Reading Murphey and Adamson's (1997) response to my critique of NLP (Davidson, 1997), I was surprised to see they did not really deal much with my objections to it. First of all, they make the disclaimer that the NLP issue was "not a coherent introduction or a defense." Then was their purpose to present an incoherent introduction to NLP? If so, I think they succeeded. Other than that, they offer us little beyond mentioning "an extensive bibliography" in that issue where we can go to find support. Since they had a whole issue to themselves on the subject, they could have easily included a credible defense of the approach somewhere. Without one, how can we reasonably respond to their NLP advocacy? The issue clearly intended to sell us on the merits of the approach. If not, I'm not sure why they put it together.
They mention that "the word 'programming' today has a negative ring to it" and should perhaps be changed. The problem, I think, is not the connotations of the word but its denotation: the idea that we teach people in the same way we program computers. It is a very suitable and revealing term for what the NLP advocates are trying to do, in my view.
Later they write that "the reason for the popularity of NLP is that it is liberating." One point to note here is the subtle use of the supposed popularity of NLP. This has been called the "bandwagon appeal," which the advertising world often uses. Furthermore, in the same paragraph, they make the claim that NLP "gives people control over their own lives. . . no system (including NLP) ever takes that [potential] ability away from them." The repetition of the same idea is an example of circular reasoning. There is no explanation of how dependence on authority figures and methods similar to brainwashing can have the effect of promoting learner autonomy, although the writers continue their litany of assertions by adding that NLP is "the best antidote to what some people refer to as an 'authority complex'. . . It is empowering," etc.
They end with the thought that "to really appreciate and use what is of value in NLP, it is useful to experience it up close." This amounts to a "try it and see" pitch. Actually, I have taken part in a demonstration of Suggestopedia (which they say is a kind of NLP) and have seen a video of a Suggestopedic lesson. I even enjoyed myself, but both confirmed my impression that this approach to language learning really is fairly close to brainwashing and that it exalts the role of the teacher to an unhealthy degree.
References
- Davidson, B. (1997). The perils of people programming. The Language Teacher, 21(6), 36-37.
-
Murphey, T. and Adamson, C. (1997). A clarification. The Language Teacher, 21(6), 37.