Let me tell you about my Uncle George. He was my father's little brother, and the general family understanding was that my dad taught him everything he ever knew. Of course, Uncle George went on to get his doctorate, and teach in several colleges, and write a few books on business management. He didn't invent the concept, but he is known for developing a classic business management style, Management By Objectives.
Oh, THAT George Odiorne!
Now, most of you are saying Huh? or Who cares? But many business managers (including one up at Post University- hi, Don!) are nodding wisely.
So when I see these political candidates vaunting their experience as businesspeople as qualifications for public office, I think of my Uncle George and feel uncomfortable. See, he never wanted any positions of leadership. The one time he was coerced into being dean of a business school, he couldn't wait until he could step down. He never forgot that he came out of a large working-class family where his father had to struggle to find work and his mother talked about escaping from poverty in Ireland. His approach to management was not top-down autocratic direction. It was collaborative and based on setting realistic goals with your co-workers.
For many business managers today, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Either ignore what can be done reasonably based on who and what you have, or set unrealistic goals and blame others if they are not reached. There is no sense of cooperation or compromise, as is so necessary in the public sphere. The watchword is damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
Of course, a lot of things in the public sector can't be judged on profitability or "success," whatever that means. When was the last time a police department worried about whether or not they made a profit? And their definition of "success" has more to do with catching criminals than making a buck. Of course, there have been shameful examples of fire departments watching a house burn because someone hadn't paid their bill, but most firefighters are focused on saving lives and property, not money.
Some elected officials are so enwrapped in their own agendae that they cannot find a way to work together with others who do not agree with every jot and tittle of said agenda, Rather than seeking an objective which can be agreed upon, with a realistic timeline, they want what they want, no more no less. Yes, they can sound quite reasonable and even pleasant about it. But they still offer only two options: take it or leave it!
I can only wonder how Uncle George would have reacted. I think I know. Back when he was still teaching, he was on a campus where the security people patrolled on horseback during the summer. Unfortunately, the campus had few trees and it could get quite hot there. One of the few shady spots was just under the window of Uncle George's office, and inasmuch as he needed to keep the window open during the summer, the smell got a bit much. Finally, he went down and talked to the security guards: would it be possible to put the horses elsewhere? Certainly, they said, but where. Over by the administration building, Uncle George suggested, they'll never notice the difference in the smell.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
And Call Me In the Morning...
A nurse once told me they were "the vitamins of the New Millennium." 'Cause, see, everyone takes 'em, and the stigma is much less and so no big deal....
We're talking here about psychopharmeceuticals, those miracle pills that have changed dramatically the psychotherapy field. Often, they are used as a therapeutic tool, as clinicians try to determine the proper diagnosis by trying different meds and different dosages. These are so fine tuned and so carefully dispensed that only the proper prescription will work with the proper diagnosis.
At least, that's what your med rep will say when he comes by with his satchel full of samples, free pens and notepads, and the sales pitch for the latest medication that will solve all yer ills, yessir, step right up, ladies and gentlemen!
Yes, much more can be done to help many more people with these little pills. People who formerly would have been condemned to a lifetime of emotional agony or hospitalization now can live lives that are as close to normal as anyone else. Rather than years of mental agony, people find some relief within weeks or even days.
So what's the problem? No, it is not that I don't have the training to prescribe when people come to me for help. I can refer them elsewhere for that if such is indicated.
The problem lies in two areas: the clinicians and the clients.
People are so used to pills that solve problems immediately, if not sooner. Got a headache? Take a pill. Got a stomach ache? Take a pill. Got anxiety? Take a pill. Got a relationship problem? Well, um, er..
Of course, not all pills, even these marvelous new ones, have instant results. The most common anti-depressants, for example, can take weeks to make noticeable differences. Yes, there are some pills that work quickly, but it can be hit-or-miss before the psychiatrist finds the one that works best for you. And once you have been taking most meds, it is not recommended that you stop on your own without checking with your doctor first. (There could be some rather unpleasant withdrawal effects.)
Of course, some people are not comfortable taking anything. They may still hark back to the early days when people on psycopharmaceuticals went about in a perpetual daze (not true anymore.) Or they be recovering addicts, and are wary of any pills, even aspirin. Or they resist medication for religious reasons, but come looking for some spiritual practice that will do just as well.
It is not all the fault of the client that the meds issue is often the topic in a first session. The clinician can be a little too eager to pull out the prescription pad after the initial fifteen-minute session. See me in another month or six weeks for another fifteen-minute session where most of the time is given to determining if this prescription is working or if it needs to be changed. See you again in two months. Oh, you want real therapy? Never mind the therapist who referred you; we have someone right in this office who will give you some time (brief therapy, six to ten sessions).
This way, you see, the clinician can schedule as many sessions per day as time permits. Never mind therapeutic alliance, much less empathy. The clinician may be quite good as a therapist and even a very nice person. But that is not the model chosen. Insurance companies have opted for a purely medical model, with the focus on the diagnosis and the treatment rather than the person.
Plus, you get quick and measurable results with medications. It's not as fast and obvious with traditional psychotherapy.
Oh well, sorry for getting so upset. Maybe I should just take a pill..
We're talking here about psychopharmeceuticals, those miracle pills that have changed dramatically the psychotherapy field. Often, they are used as a therapeutic tool, as clinicians try to determine the proper diagnosis by trying different meds and different dosages. These are so fine tuned and so carefully dispensed that only the proper prescription will work with the proper diagnosis.
At least, that's what your med rep will say when he comes by with his satchel full of samples, free pens and notepads, and the sales pitch for the latest medication that will solve all yer ills, yessir, step right up, ladies and gentlemen!
Yes, much more can be done to help many more people with these little pills. People who formerly would have been condemned to a lifetime of emotional agony or hospitalization now can live lives that are as close to normal as anyone else. Rather than years of mental agony, people find some relief within weeks or even days.
So what's the problem? No, it is not that I don't have the training to prescribe when people come to me for help. I can refer them elsewhere for that if such is indicated.
The problem lies in two areas: the clinicians and the clients.
People are so used to pills that solve problems immediately, if not sooner. Got a headache? Take a pill. Got a stomach ache? Take a pill. Got anxiety? Take a pill. Got a relationship problem? Well, um, er..
Of course, not all pills, even these marvelous new ones, have instant results. The most common anti-depressants, for example, can take weeks to make noticeable differences. Yes, there are some pills that work quickly, but it can be hit-or-miss before the psychiatrist finds the one that works best for you. And once you have been taking most meds, it is not recommended that you stop on your own without checking with your doctor first. (There could be some rather unpleasant withdrawal effects.)
Of course, some people are not comfortable taking anything. They may still hark back to the early days when people on psycopharmaceuticals went about in a perpetual daze (not true anymore.) Or they be recovering addicts, and are wary of any pills, even aspirin. Or they resist medication for religious reasons, but come looking for some spiritual practice that will do just as well.
It is not all the fault of the client that the meds issue is often the topic in a first session. The clinician can be a little too eager to pull out the prescription pad after the initial fifteen-minute session. See me in another month or six weeks for another fifteen-minute session where most of the time is given to determining if this prescription is working or if it needs to be changed. See you again in two months. Oh, you want real therapy? Never mind the therapist who referred you; we have someone right in this office who will give you some time (brief therapy, six to ten sessions).
This way, you see, the clinician can schedule as many sessions per day as time permits. Never mind therapeutic alliance, much less empathy. The clinician may be quite good as a therapist and even a very nice person. But that is not the model chosen. Insurance companies have opted for a purely medical model, with the focus on the diagnosis and the treatment rather than the person.
Plus, you get quick and measurable results with medications. It's not as fast and obvious with traditional psychotherapy.
Oh well, sorry for getting so upset. Maybe I should just take a pill..
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The Empty Chair
So much talk, so little said.
So this actor gets up in front of a political convention to endorse their party's candidate. Big Deal. Has done it before with that party, and who listens to celebrity endorsements, anyway? But then he does something without setting the scene or preparing the context, something that upstages all the political speeches and carefully scripted presentations: he ad-libs a debate with an empty chair that is supposed to represent the candidate of the opposing party.
Ooo Aaah! Gasp! What is going on? The delegates, most of whom were probably not paying much attention anyway, are confused and then annoyed. And since things were pretty pro forma up 'till then, the media, hungry for something to talk about, seized on this and ran with it,
Now let me say first of all, the content of this impromptu skit has not really been the issue. Yes, there were a few who noticed that things got "nasty" in this imaginary dialog. But most have been fixated on the empty chair. So much so that polls have shown little or no impact on the way people continue to feel about that actor.
But why is everyone obsessing over what Jon Stewart wittily called "The Old Man and the Seat"? Actually, empty chairs are important in two major parts of my life: acting and psychotherapy. Yes, empty chairs have been used as stand-ins as far back as when Edward R. Murrow used an empty seat to represent Joe McCarthy in that confrontation back on '50s TV. But even today, the "empty chair" technique is used on stage and in treatment.
Actors will use empty chairs to play against both in auditions and in full performances. Acting (he said, echoing his acting teacher Annie DiMartino down at Long Wharf Theater) is always responding to the others on stage, playing off of someone. And in a monolog, one still needs to have others "there," hence the empty chair. Even in the classic Shakespearean monologs, the actor still needs a focus, a purpose. An empty chair.
And in clinical work, the empty chair represents someone who is not there but is needed there. In groups, if a member leaves for whatever reason, a chair is left vacant to help the others in the group to deal with the loss. When a client needs to confront someone, to say something not otherwise possible, to face an aspect of him/herself, an empty chair representing that is used.
We will not go into the classic empty chairs, like the Siege Perilous at King Arthur's Round Table supposed to be reserved for the Perfect Knight (eventually filled by Galahad, I believe.) Nor the empty chair saved for Elijah at the Passover Seder (plus an empty wineglass, although I'm not sure of that.)
No, the point for me is not the politics involved. Given the way most politicians avoid answering questions anyway, an empty chair may be an apt metaphor for everyone concerned. But the way so many today are answering questions here without knowing a coherent answer (nor, to be fair, what question is being asked), it should come as no surprise that they end up talking to an empty chair.
So this actor gets up in front of a political convention to endorse their party's candidate. Big Deal. Has done it before with that party, and who listens to celebrity endorsements, anyway? But then he does something without setting the scene or preparing the context, something that upstages all the political speeches and carefully scripted presentations: he ad-libs a debate with an empty chair that is supposed to represent the candidate of the opposing party.
Ooo Aaah! Gasp! What is going on? The delegates, most of whom were probably not paying much attention anyway, are confused and then annoyed. And since things were pretty pro forma up 'till then, the media, hungry for something to talk about, seized on this and ran with it,
Now let me say first of all, the content of this impromptu skit has not really been the issue. Yes, there were a few who noticed that things got "nasty" in this imaginary dialog. But most have been fixated on the empty chair. So much so that polls have shown little or no impact on the way people continue to feel about that actor.
But why is everyone obsessing over what Jon Stewart wittily called "The Old Man and the Seat"? Actually, empty chairs are important in two major parts of my life: acting and psychotherapy. Yes, empty chairs have been used as stand-ins as far back as when Edward R. Murrow used an empty seat to represent Joe McCarthy in that confrontation back on '50s TV. But even today, the "empty chair" technique is used on stage and in treatment.
Actors will use empty chairs to play against both in auditions and in full performances. Acting (he said, echoing his acting teacher Annie DiMartino down at Long Wharf Theater) is always responding to the others on stage, playing off of someone. And in a monolog, one still needs to have others "there," hence the empty chair. Even in the classic Shakespearean monologs, the actor still needs a focus, a purpose. An empty chair.
And in clinical work, the empty chair represents someone who is not there but is needed there. In groups, if a member leaves for whatever reason, a chair is left vacant to help the others in the group to deal with the loss. When a client needs to confront someone, to say something not otherwise possible, to face an aspect of him/herself, an empty chair representing that is used.
We will not go into the classic empty chairs, like the Siege Perilous at King Arthur's Round Table supposed to be reserved for the Perfect Knight (eventually filled by Galahad, I believe.) Nor the empty chair saved for Elijah at the Passover Seder (plus an empty wineglass, although I'm not sure of that.)
No, the point for me is not the politics involved. Given the way most politicians avoid answering questions anyway, an empty chair may be an apt metaphor for everyone concerned. But the way so many today are answering questions here without knowing a coherent answer (nor, to be fair, what question is being asked), it should come as no surprise that they end up talking to an empty chair.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Excuses
We all make 'em. We know we shouldna hadna done it, but we can't let ourselves be wrong, so we come up with 'em.
Excuses. Rationalizations. Whatever you want to call 'em. (My brother-in-law, who is a cop in Baltimore, won't tolerate 'em: "That's an explanation," he tells the driver who just ran a red light and is trying to talk his way out of it, "An explanation, not an excuse!") We may or may not believe what we are saying as the words come out of our mouths, but we have difficulty admitting we did something wrong. Or, more exactly, that we did something wrong and got caught!
So we park in that handicapped spot because we'll only be a minute. Or we push our loaded grocery cart into the Express Lane (12 Items Only) because all the other check-out lanes are so long. On a more serious level, we get verbally, even physically abusive with someone because they just don't seem to want to listen. We leave our dog (worse, our child!) in a boiling hot car while we run in to the store for a few things.
Most of the time, if we stop and think, we realize that we should be more considerate, less rushed. But in our pressured society (and that pressure comes from ourselves), we never stop and have little time to think. Except in the aftermath, when we are able to be incredibly creative in reasons why we aren't to blame.
Yes, there are some who believe their own excuses. That's why they call 'em rationalizations, 'cause they're so, um, rational! But such are also those who go through life never accepting responsibility, never seeing the places where personal growth is necessary.
For most of us, we need to use those Three Little Words more often. Oh, not those; they're important, but I was talking about: I was wrong!
Excuses. Rationalizations. Whatever you want to call 'em. (My brother-in-law, who is a cop in Baltimore, won't tolerate 'em: "That's an explanation," he tells the driver who just ran a red light and is trying to talk his way out of it, "An explanation, not an excuse!") We may or may not believe what we are saying as the words come out of our mouths, but we have difficulty admitting we did something wrong. Or, more exactly, that we did something wrong and got caught!
So we park in that handicapped spot because we'll only be a minute. Or we push our loaded grocery cart into the Express Lane (12 Items Only) because all the other check-out lanes are so long. On a more serious level, we get verbally, even physically abusive with someone because they just don't seem to want to listen. We leave our dog (worse, our child!) in a boiling hot car while we run in to the store for a few things.
Most of the time, if we stop and think, we realize that we should be more considerate, less rushed. But in our pressured society (and that pressure comes from ourselves), we never stop and have little time to think. Except in the aftermath, when we are able to be incredibly creative in reasons why we aren't to blame.
Yes, there are some who believe their own excuses. That's why they call 'em rationalizations, 'cause they're so, um, rational! But such are also those who go through life never accepting responsibility, never seeing the places where personal growth is necessary.
For most of us, we need to use those Three Little Words more often. Oh, not those; they're important, but I was talking about: I was wrong!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
What Are We Fighting For?
Many years ago (oh! so many!) a conference I was attending faced a decision on a controversial issue. (So long ago I can't remember what issue, nor which side I was on.) The person who was pushing this particular issue was memorable, if only because he was so abrasive. And, no, he was not me. But as his various attempts to get his motion(s) went down in flames, he became more and more desperate and, hence, pitiable. By the end, if he had not been so outraged and angry, he would have been in tears. He pleaded with the delegates at the conference to give him some small token, however meaningless, so he could return to his supporters and comfort them with that vestige of victory.
Alas, he was denied even that.
Today our public discourse has been reduced to a similar level of seeking complete and utter dominance. Unlike my friends the Quakers, where decisions are based on seeking consensus and common ground, decisions today are focused on winning and losing. If you ain't fer us, you'se agin us.
In other words, power. Control. The other guy must submit, totally and even willingly. If not, that person must be forced into subservience and obeisance.
Yes, there are important issues today and they need to be addressed openly and honestly. But too often today, the debaters in the public square descend to arguments that could be summed up on a bumpersticker. (And not a very nice one, at that!) This is not the sort of sincere dialog that one should expect, but children arguing on the playground. If you can't answer your opponent's argument, then cast slurs upon him or her (the more personal the better). Or try to out-shout your opponent. If all else fails, resort to violence.
It is possible to take opposing views seriously. And sometimes to recognize that a valid idea might come from someone you disagree with on everything else. Yes, admitting that you could be wrong on this or that does not make you a lesser person. In other words, we do not have to take complete, total, unquestionable control over everything.
That's God's job.
Alas, he was denied even that.
Today our public discourse has been reduced to a similar level of seeking complete and utter dominance. Unlike my friends the Quakers, where decisions are based on seeking consensus and common ground, decisions today are focused on winning and losing. If you ain't fer us, you'se agin us.
In other words, power. Control. The other guy must submit, totally and even willingly. If not, that person must be forced into subservience and obeisance.
Yes, there are important issues today and they need to be addressed openly and honestly. But too often today, the debaters in the public square descend to arguments that could be summed up on a bumpersticker. (And not a very nice one, at that!) This is not the sort of sincere dialog that one should expect, but children arguing on the playground. If you can't answer your opponent's argument, then cast slurs upon him or her (the more personal the better). Or try to out-shout your opponent. If all else fails, resort to violence.
It is possible to take opposing views seriously. And sometimes to recognize that a valid idea might come from someone you disagree with on everything else. Yes, admitting that you could be wrong on this or that does not make you a lesser person. In other words, we do not have to take complete, total, unquestionable control over everything.
That's God's job.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
And After the Silence...
Shoulda known better. Just after that glorious day of sailing when all was quiet and serene, my next time out was not so good. Oh yes, it was still wonderful (Any time out on the water is wonderful.) But we had barely got out there than the breeze died, and we had to use the motor to get us back...
Still, it caused me to ponder (as what does not?) Too often we seek those times and places of silence, and then don't do anything about it. The stillness becomes a place to escape to, rather than a harbor out of which to sail.
It has been observed that action and faith must be yoked. Yes, we need those moments when we can be still and know God, those passing experiences of the divine. But sooner or later we must come down from the mountaintop and put that inspirational catharsis to use.
Much as works without faith are just empty sounds without sense or meaning, signifying nothing (with apologies to Shakespeare), so our avocations of faith without visible evidence are merely mouth-noises. Never mind what you say you believe, I need you to show me what you are doing about it!
Too often, clients come in without anything that brings meaning to life. Never mind what it might be, or if I would agree/approve/understand. Such are going through life without a sense of direction or purpose. They are like sailboats when the wind was gone, and they are thrown back on waiting for a breeze, or giving in and limping back to the dock via their little diesel engine.
Yes, there are periods in everyone's life when some new direction arises, and we set off on a divergent course. Times when some new insight points us to port or starboard, calling for a new setting of the sails. Times when it is only a matter of minutes before that fresh coastal breeze comes along and off we go again. But we can also choose what we believe, and what we intend to do about it, the same way some sailors contrive to keep moving regardless of the whims of Aeolus (that's the god of the winds, to you.)
So what do you believe? And what are you doing about it?
Still, it caused me to ponder (as what does not?) Too often we seek those times and places of silence, and then don't do anything about it. The stillness becomes a place to escape to, rather than a harbor out of which to sail.
It has been observed that action and faith must be yoked. Yes, we need those moments when we can be still and know God, those passing experiences of the divine. But sooner or later we must come down from the mountaintop and put that inspirational catharsis to use.
Much as works without faith are just empty sounds without sense or meaning, signifying nothing (with apologies to Shakespeare), so our avocations of faith without visible evidence are merely mouth-noises. Never mind what you say you believe, I need you to show me what you are doing about it!
Too often, clients come in without anything that brings meaning to life. Never mind what it might be, or if I would agree/approve/understand. Such are going through life without a sense of direction or purpose. They are like sailboats when the wind was gone, and they are thrown back on waiting for a breeze, or giving in and limping back to the dock via their little diesel engine.
Yes, there are periods in everyone's life when some new direction arises, and we set off on a divergent course. Times when some new insight points us to port or starboard, calling for a new setting of the sails. Times when it is only a matter of minutes before that fresh coastal breeze comes along and off we go again. But we can also choose what we believe, and what we intend to do about it, the same way some sailors contrive to keep moving regardless of the whims of Aeolus (that's the god of the winds, to you.)
So what do you believe? And what are you doing about it?
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Sound of Silence
The sailboat needs a motor to push it out of the harbor, past the bridge and into the channel and finally open sea. Then the captain and crew raise the sails and turn the boat over to the winds. And for however long the boat stays out until it is decided to head back in, there is silence. Oh yes, there is the rush of the water past the hull, and the gentle shush of the air against the sails and perhaps quiet talk between those on board. But in a world where is always background noise of a motor, cars rushing past, someone playing music much too loudly, being out on the water is a blessed moment of stillness.
When was the last quiet moment you had? There seems to be a human need for such, whether it be an organized silent retreat or a few minutes of meditation alone. Yet at the same time, many become very uncomfortable with silence, even deliberating seeking something to dis spell it at quickly as possible.
Granted, some silence is manipulative and unwelcome: the person who refuses to respond to an urgent question, the child who deals with fear by withdrawing into silence, the abuser who uses silence an a tool for intimidation. But most will starting talking about something, anything, in the face of a silence. Or they will turn on music, take sudden interest in some side attraction, do something outrageous to fill that awful silence.
What could be so frightening about silence? Could it be that we will be brought face to face with something in ourselves we have covered over by noise? Or maybe we will feel a loss of control when we come up against that most uncontrollable force, silence. When things get silent, we are pushed back into ourselves, and whatever we might find there.
That is why psychotherapy so often calls on the therapist to be silent. Freud called the silence of the therapist the "greatest gift" of therapy, as it sent the client into necessary inner work. Of course, it assumes the therapist knows how to shut up!
And it helps to have moments of silence, on a sailboat or elsewhere!
When was the last quiet moment you had? There seems to be a human need for such, whether it be an organized silent retreat or a few minutes of meditation alone. Yet at the same time, many become very uncomfortable with silence, even deliberating seeking something to dis spell it at quickly as possible.
Granted, some silence is manipulative and unwelcome: the person who refuses to respond to an urgent question, the child who deals with fear by withdrawing into silence, the abuser who uses silence an a tool for intimidation. But most will starting talking about something, anything, in the face of a silence. Or they will turn on music, take sudden interest in some side attraction, do something outrageous to fill that awful silence.
What could be so frightening about silence? Could it be that we will be brought face to face with something in ourselves we have covered over by noise? Or maybe we will feel a loss of control when we come up against that most uncontrollable force, silence. When things get silent, we are pushed back into ourselves, and whatever we might find there.
That is why psychotherapy so often calls on the therapist to be silent. Freud called the silence of the therapist the "greatest gift" of therapy, as it sent the client into necessary inner work. Of course, it assumes the therapist knows how to shut up!
And it helps to have moments of silence, on a sailboat or elsewhere!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)