As more people learn David Grove's Clean Language, it has been alleged that some want to take the language and not the clean, while retaining the association with the good reputation of David Grove and his Clean Language processes.

While those of us who like working cleanly may deplore this possibility, it is probably a fact of life that it is bound to happen at some stage - and more than once and probably repeatedly. The way of the world? One way, certainly.

I guess - at a stretch - it would be possible to frame it as encouraging that opportunists regard David Grove's Clean Language processes with a keen eye. Happily we too have keen eyes to look back.

Whatever actions individuals take outside the forum in response to such things, I can't see much point us all venting emotions here about it, especially not in writing (for legal reasons). Personally I would rather we spend the time constructively for the clean community. There may be many ways to do this and I welcome your initiatives to that end. Here's one from me...

Looking for ways to use the situation for learning and growth, it reoccurred to me that we really do need a more coherent and congruent description of:

  • what we mean by being clean/not-clean,
  • what's important about clean,
  • what makes our communication clean or not clean
  • and many other questions beside...

Notice I distinguish here between clean and 'Clean Language'. Clean Language has started to sound like a brand of late, inevitably so I guess. This lazy-lipped habit (IMO) that we have fallen into makes it easier for anyone using David Grove's facilitation style and processes to say they are using Clean Language, even though we might not consider the way they are doing it to be clean at all.

All language influences both the listener and the speaker* in some way. Clean Language is no exception. Is that not paradoxical - that clean involves influencing? Not at all, I think and maybe over the course of the next few weeks, more will be said on the subject.

For now though, over to you. What kind of influence is a 'clean' influence and how is that different (or not) to a non-clean influence? What defines clean? For you? For David Grove? For anyone?

What question do you want to answer about this that I haven't asked?

Phil


*or the reader and the writer