Shona Cameron, one of my colleagues in the world of Nonviolent Communication (or NVC) sends through a link to a fascinating article in the Guardian about something called e-prime: This column will change your life: to be or not to be…
The article, by Oliver Burkeman, refers to an idea I had not come across before. David Bourland, proposes – in an essay about something he calls e-prime – to eliminate the use of the verb “to be”. Burkeman references one of Bourland’s teachers, Alfred Korzybski, known especially for his assertion that “the map is not the territory”.
It seems to me that Bourland’s idea, put forward some 45 years ago, reflects Korzybski’s teaching. For if you can no longer say “John is lazy”, you are obliged to find some other way of putting your idea forward, perhaps a way that reflects you own responsibility for reaching this conclusion (“It’s my view that John does not work as hard as some of his colleagues”, for example). This new linguistic turn of phrase does more to highlight the gap between the map and the territory it seeks to represent, making clear the role of the viewer in the viewing. Perhaps this different turn of phrase might even highlight this gap to the viewer and invite greater self-accountability. How many performance appraisals might be transformed by such a fine distinction? How many family arguments might never take place?
The article’s author asserts that e-prime never really caught on and yet the distinctions made by Bourland and Korzybski have found their way into many schools of thinking. Our ability to distinguish between what we observe and our response to what we observe is an essential part of Nonviolent Communication, for example, whilst Korzybski’s phrase “the map is not the territory” has been adopted as a core presupposition in the world of Neurolinguistic Programming (or NLP).
How widely understood is the gap between the “map” and the “territory”? Not very. One might even observe that in any relationship in which one party wishes to expercise power and influence it can help to obscure the distinction. If, though, we aspire to honest open relationships in which people make free, informed choices, we might find that e-prime’s elimination of the verb “to be” invites greater transparency of thought.
Mmm… before I press the “publish post” button, let me just check this posting for my use of the verb “to be”…