In which emotion comes to the fore – no, I just made that up
I have had a couple of comments about my post a couple of days ago about the past being an ever changing narrative rather than a recall from long term memory like a computer (post is here).
We have a tendency to think of time as like a line with the past at one end, the future at the other end and the present as a point moving between the two. This tendency, reinforced by our experience of the world of computers leads us to think of our human memory as being a recall of never-changing factual data like a computer that retrieves a certain document that will never change once you’ve saved it.
In the post, I am saying that this is not how we actually experience time as we live our lives. Rather, we are constantly reiterating the past in story or narrative form that changes each time we tell the story.
The comments on the post have both picked up on my statement that I prefer the term "narrative" to "story." I said that stories seemed made up while narratives seemed less made up, and the comments have both pointed out that narratives are made up just as much as stories are. These comments have caused me to reflect on what I meant. I agree 100% that it is not accurate to say that there is less emotion in the term narrative. But somehow the term narrative, to me, seems more acceptable in formal settings and I think this is because it seems a less emotion-laden term.
Bernie White in his comment asks what I see as the role of emotion in narrative. To me the term "narrative" does seem less emotional and I would be more likely to talk about narrative in a board, academic or other formal setting. This led me to think about the place of emotions in our working lives – somehow to be emotional is a weakness, is not seen as being appropriate for professional situations. And this is why the formality of the term narrative appeals to me more for my work in business. Yet we are of course all human beings with emotions that figure very much in our professional lives as well as all other aspects of life. And emotions play just as much a part of any narrative we might tell as they do in any story (if in fact there is any difference in meaning between the two terms).
Chris Rodgers in his comment points out that the meanings we make of what is going on (in other words, our stories or narratives) are personally and socially constructed. In other words, they are made up. I agree with this. He also talks memorably of how we ‘stitch together’ various memories, experiences and interpretations through the narratives we construct with others in our everyday interactions, and how we talk about the past from the vantage point of the present. I think that the present is always changing, and so this changes, perhaps only in subtle ways, the story (or narrative!) we tell about the past.
Thanks Chris and Bernie for stimulating further thought on this.
Hello,
Thanks for the interesting blog… I was just wondering about the role of emotion a little bit.
Firstly, I wonder whether the lack of acceptance of ‘emotion’ in business/organisational settings isn’t part of a general problem that confronts organisations. By denying emotions they remain suppressed in official discourse and therefore constitute a kind of hidden sub-narrative that shapes and is shaped by all the communicative interaction that constitutes an organisation. Failure to recognise it means failure to acknowledge the full complexity of the situation at hand and so, could be expected to lead to failed change efforts.
Secondly, there is evidence that suggests that the dichotomy between rationality and emotion is nonsense. Indeed, the ability of humans to make socially appropriate decisions depends on their emotional or affective capacity, a point I think is made by Stacey, referring to Damasio. If this is the case, efforts to encourage organisational change could benefit from creating a deeper acceptance and understanding of the role of emotion in organisational life.
Thanks,
Andre
Comment by Andre Ling — February 15, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Emotion is part of life, a very powerful part of life. So it can’t be ignored even in the boardroom. And it isn’t. The ego, emotion and politics in there needs to be seen to be believed!
If we are rational about emotion, most business leaders would agree that trust, confidence, commitment, inspiration, urgency, courage, etc are important. Well they’re emotions. You don’t get people to trust you by rational argument (just ask Helen Clark). I think it’s important to think about and use emotion. What is the emotional story we are trying to tell? It’s not about being emotional which implies a loss of control. Although, I agree with Andre that it’s about acceptance of emotion. But not in organisations, in ourselves. There is nothing more compelling than an emotion expressed in a geniune way. That’s powerful and we are all effected by it. Emotion is where the power is, in a world where there is a rational argument and counter-argument for everything. Rational argument might get you to ’should’ but only emotion will get you to ‘will’ especially if it involves significant action.
That’s why I go to acting class. Partly to be a good actor but also to learn how to use emotion effectively in business.
Comment by Bernie White — February 17, 2009 @ 11:10 am