Social Sciences | Blog Woman!!! – Life Uncategorized

For about a millennium now it’s been said that kids say the darnedest things. I know this truth first-hand and I’ve kept a journal to capture a good number of eyebrow-raising, head-scratching and are-you-for-real statements that my son has spouted since he started spouting.

I’ve always encouraged free and open speech with him. I adore hearing what comes out of that new and unfettered brain. The only thing I have forbidden him to say is profanity. It’s not that I’ve pretended that swearing doesn’t happen; we’re all aware of its worldwide domination, thus he has in fact heard such a word or two in the homeland.

He has attempted to copy those words, but only once, (that I know of), OK, technically twice, but the second time was just a noun change. These happened when he was two and a half. We were on holiday and his dad was desperately searching our vehicle for the camera before the beautiful tall ships we were watching passed by. While he was frantically throwing items left and right, he yelped, “Where’s my f*#kin’ camera”? On our way home a couple of hours later, I noticed my son looking left and right. I asked him what was wrong and he asked, “Where’s my f*#kin’ camera”? To be fair, his toy camera did, in fact, appear to be a casualty of his father’s earlier desperation.

About two weeks later we were playing tea party and he came out of his room with most of his supplies except one. With hand on hip and grave consternation, he spoke. “Where’s my f*#kin’ teapot”? We had a little chat, and with a couple of follow-up check-ups, I have to say he’s been pretty good at finding alternative adverbs and adjectives ever since.

Actually, he became the Soup Nazi of swearing alternatives. This self-proclaimed lord of household language decency sometimes works his moral indignancy to a level that merits a good grounding. He believes he should be the decider of whether or not I’ve been appropriate in my usage. He also thinks that I’m not aware of just how much he is collecting in his swear jar, (the wretched vessel of confiscated loonies for every swear word caught). It has got to hold enough coin for the coveted MacBook by now. You’d think he’d lay off for a day.

Yes, OK, I can swear like a truck driver. Actually, I feel that analogy is an insult; I’m certain my stupendous ability could teach a truck driver a thing or two. I look at it like being an artist of abstract art who had to first prove that she can paint a real-life landscape before delving into free-flow style. My swearing is not a replacement for regular speaking skill, just occasional, as required, colorful enhancement. Certainly some days may need more color than others.

Also, as a public service announcement, I’m pretty sure I heard about a recent study that said four letter words help to alleviate pain. Think about that the next time you hammer your finger. No really, look it up.

OK, back to my son. What I’ve always told him is that this is adult language; he is free to swear when he is 18 or paying the bills, whichever comes first. No, I don’t really believe that he will never say a swear word again before he turns 18, but I’m pretty sure that he will have learned how to speak ‘real-life’ fluidly first. After that, if he wants to add a little color now and then, fine, but more importantly, maybe then I can earn some #*@kin’ coins back.

Group dynamics are always an interesting endeavor. I’ve had the pleasure of working with a variety of groups in quite a few arenas both professionally and voluntary. When I say ‘pleasure,’ I know that most have applied the word very kindly to an event or two.

Group size can affect outcomes, but usually it only takes a meeting of two or more people working together to have a ticket on the political train to heaven or hell.

There was one group that especially stands out in my mind. It was comprised of 23-27 people at any given time over a 4 year period. We were a volunteer school committee. This group type is often known as a hot-bed for problems with loads of hot-button issues, and frankly, a good number of hot-heads. When the point of issue is your own child, there can be particularly intense attention paid to personal need. It is often very difficult to get parents involved in these committees.

Thank goodness our group was not one of those! I often remember that group with a great deal of fondness for what it achieved and how we interacted. What made a group of this size and background variety work so well and effectively for several years? What was different about it from the ones that I’d seen crumble from ineffectiveness and at times, even deeply, regretted joining?

I don’t think it was rocket science and there were no magic rituals performed. Although, there may have been some magic on some unknown level because the simplicity of what was done seems to be utterly impossible for a good number of people to perform in general.

For starters, it was the way it was managed by the various leaders and members. The number one rule was keeping our eyes on the purpose of the group. We were there to serve the greater good for the greatest number of students. All decisions had to meet this first litmus test. It was understood that sometimes this meant having to go against something that we personally desired.

Next, we had our general goal: to provide the best educational experience possible to all students. It’s the step after this that things can get tricky for any group – the how level. This is where the group actions are determined to achieve those goals. This is where there is lots of room for diverse opinion – and there was.

This level started with a boatload of questions. What are the student needs? What are the priorities? Why? How much money is needed, from where, from what kind of events, what should they look like, are they fun? When do we need to do what, who’s going to run what, what resources are needed? Who’s going to get them? All of these questions, and more, had to be agreed upon by the group – which they were.

We also allowed for newcomers to have fairly free rein to try out new projects or have a run at some of our established needs. You don’t get new members if you lock the doors to opportunities for them to show what they can offer. Let’s also acknowledge that that also gave the rest of us a much needed breather now and then.

There were certainly discussions based in disagreement, but all reasoning had to be put on the table upfront where it was examined by all, then a side chosen by all. There was disappointment sometimes, but this group employed basic decency & respect. The disappointed got a pat on the back and reminded that decisions made were not personal; it was always about the overall purpose and goal. In return, they backed up the decision with nearly full to full-blown participation.

The sub-committees performed in the same manner, just applying that method to the goals of their specific task, whether it was a book fair, Halloween bingo, fun fair, or the annual finance/budget projections.

There were times when someone might come into the group with a clear personal agenda, or vanity project. Depending on the size or importance of the issue, the group might have said sure, go ahead; fill your boots – as long as it served the majority. If it was somewhat more personally grandiose, they might have stirred up some group emotion, but in the end, those agendas didn’t last long on the table. Without support or any willingness to continue in pointless argument, they (person & idea) would somehow just fade away.

All events succeeded or failed as a group. Recognition was applied generously to all. Sure, we had our private conversations about what was really great or not, or what needed to get tweaked next time, but publicly everyone gave all the credit and if something didn’t work out, all swallowed the responsibility.

This group was an amazing story of supportive strength that achieved success after success, strong membership year after year, and easily attracted extra volunteer support whenever it was needed. What was the secret? Was this just a fluke for so many years; were these people just exceptionally well-rounded?

I don’t think so really. As mentioned, it was a group of varying background, inclinations & personality: funny, serious, go-getter, care-giver, analyzer, organizer. What we all had in common was that we started with the desire to make a difference for the better. At the core, we simply wanted to do what was best, which included the willingness to do all we could to make that work.

What was in place to guide those wishes along was that simple requirement of asking what is this for and who does it serve? It was really an easy fall-back position for everyone. It was asked and applied so regularly that it became second nature; people were able to check their own ego needs. The point that everyone had an equal voice, and was free to use it, was critical to this cooperation and enhanced desire to pitch in. There were very few times that one had to dig deep to bring their respectfulness or support to the table. It made the overall experience fulfilling, and a lot of work a whole lot of fun.

Keep your on eye on the purpose, work in consensus, and exercise your abilities to respect and support both. Why is that so hard for so many groups? I don’t know. It seems to me that if you can’t work that way, then don’t work in any groups. I really don’t think it takes all that much magic.

Shout-out to the Hazel Trembath PAC of 2006 – 2010: the team of do-ers!

c/r 712, April 6, 2013