Hi Carman,
Yes, I think your discussion of children’s openness to learning is an excellent reminder that some of personal and organizational capacities that we wish to develop are natural endowments that have either been substantially suppressed or remained undeveloped due to the particularities of our culture.
Personally, I find this reassuring that this capacities are natural in that it points us not to new and alien place, but an original place from which we are able to see with fresh and creative eyes.
It’s not that children have all of the insights and abilities to which we aspire, but they don’t have as much to unlearn đ
I very much appreciated your quote from W. Edwards Deming: âPeople are born with intrinsic motivation, self-esteem, dignity, curiosity to learn, joy in learning. The forces of destruction begin with the toddlersâa prize for the best Halloween costume, grades in school, gold starsâand on up through the university.â
It’s interesting how Deming refers to external rewards as undermining a natural, intrinsic love of learning for the pleasure it gives. It seems that there is a shift from a substantial internal orientation to our own experience to a primarily external orientation toward outside standards and the approval or disapproval of others.
A Partnership perspective agrees that we are substantially (but not exclusively) shaped by our social situation. Riane Eisler also observes how the structure of social relationships in the immediate family/community very powerfully communicate our most fundamental assumptions about the world, relationships, and the nature of power.
Is the world safe? Can we trust that our physical, emotional and spiritual needs will be met? Do we have power, if so, what is its nature — how does it “work”? Is there a “right” way and a “wrong” way to be, to think? And if so, Who is “right”? Are we OK or not OK?
In a Dominator culture, these questions tend to be answered in a particular way (so that they form a pattern or paradigm) that shape psychologies and social structures etc. that are dysfunctional in that they limit potential and cause unncessary suffering.
Towards a solution, I think Dominator culture can be unlearned, and that the language and concepts of recovery are useful in this regard…
Hope you are having a great week.
Bye for now,Â
Lisa
Cultures of Silence
Hi Lisa,
Thank you for discussing Dominator Cultures. As I write, the morning sun is penetrating my living room window both to dominate the day and to challenge me to respond to Emersonâs question, âWhat are you going to do with it?â (the day)
My mind has been awash all week with your observations and questions. Your discussion of the Dominator Culture helps me to contrast it with the Partnership Perspective.
Your statement, âA Dominator culture shapes psychologies and social structures in ways that are dysfunctional in that they limit potential and cause unnecessary suffering,â acutely reflects my own experience. Regrettably, Dominator Cultures are all I have ever known.
Returning to the example of the child, not as a repository of wisdom but, rather as an embodiment of certain ideals, I recall a comment by Charles Davis (A Question of Conscience) who said,
âExterior un-freedom causes interior un-freedom. A child first learns to talk or think aloud, then afterwards to think without voicing its thought.â
In an organization (Dominator Culture) with which I am familiar an enforced infantilizing silence characterizes each weekly meeting. Questions are forbidden and discussion is discouraged. Employees are thus banished to conversational catacombs to express their ideas and concerns.
Canadian historian Michael Welton (one of my professors at Athabasca University) has examined such systemic silence. He concludes that organizational silence is produced in four ways:
1) Managersâ fear of negative feedback and their belief systems. You and I have discussed Theory X assumptions wherein workers are believed to be untrustworthy and self-interested and responsive only to incentive or sanction. Managers, he holds, will implicitly or explicitly discourage âupwardâ communication.
2) An ideology that managers must lead, direct and control.
3) An unstated belief that unity and consensus are signs of organizational health, whereas disagreement and dissent should be avoided.
4) The distance between leaders and the led once they ascend the hierarchy. Welton suggests that âtopâ managers who have been together for a long time tend to blend their assumptions into a shared world-view. Senge terms this pathology (learning disability) âThe Myth of the Management Team.â
Senge and Argyris, like Deming, lay the blame at the school which âtrains us never to admit that we do not know the answerâ (The Fifth Discipline p.25)
Welton says that workers âwithout a voiceâ will seek control through other means that may be destructive to the organization, such as stress, sickness, and little motivation.
Managers, in turn, may interpret the pathologies as evidence of hostility and willingness to contribute just to get by. Managersâ beliefs turn into self-fulfilling prophecies.
Someone once described âplayâ as the very essence of thought. Iâm grateful for both the free and creative communion of your site and for the âcreative playâ it affords. I enjoy the opportunity to “voice” my thoughtâto hear and be heard and to sense in your comments the message âI see youâ (The Fifth Discipline Field Book).
Bye for now,
Carman
Reference
Welton, M. Designing the Just Learning Society: A Critical Inquiry. Leicester: NIACE, 2005.