Exploring the gulf between the literal/nominal and the poetic/archetypal/imaginative languages and culture

It seems s omewhat glib to suggest a move in our shared language and culture from the literal/nominal to the poetic, the archetypal and the imaginative. Seeing the self, and others, from the perspective of ‘soul,’ not a thing, but a lens through which human beings can be more fully grasped and appreciated, seems antithetical to the notion of the human as agent, as consumer, as transactional partner. There are several steep hills to climb in order to begin such a tectonic transformation.

In a culture dominated by a dysfunctional masculinity of ‘alpha’ dominance, manifesting a deeply flawed, insecure, neurotic and desperate masculine psyche, determined to hold sway, our public discourse gravitates to matters of ‘hot-button’ conflict, competition and championing of winners and degradation of losers. Winners take home bundles of loot, regardless of what form that loot takes: votes, sales, promotions, trophies, jewellery, trophy partners (wives and husbands). Losers, on the other hand, are shamed into invisibility, after undergoing a barrage of scorn, contempt, often violence and, ironically, morphing into the subjects of highly saleable and even more highly seductive entertainment, infamy.

And then, the ‘self-help’ industry ramps up into high gear with aphorisms of identity that remind us all that everyone has, in some form and at some time, gone through a tunnel of darkness, turbulence, upheaval, and even self-sabotage. And that darkness, analogized in some quarters as the ‘dark night of the soul’ in which many have faced our deepest ‘demons’ and encountered a different and more nuanced and shared perception and attitude of how life seems to unfold, lies at the heart of philosophies, religions, and spiritual disciplines.

Another impediment to the shift from a literal, nominal, symptomatically-driven, instant-gratification-obsessed conversational norm is displayed on a screen that recently popped up on my facebook feed:

“People are so used to others being indirect and phony that clear communication appears aggressive.” Not only, as Sandy Kaper noted in response, “fake sincerity is passive-aggressive’, but it seems that the alpha” power model has slipped, been driven, exploded, or exorcised (excised?) from our “politically correct” society, and magically morphed into a kind of faux-speak. This kind of faux-speak differs from the ‘war is peace’ ‘newspeak’ in Orwell’s 1984. It is almost more subtle, slippery and even sophisticated and less detectable, if no less detestable.

Embedded in this “faux-speak is the obsession with menu’s, lists of advice, steps to accomplish a personal goal, and organizational goal. Likely derived from such modalities as the doctor’s prescription, which by definition is directed to the most available, most effective and most reliable “pill” (process, exercise, diet, avoidance, instrument/device) that will ‘remediate’ the problem. “If it has worked for me, then it will work for you,” seems to be a guiding principle. I, too, am guilty of this trap. When a postal worker who serviced our neighbourhood complained about back pain, given the years of walking, with loaded satchels over her shoulders, in all kinds of weather for decades, I immediately asked if she had acquired “Dr. Ho’s pain therapy device”. The look on her face, while attentive, seemed somewhat withdrawn, given that I am no medical practitioner, that I have absolutely no credentials for my question, and that, as a customer, I had no business in even ‘invading’ her space with the question. Awkwardly, somewhat sheepishly, and even somewhat withdrawn, I attempted to bring the conversation to a close, diplomatically, without making direct reference to either her or my awkwardness.

Indirect speech can be depicted as cunning, analogous to opening the front door a crack, or peering through a peep-hole, to ensure that we are safe, before taking the next stop. Anticipating negative encounters, rather than the simple openness that previously characterized much of our social exchanges, drives us away from each other, as the starting place. As a pattern, it also encases direct speech, direct questions, and direct emotional responses in a memory archive as well as in a psyche safety-deposit box that defines such speech as “aggressive, intense, too much, and extremely offensive”. To be considered “mature,” and “reasonable” and “appropriate” and “safe” as opposed, for example to eccentric, too old, too ideological, too intense, too committed, too powerful and thereby dismissable as dangerous and threatening, one must engage in indirect, and a kind of word-play of a dance in order to be offered the “keys” to the other’s attention and respect.

A conversation with an educator at the board level illustrates: As a former now retired teacher of English, a male, and one who had considerable evidence over quarter-century of male adolescents’ resistance to studying the intricacies, intimacies and subtleties of novels, plays, poems and even essays, (too wordy, too much bull shit, exams that needed only one’s opinions so one need not study to prepare, more appropriate for the girls in class….these are some of the epithets that expressed those attitudes), I had a deep, personal, intellectual, emotional and political interest in what was happening to the curriculum, as seen and designed from the perspective of making literature more accessible, more relevant and more appealing to young male adolescents. When I candidate for board of education knocked at our door, I broached the subject with her; she graciously recommended that I meet with a superintendent, an appointment which she would gladly arrange. It was at that appointment that I encountered the poverty of imagination, resonance, creativity and even the reductionism that this male displayed, in dismissing me. “All we have to do is introduce more and more technology into the classroom in order to appeal to the young men. I recognize your intensity, but I have to go to another appointment.” Conversation closed!

Oh, but I have not forgotten over this last decade-plus. Not only was the ‘prescription’ so infantile and insulting both to me and to the young men in those hundreds of classrooms over which this “administrator” had influence. The fear and the anxiety in which I was encountered, and then summarily dismissed was and is astounding. “Respecting my intensity of commitment” to the cause of education young men in Canada, was a single-bullet by which to barely acknowledge my presence in the office. That man was neither professional nor engaging. He was, in my view, symbolic of the kind of administrative “career-building” technocrat whose willingness and openness to a conversation that might explore the complexities of the issue. Of course, I acknowledge that I was neither indirect nor phony in my presentation. I did not engage in small-talk, believing that there was a very limited number of minutes that had been set aside for this appointment (a foreign voter, recommended by an ambitious candidate for board office, without a referring commendation from someone the administrator knew and trusted). Getting straight to the point, I undoubtedly sabotaged my advocacy for young men.

And I also learned, first-hand, that I neither wanted nor would be offered an audience inside the“hierarchy” in this board, or any other in Ontario where such infantilism prevails(?).

Regardless of how hard we work, and how disciplined is our adherence to plans and goals, “life” has a way of interrupting those plans, and those extrinsic adventures. Those “interruptions” have the potential of either waking a new perception, attitude and belief or perhaps of further ‘deadening’ an already limp and flattened spirit. Moments of crisis, for both men and women, intrude on whatever ‘domestic, professional, artistic, ‘structure’ we have tried to create. And how men and women respond to those moments of crisis can be, and usually is very different from one gender to the other. (Octogenarians, however, like this scribe, have no insight on how the LGBTQ communities respond to such moments.)

Stoicism, a source of ‘virtue ethics,’ argues that a sage would be emotionally resilient to misfortune. It teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions. The model of ‘self-control’ has taken a place of almost sacral significance, given the many links to the stoic ideals that have been merged with the thinking of the Christian church. And, in a world in which reductionisms are thrown around like ‘sell lines’ often even weaponized, in order to serve as combat devices in moral and religious conflicts, (think the conflict over a woman’s right to choose versus the right to life movement) the ‘virtue’ of self-control clearly triumphs over the messy and unpredictable exposure of intense emotions, regardless of their source and symptoms. And, while it is a ‘meme’ that seems to be thawing, more slowly that are the Arctic ice caps, men, generally have held fast to the ‘rigging’ of repressed emotions.

 Self-control, by definition and historic practice, also requires concealment of those deep emotions from the public, especially in those theatres like the courts, the classroom, the operating and emergency rooms, and even the sanctuaries. So deeply embedded in conventional, normal and honoured North American culture is this ‘self-control’ especially among men, (many of whom also denigrate women for their excessive display of emotions). Ironic exceptions, however, erupt occasionally. A professional female, with whom I attempted to negotiate a business purchase, defined her existence in these terms: “We have to put on our armour in order to operate in the world, and we can remove it only in the privacy of our homes!” Turing the business (as well as the political, academic, scientific, and by inference the domestic) arenas into competitions, requiring the wearing of armour, along with the strategies and tactics of combat, is however, ‘no way to run a railroad’. The fundamental notion that enemies are everywhere, that combat is the metaphor of choice, that strategy and tactics are at the heart of all negotiations, while useful in emergencies, is also highly dysfunctional as a model of collaboration, compromise, collegiality, and common purpose.

By definition, such an over-arching modus operandi, is self-fulfilling and also self-defeating. And, it is a very tiny step from combat, repressed emotions and the pursuit of the brass (or golden) ring, to the ‘zero-sum game’ in which my win means your loss, and vice versa. The Freudian concept of “ego” and the over-weening need for recognition, from others, that is bandied about as one of the ‘currencies’ in which management is expected to deal, has become a management mantra. Indeed, massaging egos, colloquially dubbed, ‘hand holding’ in many instances, is another sign of the prevalence, the dependence we now share on the transactional, competitive model of organizing our businesses, our organizations, and also our definitions of our identities.

Crisis management, as a model of social organization, while significant as is the Emergency Room in a hospital, anticipates and even defines how the culture perceives and designs and diagnoses its needs, and its prescriptions. Little wonder then that, in such a culture, endorsed and disseminated by the media, consciously and unconsciously ‘worn’ as ‘fashion’ and convention, we tolerate the expression of deep emotions in the event of serious and shared tragedies. However, tragedies themselves have come to be considered ‘norms’ on so many fronts. A litmus test for this development is found in the DSM 5, in which grief is defined as a mental illness requiring therapy.
Crises demand micro-management skills, strategies, tactics and detachment. Emotional enmeshment, in those situations, especially from those charged with responsibility for return to ‘normalcy’ whatever that might be, would be and is counter-intuitive. Those skills, strategies, tactics and the emotional detachment, however, are not innate, intrinsic or defined by gender. They are essential to the effective addressing of the specific exigency.

Navigating in a world in which intensity and directness is considered offensive, and phony is considered diplomatic and sophisticated, while a somewhat simplistic dichotomy, especially focussed on the impediments thwarting a significant shift from simple diagnoses, to even simpler prescriptions, for men and women living and breathing in oxygen-deprived (metaphorically) air and ethos, paints a picture of a very steep and craggy mountain, enveloped in deep fog, outside the range of wireless and GPS. So the environment is dangerous, solitary, disconnected and offers little hint of cutting through the trail-cutting among the granite of stereotypes, intellectual repetition and fear of change.

There are so many “files” that suffer from indolence and indifference, and the language/perception/attitude one lies at the core of them all.