personalities, conversations and frames
Just lately I’ve been thinking about two things. One is framing – and by that I really just mean holding a general view that some things are important and interesting while other things are unimportant and uninteresting. Most of the time I suppose we’re fairly unaware of our own frames. We assume that we’re just seeing the world as it is, rather than in any particular way. I suspect we only really notice our frame when it becomes apparent that someone else has a different one.
Which brings me to the second thing. Some people seem to have an ability to draw other people into their frames. An extreme example is a clever writer or filmmaker who can persuade an audience to empathise with a character they would ordinarily find morally repugnant. But a much more interesting example is an ordinary person who somehow assumes the role (because we somehow place them in the role) of Official Framer of Reality – at least for the duration of a conversation, possibly for longer, maybe even for ever. Perhaps the person is powerful, charismatic, or particularly confident. Maybe it’s to do with the sorts of details some scientists point to as ‘alpha’ behaviours, like lots of eye contact and physical touching. Who knows. But on the whole I think it’s a subtle trait, quite distinct from the ability to argue with people and persuade them that their view is wrong and yours is right.
Just say, for the purpose of creating an example, that you are of the view that wealth isn’t an especially important thing but that creativity is enormously interesting and valuable. That is exactly the kind of assumption that can be reversed by a strong framer with the opposite view, even (perhaps especially) if the difference isn’t expressed explicitly, but rather trickles through the conversation indirectly. Having carefully built an entire life around the values you hold, you might find yourself suddenly feeling peculiarly inadequate about your own lack of wealth, or oddly uncertain about your creative pursuits. It’s because you’ve been tricked, even if just for a moment, into assessing things according to someone else’s set of criteria, skipping the crucial step of questioning whether or not those criteria sit well with you.
It sounds as though I’m suggesting that strong framers are tricky and insidious and always out to make everyone else feel insecure. But generally speaking, I don’t think that’s true. For one thing they can get us thinking about our own frames, which is excellent. For another, I don’t think they’re often aware that they’ve been appointed Official Framer of Reality. It’s pretty normal to assume you’re right if no one disagrees with you, and no one is disagreeing with them.
But most importantly of all, some people’s frames are lovely to be drawn into. It’s a small example, but I love the work of the British illustrator Laura Stoddart.
For a good hour or so after reading her books I find that people and trees look like Laura-Stoddart’s-people-and-trees, and they’re all the more beautiful for it.
More generally, there are framers whose worldviews are generous and compassionate, or funny, or exciting, or profoundly hopeful and characterised by a sense of unending possibility. I think it’s a wonderful, beautiful thing to find ourselves and other people drawn into these sorts of frames.
Whether it’s something that diminishes us in troubling ways or extends us in valuable ways, I think frames and framers are useful concepts to mull over. And I would love to know what you think about them.
I really enjoyed this post. “Framing” is an excellent (and unusually even-handed) word to describe what most of us think of as manipulation, which, as you say, is not always a bad thing. I guess “rhetoric,” the power to persuade, would be another way to put it.
Wonderful and enlightening post, Anna!
That’s why after talking to some people I feel like a failure. But then after I’ve readjusted my brain, I just feel like me again. I enjoy the process of making stories and art and I’m fairly content doing that without any professional recognition. But for obvious reasons, that seems like a loosing proposition to most of the population. Oh well, I’d rather be me and hopeful than feel like a looser all the time. So I just have to let those framers walk away thinking I’m nuts!
Thanks for the insight.
What an interesting post. I, like Anne, think “framing” is a lovely non-judgemental way to describe the general process.
I am a big believer in the phrase, “don’t judge a person till you’ve walked in their shoes” … which could somewhat be paraphrased as “don’t judge a person till you have seen life through their frame”. And I think it’s so important to do that. Understanding and compassion = good things. Even if looking through another person’s frame confirms your belief that it’s a bad frame, it is still important to TAKE that look.
thats interesting, I have not heard it called framing before. like emily I definately believe in walking in the shoes of a person before you judge them.
I clearly remember the first time I realized
my world view wasn’t the same as every one around me. It was disturbing because I believed mine was the one most conducive to survival as a species.
It bothered me that the people around me didn’t share my concerns.
As an adult I realise we have different
paradigms and find that fact fascinating.
I look back at some of my assumptions and am fascinated by my own naiviety
but also how generous I was. What is really fascinating is that my own values and belief systems have not really changed. I guess I must have “terminal optimism”
Brilliant post. I love how you compare how some people can draw readers or watchers into their frames so subtly and powerfully. It’s what I aspire to.
http://www.katrinadelallo.blogspot.com
I’ve said it before and no doubt I’ll say it again – I do believe I have the nicest and most interesting readers of any blogger I know! Thank you so much for these thoughtful responses. You’ve given me lots to mull over.