• Recognize the different ones in use •
[1½ MIN READ]
Conversations and collaboration are prone to going haywire when participants are naïve to or ignorant of the ways they and others are engaging together.
In politics, conversations about partisanship often overlook the reality that the ideological can shape conviction independent of party membership. In faith, criticism of institutional behavior can easily overemphasize personal autonomy at the expense of an institution’s true spiritual underpinnings.
A way to consider a matter that I’ve used to address the many different perspectives within a given issue is to “Speak to the -Al’s”; i.e., to address the relevant adjectives that end in “-al.”
In political considerations, the issues might not actually be political, but might be ideological or even legal or judicial. Each of the specific angles of perspective changes the subtleties of an effort as simple as a conversation, much less the complexities of a more extensive collaboration. In faith considerations, when a critic challenges the behavior within a “sect,” to what degree are they actually scorning individual actions and failing to see them as deviations from its larger philosophical or ideological underpinnings?
Ignorance of relevant angles of perspective can complicate a collaborative effort, but understanding them can also enhance the process.
Angles of Perspective webpage
iCandybyWangC 