This post is, in a way, a follow up to the thoughts in my previous post Challenges and Illumination. Not long after I had the illuminating experience of studying the communication theory of Dr. Stanley Deetz (among others who hold this theory), I was introduced to the communication theory of Father Walter Ong.
Each of the students in my COML 508: Theorizing Communication course had to pick a theorist from a list of people and then write a 5-7 page paper about that theorist and their theory. Since each student had to choose a different theorist. I looked at each of them and selected several options, assuming that I might not get my first choice. I actually ended up with my third choice, and I am really glad that I did because 1) I had never heard of Father Ong's theory so it was all new, 2) it was very different from the other theories we have looked at in this class, and 3) I attend a Catholic Jesuit university and Father Ong was a Jesuit priest so it somehow seemed fitting. Writing this paper ended up being another "illumination" moment.
After entering the priesthood and completing his PhD, Father Ong spent much of his professional life at Saint Louis University. However, he traveled all over the world, wrote a staggering 450 publications (including multiple books), and even served on an education task force for President Lyndon Johnson. In addition to all of his scholarly work, he was also very active as a priest. Father Ong died rather unexpectedly in 2003 at the age of 90 from pneumonia.
So what made Father Ong so special in a field full of theories and theorists?
First of all, he looked at communication from the point of view of multiple different fields of study including literature, psychology, and anthropology, among others. This approach was not all that common, especially in the time period where he was doing his foundational writing. Even today, taking a multi-disciplinary approach to a subject is still not always the default - especially in the humanities. I know from my own experience that one of the things that set my basic sciences department apart from the crowd early on was a focus on interdisciplinary research. This is cutting edge work, and Father Ong was ahead of his time.
Secondly, Father Ong's lifelong interest was in oral cultures (ones that do not have a written language) vs. literate cultures (ones that do have a written language). This was not necessarily an area that many people were studying - or that many people were studying the way he did. He looked at these oral cultures and realized that the very nature of being orally-based required them to think very differently than those groups that had a written language. For example, he looked at The Iliad and The Odyssey by Homer and basically said (paraphrased) "You know, the way these stories are told tells us a lot about how people think in what is called a 'primarily oral' culture."
I had never really considered the impact that a written language had on people as opposed to simply passing along informational by mouth. Unlike the written word, sound does not last. You say something, and then it is gone, even as you are completing the thought.
So, if you can't write something down to look at later, how do you remember it and transfer it to new generations? What Father Ong theorized was that oral cultures used a process of "themes" - cliches if you will - to keep information in memory and then transmit it by telling it to new generations. Just as in Homer's epics, certain phrases and ideas were used over and over again to aid in understanding and memory. These stories focused on actions - usually grand sagas of good vs. evil that carried not only historical information about past events, but also morals, and cultural expectations.
This idea shed a lot of light on the Old Testament, too. Even though the culture had a written language, so was not solely oral-based, the Old Testament was hand-written and therefore not available for just anybody. Usually, someone had to read it to the people. The way it was written was designed to help people remember what they had heard and be able to use it in their everyday lives. That's one reason you get so much of the repetition within sections and phrases/concepts that are used over and over again. To a modern reader, these are redundant and make it difficult to read - precisely because we are approaching it from a literate standpoint. From an oral standpoint, as a listener, these tactics would make it possible to remember what you heard.
Problem was, because things had to be said and done a certain way in an oral culture to help people remember, you could not really change things up very much. Innovations in thinking did occur, but much more slowly than we are used to.
But then a funny thing happened...some groups invented writing...and the whole way of looking at the world changed. Now you did not have to remember things, you could go look them up. You did not have to depend on set phrases and standard ways of telling things to keep the information. You could spend time looking at the world in a new way without being afraid you might lose something important. More than that, now thinking was visually-based instead of sound-based. That changed the world from an action-oriented thought process to one where you could passively "observe" things.
Because of literacy and the ability to think in new ways, the world experienced the Enlightenment and the subsequent growth in the sciences and technology. A semi-oral approach was maintained for centuries (which is why anyone with any education was schooled in the art of rhetoric and exams were oral, not written like most are now). But, ultimately the written word prevailed in many ways and transformed the world.
But that is not the end of the story. The advent of modern technology has brought the world of sound back - think radio, recordings, television, and computers. As the digital world "rises," we are experiencing what Father Ong dubbed "secondary orality." We are becoming a semi-oral culture again...and that is affecting the way we think and relate to the world around us in ways we likely won't really understand until we can look back over time and study the changes in hindsight.
My life has spanned the middle to later days of technology, from early radio and black and white television to computers and the age of social media and online learning. Understanding the progression of not only literacy, but how it changed thought itself was a fascinating new world for me. As in my last post, what I learned changed the way I viewed the world - because even the phrase "viewed the world" is an artifact of a literate, visual society!
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Challenges and Illumination
I knew that graduate school would be challenging...I just reasoned that it would primarily be challenging the way that my undergraduate experience had been: time management, getting good grades, keeping up with homework assignments, etc. I figured the work itself would be harder, or there would be no real dividend to getting that next diploma. I also hoped to find it intellectually challenging because I would be exchanging ideas at a higher level with my peers and professors.
In one sense, I was correct. Many of the same challenges from the undergraduate world have carried over into the graduate world, only at a more intense level. One of the major complaints for most graduate students is the volume of reading. Sometimes it gets so intense you simply have to decide what is critical and what you can ignore. Graduate school has also met my expectations for intellectual exchange and rigor. You don't get to slide by on discussion posts, or papers. And that's okay, because it would frankly be not worth the time and money if you did get to coast.
I also anticipated a certain amount of cognitive dissonance because I am fundamentally more conservative than is my university. I was prepared to deal with challenges to my conservatism - prepared to change where it was warranted and to stand my ground where I disagreed.This also has come to pass. I have learned to appreciate different points of view, and even change my own point of view when it was called for. You can see some of that growth in a previous posting "Diversity is not a Four Letter Word." I have also learned to agree to disagree with ideas that simply don't work for me.
But there was one challenge that I had no way of anticipating until it smacked me in the face.
What I had no way to know was that the very nature of what I was studying would challenge me at fundamental levels. Both my studies in leadership, and my more recent unofficial minor in communications, have forced me to step back and say, "Hold on a minute." There are days when I truly want to walk away and call it done. I have trouble seeing past the theories, the concepts, and the jargon to the point of it all. Some days the whole process feels like mere words, simply "blah, blah, blah" in academic speak.
But just as I want to write the whole thing off as a waste of time, a ray of understanding will come shining through the whole mess and spotlight the world in a new way. Then I look at it, and I realize I want to keep doing this because of those moments of illumination. They make the rest of the toil and struggle, the frustration and sometimes total lack of motivation worth putting up with.
I had one of those moments last night when I was listening to Dr. Stanley Deetz from the University of Colorado explain his Critical Theory of Communication. I am not, by and large, impressed with what I consider postmodern thought in either leadership or communication. Because I tend to come at things from an objective stance, the postmodern interpretive approach often feels divorced from reality to me. It seems to belong primarily in ivory towers and not on the streets of the world where I live.
But listening to Dr. Deetz explain the evolution of his thinking out of his own experiences as an alienated "other" fresh off the farm and transplanted to an academic world, connected his critical approach with its questioning of our assumptions to the everyday world in a way that provided one of those beautiful moments of illumination. In his words (and frankly, his enthusiasm), I found a new way to look at things, a way to step back and rethink the world that I have always taken for granted. As he aptly points out in a complementary lecture article, this new way of approaching life is practical - it can be used where the "rubber meets the road" and not just in theoretical circles.
I've been sick since the beginning of the semester, and I had reached one of those low points where I wondered what was the point of this whole thing? What was I really learning about and what good would it do when I exited the halls of the university? After last night, when the light shone, I went to bed knowing that not everything I take away from this time will satisfy or even stay with me ...but the moments of illumination make it well worth rising to the challenges. When I finally complete this time and make my exit, I will be a different person than when I started - and that will be a good thing.
In one sense, I was correct. Many of the same challenges from the undergraduate world have carried over into the graduate world, only at a more intense level. One of the major complaints for most graduate students is the volume of reading. Sometimes it gets so intense you simply have to decide what is critical and what you can ignore. Graduate school has also met my expectations for intellectual exchange and rigor. You don't get to slide by on discussion posts, or papers. And that's okay, because it would frankly be not worth the time and money if you did get to coast.
I also anticipated a certain amount of cognitive dissonance because I am fundamentally more conservative than is my university. I was prepared to deal with challenges to my conservatism - prepared to change where it was warranted and to stand my ground where I disagreed.This also has come to pass. I have learned to appreciate different points of view, and even change my own point of view when it was called for. You can see some of that growth in a previous posting "Diversity is not a Four Letter Word." I have also learned to agree to disagree with ideas that simply don't work for me.
But there was one challenge that I had no way of anticipating until it smacked me in the face.
What I had no way to know was that the very nature of what I was studying would challenge me at fundamental levels. Both my studies in leadership, and my more recent unofficial minor in communications, have forced me to step back and say, "Hold on a minute." There are days when I truly want to walk away and call it done. I have trouble seeing past the theories, the concepts, and the jargon to the point of it all. Some days the whole process feels like mere words, simply "blah, blah, blah" in academic speak.
But just as I want to write the whole thing off as a waste of time, a ray of understanding will come shining through the whole mess and spotlight the world in a new way. Then I look at it, and I realize I want to keep doing this because of those moments of illumination. They make the rest of the toil and struggle, the frustration and sometimes total lack of motivation worth putting up with.
I had one of those moments last night when I was listening to Dr. Stanley Deetz from the University of Colorado explain his Critical Theory of Communication. I am not, by and large, impressed with what I consider postmodern thought in either leadership or communication. Because I tend to come at things from an objective stance, the postmodern interpretive approach often feels divorced from reality to me. It seems to belong primarily in ivory towers and not on the streets of the world where I live.
But listening to Dr. Deetz explain the evolution of his thinking out of his own experiences as an alienated "other" fresh off the farm and transplanted to an academic world, connected his critical approach with its questioning of our assumptions to the everyday world in a way that provided one of those beautiful moments of illumination. In his words (and frankly, his enthusiasm), I found a new way to look at things, a way to step back and rethink the world that I have always taken for granted. As he aptly points out in a complementary lecture article, this new way of approaching life is practical - it can be used where the "rubber meets the road" and not just in theoretical circles.
I've been sick since the beginning of the semester, and I had reached one of those low points where I wondered what was the point of this whole thing? What was I really learning about and what good would it do when I exited the halls of the university? After last night, when the light shone, I went to bed knowing that not everything I take away from this time will satisfy or even stay with me ...but the moments of illumination make it well worth rising to the challenges. When I finally complete this time and make my exit, I will be a different person than when I started - and that will be a good thing.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Diversity is not a Four Letter Word
Currently, I am participating in a conversation thread with the Helium Writers Group on LinkedIn. This conversation started with a member's question about whether political correctness (PC) hampers or diminishes us as writers. Most of the respondents came down on the side against political correctness, citing its history of excesses and its dampening effect on both clear writing and the free flow of ideas in the public arena. For the most part, I concur with this opinion. Many subjects that need to be discussed in a civil society are being shoved aside for fear of offending someone's opinions. Topics that may be sensitive, but are not necessarily hateful, are being treated as such amid the fear that someone's "feelings" will be hurt. This is the negative side of political correctness
However, cleansing our speech of derogatory terms and including those who, due to issues such as race or gender, were formerly ignored in public discourse is the positive side of PC. We do other human beings a huge disservice when we dismiss and ignore (or even outright insult) them. We do ourselves and society a disservice in the process by creating one-sided discourse. If you want to look at it in scientific terms, we do ourselves a disservice by excluding participants because we are also excluding data that might further refine our understanding of the world.
This discussion of PC leads me naturally into the idea of diversity. Many people consider diversity to be just another negative politically correct idea. Mention diversity, especially "diversity training," and they immediately shut down. I speak from prior feelings in my own life, as well as a recent experience with a colleague. People do not desire to sit in some room and have diversity shoved down their throats, especially when it is couched solely in terms of hiring more people from target groups in order to make the organization look good.
Moreover, if our organizational attempts at diversity encompass nothing more than recruiting certain people simply to make our institution appear to be more diverse, we are merely playing a numbers game. Bringing new people into a workplace, or an educational environment, that neither respects nor nurtures them once they are beyond the recruiting phase provides nothing of value to them - nor to the organization. Their fresh voice is never heard; they become little more than window dressing. Trust me, awareness of that status is not lost on them.
However, when you cut through all the political agendas that cloud and obscure diversity, at the heart it's really about fairness. As children, most of us were taught to play fair, to share, and to include others in our social activities. Yet, this concept we learned in early elementary and even preschool is somehow not carried forward into adulthood. Instead, we begin to value those who are most like us, who think and act as we do, and to view with suspicion others who do not. We no longer wish to share, or even play fair. Instead, we operate out of fear.
Everyone loses when we adopt this attitude. Organizations whose leaders do not value a diverse workplace lose out on the fresh insights and creative ideas that people who are different may bring along with them. Individuals lose the opportunity to develop a more well-rounded understanding of their world. They may also lose the chance to develop some wonderful friendships. Those who are excluded lose their opportunity to participate in the greater society, to gain that sense of self-worth and efficacy that is so psychologically important to human beings.
Understand what I am not saying - sharing the public arena with people who think differently from us does not automatically assume that we must agree with them. That idea is another negative that turns people away from diversity. Tolerance does not necessitate leaving discernment at the door. It merely means that others deserve a fair chance of being heard, which is their due as human beings. Tolerance means that if we must disagree, we do so respectfully and we disagree with ideas instead of vilifying people.
Ultimately, diversity is not a four-letter word. Diversity is about humanity - all of humanity - being respected, valued, and given a "place at the table." Diversity is about removing artificial barriers to opportunity and engagement. Lawrence Kohlberg, a noted psychologist, believed the moral development of humans occurs in stages. At the lower, less mature level, adherence to morality is based on ideas of punishment, or conforming to societal standards. But at the highest stage, morality becomes a matter not of societal "rules" but one of universal principles such as justice and fairness. Self-serving agendas aside, diversity belongs to this higher moral realm. It is, after all, only fair.
However, cleansing our speech of derogatory terms and including those who, due to issues such as race or gender, were formerly ignored in public discourse is the positive side of PC. We do other human beings a huge disservice when we dismiss and ignore (or even outright insult) them. We do ourselves and society a disservice in the process by creating one-sided discourse. If you want to look at it in scientific terms, we do ourselves a disservice by excluding participants because we are also excluding data that might further refine our understanding of the world.
This discussion of PC leads me naturally into the idea of diversity. Many people consider diversity to be just another negative politically correct idea. Mention diversity, especially "diversity training," and they immediately shut down. I speak from prior feelings in my own life, as well as a recent experience with a colleague. People do not desire to sit in some room and have diversity shoved down their throats, especially when it is couched solely in terms of hiring more people from target groups in order to make the organization look good.
Moreover, if our organizational attempts at diversity encompass nothing more than recruiting certain people simply to make our institution appear to be more diverse, we are merely playing a numbers game. Bringing new people into a workplace, or an educational environment, that neither respects nor nurtures them once they are beyond the recruiting phase provides nothing of value to them - nor to the organization. Their fresh voice is never heard; they become little more than window dressing. Trust me, awareness of that status is not lost on them.
However, when you cut through all the political agendas that cloud and obscure diversity, at the heart it's really about fairness. As children, most of us were taught to play fair, to share, and to include others in our social activities. Yet, this concept we learned in early elementary and even preschool is somehow not carried forward into adulthood. Instead, we begin to value those who are most like us, who think and act as we do, and to view with suspicion others who do not. We no longer wish to share, or even play fair. Instead, we operate out of fear.
Everyone loses when we adopt this attitude. Organizations whose leaders do not value a diverse workplace lose out on the fresh insights and creative ideas that people who are different may bring along with them. Individuals lose the opportunity to develop a more well-rounded understanding of their world. They may also lose the chance to develop some wonderful friendships. Those who are excluded lose their opportunity to participate in the greater society, to gain that sense of self-worth and efficacy that is so psychologically important to human beings.
Understand what I am not saying - sharing the public arena with people who think differently from us does not automatically assume that we must agree with them. That idea is another negative that turns people away from diversity. Tolerance does not necessitate leaving discernment at the door. It merely means that others deserve a fair chance of being heard, which is their due as human beings. Tolerance means that if we must disagree, we do so respectfully and we disagree with ideas instead of vilifying people.
Ultimately, diversity is not a four-letter word. Diversity is about humanity - all of humanity - being respected, valued, and given a "place at the table." Diversity is about removing artificial barriers to opportunity and engagement. Lawrence Kohlberg, a noted psychologist, believed the moral development of humans occurs in stages. At the lower, less mature level, adherence to morality is based on ideas of punishment, or conforming to societal standards. But at the highest stage, morality becomes a matter not of societal "rules" but one of universal principles such as justice and fairness. Self-serving agendas aside, diversity belongs to this higher moral realm. It is, after all, only fair.
Monday, March 5, 2012
See and See Again
I have to confess, I did not think up the wonderful title "See and See Again." My most recent course, Organizational Leadership: Creativity and Leadership, at Gonzaga University used this title as the theme for their 3-day intensive section of the course. We looked at art, architecture, literature, drama, and music to gain insight into the creative process - and then applied that insight to leadership and organizations.
It was an amazing weekend where we drew upside down images and negative spaces, played musical instruments in impromptu groups, built spaghetti towers and photographed our campus, acted out a scene from Shakespeare, and watched a gripping film about prisoners at Auschwitz. Each class section and each exercise was designed to draw us out of our normal analytical, logical, linear, left-brained thinking. Instead, we spent the entire weekend pulling from the creative, artistic, emotional, right side of our brains. It is a place that many of us have little more than a nodding acquaintance with. However, even those of us who are more right-brained than others still found it challenging to try new things, to give ourselves permission to create and play without constantly being judged for our performance or our outcome. The weekend was about process, not just product.
I am far more right-brained than many of my classmates. Yet, even I found my view of the world turned completely askew in ways that are still with me. I did not leave my creative insights on campus when I bid the last class and the last classmate farewell and boarded a plane for home.
After we returned from Gonzaga, we continued our learning through discussions on such issues as architecture and how architectural structures can be metaphorical for organizational leadership. Within the structure of our organization, are there ceilings where there should be none? Are there windows of opportunity, and doors for people to walk through? Is our "architecture" functional and friendly to the people in the organization? Does our structure promote interactions and teamwork - or merely hierarchy and closed doors?
When we "build," can we use common materials in new ways as the great architect Mario Botta did with the artistic use of concrete blocks in his structures?
Can we, like the Impressionists and Cubists in art, know when to challenge the status quo in the interest of forging a greater vision?
Can we find our footing when challenged with unfamiliar situations (such as playing a musical instrument we've never before played) and function as a team? Can these same teams use everyday tools to create something extraordinary, such as a spaghetti tower?
Ultimately, the real lesson to be found in this weekend was not studying Botta or Monet, not in drawing upside down or building towers. The lesson was found in the theme: see and see again. Too often we look and we see only what is, what has been, what others say could be. Our challenge is to look again, and see the possibilities, the areas outside the lines, the form within the block of stone that has only to be released. We must learn to go beyond first impressions, analytical thinking, standard processes. It is in the lands beyond these settled realms that our imaginations can take off and we can begin to create something more, something greater, something new. It is when we choose to see, and then see again, that we find our true vision.
Without vision, it is impossible to forge our way into the future and create something unique. Our organizations can settle for humming along being merely good, or we can seek the vision that will make them great. Whether it is a vision of product, process, service, or function, as leaders we must always choose to see...and then see again.
It was an amazing weekend where we drew upside down images and negative spaces, played musical instruments in impromptu groups, built spaghetti towers and photographed our campus, acted out a scene from Shakespeare, and watched a gripping film about prisoners at Auschwitz. Each class section and each exercise was designed to draw us out of our normal analytical, logical, linear, left-brained thinking. Instead, we spent the entire weekend pulling from the creative, artistic, emotional, right side of our brains. It is a place that many of us have little more than a nodding acquaintance with. However, even those of us who are more right-brained than others still found it challenging to try new things, to give ourselves permission to create and play without constantly being judged for our performance or our outcome. The weekend was about process, not just product.
I am far more right-brained than many of my classmates. Yet, even I found my view of the world turned completely askew in ways that are still with me. I did not leave my creative insights on campus when I bid the last class and the last classmate farewell and boarded a plane for home.
After we returned from Gonzaga, we continued our learning through discussions on such issues as architecture and how architectural structures can be metaphorical for organizational leadership. Within the structure of our organization, are there ceilings where there should be none? Are there windows of opportunity, and doors for people to walk through? Is our "architecture" functional and friendly to the people in the organization? Does our structure promote interactions and teamwork - or merely hierarchy and closed doors?
When we "build," can we use common materials in new ways as the great architect Mario Botta did with the artistic use of concrete blocks in his structures?
Can we, like the Impressionists and Cubists in art, know when to challenge the status quo in the interest of forging a greater vision?
Can we find our footing when challenged with unfamiliar situations (such as playing a musical instrument we've never before played) and function as a team? Can these same teams use everyday tools to create something extraordinary, such as a spaghetti tower?
Ultimately, the real lesson to be found in this weekend was not studying Botta or Monet, not in drawing upside down or building towers. The lesson was found in the theme: see and see again. Too often we look and we see only what is, what has been, what others say could be. Our challenge is to look again, and see the possibilities, the areas outside the lines, the form within the block of stone that has only to be released. We must learn to go beyond first impressions, analytical thinking, standard processes. It is in the lands beyond these settled realms that our imaginations can take off and we can begin to create something more, something greater, something new. It is when we choose to see, and then see again, that we find our true vision.
Without vision, it is impossible to forge our way into the future and create something unique. Our organizations can settle for humming along being merely good, or we can seek the vision that will make them great. Whether it is a vision of product, process, service, or function, as leaders we must always choose to see...and then see again.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Welcome to "Forging a Different Path"
Welcome to my new blog! My goal for future posts is to explore leadership issues and resources, as well as mentoring and people development. Currently, I am a graduate student in the Organizational Leadership program at the Gonzaga University School of Professional Studies. When I am not studying leadership, I am a freelance writer and blogger.
I chose "Forging a Different Path" because to me the name evokes the idea of pioneers who deliberately break away from the same old well-used routes to explore new territory. But the goal of these trailblazers is more than just finding new paths for themselves - they are eager to share what they see and what they learn with others. They view these new horizons as a communal resource.
That is my goal with this blog - to share what I am learning, the new regions of leadership that I am exploring, and my experiences in people development. I hope to not only discuss the issues facing today's organizational leaders, but also to offer fresh ideas and new resources, both from my courses and also from outside sources.
I hope you will periodically check back for new posts. I look forward to sharing this journey with you!
I chose "Forging a Different Path" because to me the name evokes the idea of pioneers who deliberately break away from the same old well-used routes to explore new territory. But the goal of these trailblazers is more than just finding new paths for themselves - they are eager to share what they see and what they learn with others. They view these new horizons as a communal resource.
That is my goal with this blog - to share what I am learning, the new regions of leadership that I am exploring, and my experiences in people development. I hope to not only discuss the issues facing today's organizational leaders, but also to offer fresh ideas and new resources, both from my courses and also from outside sources.
I hope you will periodically check back for new posts. I look forward to sharing this journey with you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)