I was impressed by a book by Nirmal Puwar entitled “Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies Out of Place” (2004). This book debates the issue of current policies to promote diversity in terms of race and gender. She illustrates with clever anecdotes and researched examples that neither bodies nor the spaces they occupy can be neutral.

We have all experienced occasions where we were surprised to see someone very different to our expectations. Many Europeans, unfamiliar with Sikh names falsely assume that I am a man and address correspondence to me with “Dear Mr Jesvir” for example. Perhaps you have engaged in a telephone conversation with someone and formed a picture of them being white when in fact they are black? We all make assumptions about race and gender based on ignorance of the facts. However, what Nirmal Puwar argues, based on her research, is that places in society, organisations and any system in fact, are RESERVED for particular bodies. When we see a Black female CEO of a top British company, our reaction is much more than a mild degree of surprise. We see a “Space Invader”. Someone who is not meant to be there. We justify the disturbance to our internal rules by looking for evidence that proves us right (for feeling uncomfortable). How do you feel when you hear a non-native speaker of English in a call-centre based in India, answering to your customer care needs? The fact that they often fail to help us, proves us right, doesn’t it? They are not meant to be there!

Who decides on these rules about who is meant to occupy which space? Our world history and conditioning have helped us to formulate internal rules about where people “should” be and the spaces they “should” occupy. When these internal rules are shaken, we feel the stress of unfamiliarity. Nirmal Puwar goes as far as saying that “When women and ‘black’ bodies enter senior management positions, for example, this movement into a space not naturally reserved for them, causes a collision” (page 143)

In order to justify our occupancy of a space that we have ‘invaded’, we are naturally predisposed to metamorphose and minimise any signs of differences. Whilst skin colour is a permanent feature of our bodily appearance, we can change or slowly ‘whitewash’ our bodily gestures, social interests, value systems and speech patterns in an attempt to minimise cultural differences. As the call-centre employees based in India learn to speak with perfect English accents and only use their Anglo-Saxon names, they will become increasingly more acceptable as the voice (not the whole body) on the other end of the customer care line.

The concept of “space invaders” inspired me to think about global systems and the spaces of power occupied within these systems. When you think of the most powerful positions in the world, who comes to mind? Hold this image in your mind of the faces and bodies occupying the most powerful spaces in the global system. Now swop these powerful bodies with bodies occupying less powerful spaces; in other words, put the bodies of less powerful people into the spaces which they are not meant to occupy. What kind of reaction do these “space invader” bodies evoke in you?

The worst kind of slavery is when you think that in fact you are free.

Email Post   |  Print This Post    | 21 Views

Help others find this article at:
del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Google Technorati

Do you remember the days when door-to-door salesmen would invite themselves into your home in order to persuade you to buy Encyclopaedias that would be out-of-date by the time you finished making the monthly payments?

You have most probably heard of and used the online encyclopedia Wikipedi a and I can guarantee that no salesmen knocked on your door to tell you about it, the reason being that this is a FREE encyclopedia and you will have heard about it through word of mouth.

What I find remarkable about this encyclopedia is not that it is free but that anyone can edit it. 20 years ago, would you have believed that we would have free access to an encyclopedia that WE could edit?

There are numerous business issues raised by the "Wik ipedia" phenomenon. The obvious one is that a very lucrative business, supplying knowledge in hard-backed volumes, can be replaced by something that takes up no space at all in our homes and burns no holes in our pockets. Other issues are a little more subtle but just as relevant: who controls the classification of knowledge? Who decides the validity of ideas and concepts and above all, their inter- relationships?

In the physical world we are restricted by the principle that "Everything has to go somewhere: it can only go in one place" and this limitation was projected onto the classification and ordering of knowledge. People in power took the liberty of deciding where information was placed and, crucially, whether it had a place at all.The internet has allowed us to break free and to an extent, make our own decisons about the worthiness of information and connections.

You may be part of a traditional organisational hierarchy where the CEO has a vested interest in remaining aloof and inaccessible to the workers on the lower rungs. This kind of structure, just like the Encyclopedia Brittanica, is doomed for failure. The Internet Revolution gives us the freedom to create our OWN networks and choose our OWN place in the world.

Think about all the social connections you have made since you became an active participant in the Internet Revolution. I guess that, like myself, you are no longer in the little classified box which your job title or business title gave you before you ventured into cyberspace?

"Everything is Miscellaneous" by David Weinberger is a very interesting video which illustrates the breakdown of the established order of ordering. He explains how methods of categorisation designed for physical objects fail when it is possible to put things in multiple categories at once.

How does the principle "Everything has to go somewhere: It can only go in one place." impact your life?

How deeply has the Internet Revolution allowed you and your business to break free from that physical limitation?

Email Post   |  Print This Post    | 20 Views

Help others find this article at:
del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Google Technorati

Have you ever told a lie?

Most people’s answer to this will be "Yes, of course!" and then they will justify their reasons for telling the "white lies".

I bet that you can justify every single lie that you have ever told in your life. And so can I.

Gary King, a speaker at the YES group yesterday, told the audience that most people are "basically honest". They lie, cheat and deceive because that is what "basically" honest people do. Honest people do not.

Honest people do not lie, cheat or decieve. Basically honest people do.

This assertion created quite a reaction in the audience with questions such as:
"I didn’t tell my family that my father was terminally ill and I still believe that was the right thing to do!"
"When my wife asks me if she looks beautiful, it is kinder to lie"

Please reflect on all the times you have lied in your life for a "very good reason".

This is the question Gary King asked when all kinds of "good" lies were thrown at him:

"How did you feel when you told that lie? Did you feel empowered or disempowered?"

He illustrated how scientific experiments provide evidence that lying is bad for our health. When we lie, the negative, life-destroying mechanism is stored in our cells.

However, in the USA (according to Gary King) some college students are being taught "alternative ethics". They are taught that as long as the outcome is achieved, the means for achieving that outcome, including lying, are ethical.

What do you think?

Have you ever told a lie that truly left you feeling empowered? Did the end justify the means?

If you would like to explore this issue about the "Power of Truth" further, you might be interested in getting Gary King’s DVD The Power of Truth The DVDs were on sale at the YES group yesterday but I didn’t buy one because I thought this whole "tell the truth!" business was a way of controlling the masses into paying every single penny of their taxes! OK, I might be wrong!

Email Post   |  Print This Post    | 22 Views

Help others find this article at:
del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Google Technorati

How often do you get invitations for seminars that are "FREE"?

Does it tempt you to attend, even though it is not something you need, want or can use, merely because it is "free"?
I get several invitations every day to attend personal development seminars that are "free". I put "free" in inverted commas as you & I both know that when something is offered "free" in the business world, it is usually part of a marketing campaign which often leads to over-priced goods/services further along the path.

For example, I attended a very professionally organised "free" seminar last year and was recently sent a trial copy manual priced at £300 by the organisers of that seminar. This manual may have been sold for £10 maximum in the local bookshops but the "trust building campaign" that the organisers have engaged in over the past year enables them to request a much-inflated price. Psychologically, we are inclined to pay much more to those we like, trust and respect.

The two sides to this coin are that: as business people we gain the confidence to demand higher prices from our customers/clients in return for their trust in us; as customers/clients, we are likely to willingly pay more to those who have gained our trust.

That may sound all well and reasonable. Until of course we realise we are being cheated with inflated prices. A customer that feels they are being cheated is very hard to win back. This is the same in all kinds of relationships. Once the trust is breached, we put ourselves into negative equity, perhaps in direct proportion to the level of trust that existed.

So when you are offering or, are offered, a seminar or something similar for "free", ask yourselves:

How am I spending my time? How am I investing my time? How am I wasting my time?

Your time is probably your richest resource and it is finite…whether you spend it, invest it or waste it, you cannot claim it back. There are no business guarantees that will give you your time back.

Most of us are aware when we are WASTING our time. It is harder to see the difference between SPENDING our time and INVESTING our time.

In what ways do you SPEND your time and what ways do you INVEST your time?

Email Post   |  Print This Post    | 19 Views

Help others find this article at:
del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Google Technorati

Don’t we judge people by the language they use?

The language we choose to use, defines us. It forms a part of our identity. The essence of our business is conveyed in our logo, our mission statement, our strap-line (that crucial sentence which needs to persuade people to buy our products or services). The words we choose to use will either attract or distract our potential customers.

The language of our inner thoughts moulds our attitudes and behaviour. Therefore it is useful to periodically reflect on the language we use to define ourself and to consider how this is shaping our behaviour:

Are you a capitalist? A socialist? An idealist?

In a conversation with my business friend, Aini, we spoke about the need for a new political term that defines technology-powered entrepreneurs like ourselves that are neither capitalists nor socialists; she came up with the term "idealism" which seems to fit perfectly. Our businesses are driven and fuelled by IDEAS, not capital.

Ideas, idealist, idealism……the words you resonate with, will guide you to the people who speak "your language"

Some of my friends with rich ideas are Davide de Angelis and Steve Noble (Director of Alternatives). They run regular Prosperi ty workshops and I attended one of these today. Davide explained the difference between "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the indispensable". There is a great difference between these two attitudes.

Think of a business which is built on the attitude of "survival of the fittest".

Now think of a business which is built on the attitude of "survival of the indispensable".

When something (or someone) is "indispensable", their presence supports the existence and growth of those around them. Indeed, their presence is fundamental to the existence and growth of others.

The best way I can illustrate the difference between "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the indispensable" is by asking you to watch this inspirational video of Nick Vujicic

Nick Vujicic, in my opinion, is a perfect example of "survival of the indispensable". Please watch this video: Nick Vujicic

What are the words you are using to define who you are? How is the language of your thoughts shaping the way you relate with the world around you?

Email Post   |  Print This Post    | 12 Views

Help others find this article at:
del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Google Technorati