The Battle For Self-Definition: You Are Not Your Traumas

Ever since I was in my 20s, I have been intrigued by how, in day-to-day conversations, people define themselves. Most of the time, the definition is akin to a Freudian slip, where the individual is unaware of what they have just divulged about how they view themselves. Other times, the person is planting a seed-thought that will soon begin shaping her personality in unhealthy ways.

I am angry. “Hello, Anger, nice to meet you. I think. Maybe I should stand over there.”

I am depressed. “Ms. Depressed. So good to meet you! May I offer you this handkerchief?”

I am anxious. “Mr. Anxious. I’d like to shake your hand…once you stop wringing them.”

No, this is not merely semantics. Our words are powerful, carrying with them the ability to shape our souls. It is one thing to say that I am experiencing anger: quite another to define myself by that anger. Having a degree of anxiety is not the same thing as identifying my Self with that anxiety.  

If you doubt this is more than a word game, try this experiment: Rather than saying, “I am angry/ depressed/ anxious/ whatever,” say, instead, “I am experiencing some anger/ depression/ anxiety,” and feel the difference this makes. (If you really want to go deeper, begin saying, “I am anger-ing or depress-ing myself.” How does THAT feel, eh? No, no, you really, really have to put yourself into the statement. There. See? Feel the difference, here? It gives you more response-ability, more power.)

In helping a patient manage chronic pain, one of the first things that must be done is to help the person localize the pain. “No, your body is not wracked with pain, it is only in your knee.” It is (relatively) easier to manage the pain of a torn meniscus, than it is a torn body, yes? It is also (relatively) easier to manage and deal with an emotional upset I am presently experiencing when it is localized. I am not the upset: I am experiencing an upset.

Be very careful with declarations of “I am …” They all too easily cast spells that transform a Prince into a Frog.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2013

The Battle for Self-Definition

Once you label me you negate me. Søren Kierkegaard

I think one of the greatest and most critical battles for each of us is the fight for self-definition. Most of the people around you want to do the defining, the labeling: You are this; you are that; no, you are the other. “You fall into this percentile so you are…” “You are a member of this group and that means you are …” I, however, am not a statistic, a member of a sociological or political group, my job, or a cog in a wheel. I am a person, not a thing. I am myself, not “them.” I am a unique human being, not an “it.” I. Am. My. Own. Group.

Labels are generalizations that can be helpful or hurtful. Saying I am a Libertarian or a member of the Teamsters can be helpful in conversations. Labels serve as a kind of shorthand in particular contexts to give people a general idea of where I am coming from, a quick bird’s eye view of my mindset. (I do think it is wiser, however, to say, “I am a member of x.” rather than “I am x.”) However, labels are hurtful or, at least, problematic, when others assume meanings and beliefs that do not apply to me (which is most always done), or confuses the label with who I am, or when I attach the core of my identity to The Label.

Labels often turn us into things or objects: an “it” rather than a “you.” When we do this to others or to ourselves, we are turning subjects into objects. Question: which do you treat with more dignity and respect: an object (thing) or a subject (person)?

Labels are static, leaving no room for movement or change. So. Be very careful with “I am…” statements, as they negate so very much of who you are.

“I am a doctor.”  Really? That one word sums up who you are as a human being? If you stopped doctoring (or policing, lawyer-ing, CPA-ing, etc.) would you no longer be yourself? And paying lip service to this reality is not the same thing as being fully aware that “doctor” is what you do, not who you are. (Please feel free to play around with other labels in this regard and see what comes up. Examples:  “I am a Republican/Democrat/ Libertarian.”  “I am a screw-up.” “I am the boss.” If you want to go even deeper: “I am angry.” “I am a victim.” “I am lost.”)

You are infinitely more than a job or a role or a membership, however noble and meaningful the job, role, or group’s work may be. The other people in your world are also more than their labels, even if they are choosing to think and behave otherwise. Who knows: maybe if you treat them as a unique individual, they may start seeing themselves as such. Of course, this requires that you first see yourself as an individual who is more than his labels, job, or roles.

The battle for defining yourself is life long, as you will always be “becoming” your true self. This is a never-ending quest, more of a process than a destination. Yes, labels have their place in conversation. However, so as to maintain room for growth and change, I suggest that you remain vigilant against allowing them to place you (or others) in a box. After all, as Kierkegaard noted, labels inherently carry with them the power to negate who you are and can become.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2013 

Touching Hearts

One of my greatest memories of studying music at Samford University was being invited to sing in the school’s a capella choir: it was world renown. Singing a capella means the choir is not accompanied by any instruments. The challenge is not simply a matter of staying on key and in tempo, but to immerse one’s self in the choir, a community of singers. Each singer must refrain from singing as if he or she were a solo act: refraining from being “me” and choosing to be “us.”  

I was reminded of this experience the other day, when I was asked how I defined “empathy.”

Empathy chooses to refrain from being a solo-act, and, instead, reaches out to create an “us.”

Empathy is the capacity for experiencing what it is like to live inside someone else’s skin, walk a mile in her shoes, experiencing life as he is. Empathy doesn’t project what I would feel if I were in this person’s situation. On the contrary, being empathetic means my heart is reaching inside the other’s heart and feeling something of what he is feeling.

Empathy is listening with the heart and “Thinking with the blood.” (DH Lawrence, in another context.)

Empathy is touching her heart with your heart.

Empathy wordlessly communicates care and compassion.

True empathy also discerns ulterior motives and agendas, and responds accordingly.

Desperation, self-absorption, or an over-all nonchalance regarding a particular relationship, restricts empathy.

Without a contextually appropriate degree of expressed empathy, our conversations (oral or written) are going to be more like monologues than dialogues. 

Where empathy is lacking so is authentic connection, close friendships, and true community.  

If I asked you to tell me who were the people in your life that mean the most to you, at the top of the list is going to include those individuals who stood by your side at a time of bereavement, confusion, or despair, and were emotionally there for you. Trials, fears, grief: they have a way of stripping your soul naked, reducing you to feeling like one raw and exposed nerve. When this occurs, those to whom you were truly visible, and who supportively connected with you on an emotional level, became one of those rare and special friends whom you will cherish for the rest of your life. This only happens, when we refrain from being solo-acts and choose to create an “us.”

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2013

Written Communication: Images, Stories, and Feelings

Some years back I was hired to facilitate a one-day training on Writing for Business for a Fortune 100 company. Each of the men and women attending had recently graduated with a MBA from some of our nations’ most elite schools. The first assignment was to write their manager an email. I don’t remember the assigned topic, but, as I read all of the emails, I do remember thinking, “So this is why I was brought in.”  There were smiley-faces, references to “dudes,” misspelled words, incomplete sentences, paragraphs with no apparent topics, sentences drowning in adjectives, and letters that went on, and on, and on…and on. When I asked for volunteers for going over a few of the emails out of the 25 or so I had in hand, most everyone raised their hands. Some, no doubt, wanted feedback so as to learn: most, however, were oblivious as to just how poorly they had done.

After going over 4 or 5 of the emails in considerable detail, I asked them to go back and look over what they had written and ask themselves one question: “What image of myself did I create in my manager’s mind?” One young man blurted out: “O NO! I am the class clown.”

So much of our communications today are written: email, texts, blogs, Instagram (a pic is worth 1,000 words), tweets, and posts on Facebook. For a few moments I want you to consider the platforms you most frequently utilize and ask yourself some questions:

What image of myself are all these communications creating in the minds of my readers? 

Placing myself in the minds and hearts of my reader(s), what does the totality of all that I have written (relative to each particular audience) communicate regarding my competencies, professed beliefs, values, principles, attitudes, and vision?

Considering all of your communications with him, her, or them, say over the last 6 months, what is the narrative you have created in their minds?  For example, go back and look over all of your posts on Facebook: considering them as a whole, “What’s the storyline, here?” Is it a story you meant to tell? Are your readers getting what you intend? How do you know?

Another example. Choose a person with whom you frequently exchange emails and go back over the last few months of communications. Seeing all of these as a single ongoing narrative, what is the story I am telling? Is this ongoing narrative taking your relationship (be it professional or personal) the direction you want to go?  

Have you considered that each of your written communications elicits a feeling, a psychological state? People “experience” your written communication, just as they do your oral communication. Put yourself in their hearts: are they experiencing what you intended?

One of the great challenges of written communication is that your audience cannot hear your tone of voice or see your demeanor. We must constantly be aware of this challenge so as to take painstaking care in crafting our sentences. In looking over what I am sending this person, what will he or she hear, see, and feel, as my words are being read?

Think about the person(s) to whom you are writing: what is her mindset, what are his default assumptions, what attitudes or experiences usually color their perspective? While writing, we want to maintain an awareness, not only of the intent of our communication, but also of our audience’s frame of mind, personality, goals, position, and everything else that could have a bearing on how we frame our thoughts.

You are always communicating: always telling a story, always creating pictures in your reader’s minds, and always eliciting psychological states. The question I am asking you is this: What are your intentions and are you in the process of attaining them?

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2013 

Why Should I Listen To You?

Maintaining rapport with our audience requires that we create an ongoing atmosphere of trust within which we can effectively communicate. They need to sense that we are someone with whom they can do business, an individual whose words they can trust. One of the main ways we do this is by demonstrating that we understand them.

The manner in which you choose to speak—respectfully, graciously, authoritatively, inquisitively, softly, loudly, quickly, slowly, deliberately, formally, informally, etc.—will go a long way toward creating the desired atmosphere. The key, of course, is to choose the most appropriate tone in each context.

How you dress will speak volumes to those around you. Question: Do you know what your attire is communicating? How do you know?

Your demeanor tells people how you regard them and yourself. Are you confident without being brash? Gracious yet not ingratiating? Does your audience see/feel/hear that you respect them? This is huge for any communication strategy. If I don’t sense that you respect me as a person, if I believe that you are seeking to play God with my conscience, if I think that your kindness is a ploy rather than a genuine care for my best, it doesn’t matter what you say: I am not going to listen.

Do you have a command of your subject manner? Are you able to demonstrate a high degree of competency? Do you know the strengths and potential weaknesses of your arguments? Do you know what ideas, emotions, or products, are competing for space in your audience’s minds and hearts?

Whether you are communicating with a client, family member, or a loved one, the process requires ongoing demonstrations that you get where your audience's heads and hearts are. If they don’t feel that you have an appropriate understanding of their needs, desires, values, beliefs, fears and such, whatever it is you have to say will be inconsequential.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2009

Captivating and Mesmerizing

The process of communication and persuasion begins with captivating your audience. (Remember: an audience can be one person or more.) This includes more than captivating their eyes: you want their ears, minds, and hearts.

In the late 1700’s, Franz Mesmer would bring people to his palatial home in Paris where he claimed he was able to heal them through the use of magnetism. As you walked through the doors you would smell the fragrance of orange blossoms and incense wafting through the air, and hear the singing of an unseen soprano being accompanied by a harpist. The young male attendants, all incredibly handsome, were dressed in vivid colors. The entire scenario was crafted so as to captivate and to produce an atmosphere conducive to Mesmer’s ends. This is where we get our word, mesmerize.

Consider how an elegant restaurant utilizes smells, music, décor, how the wait staff is dressed, and at the setting of the tables, all to captivate your senses. The intent is to give you a memorable experience: one where you will wish to return again and again. If they do their job, you will be captivated — mesmerized — and become a committed patron.

Consider a cathedral with its architecture, its paintings and sculptures, music and incense: all are crafted to captivate you and lead you—your thoughts and your senses—into a particular experience.

How you craft your presentation so as to captivate your audience is critical to the goals of your communication. Your dress, how you utilize your voice, how you stand, sit or move as you speak, as well as the ambiance you create in the room must all be carefully planned and processed, if you are to truly keep your audience mesmerized.

Of course, if people feel that you are merely seeking to distract them with smoke and mirrors so as to take them somewhere they do not wish to go then you will not realize your outcome. If they believe that your actions are a game to hide your lack of substance, that you are “all sizzle and no steak,” "all hat and no cowboy," "all shot and no powder," "all bark and no bite" ... Phew, sorry ... got a bit carried away there ... not only will you fail to attain your outcome you will probably never have another opportunity to communicate with these people again.

Captivating people is not about manipulating them—as that word is typically understood, anyway. Captivating or Mesmerizing is about holding people’s full attention in a way that supports the intentions of your communication. Anything short of inspiring trust will definitely not be supportive of your outcome.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2009

You Remind Me of ... Me!

You are about to walk into a room filled with military officers. They are dressed in pressed and smartly creased uniforms. They are standing at attention. You walk in wearing jeans and a sweatshirt, and immediately slump down into a chair, asking, “What’s up, guys?”

What happens in such a scenario? Do you attain rapport with these people? Will there be a sense of connection between you? Will they believe that you understand them? Not hardly.

You are sitting across the desk of your manager. She is relaxed, sitting comfortably in her chair, with one arm on the desk and the other resting in her lap. You, however, are sitting in your chair as if a steel rod has been inserted where your backbone use to be. Both of your hands are placed on either knee. Your head is rigidly still and your skin is taught with the strain of “being serious.”

How will your manager be interpreting your demeanor as she is communicating with you? What do you think the chances are for you to establish a sense of connection with her?

You are seeking to communicate to a potential client the value of what you have to offer. This client’s demeanor is Eor-like: she speaks low and moves slow. You, however, are shooting words at her in a high-pitched, rapid-fire fashion, and gesticulating as if you were a Pentecostal preacher under the anointing.

Do you honestly think she is saying to herself: “Wow, this guy really gets me”?

Understanding that people are comfortable with people who are like them and applying this to how you stand, sit, gesture, breathe, and speak (tonality, pace, word choices, etc.), go a long way toward attaining and maintaining rapport. You don’t have to mirror the other person—in fact, if you do, he will think you are making fun of him! However, if the differences between your demeanors are extreme, the possibility of rapport is minimal.

Rapport is a process that needs monitoring throughout your communication. Am I establishing an atmosphere of trust?  Am I communicating ongoing understanding of who this person is, what they want, what they need, what they fear, what they hope for, and etc.? Reaching out with your ears, your eyes, and your heart or feelings: is there a sense of connection, conducive to the goal of your communication? There will be, if you remind them of someone.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2009

The Oxygen of Communication

A salesperson is clearly communicating the value of her product while the audience is silently thinking, “How long is this going to take?”

A minister is passionately sharing his message with a congregation that is lost in thoughts of various fears and concerns about their lives.

A team member is relating data she believes pertinent to the team’s deliberation, while most of her team members are experiencing MEGO disease. (My-Eyes-Glaze-Over.)

A history teacher is holding forth on the American Revolution, while his students are contemplating the pros and cons of sneaking out of the house tonight, after their parents have gone to sleep.

What is missing in each of these scenarios?

What is it that keeps those with whom you are communicating in the right frame of mind so as to genuinely be open to your influence?

What is the most critical source of efficaciousness in persuasiveness?

What is the oxygen that keeps your conversation alive?

What is it that all Great Communicators possess and ineffectual communicators overlook or even consider trivial?

What is…rapport? It is the answer to every question just asked. Rapport is the difference between broadcasting your message and actually communicating.

Rapport is a connection between people, a sense of appropriate symbiosis/ mutuality.

Rapport is the maintaining of a relationship with those with whom you are seeking to communicate.

Rapport is the continual captivation of the attention of those with whom you wish to persuade.

Rapport is an atmosphere of trust.

Rapport is an ongoing demonstration of understanding.

I have watched the most articulate and elegant speakers—religious leaders, politicians, salespeople, lobbyist and parents—fail to achieve their outcome because they did not maintain rapport. And once you have lost rapport, you either get it back or acknowledge that all you are doing is throwing words at the people around you.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2009