Good Morning, Doctrinists-
Progenitor Roger here. With Clark’s permission, I have crossed the Great Divide to submit a guest posting. Give the old man a day off, as it were; let him worry about other stuff for a change. I just broke the lock on the back door of the WD candy store, and now I can nick all the candy I want, and play the stereo real loud. WooHoo!! Breaking and Entering rules!
What? No candy? No store?? It’s just a literary device?? That rat bastard! I should trash the place now, but it’s already a bit of a mess in here, so now what?
All right, all right. Don’t want to have too much fun, I’ll forget why I wanted to do this.
Why did I want to do this?
Oh, right. I wanted to extrapolate on a bit that I posted yesterday over at my place, The Secessionist Rag. ( A wonderful spot, just across the river, where if there were a Candy Store sign, there would be real candy to go along with it. No digital bait-and -switch. ) And I thought that the Doctrine was a better setting for that purpose, so here I am.
Now…all literary devices aside.
My post had to do with observing a kid and his mother in a supermarket. The overall implication was that the mother was highly dysfunctional, and the scenario set off a series of chords in my memory banks that are best left unstrummed. No nice smooth V-I Bach resolutions; just b5dim9 and augmented 5ths, edgy stuff that never resolves. ( Pun intended. ) My formative years didn’t put the ‘d’ in ‘dysfunctional’, they spelled the whole damned word.
What occurred to me after having put up my post was ( and here’s where the WD context fits in ); if I’m a roger, what were my parents? Both rogers? roger-scott? Two scotts? Two clarks?
And what are yours? Should you know what you are before you can tell about them?
Would it prove to be somewhat predictable? Would a combination of a certain two always yield the same results?
And…how much would it matter in the course of anyone’s life? In other words…what the hell is the Doctrine for? Can you really use it in any applicable sense? Or is it entirely an observational tool, and inherently passive in nature?
Seems that sometimes you can, and sometimes not. In considering my own parents, there are just too many other factors in play to get a clear reading. Initially, I tend to think ‘scott/scott‘, but that only reflects the combative, contentious nature of the day-to day skirmishing. That’s not nearly the whole story; there were some peaceful periods, and also several major battle campaigns. So…I’ll be working on this for a while. Whatever this comes to, it’ ll say a lot about them, and me. A rather complex business.
Do any of you have thoughts on your parents? And how does it affect where you are now?
Of course, it doesn’t just stop there either. This whole theme led me to consider what my parents were really battling over, what anyone in this world ever really contends for…control. I will continue that thread back across the river at SecRag. Come on over and visit. Such a nice place.
Thanks, Clark. Good to be back in the hood. Later!
(…them kids been in here again!…left all the damn lights on, didn’t erase the board and left the projector going!…^$&*! )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23XQeLGNAeA
About RCoyne
Good morning and welcome back Progenitor Roger!
I would have to say that “knowing what I am” is really the only thing I need to know. Knowing what my parents were, for me, is more a curiosity thing. I don’t know that one can predict that parents of a scott/scott combo(for example) would necessarily produce scottian progeny. Oh, I suppose there may be argument(s) that like people procure like children and I suppose in some sociological paradigm mumbo jumboland this may be true. But does it matter?
“what the hell is the Doctrine for? Can you really use it in any applicable sense? Or is it entirely an observational tool, and inherently passive in nature?”
All good questions. My answer to the first is simple – to improve my own damn self. Having observed the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers up close and personal prior to the Wakefield Doctrine blog, gave me an early advantage. However I find reading this blog, the Wakefield Doctrine, a rather useful tool as a day to day reminder (validating reminder), as to my own behavioral predilictions.
Yes, yes it can be used in “an applicable sense”. Knowing if an individual is a clark, scott or roger gives one a definite advantage….wait for it….you will know how that person views the world. As you know, if one is armed with that knowledge(knowing how a person views the world), one can know how to behave in that cricumstance. In essence you will own the moment – you will in a sense “control” the moment.
(Now to this here video. Ozzie so let himself go but I am glad he was able to leave the walker stage left.)
lol I had thoughts along those lines ( olden Ozzie) and my first reaction was a little ‘Ed Sullivan-ish” but then I thought, hey the guy still got the voice, the energy and does not appear to be on stage under duress.
So look at the eyes and tell me he in not a scott…
Always the “crazy” eyes with them there scotts.
His life manager, Sharon – she is? Have not seen enough of her to know. (scottian women more often than not have rogerian men, but what of those scottian men. who do they gravitate towards more?)
Interesting take, Rogerish One. My dad, a clark. Weird, distracted, in his his own head all the time. Seemingly oblivious to my mother’s relentless bitching–except a mild sense of being a bit nervous when she really acted up–but always able to quickly return to “baseline”. Mother–a twisted scott. Demanding, overbearing, snappy, unpredictable. Like a low level unfulfilled scott. Had dominance needs but no true ability to dominate, so always frustrated. I often catch myself engaging in some behavior and then noticing that I am acting like her. Usually a disturbing realization. But my dad was and is essentially a blank slate to me. I wouldn’t know what to emulate–seems like nothing is there. Did this dynamic affect my developing into a scott? Probably–at least to some extent. I saw who had the power–and I concluded that having power is better than not having it. For me. Someone else might see that my dad had perfected a foolproof way to stay pretty much unruffled all of the time–no matter what provocation was hurled his way. That too is a pretty good power..Hmm. Was he simply doing what clarks do? Or did it take him time to develop these traits to protect himself in a seemingly impossible marriage to a seemingly impossible woman? Or–could we call this adaptation a kind of pathological denial? Even as a child, I knew my mother’s behavior was utterly wrong and crazy–but he would never validate that. Was this an abdication of his responsibility? You’ve raised many questions here Roger. The doctrine tells me that each was only doing the only thing(s) they COULD do as a scott and a clark. And, I adapted in the only way I could–as a scott. One vow I distinctly remember making making as a child is that I would never allow myself to be dominated by anyone the way my dad was dominated by my mother. I think I have kept that vow…I think.
Wow.Wowow.
Thank you for these tremendous responses.
There is enough material here for dozens of posts.
Should we? Could we? Write these posts? Dozens of posts? Not dozens, surely, but more than most?
…agreed (material for more Posts)…challenge is to organise them so that there is some continuity (to the discussion as it relates to the Doctrine overall) ( yo).
R. you did recognise the photo?
g. you make several good points, both as exposition (of the scottian personality) and tying same to the “theory of clarks, scotts and rogers”
I will respond to 2 of the points that you made in your Comment: a) your father was not necessarily protecting himself (from the onslaught of your mother), but his demeanor is/was the result of being busy. Busy with matters not that readily apparent to your mother. This pre-occupation does, as you rightly conclude, act as insulation, but that is a side effect not his primary mental state. (also as is well established, the clark-scott dynamic is one of mutual independency, neither needs the other, both get something from the other)
and b) as a young clark, I too made a vow to myself. I vowed to stop being ticklish. Needless to say, I succeeded.
What I am “hearing” (here) is the ability to clarify one’s personal familial history within the context of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. And it all makes sense. Now what? Are we better for it? Does it/can it improve our lives in any way? Can it really be constructively used anywhere, in any situation? Will anyone other than a clark answer yes to these questions?
btw, intentionally threw a scottian female co-worker off balance yesterday by tossing her a juicy compliment soon upon my arrival at work. interesting. actually made her blush. this from a female whose favorite adjective is “fuck” and any derivative thereof. didn’t think it was possible to make her feel self-conscious. but I did. hm, the Doctrine at work…..
In closing, because it is approaching pumpkin time, let me just say that this shit is spot on.
Ye, I do recognize it. Thought it was a Cezanne watercolor at first. Memory lane…just a touch on the creepy side.
My parents? Well, my younger brother is a Clark, my wife is a Clark and my parents? One a Clark, I guess, the other a Scott (In sheep’s clothing) suspect Dad of being more of a Roger.
Me? I MUST have been a mistake. My brother is SOOO passive and peaceful, and I am just the opposite. Yet, HE was the mistake, as told by my parents.
Little did they know, they were raising a true Roger, one who (to this day) is dying in the wool (pun intended) pure Rogerian-style attitude, with some extra rebellion to boot.