Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
You knew this wasn’t going to be a simple, conventional, easy to ‘get’ approach to understanding the behavior of the people in our lives, didn’t you?
To recapitulate briefly:
the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we live our lives in one of three worldviews (personal realities). That what others refer to as personality types are, in actuality, reflections of our efforts to contend with the world as we relate ourselves to it. Further, the Doctrine would allow that, if we correctly infer which (of these three worldviews) the other person is experiencing, we will know more about them than they know about themselves. The Wakefield Doctrine is intended to be used as a tool to aid us in these efforts, meant as a perspective (on) the lives and behavior of the people around us that, correctly employed will lead to a greater understanding of why people do the things that they do. Unlike most other personality systems and ‘theories’, the Wakefield Doctrine offers nothing that you can directly impart to another person. Your use of the Doctrine can only lead to a better understanding of the other person, the Wakefield Doctrine will not serve you in any efforts to: convince another person to act differently, treat you better, stop that annoying habit, know you for what you really are, quit smoking, have more frequent sex, show the world the side that you know is there, get ‘A’s, eat less, lose weight, get a better job and, finally start helping around the house. The Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them.
If you learn and apply the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine to your own life, then you will be in a position to not just improve your life and circumstances. You will be able to improve yourself. As a person. A person who must interact and deal with people who: you work for, who work for you, those you love and those you would love, those you hate and those you would rather not be distracted by, family, friends, the man in the car at the gas pump ahead of you and the girl who delivers the mail. They are all a part of your world today and that is what the Wakefield Doctrine is intended to be used on. And….and! the best thing about using the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool in your efforts to self-improve yourself is: you do not have to do anything that you are not capable of all along.
So, first step: read up on the worldview of the Outsider (clarks) and the Predator (scotts) and the Herd Members (rogers), now what? Now, the fun. Observe the people in your life. Fact of the matter, if you are still reading, it is a pretty safe bet that you get a kick out of ‘people watching’. Pay special attention to interactions between people. Find one person in your daily life and start with them. You have three personality types to choose from… go ahead and throw out the one you know they are not!… ok! now keeping the characteristics of the 2 remaining worldviews in mind, which seems to be more consistent with the behavior of the person. Don’t worry about getting the answer fast…they are not going to change their worldview. The more you observe them, the simpler the choice will be, no… the more inevitable the choice will be! This is the fun part. Put yourself in their head…go ahead, they won’t know!
- does the person seem distant…un-emotional when they should be emotional, emotional when they should not be, do they seem to shy away from attention, do they mumble when you know they are quite capable of speaking clearly, does their fashion sense seem a bit… conflicted? boots and mini-shirts…too much jewelry, is their posture really poor, are they funny in a quiet surprising way?
- no way! they are quick and seem to be everywhere but they won’t know what you are doing, relax…do they seem to probe and challenge constantly? are they funny and aggravating and do they always seem to push it just a little too far? when you imagine ‘being them’ do you feel envious and then excited but at the same time, glad that you are not them?
- always have an answer…not in the form of new information, in the form of ‘the last word’, very comfortable to talk to, seem to always be listening, attentive without any curiosity, do they seem to be looking for the right way to act when regarding others or the wrong way to act when others are the center of attention, they nurture without warmth, are seductive without excitement
That should be enough for Part 2.
1) Anti-mimesis is a philosophical position that holds the direct opposite of Aristotelian mimesis. Its most notable proponent is Oscar Wilde, who opined in his 1889 essay The Decay of Lying that, “Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life”.
The philosophy holds that art sets the aesthetic principles by which people perceive life, and does not imitate life. What is found in life and nature is not what is really there, but is that which artists have taught people to find there, through art.
Halliwell asserts that the notion that life imitates art derives from classical notions that can be traced as far back as the writings of Aristophanes of Byzantium, and does not negate mimesis but rather “displace[s] its purpose onto the artlike fashioning of life itself”.
In George Bernard Shaw‘s preface to Three Plays he wrote, “I have noticed that when a certain type of feature appears in painting and is admired as beautiful, it presently becomes common in nature; so that the Beatrices and Francescas in the picture galleries of one generation come to life as the parlor-maids and waitresses of the next.” …His…understanding that “the real world does not exist…men and women are made by their own fancies in the image of the imaginary creatures in my youthful fictions, only much stupider.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imitating_art)
About clarkscottroger
You just described me in the first part. You know, I wasn’t quite sure if my orange shirt/multicolor orange scarf, black hat, dark wool skirt, black boots and Cherokee earrings were what I totally wanted in that outfit the other day. HAHAHA
Cyndi
I think I need to do a Post on clarklike fashion! (Couture de clark Fall Fashion Line from the House of Androgeny)
I will be asking for input from clarklike females (clark male-types will stay relatively un-customized…just as occasion inappropriate as possible. For example, 1969 college bell-bottom pants and fringe jackets (“oh man, your fringe is like so long!”)… I believe my favorite clothes was a 3 piece suit (affectionately referred to as ‘my suit of lights’) with wingtip shoes. But clarklike female fashion! there is the place of creativity.
(more to follow)
I would like to offer support, but I assume my usual outfit is quite rogerian (jeans and a mute-colored shirt, anyone??). Not too happy with that style though. I’d rather go with the orange, black, and Cherokee earrings ;-)
Stephanie
hold that thought! While I may lack the ‘technical terms’ when discussing fashion, I am confident in the matter of the ‘underlying rationale’ for (choice in clothing, aka fashion). This would be a good place to remind Readers of one of the most helpful guides/tips for using learning this Doctrine, and that is the ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’. This is meant to remind us that we are not out to discover: scottian fashion or clarklike jobs or rogerian relationship strategies, rather we are interested in ‘how does this manifest to a clark, a scott or a roger’ (I will be using the term ‘fashion’ to denote: an individual’s choice in dress, where the choice is entirely up to the individual). Fashion to a clark fashion to a scott and fashion to a roger. The easy one first! lol rogers are the most fashionable, if by that word we mean, ‘what is currently viewed by members of the appropriate demographic to be ‘in’ mainstream acceptance is the key, as the rogerian female will naturally look to conform to the herd. scottian females? lol can you say ‘aggressive’? ( I would submit that while most cultures allow the male scotts a healthy range of behavior by which to express (and exert) their natural aggressiveness, females (in most cultures) are not similarly encouraged. that’s why god invented stiletto heels and plunging necklines (lol) and finally clarklike females: creative with a healthy does of ambiguity combined with a certain aggressive flair.
(Note: no, it is not surprising if you do not fit one of these exactly, to a tee (shirt) that’s why we have secondary and tertiary aspects. What I will say is that, if you look within and view each of the ‘ways to relate yourself to the world around you that fashion represents then one (of these three) will resonate stronger with you than the other two.)
…yes, this is just a quick reply. but here at the Wakefield Doctrine you can never tell when we might break out into a Post length Comment lol
I so agree on the “Life imitates Art”. I mean, simply look at the girls at fashion shows. They have to model themselves to become part of the artwork of the designer. And suddenly, the starved look is the new “beautiful”, even though it’s mostly neither natural nor healthy. Still, way too many women strive for that unrealistic “beauty” dictated by art.
clarklike females wear their worldview on their sleeve? LOL
No, not really. We clarklike females manifest aspects of our creativity via how we dress, adorn and accessorize ourselves. Manifesting on the outside what is on the inside? LOL Not quite so literal:).
Not hindered by pressures of the herd in this regard (unless it’s an older sister screaming “why do you have to dress so weird!”) clarklike females don’t think twice about putting in the 5th earring or wearing the leather biker jacket with that lovely below the knee skirt with the slit up the side (the better to see the lace leggings). Throw on the Docs and you have a lovely mix of aggressive sexuality that is rather, what was the adjective from yesterday, “nice”.
(Dr. Marten) Boots are to clarklike females as
(Manolo Blahnik) Stillettos are to scottian females as
(who in the world makes them?!) Penny loafers are to rogerian women.
Denise
I agree… but there is no escaping your worldview, after all it is your reality. your last paragraph states it all… the question is twofold(one part useful, the other not so much): a) can you learn the Doctrine well enough to (correctly) identify one’s worldview on the basis of what they are wearing and 2) can you acquire the fashion sense of the other two.
Yes. There is more to appearance than mere apparel. Knowing the Doctrine would enhance one’s interpretation of the individual in question. I like the holistic approach:)
Yes. But therein lies the challenge. In order to convincingly pass as one of the other “2” I would have to be able to view/experience the world as either my 2ndary or tertiary aspect. An enormous challenge for some of us but not impossible!
Denise
you are correct and thus should form the focal point of Part 3!
Are we also to make the argument that Halloween is a rogerian holiday? I mean, I would think it would have originally been the holiday for clarks, but the rogers have taken it to the extreme and made it their own. Ironically, this might be the ONE day where I don’t usually do the costume, actually. lol
Cyndi
Exactly
…organized Halloween Parties? rogers! wear secret clothes to work on the day…clarks!
HAHAHA. I was like the ONLY teacher who didn’t wear a costume. HAHAHAHA. My excuse? I was only teaching for a couple hours today. So, I wore black and orange. I’ll be Spiderella on Day of the Dead (you know, the Mexican holiday…)
Cyndi
yeah… besides, the rogers all go for the store-bought costumes…guaranteed recognizable!