You may have seen her on YouTube, but Jill Bolte Taylor’s book, My Stroke of Insight, is still worth a read, especially if you’re curious about the workings of the brain. Taylor, a neuroanatomist (or brain scientist, as she translates it for the layman), experienced a stroke that flooded the left hemisphere of her brain, leaving her to experience the world largely from her right hemisphere’s perspective. Over the next eight years, Taylor carefully observed her recovery with a scientist’s curiosity and attention to detail.

  As Taylor worked diligently to relearn to navigate in the world and to recover her former self,  she found one the most life-changing realizations for her was that she had the capacity to make choices she’d never realized were choices. In the past, when some event triggered a reaction like feeling angry, jealous, or highly critical, she would react reflexively and run the well-established neural pathways. These old pathways, with their myriad interconnections with all sorts of past history and associations, resulted in plenty of unpleasant feelings, memories and subsequent behaviors. After the stroke, Taylor was blissfully unaware of any of these. As her functions returned, she discovered her memory had not been destroyed, but she would have to work hard to re-access and reactivate those pathways…or she could choose not to.

   She learned that when an emotion is triggered in your body, its initial physiological effects—hormone release, etc.– last only 90 seconds. After that, if you are still connected to that emotional response, it is because an extensive and complex array of neural pathways has been activated. It may happen so rapidly that it feels like a natural, inevitable reaction.

 But in that moment, at the end of the 90 seconds, between the emotion and stepping on the pathway,  one has a choice. Taylor says she realized she could choose to engage her left brain connections with past memories, with fears about the future, with its tendency to fill in gaps of information with assumptions–the “storyteller’s potential for stirring up drama and trauma.”  Or she could “step to the right” and embrace her right hemisphere’s personality and value system, which emphasize staying in the moment and meeting it with compassion. Taylor makes clear this isn’t easy; she says it’s a choice you may make many times every day. But it’s a realization that changed the way she meets the world.

 Taylor’s book also offers what I consider supportive evidence for the impact Symbolic Modeling has for a client. To cite but one example,  Taylor says, “I believe the real power in experiential recreation is located in our ability to remember what the underlying physiology feels like.” (p. 176) In a Symbolic Modeling session, you may re-imagine the past, re-image it. Inferring from Taylor’s book, I suggest that by doing so you are building new pathways– ones that serve you better than the old ones.  By using your own metaphors and getting to know not only where they are, but how they feel (Taylor’s ‘underlying physiology’) and by revisiting them often, you can strengthen them and increase the likelihood of ‘going there’ when an unwanted memory or emotion is triggered.

 Given that this is the start of the year, it’s a good time to re-image what you’d like to have happen…or like to have had happen in the past. When you notice uncomfortable memories surface or their accompanying old feelings (such as anxiety, sadness, or jealousy) or physical reactions (perhaps shallow breathing, queasiness, or headache), they’re a signal to you that those old, familiar neural pathways are being engaged. Replace them with your new image and its accompanying feelings—emotional and physical. Or…step to the right.

And if you read Dr. Taylor’s book,  we’d be curious to hear how you think her experiences inform Symbolic Modeling.

If you’re interested in metaphors and how powerfully they can affect not only our everyday lives and personal selves but our country and culture, you’ll be intrigued by Susan Faludi’s The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post- 9/11 America (2007).  Faludi has meticulously researched the US and, in particular, the media’s response to the terrorist attacks in the days and months that followed. What is astounding…and frightening… is how ardently and ruthlessly the powers-that-be sought to promote and protect their comforting metaphors/myths of male heroes of the day, exaggerating both their potential and actual effectiveness, and marginalizing the efforts of women, both those that helped that day and those that raised uncomfortable questions afterwards.

What I found even more intriguing was Faludi’s theory as to why these deliberate misrepresentations were perpetrated—consciously or subconsciously. She looks at several hundred years of US history when traumatizing Indian attacks on the homesteads of early settlers repeatedly found the men unwilling or unable to protect themselves and their families. Faludi concludes that the myth of the American hero, tough and resourceful, saving the weaker women and children, evolved as a way to assuage the hurting male egos.  Faludi backs up her theory with plenty of historical facts and examples that make for a fascinating read.

Included in the book is Faludi’s description of solider Jessica Lunch’s ordeal in Iraq in 2003. A dramatic rescue that was plastered all over the media for weeks turns out to have been basically a staged event. I was reminded of the story recently when America was horrified by yet another mass murder, this time in Fort Hood, Texas, where Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 people. He was shot by Sgt. Kimberly Munley, a civilian police officer, in a gun battle during which she was shot three times.

I happened to be watching the news coverage on MSNBC. Two female reporters gushed over the heroism of Officer Munley. How astounding that a small woman should stop this killing rampage (as if being short and small is a disadvantage when you’re dodging bullets; you might think it would be an advantage not to be a large target!) Nevertheless, their honoring of her heroism seemed genuine. But it was a final comment that got my attention, and called to mind Faludi’s theory. Noting that Officer Munley is the mother of two young children, the reporter added, “As fine a cop as she is—she’s an even better mother!”  She offered no information to support this claim beyond the fact that Munley has children.

Now, here’s a civilian police officer, a former solider trained in ‘active shooter scenarios’, a  firearms instructor, and a special response team member whose quick and aggressive response is credited with saving a significant number of lives (based on the amount of ammunition found on the suspect)—and this reporter emphasizes her mothering abilities?!  I certainly don’t mean to downplay Officer Munley’s courage, skill or heroism, but then, this is what she is trained to do. While I respect all officers for their willingness to put their lives on the line, I would expect no less of a fine and dedicated officer. That she is a woman and mother has nothing to do with it.

 All this made me curious: was the MSNBC reporter’s  response typical of  the media’s, similar in ways to what Faludi describes post 9/11? This time the media was not minimizing Munley’s role in stopping the rampage. If anything she was a media darling, her picture appearing repeatedly, the story on every newspaper’s home/front page. But was it common of the media to maintain a slant to the story that emphasized Munley’s exemplary motherhood? I did a brief and informal survey on the Internet, and while I did indeed find numerous headlines or first sentences of articles that read something along the lines of “policewoman and mother Kim Munley…”, overall I did not find an overemphasis on Munley’s sex, parental status or stature or which had a patronizing tone.

Unlike in Faludi’s description of the media’s response to 9/11 or to Jessica Lynch, the media this time did not minimize this female’s officer’s role in incident. If anything, they seized on the opportunity as ‘great copy’. In fact, I feel for Munley’s partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, who responded to the scene with her. In some articles, no mention at all is made of him; in others he is simply identified as “her partner”.  Perhaps because he wasn’t shot, he was overlooked. Or maybe it was because he isn’t a 5”2” and 120 pound mother.

So, I’m left with the question: are the times a changin’? Is America rewriting its metaphors of the female ideal–or at least broadening its parameters?  Eight years ago, the media airbrushed the female firefighters, EMTs, etc. out of the 9/11 rescue efforts. Six years ago, Pvt. Jessica Lynch became the Army’s poster child for the weak female needing to be rescued. Today, Sgt. Munley is hailed as a brave heroine, but there still seems to be a compelling need to assure ourselves that this female icon is both a solider and a mother. 

If you notice other examples of current media mythology about women in the news, please share it with us.  Meanwhile, here are some links you may find interesting if you want to read more.

To get a flavor for Faludi’s book, read http://susanfaludi.com/commentary/2007/09/americas-guardian-myths.html

An article here by a BBC reporter gives you an idea of how Jessica Lynch’s rescue was staged. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2

Halloween is fast approaching here in the U.S.  Come All Hallow’s Eve, the streets will be filled with little witches,  ghosts, hobos, superheroes, and serial killers. For grown-ups who still relish society’s permission to go extreme and get creative one night a year, there’ll be parties full of prostitutes and politicians, with an occassional rock star and nun thrown in. So what is it that attracts us to the costumes we pick, these archtypcal metaphors?

You may claim your choice of a costume is based on what’s in the back of your closet or what you just thought would get the biggest laugh or win the prize for best costume at the party, but undoubtedly, your outfit reveals more about you than you might be consciously aware of. Does your costume display your deepest fantasy? Your secret desire to mock those with different opinions? Your attitude towards authority? Your attempt to overcome your childhood fears? Does it show your naughty side, your rebellious self, your wish for innocence  and simplicity?

Answer such questions, and you’d start to sound like an analyst of old–congitively dissecting associations made with typical costumes, assuming you’d selected yours for typical reasons. Why not instead take the playful, creative approach Halloween invites, and ask some Clean Language questions about the costume you’ll wear?  “And what kind of witch is that witch?”  “And when you’re a princess, then what happens?”  “And when you’re a slice of pepperoni pizza, is there anything else about pepperoni?”  (Don’t have a costume? Draw a picture of what you’d be and ask questions about it.) Archetypes, by definition, have broad, cultural attributes, but your sense of that metaphor will have unique personal resonances as well.

Halloween invites us all to conceal and reveal our true selves. Be playful about exploring your true self….and let us know what you choose to be for Halloween!

I read an article today that suggests a specific and interesting application of Clean Language skills entitled “Diagnosis: What Doctors Are Missing’,  by Jerome Groopman. He describes the prevalence today of doctors diagnosing and determining treatments based on test results—lots of them—rather than on interviewing the actual patient. Groopman says,

“The most seasoned clinicians teach that the patient tells you his diagnosis if only you know how to listen. The clinical history, beyond all other aspects of information gathering, hold the most clues. And it is this part of medicine–the patient’s narrative, the onset and tempo of the illness, the factors that exacerbated the symptoms and those that ameliorated them, the foods the patient ate, the clothes he wore, the people he worked with, the trips he took, the myriad of other events that occurred before, during, and after the malady–that are as vital as any DNA analysis or MRI investigation.”                                           New York Times Book Review, Nov. 5, 2009, Vol. LVI, No. 17

 Groopman quotes research that concluded that misdiagnoses often occur because of false assumptions the doctors made that set them on the wrong track. And once they were on it, they were no longer as attentive to other possibilities.

“We most need a discerning doctor when a diagnosis is not obvious, when the clues are confusing, when initial test are inconclusive. No simple technology can serve as a surrogate for the probing human mind.”

And a probing mind is well-served by learning Clean Language—a questioning process that uses primarily the patient’s exact words and keeps the facilitator’s  (in this case the doctor’s) assumptions to a minimum. When a doctor learns to repeat a patient’s exact words, s/he learns to listen with precision, and will notice things that others readily miss. S/he’ll be surprised to learn how much knowing there is in a patient’s word choice, often just below the patient’s conscious awareness.  The Clean Language process zooms attention in on details and zooms attention out to the larger context; new information can emerge very quickly. Clean Language can be used to explore and clarify, to sequence events or symptoms, and to explore what’s important to the patient, both in terms of treatment and life style issues, to name but a few uses. 

Of course, they aren’t the only questions or approach a doctor might use, but learning to listen this way, training to recognize one’s assumptions, and developing a way to engage with a patient that makes the patient feel truly heard and respected and  elicit meaningful information  are skills that could enhance the effectiveness of any doctor.

Visit my website to learn more about Clean Language http://www.miningyourmetaphors.com/ . Want to learn Clean Language? Contact me at gina@miningyourmetaphors.com for more information. Next training: Nov. 1-2, 2009 Level I and Nov. 3-7,  Level II.

   I’ve recently returned from London , where I was doing advanced training in Symbolic Modeling and attending the Clean Conference 2009, a gathering of people from around the world sharing their work with and thoughts about Clean Language.   Surprisingly, one of my lessons came not from my classes nor the Conference, but from walking around London. 

   Being American and used to driving on the right, it was a challenge to manage there, where they drive on the left. Forget trying to drive a car; just crossing the street was difficult!    My crowning moment was when fellow trainee Dena Robbins-Deckel (who is from Israel, where they also drive on the right) and I approached a crosswalk. There on the street, painted in large letters, was LOOK RIGHT. I stopped, mindfully tell myself, “Okay now. I have to do the opposite of what I instinctively do.”  Dena was pausing, staring, concentrating, no doubt going through a similar mental process. So what do we do? We both looked left.  And then, at the same moment, we said, “Which way is right?” Our brains were positively scrambled by the effort to change!

   Besides giving us a good laugh at ourselves, the incident provided a wonderful demonstration of just how difficult it is to overcome patterns of behavior that repetition has firmly established in our brains, despite cognitive awareness and the intention to do something differently.   If you’ve ever found yourself wanting to change your behavior, fully intending to, but finding you just can’t seem to, you know what I mean. And insight into why it might be hard or where your behavior came from in the first place doesn’t help much either.

   Something has to change in both mind and body, where old patterns are deeply entrenched. I’ve found Symbolic Modeling is one effective way of doing that, using the language of the unconscious: metaphor.  Where most verbal techniques engage your cognitive faculties, the slightly altered state feel of a Symbolic Modeling session is taping into a different kind of knowing and processing. It bypasses your ‘logical’ knowing and self-limiting beliefs to enable your brain to “do something differently”, bringing about change (if that’s what you want) on an internal level that transcends cognitive awareness and those well-established patterns. Want to learn more about this technique? Check out my website www.miningyourmetaphors.com

As for crossing the streets in London, I gave up trying to retrain myself entirely, and just looked both ways wherever I was!

Gina

How Do Horseshoes and Clean Language Differ?

     At our last summer hurrah at the beach, our family was playing horseshoes, and it got me thinking.  In horseshoes, close just may be good enough. But when you use Clean Language and asking questions about your clients’ statements, you have to use their exact words.

     Why isn’t close-but-not-exact good enough?

     Try this. Take a piece of paper, and list the numbers 1-10. Consider the word ‘green.’ Write down the first ten things that come to mind related to ‘green.’  Then, without sharing your answers, ask a few other people to do the same. Now, compare lists.

     Chances are you may have several words that are the same and then a few more that are only on your list but it’s logical to everyone why they made your list.  And then perhaps there are one or two words that leave your friends scratching their heads: why would that have anything to do with ‘green?  Maybe the word ‘grandmother’ because green was your grandmother’s favorite color, or ‘icing’ because someone once made you a funny birthday cake with green icing. The association is unique to you.

    And that’s why close is not good enough when you’re repeating your clients’ words. Because every word, consciously or subconsciously, has its own resonance and associations for the speaker. Change it, and you lose the information that word ‘contains’….and you suggest to your client you didn’t really hear him/her.

    Share your story here on the blog of a unique association you have with a word or respond to someone else’s word-story with your association.    

     And the next time someone uses the word “green”, you might want to use a Clean Language question, and ask, “What kind of green is that green?”

Metaphors matter because they frame the way we think about an issue–and the solutions we consider. I’ve been noticing recently that the Obama administration knows this too. (Guess they’ve read George Lakoff’s Don’t think of an elephant!(2004).) A few weeks ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the administration would no longer be using the term “War on Terror.”  This was followed by an announcement by Gil Kerlikowske, the drug czar, that the administration will no longer refer to seeking solutions for the drug problems in this country as a “War on Drugs.” 

When we started referring to addressing the drug problem in this country as a war,  we started thinking in terms of  military/police solutions.  Drug users became the enemy, and it was only logical to construe treating their health problems with compassion as being ’soft on crime.’ Changing this approach when our attack wasn’t succeeding would have been tantamount to surrendering–which no politician wants to do. 

I think our war metaphor  had an even subtler, more insidious effect. When we started using battle metaphors,  we started thinking terms of winners and losers.  And pretty soon there was an us vs. them mentality that became so intrinsic a part of our culture that we forgot that us and them are one and the same.

“We’re not at war with people in this country,” said  Kerlikowske.

Hallelujah!  Maybe now we have an administration that is really ready to reframe drug use–this time as a health issue. And, thinking of Clinton’s quote,  that is ready to rethink its approach to addressing (rather than combating) the root causes of the anger that fuels people’s resorting to terrorism.

Wonder what new metaphors the administration will come up with?  Keep us posted if you spot any.

Welcome to Metaphorum!  Here you’ll find updates from me about the latest happenings in the Mining Your Metaphors world, thoughts and theories about metaphors and Symbolic Modeling, suggestions for applications of the technique,  quotes, poems and more. I hope you’ll find them stimulating.

Whether you’re a client exploring the possibilities of Symbolic Modeling, a potential trainee considering adding Symbolic Modeling  to your tool box, or someone already familiar with Symbolic Modeling who’s ever curious about the ways transforming metaphors can transform life,  welcome!

Add your voice to our community!

Gina