Friday, 2 September 2011

Jim Davidson Incident...Recognise the dynamics?

Leading on from my last post, being a people watcher by nature, I admit that I do follow the adventures of the stars, simply to enjoy working out what makes them do what they do. In turn I also follow the reactions and the dynamics from those that are impacted by their antics.

Some stars of course play-act to get attention, but others are totally oblivious and blindly go about life upsetting people! I read with interest a headline via BBC News - Jim Davidson banned from Norwich Theatre Royal show  Jim has, for many years now, popped-up in the press for having said or done something that offends and upsets. The last time was on a celebrity chef programme and related to certain none-PC use of language and behaviour that upset many on the set and in the public.

This time it is the Norwich Theatre Royal's chief executive Peter Wilson, who stated in an email that he would "prefer not to have you in our theatre because there is not a single person here who finds this sort of behaviour acceptable”. Jim's retort on his blog was "You will see from the reply I have received from the Theatre Royal below, that this is not the case. If you have any comments I suggest you make them known to the theatre directly."

Use of language is a powerful thing, where people do give away so much about the types of generalisations and assumptions that exist in what they think - thus say, how they perhaps are referring back to old detail via emotion or visual recollection. We behave according to what we have built as our Reality (this happened and I feel like this, that was said and I remember feeling like so).

The incident in the recent Jim case here, is said to have happened in 2004. Since then emotions and perceptions have boiled so much that now Mr Wilson states" I prefer not to have you in our theatre because there is not a single person here who finds this sort of behaviour acceptable. If asked by the people of Norwich, I will be more than happy to make public our specific objections." This suggests that not a single person at the theatre wants to work with Jim, and thus a decision is final.

As an Interventionist - who would be the type of person brought-in to mediate and "fix" such a situation as this - I find the use of words and the stance from both parties, plus the time of negative gestation (7-years), to be fascinating and typical of so many situations I see around me. It makes me ask you:
  • How many times in home and work life have we witnessed this kind of stand-off posturing behaviour? 
  • How many times have we been drawn-in to consider who is right and who is wrong - perhaps jumping to conclusions based upon how the use of language unconsciously resonates within our own Reality?

Letting things "stew" without correct challenge and mediation - if one party feels aggrieved by what was said or not said by another - is to create/encourage unstable and negative behaviours (the aggrieved builds anger and frustration, the other is oblivious). The losers seem to be the innocent people who lose out on something as an outcome. In this case Jim's many fans in the Norwich area, plus the Theatre as a business in terms of takings through bookings and hospitality. All because rather than challenge and jointly identify behaviour, years previously, now what is left is "he said, she said type rhetoric".

Wherever we look, behaviour and what lies behind it, is a soap-story in it's own right! Just read between the lines and see the real dynamics.

Enjoy your weekend....until next time.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Receive Blogspot in your Inbox

There was an error in this gadget