The ethics of promoting a clean process

[phil]

I have started another thread from an interesting but wandering-off-topic post in another thread. At the end of a post of mine was this paragraph:
To start with, it seems easier working from a top-down model than going to the effort of each time bottom-up modelling a client's idiosyncratic world. But eventually it's harder as the disparity between our model and THIS client's model becomes clearer. NLP went skipping off along its 'trail of techniques' and has taken 25 years to start returning to modelling which is where it started. Is that something we want for Clean?

Phil

The next post is Corrie replying to this.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Thank you Phil,

You know that's a rhetorical question: any top-down model, by definition, is not clean, so anyone who wants to do that, use another name.

So there's no such thing as marketing 'clean', because that would be trying to convince somebody of something we think is right (of course we know we are, but let everybody figure it out for themselves).

I'm convinced that clean is the only way, because it has a physical basis to it, which Steve is about to explain to us. It's just how our brain/body works. Clean is self-healing, just give it some time and space.

Corrie

[phil]

Corrie: So there's no such thing as marketing 'clean', because that would be trying to convince somebody of something we think is right (of course we know we are, but let everybody figure it out for themselves).

Well, there is such a thing as marketing 'clean' but perhaps you are saying that there shouldn't be? I hope I got that right because that is why I moved your reply to a new thread about the ethics of promoting 'clean'!

Maybe we mean different things by 'clean'. It has recently been given a capital letter and used on its own as a noun (and a nominalisation): Clean. I think (not sure) that that came from Judy Rees at Small Change Company.

One way the Clean word can be read is as a shorthand referring to 'Clean Language, Symbolic Modelling and Clean Space' which may be part of what Judy intended - Judy?

In the thread started by Judy called 'Marketing Clean', she actually refers to 'selling Clean Language and Symbolic Modelling' which are models that employ a clean approach as part of their process. They also include less clean approaches like directing the client's attention and encouraging them to focus on outcomes.

Selling is trading. Marketing is declaring that you have something you are willing to trade.

Ethically, selling a model or process is no more or less troublesome than selling anything. You have widgets, if people want the widgets that you have, they trade something for them. If they don't want them, they don't trade. But if they don't know you have widgets, they can't trade. That's why you market your widgets or models or processes or whatever.

If we believe that people might like to know how to be clean, it seems ethical to offer at market a process that shows them how.

Phil

[Stephen C]

What might the ethics be of *denying*(keeping secret,holding back) people the opportunity of using/experiencing /being facilitated by Clean Language?

How might we position ourselves in relation to this (and the above)or how might we be positioned by others?


Respectfully and curiously,

Stephen C

(few if any answers,lots of questions)

:eek:

[Corrie van Wijk]

o.k. have it your way: of course we want the world to share (hope you all won't get tóo busy!), it's just that you create a feedback loop of resistance if you try to sell it, so you have to create a nice little six-network to have it organize itself.

So, how about clean marketing of 'Clean' (working title, we might want to use another name). I did marketing of leisure some time ago, it has a similar paradox to it: you want people to figure out for themselves want they need, but at the same time you can help them choose. (See also the thread of the Clean Maslow shape).

And when [you want to go to the effort of each time bottum-up modelling a client's idiosyncratic world], what would you like to have happen?

[Stephen C]

I wonder about "ok have it your way"- do you think I was claiming a "my way"? If so,is WKO way is my way?Is there anything else about my way?

I also wonder what might Wittgenstein say?

(I'm guessing there are also few challenges here ,not least the form of communication-internet stuff- missing a lot of the nuances of conversation and ,of course,what you mean and I mean by my way/our way/your way may well be different...)

I also wonder about our "post-modern"(or after?) where ,perhaps,paradox is something we live with(or ignore),what do you think?

"its' just that you create a feedback loop of resistance" etc.-seems to me you are very certain about some things(that maybe my interpretation of the language you use)?
I must admit I admire anyone who can communicate in more than one language and across cultures.I find it difficult within 'my culutre(s)'! As for 'feedback loops' my take is that is a more,or less,useful way of conceptualising things.
To me it is not a 'thing' as in oh see that feedback loop of resistance....anyway Keeney would suggest there are secondary and tertiary feedback loops out of awareness....
Then again,maybe there is research to support this idea?

One thing that comes to mind as I write this 'pagan voice' is that whatever position people take or are given is valid(although some may be more preferable,safer etc than others) and systemically are part of a larger whole. Or maybe its not systemic and its a collection of continually co-created Narratives amongst various communities of which we are part?
I'm really not that sure.I am certain of this position!

Corrie,were you 'marketed' "Clean'(to me this covers the realm of approach ,method,technique)? Have others? Have there always been "resistance" if so? If not,when not?


For me,a debate like this is important,its not about 'discovering the truth'.
For me it is about Ethics,and thus involves various often conflicting obligations and responsibilities.And getting it 'wrong'.
In many situations-trainings,seminars,conversations you have a few 'lions' who dominate and the 'sheep' who keep quiet.I'd love some of those who have not posted or less so to contribute....
I eagerly await more contributions!
(And I am not criticising- people like you and the immense work put in by Phil &co have been essential in breathing life into this forum).
In this spirit I am going to try to keep quiet for a bit myself!

More tea please vicar.

Respectfully,

Stephen C

[Corrie van Wijk]

[QUOTE=Stephen C]
"it's just that you create a feedback loop of resistance" etc.-seems to me you are very certain about some things (that maybe my interpretation of the language you use)?"

So, my stating something positivily already gives a reaction of trying to nuance it, as did my statement that there is no such thing as marketing clean, which provoked Phil to defend it.
In the context of this forum I reached my goal: getting people to discuss things and encourage the 'sheep' not to keep quiet. Thank you Stephen!

"One thing that comes to mind as I write this 'pagan voice' is that whatever position people take or are given is valid (although some may be more preferable, safer etc. than others) and systemically are part of a larger whole. Or maybe its not systemic and its a collection of continually co-created Narratives amongst various communities of which we are part?
I'm really not that sure. I am certain of this position!"

I wonder if there would be a difference between systemic and a collection of Narratives?

"Corrie, were you 'marketed' "Clean' (to me this covers the realm of approach, method, technique)? Have others? Have there always been "resistance" if so? If not,when not?

Yes, I was marketed 'Clean': infected by J&P, and then spoiled by David!

Corrie

[Stephen C]

" I reached my goal.."

How Strategic of you- is it ethical though?(LOL).


Stephen C

PS- are you sure you didn't infect J&P and the rest of us?
:eek:

[phil]

Well, Corrie, I think in the terms of Stephen's metaphor, we (you included)would count as lions (that make a lot of noise) rather than sheep (that don't) so making us roar is is nothing much to shout about...:D Mis-matchers are noisy beasts anyway.

I am not that comfortable with the sheep metaphor because, on reflection, it mixes in my mind with the other metaphorical meaning of 'following mindlessly' which I would not associate with being quiet.

Oh, and in the Forest of Dean I can honestly say that sheep make a lot more noise than lions do.

And I can't help feeling there must be an old Nasrudin or Arabian Nights or Native American tale about the lions who roared all night long at each other: "Sheep! Sheep! Where are you?" and couldn't understand why none showed up...

Ciao (or rather "Miaow!")

Phil

[Judy]

Thanks, Corrie, for the idea of comparing these two marketing projects.

I couldn't actually imagine "marketing leisure" so I tried imagining marketing health and fitness instead.

What doesn't work in promoting health and fitness is Government preaching. What does is a combination of people's enthusiasm - real-life stories, celebrity stories etc, delivered either face-to-face or through the media - and making health and fitness accessible. What you end up with is an atmosphere in which health and fitness seems like a Good Thing, something it's reasonable for most people to want.

Then at the next level you have products which help people to improve their health and fitness - magazines, gym membership, books, running clubs. These could be sold without the prevailing atmosphere of "health and fitness is a Good Thing" but it would be harder.

I think Clean is something which is a Good Thing. It shouldn't get the hard sell, it should be "offered to the world", made available and accessible.

I think Wendy's training in Clean Language, Clean Space and Symbolic Modelling is a fantastic product and I have no problem about selling it just as hard as my local gym sells to me :-)

[Corrie van Wijk]

" I reached my goal.."

How Strategic of you- is it ethical though?(LOL).


Stephen C

PS- are you sure you didn't infect J&P and the rest of us?
:eek:

What would not be ethical about it?

P.S.: I do hope I helped to infect the rest of you, but J&P were ill long before me.

Stephen: And when [I'd love some of those who have not posted or less so to contribute... I eagerly await more contributions], is there anything else about [that statement]?

Phil: I'm not comfortable with the lion-sheep metaphor either, anyone who knows me better wouldn't agree with that. Anyway, it's not my intention to wolf down any sheep, I just want them to bleat to me.

Judy: "What does work is a combination of enthusiasm and making [health and fitness] accessible... What you end up with is an atmosphere in which [health and fitness] seems like a Good Thing, something it's reasonable for most people to want."

The essence of clean, to me, is that people don't necessarily need 'a Good Thing': clean means you help them figure out and get whatever they need or want.

[Judy]

clean means you help them figure out and get whatever they need or want.

How do they know you can do that, if you don't mention it to them?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Yes Judith, I already figured it out on my walk along the beach yesterday: I agree with you. It's just a bit confusing: clean, to me, is about helping people to figure out and get what they want or need, which is marketing in itself (self-marketing).

Clean facilitation is achieving that, if anyone should have a problem with that (=figuring it out or getting it), they'll solve it in a way that is most congruent with their inner world. What they get is their own unique solution.

Selling clean facilitation should be congruent with the product, so we need a clean marketing of clean.

To be honest, I'd rather sell it 'hard', worse: I'd like to make it a law that any professional wouldn't do anything else. Not only would that be the most ethical thing to do, since you accept everybody's view of the world, also you'd relieve a lot of human suffering. Not doing that would be a crime.

Not accepting anybody else's view of the world gets you into useless discussions about what should or shouldn't (Stephen: like labelling somebody's behaviour as being 'strategic' and questioning their ethics, using powerful metaphors that stick in peoples' mind and make forget about all the good words you put in as well).

But, most importantly, if somebody asks you for help, you have to help them to change their map of their territory, which is the territory of their body/brain. Let them be your guide, trust them to know their way.

Corrie