Focusing as emotional intelligence
My friend Nada wonders whether, when we Focusers use the phrase “emotional intelligence”, we use it as part of the common language; or whether we are suggesting that Gene Gendlin and Dan Goleman are somehow in the same boat.
To my mind, this question is spot on. Daniel made a big mistake, one which Gene has been wary of, when he used for his unique idea a term of common language, which he can’t hope to claim.
When I talk about emotional intelligence, I never mean Emotional Intelligence. I never mean Daniel’s thing, his proprietary brand: but simply a term in ordinary language, which Dan has brought into prominence.
As a term in ordinary language, “emotional intelligence” fits what we do better than it fits anything else. Or so it seems to me. Though I grant that “emotional” means something funny, when it rubs up gently against this particular door-frame, and purrs so loudly.
I’m not suggesting that Gene and Dan are somehow in the same boat. Like Nada I doubt they are; but I haven’t yet met anybody who has become confused, thinking we are putting them together.
The reason why no confusion comes up is clear from the work of Howard Gardner, who writes:
“In the heyday of the psychometric and behaviourist eras, it was generally believed that intelligence was a single entity that was inherited; and that human beings - initially a blank slate - could be trained to learn anything, provided that it was presented in an appropriate way.
“Nowadays an increasing number of researchers believe precisely the opposite; that there exists A MULTITUDE OF INTELLIGENCES, quite independent of each other; that each intelligence has its own strengths and constraints; that the mind is far from unencumbered at birth; and that it is unexpectedly difficult to teach things that go against early ‘naive’ theories or that challenge the natural lines of force within an intelligence and its matching domains.”
Howard at first listed seven inteligences, of which the sixth and seventh are “emotional intelligences”:
1 Linguistic intelligence
2 Logical-mathematical intelligence
3 Musical intelligence
4 Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence
5 Spatial intelligence
6 Interpersonal intelligence
7 Intrapersonal intelligence
Later he added:
8 Naturalist intelligence
He has thought about adding three more intelligences, and given reasons for excluding them:
9 Spiritual intelligence
10 Existential intelligence
11 Moral intelligence.
You will find a neat account of multiple intelligences at <http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm>
In this rich context, it was foolish of Dan to come up with a crossing which was certain, when it would pass into common use, to bear a far wider range of meanings than he himself wished to attach to it.
In the same way, we, of course, have learned to talk about “Focusing”, having for many years come up hard against other meanings of the word “focusing”.
Thanks, Nada, for shaping this question so clearly.
Blessings, Rob