BRAZIL:

HEAVEN OR HELL?

(PART 1)

ROBERT WARREN

Brazilians themselves typically say two things:

1. "Brazil is problematic"

2. "Brazil is viable".

Accordingly, I have divided this article into two parts, each part presuming that the corresponding statement is true. Part 1 attempts to identify the problem and proposes a solution. Part 2 shows in what way Brazil is "viable" and expands the proposed solution of Part 1 into a proposal for the application of a psychology known as "LP" or "Lateral Psychology".

For me, writing this article was a therapeutic experience. As a shell-shocked immigrant who arrived in Brazil at the end of 1973 - admittedly not the worst years of the revolution but for me bad enough - I was still motivated almost 2O years later to concentrate first on the problematic aspects of life in Brazil. These serious problems exist as Brazilians themselves confirm, but somehow through the "alternative perception" proposal of Part 1 I managed to see more clearly the brighter side of Brazilian social life. Of course, Brazilians also feel this brighter side, but they are usually unable to say why except for mentioning events such as the traditional carnival, passion for football and the mysterious undying hope of the Brazilian people even under the most adverse circumstances. What I have achieved in Part 2 I think, is to demonstrate some of the reasons behind the happiness which survives in Brazil. I hope that as a result my Brazilian readers will feel as confident and optimistic as I myself feel after having laid bare the mechanisms of this happiness.

Language and Social Behaviour

It is obvious that language and social behaviour go together. Language is necessary in order to conduct social affairs and it is hard to imagine doing this with one's mouth shut or without the use of a pen (or its modern equivalent). In other words, social behaviour is "linguistic" in some way and this idea appeals to common sense. However, if you look for the "nouns" and the "verbs" of social behaviour you might run into a few problems of interpretation. What, then, is the relationship between social behaviour and language? I should say that the essence of this question lies in the way that language and behaviour are learned, if indeed it is appropriate to speak of "learning" at all rather than "acquisition". ("Learning" implies a deliberate effort, while "acquisition" implies that you "catch" knowledge rather like catching a disease.) What I am suggesting is that people learn/acquire social behaviour in ways which might be similar to the way they learn/acquire language. It is also interesting to note that questions of learning versus acquisition are also relevant to concepts of "native" and "foreign" in language: "acquisition" is mostly associated with "native" and "learning" is mostly associated with "foreign", although these associations are by no means exclusive.

Defining social behaviour in these terms (i.e. using a linguistic model of social behaviour), we are able to understand problems which hitherto have demonstrated a strangely mysterious quality. Furthermore, possible solutions emerge when before they appeared to be impossible in practice if not in theory, a great source of frustration to the average Brazilian who lives in a world of never-ending perplexity. Let us examine some of the obvious characteristics of language as an example.

1) Everybody in Brazil speaks Portuguese. Variations in vocabulary, accent, etc. exist, but it remains coherent as a system. However, if you pop across the border into Argentina you find a different universal and coherent system: Spanish. The point is this. In relation to the generation of social problems in Brazil, everybody considers himself innocent. The individual is never to blame. A victim of external (uncontrollable) forces, Brazilians typically blame the president, the government, politicians, the military, foreign exploitation, Brazil's history, and anything else he can lay his hands on, but never himself. What the Brazilian never realizes is that he is a participant in Brazil's disgrace. However, "blame" is a hard word not really appropriate to the circumstances, and for this reason the Brazilian rejects it. After all, who can "blame" him for the (unconscious) acquisition of the Brazilian social language?

2) Brazilians often speak in terms of "causes" and "cures", demonstrating preference for a medical model. For example, the economic system is "sick" and the people have to grin and bear the bad taste of economic "medicine" in the form of recessions, unemployment, etc. But what are the "causes" of a language? They may exist, but you will have a hell of a job in finding them. Can you "cure" the knowledge of a native language? I should hardly think so, except by killing the speaker! (This may incidentally be a small contributory insight into the reasons behind the low value of human life in Brazil.)

Yes, a linguistic model seems to make sense in relation to Brazilian problems. But what does this indicate in terms of proposed solutions? Very simply this. That Brazil needs a social language of the following characteristics:

a) deliberately constructed, but somehow "natural" in origin;

b) long-term (after all, nobody could learn a new language in 5 minutes);

c) implemented through formal education (school, university).

There would be no question of abolition of the inadequate aspects of the native social language, but simply the cultivation of a more appropriate alternative, rather like the learning of a foreign language in linguistics which is found by many to be a therapeutically rewarding activity and a valuable extension to the personality, nevertheless challenging because it touches upon the traumas of the real internal self needing modification.

So what would this alternative language consist of? I hope to be able to outline this on the following pages.

Alternative Perception

The key concept in my proposal for the drawing-out of a more appropriate social language in Brazil lies in the term "alternative perception". In order to explain this concept, I should like you to examine the following picture.

Probably, most of you are familiar with this classical design from Gestalt Psychology, and I presume that you are able to see both an ugly old woman and a beautiful young woman in it. To me, this is the most important picture in the world, not only because of what it points out in relation to the perception of the individual, but also because of the insights it gives us into the common vices of social dialogue. I contend that all social situations contain something of the essence of this picture. In other words, no social situation easily lends itself to a single interpretation without alternative. All social situations are double or even multiple in terms of the coherent structures they contain. Against this background, I should like to make a number of observations about the picture and my experience of showing it to various people. Remember, the picture now represents a (possibly problematic) social situation.

Individuals vary in their reactions to the picture. Some people see the old woman first (a slight majority), and some people see the young woman first. Interestingly, a few people see a woman who is neither young nor old. I presume, however, that the artist intended that we should perceive either a young woman or an old woman, and nothing else. By some stretch of the imagination perhaps some people are able to see an elephant or a TV set, but I think they must be persons of rather unusual personality. No, most of us see either a young or an old woman, and, significantly, we do not see both at the same time. (However, as we practise more and more, switching from one interpretation to the other becomes more rapid and eventually gives the impression of simultaneous perception.) Some people discover the alternative perception within a short time, while others have the greatest difficulty. Even verbal descriptions such as "this mouth of the old woman is also the necklace of the young woman", surprisingly, help very little.

What I am concerned with here, is to demonstrate what people typically do when they have a dialogue in relation to a social situation containing double or multiple coherent structures and the effects of this dialogue on the speakers/listeners. The use of a picture makes the errors and sins committed in the dialogue obvious. In contrast, the same errors and sins are frequently forgotten or not perceived when people discuss a social situation of similar characteristics. In order to illustrate my various points, I shall construct a series of short dialogues, commenting briefly on each one.

A. What do you see?

B. A nice young woman.

A. Me too.

By co-incidence, both participants perceive the same thing: the beautiful side of reality. Neither of them is interested in an alternative perception, and consequently neither of them perceives the uglier side of the reality of the picture.

A. What do you see?

B. An ugly old woman.

She looks like a witch.

A. I think so too.

As for the first dialogue: no alternative perception is sought. However, both perceive ugliness.

A. What do you see?

B. A witch.

A. You're crazy.

It's a beautiful young woman.

B. You're the crazy one.

It's obviously a witch.

In this example, the two participants enter into a situation of debate which is likely to escalate into a heated battle. No-one seeks an alternative perception. Moreover, neither participant gives credibility to the reality of the perception of the other.

A. What do you see?

(In fact, B sees both the old and the young woman.)

B. A desirable young woman.

A. Don't you see an ugly old woman?

B. Certainly not.

You must be mad to suggest such a thing.

Here, B is telling lies. He has (with possibly "good" motives) a political purpose. However, if A were of fragile personality, B might actually provoke A's madness by insisting on the "falsity" or "unreality" of his perception.

A. What do you see?

B. A red herring.

A. What?

Are you sure?

B. Of course I'm sure.

A. Don't you see a young woman?

B. No.

A. Can you see an old woman?

B. No.

Just a red herring.

B may or may not be telling lies. He may or may not have "good" political motives. If not, he must be of rather unusual personality in order to extract the perception of a red herring from the picture and to be blind to the women in it. Neverthless, his insistence on the perception of a red herring would tend to drive A crazy.

A. What do you see?

B. A young woman.

A. So do I.

But I also see an ugly old woman.

B. Really?

Of course I believe you, but I must say I have some difficulty in seeing

anything other than a young woman.

A. Well, listen to this:

The young woman's face is the old woman's nose.

This necklace is the old woman's mouth.

B. Ah!

Now I see it!

Ha-ha!

And this ear is her eye, right?

A. Right.

In the dialogue above, B is ready and willing to have an alternative perception. He has confidence in the intentions of his partner. Finally, with his partner's help he achieves his alternative perception. Perhaps he prefers his original perception (a beautiful young woman), but he acknowledges A's less attractive alternative as a valuable part of the reality of the picture. There is no debate here. The sudden switch of perception causes laughter, which is no co-incidence.

Errors and sins abound, and hardly need any comment. The last dialogue is the only really desirable one. It is not based on debate (even "friendly" debate). Nobody is arrogant or dogmatic. At least one of the participants is open to the possibility of an alternative perception, and is pleased when he finds it, even though he prefers his original perception.

Tragically, we tend not to perceive these same sins and errors when we are engaged in dialogue about social situations, evaluations of personality, sentences uttered by people, etc. These situations appear to be so much more complex, and perhaps this is the reason why our attention is drawn away from the proper monitoring of what we are actually doing when we interact with other people in a problem situation. The more important the situation, the higher the emotions involved, the more perverse or blind we get. In other words, we participate in debate of some kind. The word "debate" as I use it refers to a whole class of dialogues with a common set of characteristics. At one end of the scale a "debate" may consist of a "friendly argument" between professional colleagues, for example. In the middle of the scale we may have the discourse of a husband and wife who are on the point of separation, participating in a battle of tongues. At the other extreme we have a real war, where people actually kill one another in order to defend their points of view. If we imagine ouselves looking at the picture of the old/young woman, and you and I have a debate about it, what typically happens is something like the following:

(i) I affirm or give importance to the perception of the old woman.

(ii) You do the same thing, but with respect to the young woman.

(iii) I try to convince you of the "truth" or importance of the perception of the old woman in the hope that you will respond favourably.

(iv) You do the same thing, but with respect to the young woman.

(v) Neither one of us is motivated to have an alternative perception for himself: instead, we "defend" our original perceptions.

The result is that we establish a personal relationship which is clearly symmetrical and not complementary (i.e. we both behave in a similar way). In such situations people tend to polarize in their opinions. The situation tends towards schizmogenesis (escalation and eventual explosion). Everyone gets disappointed, and the "problem", whatever it is, is not solved.

Situations such as the one described above are fairly clear. After all, no-one admits that he is really in favour of a war. But what of "friendly arguments" and the like? Are these not different in some way? Healthy even? Personally, I believe that they are neither healthy nor essentially different, except that other factors present in the relationship between the participants (e.g. pre-established friendship) have the effect of stablizing the situation to some degree and preventing schizmogenesis. For me, a debate is a debate, no matter whether you call it a "friendly argument" or a war. The mechanism is the same. However, I would not go so far as the hippies in their lemma "make love, not war", although the political effect of this recommendation is admirable. Rather, I think that we should see debates as a kind of nightmare. We presume that nightmares exist because they are biologically necessary in some way. However, we prefer dreams to nightmares.

What, then, does the world and Brazil in particular need in terms of a new social language? What has emerged is that an alternative to debate is necessary. Brazil, in her situation of newly-found "democracy", does the very opposite. It is not the existence of debate which is inappropriate so much as its excess. Counter-revolutionary debate has given way to the apparently healthy debate of democracy, but I believe that Brazil is barking up the wrong tree in imagining that debate is an efficient way of solving technical and social problems. Generalizing, I think that debate is a way of making enemies, and it makes little difference whether you do this quickly or slowly according to the particular type of debate you are engaged in. What we really need is a new social language which promotes friendship and love.

Logic

Of course, in a debate everybody tries to be as logical or rational as possible. Our dialogue is permeated by expressions of "yes" for things we accept and "no" for things we reject. The word "no" is perhaps one of the first words we learn as a child. When Baby throws his food all over the floor, puts his hand down the toilet or imagines he is Superman by launching himself out of the window of his tenth-floor flat, Mummy firmly but gently introduces him to this word. When Baby insists on doing these things, Mummy's attitude becomes a little more firm. Later, at school, direct or indirect expressions of "yes" and "no" mould the behaviour of Little Johnny and determine his success or failure there. If he is co-operative, interested, hard-working and accepts the philosophy of the school, then "yes" he gets the school's seal of approval in the form of favourable reports, certificates, etc., proving his competence. If he is unco-operative, uninterested or lazy, or has difficulty in accepting mono-philosophies or mono-perceptions, then he is frequently branded as a failure. Over the years, the word "yes" and particularly the word "no" acquire rather serious emotional overtones.

Interestingly, animals have no difficulty in suggesting the idea of "yes", but have to engage in much more complex forms of behaviour to suggest the idea of "no". If a dog wants to suggest to another dog the idea "Yes, I am going to bite you", he just goes ahead and bites the other dog. If he wants to communicate the negative, then he first has to suggest the affirmative by growling at the other dog, for example. By repeating this threat, but not actually biting, the other dog eventually gets the message "No, I don't intend to bite you." "Yes" is easily expressed in both language and action, while "no" is only easily expressed through language, a specifically human ability. While obviously a great asset to our affairs, language also tends to condition our thinking in ways which are positively detrimental to our ability to interact socially and consequently to our capacity to solve problems. I suggest that much of our difficulty stems from the "immediate no" so easily and unthinkingly expressed in language.

Imagine abolishing the idea of "no" from our behaviour. What would we be left with? If I wanted to murder my mother-in-law, I would just go head and do it. If I wanted to make love to my neighbour's younger and more attractive wife, I would have no trouble: she would not be able to resist me directly, and her husband would not be able to disapprove. A rather wonderful dream-world, full of excitement and danger! Taking it that most of us have insufficient courage to live (or die) in such a world, we choose to go around sticking what we think are appropriate "no labels" on the "yeses" of our possible behaviour. We become "rational" or "logical" animals, and we worship the results of our "civilization". When the "yeses" and the "no's" of our behaviour protect us from nasty physical or psychological consequences, then we are "normal". A person with too many "no's" in his behaviour is "neurotic", while a person with too many "yeses" is "psychotic". It all appears to be very reasonable or logical.

On the other end of the scale we have the question of our thinking. Should it not also be equally logical? After all, illogical thinking can lead to illogical behaviour, and that is potentially dangerous. Mr. Piaget tells us about the logical development of the child. Overcoming logical errors one by one, the adolescent finally re-invents the system of adult logic for himself, and moves into a serene world of "maturity". But is this the whole story? What do you do when you go to sleep? You dream. Are dreams logical? Far from it. You dream of unusual or even impossible situations. An elephant is appointed economics minister in Brasilia. You make love to your mother-in-law. You draw a round square, and so on. No, nothing is impossible in dreams. To put it another way, you say "yes" to all ideas. Or to put it differently again, your biology arranges a kind of natural therapy to counteract the "yes-no logic" of your waking life, and this therapy is absolutely necessary. If someone stops you dreaming (i.e. indulging in crazy thinking while you are asleep), you do in fact go crazy during your waking life. This is ironic, but according to scientific experiments is apparently true.

I think that most of us would agree that our social behaviour is better restrained by logic to some degree, and that the use of "no" may often be appropriate, though we must avoid neurotic excesses. In contrast, the biological necessity of dreaming (even in animals) suggests that "no" is suitably less present in our private thoughts, that no direct harm can come from uninhibited or illogical thinking, and that this may even be beneficial to our ability to solve problems. But what of our discourse? What of the effects of our words on other people? The moment you say "no" to the idea of another person, you are transmitting the notion that his idea (and indirectly he himself) has no value or no relevance. This is a pity, because all ideas have value or can be made relevant in all contexts, and you are transmitting a myth. The brain works in a way which is different to the way we imagine it works, and consequently our ideas about this are also mythical or unscientific.

Let me give you a small example of how ridiculous or even repulsive ideas can be made relevant or useful:

A. How could we solve Brazil's economic problems?

B. Why not assassinate the president?

A. OK.

But what would the consequences of this be?

B. Well, probably they would appoint a new president of similar or even worse

characteristics.

A. I think you're right.

Let's just have him put in prison.

B. A better idea perhaps, but wouldn't it have similar consequences?

A. I suppose so.

But we could restrict the president in some other way.

B. Yes.

Why not insist more that he obeys the constitution?

Or restrict him with a parliamentary system?

Far from being an intelligent proposal for solving Brazil's economic problems, even a primitive dialogue such as the above demonstrates certain characteristics not normally present in debate:

1) The participants focus their attention on finding some kind of solution to the

problem, rather than engaging in sterile inter-personal games of verbal tennis.

2) Nobody has the slightest interest in demonstrating his eloquence: having new

ideas is much more important than the consideration of their quality. Fear of

being "wrong" just does not exist.

3} The direct use of "no" is always avoided. What happens instead is that the

participants imagine together the practical consequences of an idea. If these

consequences appear not to solve the problem adequately, then the idea is

simply transformed rather than rejected.

In summary, the further characteristics proposed so far for a new social language in Brazil are as follows:

d) The kind of language where participants are eager to find alternative perceptions together or to explore the alternative proposals of their colleagues.

e) The kind of language where attitudes towards perceptions do not deliberately or accidentally drive the participants crazy.

f) The kind of language where ideas and personalities are not immediately rejected by the pungent use of "no".

g) The kind of language which does not encourage debate, polarization of attitudes and consequent techniques of verbal (or even physical) attack.

h) The kind of language which reinforces friendship, love and belief instead of encouraging hate, disbelief and the making of enemies.

i) The kind of language where insistence on logic, rational processes, etc. does not interfere with ability or even interest in actually solving problems.

j) The kind of language which respects man's biological heritage by recognizing that dreaming is primary, prior to the development of logic, and cannot be successfully ignored in the conscious problem-solving processes of his social interaction.

Such a social language is perfectly possible, as I hope to demonstrate. However, there are other characteristics to be defined before I make my proposal explicit.

Dreams and Nightmares

I should now like to elaborate a little more on the question of dreams and nightmares and their relation to social behaviour. What is a dream? What is a nightmare? The so-called "biological" theory suggests that dreams represent work done during sleep in order to provide ome kind of solution to problems occurring during waking life. Sometimes the solutions are good ones, sometimes they are not so good. Nevertheless, the dream provides some kind of solution. In contrast, nightmares do not offer solutions. Their function is to force us to face a (perhaps serious) problem we have when during our waking-life we refuse to recognize adequately the existence of the problem. This is done vividly, perhaps in a way which is frightening. In short, dreams so1ve problems, but nightmares demonstrate problems.

It seems obvious to me that this classification of nightly thinking-behaviour lends itself to the general nature of our daily social-behaviour: we either try to solve problems by what we do, or we try to demonstrate to others the problems we have, and we not only do this individually, but we also do it collectively. It may be that dreams and nightmares in this sense sometimes get mixed up socially. For example, is a war a dream or a nightmare? To successful generals, it may be an excellent means of promotion and is therefore dream-like, while for the families of the dead soldiers it is nothing more than a terrible nightmare. In social life though, nightmares are not necessarily immediately frightening. Drug-taking may be an example. We can actually enjoy taking drugs while recognizing that it does nothing to solve our problem, if indeed we recognize that we have a problem at all.

Looking at social behaviour in terms of dreams and nightmares, I should say that society in general (not just Brazil) suffers an excess of nightmares. Violence, drug-taking, etc. are obvious examples, but I think that the situation is far worse than we imagine. What very often is taken as a dream turns out in fact to be a nightmare, except that few, if any, really see it as such. Part of the difficulty lies in the very definition of the word "dream". To many, a dream represents some ideal state of social affairs, such as living in a welfare state, having an efficient medical system, decent schools, etc. Invariably, attention is given to what is needed, and precious little attention is given to how it should be achieved.

The Dream Society

Most people imagine that the secret of life lies in happiness and success, particularly in material success. While it is obvious that a certain amount of material success is necessary to the hygiene of psycho-social life - the very "minimum" that the average Brazilian "dreams" of - I think that this fact draws attention away from other ideas which are equally if not more important. Rather than a noun expressing an ideal state of social affairs (the "what" of society) it would be more appropriate to interpret "dream" as a verb denoting "how" things should be conducted.

This brings us to the idea of a "dream society". A dream society is not necessarily capitalist or socialist, does not have a health system of characteristics X or an education system of characteristics Y, etc. Important though they are, these are the "whats" of social organization. A dream society is based on how these things are achieved: how decisions are taken, how problems are solved, how people think, feel, speak, act and react with one another. This is, if you like, the "grammar" of society, what people really do in contrast to the products of what they do.

However, a "dream" society implies that people make use of their dreaming, and, apart from what has been said already, this implies that they make positive use of actual dream techniques. We therefore have an important addition to our list of characteristics for a new social language in Brazil:

k) The kind of language where dream techniques are used positively and deliberately.

But what are these dream techniques? How are they applied to our thinking? Like you, I dream spontaneously at night when I am asleep. From my experience, I remember certain things about the dreams I have. Do you remember similar things? Anything can happen in a dream. I say "yes" to all ideas and possibilities, and then my dream explores the consequences. My dream tries to get me to see things differently, and will use any means available to provoke this new perception, even crazy means. Stereotyped ideas I have during the day, including strong beliefs or what I consider to be obvious and permanent facts, are simply inverted in my dream. Irrelevant ideas, people or situations occur, apparently having nothing whatsoever to do with the dramatic story in hand. Instead of doing things in the usual way, I decide to do them differently, and I am not at all worried about the efficiency or correctness of the way I now decide to solve the problem. Sometimes, my dreams are crowded with ideas and possibilities. What I actually do is not so much what I decide as what appears to emerge naturally. Behaviour in my dreams is generally direct and positive rather than doubtful or tentative. Ideas of permanent "right" or "wrong" are abandoned in favour of what is simply convenient in practical terms. In summary, the techniques we use in dreams are roughly characterized as follows:

1. Opening up of possibilities

2. Alternative or multiple perceptions

3. Inversion of ideas

4. Introduction of apparently irrelevant ideas

5. Continuous re-evaluation

6. Multiplicity of ideas and emergence of dominant ones

7. Direct, provocative behaviour

8. Re-definition of "right" and "wrong"

There may be other techniques/characteristics I have not thought of.

So far, I have considered individual dreaming. However, the point about social behaviour in a dream society is the fact that dream-thinking is done necessarily in the form of dialogue. That way, the situation of where one man's dream becomes another man's nightmare is generally avoided or at least minimized. Dialogue is directed towards problem-solving using consciously the dream-techniques described above, and the occurrence of nightmare-dialogues (e.g. all forms of debate), while inevitable, is considered as demonstrating a problem rather than offering anything in terms of a solution, and as such is in need of transformation.

Lateral Thinking

"Lateral Thinking" is a term coined by Edward de Bono. What I have tried to summarize on these pages so far in relation to alternative perception and dream techniques is indebted to him, except that what he calls "lateral thinking" I call "dream techniques". I prefer this latter term because it emphasizes the natural origin of the techniques involved. The only "synthetic" aspect of these techniques is the deliberate use of them while we are awake rather than the spontaneous employment of them while we are asleep. In principle, the deliberate use of dream techniques appears to be simple, but in fact it can take many years of hard work and practice in order to be able to do this effectively, just like the learning of any other skill. If I have made any contribution at all to the work of Edward de Bono, then this contribution may possibly lie in my greater emphasis on the social linguistic aspects, i.e. the importance of dreaming together with other people to solve collective problems rather than dreaming alone to solve individual problems. Not surprisingly, lateral thinking or dream techniques are better-known outside Brazil. Abroad, the books of Edward de Bono have been well-known for years. More recently, lateral thinking has spread in education and in industry. Yet few people in Brazil recognize the term "lateral thinking", including academics working in fields of social science. To me this is incredible, but no doubt a political explanation exists. After all, for people to actually fulfill their dreams or to actually do something concrete to solve their collective problems is politically strong stuff! However, rather than discuss these political aspects, I have been concerned here to define in detail what I consider Brazil and the Brazilians really need in technical/psychological terms. I have no intention at this stage of entering into debate - political or otherwise - which is the very type of social language I am trying to neutralize. Now that "what" Brazil needs is reasonably clear, I shall proceed in Part 2 to the more important question of "how" it should be implemented in my opinion.

TECHNIQUES OF VERBAL ATTACK

1. Don't give the other person a chance to speak when he wants to.

2. Never really listen to what he says, or never take anything he says seriously.

3. Interrupt frequently so that the other person cannot complete his ideas. Then

assume that his ideas are complete, and use these partial or distorted ideas

against him.

4. Classify his messages immediately: "this is a criticism", "this is an insult", "this

is a lie", "this is stupid", etc. Then communicate these classifications to him.

5. Exaggerate the facts: e.g. "You polluted the sea". In fact he threw a match

into the water.

6. Tell your adversary that you have only the best intentions in what you say,

being careful to point out his bad intentions.

7. Be hurt by what he says, thus justifying the use of weapons you would not

normally use.

8. Refuse to continue the argument, leaving him in a state of frustration.

9. Make observations about his personality, rather than giving an answer to

what he has said.

10. Never agree. Either say "no" directly, or when this is impossible add a "but".

11. Deny the possibility of alternative perceptions to your own. Even suggest

that alternative perceptions are crazy or sick. Be dogmatic.

12. Be a compulsive winner of arguments. If you cannot beat your adversary,

then blame him for your lack of satisfaction.

DREAM-LANGUAGE TECHNIQUES

1. Refuse to say "no" immediately to even the craziest (or most offensive} idea.

Accept it provisionally and explore its value and/or consequences in your

imagination.

2. In any situation, try to find or understand an alternative perception to the one

you have at the moment.

3. Try inverting ideas you have or receive and see how they may lead to truth or

utility.

E.g. "A car needs round wheels"

"A car does not need round wheels"

"War is bad"

"War is good"

4. Introduce apparently irrelevant ideas into the situation and discover the

human brain's capacity to make them relevant (make connections). For

example, how could elephants help to solve Brazil's economic problems?

Ideas do not need a reason for being put together.

5. Re-examine existing solutions to problems and find others, better or not.

6. When trying to solve a problem, bring in as many new ideas as possible. The

most useful one may then emerge.

7. Be direct and provocative in order to stimulate new ideas. Avoid words such

as "perhaps", "but", etc. Pay little attention to being defensive, proving your

point of view or showing how clever you are. However, make sure that other

people understand your intentions, otherwise you will be drawn into useless

debate.

8. Get rid of ideas such as "correct/incorrect", "right/ wrong", etc. Simply

consider in what ways an idea may be appropriate.

9. Realize the incompleteness of logic as a thinking tool. Among its defects are

its rigidity and anti-creativity, and its tendency to generate conflict.

10. Use dream-language techniques to evolve techniques of your own.

BRAZIL:

HEAVEN OR HELL?

(PART2)

ROBERT WARREN

Most Brazilians put forward the idea, as I have in Part 1, that Brazil is problematic.This is, if you like, the "ugly old woman" interpretation of the Brazilian social reality. However, Brazilians also commonly say that "Brazil is viable", perhaps more from intuition or hope than anything else. What I intend to show in Part 2 is that Brazil is perhaps more "viable" than many other countries, analyzing the reasons for this. In order to reveal the "beautiful young woman" contained in the Brazilian social reality though, it will be necessary to examine some fundamental concepts such as "human happiness", "learning", etc. Finally, I shall show how and why it is necessary to expand the "lateral dialogue" proposal of Part 1 into a proposal for a full psychology that I call "LP" or "Lateral Psychology".

For now, let us go to the very heart of the matter, which is the question of:

Human Happiness

What makes people happy? Rather than discuss a million possible definitions of this difficult concept, I should like to put forward a single definition in the hope that you find it useful. Reflecting a little on what I have learned in relation to the social use of dream techniques explained in Part 1, I suggest that 2 ingredients are necessary:

1. The existence of problems

2. The means to solve them.

Happiness is a process rather than a physical or psychological state. If you like, it is a synonym of "mental health". Perhaps there is nothing new in this definition, but its freshness strikes me in relation to the fact that problems are necessary. To go even further, I would suggest that if these are organic problems associated with our biological needs such as the need for food for example, then so much the better.

Of course, we need to maintain a sense of proportion in relation to the existence of organic problems. If a man's daily life is completely occupied by the struggle for survival, then this gives him little time for reflection, and this to my mind is not very good. However, the other extreme is not good either. The English welfare state has, at least in the past, removed organic problems from the life of the citizen. Surprisingly to some, the Englishman's sense of "security" did not bring him accompanying happiness in the same measure. According to the definition of happiness I have put forward though, this is not surprising at all. Removing problems is not soIving them.

Equally important to the appearance of problems in our lives is the means for solving them.I suggest that we can be prevented from solving problems in 2 fundamental ways:

1. We do not have the know-how

2. The environment (other people) makes solution difficult or impossible.

In the first case, we simply use (or re-learn how to use) the dream techniques given to us by nature. In the second case we have to change (or leave) the environment. Thinking about it, that is exactly what am trying to do with my proposal for implementing Lateral Psychology in schools, etc: change the environment.

If we have problems and the means to solve them, then we are engaged in a happy process. Part of this happy process is the fact that solving problems does not necessarily reduce society's stock of problems for presentation to us. The solution to one problem often creates another problem in consequence, immediately or later on, and often these problems are unexpected. But this adds to the excitement of life: its continuous renovation of happy (problem-solving) processes and its creative unpredictability.

There is, though, another factor involved in happy processes, which relates back to the having of alternative perceptions discussed in Part 1. The sudden switch of perception causes laughter, and is defined by some psychologists as being the basis of all humour. To be happy, we need to laugh (or to have alternative perceptions). That laughter is therapeutic is perhaps obvious, but it is important to realize that if we cannot for some reason achieve alternative perceptions then laughter is impossible, and therefore an important factor in our happiness is absent.

How happy are Brazilians? How happy are Brazilians in comparison to other peoples of the world such as the Japanese, the Americans or the Eskimos? This is difficult to estimate and I admit that my knowledge is limited in relation to scientific studies done in this area, if they exist. However, I suggest that one measure of the unhappiness of people might be in the suicide rate. Probably, more Japanese commit suicide than Brazilians do. On the other hand, suicide is not the only way to react to unhappiness. People can be violent, for example. But I think that there is something special about suicide. Violence is the manifestation of a nightmare, the demonstration of a problem which hopefully may have a solution, if not on the part of the individual perhaps on the part of society. Violence and criminality are "solutions" of a kind, even if unsatisfactory. The suicide case, though, not only does not have (even a poor) solution, he no longer wants a solution except through death. If, as I suspect, the suicide rate in Japan is higher than that in Brazil, then for some reason Brazilians are happier. We may now speculate as to the reasons.

Happiness in Brazil

According to my definition of happiness, one important factor is obviously present in Brazil: real organic problems, and plenty of them! Perhaps you find it a little strange that I seem to be glorifying poverty, so I think I must explain myself.

First and foremost, what I need to try to remember is that there is nothing more boring (and dangerous) than the middle-class bourgeois sitting on his bottom and writing eloquently about the "health" of the organic problems of other people. Obviously, if organic problems are too serious, nobody finds the situation comfortable. But the link between body and mind is an important one and is worthy of discussion.

Typically, "first-world" countries suffer from problems they do not always recognize the existence of: mechanization, verbalization, specialization, complexity - to mention a few. Of course, these factors sometimes have a "beautiful young woman" interpretation, but this is often an excuse for denying the existence of the "ugly old woman".

So as not to tire the reader or divert attention from the main points of this section, I shall discuss only the first two on this short list.

Mechanization: Organization, efficiency, productivity, etc., worthy considerations in themselves, have the effect of mechanizing people. Like computers, people are expected to be loyal slaves. In fact, mechanization is the modern word for slavery, which, far from being abolished from the world, simply changed its name. Slavery in olden times was often more "human" than this modern form. Machines, of course, do not have feelings. When one breaks down, we either repair it or replace it. The unfortunate effect of industrialization is that man has industrialized himself.

Verbalization: Although language is an obvious asset, it is also a tyrant which creates a barrier between ourselves and concrete reality. To put it another way, words and abstraction go together, and this abstraction alienates man even more from his feelings and senses. Worse still, verbalizing encourages man to restrict or even eliminate the movements of his body, with disastrous effects on the harmony of human activities causing physical and mental illness. The first world suffers from verbal pollution, in oral form through mass-communication devices and in written form also. Nor is literacy all it is painted to be. The written word is a way of preserving the past. What is written becomes "correct" and man's performance is judged against it. He becomes dependent on "experts" to mediate and use knowledge for him. Dependent on knowledge in the form of writing, man wastes much time and energy trying to discover what knowledge is actually useful. Worse still, he may eventually gain knowledge which is apparently useful, but is in fact entirely inappropriate to his particular situation. Oral and literate cultures are different. It is by no means certain that the life and culture of a literate society is superior to that of an orally-based society. The connotation of "ill" in the label "illiterate" is scandalous, and may reflect an implicit attitude of the worst kind.

I think that these examples are sufficient to demonstrate that the body-mind link is an important one, and that to a large degree the first-world countries have succeeded in severely weakening this link. I think that this is profoundly un-ecological, and that no "developing" country, including Brazil, should be encouraged to do the same thing.

Returning to the question of happiness in Brazil, I must say that before we attempt to solve a problem it is essential to ask whether the problem exists in fact. If a problem exists in our opinion, is that problem necessarily the one we describe or presume to exist? Specifically, the first-world countries have severely weakened the body-mind link and have an enormous problem in re-establishing it. A major change of philosophy is required. If they achieve this, then perhaps it will be through ecology or something similar, but I think it will be a long time before such theories filter through and begin to permeate the thinking and social practices of industrialized countries. What is the point of Brazil solving its "problems" of lacking mechanization and literacy for example, if later it needs to change things back to something similar to the way they were before?

I should like to finish this section on a note of common sense. Brazilians are quite capable of solving their day-to-day organic problems when they have the creative social space to do it. What is wrong in my opinion is that this space for creativity is often lacking or is reduced because of the profound influence (through legislation, economic policies, etc.) of inappropriate ideologies coming from first-world countries. The question of social space is an important one, and although I think it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss it at length, this concept is present in relation, for example, to the way Brazilians prefer to play football, Brazilian attitudes to law and order, educational processes, etc. The next section, concerned with football, is aimed at introducing the concept of "natural learning". However, the notion of "social space" interpreted in its broadest sense as "room for movement", "time to think", "awareness of the body-mind link", "opportunity for trial, error and experiment" and so on, is implicit in any complete analysis of the subject, which mine is not. I ask the reader's forgiveness for the incomplete treatment of a subject as pregnant with ideas as Brazilian football, but I am anxious to preserve the clarity of this particular article by resisting interesting diversions.

In summary, some of the factors accounting for happiness in Brazil are:

1. The existence of real organic problems

2. Strong body-mind links (natural ecological thinking)

3. Creative social spaces (which are still not as closed as they are in first-world countries)

4. Minimum mechanization (particularly on the human level)

5. A strong oral tradition.

Football

Brazilian football used to be the best in the world. Other teams acknowledged Brazil's superiority in this field and admired the natural elegance of the players. Great stars emerged and their names went down in history. Today, we have a different picture. Brazilians appear not to know how to play football any more. Increasing professionalism and investment in the game appear to make little difference to the relative incompetence and lack of heart of the players. What Brazilians are left with is a feeling of nostalgia from their memory of past proud achievements (after all, if Brazilians could not shine in anything else, at least they were great at football) and a sense of dismay that whatever they do and whatever changes they make, nothing seems to go right for long: in short, what is happening in football appears to reflect something similar to what is happening in the rest of Brazilian social life.

Of course, if I were a great analyst of football, then no doubt the Brazilians would employ me at an enormous salary and I would be in clover for the rest of my life. This is not the case, so what I have to offer here is but a modest contribution to the game of football, aimed at explaining how lateral dialogue may profitably be implemented in Brazil.

The first thing we notice is the characteristics of the game itself. In the past, Brazilian football was dream-like. It solved a problem, both for the players and for the spectators. Playing and watching were happy processes. What was apparent in the game was a kind of unspoken agreement among the players that everyone, once receiving the ball, was given a moment, a sort of "breathing space", to show what he was capable of. Of course, the objective of the opposing players was to rob him of the ball, but this was not the only objective. This mutual respect was added-to by the impression that winning or losing the game was not so much what the players consciously tried to achieve as what simply happened naturally or "emerged" from the game. Far from representing a failure or a disappointment, losing was taken simply as one of the possible outcomes of what basically was an enjoyable experience.

Nowadays, Brazilian football is positively nightmarish. Rather than solving a problem it seems to demonstrate a problem. Winning the game is imperative. If this is achieved, then how it is done appears to be immaterial. Playing dangerously progressively becomes normal. If one player gets upset with another for any reason, then this can lead to scenes of violence, not only on the part of the players but on the part of the spectators as well. Crafty kicks up a player's what-not behind the referee's back are not unknown. Momentary breathing-spaces for demonstrations of skill are nipped in the bud. The possessor of he ball must on all accounts be attacked immediately. Even when players have thinking-spaces so that theoretically they have the opportunity to collect themselves, plan and execute an appropriate movement, they seem not to do this any more. What happens with greater and greater frequency is that in a psychological state suggesting panic or over-excitement they fluff the opportunity they have been waiting for.

What is clear from the above is that the Brazilian player's motivation has changed. In short, I think that he has learned the language of debate and has tried to abandon the practice of a more lateral dialogue in playing football. The result is not only unpleasant to play and watch, but is schizmogenetic (i.e. is getting worse and worse). Important to note is that there is a loss of awareness. Even when a player has time to think, this space is no longer used for the purpose of self-analysis, i.e. of paying attention to what is happening inside the body: the player is focussed completely on his objective and on nothing else. Of course, Europeans for example have more practice in controlling debates (wars) than Latins have. They are also more proficient in controlling the effects of human mechanization. It is not surprising, therefore, that they are more proficient at playing this type of football.

Now let us take a brief look at the historical aspects of the game, i.e. the way the game was learned. The fact that Brazilian football superficially resembles European football masks the fact that the two styles were acquired differently, and that the "deep structure" of the game is, or was, profoundly different. How, more or less, was the art of football acquired in Brazil up until a few years ago? First of all, everyone had a passion for the game. They loved football. Second, teachers of football in general did not exist: to play football you needed a ball and a space somewhere, and you just did what the other players did. It was simple. Somehow or other in this process though, competence grew. Brazilians not only learned how to play football, they learned how to play football better and better (i.e. learned how to learn). It was just like the acquisition of a native language. Nowadays, football is not so much a passion as a business. High salaries are paid to the best players. The most successful are imported by countries such as Italy, after which some become rich men of high status. In other words, what now exists in Brazilian football is a professional approach to the learning of the game rather than a natural one. Since Europeans are more familar with professionalism in its various aspects than Brazilians are, it follows that their performance in football also tends to be better. Brazil assumes (wrongly) that professional approaches to learning necessarily improve naturally-learned achievements.

Let me clarify a little what I mean by "natural" and "professional". Natural learning is where you learn on your own without a teacher. It is a kind of learning by practical discovery. What the individual evolves is an idiosyncratic method, possibly different to what another individual evolves. This process of learning is marked by improvisation, trial and error, practicality, etc., rather like a dream. Professionalism is more rational (less dream-like}. Scientific studies have synthesized what is "best" (or "optimum") in a method and may be applied to all people regardless of individual differences, preferences, etc. Organization, correctness and theoretical support replace the improvisation and trial and error of natural learning. Being a professional implies being taught, i.e. dependent on the existence of a teacher.

Increasing professionalism, frequently imported, has been adopted in Brazil in various areas with perhaps beneficial results. Why, then, not do the same thing in football? Leaving aside deeper psychological probes into this question, I think that we can comment on the practical issue very easily: it simply does not work! As a result of a situation of "reductio ad absurdum" in Brazilian football, I am pleased to see that managers are already beginning to re-evaluate. They do not speak in terms of natural versus professional learning. (It may be that they continue to see these two approaches as theoretically compatible.) They say, "Let's play Brazilian football and not European football." However, if this implies a return to natural learning I think that the net result will be the same.

Natural learning

I have already roughly defined natural learning and its opponent, professionalism. Implicit in these definitions is the conflict which exists between them, so I would like to elaborate on this subject.

Moshe Feldenkrais, in his book "Awareness through Movement", discusses natural learning and, incidentally, the question of "personality masks" which is the subject of my next section). The following description given by him is a particularly clear one. Under the heading "The learned method ousts natural practices" (p.27) he says:

"We may observe how natural practices have gradually given way to acquired methods, to 'professional' methods, and that society in general refuses to allow the individual the right to employ the natural method, forcing him instead to learn the accepted way before it will permit him to work.

.

.

Today we can see the continued process of the development of consciously constructed systems in place of individual, intuitive methods, and how actions that were once carried out naturally are becoming professions reserved for specialists."

The other day, a young lady English student of mine, also studying law at university, came to the class and announced that she was in favour of the death penalty for certain crimes (e.g. brutal murder or rape). She was so firm in her opinion that I suspected that her motives were not wholly objective, i.e. that her enthusiasm for the death penalty might have also been inspired by personal motives having nothing directly to do with crime and punishment in society. I therefore began to dig in order to provoke an alternative perception of her motives. For me, this was a natural thing to do, nothing special between friends having concern about one another. However, upon my suggestion of an existing problem, she made a counter-suggestion: that I should go to university to learn how to be a psychologist! On telling her that I had already had 30 years' experience in the application of psychology as a teacher in computers, English as a foreign language and a little in the music field, she seemed to be of the opinion that this counted for nothing at all. Discussing the subject again later, I perceived that in her opinion psychologists of any species are necessarily "doctors", that psychology is necessarily a medical practice, and as such persons who wish to apply what she identifies as "psychology" need to be duly ratified through the possession of a diploma.

A clearer example of Feldenkrais's description, I cannot imagine. He goes on to explain that:

a) the parallel existence of professionalism in a particular area gives rise to fear in relation to the natural practice;

b) professionalism kills off natural learning.

It would be fine if professional methods were always superior to naturally-learned ones, but they are not. Football is an example of this. There are many other examples. The greatest tragedy of my own life is the fear associated with learning the piano. Early in my career, I had a teacher who was not concerned with preparation for exams, speed of progress, correcting errors, etc. She was not a specialist, and was certainly not "professional" in her classes. I was eager to discover and learn, to memorize, and so on. My progress was in fact rapid, and my confidence grew. Playing the piano was a delight, and a brilliant future was predicted for me. As I passed from one teacher to the next more "professional" one, my response also changed. I was encouraged to play more and more from the book, to become musically "literate". I was corrected whenever I made a mistake, even though I knew I had made it. The pieces I learned were strictly graded according to my supposed numeric level of competence. I frequently faced examinations to prove this supposed level of competence, and the marks I earned were considered not only to report on my own performance but also to reflect on the performance and reputation of my teacher. Finally, as a "Grade 8" pianist I entered into the Royal Academy of Music, apparently on the road to success. What happened in this process was that I lost my memory for music completely: I became dependent on the book. Any kind of performance (exams, concerts, etc.) became a terrifying experience, I was so affected by stage-fright. I could no longer play any piece of music continuously. Whenever I made the smallest mistake I would stop, give an audible "tut-tut" not just to myself but to the people listening. Finally, I threw in the Royal Academy of Music and started unloading lorries for a living.

Of course, the results of professionalization are not always so tragic, and I am sure that other negative factors were also present in my career as a pianist. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the abandoning of natural learning in favour of professionalization had a major role, particularly as I have achieved higher levels of self-confidence in other "sensitive" areas such as singing, teaching, etc., all learned in a comparatively un-professional way.

Professionalism and specialization can be, and often are, the road not only to fear and dependence, but also to corruption. It is worth pointing out that although I have no particular interest in discussing politics in this essay, it is obvious that fear, dependence and corruption are convenient political weapons for those who have a taste for using them. All you have to do is become a specialist, call yourself "Doctor" something-or-other, and the whole world believes that you have only good intentions. (Even lawyers and policemen are called "Doctor" in Brazil.)

Like a breath of fresh air, we need a re-evaluation of natural learning. Brazilian "third-world" tendencies were not so bad after all, and you can see this in the football model. I think there is a parallel between natural learning processes and the dream techniques discussed in Part 1. To abandon natural learning is like abandoning dreaming, a quick way of going crazy.

The interesting question that arises here is how we should learn dream techniques. Naturally or professionally? Inside school or outside school?

For now, I think we can define natural learning as a factor which certainly accounts for happiness in Brazil.

Masks

Brazil is the land of masks. In many countries the use of social masks is more subtle, but in Brazil it is so obvious that everyone is aware of it. There are many examples. Politicians promise one thing and do another. The law, presented as an instrument of justice, is in fact an instrument of injustice for the majority and privilege for a few. Schools, far from being promoters of education in any real sense of the word, are generally factories for the multiplication of miconconceptions. If you need physical protection in many parts of Brazil, the very last thing you do is call a policeman: you are more afraid of the police than you are of the criminals. Buildings with elegant marbled fronts look like sewers from the back. A significant number of expensive and attractively-packaged products in the supermarket are nothing more than containers of rubbish. Buying an antibiotic at the chemist's for your sick grandmother might end up in her actually dying because the capsules were full of common flour instead of antibiotic. There is little doubt that in Brazil appearance is one thing, but reality is another.

However, I want to turn to the discussion of the use of a kind of mask which is certainly not exclusive to Brazilians, the personality mask cultivated by the individual. We are all, to a greater or lesser degree, two people: the real person and the social mask. The social mask often shows us to be responsible, rational people, busy professionals doing a good job of work and occupying a position on the social scale according to the hard work we have done and the decency of he upbringing we have had. We take pride in our curriculum vitae, the titles and recognition we receive from our community and the financial rewards we undoubtedly earn.

Some people spend their whole lives cultivating a social mask and never discover the real person inside it. Why not? Well, discovering the real person leads to fear of the weakness and sometimes the helplessness experienced in earlier life. The real self is, in fact, still a baby. This person is not very rational, is often contradictory, is capable of being selfish, cowardly, or just plain useless. If the supermarkets closed, most of us would die of hunger. We have no idea of even how to make the soap we wash our hands with. If we feel sufficiently threatened by the behaviour of other people, we use tanks, guns, aeroplanes, missiles, atomic bombs and the like to "defend" ourselves against the enemy, and then put a rational mask over the real reasons behind our reactions.

Instead of cultivating a social mask we have the option of discovering and cultivating the real person. Now we live in a different world. Life without a mask is not easy, particularly when we are surrounded by people who worship their masks, but are not even aware of the mask's existence. (De-mask a fellow man and you are likely to make an enemy for the rest of your life.) We abandon our false pride and become humble, for we know how weak we are. In other words, we realize we have a lot to learn, and we hopefully and courageously do something about it.

This last conclusion is an important one. We have discovered that essentially it is the self which is problematic. We want to solve our problem, but we do not know how to do it. Because of our inadequacy, our sickness, lack of knowledge or however else we describe our discovery, we consult Dr. X who is an expert in the field. Disappointingly, we find after perhaps many years at great cost that Dr. X is unable to help us with our most essential problems. We have no option open to us but to learn for ourselves.

Lateral Psychology

One major characteristic that makes us different to the animals is the fact that we use language. This gives us some enormous advantages and one disadvantage: words always stand between us and the real world. Taking it that this is inescapable in our species, the quality and relations among these words becomes of crucial importance. Is there sufficient correspondence between the words we use for description and the reality they describe? Or do our words simply confuse or complicate the real situation? Can we always describe our experience, or do we often find that we are at a loss for words?

A descriptive language needs to:

a) respect reality

b) be complete.

The importance of a good language for describing experience cannot be emphasized too strongly. The major task in problem-solving is often not the difficulty of finding a solution so much as clearly describing the problem itself and agreeing this description with other people. The size of the vocabulary (number of concepts) used and, just as important, the possible concepts not included in the useful vocabulary all need to be considered. (Note, for example, that in the psychology I am proposing there is - so far - absolutely no mention of the "unconscious".) In my view, the selection of terminology for a psychology is analogous to selecting instructions for a computer language.

That is not all. The language needs to be useful, and, like any good computer program needs to be tested. The difficulty of Freudian language, for example, is that it is only useful to experts. It goes into too much detail for one thing. This creates a situation which is similar to that of a legal system which tries to be perfect (eliminating the possibility of injustice): what happens is the legal system becomes so beaurocratic and slow that these characteristics themselves create the very injustice the system is trying to eliminate! We test computer programs but we fail to adequately test human programs, even when we have the chance. The fact that human programs are more difficult to test is used as an excuse for abandoning this essential effort even when the means are available. There are two reasons for this. Either those responsible do not have a proper feedback as to the performance of the system, or they have this feedback but the inefficiency of the system provides some other social function which is not openly declared. Such is the case of psychoanalysis in my opinion.

At the other end of the scale we have popular psychologies for which best-selling books exist on the market. You know the type I mean: "The Road to Success in 6 Easy Lessons" and that sort of thing. Although popular psychologies fulfill some of the functions which are desirable in a psychology, they rarely earn the respect or total adoption of the scientific community in the way that psychoanalysis has, even with its glaring defects.

From what I have said in previous sections about the effects of professionalism, the use of masks, dependence, medical approaches, natural learning and self-help, etc., the reader will conclude that I am obviously in favour of lay psychology. On the other hand, what is needed as well is a kind of psychology which is sufficiently interesting to be adopted and used by the scientific community. The third requirement for a psychology in my opinion is even more important: that the psychology should be naturally based, i.e. should draw on what is given to us by nature and is not a synthetic construction based on local conditions at a particular point in history.

In addition to what was proposed in Part 1 (the dream society and lateral dialogue), what has emerged on these pages is a full psychology, and I am calling this psychology "LP" or "Lateral Psychology". (I would have preferred "Dream Psychology", but this might have suggested a focus on dreams only. LP uses the word "dream" not only literally but also metaphorically, besides introducing concepts not directly concerned with dreams.) The beauty of this psychology is its focus on dream techniques, although this needs essential complements for completely describing psycho-social experience. Dream techniques are probably universal (i.e. the same techniques are used by all members of all societies throughout their history) and are certainly biological in origin. However, it would be scientifically interesting to investigate what differences, if any, exist between one community and another, between men, women and children, and between generations with respect to selection and/or emphasis in the use of dream techniques.

A great deal of the fundamental ideas and vocabulary of LP has been put forward in this essay. In order to complete the picture of LP I should like you to read through the summary and also the list of terminology (for later expansion into a glossary as a separate work) given on the following pages. I shall then make a few comments before telling you a little of my experience in using LP.

CHARACTERISTICS

OF

LATERAL PSYCHOLOGY

1. Emphasises LINGUISTIC/SOCIAL aspects (uses a linguistic model);

a) Concentrates on the quality of spoken dialogue and social interaction rather than just individual thinking and problem-solving as tends to be deduced from the "lateral thinking" proposals of Edward De Bono.

b) Affirms the parallel between the learning and development (change) of language and the learning/development of social behaviour.

2. Draws fundamentally on the principles of GESTALT PSYCHOLOGY (perception). Is critical of the social manifestation of elementary perceptive errors and the social consequences of these errors in verbal dialogue (particularly in the form of debate), inter-personal relations and collective problem definition.

3. Adopts the BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF DREAMS which suggests that problem-solving is their prime function (nightmares do not have this function: they simply demonstrate the existence of a problem). Lateral Psychology considers that dream/nightmare thinking is also an important component of (waking) social behaviour, and that social behaviour is therefore analyzable in these terms. Further, it contends that the techniques of so-called "lateral thinking" are nothing more than naturally-glven dream techniques used consciously.

4. Generally AVOIDS the use of MEDICAL MODELS in psycho-social therapy. Considers that the question of finding the "causes" of social behaviour and providing "cures" is problematic (knowledge of a language cannot be cured any more than the practice of a language can be altered quickly). Is of the opinion that psychology may be wrong when by the use of medical models it suggests that the causes of common mental problems are universal. Above all, objects to the connotations of "doctor-patient" relations and the perverse practices which extend from this definition. Prefers a DIDACTIC approach related to linguistics.

5. Draws on the Feldenkrais philosophy of personality, particularly in relation to:

a) methodological/professional practices versus natural learning

b) existence and cultivation of a "real" self versus the construction of social masks.

Lateral Psychology considers that Feldenkrais' aim of SELF IMPROVEMENT THROUGH AWARENESS is perfectly compatible with the aims of linguistic development (change) and the consequent development of social behaviour.

6. Makes use of BATSONIAN SOCIAL ANALYSIS, particularly with respect to:

a) symmetrical/complementary social relations

b) schizmogenesis and problems of social (un-) control

c) "reductio ad absurdum" as it occurs in social behaviour

d) the famous "double-bind" theory and its applications to the analysis of

schizophrenia, culture-shock, etc.

Lateral Psychology accepts the idea of a necessary unity between mind and nature.

7. Is guided by principles of HUMAN PROGRAMMING as derived from meta-studies of the programming of computers. Above all, Lateral Psychology attempts to do for the field of psychology what the Basic programming language did for the field of computers: presents a simple language enabling the layman to codify totally his psycho-social experience, thus facilitating the description and solution of problems.

8. Draws inspiration from the work of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). LP can, in fact, be seen as an EXTENSION OF IMPORTANT AA PRACTICES TO NON-ALCOHOLICS, particularly with respect to its didactic approach and the harmonious social relations it sets up. However, LP is aimed at transformation of the whole environment which is problematic and not just the part of it which is the concern of AA. No doubt social transformations produced by LP alleviate the task of AA: LP AND AA ARE therefore COMPLEMENTARY.

LATERAL PSYCHOLOGY

TERMINOLOGY

LP natural lateral

Gestalt Psychology medical

perception didactic

social reality model

multiple perception Thomas Szasz

fixed perception Moshe Feldenkrais

debate real self

alternative perception social mask

language awareness

complementary natural learning

symmetrical professionalism

schizmogenesis Gregory Bateson

polarization double-bind

dream schizophrenic

nightmare reductio ad absurdum

biological theory moderation

waking dream Basic

waking nightmare human programming

dream techniques defensive driving

dream society how versus what versus when

lateral thinking grammar

vertical thinking learning

PO acquisition

Edward De Bono natural strategy

lateral dialogue popular psychology

Lateral Psychology old/young woman

development pattern laughter

social shock perfect design

organic self crazy

organic problem neurotic

synthetic problem psychotic

unfinished business yes

psychological allergy no

anti-allergy of/about

mechanization love

fear passion

secret frienship

interpretation problem man

AA woman

sequence happiness

accidents marriage

monitor modularization

slavery happy separation

witchcraft problem

verbal attack solution

psychological switch coding the universe

In the construction of LP I have used what I call a "natural strategy". In practical terms this means that I began with a set of general objectives - the characteristics of the psychology - but had no idea how to construct this psychology. Little by little I discovered how by trying to describe my own individual and family problems, the problems of my friends, students, etc. and the problems of the environment in which I live. In this sense my strategy was based on natural learning which was individual and informally experimental. On the other hand I was aware of the fact that it would be foolish if not impossible to discard the scientific contributions of brilliant thinkers such as De Bono, Feldenkrais, Bateson, Hadfield, Szasz, Bill W., etc. The result, I think, is an eclectic knitting-together of concepts fulfilling the requirements for clarity, completeness and usefulness.

English Classes

Far from being a cold working-out of a solution to a technical problem, the emergence of LP was provoked by the existence of real problems experienced in my capacity as a teacher of English as a foreign language and as a result of my status as an immigrant, with all the traumas and confusions that this implies. To date then, LP has been applied not only to myself, but has been applied to a fairly large group of students of various backgrounds (teachers, doctors, businessmen, housewives, etc.) attending (usually private) English classes.

The influence of AA philosophy has profoundly marked classroom procedures, and it is probably this element above and beyond all others which has provided an exciting and refreshing approach to the learning of English. Doctor-patient (i.e. teacher-pupil) relations do not exist in my classroom. I certainly know more English than my students do, but I learn about life and culture from them. Applying AA philosophy, I rarely give or receive advice. Instead, we describe our own problems to one-another, and, upon seeing the other person trying to work out a solution for himself (perhaps using lateral dream techniques) this gives us ideas about how to work out our own solutions. This is an exact inversion of the "therapeutic neutrality" applied in sessions of psychoanalysis and other forms of psychotherapy.

So far, the results are exciting to say the least. The personal transformations I have been through in the last year or two have made me dizzy, and I think I am having a profound influence on my students. The question is, what now? It is early times yet in the history of LP, and I feel bound to proceed in a way which is not over-cautious but is nevertheless truly "one day at a time" in the best AA tradition. The fact that LP is associated with the learning of a "new" language (English) is surely important, though it is not perhaps essential. However, the fact that the foreign language student (particularly the beginner) is automatically a "de-masked" person is of significant value, and this makes LP suitable not only to the discussion of personal problems but also to the problem of learning the language itself. In other words, the learning of English becomes an extensive practical exercise for the simultaneous or later application of dream techniques in life generally, and as such represents a valuable extension to the personality.

Brazilian Schools

If LP is to make further progress, I think its introduction into schools is necessary, as I pointed out in Part 1. But before I make any concrete proposals in this connection I should like to say a few words about what typically happens in schools, particularly in Brazilian ones.

One way of looking at school is to define it as a place where trained professionals pass across their knowledge to those needing it in an efficient or "professional" way. Pupils are taught how to "think" by solving mathematical problems and the like. Materials are organized, sifted and presented to pupils in an easily-digested form (known as "apostilas" in Brazil). If the pupils memorize the material satisfactorily and do well in frequent tests and examinations (the only way of "motivating" them to work), then they are permitted to pass to the next year of the course.

The above short description, typical of Brazilian schools, is a far cry from what is proposed by the practices of Lateral Psychology. Students learn about physics and chemistry, but what do they learn about human happiness? They learn how to become more professional, organized and rational, but they also learn how to be fearful and dependent. Above all, the disappearance of their natural-learning tendencies is taken as an essential pre-requisite to the achievement of "first-world" status, materially and therefore psychologically far superior to the world they were born in, or so they think.

In sum, I should say that what is needed in all schools not only Brazilian ones) is something approximating education in addition to training. If education is not concerned with attitudes, values, personality and character, philosophy, social relations, evolution of thinking tools, new ideas, practicality and relevance, discovery, excitement, humour, motivation, honesty, independence, etc., then I am afraid I have no idea of what education is.

Frankly, I disapprove of most of what I see in Brazilian schools, not because they have bad intentions, but simply because they are not aware of the consequences of their beliefs and behaviour. The function of Brazilian schools is a perfect example of the dream-mimicking social nightmare described in Part 1, demonstrating a problem rather than solving one. Or to put it another way, they are factories for the production of social masks, affecting the real persons inside so negatively by the use of direct and indirect punishment that they remain permanently infantile and unhappy.

Dream School

Of course educational experiments, alternative schools, etc. are not new, even in Brazil. What usually happens is that they are either a big flop, or they produce students who are maladjusted to the society they live in. Revolutions, in my opinion, are never a good idea: things change on the surface, but this serves only as a mask for the fact that the deep, problematic social mechanisms continue exactly as before. As I said in Part 1, you cannot learn a new social language in 5 minutes, and only an unwise person attempts to do so. What is needed is a new element, a kind of catalyst, which quietly and steadily does its work. There is no apparent significant change, but the new element goes spreading from person to person like a good disease. Then, one fine day, the structure of things makes a sudden and unexpected change, much to the delight of the participants.

What I would like to see in Brazilian schools is easily summarized:

1. Preservation of factors accounting for happiness in Brazil:

a) Dealing with real organic problems and concrete entities rather than

irrelevant abstract word-spinning; a thirst for social problem-solving to

the benefit of all;

b) Re-inforcement of strong body-mind links, not through competitive

sports (debates) where attention becomes fixed on "success" and

reward, but through the cultivation of true awareness of how things

are done, affecting not only bodily control but the quality of emotional

life;

c) Provision of creative social spaces, particularly in terms of time

available, for individual problem-solving, encouragement rather than

abolition of individual styles, preferences, etc.

d) Minimum mechanization on the human level; refusal to treat human

beings like items on a mass-production line; getting rid of slavery once

and for all;

e) Preserving Brazil's oral tradition and not over-valuing the consequences

of literacy; living in the present rather than in the past; concentrating

on proved useful information rather than endless sifting of elements

representing little more than captured verbal pollution;

f) Salvage, protection and development of natural learning processes

above and beyond the necessary introduction of "professionalism" in

any particular field.

2. Related to f) above, we have the innovation of removing fear from Brazilian

educational methods. Testing for the purpose of information feedback (which

may still rob children of their spontaneity) is preferable to examinations which

are designed to do little else than punish their victims. Furthermore, humour

(alternative perception) would not be out of place in any system of education.

3. Reduction of the Brazilian tendency to create beautiful social masks by

conferring diplomas etc. and more attention to the discovery and education of

the real self which otherwise remains primitive and unhappy: helping students

to find the real beauty inside themselves (the product) instead of paying

attention merely to the false packaging.

Enthusiasm for Lateral Psychology, not only in its application to public affairs, but also its use in private matters, would no doubt make a significant contribution. The task is one of turning a nightmare into a dream.

Implementation of LP

Part 2 has made it clear that what I am proposing is not exactly a "new" social language, but a language which is perhaps more implicit in the existing Brazilian culture than it is in the so-called "developed" countries. For this reason I think that we have cause to be optimistic. In line with what I have already said, I would recommend introducing Lateral Psychology into formal education on 2 modest levels:

1. The discussion of "problemas brasileiros" as is a universal practice in

Brazilian schools;

2 Foreign language teaching didactics modified by the practice of LP.

At university, the involvement of psychology, social science and philosophy departments would be a natural (but possibly critical) one.

Once quietly introduced into the syllabus, it would be left there to do its job. If this is done well, then it would automatically bring about the necessary changes in the school as a whole. There would be no question of adjusting the school in preparation for its introduction. On the contrary, existing problems in the school would be the very subject-matter of applied Lateral Psychology. However, Lateral Psychology should be careful to apply its own principles to its implementation, and not make the mistake of ecology, for example, in using politics for its implementation when it defines politics as being a profoundly non-ecological practice. What must be remembered is that LP is in favour of natural learning, which means experiment and discovery, trial and error, and essentially a "non-professional" approach. It also means that solutions which are good for one school are not necessarily good for another. What may be good now is not necessarily good in the future, and vice-versa. In the last analysis, the problem of how to implement Lateral Psychology is a problem for Lateral Psychology itself: an apparently complex problem to which there might be simple elegant solutions, if only we can find them.

You are invited to extend your knowledge of Lateral Psychology (see bibliography) and suggest complements or alternatives to the proposals I have made in this section. Please write to:

warren@howsoft.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bateson, G. (1972) "Steps to an Ecology of Mind".

New York: Ballantine Books.

De Bono, E. (1971) "The Mechanism of Mind".

Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Feldenkrais, M. (1977) "Awareness Through Movement".

New York: Harper and Row.

Hadfield, J.A. (1954) "Dreams and Nightmares".

Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Sloboda, J.A. (1985) "The Musical Mind".

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Szasz, T.S. (1974) "The Myth of Mental Illness".

New York: Harper and Row.

AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Bob Warren was born in London in 1944. He now lives on a small island just off the coast of southern Brazil in Florianópolis.

Educated basically in music, he spent two years at the Royal Academy, after which he turned to the field of computers where he was involved in industrial training.

Arriving in Brazil at the height of the military revolution in 1973, he changed direction once more, this time as an English teacher. For a seven-year spell in Rio de Janeiro he worked at various institutions, after which he moved to Florianópolis where he set up a small private English studio close to the Federal University of Santa Catarina.

Bob is married to a Brazilian sociologist and has three children.