Abstract
Is there a need for irreverence in our field? This article lays out a case for what the author calls “transformational irreverence” and also “reverence” in our work, along with some approaches to encourage them.
Rebels are living testaments to the irreverent exercise of free will (and thought) in the face of what might seem, to their more conventional counterparts, necessities or truths in no need of being challenged.
After reading Korte’s (2016) response to Chermack and Swanson’s (2015) recent Debate and Dialogue article, which warned that “theory scholars and researchers have become so steeped in their methodologies that their methodologies have become theologies” (p. 509), I laughed out loud. Yep. Out loud. Which is pretty rare when I’m reading any article written in APA 6th style. Although I appreciated the nascent tête-à-tête and realized it was a legitimate discussion between well-regarded scholars I respect, a minor guffaw snuck out when reading Korte’s rejoinder that Chermack and Swanson’s three-criteria solution “could easily be mistaken for an ideology grounded in their particular philosophical perspective” (p. 125). Touché, I thought.
It may be that applied disciplines falter when methodologies become theologies, as Chermack and Swanson aver but, really, would that be worse than if a field were to lose the sense of awe and wonder which is the essence of both science and spirituality? Korte (2016) is right, I think, when he emphasizes the need for philosophizing and the process of discovery. Similarly, Heschel (1951/1979) wrote that “The tree of knowledge grows upon the soil of mystery” (p. 7). Methodologies may or may not become theologies, but if they are, where is the heresy? Where are the martyrs? The prophets? Perhaps qualitative and quantitative research methodologies actually have denominations or sects rather than completely different theologies. (Though it is true, in a polytheistic sense, that each methodology seems to have its own separate god or two who has bestowed upon us a book of wisdom which, unlike the Ten Commandments, continues to require updated editions.)
I found myself asking if these kinds of kerfuffles are the most provocative, profound, engaging “debates” and “dialogues” that our field has to offer. It is not that these discussions are unimportant, but where’s the fun stuff? Where are two or three camps, with their brilliant yet colorful geniuses, going at it? These kinds of academic back-and-forth’s hardly count as controversial, and throughout history, if science has been anything, it’s been controversial (Machamer, Pera, & Baltas, 2000), sometimes to the point of entertainment. (Political correctness has been a hugely popular topic in the public square lately, but that isn’t because human resource development [HRD] scholars initiated debate about its use and misuse.) Though I believe HRD, and especially the academy, should be a role model for the civility and care that we advocate for the work environment, it does not mean that we should not be engaged in memorable persiflage, back-and-forth-and-all-around questioning-and-challenging, and the occasional good-spirited melee. (And yes, I am aware of the fabled “three-legged-stool” dust-up from years gone by.)
Rebellion
McLean (2010), in a 2010 Human Resource Development Quarterly article titled “Human Resource Development Scholar as Rebel,” called for HRD to consider how it might break out from standard ways of thinking. He asked how the field of HRD could “facilitate dramatic and radical disconnections” (p. 317) from accepted wisdom and implored HRD to put the means into place to facilitate rather than to obstruct “radical innovative” and creative views. Change, he said, is “desperately” needed to move into such a culture. He mentioned the risks rebels take and asked if those in the field were willing to take such risks. It is worth pausing to ask whether, in the intervening years, there has much rebel activity. Although it is quite possible I missed the revolution, one wonders if we have seen the kind of rousing discourse that one might expect when taking on the sacred cows of the field. As Mayor Shinn asked Harold Hill in The Music Man “Where’s the band? Where’s the band?” (“The Music Man,” n.d.).
Dyson (2006), in his book, The Scientist as Rebel, which spawned the title of McLean’s article, said that “science is an alliance of free spirits in all cultures rebelling against the local tyranny that each culture imposes on its children” (p. 4) and he shows that science has been “subversive” (p. 6) through a long history. In what areas has the field of HRD been subversive lately? Better, where has there been subversion within the field?
The question of whether there exist HRD truths which are considered so engrained that a scholar or practitioner questioning them might be figuratively burned at the stake deserves consideration. Identifying the questions which would be considered unthinkable or indisputable in our field is a litmus test for identifying areas where the spirit of inquiry has been replaced by beliefs-acting-as-truths and which are, therefore, considered unassailable. How open-minded are HRD scholars, really? Is there a dominant culture or cultures or ideologies within our field that are virtually unassailable and unquestionable? Are there ideas or questions in the academy that would be considered off-limits? Are there tacit assumptions about who we are, what we stand for, and what we believe that constrain our thinking, inquiry, and depth of understanding?
So, are there truths within the academy which are privileged and uncontestable and dominant? If there are not, where is the controversy? Where are the exciting discussions? What are the big, juicy HRD theoretical, methodological, or practice issues? Have those all been resolved, and now we just have to see if they prove out? Maybe we have few of the big personalities coming along these days to provoke our thinking, and the rabble-rousers of our past are now, relatively, passé. Who, these days, are provocateurs within the academy, pushing against popular theories or lines of research?
So, just for grins, take a moment to write down some truths or ideologies (or even ideologues you’ve spotted) which would be very difficult to question in the academy. What would be politically incorrect to question seriously? Is there any line of inquiry which might cause a member to be ostracized in the academy? If you can think of one or more, list them now (C’mon, this is an article about irreverence in an academic journal, try something a little off-the-wall here):
1.
2.
3.
Irreverence
In general, irreverence is considered “disrespect to what is sacred” (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1941), and, closely related, blasphemy is considered to be irreverence toward “something considered sacred or inviolable,” “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God,” or “the act of claiming the attributes of deity” (“Blasphemy,” n.d.). Although irreverence ranges from lighthearted to serious, blasphemy is serious and emotionally laden, and may be considered to be contemptible, often unforgiveable, affronts to what others consider sacred and incontrovertible.
Heresy is viewed as different from irreverence and blasphemy as it is “a belief or opinion that does not agree with the official belief or opinion of a particular religion” (“Heresy,” n.d.). More broadly, it is “dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice” and “an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards” (“Heresy,” n.d.). It is therefore not the same as doing something which defiles or insults the sacred; it is rather a belief that differs from established truth or doctrine.
Irreverence, blasphemy, and heresy are terms also used to describe secular situations, and it is in that secular sense, and in particular how they might relate to HRD, that they are used in this article. Hamel (2000), writing for business leaders, said,
Heretics, not prophets, create revolutions. You can immerse yourself in what’s changing, but you’ll only see the opportunities to leverage change in novel ways if you can escape the shackles of tradition. There is so much that individuals cannot imagine simply because they are prisoners of their own dogma (p. 43)
and Asimov (1977), writing about the heretic in science, said, “ . . . startling scientific advances usually begin as heresies . . . ” (p. 12).
For purposes of this discussion, irreverence constitutes behaviors, which may or may not be considered disrespectful, that test or break boundaries or rules. Irreverence often illuminates or demonstrates hypocrisy or absurdity.
Some people are irreverent simply by living authentically and uniquely, with little regard for social convention, and with no agenda other than living fully. Irreverent people test or break rules, point out incongruous behaviors, and challenge beliefs that to them seem hypocritical, unfair, or untrue. Irreverent behaviors range from relatively harmless humor to satire to sacrilege.
Two Types of Irreverence
Further, irreverence can be placed into two categories, what I am calling gratuitous irreverence and transformative irreverence: (a) gratuitous irreverence is primarily self-serving, and may be conducted just for fun, for recognition-seeking, and can be mean-spirited; and (b) transformative irreverence, which is intended primarily for social but also personal change, occurs via the exposition of hypocrisy, social absurdity, or hegemonic assumptions which pose as “truth.” The aim of transformative irreverence is to encourage people to question the unquestionable, and in so doing to develop deeper thinking. These two types of irreverence are not mutually exclusive as gratuitous irreverence may turn out to be transformative, and transformative irreverence may also be self-serving.
Transformative Irreverence
Transformative irreverence may be perceived or be intended to be disrespectful. Some people might feel it to be blasphemous or heretical. It might involve humor, as in satire; be simply an enjoyable, liberating breaking of written or unwritten rules which are constraining; occur via various performing or fine art forms such as song, theater, dance, sculpture, painting, or writing; take place in various modes of inquiry, including the social or natural sciences; or take more serious forms of dissent. At its roots, it has the serious purpose of enabling personal expression and inquiry, improving society, and extending individual freedoms.
Although irreverent behaviors may or may not have as their ultimate purpose to change individuals, society, institutions, or culture, the specific purpose of transformative irreverence is to prod people to question their thinking about beliefs and practices, and the way those are manifested interpersonally, institutionally, socially, or culturally. Often, irreverent activities will point out the difference between espoused values and beliefs and how they actually occur in practice.
Methods (Not Theological Yet) for Becoming More Irreverent
Zen Maxim: Great doubt: great awakening. Little doubt: little awakening. No doubt: no awakening. (Batchelor, 2015, p. 42)
One of the most important roles of irreverence in this context is to create doubt from certainty. Here are some approaches to being more irreverent in our work.
Heretical Thinking
Heretical thinking, as defined here, is a state of questioning or weighing accepted or imposed beliefs or practices. Heretical thinking may or may not be conducted publically; it may be internal inquiry or reflection. To some, the act of assessing may itself be considered heretical because it does not unquestioningly accept received truth or practice. To others, the act of considering may not be in itself deemed heretical because no position of opposition or disbelief has been actually adopted. Irreverential thinking and behaviors, when they enable and facilitate the questioning of dogma or received truth, here are considered to be agents for heretical thinking, which then may or may not result in heresy.
Self-Irreverence
Self-irreverence, as conceived here, is making fun of ourselves. It is being disrespectful of our own notions of what we consider to be true or right in order to test those beliefs, or to let the world in on the secret that one’s views are evolving. Self-irreverence, that is, mocking or joking about our own self-importance or our own so-called truths or hypocrisies or foibles, demonstrates in a humble way that one is open to opportunities for deeper dialogue. It requires humility—It is saying “I do not know everything and I am not perfect.” (It’s saying to yourself something like, “Are you CRAZY? Why did you ever think that transformative learning was just an ADULT learning theory?”)
Transgression—Testing and Breaking Boundaries
Humor can be a way to show the ludicrousness of rules and conventions. Making people aware of the absurdity, unreasonableness, incongruity, or unfairness is an important role for irreverence. Testing boundaries, by explicating, challenging, or breaking rules, is irreverential. Norquay (1999) wrote about the stories of rebellion concerning six women teachers. She calls their stories ones of irreverence and resistance, in which individuals “test boundaries, to challenge or poke fun at authority, or to actually live outside the confines of gender subordination” (p. 418).
Subverting the Status Quo
“Breaking the Rules” is a theme Britton (2004) also brought to the discussion of irreverence when discussing the work of writer Maryse Condé, but added the idea of subversion. Irreverents are not interested in keeping life, or the institution, with all its flaws, the same. They are interested in change.
Speaking the Unspeakable—Exposing the Gap Between Espoused Practice and Actual Practice
Gans (1976) said that “comedy has always been used to speak the unspeakable” (p. 59). Court jesters, situation comedies, carnival, and satirists are able to illuminate the tacit knowledge that others cannot (Bakhtin, 1984; Ehrenreich, 2007; Gans, 1976; Southworth, 1998; Swift, 2007). When these irreverents articulate the nonsensicalness of a situation in memorable, perhaps humorous, ways, it can reveal hypocrisy and further possibilities for heretical thinking and social change.
To Revere or to Irrevere—That Is Not the Question 1
Transformational irreverence and reverence are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, complement each other. Ironically, the more I have thought about irreverence, the more important reverence and spirituality has become to me both personally and professionally. Having a sense of reverence, of awe and wonder and infinity, can lead people to learn more and to seek answers about that which goes far beyond any human’s ability to comprehend. This is true from not only spiritual but also from scientific perspectives. Practicing transformational irreverence may lead to greater understanding of what might be constraining personal, organizational, and social potential, understanding, and growth.
Each comes from a different direction to the same place—the continuing process of moving closer and closer to truth. Transformational irreverence might be able to help save reverence from the dangers of becoming too doctrinaire and bureaucratic. If, as Chermack and Swanson (2015) have said, HRD methodologies can become theologies, perhaps a dose of self-irreverence in the field might provide a more secular perspective. Alternatively, reverence might be able to help save transformational irreverence from skepticism and superficiality and cynicism. It is possible that reverence and transformational irreverence could be as valuable to organizations as to our personal lives, as important for religion as for science, as essential for society as for spirituality, and it is conceivable that the interaction of the two can result in deeper, more profound, personal wisdom individually and, perhaps, to less repressive and more liberating systems socially.
Kleiner (2008), writing about leaders who revolutionized management starting in the 1940s, said
corporate heretics may be the closest thing we have, in our self-contradictory time, to a true conscience of large corporations. Many of them have lost their jobs or failed to reach their potential because they would not turn back from the truth they saw. (pp. 13-14).
Knowing these dangers and also the potential benefits, it seems logical that a field dedicated to creating healthy, safe organizational environments might be able to devise ways for the academy to honor and protect its own rebels, heretics, irreverents, and nonconformists when they raise questions about HRD ideology, theory, or practice. Clearly, making fun of or ridiculing others is not a strategy which builds healthy organizations, so one approach might be designing methods and then taking time for “self-irreverence” sessions, when we can make fun of our own perceived self-importance, challenge our own roles as gatekeepers of “truth,” and ask ourselves if there are areas where we are the ones wearing or observing the Emperor’s new clothes.
At the same time irreverence is being explored, HRD scholars and practitioners might explore venues to develop a deeper sense of reverence for our field and what our purpose is. We are in an exciting and important field, with genuine opportunities to make a positive difference both for organizations and the people who comprise them, but how often do we seek and then experience the awe and wonder in our work that can be felt through a “mountain-top” experience? What are the wellsprings for developing an ever more profound sense of what good work is, of the human experience, and of the full potential of individuals not simply as resources but as people? How can we design those awe-inspiring, wonder-inducing, infinitely speculative experiences into our conferences, our professional development, and our collaborative and individual work?
Footnotes
Author’s Note
Portions of this article were adapted from To Revere or to Irrevere: That Is Not the Question (Kroth, 2016), originally published in the 2016 AHRD International Conference Proceedings.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.