A MESSAGE ON THE DISCUSSION OF INFLUENCE AND CONTROL. PERSON NOT ON NET
SO ANSWER DIRECTLY. CHUCK
···
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
From: PONY%"MAILER@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU" 2-OCT-1992 15:17:43.25
To: BAKANICV
CC:
Subj: mail delivery error
Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU by ASHLEY.COFC.EDU via SMTP with TCP;
Fri, 2 Oct 92 15:17:36-EDT
Received: from CUNYVM.BITNET by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with
BSMTP id 2605; Fri, 02 Oct 92 15:19:17 EDT
Received: from CUNYVM.BITNET by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP
id 6898; Fri, 02 Oct 92 15:18:11 EDT
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 15:18:10 EDT
From: Network Mailer <MAILER@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
To: BAKANICV@ASHLEY.COFC.EDU
Subject: mail delivery error
Batch SMTP transaction log follows:
220 CUNYVM.BITNET Columbia MAILER R2.08 BSMTP service ready.
050 HELO CUNYVM
250 CUNYVM.BITNET Hello CUNYVM
050 MAIL FROM:<BAKANICV@ASHLEY.COFC.EDU>
250 <BAKANICV@ASHLEY.COFC.EDU>... sender OK.
050 RCPT TO:<n050024@univsc.bitnet>
550 Mailbox not found.
050 DATA
354 Start mail input. End with <crlf>.<crlf>
050 QUIT
221 CUNYVM.BITNET Columbia MAILER BSMTP service done.
Original message follows:
Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6897; Fri,
02 Oct 92 15:18:10 EDT
Received: from ASHLEY.COFC.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
Fri, 02 Oct 92 15:18:03 EDT
Date: Fri 2 Oct 92 14:54:53-EDT
From: BAKANICV@ASHLEY.COFC.EDU
To: n050024@univsc.bitnet
Subject: sorting out PCT
Dear Chuck,
It has been a long long time since I was exposed to Power's ideas.
But I have enjoyed the dialogue you forwarded to me. My first reaction to
the dialogue was that everyone seemed to be writing from the perspective of
A (i.e., the manipulator). Discussion of B centered around whether B
actively participated in the manipulation as B's attempt to control B's
own environment (albeit indirectly) implying that B is also an A. That lead me
to conclude that the A-B positions were a false dichotomy and everyone is an A
desperately trying to match refence signal and control their own
environment. But, I rejected that notion intuitively. I couldn't quite
figure out what bothered me about that scenario. I've been thinking about
it for several days and I believe its the powerfulness of the explanation
that both attracts me and doesn't feel right. PCT is a very self empowering
theory. It locates control in the behavior of each individual. Although
the choices an individual makes may be constrained by environment and the
actions of others which impinge upon the environment, individuals still
power to adjust behavior, reset reference signals or simply remove
themselves from crisis producing situations. But, seeing the world as an
infinte arrangement of interlocking closed loop control systems which produce
a constance of variance to which individual organisms respond, seems at
odds with the sense of control depicted in the A-B scenarios. That lead me
to wonder if we weren't all B. That idea appeals to me because I have
experienced social interactions as a women (i.e., a less powerful position,
subject to the attempts of others to control me). I asked myself how would
my interpretation of PCT theory be different if I assume the object of
interaction was not to manipulate and control, but to protect oneself from
manipulation and restore prior conditions. Does it make any difference?
I am still pondering this. The perspective of A has the illusion of power:
manipulator, setter of reference signals, adjustor of one's own behavior.
But the complexity of behavior and the constant variance of environment
constructs a very different perception. Has your group discussed this
dilemma? Perhaps my uneasiness is a result of stepping into the middle of
an ongoing dialogue. You may already have answers to my uneasiness.
Von