Reactance theory does not address how harmful or innocuous control can be and may seem to be too circumscribed to explain the nature of general harmful behavior. However, the limitations of its scope to specific and reactive control motivation do not detract from its power to explain battles for control dynamics. It is formulated to anticipate these specific incidents and, in doing so, addresses harm in general. With this purpose and the applicability of reactance theory in mind, the terms control and specific control are used interchangeably and, because reactance is control motivation, the terms reactance and control motivation are also used interchangeably. A control model, subsuming these concepts and general control, is introduced next, in which control (unless identified by a general control descriptor) is the belief in the freedom to engage in a specific nonharmful or harmful behavior to reach a specific nonharmful or harmful goal that can be exercised for a variety of reasons, most particularly when threatened or taken away, arousing reactance in proportion to its distinctiveness and importance.
|
The Resistance is a moral certainty, not a poetic one. The true poet never uses words in order to punish someone. His judgment belongs to a creative order; it is not formulated as a prophetic scripture.
|
By the time the child can draw more that scribble, by the age of four or five years, an already well-formed body of conceptual knowledge formulated in language dominates his memory and controls his graphic work. Drawings are graphic accounts of essentially verbal processes. As an essentially verbal education gains control, the child abandons his graphic efforts and relies almost entirely on words. Language has first spoilt drawing and then swallowed it up completely.
|