Friday, September 27, 2013

Choice Theory


Photo of Dr. William Glasser: Brother Bulldog
The Times ran the obit of William Glasser (“William Glasser, 88, Doctor Who Said One Could Choose Happiness, Is Dead,” NYT, 9/4/13). Syntactically it’s an odd headline when you think of it, placing the words “choose” and “dead” so oxymoronically close. One of Glasser’s books Reality Therapy: A New Appraoch to Psychiatry, “sold 1.5 million copies” according to the Times. He also wrote a book called Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom. The obit went on to elaborate on some of Glasser’s ideas. One of them is “That to meet the most profound human need—‘to love and be loved,’ as Dr. Glasser put it—people must repair strained relations with their family, friends and co-workers by adjusting the one variable within their control: their own behavior.” Where Glasser went wrong was in the choice idea alluded to in the obit’s headline. He seemed to believe in the notion of free will, ie that someone can desire to have better relationships and simply achieve such goals by realizing say another of the precepts iterated in the obit: “That the only person one controls in the world is oneself.” What Glasser was proposing was actually a watered down existentialism based on the premise that existence precedes essence, with the ancillary notion that the importance of unconscious drives could be discounted. But what if a person profoundly doesn’t wish to repair their relationships? What if his or her objective is to act in such a way that they push those around them away? What if the objective of the patient is to be a perpetual victim who can blame the world for all his or her problems? And what if he or she doesn’t even realize that this is what they are trying to do when they complain bitterly about the deck of cards they’ve been dealt? Freud used the term Fehlliestung or "faulty achievement” to refer to slips of tongue and other mistakes that reveal intent. Freud’s notion would seem to explain a good deal of the maladaptive behavior that characterizes human endeavor on both an individual and mass scale.

6 comments:

  1. Few people would say "I don't wish to repair my relationships." or "I want to be a perpetual victim." If one attributes these sorts of desires to a person in the face of verbal denials, it must be based on their behavior. Perhaps the best explanation of their behavior requires the postulation of these self-descrutive desires. However, such explanations must overcome a strong presumption that the person has the desires they say they have.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It’s true few people would say I don’t wish to repair...and there’s the rub. Many people think they are trying “cognitively” to change or repair this or that, but they get defeated by subliminal impulses which may undermine their conscious desires. If you’re disinclined to psychoanalytic voodoo, then look up something called the Iowa Gambling Test.

    ReplyDelete
  4. About Glasser and choice: isn't Glasser part of a long tradition that goes back to the stoic conception of ataraxia, or imperturbability? This tradition suggests that we should give up trying to change what we cannot change (other people, what is external to us) and wisely manage what is in our control, our own desires and preferences. Exposure to the stoic tradition can help one form meta-desires about one's desires. It can lead to more sensible desire management.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This impulse to change what one can change may go back to the Stoics, but it’s one of the primary mantras of the Recovery movement today. The Serenity Prayer which is intoned at all 12 step meetings states “God grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.” I think Glasser’s mindset is very similar to this and indeed it’s an admirable sentiment--provided one is able to effectively attend to it. Also it demands a good deal of insight that is not impeded by self-justifying or self congratulatory mythology (the life lies that populate a play like The Iceman Cometh). No one is discountenancing the value of ethically valuable, cognitive insights. The problem for me could be stated another way. We hold these truths to be self-evident i.e. what made the person come to the distorted and irrational conclusion that he or she could change others in the first place and my answer might be: some form of
    emotional disturbance which is not within his or her ability to grasp.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.