Picture this. Here I am in a church meeting when a woman sitting in front of me starts to shake physically. This was in the context of a meeting where expectations were high that God would do something dramatic. The people around this woman prayed enthusiastically and the physical shakes were interpreted as a visible and positive sign of God’s activity.
I later spoke to a nurse and asked how the same phenomenon would be interpreted in, say, an Accident & Emergency unit at the local hospital. ‘Possibly as some kind of neurological disturbance’, she replied. I then asked how medical staff were likely to respond if they observed this happening. ‘They would probably conduct tests to understand and treat the underlying physical cause.’ This intrigued me. It’s as if the interpretation we apply to an experience depends partly on the socio-physical environment in which the phenomenon arises (in this example, a church or hospital) and what the prevailing expectations and interpretations are in that context. It also depends on our own personal belief systems and the broader cultural worldview that we inhabit. This raises interesting questions about which, if either, interpretation is ‘correct’. Someone of a particular religious conviction may argue strongly for a spiritual interpretation whereas someone of a secular-medical outlook may argue equally strongly for a medical interpretation. It sets up the risk of a false dichotomy, as if different interpretations are necessarily mutually exclusive. One way to look at this is that events and experiences have no inherent meaning of their own. They just are what they are. What happens simply…happens. As individuals and social groups (e.g. cultures, professions), we construct meaning based on what we believe and hold to be true. In other words, we apply meaning to events and experiences rather than derive meaning from them. A non-medical church member may look at the experience through a spiritual lens; a secular medical practitioner through a scientific lens. As a consequence, they each notice, don’t notice, include and conclude something different. Each lens creates and reinforces its own meaning, superimposes its own meaning, and, having done so, appears obvious or self-evident for those share that view. It seems possible to me that the same phenomenon can carry more than one meaning. In the example above, it’s possible (assuming, as I do, that God exists) that God may act in a person’s life by creating a neurological disturbance that may, say, reveal some hidden issue psychosomatically or symbolically that is important for that person or cultural community to pay attention to. Having said that, there may be different explanations altogether to those offered above that could explain this experience. They may not be obvious to us because they don’t fit with our current frames of reference or lenses and are, therefore, in effect, invisible to us. It’s a bit like asking a colour-blind person to describe coloured images or shapes on a card that lie outside their ability to perceive. So what is the significance for leadership, coaching and facilitation? I think it’s something about being aware, as far as we can be, of our own personal and cultural influences, the effect they have on, say, who and what we notice and don’t notice, who and what we value and don’t value and the impact we have on others. It’s about being willing to engage in the existential struggle that holding core assumptions lightly whilst taking a stance with conviction entails. It’s about using our work to help others – whether individuals, teams or organisations – grow in awareness of their personal and cultural beliefs, values and assumptions so they can explore new possibilities constructively and creatively. It’s about modelling and nurturing curiosity, integrity and hope.
15 Comments
Lee
23/5/2015 03:28:15 am
Nice piece , What reality or realities are created for you to keep you within the confines of a social order how much of the truth do you really hold , how much is just manufactured to keep us looking in the wrong direction ?
Reply
Nick Wright
23/5/2015 04:05:50 am
Really good questions, Lee. There have been various explicit attempts throughout history to exert social control through influencing or directly controlling what conversations (or discourse) take place, what language is used etc.
Reply
Lee
23/5/2015 12:05:53 pm
You missed out religious influences these have a huge impact on people's perception of the world they live in as you rightly said about IS and all the wrong doings that uccur in the the name of one religion or another around the world it causes more discourse and separation that almost anything else probably more by design I think.
Nick Wright
24/5/2015 04:45:57 am
Post script. Some really interesting insights in this article a friend sent me today:
Reply
Mariam Nazarudin
26/5/2015 04:52:08 am
Great article Nick to remind us all that the 'world' we see is just from our own lens; a topic that I've always love to facilitate in our company's Diversity and Inclusion sessions.
Reply
Nick Wright
26/5/2015 06:06:27 am
Hi Mariam and thanks for the encouraging feedback. Your comments reminded me of the maxim from the Talmud: 'We do not see things as they are; we see them as we are.' Yes, may we be as open as we can be whilst seeking to support and enable the same in others. With best wishes. Nick
Reply
Terrence Seamon
27/5/2015 03:27:12 am
Or as my mother used to say "Life is what you make it." Great piece, Nick.
Reply
Nick Wright
27/5/2015 03:28:58 am
Hi Terrence. Yes, or as a personal construct psychology friend of mine would say, 'Life is how you construe it'. Thanks again for all your encouragement. With best wishes. Nick
Reply
Ron Strieker
27/5/2015 01:14:34 pm
Nick,
Reply
Nick Wright
27/5/2015 01:18:27 pm
Hi Ron and thank you for your encouraging feedback. You raise interesting questions about 'what is actually happening' and 'reality'. Social constructionism challenges the idea of an objective reality that can be perceived. It's as if we each create our own reality by how we, and others, perceive and engage with it. As you say, it's complex! With best wishes. Nick
Reply
Brigid Nossal
28/5/2015 07:13:16 am
Really important dimension of any engagement and relating, but I agree Nick, especially important for the consultant, coach or manager.
Reply
Nick Wright
28/5/2015 07:14:06 am
Thanks Brigid. With best wishes. Nick
Reply
Kymberly Dakin MS Adult Education
15/6/2015 03:32:55 pm
Nick - thanks for the in-depth look on this topic. The example with the woman "shaking" is particularly compelling. I am very interested in creating team experiences that bring these lenses into engaging game structures like the one I've created called Shift/POV. We can wrestle with these conceptual frameworks with our intellectual understanding, and still not be aware of them when we are interacting with each other. Through EXPERIENCE, we can take action to question our assumptions. Thanks again.
Reply
Nick Wright
15/6/2015 03:36:00 pm
Hi Kymberly and thanks for your encouraging feedback. I would be very interested to hear more about Shift/POV if you would be happy to share some further information and examples here. I was intrigued by your statement, 'through experience, we can take action to question our assumptions.' Could you say a little more? With thanks and best wishes. Nick
Reply
Kymberly Dakin MS Adult Education
16/6/2015 02:29:56 am
I'm happy to share more Nick - and thanks for asking. I worked for a number of years as an interactive training developer and facilitator, and became intrigued by how to unravel toxic behavior patterns in working teams. My experience of your notion around singular events processed radically differently depending on the "lens" through which they are viewed was something I encountered repeatedly. These lenses would, if not directly addressed, become increasingly rigid over time to the point where people a: stopped listening to each other and b: ceased to take in new information about each other, resulting in near complete communication breakdown. I developed Shift/POV as a facilitated game structure so that people could address real working issues through the lens (rules and structure) of a brief (hour-long) interactive game with 3 tightly timed discussion rounds. In the first round, a group of 4 - 15 participants chooses sides relative to an issue or action being considered. But in the second round, they are to engage the issue from the opposite POV (Point Of View) to the one they held in the initial round. This is a compelling test of how well they listened in the first round, and how willing they are to engage the opposite side. But the most important part is that they have had the EXPERIENCE of articulating the opposing side. This element, at least in a year's worth of product trials, has proven to be almost universally effective in cracking the "lenses" of habitual disengagement. Between rounds, the team picks from a deck of cards called Random Factors, which is a series of 45 insight prompts that the facilitator can tailor according to the chemistry of the group and the experience the facilitator feels would benefit them. By the third round, trials have found that groups are at least positioned for collaborative brainstorming by the third round. I could go on, but there's more to discover at www.shiftyourpov.com. Again, thanks for asking Nick. Leave a Reply. |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|