Questioner (Q): (referring to a previous discussion) So, there is something untouched, his insight, that he is using to actually improve the whole system, the general business idea which all others are following. So, that is the reason I came to the point that it is a mix of both the things.
Acharya Prashant (AP): I suppose I understood. But, you see, in the last two-three minutes that you spoke, you already used two technical concepts: you have used the term ‘success’, and you have used the term ‘mind’.
Now, real estate, or pharmaceutical business, or the business of selling shoes, or software, that does not matter. If one enters into it with the ambition of success, then it is already a social phenomenon. Real estate is not significant. What is significant is that the individual is entering, as you said, with a view to make things successful. Remain with that.
Where do your notions of success and failure come from? He said he wants to prove himself. I see the shadow of success here. You had explicitly mentioned success.
The next term you have used is: his ‘own mind’. Is there anything called one’s ‘own mind’? Or is the mind itself a totally social construct? What do you mean by one’s ‘own mind’?
Whatever you call as ‘mind’ is an aggregation of three things: knowledge, experience, and memories. In addition to that, there are certain scholars who also add evolution to it, which is part of the conditioning. Knowledge comes from outside, experience comes from outside, and memories are a reservoir of the first two.
What do you mean by ‘mind’? Is the mind yours? And it is the mind that is talking the language of success.
I suppose most of you, as students of social entrepreneurship, have claims, a general claim of doing things differently, doing things for some sanctimonious social cause. Before you go into the subject of demonstrating yourself for attracting resources, or communicating to fund-givers, or selling some idea to communities, first you must understand who is acting.
If you are talking the language of success, I suppose most of you have claims—and genuine claims. “I am doing things differently; I am doing things for, as they say, a pious, sanctimonious social cause.” Before we go into the subject of ‘how will I demonstrate myself’ or ‘attracting money for my work’ or ‘telling funders as to what use their money has been put to’ or ‘selling some idea to a community', firstly you have to understand who is talking.
'Who' is talking?
If you are talking the language of success, then there is hardly a difference between a profit entrepreneur, a lifestyle entrepreneur, and a social entrepreneur because the first two are defined by success; they talk the language of success. It will not be greatly beneficial even if all the tools and techniques are handed over to you for communications because finally what matters is: Who is communicating? What is his self-concept? To whom is he talking, and for what purpose?
Now, I am supposed to take a session on the communication needs of a social entrepreneur. I could have as well come and started a PowerPoint presentation saying, “There are five kinds of communications that a social entrepreneur needs: you have note writing, and you have project writing, and you have field training report, and you have meeting report, etc.” That would happen if my self-concept is that I am coming over here as a communications teacher of post-graduate students of entrepreneurship. That involves my assumption about myself and you, who I am, and who you are.
Similarly, when you are talking to somebody, what you’re saying will depend on what you think of yourself and the other person. The label may be the same.
You see, from that particular NGO, Oxfam or somebody, a team has come over, and they will be detailing you about what is the progress against plan—so it is a PAP generation, you would have heard about it—progress against plan, so much funds has gone into this, and we want to see how much progress has been made against plan. The label might remain the same, but the contents of communication will change entirely depending on who you know yourself as, who am I, and the thing I am going to say, and who I am going to say it to.
Do we see that this is a very important question? Do we see that this is probably the most important question in communication? Otherwise, what is there in communication? All of you have got language, all of you have got voices, and any of you can come over and speak, and that is what communication is all about, right? Is not self-concept a very important question, rather the most important question in communication?
Just speaking about something is not communication. 'Who' is speaking? Once you are clear about who is speaking, then what is being spoken automatically takes care of itself.
Just like in theatre. What does the director keep on telling to the actors? “Get into the character, get into the character.” Once you are into the character, then the dialogue delivery, the body language, and everything fall into place. You don’t have to try too hard; it just happens because now you know that you are the character, your self-concept has absorbed that.
So, when you stand in front of an audience to make a fund-raising proposal, is it not important to see who you are and what you are trying to do? And then the tools and tactics will follow in a relatively easy way. You won’t need to be taught about that.
Q: As an actor in a theatre, the challenge is different.
AP: That is true because in theatre you are getting into someone else’s skin. When you are not getting into someone else’s skin, it must be your own. The problem is: it is so easy to get into somebody else’s character, and so mighty difficult to get into your own. I ask you for a roleplay—and we utilize that also—I ask you to play a role, I can ask you to play your neighbor. You will do that with some success.
The most difficult roleplay is when the topic is ‘I’, and you stand there not knowing what to do. That is the most unknown entity, ‘I’.
My work for the last eight years has involved speaking to audiences of all ages and all kinds and all purposes. I am sufficiently experienced to say definitely that what you are carrying on that PowerPoint or on that visual or on that audio, that does not form much. It is that odd question that comes from the audience and your spontaneous response to it that matters. Or the prepared material in your mind, that does not matter that much. The real clincher is that odd question that suddenly comes from the audience and your spontaneous response to it; the unexpected trivial remark, and how you respond to it.
That response cannot be a thing of planning. You cannot prepare for it; that in the seventieth minute of my presentation, I am going to say such and such smart things.
That spontaneous response comes with clarity of the self, clarity about who you are and what you are doing here. Otherwise, there is fear, there is conflict, and there is apprehension.
Have you ever wondered why public speaking is such a dreaded skill? The fear of public speaking is one of the biggest fears. This is because of the conflict that comes with it. There are others, and the weight of their expectations, and the weight of their conditioning, and the penetration of their eyesight, and here am I standing vulnerable, exposed, and hence the conflict. No preparation works as a defense against that.
When I was in my post-graduation, there were students who prepared wonderful reports, presentations, and documents. They would have actually worked hard. But when it came to displaying it, speaking on it, defending it, they would be shivering because at that moment things like success, expectations would come into their mind. And somebody would stand there a little outside of the society, not feeling the pinch of the society’s pressure to succeed and deliver, to be somebody whom the society can respect. They would be very natural and smoothly go about their way. That won’t be very spectacular, having nothing miraculous about it, but there would be a very warm kind of comfort about it. There would be little, very little violence in it. They will stand there not feeling the heat, not feeling the violence that an audience induces at you.
Can you see that standing in front of an audience and making a presentation or a speech or a proposal is a thing of great violence? Can you understand the violence contained in it?
Can you see that if you are trying for success, actually there is a war going on? Where there are two parties and something is at stake—what else is the definition of war? What else is the definition of violence?
It is a collaborative thing where it is a win-lose situation. “Either I get it or somebody else gets it; either the proposal gets extended or it gets aborted; either I will be successful coming out of that door or I will be labeled unsuccessful.”
Do you not see the violence contained in it, and do you not see how your body responds to that violence? Your whole face goes red and all the sweating and this and that. And all the pre-work, preparation, “I am prepared”—for what? Prepared for violence.
Preparation means an anticipation of violence.