[From Bill Powers (2000.09.29.0727MDT)]
Chuck Tucker (2000.09.27.0908 EDT)--
Your proposal changes the meaning of the word 'control' in PCT. As stated
elsewhere: "Paradoxically, perceptual 'control' theory is not about how to
control people better; it is about the inborn nature of human beings as
independent organisms who control themselves, who as independently in charge
of what happens to themselves.
This is very true (I wrote it), but don't miss the point here. Any time you
get someone else to do something you want, you're controlling your
perception of that person's behavior -- and, in fact, getting that person
to behave as you wish. We control other people's behavior all the time,
with and without their permission. How could it be otherwise, unless we
simply ignore everyone else and don't care what they do? Children are in
school not because they volunteered to be there, but because that is where
adults think they ought to be. Children learn subjects like reading,
writing, and arithmetic not because they spontaneously decided to learn
those things, but because adults decided they should learn them and either
sold them on learning or forced them to learn. There is plenty of control
of other people's behavior that goes on, and it is inevitable.
The paradox is that we are, indeed, autonomous systems: nobody else can
pick our goals or operate our arms, legs, and voices. Yet we need to
control each other's behavior, for reasons too numerous and obvious to
list. This means that we must learn how to get along without conflict, even
though conflict is seemingly inherent in every human relationship. There
are ways to do this, but they are not easy to figure out or to carry out
perfectly.
In my introduction to Ed's book, I chose to emphasize what I saw as
solutions to the paradox and attribute them to Ed's program; I was trying
to communicate as much to Ed as to the reader. I have been told a number of
times that since I haven't actually observed any RTP schools in operation,
I can't speak to the virtues or faults of the program. That introduction
was therefore an exhortation, not a report on what actually happens. I
would hope that the ideals I described are subscribed to in the RTP. I
would hope that some of the things I read in the books and elsewhere are
not what actually goes on in the program (with Tom Bourbon riding herd, I
am fairly confident that they are not).
On the point of using "rewards and punishments" Ford states: "When children
are not willing to follow standards or obey rules, they should be asked to
name the various choices they have and to explain the consequences that will
result for making those choices. The consequences should include the loss of
the privileges related to the responsible choice they refuse to make.
Sorry, but you are unlikely to convince me that that these consequences
were not _unilaterally_ imposed. Children can, of course, learn to tell
adults what they want to hear, and "voluntarily" offer to give up
privileges when they do something they know the adult considers wrong. But
in Ed's program, only LeEdna Custer promoted the idea of sitting down with
students and working out a mutually-acceptable set of rules. When I asked
Ed Ford about doing this, he didn't much like the idea, and anyway, he
explained, by the time kids are 6 or 7, "they know right from wrong." I
trust I don't have to explain why that set off alarm bells in my mind.
Restrictions and loss of privileges must result from their not being
willing to work at resolving their problems. Lifting of restrictions and
returning privileges should be tied to their having committed to a specific
plan to resolve their problems.
That's exactly what I'm talking about, isn't it? The restrictions and loss
of privileges don't just "result from their not being willing to work at
resolving their problems." Somebody _decides_ that the restrictions etc.
will follow from not "working at resolving their problems." Where in this
description is the adult who decides what a "problem" is, what "working at
resolving the problem" amounts to, and who can enforce the loss of
privileges, and give them back when satisfied with the student's new
behavior? I get mad just going through this again. This is trying to make
reward and punishment not seem like reward and punishment just by using
different words. When you make a privilege out of something a child wants,
you make it into something you can take away and then give back when the
child does as you want. That _is_ reward and punishment, whatever treacle
you use to coat the words.
On the next page he states: "In other words, they must be given the freedom
to choose the level of social contact at which they are willing to act
responsibly. This means that rather than being subject to punitive
actions, which usually create more hostility and do little to teach better
ways to live in harmony with others, children should, thorough their own
choice, experience the loss of the privilege of staying wherever they are
until they are will to accept the responsibility for the consequences of
their actions (p. 31, 1997)."
I just don't buy it, not at all. These words carefully don't refer to who
it is that offers the choices and how they restrict the choices to just the
ones that are offered. They make the adults who carry out the program
invisible, as if these choices just appear by themselves, like natural
laws, so the children are perfectly free to choose as they wish. If the RTP
is _actually run on this basis_, I simply can't believe that it works as
well as its proponents claim. So I have a dilemma: I respect the people
putting on the RTP, yet I can't believe that they run it the way they say
they do, if it is really successful.
All in all, I think that the explanation is simply deficient. You can't get
a happy school out of reward and punishment no matter how you sugar-coat
them. You can't fool the children into thinking they are not being
controlled, when you use means like that. So I can only conclude that such
means are not actually used -- that the description has nothing to do with
what really goes on. "Being with friends" is not a privilege to be taken
away and given back contingent on good behavior. It's probably irrelevant
to what actually happens. I expect that a good RTP teacher simply has such
a strong personal relationship with the children, a strong and _honest_
relationship, that the children agree with the teacher when he or she
suggests that the child might need some time in the RTC to work out a
problem -- or when the teacher _honestly_ says, "I can't cope with this
right now; I have a class to teach. Please go to the RTC until you figure
out how to handle this problem better, and let me get on with my job.
You'll be welcomed back when you return."
There are all kinds of respectful and friendly, but firm, ways to deal with
children that do not involve pretending you have no power over them, or
telling them fairy tales about what you're doing that _they know_ are not
true.
The above may read like punishment if one did not realize that the RTP
properly done involves a continuing discussion (as well as Quality Time
one-on-one interaction) among all of the participants to come to an agreement
about what the standards and rules are as well as what are the consequences
for their violation.
To me that's the ideal solution. If that is really what goes on, then of
what relevance is the loss and restoration of privileges? If you have a
person-to-person relationship that is open and honest, why do you need even
a hint of the carrot and stick? Who decides what is a privilege and what is
a right?
If the RTP is properly done such standards and rules
are not forced upon anyone. As Ford says about punishment: "I consider
punishment to be hurting others - forcing them without giving them a choice,
verbally abusing them, or doing some to them 'to get them to change.' The
method of discipline discussed in this book offers children the choice that,
in the circumstances in which they find themselves, are the only ones open to
them - the only choice possible, given their current situation (p.84, 1997)."
I can see that my position is doomed. These are very clever words,
lawyer-like words. "The circumstances in which they find themselves," and
"their current situation," is of course the key to understanding what is
actually being said here. What are these circumstances, what is the current
situation? Is it not that the children must remain in school by force of
law, and that they must agree to certain basic rules which they will simply
not be allowed to violate, no matter what reasons they give? The children
are already under firm control by the adult world; the choices they are
given are real but they are highly constrained to fit the adult idea of
what is and is not allowed.
Taking away something the child wants is punishment: it is the deliberate
creation of error in one person by another person. Giving it back
contingent on producing the behavior the controlling person wants to see is
reward: it is the deliberate witholding by one person of something another
person wants until that person does what the withholder wants. These are
means of controlling another person's actions regardless of the other
person's goals. I do not think that these strategies lead to peaceable
relationships among people. And I don't think it makes the least difference
if you find a way to describe these basic processes so they don't _sound_
like punishment and reward.
Best,
Bill P.