Cenk Uygur has a tree in his head.
I am currently studying the world-shaking work on storytelling in organizations by Dr. David Boje, who teaches at the College of Business at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, N.M.
In the draft manuscript for his new book, The Quantum Physics of Storytelling, Boje calls on the phrases "grass-in-the-head" and "tree-in-the-head" to describe two ways of seeing and experiencing the world. The phrases are drawn from work by other academics (Linstead & Pullen; Barad, et al.) along with Native American myths and his own family experiences growing up in rural Washington State.
A grass-in-the-head person, writes Boje, has "a desire to be an assemblage of animal herds, family clan, orchards, beehives, and crafts." A tree-in-the-head person, he says, "can only think from beginning stage to end stage, from root to branches in developing strategy, plans, designs..."
When seen through the marvel that is Boje's work, Cenk Uygur, whose opinions and political analysis I usually respect, is a big-time tree-in-the-head. So is John Boehner and all the weeping willows who have jumped on the "Obama -- I'm so disappointed" bandwagon like spoiled brats who are bored with their new toys before Christmas Day has even ended.
President Obama, by contrast, is a grass-in-the-head. This, believes David Boje (and so do I), is a much more effective way way to create productive stories in a complex, networked environment like our political system and the federal government. Rather than being rooted to one central myth, belief system, ideology or outcome, a grass-in-the-head thinker is on a continual quest for connection and co-creation.
A big reason that this particular rhizomatic model offers a more effective form of leadership and story creation than a tree-in-the-head like Uygur can see or admit is that it mirrors the digital ecosystem in which stories live. In other words, it is better suited to the environment than the hierarchical models and dominant narratives that Uygur and the weeping willows want to see (and aren't going to get) from an Obama administration.
Seen through the lens of Boje's work, Uygur's use of a boxing metaphor -- a linear, time-based narrative with binary win/lose outcomes -- looks ridiculous. Imagine someone being bitterly disappointed that a chess player isn't exchanging punches with his opponent, or a guy complaining about a clover plant because it doesn't look like a redwood tree, and you get an idea of the scope of Uygur's mischaracterization. He missed it by that much.
Mike Bonifer is the co-founder and CEO of GameChangers, LLC.
Follow Mike Bonifer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Bonifer
The economic and political problems we're facing today are unprecedented in their complexity and interconnectedness. Tree-in-the-head thinking cannot get the job done, because it is too hierarchical and rigid to address the complexity and fluidity of the environment in which the problems exist.
If Muhammad Ali had been a tree-in-the-head thinker, he never could have conceived Rope a Dope. His identity was floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee. He was all about dancing out of harm's way. If he had been rooted, tree like, to that 'doctrine,' Foreman, says Ali, would've cut off the ring and taken him out. It was because Ali was able to move, 'rhizomatically,' to a new strategy that he pulled off one boxing's biggest upsets.
As for Teddy Roosevelt, I believe he said (I'm quoting from memory) "Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are." That's a 'grass-in-the-head' philosophy, for sure.
TR also circumvented Congress entirely, as President, in order to secure the building of the Panama Canal. If that approach is indicative of a "grass-in-the-head" person, I'm certainly not seeing those traits in Obama. Maybe I am just missing your point and we are talking past each other. Thank you for the response.
A rocks-in-the-head person is someone who listens to this utter drivel about a grass-in-the-head person and a tree-in-the-head person and thinks Obama being the former has somehow made him more effective as he continously loses on each and every policy decision to the will of the republicans.
Oh but wait it makes him much more effective at creating "productive stories", right? So in other words it's all about stories not actual policy. As long as Obama can tell you a nice little bedtime story about how he is the great compromiser you can sleep all tucked in and comfy while blissfully ignoring that his compromises come at great expense and suffering to the poor & middle class. His compromises make him more effective at pushing a republican agenda than a republican president would be able to do.
Well then here should be your campaign reelection slogan "Obama 2012 Compromise You Can Count On". Good luck with that...
As far as the power of stories, the stories we tell one another, and the myths we embrace, are the key to any progress we make in the world, and they also hold the power to destroy. pwg's definition of stories as something that transpire while getting tucked cozily into bed in one's p-j's at nighty-night time shows how childish your understanding in this area is. Don't try playing with professionals unless you have at least demonstrated that you are earnest amateurs. Thanks for your comments.
But what if it's chess boxing?
http://wcbo.org/content/index_en.html
But as to the substance of the piece, it's intriguing and I think I'll look further into it. It sounds a bit new agey, but then this seems pretty on the mark to me: "Rather than being rooted to one central myth, belief system, ideology or outcome, a grass-in-the-head thinker is on a continual quest for connection and co-creation. "
I'm glad you're going to look into Boje's work. It's a challenge, but if you're into the 'science' of storytelling, it's definitely worth the effort.
However right now we need a president that will do GREAT things. Freaking FDR sized great things.
What are the great things Obama has done? We need a bold, forceful leader if we are ever going to take back America from the corporations. Where is the evidence of Obama being bold and forceful?
Campaign finance reform, that is the foundation of our problems. Once you have a massively corrupt foundation like that it is impossible to build a government of honesty and real accountability. You have those on the right like Rove who says there should be even more money in elections, as though the insane amount we have now is not enough, while the Democrats play the "they are doing it so we need to also to survive"
Outside of a bare handful the rest are beholden to their donors, the system is designed to corrupt everyone that enters. That is the true shame of our politics huge amounts of money from hidden donors that can come from anywhere, even overseas.
---
Exactly. Until we get the cash out of our politics, we will be governed by slaves to those who provide it. It's the heroin that is killing our body politic.
Watch Dylan Ratigan's rant. The guy, and those on his panel (from both sides of the aisle, btw) gets it.
Repubicants are once again dancing at their own 20-yard line. They become euphoric over "winning" these short-lived, Pyrrhic victories. They claimed to have won the debt ceiling debate, yet their polls are in the toilet. They are all giddy about denying the president from addressing the number-one issue the people care about and they call that a victory. They are obstructing any attempt at job creation and they call that a victory. They protect the rich at the expense of the larger population and call that a victory. We will have to qualify republicant victory because it is not what normal people see as victory.
"A big reason that this particular rhizomatic model offers a more effective form of leadership . . ."
Really? This is what you call "more effective"? One of the herds is rampaging.