Why I Hate Clean Language
I hate “Clean Language”!
How can that possibly be? I’m the co-author of the bestselling book on the topic, I talk about it all the time, I use it all the time in pretty much every aspect of my work – in coaching, in helping groups to collaborate face-to-face and remotely, in podcast interviews and so on.
David Grove certainly created something amazing when he developed Clean Language as a precision toolkit for exploring the metaphors that underpin people’s thinking and that drive their behaviour.
And… I absolutely HATE the name Clean Language. Here’s why.
1. The phrase is not unique, so it always has to be explained. No, it’s not about “not swearing” (blimey I’m bored with that “joke”). No, I’m not talking about the software programming language. And no, the way I’m using it is subtly different from the way it’s often used in the world of NLP.
2. It misdirects attention towards “language”, and therefore away from some of the more interesting features of the process. Using Clean Language usually involves speaking, of course. It works with metaphors, and we can notice a lot of metaphors in language. But the reality is that Clean Language, used to its fullest, should engage the whole body and its environment. It’s not primarily about the rational language of the head: it’s a way of gathering information from the heart and gut, which often doesn’t present itself in words.
This misdirection is particularly annoying because the process itself sets great store by directing attention which great precision.
3. It’s judgmental. The implication is that if this kind of language is “clean” then some other kind is “dirty” – which for most people is a metaphor for bad and wrong.
Again, this feature of the name is not congruent with the process, which sets great store by being non-judgmental.
4. And finally… the name Clean Language can never be legally protected. That’s a great thing in some ways: it enables the idea to spread freely, and the process to develop and adapt as individuals do it their own way. But it also means that anyone can call themselves, for example, a Clean Language Therapist, even if they’ve never received any training from David Grove or the people who studied his work most deeply.
For all these reasons, I tend to avoid using the name Clean Language when I can. When I meet someone new I talk about the benefits of the work I do, and about metaphor. I do still introduce the technical term Clean Language once I know the person is interested and likely to look it up, but later in the conversation.
What do you think about the name Clean Language? What resonance does it have for you? If you like it, why? And if you don’t like it, what name would you use instead?
Comments from original on judyrees.co.uk
Andy
30 July 2015
Hi Judy. Long time no see!
If you could rename Clean Language, what would you rename it to?
Fred
30 July 2015
As a froggy, Clean Language would be translated in ‘Langage Propre”…But French use the term Clean Language instead…it’s more trendy and posh.
Being forced to explain the name CL every time people make jokes about it must be very tiring. In my case I would answer by a question to these types of reactions.
Rather than Clean Language I would be tempted to use Projection Free Language (PFL).
Bill Perry
30 July 2015
Judy,
I think if I were to rename it I would call it something more like “Content-Free” or something. Even that would be a misnomer I guess.
For me, the question would be for you: “If it comes to calling Clean Language something better, what would you like to have happen?”
Konstantinos
31 July 2015
IMHO There’s nothing clean about language … LOL
By the way your points are similar to the problems that arise from the use of “Provocative Therapy” for Frank Farrelly’s work and the use of “General Semantics” for Korzybski’s work.
JR
31 July 2015
Hmm… the comparison with Provocative Therapy is interesting to me, mostly because of the next stages of the story.
Frank Farrelly’s work was clearly a massive influence on Richard Bandler (though possibly less so for John Grinder) and contributed a key element of what we now know as NLP, back in the 1980s.
Jurgen Rasmussen then created his “Provocative Hypnosis” based on NLP, but not explicitly (as far as I can remember) on Frank’s work. His book came out in 2008, while Frank was still alive.
Frank’s work, of course, came from similar roots to David Grove’s: David told me he admired what Frank was doing and wished he could attend one of his workshops (it happened that one one particular occasion, they were both delivering workshops in Yorkshire on the same weekend.)
Seems like the dance of development, renaming… and indeed disputing… just keeps on going.
Richard
31 July 2015
The difficulty is, I think, that all language is inherently metaphoric, so is it even possible to have a ‘clean’ name? I am not sure.
What about something to do with abstractive (because it relates to dragging out (literal teanslation of the Latin root) of metaphoric representations) questioning (because the structure is based around questions, and interrogation is to pretentious for me!)?
There’s my vote then, ‘Abstractive Questioning’.
JR
31 July 2015
Like your thinking!
Falguni
31 July 2015
It could be Focused Language. Since there is focus on language, on client, on specific language used by specific client… and more in that vein. By virtue of it being focused it disregards the superfluous/unclean.
Silke Gebauer
31 July 2015
Richard, who says the name needs to be clean?
I like your line of thinking, though. To add to that, why not have a name that reflects more of the purpose than the quality of the toolkit?
Your “abstracting” moves in that direction. “Exploring” is certainly true as well but will only appeal to people who like exploring and aren’t interested in outcomes. But I would say most people looking for therapy or coaching like to get a sense of outcomes.
So, what’s the purpose of CL beyond exploring, i.e. why do we do the exploring? Here is a mouthful that combines the method with purpose, needs honing though:) Thinking-shifting questioning.
caroline williams
31 July 2015
This is a great discussion. I don’t like having to explain Clean either. It sounds like a rule for primary school children. Some NLPers i have met think it is the same as SMART goals.
For me Clean is distinct from other types of conversations in therapy and research, by the equality it creates between the questioner and the person answering. No authority is generated, to make interpretations, or steer the direction the conversation moves towards. I believe it is the kind of method most suitable to use in a multi-cultural society, where we cannot make assumptions about the meaning and associations behind the speaker words.
I like Richard’s idea of calling it some kind of ‘questioning’, i’m not entirely sure about Abstractive, but it would be better than Clean Language.
Lesley
31 July 2015
I rather like the ‘projection free’ label… though ‘language’ or ‘questioning’ limits somehow… so ‘projection free..’ followed by the type of ‘intervention’… projection free coaching, projection free therapy, projection free modelling, even projection free NLP.. No surely not! I do get almost as fed up with clean languagers assuming NLPers know nothing about clean language, as I do with the questions about the term clean language! Joys of life!
Sioelan
31 July 2015
For me clean language is a tool that I use that allows me to connect empathetically with someone, obtain more insight to the meaning of their words and gaining greater understanding in the direction one might like to move. Maybe I am missing the point. No matter what you call it, Any new name is bound to need clarification. Are the words clean language not just a simple agreement like something having 4 legs and a top and calling it a table?
Eric Fawcett
1 August 2015
Many interesting and varied ideas shared. This is my tuppence worth. Meditation became fashionable through renaming it Mindfulness. Mindfulness is another word for Awareness, is it not? Having some great memories of time spent in Davids company, the strongest impression I gained from his work is , Emergent Knowledge. Gaining insight and clarity to what lies within, we at times believed to be truth.
Davids knowledge appeared to me from his knowledge gained in and through Freud, NLP and even Buddhism. As I read across many of these topics I see his methodolgy forming, and emerging. And through others it continues in it’s development.
So it is still Emerging!
JR
3 August 2015
Thanks for your comments everyone! You’ve sparked some serious thinking – and some fascinating offline conversations.
When I wrote the post, I was feeling very trapped. I’d just been “forced” to explain the term Clean Language at yet another event. I was getting very stressed by the whole notion: “It’s not my stuff, it’s David’s… I have something of my own to say, which involves Clean but adds other important aspects…” … and I felt I was going round the same old loop again and again.
In one of those offline discussions this weekend, I was reminded that there is no such thing as “Clean Language”. Just as there is no ideal “table” out there in the ether, but each of us forms our own impression of what constitutes a table by comparing one thing to another, by metaphor.
In referring to Clean Language, I’m intending to give respect to David Grove and his work – and to reference the book I co-authored.
I don’t actually think it’s now possible to change the name: it is the label we have to refer to David’s work.
And yet, David would probably barely recognise what I do as relating to his work.
In this conversation, my friend was describing his experience of David at some of his first-ever UK workshops. Was the power in the questions, or in the metaphor, I asked? Neither! For him, the power was in David’s presence, and in his ability to dial up the tension between the client and their problem, pulling them further and further apart. In his charismatic way, he was able to hold that tension, facilitating the client into a trance…. until the facilitator disappeared, leaving only his voice… until the perfectly-placed question forced a reintegration and resolution.
At one level, it’s a long way from using Clean Language to help remotely-based teams work better together!
And, David’s work prefigured various ideas and processes that are now pretty mainstream in organisational change. Facilitation. “Pure” coaching. Agile. Self-management and emergence. The importance of space and the environment.
And is there anything else about all of that?
Peter
4 August 2015
Hi Judy,
I like the phrase as it describes the technique despite all the issues you mention.
It is not completely clean and how could it be?
It does take a level of understanding however to appreciate it.
Warm wishes,
Peter
Nick
16 August 2015
A bit late to this great discussion – thanks to you Judy for sparking it off (provocatively)…
I teach Clean Language to body and energy work practitioners (mostly Shiatsu) and this year have been to Holland, Greece, Austria and Italy, working each time with a translator. Some stick with the English name, some translate it. That doesn’t seem to matter. People seem interested by the name. It raises the question, “what kind of Clean?” and that usually gets things off to a good start, clarifying the aims of Clean, and how valuable these little questions can be in working with the “heart and gut” – and every other aspect of the “bodymind” – another phenomenon for which we don’t yet have a perfect name!
JR
17 August 2015
Thanks Nick! You are absolutely right about the heart and gut – and indeed the name of the “bodymind”. One could argue that people previously had a perfect name – “mind” – which has been hijacked and now tends to mean something different…
Sue
6 May 2016
Hi
I’m really late to your discussion! and just delighted to see so many people familiar with David Grove’s work. For years I’ve called it ‘Grovian Metaphor Work’ and only recently changed to calling it Clean Language. I prefer Grovian Metaphor Work I suppose because it honours David’s work. He was a genius!