Authors: M.D. William Glasser
I cannot suggest specific strategies. The best things to do would grow out of the choice theory that everyone involved with a particular maltreated child would know. The child’s parent or parents would be asked to learn choice theory, or if the case was brought to court, the judge might order them to do so. But since the wife a busers in Fostoria welcome this intervention, the parents would probably welcome it, too. When trouble occurs, people who know choice theory can figure out how to deal with it. In our external control society, with all good intentions, we fail to help many of these children and actually harm some. Also in a quality community, as the tide of choice theory rose and carried the schools and homes with it, there would be fewer of these children, so it would be more feasible to deal intensively with them.
Lower medical costs would slowly become apparent as members of the community began to use choice theory in their lives. A large percentage of the people who seek medical care for aches, pains, fatigue, and chronic illnesses are suffering from the ravages of external control psychology, specifically, more from the unsatisfying relationships caused by the use of this psychology than by pure medical problems. In a quality community, people who were recognized as not needing medical help would be offered the chance to learn choice theory. The savings would far outweigh the few dollars that this opportunity would cost, since there would be fewer visits to the doctor and less medication would be prescribed.
Nurses; counselors; and, occasionally, general practitioners could be trained to run study groups that might be able to accommodate up to fifteen people (the ideal number could only be worked out in practice). This would be a specific, but inexpensive, extra provided by the health plan to augment whatever these chronic sufferers were involved with in the ongoing community program. I must stress that this offer would never replace medical treatment or one-on-one counseling, but it would substantially reduce the need for both and the waiting lists endemic to them. It would especially reduce the use of expensive procedures like
MRIs and CAT scans that are so often used with unhappy, chronic patients.
Right now, we pay a huge price for treating lonely people as if they are sick. Teaching these people choice theory could reduce that price and give many of them far more help than they get now. As they got help they would become the biggest boosters of the program. If an HMO wanted to be competitive, it would allow the physicians to give the time they would save to patients with diseases, such as cancer and heart disease, who could benefit from more ongoing attention from physicians and nurses. A physician who spends five extra minutes with a patient in intensive care and is perceived as caring can prevent the patient and his or her family from making demands that many, who feel neglected, make now. The best part of such a community program would be that it would not single these people out; what they would be offered would differ little from what the community as a whole was learning.
In a quality community, it would be essential to offer all police and correctional officers an opportunity to learn these ideas, so they could apply them in their work and teach them to those they worked with. For example, a DARE officer could add choice theory to his or her talks with students about staying clear of drugs. In a quality community, the probation and parole officers would teach their clients choice theory, and once the clients learned it, they would have something positive to talk and think about. Probationers and parolees individually, or in small groups led by parole or probation officers, would be asked to read this book. A community volunteer, skilled in the ideas of this book, might also work with the officers because it would be good for the parolees and probationers to meet a person from the community who showed that he or she cared by trying to help them learn these ideas.
Married parolees and probationers would be asked to read this book with their spouses and bring them to the discussion groups. It wouldn’t matter if they did so sincerely or tried to use the book and the groups as a con; the effect would be the same. Some of the girls at Ventura used to tell me, “I’m just going along with the
program; you’re never really going to change me.” I would say, “That’s fine. Con me by doing well; it’s all the same to me.” Then several months later, they would laugh and say, “You knew it would happen, didn’t you?” I would ask, “What happened?” And we’d laugh together.
The judges in a quality community would find that they had a new sentencing option, a new way to divert first-time nonviolent offenders so they could escape being sucked into the correctional abyss that not only does not correct but usually makes things worse. Judges could offer these offenders a simple assignment—to read the book and then write a report describing how they would use these ideas in their lives if they were given probation. It might get them thinking in a new direction. We have nothing now but external control, which is jamming our jails to almost inhuman capacity.
Inmates serving time in community jails and juvenile halls could be offered a chance to read the book and enter discussion groups as part of the usual time off for good behavior. If they couldn’t read or read well, they could listen to someone else read the material or listen to audiotapes. Many of them would welcome a chance to break the monotony of incarceration. Like all others invited to participate, the inmates of the jails would know that this effort was going on in the community—that they were not being singled out for something special. This knowledge could help them decide to be more accepting of getting involved. Also, if some of these people were counseled, the fact that they knew choice theory would make the counseling much more effective.
The best-trained laypeople in choice theory I have ever met are a group of about fifteen prisoners doing long stretches in an Oklahoma penitentiary. They did not consider learning these ideas a chore at all. They loved doing so and said it was very helpful in the stressful place where some of them were going to spend the rest of their lives. Again, all that needs to be done is to teach choice theory and ask how people are using it.
In a quality community, the following might be a conversation during a routine first visit between a parole officer and a twenty-two-year-old
man who was released from prison after twenty-six months for purse snatching and possession of drugs. If he repeated this behavior and was caught, he would face a much longer sentence. With his four or five juvenile offenses plus the time he was shot in a gang fight and had to be operated on, the community had spent more than $75,000 on him (not including the cost of his time in state prison), and he has yet to make a monetary contribution other than occasionally paying sales taxes. His chances of going back to prison would be very high if something different wasn’t offered. The parole officer would start by saying, “Do you understand what is expected of you?”
“Yeah, no drugs, no booze, report on time, stay away from my old friends, and go to work. Oh, and come here on time.”
“And be prepared to give a urine sample anytime we call you in. And bring a list of the places you looked for work.”
“No sweat. I’m clean. I wanna work.”
“Well, we still have a few more minutes. How do you think I can help you? I want to do what I can to see you stay out of trouble.”
“You don’t have to worry about me, man, I’m cool.”
“I don’t have to, but I do. I’m worried about you right now.”
“What are you worried about? I told you, I’m cool.”
“I’m worried about what you think about.”
“Think about? I don’t think about anything. Don’t bother yourself about my thinking. I’m cool.”
“Have you ever read a book and talked about it?”
“A book, are you kidding? I never read a book in my life. I never got through the ninth grade. It was all those books that killed me. What are you talking about?”
“I’m talking about we have nothing to talk about. Telling me you’re cool is the same as telling me nothing. You can read, can’t you?”
“Of course I can read. But if you’re thinking about sending me to college, forget it. I’m trying to tell you I’m just not the kind of dude that reads books.”
“You’re also not the kind of dude that stays out of jail very long. People who never read books spend a lot of time in prison.”
“What are you talking about? A lot of guys in there read all the time, and some of them are never going to get out. What good did books do them?”
“They didn’t read until they got the time. If you go back, you may start reading, too. I want you to start now. Do something you’ve never done before.”
“You’re the boss. You got a book, I’ll read it. I’m cool.”
“No, I don’t have a book; I have a book group. I want you to go to a book group. They’ll talk about a book that a lot of people in this town are reading. It’s not just for guys who’ve been in prison; it’s for everybody.”
“A group of dudes like me in a book group, you got to be kidding. Is this a joke?”
“No, it’s not a joke. It’s going on around here all the time. I think you’ll find it more interesting than talking to me. It’s all about you. It really is.”
“What do you mean about me?”
“You’ll find out as soon as you go to the group. I’m getting a group together now. Call me in a week, and I’ll tell you where to go.”
“I gotta do it?”
“You gotta do it.”
“Or you’ll bust me?”
“Put it this way. I’ll be a lot easier to get along with if you do. The group meets once a week for two hours. They’ll take attendance. Go four times and then if you want to quit, I’ll listen to you. How about that?”
This could be a real addition to what the officer could do. Again, the men and women involved would appreciate that they were not being singled out for special treatment.
Since developing a quality community based on choice theory has never been done before, exactly what we will do together in Corning
will have to be worked out at the time. Those who participate in the initial group are very important. If they are community leaders, they will be asked a lot of questions by the media. If their answers demonstrate strong support for this program, we will have a good chance to succeed. The committee agreed to try to persuade at least a hundred people, most of them leaders in the community, to read this book initially. This is the group that will meet with Carleen and me.
Between now and then, the best way to convince the people we need to get started is to begin with whoever has regular contact with people in the community. In this initial phase, the committee may approach ministers who could communicate this need to their congregations. The message—bringing the community together—would be especially appropriate for church groups. I can also see the committee approaching community service groups and even the host of a radio talk show. Any place in the community where people routinely get together is a good place to explain the process and how interested people may get involved in the initial group. But I think the top people need to be approached personally by other leaders whom they know.
Two women in Corning, who already have some training in choice theory, have agreed to make themselves available to explain the program to interested groups and, if there is time, to interested individuals. For other interested communities, we have people trained in the use of choice theory all over the United States and Canada, as well as in a dozen other countries. I am sure these people would be glad to help any community get started.
For the first group, it would be wise for them to read this book with someone else and talk about it with that person as they go along. A husband and a wife would be the easiest, but any two people who will discuss it would be fine as long as one or both agree to attend the first meeting (to ensure that there are at least one hundred people at the planning meeting). But anyone else who has read the book, I hope including those from the media, should be made welcome at the first meeting. I will leave the composition of the first group up to the committee, but I believe the following people should be considered:
those who are part of the political power structure: the mayor, members of the city council, the city manager, local state and federal officeholders, and political party leaders
those who are part of the business and labor administrative structure, for example, representatives of Corning Glass, labor unions, utility companies, private businesses, banks, insurance companies, realtors, and booksellers
newspaper, radio, and television executives and reporters
religious leaders
judges of the juvenile, adult, and family courts and correctional officers
representatives of social service, welfare, and charitable institutions, charitable foundations, the department of parks, and recreational people
educational leaders at all levels, from preschools to colleges, public and private, as well as some student leaders who are juniors and seniors in high school
the medical and counseling community, including administrators of managed care organizations or HMOs, physicians, nurses, physical and occupational therapists, counselors, psychologists, and social workers, both public and private
representatives of the police and fire departments
interested citizens who have been involved in community work, including the arts; garden and environmental activists; and advocates of civil liberties
representatives of women’s groups, civil rights groups, racial and ethnic groups, senior citizens’ groups and such organizations as the YMCA and YWCA
representatives of service clubs like the Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Elks, American Association of University Women
some of the traditional skeptics, curmudgeons, naysayers, wet blankets, and obstructionists who read the book
anyone else you can think of.