[from Mary Powers (980521)]
This post is about Marc Abrams' ( 980520.1015) statement that RTP is based
on Reality Therapy, not PCT, and Tim Carey's (980521.1015) and (980521.1136)
denials.
First thing I want to say is that I think that this net has been pretty
unpleasant to read lately. I believe that there have been all too many
dogmatic and confrontational assertions, and a great deal of resistance to
differing viewpoints, and a lot of 'tis so, 'taint so and belittling remarks
which to my mind have been perhaps clever and amusing as intended but also
pretty childish. So there.
Case in point (but not the only one). Tim replies to Marc on the
proposition that RTP has Reality Therapy roots: "On this point you have no
idea what you are talking about", and later, "This is completely inaccurate".
NO idea? COMPLETELY inaccurate? Is Marc really THAT wrong? Is the idea of
some RT influence THAT unlikely, given the years and years that Ed did spend
in RT?
I can see Marc's point, which is that there are aspects of RTP technique
that are derived from RT technique. The questions routine in particular,
but also other techniques from early (Schools Without Failure) Glasser.
What's so awful about that, to be met with rather rude denials?
I believe that RTP principles (as well as technique) are only presumably
derived from PCT and that actually they are derived partly from PCT, partly
from RT, and partly from other things, such as Ed's Catholic upbringing.
The whole point of Bill bringing up the issue of choice which started this
whole brouhahah is the mixed parentage of RTP, and Bill's desire to clarify
what part of it is or is not PCT. There's more than just "choice" at issue:
there's the idea of "teaching thinking", there's an implicit definition of
responsibility as conformity, etc.
[I want to say here that the idea that limiting a child to two alternatives
and saying "pick one" is a technique used and promoted as a strategy by many
in the child-rearing game. I personally have no problem with using it,
having been through the process of coercing 3 children into being reasonably
socialized, civilized adults. It works, it is relatively painless, but it
is a process of limiting, not giving, choice, and should be acknowledged as
such.]
I'm not sure when Ed started talking about staying in the classroom
non-disruptively vs. going to the RTP room as a choice rather than a rule. I
know that I became uncomfortably aware of it in 1996 when Glasser repudiated
control theory (as he understood it), declared the word "control" anathema,
and rechristened his program "choice theory". It seemed to me (just seemed,
mind you - I really haven't followed Glasser through his permutations and
contortions) that Ed and Glasser were in many ways more similar than some
would care to admit.
It should not be forgotten that in 1979 or '80 Glasser discovered PCT and
was ecstatic to find a theory that he believed provided the justification
and rationale for his own work (see Stations of the Mind, 1981, if you can
find it). Glasser did not understand PCT very well, but there were (and
are) aspects of his approach that are not entirely incompatible. This is to
be expected - PCT wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it was simply a bolt
from the blue - it _should_ bear a resemblance to some other people's
thinking about the way people work (where it differs is in proposing a novel
and explicit organization capable of producing the behavior we see).
So some similarity between Ed and Glasser is to be expected, _whether or
not_ Ed ever worked with Glasser, and more so if (and since) he did - and
being scornful of someone who points that out is not a very appropriate way
to behave.
The weird thing is that while Ed talks about choice and his disciple Tim
defends it, a rather large number of Glasser's folks repudiated Glasser, and
choice theory, in 1996. The breakaway group, called The International
Association of Applied Control Theorists (IAACT) is composed partly of
people who are basically RT folks who have rejected Glasser's increasingly
authoritarian stance, and partly of people who were interested in control
theory (what they had learned from Glasser or had picked up on their own).
This group is meeting in Vancouver when CSG is, and some of their members
will be at the CSG meeting, while Bill is staying over to give some talks to
them about PCT, as he already has done at an earlier meeting. The point I
want to make is this: Applied control theory comes in several flavors -
IAACT, RTP, what Ken Kitzke, David Goldstein, Dick Robertson, Mark Lazare,
Michelle Schwartz, Kimberly Copeland, etc. do (all independent of either
group). PCT is applied by these people in different ways with different
degrees of success. Each person brings a background, an agenda, a style,
etc. to their understanding of PCT and how it informs what they are doing.
None uses "pure" PCT - it is one systems concept among the many that go to
make up each individual personality.
I believe it is important to be aware of what is PCT about what one is doing
and what is not, as in this choice hassle. It is important to be able to
see what is PCT and what is not in what other people are doing also. The
last thing we need is a competitive "my PCT is better than your PCT" kind of
thing. It might be well to keep in mind that PCT is in many ways very
undeveloped, and that it is rather premature to be doing applications at
all. It is a reflection on the state of affairs in the behavioral sciences
that there are people wanting to use PCT now, while so much remains to be
done in its development. So, kiddies, make nice, don't fight. 
Mary P.