WHAT YOU WON’T FIND IN THE STRUCTURE OF MAGIC

Here’s something amazing. When you read The Structure of Magic, Volume I & II (1975, 1976) there are several things that you will not find. You will think that they are there. You will assume that they were there. But they are not. At least that’s what happened to me. Now looking for, and identifying, what is there is really easy compared to looking for what is not there. That is a very different thinking process. When I first read The Structure of Magic books of NLP, I read to understand what was there. More recently working on a book on critical thinking, it suddenly dawned on me that there are some important things that are not there. And it is surprising.

To set this up, first I’ll identify what most of us thought would be there, expected to be there, and actually walked away from thinking was there. It is actually quite subtle because the books do cue us as to what to expect but then, disappointedly, let us down. But you have to notice because if you don’t, you won’t.

What The Structure of Magic cues you to look for is how Richard Bandler and John Grinder modeled three amazing “wizards” of therapeutic communication.

"... so amazing to watch that it moves us with powerful emotions, disbelief, and utter confusion. Just as with all wizards of the ages of the earth whose knowledge was treasured and passed down from sage to sage—losing and adding pieces but retaining a basic structure—so, too, does the magic of these therapeutic wizards also have structure." (1975, p. xiii)

Regarding what they said were "the magical quality" of Virginia Satir and Fritz Perls, they focused on the structure behind the supposed “genius.” And by focusing on structure, they said that the therapeutic wizards had within their minds some meta-models: "To deny this capacity or to simply label it talent, intuition, or genius is to limit one's own potential as a people-helper." (p. 6) "They introduce changes in their clients' models which allow their clients more options in their behavior. What we see is that each of these wizards has a map or model for changing their clients' models of the world—i.e., a Meta-model—which allows them to effectively expand and enrich their clients' models in some way that makes the clients' lives richer and more worth living." (p. 18)

Well, when you read these first books on NLP, in spite of the mythology about modeling Virginia and Fritz, there is nothing— absolutely nothing— in the books about the thinking, believing, states, experiences, etc. of these two persons. In other words, they did not model Perls and Satir. What they “modeled” were their techniques— not all of them, but some of their

techniques.

The shock in this—get ready for a shock—you will not find anything about modeling the two persons that they called “therapeutic wizards” who performed “therapeutic magic,” namely, Fritz Perls or Virginia Satir. There is no record of what or how they modeled either person. Nothing! In fact, both of them are only briefly mentioned in the books. 1

Further, regarding that these “therapeutic wizards” each had a model in their heads which allowed them ... to induce change into their client’s model of the world, again, there’s nothing. Nothing else is ever said about that unless the authors meant that Perls used Gestalt Therapy and Satir used her version of Family System Counseling. Yet whatever “model” they had in their heads that enabled them to know what to do, when to do it, how to do it, with whom to do it, etc., none of that is ever mentioned, let alone made explicit. 2

Here’s a second surprise. In spite of NLP claiming not to be a theory, or to operate from a theory, these original books are based on a theory—namely, the linguistic theory of Transformational Grammar. In fact, all of Chapter 2 in the first volume is about that theory. The chapter, “The Structure of Language” is all about Transformational Grammar, what it is, its structure, the theory, etc. And so is all of Appendix A. That’s a lot of theory when arguing for a no theory approach.

Now I’m not saying that they did not “model,” they did. Well, kind of. They took a theory of linguistics and how language works and imposed it upon what Fritz and Virginia were doing. Yet nowhere in The Structure of Magic did they identify which Meta-Model questions they got from each of them. What they modeled was Fritz’s patterns that had been developed in Gestalt Therapy. That was what actually began the whole adventure— running a Gestalt Class at Kresge College and discovering that using the Gestalt techniques (e.g., the empty chair, dream externalization, etc.) as well as Bandler mimicking Perl’s language patterns and tonality. It was from these techniques that the NLP patterns arose. For example, from the Gestalt double chair technique arose the NLP Visual Squash technique which at first they called meta-tactics (Vol. II: 89-95).

What they modeled from Virginia were the techniques which she had discovered and created which comprised her Family Systems (Vol. II: p. 132). So they ran her “parts parties,” as well as played polarities (Vol. II, p. 133, system polarities). And they also called these meta-tactics long before they became NLP patterns (Vol. II: 156-158ff). Also in the book Changing with Families (1976) that they co-wrote with Virginia.

The mythology of NLP beginning by modeling Perls and Satir is exposed if we simply ask— What did they discover about Perls and Satir in terms of their thinking? What was their strategy for deciding how to work with someone? What was their strategy for using this or that technique? What were their best states? Their most empowering beliefs? The silence to these questions is deafening.

Studying and exploring Gestalt Therapy and Family Systems Therapy can partially give us some answers these questions. That’s what I did after I learned NLP. I went back to the works of Fritz and Virginia and read everything that they wrote to detect the meta-model linguistic distinctions in their work. Yet that’s different from modeling these experts. Further, Perls had been dead for two years when they began to model him which, of course, means that they modeled a dead man!

Another thing that you will not find in The Structure of Magic— you will not find a single mention of a single person among the 20 or 30 who helped co-create the Meta-Model. You will not even find “the third man” who originally co-developed NLP, Frank Pucelik. Nor will you read about Robert Dilts, Judith DeLozier, Leslie Cameron-Bandler or any of the other two dozen key players in the origins of NLP. They didn’t give credit to anyone who enabled them to create the foundations of NLP.

References:

1. Perls is only mentioned on pages 5 and 6 in Volume I. In Volume II, on p. 66 and 94, and in a footnote on page 96. Satir is mentioned on pages 6, her communication categories are mentioned on pp. 160-1, 163. In Volume II: she is mentioned in terms of the Satir categories and how to use them in conjunction with the Meta-Model to diagnose members in family counseling. (p. 46, 47-53, 55, 57, 119, 123, 136, 155).

2. I think that they never did actually “model” them. Yes, for fun Richard mimicked Perls’ tone of voice and way of talking. What they did was simply Gestalt Therapy patterns that they learned, that’s what they did in the Gestalt class that they conducted and out of that they noticed a few of Perls’ characteristic ways of questioning.