Choice Theory

I've been reading a very interesting book over the last few evenings called "Choice Theory" by William Glasser, also the author of "Reality Therapy" which I have not yet read. I'm usually not one for self-help style books but I was at a book sale about 3 weeks ago and this one caught my eye. I was also intrigued that the back cover endorsement was by Dr. Schuller .

What pulled me in was Glasser's theory that we spend the majority of our interactions with others trying to control them. We spend a great deal of time rewarding persons for acting according to what we independantly define as "common sense" and punishing them for going against our "better judgments." Glasser's theory continues to extrapolate this "control psychology" into the basis of most of societies ills.

While I am still towards the beginning of the book I am enjoying Dr. Glasser's theory very much but finding several early flaws along the way. For instance, he states that others cannot dictate how we feel or respond but we choose to respond to stimuli in various ways. He very shortly after states that one of the biggest problems in the world is that we are surrounded by too many "unhappy" people and goes on to suggest that if we reached an undisclosed critical mass of happy people then most of the remaining unhappy people would be "converted" in some mysterious way.

I have several problems with this early argument. First of all it seems to disprove the earlier statement. If others cannot influence how I "feel" then the concentration of happiness in the world should have little to no bearing on my personal emotional state. Secondly I dislike the allusion to the "quantum leap" theory that is so prevalent in various new age philosophies. Quantum leap theory basically states that when enough people realize their own "god-consciousness" within them the world will experience a quantum leap forward in spiritual progress. This is the Novus Ordo Seclorum, the utopia, the brave new world.

While Dr. Glasser does not state the quantum leap theory directly it is clearly implied in his statement. The basic problem with quantum-leap occurs in its reversal. When everyone is "happy" those who are unhappy become a very real "downer" for the universe as a whole and should very logically be removed... This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there is a majority of happy people, those who are unhappy will be marginalized and possibly persecuted, adding to their angst. If they were to rebel in any way (and very grumpily I would suppose) they might even be "rehabilitated" in some Orwellian fashion thereby ensuring a continuing majority of happy people.

I like generally happy people just as much as the next person. I prefer them over unhappy people nearly 100%. I also consider myself to be basically happy throughout my life. The problem with this utopian happiness is that it does not allow for any sort of corrective mechanism. Correction is very often the cause of much unhappiness, at least temporarily so.

What would the Bible look like if we had a happy Nehemiah or a cheerful Job? A contented Avraham would never have struck out on his own, a gleeful Moshe would never have left the comfort of his pending Egyptian throne and so on. Often happiness is not the very best choice we can make. Wisdom comes in knowing when and what to choose. Perhaps this is a better choice theory after all.

Still, even after this rather large philosophic disconnect I am still in agreement, at least so far with his basic premise which is that the only person we can control, is ourselves. I think the better instruction will come when Dr. Glasser hopefully informs his readers how to stop trying to control others... While reading his book I think I would like to do a Biblical study to contrast Glasser's "choice theory" with G-d's discipline and correction of His people throughout scripture. I speculate that I'll find a fairly strong disconnect but I might be surprised. In many ways it would depend on how you read the words. "Thou shalt not..." can be interpreted as a controlling command to "bind the hand" as Augustine says or a definition of choice including responsibility for the consequences.

In the earliest example given in the text the author tells the story of his friend who was robbed in his hotel. The mugger says, "Gimme your wallet" to which the gentleman replies "You cannot have my wallet, I will give you money but not my wallet." This is offered as a life and death example of choice theory in action. For me it seems to indicate attempting to control or at least limit the criminal's behavior which is not about choice but rather about limiting the choices for the mugger. The mugger certainly might have enforced his own brand of "control psychology" at that point and beat the man to a bloody stump and taken his wallet or simply shot him and walked out with the cash. So many choices...

My foundational issue with all of these "fix the world" theories is that they only work if everyone plays along. That is the Achilles heel of every "movement". As soon as a majority of people get fed up with being "civil" all of these social constructs go out the window and we kill, steal and destroy. All of these theories attempt to place a thin veneer on the human nature which is easily marred. What happens to choice theory when confronted directly with control psychology? Do we come to a non-standard application of Gresham's law? Will we find control psychology practitioners basically beating the tar out of the choice theory adherents while the choice theory camp sits around and decides that their feelings aren't actually hurt? Will we find the choice theory enclave has so masterfully whip'd the control psych guys that they are left bewildered at how they could make such personally disadvantageous choices. Or, will we find that all parties can win as I assume the book will state? We shall see.

For me I'm content with trying to do the best I can for myself without harming others. Choice theory has so far been instructive in that direction so I'll see where we go from here.