Psychologies Magazine interview with Wendy Sullivan

[Judy]

The February edition of Psychologies magazine, on sale now, has an interview with Wendy about Clean Language. The sub-editors have given it the headline 'How to get anyone to tell you anything' and the cover line is 'How to get anyone to open up".

Which set me wondering, do you think this is one of the 'unique selling points' of Clean Language? If not, what would you identify as Clean's USP?

[phil]

I thought the title 'How to get anyone to tell you anything' rather non-clean, NLP-ish and smacking of manipulation, to be honest, which perhaps is why you point out that the sub-editors called it that and (presumably) not you and Wendy. Using clean language as a way to 'get' someone to tell me something would mean not using it cleanly IMO.

I like much of the writing as a way of explaining the slippery subject of clean to the uninitiated. The content did not, thankfully, match up with the unfortunate title.

Why did you not mention David Grove, the creator of Clean Language?

Addendum 16 Jan 09:

I've since talked with Wendy about the article and my post and my sloppy use of the word 'you' in the sentence: 'Why did you not mention David Grove?', which was understandably taken to mean Wendy personally and thus caused offence, for which I am sorry. My post was written in the shock and sadness of seeing Clean Language in a popular magazine without David's name adjacent and I should have chosen my words more carefully. That shock masked the obvious point that to see Clean Language in a popular magazine at all is a wonderful thing and to be celebrated.

It was sloppy because by 'you' I meant 'all you whoever you are who got this article on to the page of the magazine where I read it'. Clearly I should instead have asked 'Why was David Grove not mentioned?', since it was not clear who did the not-mentioning, if that is not a paradoxical statement! It's clear from the post below that Wendy certainly showed due diligence in seeking to get the reporter to attribute David. The mention did not appear in the finished article for some reason that I do not know. In the context of getting articles published, all we can do is emphasise the importance of attributing David, insist on it even - and in the end we have little control over what gets printed.

[Wendy]

Phil asks why I did not mention David Grove in the interview for the Psychologies article.

Not only did I make it clear that David was the originator of Clean Language in the interview, but I followed this up in writing when Laura, the features writer, sent me the draft article:

On 30/10/08 17:26, "Wendy Sullivan" <wendy@cleanchange.co.uk> wrote:


Hi Laura

It looks v. good – I think you’ve done a great job with the examples you have put in! I have some suggested changes - attached. The most important change, is to the first para, last sentence: I didn’t develop Clean Language questions, David Grove did and should be credited in the article, please – see the attachment for more. And the other important change, is for ‘Clean Language’ to have capitals, please.

Many thanks for this.

Warm wishes
Wendy


My attachment, which tracked the changes that I proposed for the article, included this:

‘This sentence needs to change because it wasn’t me who developed Clean Language Qs: it was David Grove, a Counselling Psychologist, and he did it in order to work successfully with people who had suffered abuse (e.g. those with post-traumatic stress disorder), rather than to guard against arguments. It could say something like ‘Thanks to David Grove, a Counselling Psychologist, who spent years developing a set of Clean Language questions for his work with trauma victims, we now need never fall into an argument as a result of misinterpreting a murky metaphor.’ ‘
And I also capitalised every instance of ‘Clean Language’.

Laura’s reply to me said:

Hi Wendy,

Thanks for getting back to me today. I’m really glad you liked the piece. We will certainly change Clean Language to capitals and I will re-write the first paragraph. Since it is an interview with yourself, it makes more sense to focus on you in the intro – however I will make sure I change the wording so we get the facts right!

Have a lovely rest of your week.

Laura

With this assurance, I didn't guess that she would make most of the more minor changes I suggested, and fail to make the two that I highlighted as being most important.

Ah - and I should say too that she neither mentioned nor sent me the 'Clean Language toolkit' column, so I had no opportunity to correct 'What is x like?' and also didn't mention or send 'Eight tips for clean listening'.

It is very frustrating.

Wendy

[phil]

Thanks for clarifying the reason for the omission, Wendy, it seems very odd behaviour on their part, though I can understand a journalist's desire to weave a good, simple story around the facts, with not too many characters to complicate things.

I think it is worth bothering to insist on correct creditation of David Grove right from these early days in the growing awareness of Clean Language, especially as he is sadly no longer with us to stand up for his own reputation.

I have written to Psychologies magazine via their hard-to-find contacts page at http://www.psychologies.co.uk/Contact-us to complain about their omission and request a correction in the next issue. I hope others who read this will do the same thing - if enough of us have a go at them, they may even do it. Probably an address like editor@psychologies.co.uk or info@psychologies.co.uk should reach them too? Wendy, do you know a better address?

This is what I have written:

Hi

I was disappointed to read the article about Clean Language in your latest issue, entitled 'How to get anyone to tell you anything' .

While it is a more than passable stab at explaining Clean Language for a wide audience, in my view the title perfectly misses the point of working cleanly, which is to facilitate someone to model their own experience and learn from it rather than to 'get someone to tell you something'.

More important is the fact that your reporter did not credit the late creator of Clean Language, New Zealander David Grove who died suddenly on 8th January 2008.

Without David and the rigour of his development work over many year, neither Wendy Sullivan nor any of the many other trainers and facilitators who train and use Clean Language and its allied processes would have ever heard of Clean Language - as Wendy would tell you herself.

I would be grateful if you would print a correction for this omission in your next issue. If you need more information on the remarkable man who was David Grove, one good source is www.cleanlanguage.co.uk, where you could also check whether you got all the clean questions down correctly.

Thank you

Phil Swallow
Administrator
cleanforum.com

[Bartholomeus N.E. Kalsoven]

Hello everyone,
First I would like to congratulate Wendy for bringing CL to a wider audience. Perhaps the article is not as factual as she and other may have wished but CL is now enjoying an endorsement by being written about in a respected national magazine. Now that Wendy has a relationship with Laura and Psychologies Magazine she may be able to interest them in writing a piece on the life of David Grove?

Great work!
With love,
Bartholomeus

[phil]

Building up to a further, more in-depth article is a suggestion I like, Bartholomeus, if it means David getting the credit he is due. Maybe that is the journalist's intention - we haven't heard from Laura yet. Still, I do wonder why she didn't see fit to add her version of the line about David that Wendy very reasonably suggested in her follow-up email? For the extra space it might have taken, a couple of millimetres of the flashy graphics surely would not have been missed.

My guess is that, since all journalism (well, all writing in fact including this post* ) is written with an 'angle' (a desired outcome in our jargon), I assume David was not part of the angle in this article. I think that's a pity since without him there would have been no Clean Language and no article.

*My 'angle' is two-fold:

First, since Clean Language is essentially a model that has been freely lent to us all by David Grove, the very least I feel we need to insist on is that it be correctly attributed.

Second, the concept of working cleanly is often very slippery to grasp for people who are more accustomed to the concept of the coach/therapist/facilitator 'getting people to do things', as is the case in so many therapies and most of normal, everyday conversation and life generally. The title of the article seems to show how slippery the concept really is.

Like you, Bartholomeus, I applaud Wendy and Judy's initiative of getting some of the basics of clean to a wider audience, both with this article and in other ways. Hopefully they will be rewarded with more sales of their book and sign-ups to their courses.

I also think there is something in this for all of us to be aware of as David Grove's Clean Language and associated processes start to become better known, as they most certainly will.

That is, as other writers and commentators come across Clean Language, they will naturally apply their own 'map of the world' to their interpretation of it, as we all do. So it behoves all of us, we who are involved in 'spreading the news', to be clear about some central tenets that need to be stressed as being central to the 'story'.

For me, one 'sine qua non' is clear, bold, insisted-upon identification of David Grove as the creator of the Clean Language process, wherever and whenever we present or discuss the work. That's not a swipe at Wendy or Judy or even Laura, by the way - it's just me realising that this is and will remain important, to me at any rate and I am sure to others in the community.

Thanks for helping me to that realisation, all.

Phil

[Bartholomeus N.E. Kalsoven]

Hi Phil,
The world of journalism and publishing has many 'angles'. I have worked in magazine publishing for several years. Not that I can even start to guess why they didn't add the heritage of CL to the article. Heritage is important I agree with you here.

I also share your views on " the concept of the coach/therapist/facilitator 'getting people to do things' " - manipulation is a word that springs to mind.
The essence of Clean Language has to come from a clean intent (clean being), and so clean language becomes a minimum client reality intrusion space, limiting the observer effect of the facilitator.

I see that we (as in facilitators etc) are only there because of the client's need to have someone around that they rely (project) on to 'help' them. Ultimately the client is better off without any reality intrusion - facilitator to project on. As that model doesn't fit our current society we have to improve, maintain and sustain our personal clean intent and being. Now this is something I would like to see the global clean community committing to ... hey, there is my angle (:

with love,
bartholomeus

[phil]

I agree about the commitment to working cleanly. It is remarkably rare to see facilitation that stays really clean 'door-to-door' as we say.

Interesting debate around the need or otherwise for a facilitator. As a client, I think I'm a bit like a flywheel - I need some spinning up initially from outside then once I'm up to speed, I need the occasional input - in the same direction I was going - to keep up the momentum. Without it, I start to run down due to the friction of the process.

Also like a flywheel, which has gyroscopic attributes, attempts to steer me usually result in unexpected precessional effects at right angles to the steering force... That doesn't mean it isn't possible, it's just necessary to know where to push!

In fact, I think the facilitator, rather than steering, does best to point out interesting features of the emerging landscape that the flywheel then inclines towards if it chooses.

Phil

[Bartholomeus N.E. Kalsoven]

Indeed, keeping the plate spinning! Agree with the emerging landscape, right place, angles, height etc. Working cleanly is the base, the minimum requirement which can be enhanced when the facilitator is issue free, self realised and therefor non-projecting consciously and sub-consciously.
with love,
bartholomeus

[AndyNelson]

WOW

an actual discussion on clean forum, with more than 8 posts in less than a week!

I for one would like to congratulate Wendy just for achieving that.

Andy

[BobGorman]

Interesting debate around the need or otherwise for a facilitator.

Phil,
As I continue to better understand the relative importance's of client, facilitator, material, setting, language, body memories etc. in the process of growth, I found your metaphor most helpful to me.

As a client, I think I'm a bit like a flywheel - I need some spinning up initially from outside then once I'm up to speed, I need the occasional input - in the same direction I was going - to keep up the momentum. Without it, I start to run down due to the friction of the process.

My experience is similar, but slightly different. At the start of a session, I have plenty of kinetic energy, usually generated by frustrations either internal or external. But that energy is being dissipated in many different directions at once, hence accomplishing nothing, since I tend to be rather ADD. It's like starting to pedal a bicycle from a stop, or a glider being pulled off the ground. Once I get up some significant directional energy, i.e. momentum, I have less & less need for the presence of a facilitator.

I believe your phrase

"- in the same direction I was going -"

captures the essence of the differences of many models of facilitation.
"Who gets to decide on that direction?"
For many models it is the therapist/coach/facilitator, and I'll add magazine editor! Clean Language, as I've experienced it, puts the choice of direction most clearly in the hands of the client, who at some level is the only one with the keys to the current challenge.

In fact, I think the facilitator, rather than steering, does best to point out interesting features of the emerging landscape that the flywheel then inclines towards if it chooses.

This is why I love flying gliders, I get to choose which aspects of my landscape I want to further investigate.

Bob

[RueMeese]

The February edition of Psychologies magazine, on sale now, has an interview with Wendy about Clean Language. The sub-editors have given it the headline 'How to get anyone to tell you anything' and the cover line is 'How to get anyone to open up".

Which set me wondering, do you think this is one of the 'unique selling points' of Clean Language? If not, what would you identify as Clean's USP?

"How to get anyone to tell you anything" doesn't sound quite right does it, but it is telling of something. I can imagine the headline coming from the journalists first experience of being facilitated cleanly. Midway in a small voice pipes up "Oh, I didn't know I was going to tell you that".

There is something very significant around the relationship between telling and hearing that happens in clean facilitation and it is properly the subject of a different thread, but it seems to me that when it is at its best, the notion that "anyone can tell you anything" is going to be close to the client. Conversely, and to give the lie to the headline, I've found that when my demonstrations of clean bump along inelegantly, stuck in conceptual language, it is because the client/subject simply doesn't want to tell me about what is meaningful to them within that context.

So to attempt a summary I would say that one of clean's USPs is that (when matched by the attitude of the facilitator) clean makes it easier than you may have thought possible to say what you need to say.

Look forward to reading the article.

Rupert