a great wartime prime minister but suffer tremendously as a non- wartime leader. He also reinforces the notion that suffering in the formative years of a person’s life can lead him or her to become a strong leader in the adult years: “the absence of early hardship often has a later negative effect; when difficult times arrive, one is vulnerable. Early triumph can promote future failure” (pp. 52, 53).
In a religious context, the stigma attached to this kind of discussion may still be very strong, especially in more fundamentalist circles. The emphasis on “crisis” leadership cannot be understated. To fully utilize this kind of study would require a several things of a faith community: first, to admit that these kind of people exist in our midst; second, to discover how this kind of mental health relates to the spiritual core of a person; and third, that the community find value in this kind of a leader. Would a faith community trust this kind of leader? Of course, if we examine our most sacred text, Scripture, we would discover that what the mental sciences describe can best be found in the role of the “prophet.” If, indeed, Ghaemi is correct, God can use any person.
An insightful interview with the author is at: http://www. colbertnation. com/the-colbert-report-videos/ 394151/ august-08-2011/nassir-ghaemi
John Grys, D.Min., is a pastor at the Wenatchee Seventh-day Adventist Church (in Washington) and an Adjunct Professor of Christian leadership at Andrews University.