Just beyond our grasp: Becoming all we are capable of becoming
A friend posted this great video clip of Viktor Frankl on Facebook. What an extraordinary man he was, and what a treat to see him in action.
Frankl’s analogy of learning to fly and how he learned to aim ‘north’ to arrive at his destination, reminded me of my high school yearbook quote. In the 70s, it was fashionable to put a quote underneath your photo. Most classmates had rock lyrics, like, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” but I was captivated by a line from a Robert Browning poem, “Ah, but a man’s reach must exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”
Frankl and Browning exhort us to expect more from ourselves and others, to reach higher, in order to have a meaningful life. And in this clip, Frankl describes what we now call the self-fulfilling prophecy – the higher we reach, the higher we go. And likewise, the lower we reach, the lower we’ll go.
This leads me to wonder about the current trend in popular psychology, leadership development and coaching of categorizing ourselves based on traits, types and styles. There is a thriving industry of testing in order to discover what kind of leaders, thinkers, and teammates we are. It’s helpful, even comforting to know whether we are left brain or right brain, introverted or extraverted, analytic or relational, visionary or practical. This kind of typologizing allows to talk across differences; it gives us a language and framework for collaborating with others, and for understanding ourselves. It seems to explain so much – our strengths, our weaknesses and challenges, even our choices of friends and partners.
But I am wary of this trend. How much do we limit ourselves by defining ourselves according to traits? At what point does it become a story about ourselves that allows us to settle for what is? Certainly, we can’t excel at everything, so it’s useful to know where our strengths lie. On the other hand, how do we know we’re not missing opportunities for growth, that we’re not creating glass ceilings for ourselves in the guise of traits?
These same thoughts are being pursued in research on how theories of intelligence influence academic achievement. Carol Dweck, professor of psychology at Stanford, discovered that children who held an “entity” view of intelligence, that intelligence is an unchangeable internal characteristic, were at a higher risk of academic underachievement than children who held an “incremental” theory of intelligence, i.e., that intelligence is malleable and can be increased through effort. Her work was predominantly with children, but I wonder about adults as well. The benefit of understanding ourselves based on traits and styles may come at the cost of becoming all that we can be.
I’m looking forward to exploring this topic further on the Gold Coast of Australia in October, when I give my seminar on learning and change, Just Beyond Our Grasp: The Art, Science and Flow of Learning, Performance and Change.
Julie-
I recently read Viktor Frankl’s, “Man’s search for Meaning” and was left inspired by the theories and principles this book presented. I found that his book along with your post, correlates highly with psychology, contemplative practices and neuroplasticity.
Recent studies in neuroplasticity have shown us that “Synapses that fire together, wire together.” Giving us knowledge that our brain along with our selves, motivation, and intelligence are in fact malleable. Traits that may otherwise have been merely accepted such as, levels of happiness, self-regulation, motivation or intelligence may otherwise be impacted through intentional contemplative practices.
Currently, I am working on how developing higher states of motivation, self-regulation, happiness and learning can be accomplished through contemplative practices of meditation and yoga. Researching how such practices can foster aid in the construction of concentration and awareness; impacting our ability to live and learn in our present environments.
In the mean time I hope that the post you have written, instigates further inquiry and that people continue to ask, “Am I something other than who I appear to be?”
Thank you Lindsey. It’s exciting to consider that what we once considered traits or fixed characteristics can change through simple practices. Looking forward to hearing more of your research.
Julie,
It’s interesting that I came upon your warning of the limiting potential of ‘typologizing’ at a time when I’ve been reading your article ‘Encounters with Spirt’ published in the POP Journal of 95-96. Dan’s story made me reflect on the potential of the Enneagram to understand and perhaps recognize the ‘primary process’ and ‘edges’ that block access to capacities that lie beyond one’s energetic disposition. Your thoughts?
Your insights have been an inexhaustible source of learning for me, across the decades.
I thank you.
Janet Pinto
Mumbai, India.
June 12, 2010
Hello Janet, Nice to hear from you after so many years. I have found typologies to be extremely helpful. They can explain so much, and perhaps that is the problem: because they can easily explain or define aspects of our process, we have to be vigilant in our use of awareness, i.e., that the frame we use to understand our process doesn’t begin to alter our perception of it. Even primary and secondary process can become a tool that can fail to capture the subtleties and nuances of our process. As for the Enneagram in particular, I don’t know it very well, but have found it to be an extremely interesting framework.
I’m waiting for someone to write something on the connection between Process Work and the Enneagram…. might that be you?
Julie
It is a good perspective and I happen to see this pretty late.
I am also aware of a lot of work on Enneagram done by Janet Pinto.
Janet: It would be great to connect again. It was great interacting with you while I was in Mumbai more than a decade ago.
Thanks.