Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Hey, before we get to the reprint. (Which we’re looking forward to, as it has a lesser-seen movie illustration of the personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine. Specifically, a roger and a scott. Forgot how cool this one was. Now… where the hell is the door outa this parenthesisisis?!)
Before we do that…
whew!
Advanced students, (and ambitiously-confident New Readers*), here’s an interesting thing: the misspelled title? It’s because we turned off the spellchek**. We turned off the spellchuck*** because it was autocorrecting improperly. I thought about digging into the WP dashboard and fixing it but, it was easier to turn it off.
…and endure the consequences. (Don’t even ask us about childhood experiences with dentists. It’s exactly like this instance. Except instead of the intimidation of messing with the inner workings of the blog, there were giant needles. And, instead of constant re-typing of common words, there were six-year-old dental nerve endings.)
Where were we?
oh, yeah! Reprint!
Excellent one this Tuesday. Classic scott in Jack and James Spader? Nothing less than poster boy of the Herd it’s ownself.
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Alert Reader Denise writes:
“…Doctrine! It has provided me with much insight into rogers. In a nutshell: they will always be the ones to say no. They will do nothing to disturb the boundaries, the lines that frame their world. clarks need to take notice of this. The sooner the better. I leave it in your hands, Clark, to explain to new readership the why. Maybe you need to write the answer in the form of a post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And since we are talking about rogers**
Our Friend Zoe says to us in a Comment, she says:
“… my new roger is settling in to his new environment a bit too well… coveting my office…I loan my office out readily without reservation, but he made it very clear by saying ” I want that office… when are you leaving?” and has left telltale signs of his usage… I may have a rogerian twist and be a clark at heart… but never piss off my scott.”
Sorry. The ‘damage’ is done.
Not to ‘baby-coat’1 our assessment, but you are witnessing a roger challenging your membership in the herd. How is that possible, you ask? The frickin guy got there 20 minutes ago and he thinks that he can include himself in the group? ( you say with not a little emotion). What gives him the right to try that? If you are in possession of any of these thoughts, I hate to tell ya, but you have just painted yourself a lovely shade of blue2. It is totally ‘too late’.
Not ‘too late’ to make things right, restore the proper balance, achieve an understanding among the players in this little drama…. just ‘too late’ to avoid a ‘conflict’ with the roger in your environment.
If he had perceived you as another roger or a scott he would have:
- presented his credentials, not to meet your approval but to allow him to ‘tune himself to the herd’ (you know how the sound of cattle and herds of cows are often presented as a single ‘MOO’ ? well, I think our Progenitor roger will attest to the fact that what is heard as a single MOO is, in fact, comprised as a harmony among the members… your roger probably started with presenting some of his history to everyone he came into contact with…to hear the pitch of his new herd)
- presented his ‘soft-underbelly’ if he thought you were a scott (at least, a predominant scottian female)… but this observation is moot, because in that particular tango, the woman leads… (at least initially and to the extent that the average person is able to see
So… now you have yourself a roger feeling like he can enhance his standing in the herd by making you appear more and more the Outsider. Remember, a dominance move by a roger, in contrast to that of a scott is never made ‘alone’. While he may appear to be addressing the matter of use of the office space to you directly, most of his efforts are actually directed to the others in your environment. rogers always work in the context of the group, the herd. It is this ‘contexting’ that rogers will base their strategy on, that and, be on the lookout for (him) invoking referential authority. ( Hey, I know you love your space..I respect that, but we were talking about how, with the practice growing we all need to work together more…”)
All kidding aside. you now have a problem that, interestingly enough, can be seen as a manifestation of the trap that would appear to an inherent aspect of the desire for self-improving oneself. You rightly know that you can ‘over-come’ this person’s attempt to reduce the quality of your personal work environment. But at what price? The Doctrine states that we all retain access to those two worldviews that are not our predominant worldview. In your case, (we hear you say), ‘ a clark with secondary rogerian and tertiary scottian aspects’. but…. but! here is where the conflict begins to manifest. (If) you are a clark, then your personal reality is that of the Outsider…which makes perfect sense given your situation. You can access your scottian aspect and inter-act with this roger as would a scott, and as we have already said, if this were a scott-on-roger thing, none of the the above would be happening. So, you can dominate the roger rather decidedly. But then what? Will you trade your predominant (clarklike) worldview for a victory in a single circumstance? Or… is there a way to reach an understanding with this person? unfortunately, the Wakefield Doctrine says ‘no’.
Well, sorta. We’re playing with the words now. clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. So, if you want to reach an understanding, you are out of luck. That is not to say that there is nothing you can do, but it should not be thought of as an understanding.
Lets return to a strategy we have previously offered: ‘love your roger‘ This is still the preferred strategy, but it will require a bit more….finessing. Yes, you should ‘love your roger‘, but that does not mean (as is all too often the case with clarks), you must allow him to do as he wishes. But, to love your roger requires that you relate to him on an emotional basis… more than that! you must regard him on an emotional basis. We’re using italics here to convey the idea that, if you are able to know him completely on an emotional basis you will be relating to him as a member of the herd. That’s right! trade that lovely azure coat for a comforting wrap of brown and white spots!
(will continue later today…. )
Wait a minute!! If you haven’t seen it yet, watch the scott and roger…. everything is right there. (the roger looking to left and right for the herd that is his context, his invoking referential authority, his offering of emotional currency…his love).
1) a rogerian expression of sorts… a fascinating characteristic use of language found only in rogers…here, go to the page on rogers down towards the bottom
2) a reference to the description of a clark in the context of a group, or perhaps it would be more realistic to say, ‘a clark in contrast to a group’. In any event, the term ‘blue monkey’ is a remnant of grad school days when we learned of, (or came to believe that we learned of), an experiment in which one young monkey was painted, (more likely dyed), blue and returned to his troop. You can imagine the result. In the Wakefield Doctrine we use the blue monkey image several ways, as a symbol of the innate outsider-ness that clarks exhibit when in a social setting, and it is also used to refer to (a) clarks self-sabotaging by make an extra effort to ‘contrast their differences’.
* which, finally, here in the world of the Wakefield Doctrine, clarks step up into a leadership role… we’ll until, that is, the Herd begins to re-orientate itself, an amoeba with a million faces, propelled by the inexorable power of curling lips, on a body and then, well, lets hope the clark in question has a sufficiently significant secondary scottian aspect
** take that! you supercilious (don’t think about the root of that word…ewww) nanny sub-routine
*** hah!
