Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of knowing about the world, having a drive to act and not react and feeling the emotions that tie us all together)
Those ‘2nd Gen’ Readers are at it again! Writing Comments and such that makes us stop and think, “jeez, I hadn’t thought of it quite that way! What the hell?!?”
I’ll let you in on a little secret about the writing of this here Blog here, on the condition that you hold your final assessment until the Wakefield Doctrine book shows up in the bookstores.1 2 3 4
…lets go to the Comments:
“...Yup, still a roger (at least when I worked and it was indeed Causal Friday), lol!!” ( Janine )
“...of those on the list. When it comes to my worldview, as it relates to casual Friday, I’m a roger, too. Great post” ( Cari )
“…And just what, exactly, is not causal about a 1940′s style suit? Complete with the little hat?
Jeans are for getting dirty in and logos only belong on free things, like the Wrangler t-shirt I am wearing right now — you know, the one that is covered with paint from numerous projects, including today’s.
You know, even though I do get the ‘roger’ thing of dressing the part to play the part, it cracks me up to see it in motion. This last week, our Tae Kwon Do uniforms came in, and my youngest — a full fledged roger — was finally happy to participate in the classes.
How he looked had a huge impact on how he felt about his ability (and he is only five).” ( Molly )“…So wait…clarks are the over-dressed with suits? …but what about the crunchy clarks? You know, the ones who love fleece and jeans and hiking boots? I can tell you, I love all three and would regularly wear them to my teaching job. :) Now, that I work at home, I actually like the jeans and fleece, still, but also like leggings and layers and knit hats.
Oh crap…I just realized I’m over dressed to be working at home. Crap.” ( Cyndi )“…As far as casual Fridays go, I think I’m a mix between Rogers and a little bit of Clark. I often found myself dressing up on Fridays, while the rest of the office dressed down. Then other days I’d be comfy and casual.” (Melanie )
Very good questionifying!
For a response, let me coagulate my individual responses and see if I can’t get out of here this morning without being late to my book meeting!
“… the trick is not what you wear but what the reason you give yourself for a particular choice! Having said that, even that is not what we are meaning to say; sure you can know what you think your reasons are for choosing one set of clothes over the other, where the Wakefield Doctrine really gets useful is when you can infer, from what you think your reasons are (for the choices) just what the nature of the reality that you are living in, the character of your worldview!
The example of the clarklike female in the 1940′s business attire is not that she is putting on airs, but by the weird underwear (or tattoos or jewelry), she is demonstrating that no matter how ‘appropriate the fashion’ how ‘in style she might appear’ she is still playing ‘dress up’.
In a sense, all clarks play dress up! It shows in the small ways that hint that we are laughing at ourselves, even as we make a serious effort to be ‘like the real people’oh yeah, does anyone want to tell Cyndi about shoes and female clarks?”
OK..time for work in the ‘real’ ‘world’.
Saturday Night Drive tonight! take a walk on the child side, call us up on the telephone! 1-218-339-0422 access code: 512103 #
1) sometimes I’ll write with only the barest, slimmest piece of an idea, a scenario meant to illustrate the principles of the Doctrine…without knowing what exactly I am going to say. Worse, I will start with a random life-situation and stick it in the Post, only to realize that I need to write the whole explanation! Lets just say, I write my way out of it and let it go at that!
2) what do you mean there are no more Bookstores?!
3) no Title yet, a collaborative effort with a person who is in the therapy/human services field, the book will be geared to the ‘professional practionair market’
4) that is all I can say…for now!
About clarkscottroger
If I had more spending money, I admit, I’d probably own more pairs of shoes. I do like shoes. I admit it. Mostly hiking boots, low-hikers, and riding boots. LOL. Ya got me there. Dang it. ;)
Did someone say shoes??? Tell me about Clarks and shoes please! Is it that we can’t have enough? I had a crisis yesterday as I was getting dressed…jeans and fleece and I wanted to wear black leather boots, but they really didn’t go well, so I had to wear hiking shoes instead to make my comfortable/sloppy look complete. I wasted far too much time working this out and deciding if I should change out of the fleece to match the boots or out of the boots to match the fleece.
And then I got irritated that I wasted the time on how I looked because really, who was going to see me anyway?
Clothes…meh who cares as long as I’m covered up. The best part of working at home is that I can do it in a tee shirt and boxers!
Did someone say “shoes and female clarks?”
Don’t get me going on that one!! For newer readers – choice in footwear is one of several barometers by which you can identify clarklike females. Hint: it is not soley (pun intended) about the footwear. It is also about the pairing (again, intended) of footwear with an outfit/ensemble.
But then it’s not really about that either, is it? The Doctrine is about understanding a person’s behavior based on their interpretation of the world around them. That is to say their personal reality, the world they wake up to every day. The world a clark wakes up to every day is not the same one that scotts and rogers find themselves awakening to each day.
Damn, Saturday morning is not always the best time for trying to express complex thought. Better go grab the cereal box and try again later…..
I still have some thoughts lingering from yesterday’s post – RE: “business suit (with a touch of the 1940s)”.
As a clarklike female who enjoys vintage clothing shops (I have a lovely, beautifully lined black cape with velvet collar upon which I pinned a very old cameo brooch –this is my “opera coat”) the decision to wear a 1940′s suit on business casual Friday would stem from: 1) mood, 2) acknowledgement that this was a perfect opportunity to wear the suit and 3) why, the heck not? LOL
clarklike females’ choice of clothing is the outward expression of that which is internal. Clothing is simply one more way to express an aspect of our creative selves. (Not that we necessarily do it consciously) It is imperative that clarks be able to express their creativity (outwardly) whether it is through clothing, an artistic endeavor, music……
Because clarks are the “outsiders”, the typical, so called “normal” societal expectations/rules, do not have the same effect on/for us.
I’m in pajamas…and I realize – lots of the time too! I must be a Peter or something today? Lol
@Kelly
lol Don’t tempt me now! You keep that up and I may have to write a Post on the characteristic choices of sleepwear according to whether you are a clark or a scott or a roger! (sorry, no such personality type as a Peter*)
*yes, astute Readers and DownSprings, that was a freebie for any scotts reading this here Post here…
I am with Cyndi if I had more money and time I would definitely own more shoes, clothes, handbags, and so much more, lol!! No seriously sometimes I do miss my nice clothes, but then I remember how truly comfortable I am right now :) :)
@Janine
There is comfort and there is comfort, just as there is a variety of business clothes, designer clothes, high fashion clothes, casual clothes… the Doctrine suggests that not only can the choices (of the individual) be anticipated according to their personality type, but of more ‘value’ is that one can infer from (one’s) attitude towards and taste in clothing the character of the reality that they exist in!
Why? is it of value? ’cause that is the starting point necessary to make use of the potential for true self-development that is inherent in the Wakefield Doctrine.
Dress up shmess up… all of you clarks and your damn shoes and what not.
I prefer that the eyes go further up than my shoes if you know what I mean.