Being able to understand perspectives can provide tools to help us as effective advocate leaders have more refined conversations. In this post we’ll use additional tools to add to our understanding that we started with in a previous post.

In this post: https://advocacyleadership.com/2023/11/06/navigating-advocacy-through-integral-theorys-4-quadrant-model/ We talked about some different perspectives via the model provided by Integral Theory.  That post used the two different dimensions of Singular vs Plural and Subjective vs Objective. Through these two dimensions it gave us some tools to bridge perspective bias during conversations through specific frames of reference. In Integral theory, there’s a third dimension that we can use to add more context: interior vs exterior. Additionally, a model more familiar to most who have taken a writing class or had to conjugate verbs while learning a language can help bridge the understanding of this additional dimension: the person perspective: 1^st person, 2^nd person, 3^rd person.  We still have singular vs plural with this model.  We can use the person model to help us integrate the interior vs exterior dimension.

Summary Perspectives:

	Singular	Plural
1st-person	I, Me	We, Us
2nd-person	You	You
3rd-person	He, She, It They, Them for non-binary	They, Them

• 1st person singular, aka ‘I/Me’
  • Upper left quadrant from an internal view. 
  • It is my interior perspective.  My view and experience of the world.
  • Example: As an advocate for others, we sometimes have to get out of our own way. We can ask those we’re working with to check in with themselves. How are they feeling so they have clarity with themselves.
• 2nd person singular, aka ‘You’
  • Upper left quadrant, now an external view.
  • The exterior view of the individual as seen from me and projected onto someone else.
  • Example: Through advocacy we often have personal and specific conversations with others.  “I hear you say this.” Or “I imagine you must be feeling that.”
• 3rd person singular, aka ‘He/She/It/They/Them’
  • Upper right quadrant, it must be an external perspective.The exterior and abstract view of others and not to specific individual but rather about them.
  • Example: When learning languages in school we started with sentences like “He ran to the bus.” When working with others, we sometimes have to ask them, “How do you think She feels?” or “What does she need accomplish this task?”
• 1st person plural, aka ‘We/Us’
  • Lower left quadrant from an internal view. 
  • It is our interior perspective within a shared community.  Our shared views and experiences of the world.
  • Example: Some might describe this as “identity politics” when we are referring to a specific group that we might be a part of. As individuals we have many different traits, and these traits put us within specific groups that have in-common with those traits. So we means different things based on context, which we’ll talk about more later.
• 2nd person plural, aka ‘You’
  • Lower left quadrant, now an external view.
  • The exterior view of a community that I or We do not share.
  • Example: You, the members of the school board as compared to us, the members of the school population. 
• 3rd person Plural, aka ‘They/Them/Its’
  • Lower right quadrant, it must be an external perspective.
  • The exterior and abstract view of others and not related to a specific individual but groups and systems using some common trait for grouping.
  • Example: Many of us growing up had a “them” that we weren’t supposed to associate with. Our parents might tell us not to talk to “those” people.  And depending on context, those people could mean all sorts of different things. The bias is obvious in that delivery that it’s not being used in an Objective way.  The traits might be descriptive, but reaching complete objectivity is a lofty goal.

Discussion:

First- and Second- person perspectives have a bit of “us” in the conversation.  Third- person perspective now takes that and attempts to abstract ourselves out of the equation.  From here we start to look at the objective rather than subjective experience. You might have heard the terms “third-person limited” or “third-person omniscient” when it comes to writing.  When writing from the first-person perspective, an author might still want to limit the perspective of the audience, and not get too personal, so they would use the third-person limited perspective, so we only know what the perspective character knows, but it’s more like the view is looking over their shoulder rather than through their eyes.

This goes further with the third-person plural perspective. This can also become a blend based on our personal bias.  We often hear or see the terms “Us vs Them” to highlight that this third-person plural doesn’t always become an objective discussion or perspective.  This can trip us up as advocates. The integral model works fine when we’re talking about a network of computers or how a system of molecules interacts.  We can usually abstract that away, but it can break down when talking and working with others. We are only human, and “they” is a group that we’re not in. This can be based on common talking points like race, gender, or social status.  While the things that separate us from them might be obvious, it’s our job as advocate leaders to find the ways to build the bridge back to “we” and “us.”  This helps build connection as many times the abstract view, the right side of the quadrant model, the objective side can use dividing language, even when that is not our intent. When we do need to talk about objective measures that involve groups that we might be projecting upon, having a diverse working group can help reduce the likelihood of bias influencing results.  A common topic this is showing up on is in A.I. models.  If your training sample contains an unconscious bias, then the results will also have that bias. 

As we move from one perspective to the next, we see an ever-widening sphere of influence.  Starting from that first person perspective, we have a point or a small circle of “me,” and “us.” Then that second-person perspective takes that point and like a flashlight projects a laser or cone from that point or circle representing something outside of that limited first ring.  Then with third person, we can move the perspective camera to zoom out, and maybe above the heads of the group or maybe over the shoulder.  So what happens if we abstract the view one more time? What does a fourth-person perspective look like?

Fourth-Person Perspective

Just like the transition of abstracting “me” to “you” and “you” to “he/she/them” the next level abstraction must rely on the tools of our language to convey the idea.  As an example, presented here: https://prowritingaid.com/point-of-view they use the idea of a collective perspective. In group therapy, it might be considering the container of the group that exists regardless of the individuals present, but the sum of the individuals creates the container. At work, you might have a team, but the idea of the team spread across the larger organization is the key. Another way to think about it could be the perspective of the idea or construct that isn’t tied to a specific person or group.

Example:

Throughout our lives there might be some group or team that we are part of: a shift crew, a scrum team, a floor that has some common bond, a club at school.  In my case in software, I am part of a scrum team that includes some specific roles and ceremonies that are part of the culture and routine.  Within the larger engineering organization of my company, there are several scrum teams that have similar roles and ceremonies. When someone new joins the team, it’s the job of the team to provide that new person a sense of psychological safety and camaraderie. The fourth-person perspective is how we can abstract what my specific team does to what all the teams do in their own way, but with common goals. Nearly all teams have a planning session or way to start off a set of work, and a way of handling ad-hoc or pop-up requests from other teams or customers, a way to close out the session of work and prepare for the next one. These are just some examples, and the behaviors become specific rituals.  If you were to look at the rituals without context, it loses all meaning.  The context is what matters and understanding context helps guide conversations and decisions.

Conclusion:

How does fourth-person perspective help us as advocates and leaders? Context matters. Fourth-person perspective gives us context to the ideas around the groups and teams and organizations we are involved with. We start integrating the multitudes of perspectives that can happen all at once.  As bridge-builders we speak across the power divide and help guide the decision-making to help not just the selfish or individualistic goals, but we can walk the layers of abstraction and guide those with power to see at every view. Help those with power to go beyond looking in the mirror or just the “us” group and look at the full breadth of the impact of their choices and use the tools appropriate for each level to speak to the biases of those who need to make those decisions and leverage as a guiding hand.

Bring context and broaden your perspectives and watch those around you get more engaged with the work you’re trying to do. How can I help coach you to make that happen? Reach out or join my Discord server.