[From Bill Powers (971116.1624 MST)]
(Replying to direct post from Tom Bourbon)
Hi, Tom --
Glad to hear that the RTP work in Australia is going well, and that Tim
Carey is getting support for his PhD project.
Now for the questions that have been bugging me for a couple of weeks. Did
you speak at IAACT? What do they mean by "control theory?" Is it PCT, or
something closer to Glasser's needs-driven version of CT?
Since others on CSGnet are interested in the answer, I'm cc'ing this to the
net.
Mary and I went to the IAACT meeting in Minneapolis Nov. 6th-8th. I spoke
the first evening with a group of early arrivers, in a "breakout session"
on the 7th, then to the whole group on the morning of the 8th, and again,
to about half of the group, on the afternoon of the 8th (there were other
sessions going on, too, in the afternoons). The reception was welcoming,
enthusiastic, and very supportive of PCT. At least two people expressed
anger at the way Glasser had fooled them into thinking that control theory
was so difficult that only Glasser could interpret it for them.
The most successful session was the plenary one, which was supposed to
start with the rubber bands and go on to other topics but never got past
the rubber bands. People all over the room (about 70 of them) were laughing
and talking and explaining how it works to each other and generally acting
like a bunch of excited kids with a new toy. We went through basic control,
the S-R illusion, conflict between people, conflict within people,
controlling behavior through disturbances, and countercontrol. The aha's
were popping off all over the auditorium.
In the other sessions we addressed many topics relating to Reality Therapy
and Glasser's teachings. I tried to make clear the difference between
technique and theory. What Glasser had taught them was a collection of
techniques that were easy to teach and apply, and that were quite in line
with PCT. I explained that I didn't care what techniques they used --
that's a matter of personal style and preference. All I was concerned with
was that they use control theory correctly. I mentioned Ed's program a
number of times, pointing out that Ed uses many techniques in common with
all Reality Therapists, mostly from early Glasser, and that I felt the same
about Ed's program: the techniques he uses are his business, not mine, as
long as he continues to adhere to the basic principles of PCT. I did
explain that it was helpful to have a person like Tom Bourbon around to
check out the understanding of the theory and help teach it.
Of course the Five Needs and the Basic Behaviors (thinking, feeling,
acting, and something else) came up frequently, and I was very restrained
in replying. I expressed doubt about the usefulness of treating all people
as if they had the same needs. I said that the Basic Behaviors were simply
a way of classifying things that we deal with differently in PCT. But
basically, I didn't criticize, simply saying that after they understood PCT
better they could make up their own minds about how to talk about behavior.
The nice thing was that absolutely no hostility arose as a result of these
remarks.
Probably the most significant part of the meeting was the Sunday morning
meeting of the Board and most of the certified trainers, at which they were
planning the next year's activities. I suggested that since they were
breaking away from Glasser, it might be a good idea to establish their own
vocabulary as one way of making their identity stand on its own. And while
they were at it, they might want to work up a glossary or dictionary in
which they translate from their working language to the language of PCT.
This would help in making sure that all the participants in the movement
could speak knowledgeably about control theory in the language they found
most familiar, without distorting the PCT ideas. All of the people present
thought that was a great idea. There was considerable talk about including
the teaching of PCT in their training program.
A sign of the support for adopting PCT is that the Board is trying to set
up their meeting next June in Vancouver to coincide with, or be contiguous
with, the CSG meeting. I explained that since we schedule our meeting on
the first day, we could easily arrange a specific day on which we deal with
subjects of interest to the IAACT. Whether this will happen depends mostly
on whether the IAACT manages to get room reservations -- they've left it
rather late.
The upshot of all this is that yes, the IAACT would like to use PCT, and
that yes, they have a lot of weaning away from Glasser's old ideas to do. I
think that simply being treated with intellectual respect for a change gave
most of them confidence that PCT is not beyond them, and I think they saw
the power of the ideas and their relationship to the basic Reality Therapy
approach. What will come of that remains to be seen.
Love to you and Betty --
Bill P.