Another waste of time

Introduction:
Reflection is an activity and process that defines our age. We are encouraged as professionals, as humans, as people, as individuals, as families to reflect upon our lives and our goals and to consider the range of choices that we have made and the actions that resulted from those choices which, so the idea goes, have led us to where we are now. It then follows from this idea that the very process that led us to an understanding of our current position, needs and wants can help us to ‘move forward’ and work towards achieving our future personal and professional goals.
Throughout this there is the implicit (and indeed sometimes explicit) embedded message that an individual is the sum total of their choices and decisions and that the individual almost single headedly has the power to change any aspects of themselves or their lives that they deem undesirable, disappointing, not satisfying or indeed painful. I have to state at this point that I am of the opinion that individuals do not possess this limitless power (except in certain circumstances) and that for me a great deal of contemporary obsession with self reflection is indeed just another layer of control and performance.
In this work I shall be attempting to understand how I got to where I am now and to posit a potential plan as to future options that might assist me in getting to where I want to go. I shall do this through an analysis of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle and Learning Styles Inventory in relation to my own experiences. I selected Kolb, since for me the process has always been a straight line and not a cycle and it has therefore been interesting to try to view my development cyclically and to see how I have resisted doing so up until now and whether or not this has perhaps contributed to my current long standing stagnation. Furthermore, I shall attempt to consider the work of Erving Goffman and his performance theory and underline the tensions within me as I seek to reconcile my needs and wants and my perceived lack of power. For me, Goffmans’ theories underline a serious barrier to any self power resulting in praxis.
Having considered these theories I shall then look at their application in key periods of my life and also their potential usefulness or otherwise in terms of affecting a seismic shift in my thinking and affording me some degree of control over my future.
Personal Reflection
Contemporary society is awash with opportunities for individuals and groups (and here I refer to groups as comprising of two or more people such as spouses, work colleagues, friends etc) to not only reflect upon their lives but also to consider their own personality types and traits. While many would consider some of the tests as found in trashy magazines, web sites and online communities as either harmless or helpful it is important to note the undercurrent of predestination that acts to secure the re-enforcement of existing ideals – accurate or otherwise. People have a need to feel good about themselves and our mass media society feeds the view that this is an accepted state and offers us consumer goods, self help, tests and counselling to assist in learning to feel good about ourselves. I might argue at this point than this is little more than a coded message that allows people to accept their lot by simply placing a suitable veneer upon it that fits with the individual’s existing self perception. This Forer effect underpins the ‘fun’ personality tests that I have attempted online as well as the more ‘serious’ psychometric testing models and the self reflective theories and models that I have come into contact with. Essentially, the tests and their results are so broad and general that there is something in there for everyone and with the right language anyone can reasonably assimilate the results as referring to them independently!
It is also interesting how positive these personalities or learning styles always are and the net effect of this re-enforcement is the ideal of the powerful individual. That with some relatively minor changes you can make massive differences to who you are and the life you lead. Why for example, is there no mention of ‘laziness’, ‘greed’, ‘aggressiveness’ and so on? Would such frankness undermine existing power and social structures? Would such frankness threaten the coherence and power of the front region as outlined by Goffman? Having taken a series of these tests through the early part of this unit it became clear to me that their reflective value was virtually zero in as much as I could choose to interpret such generalisations in any was I chose. Furthermore, we are all to a greater or lesser degree sophisticated enough to know what goes on ‘backstage’. This knowledge of the back region actually feeds our need to end up with a positive re-affirmation of our uniqueness and individual wonder. Thus we quickly engage in a conspiratorial performance that involves being more actively selective about the answers we choose or give and modify our responses to attempt to guarantee an outcome that tells us how amazing we are.
My first experience with psychometric testing occurred at my second interview for the post of lecturer in Multimedia – a post that I had created, was already doing and would have been the first of its kind. The test was administered half way through the day in between the first and second stage interviews by a senior HR official. Throughout it was clear that the individual was uncomfortable and lacking in experience about the test.
The questions were once again general and the performance dictated a set series of responses. At this stage it was clear that the definition of the performance and the situation was actively yet unspoken being agreed by both parties and a certain degree of ‘tact’ was being employed to gloss over the fact that we both already knew the answers that I would give. However, Goffman implies a certain degree of active consent or agreement in situ – not necessarily explicitly since we as humans live by inference. Yet this ‘consensual agreement’ already existed, long before I even applied for the job. It was predestined that should I want the job that this ‘veneer of consensus’ would be adhered to as a given. Where in this process was my active agreement, the single act of conscious power that allowed me to choose to accept the definition of the performance? Yes, I could have walked out or not applied in the first place but then the job would not have been an option. Hence the idea that we can affect change through the power of the individual is not quite what it seems.
However, In Goffman terms the interviewer was not experienced enough to interpret what I ‘gave out’ and what I ‘gave off’. Hence her ability to check the validity of my performance was severely compromised and this was nonetheless accepted. Just as psychometric tests aim to check the validity of a performance by juxtaposing responses against the performance it alters the relationship of the performer and audience when that ability is not exercised or possible.
In this sense, while Goffman would argue that I was qualified or authorised to perform and that both parties were consenting to the performance it was clear o me that I found the situation dishonest and utterly without value. For example in response to a question such as “Do you consider yourself to be a team player?” would anyone really respond with “No. I really don’t like working with other people and would prefer not to have to deal with them”? However, it must be said that I had complete and total belief in my performance and the answers I gave were immediate, honest and accurate.
It can thus be argued that to have gotten the job I would have to have fitted a preset range of criteria that included personality types and traits that were considered essential to perpetuating the show that the performers within the organisation put on. As Goffman himself suggest, a team of performers are more likely to welcome into the fold individuals who are
Despite ticking all the boxes, I failed to get the position at this, the second time of asking and this major event in my life has resulted in a staggering shift in my personality and approach to the world around me. To get the job I would have had to have engaged in ‘deceit’ and ’feigning’ in Goffman terms and this I found objectionable. If, as Goffman suggests, society expects moral character, that an individual ought to be what he claims to be then what of euphemisms such as ‘tailoring your responses’, ‘hiding your deficiencies’ or ‘making the most of your strong points’?
Kolb
David A Kolb’s experiential learning theory model based upon the work of Dewey and Lewin follows a four part cyclic arrangement where each part represents a stage in reflective personal and professional development. Kolb’s work is heavily influenced by the earlier work of Carl Gustav Jung. Kolb’s work has become popular in education circles and also in organisational structures in terms of staff development policies. There are contrasting views on the meanings for experiential learning but I will for the purposes of this paper refer to it as learning through personal reflection upon everyday experience in a setting not sponsored by an establishment.

According to Kolb (1984, 38) "Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience"
I have a feeling that I have always seen learning in a straight line on a personal level rather than as an ongoing cycle in the sense that you begin as a child with nothing and gradually acquire knowledge and experience as you grow which then affords you great control, comfort, satisfaction, achievement and status.
Again however, the cycle seems like a closed system and there is little opportunity for the actions of others to impinge upon the cycle. Goffman might suggest that the agreed definitions of the performance suggest that individuals can change from disbelievers to believers and vice versa and that such changes in approach are triggered through experiential learning. This does not through take into account the power of ‘others’ to control the range of potential outcomes afforded to individuals in any given setting. For example, countless sections of society feel disempowered, embattled and ‘kept down’. Can we really be asking ourselves to believe that they are all somehow unable to reflect upon their plight or that they are forever poor performers and therefore relegated to passive audiences or even backstage staff?
As an AS, learning for me is far more formalised and problematic in terms of self-reflection. Self reflection happens in me constantly but in two distinct ways; firstly the cyclic response to external stimulus i.e. what other people say or do and secondly an entirely closed internal world where reflection tends to re-enforce existing ideas and behaviour patterns.
Kolb’s cycle can be identified in four stages:
Concrete Experience: Learning from specific experiences and relating to people. A difficulty arises here in terms of verifying the ‘concreteness’ of any given experience and avoiding misreading. Furthermore if our dealings with others is based upon performances then is relating to people more about acquiring a wider portfolio of preset performances from which to draw from in our future social interactions? If experiences are misread then surely that invites major subsequent amplification of the misreading through the cycle and affects the ability of the individual to make sense of the experience and affect future change in new situations?
Observation and Experience: Observing before making a judgment. Here too there is the opportunity for misreading to be fed into the cycle. In the absence of ‘concrete’ information, or the inability of the individual to ‘infer’ according to the structures of any given society or the inability or unwillingness of the individual to accept a given performance or audience role, can accurate or meaningful judgements be made? It is also worth noting that such models are always deemed positive and helpful from the outset. Labels such as ‘negative’, ‘non-constructive’ or just plain ‘uncooperative’ await those that might suggest that there isn’t a possible positive outcome. Too often individuals undergoing this cyclic process of reflection are under pressure to conform or indeed accept a bad situation since the generally accepted view is that if it didn’t help you then you were obviously doing it wrong or not willing to give it a chance!
Forming Abstract Concepts: this is the point at which a form of generalisation takes place where an individual is able to understand or ‘see’ a general principle that can potentially be applied to a variety of situations or experiences rather than seeing each experience in isolation. Again if misreading occurs then the generalisation could result in dangerous generalisations being accepted. Goffman argues that society requires that matters are what they appear to be but clearly a cynical acceptance that they are not allows for generalisations that can be used to exploit situations for personal gain.
Testing in New Situations: this refers to the ability to get things done by influencing people and events. However, it seems that the key to achieving praxis is in becoming a better and more accomplished performer.
For Kolb, the learning process can and often does begin at any of the four stages and he claims that ‘ideally’ a person is involved in all four stages through the learning process – although this is not a process that we undertake explicitly. Indeed it has resonance with feedback theories in cybernetics and it may be argued that Kolb’s theory is an abstract form of biological theory.
Kolb identifies four learning styles stating that people naturally prefer or identify with a single learning style. This LSI is underpinned by three stages – acquisition, specialisation and Integration - in our development and our ability to move through the cycle improves as we move through the stages in our development. His 3 stages are:
For Kolb the learning styles are a product of two pairs of variables or choices that we make. These are:
Concrete Experience: Feeling v Abstract conceptualisation: Thinking
Active Experimentation: Doing v Reflective Observation: Watching

. . . . . .blah, blah, blah