Location via proxy:   [ UP ]   [Manage cookies]
MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Matthew Israel Interviewed by Jennifer Gonnerman

NEWS: From sugar-coated lollipops to electric shocks, the road to discipline. Jennifer Gonnerman talks with the Rotenberg Center's founder Matthew Israel.

August 20, 2007



TOOLS

E-mail article
Print article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor






JG: How did you first meet Dr. Skinner?

MI: I was a freshman in college. It was 1950, at Harvard College, and I had a social conscience, I think, and I wanted to do some good with my life. And I was trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my life, and I thought I might go into government or something, Foreign Service or…and Harvard at that time had a science requirement. And I thought I'd get it out of the way my first year so I took first semester in astronomy. I needed another half year of science and I saw they had some courses that were open to freshman in the rubric of natural science and one was called "Human Behavior," by someone named Skinner. And the description sounded good, and I took it, and I liked very much his approach because he was trying to bring the methods of natural science to the study of behavior. A lot of the study of behavior is with the methods of social science. They're less rigorous; they're the methods of political psychology, which at that time there wasn't really data on it, and I thought it was a very fascinating notion.

I got angry at myself at one point because I didn't seem to be reading anything except what professors were putting on their lists of books you're supposed to read. So I said, "Let's pick up some books that aren't assigned to me." And Skinner had written a utopian novel called Walden Two, and that really captivated me because what he said in that book was in something I alluded to yesterday: He said that a lot of the issues in the world have to do with what we understand to be the nature of man.

Is he a free, rational person able to choose between good and evil, between truth and falsehood? And if so, John Mills and the democratic approach to government make a lot of sense. If he is primarily motivated by sexual issues, then the Freudian makes a lot of sense. If he is primarily motivated by his position in the economic class struggle, then Marxism, communism makes sense. Prior to taking this course I was feeling that way. How do you know who's right? What combination of theories is correct? Then along comes this little book that says it isn't one way or the other way; our best understanding is that each individual person is what he's made by his genetics and his conditioning history. He's not good or bad, or primarily this way or that way, but the way to find out is through the methods of experimental science.

Which was, he called it—[experimental science] came to be called behavioral psychology, and he said therefore the way to find out how people really should be organized and how society really should be governed is through experimenting and we need an experimental community. So he described this utopian community where it was essentially an experiment in living—and it captivated me. I thought, "My God, that's a wonderful solution, because people don't have to pretend to know the answers. You only have to say, 'Well, I'll find the answers.'" And that was, I decided that my mission was to start a, that, utopian community.

JG: And about how old were you at this point? Twenty?

MI: I was 17 or 18, a freshman in college.

JG: So you decided at 17 or 18 that you wanted to start a utopian community?

MI: Absolutely. I was very serious about it; I didn't think my life would have any real…I wanted my life to have some meaning but I didn't know how to do that. First I went in and told him he should assign that book because he wasn't assigning it to his own classes. And he told me some story, some joke, about professors assigning their own books, and I said, "Well, you should," and he did assign it the next year, as well as 1984.

JG: He assigned 1984 too?

MI: Yeah, because he wanted to give all sides of the issue.

He then began to. . .a lot of people. . .he wrote the book right after World War II, it was kind of something he was offering in return to veterans as a way of hope for a better world, and a number of people wrote to him and asked, "Where is this place?" It was described as being in Canton—I assumed it was Canton, Ohio—and Skinner would give me the letters people wrote into him asking where this place was and I started a little newsletter to people interested in it.

I started to major in psychology, but found the other courses were very boring. He was writing a book called Science and Human Behavior and in it analyzed all of society with these same basic principles. He shows how religion, politics, economics, education— they're all agencies using behavior to mold the individual. Then he also put forth the idea in this book, as well as in Walden Two, of determinism, that ultimately all behavior is lawful and that although that seems pessimistic at first thought it's actually optimistic because it means you can—by changing the environment and conditioning history that people have—make a better life.

JG: So is that why [the JRC is] in Canton today?

MI: That's an accident, but that's why the students. . .I didn't know how to start, how to go about this. I don't want to make this story too long. What happened was that I became discouraged; I thought maybe everybody when they're young they have these ideas that they want to do good and that real life is something different. My father was a lawyer and I thought maybe that's what I was going to have to do, and I didn't want to go to Army because the Korean War was on, so I went to law school for two years and got headaches and I didn't think that was for me.

Decided to go back to graduate school and study under Skinner, which was what I then did, and at that time he was working on "program instruction" teaching machines. My first approach was to start a business to make program instruction teaching machines in early 1960s, and that didn't work out. I was hoping it would be so successful it would support the utopian community. My next approach was I started two communal houses, hoping they would grow into a community. That didn't work out well.

Photo: Larry Sultan

 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

I have posted an extensive response to Ms. Gonnerman's article under the main article at http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/school_of_shock.html. And for a fully formatted version of my response to Ms.Gonnerman's article, please see http://www.judgerc.org/ResponsetoGonnermanArticle.pdf Matthew L. Israel, Ph.D. Executive Director Judge Rotenberg Educational Center
Posted by:Matthew L. IsraelAugust 24, 2007 12:31:04 AMRespond ^
Please see my response at: http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/school_of_shock.html
Posted by:Ilana Slaff, M.D.August 24, 2007 10:28:31 AMRespond ^
That's a nice load of ego-inflating crap, but you're still going to get owned.
Posted by:Luke StephensAugust 24, 2007 1:17:02 PMRespond ^
WHAT THE [deleted].
Posted by:August 24, 2007 1:42:36 PMRespond ^
LOL
Posted by:anonAugust 24, 2007 2:27:19 PMRespond ^
Re. the evolution of JRC from Skinner: Something about that time, I'm not sure what it was, created a hotbed for these types of places. There were a lot of new ideas floating around about the human psyche, and people tried mucking around with those ideas, for whatever reasons... perhaps some of them were even good-intentioned. I guess some people thought they could apply these ideas to solving some of the "problems of the day," e.g., straightening up the "errant and wayward youth" and turning them into productive citizens. It would seem that the idea that one's teenage years are, by definition, turbulent times fraught with stress and filled with a modicum of experimentation, had not yet been accepted as not necessarily a bad thing. Apparently it still isn't. ...Matthew Israel appears to have escaped close scrutiny of his methods and ideology since he focused on a small subset of youth, namely, self-abusing and mentally disturbed individuals whose parents felt they had no other alternative. His target clientele in the early days weren't exactly able to speak for themselves. Now that the Judge Rotenberg Center has started to target more mainstream malcontents, be it for reasons of greed or myopia, we are starting to hear stories of what life is really like there. May the sunlight of this current exposure prove to be the requisite disinfectant needed to put these atavistic barbaric cruelties to rest.
Posted by:UrsusAugust 25, 2007 12:15:12 PMRespond ^
Pigeons and rats .... behavioural psychologists are sadists and since when did a 'slap' on the cheek develop into electroshock torture? Is this evil stupid idiot jewish or what?
Posted by:DaftAidaSeptember 6, 2007 1:38:41 PMRespond ^
"He loved Big Brother. He had always loved Big Brother." ----George Orwell's 1984
Posted by:Jake DonovanSeptember 8, 2007 10:44:06 AMRespond ^
Yeah. Mickey Mouse's a good, funny cite for backdrop to pain and discomfort. Kinda like the playing of the Beatles' Yellow Submarine during excruciating torture in South America recently set forth in documentary "We Have Ways of Making You Talk" on Link T.V.
Posted by:Jake DonovanSeptember 8, 2007 11:16:39 AMRespond ^
My foregoing comments were posted on an initial misunderstanding that each related to the particular page I was then reading and found the opportunity-for-comment box thereunder. My previous comments would make more sense taken in that context. For example, my citation to Orwell's famous concluding lines to 1984, if read in the context of "Katie's" purportedly willing endorsements of Israel's methodology. Similarly, the analogy to Beatles' song w/i context of article's referenced posting of mickey mouse posters within Israel's facility. But, now, in conclusion. I feel obliged to counter Israel's rather disingenous references to his organization's--and it was HIS operation, however much the corporate zig-zagging undoubtedly permitted by law consterns such attribution--CALIFORNIA experience. My then employment for the State of California in Sacramento's headquarters' offices (I am now retired after more than 30 years employment) of various agencies informs my recollection here. And, such recollection follows hereinafter: Operations conducted under the aegis of Behavioral Research Institute (BRI) were centered at a licensed facility on Zelzah Avenue in Northridge, CA. That facility, similar to those in this article, specialized in severely involved clients suffering "developmental disability(ies)" per (then) Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 4512. This statutory definition included both autism and mental retardation, among other specified conditions subsumed under the rubric "developmental disability". After receipt of more than a single complaint, both the funding agency (North L.A. Regional Center, an entity dispensing state funds via contract with the State Dept. of Developmental Services) and licensing authority (viz., the Dept. of Social Services' Community Care Licensing Division) commenced investigations of the Northridge facility and its practices. Said practices were not appreciably different from those still employed and embraced according to Israel's avowals in this article. At least one death, and (if memory serves, perhaps another) occurred at the Northridge facility DURING implementation of BRI containment "treatment intervention(s)". (One such technique involved many staff members "bringing down" a single client and rolling said client up in a lengthy piece of carpet/rug. This, of course, was defended as being for the client's "own good.") Similarly, as in the instances cited in this article, sundry "satisfied customers" (i.e., parents--never the mostly non-verbal BRI "clients/residents" themselves--were presented in "defense" of expressed agency concerns. Competent (assumedly costly) lawyers were also enlisted by BRI. Ultimately, at least one significantly lengthy appellate decision was rendered by the courts. (A published decision, this cannot be too hard to obtain a cite for by any paralegal/law clerk interested in doing so; I simply do not have the capacity here at my desk.) The facility was ultimately DE-licensed (although, as things legal go, it may well have been officially deemed a "surrender" by the licensee, as lawyers worked out all the fine points) and DE-funded by California agency action. Finally, as I recollect (and everything I assert here is in good faith predicated upon solely the recollections of an aged man [me] long after the fact!), the entire matter was "resolved" without any guilt/fault findings and essentially with an agreement that Israel's minions would no longer seek California public monies nor the official sanction of licensure while practicing such "theraputic" approaches as had brought the entire matter to a head in the first instance. In short, Israel's practices were effectively disapproved and put out of business in California insofar as taxpayers' dollars were concerned. In consequence, as Israel hedgingly ackknowledges in this article, his type of "therapy" with defenseless "developmentally disabled" clientele as employed at the Northridge BRI facility no longer is funded nor officially sanctioned in Calif.--notwithstanding his referenced reminant at the Tobin facility. As everywhere else where Irael's tax-paid practices have been challenged, he successfully enlisted the support of various politicos in seeking to defeat his rejection in California. It appears to always be predicated upon certain parents' assessments of the efficaciousness in his methods. These parents may, or may not, be lawfully authorized to surrender their progeny's rights to bodily integrity, which Israel's methods entail. And, at least in California, a parent of adult children must be authorized by a court before being legally able to consent to such "treatment". Hard won statutory acknowlegements of the personal rights possessed by persons with disabilities are apparent in California. (I am unfamiliar with status in other states of the union.) Specifically, the Calif. Legislature has long averred that persons with mental or developmental disabilities are entitled to precisely the same rights as all other persons. (See Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code sections 4201/4202, 5325.1) Nevertheless, as the Calif. State Supreme Court found necessary to remind, this statutory acknowledgment is (quoting from memory alone) "but a legislative affirmation of long established constitutional principle." (In re Irene Hop ___Cal.3d _____) Given Israel's continued operations, it may well be nigh time to have such constitutional (state AND federal) reasserted on behalf of those whom others provide "consent" to have "treated" in such avowedly painful manner. Yeah, I know. Lotsa luck with the Roberts, et al., courts today. Hah!
Posted by:Jake DonovanSeptember 8, 2007 2:02:17 PMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com












IN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2007 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS