The diagram above was
developed by Luft and Ingham in 1955 and is quite well-known especially in the
self-help arena. It is one of many ways
used by psychologically (and I use the term loosely)-minded people as a means
of understanding onesself and one's relationships with others. The “Arena” is the open part where
everything about us is clear and known to all.
The “Blind spot” refers to things others know about us, but we can’t
see. The “Façade” is is what we don’t
allow others to see; and lastly, “unknown” means there are parts of ourselves
that remain forever hidden. An
example: You think of yourself as a kind
and generous person and proclaim it loudly to the world. Your façade is your belief that everyone else
is stupid and selfish. Others are aware
of your blind spot; i.e., that you believe good things are only deserved by a
certain class of person—namely, those exactly like you. I’m not sure how anyone knows the unknown
(obviously an inherent contradiction), but for arguments sake let’s say that
your serial killer instincts are in hiding and no one will know until the
killings begin. I hope that is all crystal clear, because I think this diagram has
outlived it’s usefulness and should be trashed.
Instead, I propose “Barbara’s Window” which looks something like this:
Known to all / Shown to some
/
---------------------------------------------------- --/-------------------------------------------------------
/
Kept secret / Only written about
In case you haven’t already
guessed, this is a description of a writer’s windows. The main difference is that writers are
exceptionally self-aware—therefore, there are no complete “unknowns” but there
are a lot of secrets. Midway
between sharing and secret, there is the special window that all writers
have. Translated, that means that there
are things that will be written, even published, but may not ever be spoken of
to others—and possibly never even enter the conscious thoughts of the writer.
How can that be (I hear you
asking)? If you write about something,
doesn’t that mean it’s public knowledge?
The answer is yes, it’s public—but the public can never be sure that
what is written is real. Never. Even boring textbooks about math, science and
history are dubious, as there are always people arguing about the “facts”. The writer owns what he/she writes and is an
extension of who he/she is.
I hit upon this brilliant
deduction at about 4 a.m. when apparently my thoughts are clearest. I haven’t written as much as I have read, but
enough to realize that sometimes stories and thoughts (much like all of the
preceding) are things I would never talk to anyone about. I read/listen to enough of others writings to
never stop being surprised at the contrast between the writer and the
story. If that wasn’t the case you’d
expect romance writers to be beautiful, horror writers to be scary, and murder
fiction writers to be written to be really scary.
Sure, sometimes people write only about what they have experienced but
not necessarily from their own viewpoint. Then there's those that write under fictional names, so you can't even guess.
It’s perfectly fine with me
if you think all of the above is bull.
Maybe it is. How would I know?
No comments:
Post a Comment