[from Mary Powers 990304]
John Appel,
I have been concerned all along with your defense of BCT as a theory.
Basically what you propose are two if-then propositions:
If parents are too controlling, then their children grow up insane.
If parents aren't controlling enough, then their children grow up insane.
And then an assertion described as a definition:
"Sanity is the ability to to anticipate and evaluate the effect of an action."
(Insanity, presumably, is the inability...
You have not, to my knowledge, gotten beyond statements like this. What you
don't realize is they do not constitute the theory you are working from in
the sense that PCT is the theory that, say, Rick is working from. They are
_applications_ of a theory called "cause and effect", also known as
"input-ouput", and, in some circles, "stimulus-response". You are saying
that events in early life (age 1 1/2 to 2 1/2, I believe you said),
specifically over- and under-control by the parents, cause insanity. A
causes B.
But cause-effect doesn't say _how_ events (varieties of parental control in
childhood) cause insanity. Actions by parents go in, insanity comes out
(sometimes, but not always). What happens inside? It's a black box.
I think you have a glimmering of an answer in the realization that control
has something to do with it. And explaining control is what PCT is all
about. PCT is a theory about what is inside that black box, and how it
works.
Beginning with the same idea you do, that people control - but focussing
initially on individual control, rather than control in relationships - PCT
explains control in the same way that control engineers do - as a function
of a _specific kind of organization_. The point is NOT that people are
"merely machines" - the point is that there is a particular arrangement and
interaction of components, first worked out by engineers but clearly evident
in neuroanatomy as well, that is necessary in order for control to be possible.
You have objected to some of the terminology we use - for instance,
reference signal. This is an engineering term, and we have chosen to use it
because it means: intention, purpose, goal, desire, want, need, craving,
yearning, itch, etc., etc., etc. - in other words, it is a term for a
particular functional component of a control system that has been called
many different things by people who have no concept of the role it plays in
a living system.
It is up to you to read PCT books if you want to know more. I think you
should read "An Outline of Control Theory" in Living Control Systems, by
William T. Powers, and his "Making Sense of Behavior". And spend some time
browsing
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/csg/
Once you have done that, and have a sense of what a well-functioning
hierarchy of control systems is, then you can start looking into what is
involved in the relationships between control systems, and what it means to
be autonomous. I'll give you a hint: when control systems run into trouble,
it's because the same lower-level systems are trying to satisfy two
incompatible reference signals coming from higher level systems. I don't
presume to know your business better than you do, but PCT suggests that your
patients are in severe conflict. You have been talking about Leslie wanting
to be autonomous, but it seems to me that she was _also_ absolutely
terrified of being autonomous (because it meant she was sure to kill herself
or someone else, and explains why it was such a relief to be in restraints).
How this conflict was resolved in the course of therapy with you I don't
have any idea, but apparently she did discover that autonomy did not
necessarily mean being dangerous.
As for what autonomy is. Your patients, however much lack of autonomy they
feel, are actually mostly in perfectly good control. They breathe, eat,
walk around, pick things up, etc., etc. - all control processes. But where
there is conflict, there is loss of control. Conflict is the primary way of
disabling a control system, short of actual physical damage. So I'd like to
suggest that you do some reading as mentioned above, and see how and if your
experiences as a therapist are modelled by PCT more adequately than the
cause-effect model you are using now.
Mary Powers