Shakespeare's observation that 'all the world's a stage' is a cliche that has never been more true, and more confusing than nowadays where we have the ability to create and animate a multiplicity of identities via electronic media, as well as social circles in which we move. Through such channels we can show up in a variety of ways, and furthermore we can objectify our own identity in ever increasing aspects, having it reflected back to us whenever we access our various accounts.
Generally speaking, we want to create a positive image through such identities, one that encourages people to 'follow' us or gets us the kind of attention that could potentially turn into profit or at least, a favourable social profile.
But what about when we actually show up in person? Because when this happens, there's no getting away from the reality of who we are in the world. Of course we can fool some of the people some of the time, and so on, but not for too long, especially when those people are more experienced, more knowledgeable and more perceptive than we are. By definition of course, if you want to develop your career, you'll need to impress exactly these sort of people, and these sort of people will most certainly notice how you show up, when you show up.
Of course, how you show up depends on who you are showing up for, what the circumstances are and so on. How you show up on your first day of work at a company will almost certainly be quite different from your 1000th day at the same company. How you show up when you meet your friends for a few drinks will obviously be different from how you show up at a job interview. But not too different. There will be some considerable overlap otherwise we're looking at authenticity issues here!
An actor tries to convince an audience that they are actually the person in the role they are playing and through the magic of our brains being able to 'suspend disbelief' we are able to buy into that illusion, provided the acting itself is sufficiently convincing and not unnatural or inconsistent.The same can be said in real life, except in real life we have to actually become the part we are playing, in varying degrees for varying lengths of time.
So the question is: how DO you show up? Yes YOU! Or, to put it another way:
Do you show up as a possibility?
Are you showing up as someone that gets things done, that facilitates, that contributes, strengthens, focuses and engages? Or do you show up as someone that creates a burden, gets in the way, creates discord, distracts, slows things down, is needy, calculating or egocentric?
Of course we all think we know how we are being, but unfortunately it is not so simple, not by a long shot. When it comes to engagement and communication, there are tremendous blind spots that may be glaringly obvious to others. One way to get feedback of course is to look at the results you are getting. Do people respond to you positively?Or do you consistently get reactions that you didn't expect, or which seem 'unfair' to you? If the latter is the case, it may be that the way you are showing up and the way you see yourself are not in alignment. Our biggest problem is the ego. We may convince ourselves that we are just right for the part, but unlike actors on the stage, few of us have a director or producer to guide and coach us as we play each scene (experienced actors may not need, or think they need such guidance).
Another way to know more about how you show up is to ask for feedback, or get training, coaching or mentoring. If we can deal with the sometimes painful truth that constitutes the deficit between how we see ourselves and how the world sees us, then we are well on our way to getting places we want to go.
For a free training video on 'Showing Up' visit my You Tube channel at the following link
Showing Up
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Wednesday, 14 October 2015
Roger Waters and The Scary Potential of Professionalism
When Pink Floyd first released The Wall in 1979 it drew a lot of criticism from some of the more radical critics of the time for being 'self-indulgent' grammar school angst, and so on at a time when progressive rock was seen as not politically correct, to say the least!Needless to say, while The Wall has now become established as a major achievement in rock history, the critics that hated it have been all but forgotten. In the new film release of The Wall performed live by Roger Waters and his band, we get a superb demonstration of how professionalism can push creative ventures way beyond expected levels of satisfaction into truly remarkable territory.
Heroes and performers can disappoint of course. The sports stars that fail to turn in a world class showing on the day that it matters are a good example.But professionalism when taken to its height can result in a level of consistency that almost defies belief. The Wall starts with a dramatic crescendo and builds from there, in a display of audacity and imagination on a scale very few artists can contemplate. As the concert progresses, interspersed with the narrative of Waters himself driving down to southern Italy to discover his father's war memorial, one wonders how such a down-to-earth seeming guy could pull off such a spectacle. Back in the stadium, the imagery becomes more potent, symbols overlaying symbols as we are taken further into the existential battle zone of Pink, the rock star protagonist's tortured world. Grandiose, yes. Subtle, no! Just when you think things can't get any more intense, we are taken to a new level. Waters clearly having the time of his life while turning in a performance of measured perfection.
Should we care about the fate of a successful rock star that has made a mess of his life? The Wall as a symbol takes us deeper, as Liam Neeson points out in the tribute/ introduction to this spectacle. For him, it represents the barrier he built between himself and the world, freezing out the possibility of a meaningful connection with existence. The Wall is an inner wall that we build as protection from a threatening and unmanageable world, between what we see as our vulnerable selves and a world that we must at all costs keep excluded. When seen in this way, Water's exaggerated characters, including the protagonist, fall into place as archetypal rather than specific. At the same time, the connection with Water's own circumstances are made ambiguous by the parallel story line, the loss of father and grandfather in two world wars and his obsession with wartime imagery.
The concert finale of The Trial brings us the magnificent animations of Gerald Scarfe's wife, mother and judge projected in monstrous proportions on a wall that covers the entire stage. Waters holds his nerve flawlessly to the end with the excellent back up musicians going with him the whole distance.
If you haven't acquainted yourself with the phenomenon that is Roger Water's The Wall, this new release is the perfect opportunity. War, loss, Oedipus, isolation, mental disintegration, neo-fascism, drug addiction, oppression, dictators, despair. It's all here. What more could you ask for?
Heroes and performers can disappoint of course. The sports stars that fail to turn in a world class showing on the day that it matters are a good example.But professionalism when taken to its height can result in a level of consistency that almost defies belief. The Wall starts with a dramatic crescendo and builds from there, in a display of audacity and imagination on a scale very few artists can contemplate. As the concert progresses, interspersed with the narrative of Waters himself driving down to southern Italy to discover his father's war memorial, one wonders how such a down-to-earth seeming guy could pull off such a spectacle. Back in the stadium, the imagery becomes more potent, symbols overlaying symbols as we are taken further into the existential battle zone of Pink, the rock star protagonist's tortured world. Grandiose, yes. Subtle, no! Just when you think things can't get any more intense, we are taken to a new level. Waters clearly having the time of his life while turning in a performance of measured perfection.
Should we care about the fate of a successful rock star that has made a mess of his life? The Wall as a symbol takes us deeper, as Liam Neeson points out in the tribute/ introduction to this spectacle. For him, it represents the barrier he built between himself and the world, freezing out the possibility of a meaningful connection with existence. The Wall is an inner wall that we build as protection from a threatening and unmanageable world, between what we see as our vulnerable selves and a world that we must at all costs keep excluded. When seen in this way, Water's exaggerated characters, including the protagonist, fall into place as archetypal rather than specific. At the same time, the connection with Water's own circumstances are made ambiguous by the parallel story line, the loss of father and grandfather in two world wars and his obsession with wartime imagery.
The concert finale of The Trial brings us the magnificent animations of Gerald Scarfe's wife, mother and judge projected in monstrous proportions on a wall that covers the entire stage. Waters holds his nerve flawlessly to the end with the excellent back up musicians going with him the whole distance.
If you haven't acquainted yourself with the phenomenon that is Roger Water's The Wall, this new release is the perfect opportunity. War, loss, Oedipus, isolation, mental disintegration, neo-fascism, drug addiction, oppression, dictators, despair. It's all here. What more could you ask for?
Tuesday, 6 October 2015
Rihanna comes out for the gentleman!
Respect to Rihanna for her recent statements on men. In an interview with the Evening Standard she describes her personal malaise in the area of relationships with guys, and wonders despairingly why they/we are not gentlemen anymore. "They think that...." she says, "if you take a chair out for a lady, or you're nice or even affectionate to your girl in front of your boys, you're less of a man. It's so sick. They won't be a gentleman because that makes them appear soft."
Leaving aside the discussion as to whether Rihanna is actually 'a lady', she does make a significant point which, when we follow its train of thought seems to lead us into a quagmire of gender-based contradictions.
Young men, like young women, are at the receiving end of a tidal wave of images that suggest, if not actually dictate, the way they should 'be' and what is acceptable, desirable and undesirable for a man to strive for in these times. One of the first to be accused and held responsible must surely be the Hollywood film industry which produces extremely potent role models and stories that undoubtedly leave a hefty imprint on the collective psyche. If we look at those Hollywood heroes we see that, since the time of the first Rocky movies, the male blueprint laid down by the industry has become increasingly tough, macho, pumped up, violent etc. Hugh Jackman, for example does not strike one as much of a book-reading man of sophistication. We also note that unmasculine men are often portrayed as suspicious and untrustworthy in these genres. There are exceptions of course, but on the whole it is muscle that seems to win out as the number one quality for a man to possess, just like for women it is a slim waistline and an inflatable chest. Englishmen are usually portrayed as villains with suspect sexual tendencies in the Hollywood genre too, which further compounds the suggestion that sophistication in a man is not to be pursued.
Such stereotypes are swallowed whole, and to some extent we participate in their propagation when we pay to see such movies. Young guys get the message that ruggedness, not sensitivity is to be cultivated. Male rap stars write ludicrous lyrics that are insulting to women and carry violent implications. Such 'music' is pumped across the globe, the rap stars are seen to become conspicuously wealthy and then we wonder why our young men are growing up with misogynist tendencies! We can begin to see how crazy and out-of-whack the whole picture actually is.
In the 1970's things were different. The cult of the hippy made it cool for men to show their sensitivity towards nature and to openly express their spiritual leanings, but all that changed in the 80's when inner searching gave way to materialism and it's attendant hubris. To display one's wealth rather than one's earth-consciousness became the preferred magnet for female attention, and of course most women participated (and still participate) in this by declaring themselves 'material girls'. Repulsed by male arrogance and violent tendencies, many women continue to hold out an immature longing for the strong armed hero to sweep them off their feet. But if brutishness is what you want, brutishness is what you will get, especially if you are a beautiful woman!
To further complicate matters there is the argument that women are actually far more attracted to husky-voiced hunks than they are to men of learning and sensitivity. After all, we're talking polar attraction here, aren't we? If men and women become more like each other, won't we lose the polarity that makes.....well, the world go round? Possibly not. Surely we have come further than such primitive imperatives would suggest and must affirm a more refined definition of positive gender identity.
Rihanna's statement that she's holding out for a gentleman rather than a hero is a positive and sensible one from an unexpected quarter. Let's hope that more prominent females have the good sense to lead men away from dysfunctional role templates and towards a more mature aspiration, even if it does sound a bit old fashioned.
Leaving aside the discussion as to whether Rihanna is actually 'a lady', she does make a significant point which, when we follow its train of thought seems to lead us into a quagmire of gender-based contradictions.
Young men, like young women, are at the receiving end of a tidal wave of images that suggest, if not actually dictate, the way they should 'be' and what is acceptable, desirable and undesirable for a man to strive for in these times. One of the first to be accused and held responsible must surely be the Hollywood film industry which produces extremely potent role models and stories that undoubtedly leave a hefty imprint on the collective psyche. If we look at those Hollywood heroes we see that, since the time of the first Rocky movies, the male blueprint laid down by the industry has become increasingly tough, macho, pumped up, violent etc. Hugh Jackman, for example does not strike one as much of a book-reading man of sophistication. We also note that unmasculine men are often portrayed as suspicious and untrustworthy in these genres. There are exceptions of course, but on the whole it is muscle that seems to win out as the number one quality for a man to possess, just like for women it is a slim waistline and an inflatable chest. Englishmen are usually portrayed as villains with suspect sexual tendencies in the Hollywood genre too, which further compounds the suggestion that sophistication in a man is not to be pursued.
Such stereotypes are swallowed whole, and to some extent we participate in their propagation when we pay to see such movies. Young guys get the message that ruggedness, not sensitivity is to be cultivated. Male rap stars write ludicrous lyrics that are insulting to women and carry violent implications. Such 'music' is pumped across the globe, the rap stars are seen to become conspicuously wealthy and then we wonder why our young men are growing up with misogynist tendencies! We can begin to see how crazy and out-of-whack the whole picture actually is.
In the 1970's things were different. The cult of the hippy made it cool for men to show their sensitivity towards nature and to openly express their spiritual leanings, but all that changed in the 80's when inner searching gave way to materialism and it's attendant hubris. To display one's wealth rather than one's earth-consciousness became the preferred magnet for female attention, and of course most women participated (and still participate) in this by declaring themselves 'material girls'. Repulsed by male arrogance and violent tendencies, many women continue to hold out an immature longing for the strong armed hero to sweep them off their feet. But if brutishness is what you want, brutishness is what you will get, especially if you are a beautiful woman!
To further complicate matters there is the argument that women are actually far more attracted to husky-voiced hunks than they are to men of learning and sensitivity. After all, we're talking polar attraction here, aren't we? If men and women become more like each other, won't we lose the polarity that makes.....well, the world go round? Possibly not. Surely we have come further than such primitive imperatives would suggest and must affirm a more refined definition of positive gender identity.
Rihanna's statement that she's holding out for a gentleman rather than a hero is a positive and sensible one from an unexpected quarter. Let's hope that more prominent females have the good sense to lead men away from dysfunctional role templates and towards a more mature aspiration, even if it does sound a bit old fashioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)