Know the Answer? Don't Believe Everything you Think
Shortly after the Super Bowl I texted the Editor in Chief (of the Krich Report blog), what about a column discussing the Springsteen ad? His detailed reply? “Nah.” “You could write another guest column.” I took it as a challenge.
As readers may have learned in my original guest column, I am a life coach by trade. The Super Bowl has lots of coaching but what does that have to do with Bruce, a two-minute commercial, and the state of the country? A lot.
Let’s talk first about interpretations. For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll define it as a person’s perspective or opinion about anything. A fundamental rule around this form of interpretation is that rarely, if ever, is there only one. Certainly, we may think “our” interpretation is the only one but that’s what “we” think.
Political viewpoints are a great example. One interpretation is invariably confronted with the other party’s, often opposite, take on whatever.
This is a fundamental to the Editor in Chief’s “Krich Rule” to have the rigor to ask oneself, if my team was doing what those guys are doing, would it still tick me off. The effect of the Krich Rule is to encourage us to consider another interpretation.
Taking this another step, running errands last week I pulled up behind a car with the following bumper sticker:
Certainly, there are multiple interpretations of this. Here’s one: if you accept the concept that there can be multiple interpretations of things or ideas, what does that mean for the interpretation you came up with? Is your’s right? Is another one wrong? Who’s to say? Are you biased toward your own because you came up with it (i.e the reason for the Krich Rule)?
Ok, here’s another visual:
Here’s part of the challenge in the country right now. There’s a lot of strong interpretations out there and a lot of us believe we are right (and of course someone else is wrong).
That doesn’t leave much space for listening and understanding someone else’s perspective. Never mind that starting a dialogue by trying to convince them that their interpretation is wrong pretty much closes the door on listening (much less understanding) on both party’s part.
The solution? I continue here with my theme from guest column #1. It starts with us. We can recognize and practice that what I feel very strong about is my interpretation. We can also recognize there may well be other interpretations and that others feel just as strongly about theirs. We can open the door a crack to see if maybe, just maybe, there is something in the middle between ours and theirs that may be common ground, even if it’s a morsel. It’s a place to start. Personally, I call it being “open.”
What’s this got to do with Bruce’s ad? Well, here’s my interpretation (and for lots of others, please go to the internet and type in “Springsteen Super Bowl ad” and you will quickly find lots of folks taking pot shots at the boss for what he did). I found one from the conservative side saying Bruce did it only because of his historically liberal political views. This is an opportunity to apply the famous Krich Rule!
I have two theories (interpretations) about the ad. One is about why Bruce broke his long-standing rule not to do commercial endorsements. The second is about what he was trying to share.
You may by now have learned Bruce has avoided commercial activities like this until this past Sunday, at age 71. Why? My instinct tells me he made a calculation that the country needed such a message because we’re facing a crisis of sorts, and it was worth taking a risk to put aside a long-standing personal principle. That’s my guess; Bruce’s interpretation remains to be heard.
My interpretation #2 is Bruce was trying to remind us all of some simple core American values as a potential foundation for coming back together. Perhaps Bruce as national values coach? Certainly not easy to do in a two-minute commercial but if anyone could do it, it might be Bruce Springsteen. Many of his songs, usually just a few minutes longer, have been full of vision and values (and resulted in lots of interpretations of what he was trying to say, just look up Born in the USA).
Here’s what caught my ear and eye from the ad.
The opening scene speaks to the “exact center” which forecasts the concept of “the middle” between the divide of red and blue (people, not states).
The pictures and words about the chapel, which without saying it explicitly projects faith. We've been a country based on faith, today many different faiths, religious, spiritual and otherwise. As a nation, we have had "faith" we will find our way, particularly in times of turmoil, such as war, civil discord, controversy.
He moves on to say “all are welcome." The concept of the melting pot has been a historical value of our country, although perhaps less so today.
The ad then speaks to fear as “not the best of who we are.” Our nation’s ability to confront fear -- often of the unknown -- has been a value leading us to do great things -- take on Hitler, overcome depression and recession, put a man on the moon, etc.
"Freedom belongs to all." "It's what connects us and we need it." Freedom is interpreted in many different manners in our world today, but clearly is a hallmark value of America.
Bruce moves on to encourage us forward, "We can get there." "Our light has always found the way through the darkness." To me this suggests a human value of perseverance, perhaps steadfastness, that even when things may be darkest, we will find a way.
Finally, the ad closes with a written text, America Reunited. Again, a value, one nation, indivisible.
There you have it. One man’s interpretation of a 2-minute ad that cost a couple million bucks. Nothing more, nothing less. Have at it! What’s your interpretation?
