the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…You may find yourself in another part of the world, You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile…’)
Lets talk about COUPLES! Yes, I’m talking about: two of a pair, walkin’ hand in hand, complete each other sentence(s)… let’s hear it for the destroyer of all (non-sexual) friendships the one, the only because we are so close we are a….can you hear it? …the world is saying it, as one, out of two…. the Couple!
I know that (the) roger has you on CSR 101 (clarks, scotts and rogers) and this is the most correct approach to learning this thing. Get the basics of the Doctrine down, look around at the people in your life, match description of each of the three types and your world will soon be populated with clarks, scotts and rogers; all acting and re-acting, interacting and detracting…to your benefit and improvement. …But is there more…? (Go ahead, you know what’s behind this link.)
Of course there is more, how can there not be more?
There are/is/am the couple, the friendship that has sexual contrast as the primary feature/dynamic. (Hey this is the 21st-damn-Century!) Yes, we are talking about when 2 people are linked by sexual difference. Male-female/male-male/female-female, does not matter. The sexual component does. Make(s) the difference. All of the difference.) (All) (OF) (IT).
They are not friends…they are a Couple! (Here is a little mood music, courtesy of Joe Jackson. Sorry, no video).
OK, fine. What good does that do us?
I’ll tell you. It gives us a very, very useful (teaching) tool for the Wakefield Doctrine. Because the best way to understand the Doctrine is to see examples of the 3 types (of people) in your life. And, as everyone past puberty knows, being a Couple brings out the best in us! (And so, totally the worst in us).
So, let’s begin (our little lesson) with the easiest of the Couples to identify: rogerian male/scottian female.
This is the most ‘attractive’ of Couples. They are both attractive, in every sense of the word. Although if you want to get technical about it, she has the ‘sex appeal’ and he has the ‘socialibility skills’.
She is hot and he is charming. They look great together. (Now, think about what you know about each respective type: rogers are social, herd based and will identify with the group, scotts are individualistic and will hunt alone, but will focus all attention on one person at a time.)
But how do you really know that you are meeting a scottian/rogerian Couple? The interaction, what they do with each other and to each other. She will be the more aggressive one, he will seem to be more relaxed. One of the ‘primary characteristics of the scottian female/rogerian male couple is how they talk about themselves. She will talk to and about her partner in a very noticeable style. A style that everyone that is listening wants to believe is affectionate ‘criticisms’.
“Hey! You know what roger here did the other day?” “You should have heard roger at the party the other night”…all of these comments and remarks are presented with an overall ‘I really love this guy’ kind of vibe. ‘Jokingly’ critical but still on a fairly personal level. And all for the benefit of the crowd standing around our Couple.
(btw. And he does give every impression of enjoying this kind of exchange, the repartee. (The rogerian male), he laughs at her as much as she appears to be laughing at him.)
There is a clear dynamic tension with this couple. As a Couple they both make an impression, they are not to be ignored.
(Damn this topic is way bigger than I thought…. Let’s find some music to close and we will come back in the next Post to finish (this) discussion of scottian females/rogerian males.) …And if we can through that onwards to other ‘couple combinations’.
But since Joe Jackson is the man today, let’s have him take us out….(ya gotta love the host of whatever British TV show this clip originated on).
Just a thought…
You know that this Doctrine is ‘gender neutral’, right? (You should know it is the first item in the column to the right). I just had a conversation with an associate (at work) about the whole clark, scott, roger thing. And she said, “I’ll only go to the blog if you add a name for a female scott”. To which I replied, “No”
(Quick quiz: which of the three was this person and why is the only possible answer no?)**
(Answers at the bottom of the blog.)*
But to re-state the Doctrine on distinctions between male and female: there is none. It is very simply a matter of using the terms properly, ie. a person is not a female scott, she is a scottian female; he is not a male roger he is a rogerian guy, she a rogerian female. (clarks…does it really matter?)
Hope that clears up any lingering confusion about the differences between the male/female versions of clarks, scotts and rogers.
You know….the more I read this (oh, I so read my own Posts)…the more I am thinking that Joe (Jackson) is only giving us a limited musical view of our topic. So I am adding two (not one!) clips of nearly the same song. (The backstory, as I gather it, is that the second of these songs was written in response to the first). Any CW experts want to add or contribute information on these songs is invited to do so. So the first.
(Now what I am believing is a response.)
*(Hi clark. Of the three you are the most likely to jump to the bottom before reading the actual Post)
**(Answers: she is a scott and ‘there is no need for a special name for female scotts because they are not ‘female scotts, they are scottian females’ see above)