“I am whatever you say I am; if I wasn't, then why would you say I am.” ~Eminem
“Once you label me, you negate me.” ~Soren Kierkegaard
ADD…dyslexic…obese…lazy…learning disabled…anti-social…rebellious…withdrawn…[add your own]…
I won’t quibble with the organic biological diagnoses that may be made to substantiate physiological conditions that may best be treated with a medical solution. Quite simply, I’m not a medical doctor. If your medical doctor has prescribed medication, then follow your medical doctor’s orders.
But in my work with both youth and adults over the years, I have encountered a recurring symptom in my clients that roots itself in a byproduct of medical and psychological diagnoses—“social labeling.” Some of you will adamantly disagree with my position on this subject, but repeated client breakthroughs have demonstrated to me that once the social labels are disarmed, then interpersonal and professional effectiveness soars.
Social labeling often attaches during the primary education grades, while the “second wave” swells the ranks during late middle school to early high school. Advancing through structured primary and secondary curricula, children are guided by caring educators who’ve prepared lesson plans designed to fulfill objectives and requirements often imposed administratively or legislatively. While many children effortlessly follow this track to gain knowledge and integrate seamlessly into the informal social systems they encounter, other children display unique tendencies that don’t neatly conform to the expectations. Lest I be accused of having listened to Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” one too many times, let’s explore further.
Children are growing physically, intellectually and emotionally. Externalities--including siblings, parental discord and divorce, death of a loved one, chronic illness, etc.—weave themselves into that growth. Each event’s impact is difficult to measure with certainty, and each individual experiencing the event reacts uniquely. Children, while born innocent, will sometimes…
• Get distracted by their own thoughts about an event or the actions of others.
• Speak out in accordance with their perception of an event at the level of their own maturity.
• Act out externally the anxiety they experience internally at unscheduled moments inconducive to structured activities.
• Speak or act in a manner that mirrors the perceived context of a family member, friend, or media personality.
The child is observed by an adult or series of adults, including teachers, aides, and administrators over the course of several years. Behavioral changes in the child trigger the concern of one or more adults, who then engage internal resources [i.e. a guidance counselor, school psychologist] and external resources [child’s parent(s)] to discuss the concern. With the volume of decisions that each of us must make daily, human beings logically seek to categorize concerns to streamline the resolution process. Hence, “concerns” become “issues.”
Parents intuitively and lovingly desire what is best for their children, especially in matters of physical or emotional condition. Upon the advice of childhood education experts, parents often dutifully seek out the services of a physician or counselor to test and diagnose the child’s “issue,” so that the issue may be resolved. Issues are inconvenient and time consuming. A resolved issue allows the child (and the parents) to return to the normal routine of daily life.
Tests are administered. Results are produced. There is a loving expectation on the part of the parents to find a solution to help their child. There is a social expectation on the part of the school officials that the parents will deliver a solution in the persona of a mainstreamed child. But as I’ve discovered through countless sessions over the years, often the child has a different perception.
The child doesn’t (or as an adult recalling the experienced, didn’t) share the perception that there was an “issue.” In fact, often the very behaviors (i.e. clowning in class; sketching anime) that were being called into question are perceived by the child to be skills he/she enjoys. When encouraged to deepen the perceived strength(s), while acknowledging that childhood behavior need conform to a reasonable level of structural balance, the child’s efforts improve beyond the core strength(s). Additionally, when the social label is “disarmed” very bluntly and explicitly, the child adopts more interpersonal social ease. Humor and hyperbole aid the process.
The results are consistently positive as well when I work with adults who were labeled as children. Disarming the social label and viewing those questionable behaviors as inverted “survival skills” or “success strategies” often dislodges additional discoveries and realizations.
• “Risky” behavior becomes confident risk-taking.
• “Inappropriate” speaking out of turn becomes focused thought leadership.
• “Morbid” scribblings become artistic genre.
I’m a parent. You may be a parent or have friends who are parents. We mean well. We’d do anything to help our kids. But before we label and thus disable our youth, let’s press pause and review those behaviors in the context of externalities that may be impacting the child’s emotional frame of reference. Take the additional step to view the “questionable” behaviors as self-imposed survival skills or success strategies.
Then make a balanced and supportive decision how best to proceed…seek reconciliation without the social labels.
Showing posts with label solutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label solutions. Show all posts
Monday, July 30, 2012
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
CONSISTENCY, NOT HYPOCRISY
"Honest discussions - even and perhaps especially on topics about which we disagree - can help us resist hypocrisy and arrogance. They can also help us live up to the basic ideals, such as liberty and justice for all, on which our country was founded." -David E. Price
"The world is full of fools and faint hearts; and yet everyone has courage enough to bear the misfortunes, and wisdom enough to manage the affairs, of his neighbor." -Benjamin Franklin
I can hardly be labeled "Liberal" in my steadfast defense of the clearly Constitutional Right to Life, the First Amendment Right to Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly, the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, Tenth Amendment States' Rights, etc. But, as Dr. Seuss writes in Oh, the Places You'll Go!, "[w]ith your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet, you're too smart to go down any not-so-good street."
The base of any political party may generally accept with little question the perspective placed upon any event in a particular era. But the Independent Voter--that individual who will cast that marginal majority vote that catapults one candidate over another in a particular local, state, or federal election--will not soon forget the shifting opinions from one year to the next, from one administration to the next, from one decade to the next.
Is it right in one era to caricature and curse one American President, and to condemn those who do likewise to an American President of the opposite party in another era? Why don't we all rise above it regardless of the President's party and move on to SUBSTANTIVE bi-partisan conservative Constitutional SOLUTIONS.
When one group engages in mass demonstration and speeches condemning government abuse and decrying the usurpation of power (immigration reform; healthcare; deficits & taxation), this self-proclaimed mob is called patriotic, a Tea Party; when another group engages in mass demonstration and speeches condemning government inaction (immigration reform; healthcare; deficits & taxation) and decrying their lack of opportunity, this second group is labeled unpatriotic, unAmerican.
When the federal government, through legislation or enabling regulation, sets standards, protocols and reporting requirements for private sector entities (i.e. oil companies), that federal government action is labeled as interfering with the free markets or overstepping states' rights to regulate the business climate of its own state. When the federal government complies with regulations that direct the private entity (i.e. oil companies) to pay for and remedy its own fatal environmental disaster, that same federal government is accused of not doing enough to engage itself directly in the private entity's affairs.
Can that same state government Chief Executive who publicly rejected federal stimulus dollars destined for infrastructure improvement projects and working class financial stability justify now requesting that federal dollars and manpower be directed to correct a private corporation's infrastructure failure that imperils Gulf Coast working class financial stability?
In this 24/7/365 media circus that our elected officials operate in, one can understand the political pressure that they are under to communicate decisions that appear to effectively address the concerns of the moment, the crisis, or the era. But, I caution incumbents of both parties that this is a year where Independent Voter memories are long, discernment is deep, and inconsistency is fatal career-wise.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Will a thorough review of your public record (votes, statements, positions, alliances, contributors, appearances) reveal solution-oriented consistency...or will it betray self-interested hypocrisy to the inquisitive Independent Voter.
"The world is full of fools and faint hearts; and yet everyone has courage enough to bear the misfortunes, and wisdom enough to manage the affairs, of his neighbor." -Benjamin Franklin
I can hardly be labeled "Liberal" in my steadfast defense of the clearly Constitutional Right to Life, the First Amendment Right to Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly, the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, Tenth Amendment States' Rights, etc. But, as Dr. Seuss writes in Oh, the Places You'll Go!, "[w]ith your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet, you're too smart to go down any not-so-good street."
The base of any political party may generally accept with little question the perspective placed upon any event in a particular era. But the Independent Voter--that individual who will cast that marginal majority vote that catapults one candidate over another in a particular local, state, or federal election--will not soon forget the shifting opinions from one year to the next, from one administration to the next, from one decade to the next.
Is it right in one era to caricature and curse one American President, and to condemn those who do likewise to an American President of the opposite party in another era? Why don't we all rise above it regardless of the President's party and move on to SUBSTANTIVE bi-partisan conservative Constitutional SOLUTIONS.
When one group engages in mass demonstration and speeches condemning government abuse and decrying the usurpation of power (immigration reform; healthcare; deficits & taxation), this self-proclaimed mob is called patriotic, a Tea Party; when another group engages in mass demonstration and speeches condemning government inaction (immigration reform; healthcare; deficits & taxation) and decrying their lack of opportunity, this second group is labeled unpatriotic, unAmerican.
When the federal government, through legislation or enabling regulation, sets standards, protocols and reporting requirements for private sector entities (i.e. oil companies), that federal government action is labeled as interfering with the free markets or overstepping states' rights to regulate the business climate of its own state. When the federal government complies with regulations that direct the private entity (i.e. oil companies) to pay for and remedy its own fatal environmental disaster, that same federal government is accused of not doing enough to engage itself directly in the private entity's affairs.
Can that same state government Chief Executive who publicly rejected federal stimulus dollars destined for infrastructure improvement projects and working class financial stability justify now requesting that federal dollars and manpower be directed to correct a private corporation's infrastructure failure that imperils Gulf Coast working class financial stability?
In this 24/7/365 media circus that our elected officials operate in, one can understand the political pressure that they are under to communicate decisions that appear to effectively address the concerns of the moment, the crisis, or the era. But, I caution incumbents of both parties that this is a year where Independent Voter memories are long, discernment is deep, and inconsistency is fatal career-wise.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Will a thorough review of your public record (votes, statements, positions, alliances, contributors, appearances) reveal solution-oriented consistency...or will it betray self-interested hypocrisy to the inquisitive Independent Voter.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
GREAT COMMUNICATOR...OR YESTERDAY'S GOAT?
"Take advantage of every opportunity to practice your communication skills so that when important occasions arise, you will have the gift, the style, the sharpness, the clarity, and the emotions to affect other people." -Jim Rohn
The short track skating events in the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics provided physical proof of the importance of anticipating a future opportunity before the start of the race. The difference between the gold medal and wiping out along the boards was often the critical timing and quality of the planned inside/outside pass of the unwary opponent.
Building upon our previous installment, we will begin addressing how you may best capitalize upon (4) Issues of anticipated future importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position. While we will address the other three topics of issues formation in coming installments, I believe we must first look to communicating the policy item(s) that will provide fuel for your long-term electoral victory and solidify your legacy. Put aside partisan rancor for a moment, and simply recognize prior patterns of success, because YOUR winning message MUST attract and embrace more than just your base to achieve 51% in November. If all YOU can address is YOUR base, join yesterday's goats.
Long before the November 1980 Presidential Election, Ronald Reagan had accurately identified several issues that would eventually boil over in the minds of Americans. Reagan did not hesitate to develop responses and solutions to those issues [among them (a) the malaise of international communism; (b) the hunger for patriotism; (c) the burden of excessive taxation; and (d) the breakdown of the family]. Not only did Ronald Reagan approach these--and other--topics with genuine optimism, compassion and practical solutions, but he faced an opponent ill-prepared to even enter the dialogue, as evidenced in the sharp contrast of televised debates and other public appearances. President Carter yielded the lead of incumbency for a lack of anticipating, preparing for, and developing superior solutions to the issues that would define the 1980s.
Again in 1994 we observed Speaker Newt Gingrich and his colleagues execute upon their accurate assessment, planning, and solutions to speed past the old, tired Congressional pack. As no group is immune to their own stagnation, 2006 & 2008 ushered in yet another era when future concerns [social, economic, demographic, international] were addressed with fresh faces and fresh solutions. This is not a partisan comment. Regardless of which party or philosophy you favor, you cannot escape the statistics noted in our prior installment that made the 111th Congressional majority look like a negative of the 104th Congressional majority.
Party is not the prime determinent. Each of these victorious years required bipartisan appeal to secure ballot box majorities. The pendelum always swings...YOU can be viewed as the People's Leader with a legacy to follow--or Yesterday's News devoid of new ideas and forgotten forever.
TODAY'S QUESTION: What are YOU as a candidate (whether incumbent or challenger) doing TODAY to identify, develop, communicate and execute the solutions to the issues/problems/concerns that will plague YOUR electorate beyond November into the years to come?
The short track skating events in the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics provided physical proof of the importance of anticipating a future opportunity before the start of the race. The difference between the gold medal and wiping out along the boards was often the critical timing and quality of the planned inside/outside pass of the unwary opponent.
Building upon our previous installment, we will begin addressing how you may best capitalize upon (4) Issues of anticipated future importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position. While we will address the other three topics of issues formation in coming installments, I believe we must first look to communicating the policy item(s) that will provide fuel for your long-term electoral victory and solidify your legacy. Put aside partisan rancor for a moment, and simply recognize prior patterns of success, because YOUR winning message MUST attract and embrace more than just your base to achieve 51% in November. If all YOU can address is YOUR base, join yesterday's goats.
Long before the November 1980 Presidential Election, Ronald Reagan had accurately identified several issues that would eventually boil over in the minds of Americans. Reagan did not hesitate to develop responses and solutions to those issues [among them (a) the malaise of international communism; (b) the hunger for patriotism; (c) the burden of excessive taxation; and (d) the breakdown of the family]. Not only did Ronald Reagan approach these--and other--topics with genuine optimism, compassion and practical solutions, but he faced an opponent ill-prepared to even enter the dialogue, as evidenced in the sharp contrast of televised debates and other public appearances. President Carter yielded the lead of incumbency for a lack of anticipating, preparing for, and developing superior solutions to the issues that would define the 1980s.
Again in 1994 we observed Speaker Newt Gingrich and his colleagues execute upon their accurate assessment, planning, and solutions to speed past the old, tired Congressional pack. As no group is immune to their own stagnation, 2006 & 2008 ushered in yet another era when future concerns [social, economic, demographic, international] were addressed with fresh faces and fresh solutions. This is not a partisan comment. Regardless of which party or philosophy you favor, you cannot escape the statistics noted in our prior installment that made the 111th Congressional majority look like a negative of the 104th Congressional majority.
Party is not the prime determinent. Each of these victorious years required bipartisan appeal to secure ballot box majorities. The pendelum always swings...YOU can be viewed as the People's Leader with a legacy to follow--or Yesterday's News devoid of new ideas and forgotten forever.
TODAY'S QUESTION: What are YOU as a candidate (whether incumbent or challenger) doing TODAY to identify, develop, communicate and execute the solutions to the issues/problems/concerns that will plague YOUR electorate beyond November into the years to come?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
THE BIG TENT OR THE BIG TOP?
Nothing gets 24/7 cable news coverage like extremist acts or extremist rhetoric. The torching of a luxury vehicle dealership by an environmental terrorist group or the gruesome homicide of an abortion provider might garner huge "ratings" and attract a certain segment of the television-watching population. The margin of victory is subtler and more substantive.
There will certainly be times when we will effectively and appropriately employ the media catalyst of the "extreme" (yet lawful) event/rhetoric. But the vast majority of our time will be spent broadly communicating, through our sincere actions and rhetoric, our positive solutions to issues affecting a plurality of our citizens and businesses.
Conservative principles by their very nature are time-tested, transparent, and largely codified in the U.S. Constitution, our state Constitutions, and the laws that flow forth from those documents. Conservative principles have provided the guiding and moderating influence in our nation that has ushered in and fostered certainty, freedom, faith, and opportunity--even as society and technology have evolved.
So, let's leave the Big Top circus antics to the extremists and fringe groups to pander to the ratings-hungry media. And instead let us win the hearts and minds of all persons who value freedom, opportunity, the rule of law, and God--under the Big Tent of principled solutions.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Are YOU communicating your conservative ideals as positive solutions to widely-held concerns, or are YOU merely targeting specific issue groups?
There will certainly be times when we will effectively and appropriately employ the media catalyst of the "extreme" (yet lawful) event/rhetoric. But the vast majority of our time will be spent broadly communicating, through our sincere actions and rhetoric, our positive solutions to issues affecting a plurality of our citizens and businesses.
Conservative principles by their very nature are time-tested, transparent, and largely codified in the U.S. Constitution, our state Constitutions, and the laws that flow forth from those documents. Conservative principles have provided the guiding and moderating influence in our nation that has ushered in and fostered certainty, freedom, faith, and opportunity--even as society and technology have evolved.
So, let's leave the Big Top circus antics to the extremists and fringe groups to pander to the ratings-hungry media. And instead let us win the hearts and minds of all persons who value freedom, opportunity, the rule of law, and God--under the Big Tent of principled solutions.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Are YOU communicating your conservative ideals as positive solutions to widely-held concerns, or are YOU merely targeting specific issue groups?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
THE MARGIN OF VICTORY
Bill and Bob had taken their families to the zoo one fine Sunday afternoon. While their wives had taken the children over to the ice cream stand, Bill and Bob stood admiring the lions in their natural habitat exhibit. The lions looked hungry, licking their chops in anticipation of the next feeding.
Suddenly one of the lions jumped over the enclosure from the rocky perch and landed on the concrete pedestrian walkway. Bill looked at Bob, terrified, and exclaimed, "Do you think you can outrun a hungry lion?" Bob replied smiling over his shoulder as he took off, "No, but I think I can outrun you."
Campaigns are won by a margin of victory, sometimes (as in the examples of Bush v. Gore and Franken v. Coleman) quite slim. But a victory is a victory nonetheless. At the pre-primary stage of many contests you will find a field of mostly well-meaning individuals committed to principles and ideals, and as the election cycle continues, those who are focused upon the "lion" begin to fade away. The contest ultimately ends when one individual remains statistically ahead of his/her final competitor(s), even if only fractionally so.
Every race of consequence will have its valiant heroes willing to stand entirely upon one or a few pungent issues that fan the passions of a core constituency. Much media attention may even be paid to the fervor. But as the last confetti and balloons fall, the man/woman who outran the lion is the individual who put forth the issues that propelled him/her beyond the fearful footfalls of the lion's prey, who only a few months before may have stood side-by-side peering into the lion's den. The electorate will judge which candidate put forth the critical solutions...with its hearts and minds [and feet] on election day.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Are YOU putting forth the critical solutions that address the issues and win the hearts and minds...or will the lion eat YOU?
Suddenly one of the lions jumped over the enclosure from the rocky perch and landed on the concrete pedestrian walkway. Bill looked at Bob, terrified, and exclaimed, "Do you think you can outrun a hungry lion?" Bob replied smiling over his shoulder as he took off, "No, but I think I can outrun you."
Campaigns are won by a margin of victory, sometimes (as in the examples of Bush v. Gore and Franken v. Coleman) quite slim. But a victory is a victory nonetheless. At the pre-primary stage of many contests you will find a field of mostly well-meaning individuals committed to principles and ideals, and as the election cycle continues, those who are focused upon the "lion" begin to fade away. The contest ultimately ends when one individual remains statistically ahead of his/her final competitor(s), even if only fractionally so.
Every race of consequence will have its valiant heroes willing to stand entirely upon one or a few pungent issues that fan the passions of a core constituency. Much media attention may even be paid to the fervor. But as the last confetti and balloons fall, the man/woman who outran the lion is the individual who put forth the issues that propelled him/her beyond the fearful footfalls of the lion's prey, who only a few months before may have stood side-by-side peering into the lion's den. The electorate will judge which candidate put forth the critical solutions...with its hearts and minds [and feet] on election day.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Are YOU putting forth the critical solutions that address the issues and win the hearts and minds...or will the lion eat YOU?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
