As I first read about "reality therapy," I found myself wondering "in what way is this approach superior to that of Freud, Adler, Rogers, the existentialists, or Ellis?" An alternate question could be "in what way does it add to my knowledge or theory?" I found I was asking myself the wrong questions as I could not find a single positive answer.
I think that Glasser's Control Theory has some techniques that can be applied well and may prove useful with clients in need of direction as opposed to those who are able to benefit from an alteration of existing cognitive structures or patterns. I can see myself using on adolescents or adults who are not philosophically inclined. In short, the type of client who asks for advice, those who need to be taught. I realize that Corey talks about a "learning process," but this process seems to take place on the superficial level. I am also aware that this approach has its fervent admirers and that my own view is more a reflection of my own inclinations than it is a fair, objective evaluation, but at the same time I would prefer to keep this approach as a last resort, something to do with a client I can not reach or communicate with on a deeper level.
Take, for example, his notion that a client "chooses to depress." As I see it, this is true only to the extent that the client's perception of the situation is such that the objective phenomenon encountered becomes depressing. The approach I would try first is exploration with the client as to why the phenomenon appears depressing. However, Glasser would argue that we choose to be depressed because it gives us certain rewards or control over our environment. Others may either pity us or leave us alone, for example. Having a "headache" is another example, but it is one thing to say one has a headache as an indirect way of avoiding unpleasant tasks that involve others and quite another to actually have a headache because the unpleasant task is "causing" it.
Probably the single most irritating aspect of "reality therapy" for me is the planning. Again, while it may be very effective with the type of client mentioned above, I am one of those people who never make New Year's Resolutions. One reason is that it seems such a faddish, ritualistic, process with little real meaning. The only person I know who has actually kept a New year's Resolution is myself and that resolution was never to make one. I have made decisions to change behavior on my own and done it successfully, but it has never come about through declaration of it to others. It has always been through an internal, cognitive, alteration. I could make a New Year's Resolution by changing my attitude towards the process of making such resolutions first, however. I could use this approach with a client, but I would do my best to make sure that it was an attainable one that would lead to others.
3.d.: Concepts and techniques I want to incorporate.
Some of the questions seem helpful. For example, the question "what do you want?" has always seemed to me quite ludicrous and I generally associate this question with weak-minded authority figures or significant others (who soon became insignificant). What do I want? Money, health, happiness, world peace, compulsory Mozart listening, friends with triple digit I.Q.s -- want a longer list? In other words, I have an aversion to such questions.
Glasser's questions, on the other hand, help formulate ideas and goals, albeit for less reflective clients. "What would your family be like if your wants and their wants matched?" Through this question, one can eventually arrive at an understanding of what is causing family conflict as it will most likely lead to a discussion of a difference in wants and these wants will be defined as a result. Now we may have an insight into the person's wants.
I favor having the client commit to a goal, to a behavior change, and for some writing it down as a sort of contract might achieve this end. More effective would be to foster a sense of "internal commitment" directly so that the contract was not needed. For some, writing the contract may actually produce some cognitive changes.
3.e.: Personal application.
As I've mentioned above, with a client, the list of rules for planning that Corey lists (270-71), would prove helpful. I may use the analogy of the front wheels and the back wheels with some clients.
So far as applying it to myself, I see little application. For example, in the discussion of headaches, above, I distinguished two different type of headaches -- real and feigned. The next time I have a real headache, I may ask myself if I am choosing to have one, but the process would be introspective, self-analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment