Ben,
I hope you will consider this proposition, which you've heard before, but
which is crucial for the theory and practice of the LO:
"The language we use does not 'map' the world as it 'really' is: it
creates that world."
Such a proposition is of course and extreme. I make it extreme to contrast
it with what seems to be your position:
>This is exactly what I have sensed throughout this thread. We're often
>afraid to identify something as it really is. In this instance, we're
>afraid to make moral judgments about those who work for us (or with us),
>which is a natural outgrowth of employee ranking. I'll gladly admit that
>making a moral judgment is not the purpose of employee ranking, but it is
>a corrolary. A person who is non-productive and who is not competent, but
>who remains employed is an immoral person.
Your post and position suggests that a person sleeping on the streets
"really is" one thing or another, and some of us use the right term --
"bum," for example -- while others evade "reality" and refuse to be
truthful and call that person "homeless."
Ben, which term describes the "reality" of Joan of Arc? "Saint"? "Crazy"?
Which term "really" describes an alcoholic? "Sick"? "Weakling"?
Which judgment and action below best describes a "learning organization"?
"A person who is non-productive and who is not competent, but who remains
employed is an immoral person."
"A person who is non-productive and who is not competent but remains
employed is a member of a "learning organization" which wants to help him
learn rather than fire him."
I agree completely that the language we use carries with it a theory and
practice of morality. I don't agree that there is a reality that tells us
that it is right to throw a debtor in prison, or lend him money and feed
him.
Cheers,
Steve
--"Dr. Steve Eskow" <dreskow@magicnet.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>