Concerning labeling or "taxonomizing" you
and your children:
Identifying your paradigm for the 'purpose' of 'change.'

Dean Gotcher

The following two issues on "labeling" and "slavery" are more like a college course on 'change.' I am trying to provide you with some hands on material, so take your time but read it through, it is the process being used on you and your children today.  It is all that the world has to have its own way. That is, until the Lord returns, judges, the world and establishes His way.  It is a process of 'change' which was first used in a garden in Eden and will be used up till the day of Armageddon, when God will judge it for what it is, abomination, and bring it to an end.

It is hard to get people to understand what is happening, not willing to study it for themselves.  It can only be exposed by the light of God's Word, exposing it for what it is, the way of slavery to the flesh, i.e. unrighteousness, abomination, and death.  But we need to know first of all what that "it," i.e. 'change,' is.)   According to dialectic 'reasoning, it ('change') is in the negation of the "guilty conscience" (in the augmentation of Genesis 3:1-6 and the negation of the conditions of Hebrews 12:5-11 and Romans 7:14-25).  Negating the "guilty conscience" (before God) is what 'change' is all about.  As Norman Brown, in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History, wrote: "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be the father of oneself." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt [feeling "guilty" for thinking and acting according to "human nature," i.e. for behaving immorally; fearful of being chastened by the Father for thinking and acting counter to His standards, judging our thoughts and actions according to what He establishes as being right and wrong behavior; fearful of being judged for our unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions] created the familial organization."

To 'change' something (as in cooking) you must first identify (label) what it is you want to 'change' to and then what it is you want to 'change' from and then identify how to 'change' it from what it is to what you want it to be.  In the book Human Relations in Curriculum Change (HRCC, Ed. by Kenneth Benne; a large Pdf file), "a cookbook on humans" (what Phil Ring calls it), you will find a definition of basically three different paradigms or ways of thinking and acting.  The reason for defining paradigms (ways of thinking and acting) is to more easily and consistently guarantee the 'changing' of a person's paradigm from one way of thinking and acting to another way of thinking and acting and keeping the 'change' permanent, that is to initiate the 'change' process and sustain it. (A more recent example of taxonomizing the citizens is found in the Deloitte-Touch Tohmatsu manual on how to track workers in the government:  Mitigating the Insider Threat - a pdf file )

We generally think and act in a way that is consistent with our upbringing.  If we have been told that there is right and wrong and that we will be chastened when we do wrong and rewarded when we do right then we tend to think and act according to that paradigm (provided that we are chastened when we do wrong and rewarded when we do right, the rewarding may sometimes be very limited if non-existent).  If we have been told that there is right and wrong but have not been chastened when we do wrong (at least with any consistency or when we can 'justify' doing wrong) and rewarded to get us to do right, then we tend to think and act according to that paradigm.  If we have been told that there is no absolute right or wrong (for all times and all places) and we know that we will not be chastened, we then tend to think and act according to that paradigm.

The first paradigm is a patriarchal paradigm, with a "top-down" way of thinking and acting, a higher authority than our "human nature' (our Father or God) restraining our "natural inclinations" to relate with the world, in the moment, seeking after pleasure, our Father or God directing our thoughts and our actions.  The second paradigm is a matriarchal paradigm, with a "get along" way of thinking and acting, a higher authority than our "human nature," sympathetic with our "human nature," allowing us to relate with the world, in the moment, in pleasure, yet desiring that we do right and not wrong yet not enforcing it with chastening (only using a lot of yelling, begging, manipulating, and/or threats which are not carried out).  The third paradigm is a heresiarchal paradigm, with an "equality" way of thinking and acting, augmenting our "human nature," encouraging us to relate with the world, in the 'moment,' in pleasure, encourage us to encourage others to do it with us at the same time.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. Colossians 3:5-7

"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:" Ephesians 2:2

 In Human Relationship in Curriculum Change (HRCC, pages 118-126), we read of the labeling of paradigms used today in the consensus meeting (how to "map the room" or "taxonomies" the the students and/or adults, how they think and act, to be better able to 'facilitate change').  Bradford and Lippitt called the Patriarchal Paradigm, "Hard Boiled Autocratic" and "Benevolent Autocratic" (an "authoritarian personality," AKA the Father or God), the Matriarchal Paradigm, "Lassie Fair," and the Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' "Democratic" (socialism, of "equality" fraternity AKA "the children of disobedience").  Notice the date of the article (1945).  The following is how a manager (a facilitator of 'change') in the soviet union would evaluate you, looking at you through a "Marxist lens" to determine your social worth in the workplace (now being used on you and your children in the "good old USA").  Be forewarned, there is major bias against the Patriarchal Paradigm in the following work, and major bias toward the Heresiarchal Paradigm, the old "rose colored glasses," or more like, "Marxist covered glasses," being applied. 

You can correlate the first type to the traditional teacher up front in the classroom, inculcating facts to the children, facts to be memorized and applied in a test, rewarded for doing good, punished for doing bad (maintaining the "top-down" system of the traditional family and God).  As Theodor Adorno, in his book, The Authoritarian Personality, wrote: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  The second type of curriculum (or lack of it) being the untrained or disinterested teacher who lets the students control the day (leading to anarchy).  The third being the teacher as facilitator, trained in dialectic 'reasoning,' initiating and sustaining a "democratic experience" (socialist experience) in the classroom, all for the 'purpose' of socialist 'change,' 'changing' the students paradigm, 'changing' how they think and act (initiating and sustaining revolution, i.e. praxis―"Philosophy of praxis is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action.  'The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history.'" Selections from the PRISON NOTEBOOKS, Antonio Gramsci). 

This would be simply a "You go your way and I'll go my way" situation, except for the fact that dialectic 'reasoning' (having to remove or negate the condition which engenders the "guilty conscience," the Patriarchal Paradigm) only see the world going one way, its way, having to either convert or kill those who resist, restrain, or block it from getting its way in the end. "A stranger, even if his name were God, who imposes commands upon us must be resisted, he must be killed because nobody can stand him." (Paul Tillich quoted in Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism "A democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority."  (John Dewey)  "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family, the former must be annihilated in theory and in practice."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4) "One day, the brothers who had been driven out came together, killed and devoured their father and so made an end of the patriarchal horde" (Sigmund Freud, Totem and taboo) "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization"We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks')  To experience consensus is to experience a 'moment' of classless society (creating a world with no "top-down" Patriarchal authority, a world with only man himself, in agreement with his carnal nature, directing his steps).

"We have said that (change agents) need a social engineering theory which provides conceptual tools for diagnosing the possibilities for change, for locating the forces which support it, and for devising change procedures for those which oppose it..."  "The engineering of change and the meeting of pressures on a group or organization toward change must be collaborative." "Collaboration is required  across lines of 'theory' and 'practice.'" "Collaboration between 'theorists' and 'practitioners' does not come 'naturally.'" "The change of a group atmosphere from autocracy or laissez faire to democracy through a democratic leader amounts to a re-education of the followers toward 'democratic follower-ship.'"  "Changing a group atmosphere from autocracy toward democracy through a democratic leadership means that the autocratic followers must shift toward a genuine acceptance of the role of democratic followers."  "It is of utmost importance that the trainer of democratic leaders establish and hold his position of leadership." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Human Relationship in Curriculum Change


(From Leland P. Bradford and Ronald Lippitt, "Building a Democratic Work Group", Personnel, 22:3 : 142-148, November, 1945)

. . . It is unfortunate that the majority of books and articles on supervision and group leadership have laid almost their entire stress upon the techniques of group leadership and but little emphasis upon understanding the causes of varying degrees of group productivity and morale resulting from different patterns of leadership.  By so doing they have failed to underscore for the potential leader or supervisor the cardinal principles that group efficiency must always be a joint responsibility of leader and group and that only through the interactive participation of both in leadership does such efficient production result.  They have turned the attention of the supervisor only toward what he does and not toward the effects of his actions on what the group does. This has resulted in an overemphasis upon dominance and submission, whereas the basis of any truly efficient group is joint responsibility, participation and recognition. The day of sharp distinction between the leader and the led must gradually disappear if high production and harmonious working relations are to be attained. This means that the responsibility of supervision is to lead and develop the members of the work group so that they may share in the supervision of the group. This does not mean the disappearance of the supervisor; rather, it increases his importance as the central figure in group productivity. To appreciate the importance for productivity of the group spirit of employees, it is desirable to examine certain types of supervision and the resultant group personalities. Four of such types follow.

I. The Hardboiled Autocrat Characteristic.

This the supervisor who believes that he must constantly check up on everyone to keep up production. He gives the orders and employees carry them out. He believes that the only way to get conscientious performance is to expect and secure discipline and immediate acceptance of all orders. He is careful not to spoil the employee with too much praise, believing that because the employee is paid to work he needs nothing else. It is the employee's place to carry out directives, not to question or always understand them. This supervisor is usually very conscious of his position and authority and believes that employees cannot be trusted very long on their own initiative.

Group reactions. The results in this group are as follows: There is some submission to the supervisor's authority, but resentment and incipient revolt underneath (of which the supervisor probably is not aware); no one assumes more responsibility than he is forced to take, and buck-passing is a common pattern of behavior. Employees display irritability and unwillingness to cooperate with each other, and there is considerable backbiting and disparagement; of the work of others. Only a fair level of production is maintained, and the work slips markedly whenever the supervisor is not present. 

II. Benevolent Autocrat Characteristics.

The benevolent autocrat would be startled to realize that his method of supervision is autocratic. In contrast to the hardboiled autocrat, he is interested in his employees, wants to see them happy, praises them as much as he criticizes them, is seldom harsh or severe, and likes to think that he is developing a happy-family group. He urges employees to bring their problems to him and is interested in all the details of their work. Actually, he trades benevolence for loyalty. The crux of his autocracy lies in the technique by which he secures dependence upon himself. He says, with a pat on the back, "That's the way I like it. . . . I am glad you did it that way . . . . That's the way I want it done," or "That isn't the way I told you to do it . . . you are not doing it the way I want it." In this way he dominates employees by making himself the source of all standards of production. Any failure to live up to these standards he receives with hurt surprise and intense anger as personal disloyalty to him. 

Group reactions. This group has a very different personality from that under the hardboiled supervisor. The employees are fairly happy in their work, and most of them like the supervisor.  Those who see through him, however, dislike him intensely. Careful examination shows a great amount of dependence on the supervisor for direction in all work situations. No one shows initiative without first ascertaining the reactions of the supervisor, and there is a definite reluctance to accept further responsibility. No one develops ideas for improving work techniques or procedures. The group is characterized by submissiveness and lack of individual development. Lethargy and some incipient revolt exist, which may flare up if employees are called upon for heavy emergency work. Because of their desire to meet the supervisor's expectations, productivity is fairly high as long as he is on hand to give directions.

III. Laissez Faire Characteristics.

The laissez-faire supervisor may be the supervisor who has no confidence in his ability to supervise and consequently buries himself in paperwork or stays away from employees.  He may also be the one who believes that to be a "good fellow" means license. He leaves too much responsibility with the employees; sets no clear goals toward which they may work; is incapable of making decisions or helping the group arrive at decisions; and tends to let things drift.

Group reactions. This group has by far the lowest morale and productivity. The work is sloppy, output is low, and the employee has little interest in his job or its improvement. There is much buck-passing and scapegoating, and considerable irritability and unrest among the employees. There is practically no teamwork or group cohesion, and no one knows what to do or what to expect. 

IV. Democratic Characteristics.

The democratic supervisor endeavors wherever possible to share with his group the decision-making about work planning, assignment and scheduling.  Where a decision must be made by him, he helps the group to understand clearly the basis for his decision.  He is careful to develop as much participation, opinion-giving and decision-making as possible, and a feeling of responsibility for the success of the work on the part of everyone. He is concerned that each employee clearly understand his work and have opportunities for success in it. His praise and criticisms are always delivered objectively in terms of work results and never personally in terms of what he may or may not like.  He encourages worthwhile suggestions and the development of new procedures. 

Group reactions. This group displays a high degree of enthusiasm for the work. The quality and quantity of production are the highest of all groups, and the degree of teamwork within the group is noticeably greater. Employees grow and move on to greater responsibilities. They more frequently feel that their work is successful because the members of this group willingly praise each other's efforts. Because there are far fewer problems of employee performance and motivation, the supervisor is more relaxed and can devote more time to planning and to constructive leadership.

Differences in Group Personalities

The personality of each of the above groups* resulted from specific actions on the part of the supervisor concerned. The pattern of each group was inevitable. An examination of the causes of differences in group patterns will indicate certain basic principles of leadership and group action which must be followed if successful group production is to result. 

(* Although these observations of the four types of supervisor are drawn from examples in business and industry, basic experimental research confirming these patterns of leadership and the effects of them has been carried on in university laboratories. For reports of some of these studies see: Alex Bavelas, "Morale and the Training of Leaders," Chapter 8 in Civilian Morale (edited by Goodwin Watson), Reynal and Hitchcock, New York, 1942. "An Analysis of the Work Situation Preliminary to Leadership Training," Journal of Educational Sociology, March, 1944, p. 17. K. Lewin, R. Lippitt, and R. K. White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates," Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1939. Ronald Lippitt, "An Experimental Study of Authoritarian and Democratic Group Atmospheres," University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1940.  R. Lippitt and R. K. White, "An Experimental Study of the Social Climate of Children's Groups," Chapter in Child Behavior and Development (edited by Barker. Kounin, and Wright), McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1943.)

I. Hardboiled autocrat.

The lack of teamwork, intense competition among employees, buck-passing, knifing of others, lack of acceptance of responsibility, let down of production when the supervisor was absent, resulted from the employee's being frustrated in achieving basic personal needs from his work efforts. First, every employee needs to belong to and participate in a work group, When this need for "belongingness" is blocked, the individual stands alone and this increases his insecurity. Under the hardboiled autocrat there was no group to which to belong, but merely a collection of individuals dominated by one person. Second, every person needs a feeling of individual importance and satisfaction from personal effort. The position of merely carrying out orders prevented any sense of personal accomplishment. The only status possible to the employee was to be recognized and possibly favored by the supervisor.  The supervisor, by assuming the central role of total responsibility and credit, frustrated any efforts of the employees to gain a sense of personal achievement and worth.  Frustration leads to aggression, either toward the frustrating cause (the supervisor) or, if that is impossible, toward other employees or work.  Such aggression was seen in backbiting, jealousies, irritability, inability to work with others.  Frustration also breeds disinterest and indifference, feelings of "what's the use?", absenteeism and employee turnover.  Finally, under autocratic supervision the employee is made less secure. Security is determined by the extent to which the individual feels confidence in his ability to cope with new situations and the extent to which he can predict favorable conditions in the future. Neither of these conditions was present under autocratic supervision.  Because no responsibility was released by the supervisor, employees had little opportunity to take initiative and grow in ability. The future, so far as employees could tell, was up to the whims and decisions of the supervisor. The result was insecurity, and insecurity usually produces nervous tension, egocentricity, aggressiveness toward others, inability to work with others.

II. Benevolent autocrat.

The pattern of causes for the actions of the group under the benevolent autocrat is similar to that of the hardboiled autocrat. The difference lies in the degree of frustration present. The needs for belongingness and personal achievement were secured in part through employees attaching themselves to the supervisor. As dependents, they shared in credit coming to the supervisor and they gained some sense of belongingness because of the paternalistic interest of the supervisor. Insecurity was less dominant in this group. So long as employees submitted to the subtly dominant leadership of the supervisor, they had security in his protection.  Perhaps the most dominant cause of the actions of this group lay in the slowly regressive reaction to frustration. The frustration was never sufficiently dominant to produce active aggression. Rather, it produced a gradually developing regression to more childlike levels of dependency. Instead of advancing to greater responsibility and initiative, employees retrogressed toward submission, dependency, and inability to accept further responsibility.  They approached a state where they could exist only under strong autocratic supervision.

III. Laissez-faire supervision.

The picture of frustration, failure and insecurity was greater for this group than for any other. Because there was no leadership, there was no group to which to belong. Without leadership there was no work goal and thus low production and no sense of personal achievement.  Adequate prediction of future conditions was impossible when there was no direction in the present. The only prediction possible was that the future would be as directionless and chaotic as the present, and this prediction could hardly produce security. Frustration produced not only aggression in this group but also indifference and disinterest to the point of little work accomplishment. This laissez-faire leadership did not even result in a fair level of productivity.

IV. Democratic supervisor.

Only in this group did employees satisfy their basic personal needs.  Because of the participation in decision-making, the understanding of the "whys" of directions, the sharing in group credit for achievement, here was a group to which the employee could belong.  Because of these factors, each employee felt that his planning and efforts contributed importantly to group achievement. Security was relatively high under this type of supervision, for two reasons: Sharing in planning and decision making gave employees a clearer picture of the importance and continuity of the work. Prediction was more realistic, less likely to be based on rumor and guess. Again, participation in planning increased the ability of the individuals concerned and enhanced their confidence that they could handle new or emergency situations. The above analyses of various group patterns of action open up fairly clearly certain fundamental principles of efficient group productivity. These principles must be met if high production, high morale, ability to meet emergency situations without conflict and strain, and ability to adjust to new situations are to be secured. They are:

1. Adequate space of free movement. Every employee needs to feel free to move and initiate action comfortably, within certain limits. If he is too greatly restricted, as in the case under autocratic supervision, when opportunity for initiative and responsibility are denied, he is frustrated and reacts with aggression or indifference and submissiveness. If the space in which he can move is too wide and un-circumscribed, he has no direction for his movement and is equally frustrated. Under laissez-faire leadership, with no direction or control of the employee, he is essentially less free than the employee under rigid autocratic control because he has no clear direction or goal toward which to move and consequently cannot move at all. Complete license is the most restrictive of all controls and the most frustrating. Thus it was that the laissez-faire group showed greatest aggressiveness and lethargy, and yielded lowest production. Democratic leadership entails encouraging the employee to assume that responsibility of which he is capable, but no more. It entails making certain that the employee understands clearly the direction and goal of his efforts, and that he be given help where needed in re-sighting his goals and in evaluating his progress toward those goals. Then, and only then, will the employee have adequate space of free movement. Then, and only then, will he be free from frustration producing indifference or irritability toward others.

2. Basic human needs. Every employee needs to feel that he belongs to a cohesive work group.  Equally or more important, he needs to feel that, no matter what his contribution, it is important, and, consequently, he, as an individual, has meaning and importance to others. Opportunities for participation in planning and decision-making help to meet both these basic needs. Under autocratic control both these needs are blocked because the supervisor assumes all responsibility, initiative and credit. This is true no matter how benevolent or honey-coated the autocratic control may be. Under laissez-faire leadership there is no group to which to belong and no production achievement with which to be satisfied.  Again, only democratic control meets these basic needs adequately.

3. Security. Employee insecurity is one of the greatest factors in low productivity, tension, aggression and work problems. Individual security is essentially a feeling of confidence in personal ability to meet new situations and to predict favorable conditions in the future. Where supervisory control is autocratic, the only security possible to the employee is dependence upon the supervisor. Such dependence too frequently takes on an emotional tone and becomes more and more based on the likes and dislikes of the supervisor, a weak reed upon which to lean. Laissez-faire leadership provides no prediction and no employee growth.  Democratic leadership provides security in that the employees not only participate in responsibilities and planning, thus increasing the degree of prediction of future events, but also develop through the process of participation, thus increasing their confidence in ability to cope with future problems.

4. Success. Essentially, an individual feels successful only when he has attained a goal important to him after considerable effort. If the goal is arrived at too easily, no sense of success is experienced. Under autocratic leadership only the supervisor had success experiences, because he was the only one to assume responsibility. The employee merely carried out orders, and the result was not his success. Success is the best possible motive for more efficient production. Democratic leadership which enables the individual employee to participate makes it possible for the employee to feel success after accomplishment. . . .

In Human Relations in Curriculum Change (HRCC, pages 99-102), there is listing or labeling the attributes of the paradigm. The first listing identifying the Matriarchal Paradigm being transformed into the Heresiarchal Paradigm.  They are broken up into two parts, the Group Task Roles and the Group Building and Maintenance Roles for the 'purpose' of change. The second listing is identifying those who are resisting to or inhibiting the 'change' process, which are labeled as "Individual" Roles, representing the attributes of the Patriarchal Paradigm (holding to the standards of the Father or of Godmeaning they are of no worth outside of the "collective" experience of the 'moment').  This method of evaluation is used today in every consensus meeting, with only a few changes.  Notice the date of the article (Spring 1948).  (See either the Pdf file above or pages in picture format)

Human Relations in Curriculum Change, Ed. Kenneth Benne


(From Kenneth D. Benne and Paul Sheats, "Functional Roles of Group Members", The Journal of Social Issues, 4:2 : 42-47, Spring, 1948)

. . . The member-roles identified in this analysis are classified into three broad groupings. 

(1) Group task roles. Participant roles, here are related to the task which the group is deciding to undertake or has undertaken. Their purpose is to facilitate and coordinate group effort in the selection and definition of a common problem and in the solution of that problem. 

(2) Group building and maintenance roles. The roles in this category are oriented toward the functioning of the group as a group. They are designed to alter or maintain the group way of working, to strengthen, regulate and perpetuate the group as a group.

(3) Individual roles. This category does not classify member-roles as such, since the "participations" denoted here are directed toward the satisfaction of the "participant's" individual needs. Their purpose is some individual goal which is not relevant either to the group task or to the  functioning of the group as a group. Such participations are, of course, highly relevant to the problem of group training, insofar as such training is directed toward improving group maturity or group task efficiency.

("Positive" rolls, the attributes of the children united in augmenting 'change': chart 1)

The following analysis assumes that the task of the discussion group is to select, define and solve common problems. The roles are identified in relation to functions of facilitation and coordination of group problem-solving activities. Each member may of course enact more than one role in any given unit of participation and a wide range of roles in successive participations. Any or all of these roles may be played at times by the group "leader" as well as by various members.

a. The initiator-contributor suggests or proposes to the group new ideas or a changed way of regarding the group problem or goal. The novelty proposed may take the form of suggestions of a new group goal or a new definition of the problem. It may take the form of a suggested solution or some way of handling a difficulty that the group has encountered. Or it may take the form of a proposed new procedure for the group, a new way of organizing the group for the task ahead.

b. The information seeker asks for clarification of suggestions made in terms of their factual adequacy, for authoritative information and facts pertinent to the problem being discussed.

c. The opinion seeker asks not primarily for the facts of the case but for a clarification of the values pertinent to what the group is undertaking or of values involved in a suggestion made or in alternative suggestions. 

d. The information giver offers facts or generalizations which are "authoritative" or relates his own experience pertinently to the group problem.

e. The opinion giver states his belief or opinion pertinently to a suggestion made or to alternative suggestions. The emphasis is on his proposal of what should become the group's view of pertinent values, not primarily upon relevant facts or Information. 

f. The elaborator spells out suggestions in terms of examples or developed meanings, offers a rationale for suggestions previously made and tries to deduce how an idea or suggestion would work out if adopted by the group.

g. The coordinator shows or clarifies the relationships among various ideas and suggestions, tries to pull ideas and suggestions together or tries to coordinate the activities of various members or sub-groups. 

h. The orienter defines the position of the group with respect to its goals by summarizing what has occurred, points to departures from agreed upon directions or goals, or raises questions about the direction which the group discussion is taking. 

i. The evaluator-critic subjects the accomplishment of the group to some standard or set of standards of group-functioning in the context of the group task. Thus, he may evaluate or question the "practicality", the "logic", the "facts" or the "procedure" of a suggestion or of some unit of group discussion.

j. The energizer prods the group to action or decision, attempts to stimulate or arouse the group to "greater" or "higher quality" activity. 

k. The procedural technician expedites group movement by doing things for the group-performing routine tasks, distributing materials, or manipulating objects for the group, e.g., rearranging the seating or running the recording machine, etc.

1. The recorder writes down suggestions, makes a record of group decisions, or writes down the product of discussion. The recorder role is the "group memory."

("Positive" rolls, the attributes of the children united in augmenting 'change': chart 2)

Here the analysis of member-functions is oriented to those participations which have for their purpose the building of group-centered attitudes and orientation among the members of a group or the maintenance and perpetuation of such group-centered behavior. A given contribution may involve several roles and a member or the "leader" may perform various roles in successive contributions.

a. The encourager praises, agrees with and accepts the contribution of others. He indicates warmth and solidarity in his attitude toward other group members, offers commendation and praise and in various ways indicates understanding and acceptance of other points of view, ideas and suggestions.

b. The harmonizer mediates the differences between other members, attempts to reconcile disagreements, relieves tension in conflict situations through jesting or pouring oil on the troubled waters, etc. 

c. The compromiser operates from within a conflict in which his idea or position is involved.  He may offer compromise by yielding status, admitting his error, by disciplining himself to maintain group harmony, or by "coming half-way" in moving with the group. 

d. The gate-keeper and expediter attempts to keep communication channels open by encouraging or facilitating the participation of others ("we haven't got the ideas of Mr. X yet," etc.) or by proposing regulation of the flow of communication ("why don't we limit the length of our contributions so that everyone will have a chance to contribute?", etc.)

e. The standard setter or ego ideal expresses standards for the group to attempt to achieve in its functioning or applies standards in evaluating the quality of group processes.

f. The group-observer and commentator keeps records of various aspects of group process and feeds such data with proposed interpretations into the group's evaluation of its own procedures.

g. The follower goes along with the movement of the group, more or less passively accepting the ideas of others, serving as an audience in group discussion and decision.

("Negative" rolls, the attributes of God or the Father inhibiting 'change': chart 3)

Attempts by "members" of a group to satisfy individual needs which are irrelevant to the group task and which are non-oriented or negatively oriented to group building and maintenance set problems of group and member training.  A high incidence of "individual-centered" as opposed to "group-centered" participation in a group always calls for self-diagnosis of the group. The diagnosis may reveal one or several of a number of conditions—low level of skill training among members, including the group leader; the prevalence of "authoritarian" and "laissez faire" points of view toward group functioning in the group; a low level of group maturity, discipline and morale; an inappropriately chosen and inadequately defined group task, etc.  Whatever the diagnosis, it is in this setting that the training needs of the group are to be discovered and group training efforts to meet these needs are to be defined. The outright "suppression" of "individual roles" will deprive the group of data needed for really adequate self-diagnosis and therapy.

(a) The aggressor may work in many ways—deflating the status of others, expressing disapproval of the values, acts or feelings of others, attacking the group or the problem it is working on, joking aggressively, showing envy toward another's contribution by trying to take credit for it, etc.

(b) The blocker tends to be negativistic and stubbornly resistant, disagreeing and opposing without or beyond "reason" and attempting to maintain or bring back an issue after the group has rejected or by-passed it.

(c) The recognition-seeker works in various ways to call attention to himself, whether through boasting, reporting on personal achievements, acting in unusual ways, struggling to prevent his being placed in an "inferior" position, etc.

(d) The self-confessor uses the audience opportunity which the group setting provides to express personal, non-group oriented, "feeling", "insight", "ideology", etc.

(e) The playboy makes a display of his lack of involvement in the group's processes. This may take the form of cynicism, nonchalance, horseplay
and other more or less studied forms of "out of field" behavior.

(f) The dominator tries to assert authority or superiority in manipulating the group or certain members of the group. This domination may take the form of flattery, of asserting a superior status or right to attention, giving directions authoritatively, interrupting the contributions of others, etc.

(g) The help-seeker attempts to call forth "sympathy" response from other group members or from the whole group, whether through expressions of insecurity, personal confusion or depreciation of himself beyond "reason."

(h) The special interest pleader speaks for the "small business man", the "grass roots" community, the "housewife", "labor", etc., usually cloaking his own prejudices or biases in the stereotype which best fits his individual need.

Those who think and act according to the Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' augmenting "human nature," are considered as being "positive."  It is the attribute of these people, participating in the process of 'change,' that is seen in the eyes of those of the Heresiarchal Paradigm (as in the eyes of "the children of disobedience") as being key "social health," i.e. to the spread of democracy (socialism AKA Transformational Marxism).  Those who think and act according to the Patriarchal Paradigm, perpetuating the authority of the Father and/or God, restraining "human nature," are considered as being "negative."  They,  resisting 'change,' are seen in the eyes of those of the Heresiarchal Paradigm (again as in the eyes of "the children of disobedience") as being the cause of disharmony and social disorder (neurosis, repression, reification, and alienation).

Stephen Eric Bronner, in his book, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists, wrote:  "The central problem of democracy is not the discovery of some optimal solution or standard for ranking incommensurate values.  The central problem of democracy is instead the formation of a somewhat vaguely defined 'postconventional' consensus through which everyone affected by a decision must be able to participate in reaching it."

The consensus meeting is designed to move all participants from a Patriarchal Paradigm (tradition) through the Matriarchal Paradigm (transition) into a Heresiarchal Paradigm (transformation).  On page 105 of HRCC we read: "In the first phase various members of the group quickly attempt to establish their customary places in the leadership hierarchy.  In effect, this may be thought of as an attempt to establish the "peck order" of the group.  Next comes a period of frustration and conflict brought about by the leader's steadfast rejection of the concept of peck order and the authoritarian atmosphere in which the concept of peck order is rooted.  The third phase sees the development of cohesiveness among the members of the group, accompanied by a certain amount of complacency and smugness.  In the fourth phase the members retain the group-centeredness and sensitivities which characterized the third phase, but they develop also a sense of purpose and urgency which makes the group potentially an effective social instrument."   In the consensus meeting you are being evaluated according to which roles you bring into the meeting, supporting the "collective experience" and where, along the process of 'change,' you reside in the moment.  These same methods are being used on your child in the classroom for the 'purpose' of 'change.'  "Ministers" pushing the 'change' process are also using the same methods of evaluation, for the 'purpose' of 'change.'  We are to evaluate our lives from God's Word, not from the opinions and actions (the theory and practice) of men.

Irvin Yalom, in his book Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy, writes: "What better way to help the patient recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images.  Group therapists refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the patient] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient changes the past by reconstituting it." " A patient might, with further change, outgrow his spouse unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse."

James Coleman, in his book The Adolescent Society, wrote: "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents.  The 'natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them."  "Strengthening the family to draw the adolescent back into it faces serious problems, as well as some questions about its desirability."  "Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood."  "In order to [improve those institutions], one must know how adolescent societies function, and beyond that, how their directions may be changed."   "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community."  Thus Irvin Yalom could quip, "The current generation is the first in the history of the world which has nothing to learn from grandparents;"

Warren Bennis, in his book The Temporary Society, wrote:  "In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved.  It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children―One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequence of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt―but it would be difficult to reverse the process one begun."

Paul Dressell asks the question in his book, General Education: Explorations in Evaluation, American Council on Education  "Can the student accept the fact that the traditional family might be changed and might possibly disappear?"

Carl Rogers, in his book on becoming a person, wrote:  "Life, at its best, is a flowing, changing process in which nothing is fixed." "The good life is not any fixed state.  The good life is a process. The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appears to have a certain universality." ". . . the whole emphasis is upon process, not upon end states of being . . . to value certain qualitative elements of the process of becoming, that we can find a pathway toward the open society."  "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself 'What would my parents want me to do?'  During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'"   ". . . the only authority necessary is the authority to establish certain qualities of interpersonal relationship."  ". . . in the direction of the 'open society,'. . . " "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from status to process."  "In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience.  It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity.  His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity."  "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness."  "Neither the Bible nor the prophets neither the revelations of God nor man – can take precedence over my own direct experience."

Theodor Adorno in his book, The Authoritarian Personality, wrote:  "A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum."

Norman Brown, in his book, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History, wrote: "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental complex only by being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." 

Kurt Lewin, quoted in Kenneth Benne, HRCC wrote: "The objective sought will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen."   "Man-made experiences, so-called experiments, which grew out of the systematic search for the truth were necessary to bring about a change from less adequate to more adequate concepts."  "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group."  "The basic task of re-education is to change the individual's social perception, thereby changing the individual's social action."

 Wilbur Brookover, in his book, A Sociology of Education, wrote: "The hopes of some may be based on the belief that teachers may initiate the necessary changes without due interference from conservative interests.  The difficulty with this is that the teachers are part of the society to be changed and have generally accepted the goals of the controlling groups.  Their change would be little different from the old. . . .  Remote, indeed, then is the possibility of the school's creating a new society independent of the other forces of social change. (p. 76)  An examination of the role of education in the revolutionary processes in Hitlerian Germany and Soviet Russia demonstrates that a new controlling group can use the educational system to advantage to bringing about the changes it desires.  This illustrates the effectiveness of the educational system in indoctrinating the youth with a desire for the type of society wanted by those in control. . . .  To do this they must persist in the maintenance of a new system long enough for controlling interests to be thoroughly indoctrinated in the new social system." (p. 77)   Kurt Lewin wrote, as recorded in Human Relations in Curriculum change:  A "hierarchy of leaders has to be trained which reach out into all essential sub-parts of the group."  "Hitler himself has obviously followed very carefully such a procedure."  "The democratic procedure will have to be as thorough and as solidly based on group organization."  Brookover, wrote: "[Kurt] Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group."

Benjamin Bloom, in his book Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 1, Cognitive Domain, wrote: "By educational objectives, we mean explicit formulations of the ways in which students are expected to be changed by the educative process.  That is, the ways in which they will change in their thinking, their feelings, and their actions [changes in their Paradigm]."  "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." "The student must feel free to say he disliked _____ and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction."  "… the man who has achieved a philosophy of life – who knows who he is – has arrived at this truth through painful intellectual effort in which the more complex mental processes of the Cognitive Taxonomy are clearly functioning." "Judges problems in terms of situation, issues, purposes, and consequences involved rather than in terms of fixed, dogmatic precepts …."  "Obedience and compliance are hardly ideal goals."  "A basic tenet of liberal education is that it is by means of intellectual effort that a philosophy of life in large measure is formed." "The major ingredient required in such instruments is that the problem be sufficiently subtle and complex … that the generalized set which we wish to observe [the child's dissatisfaction toward parental authority which blocks or inhibits his natural inclinations] can be brought into play." "We are not interested in whether the problem is solved accurately or with elegance." "We want the student to lead the good life and become a good man in all his parts." "… the greatest good for the greatest number."

In the second book, Taxonomy of Education Objectives: Book 2, Affective Domain, we read: "… the Taxonomy will provide a bridge for further communication among teachers and between teachers and evaluators, curriculum research workers, psychologists, and other behavioral scientists."  "As this communication process develops, it is likely that the 'folklure' …can be replaced by a somewhat more precise understanding of how affective behaviors develop, how and when they can be modified, and what the school can and cannot do to develop them in particular forms."
    "… ordering and relating the different kinds of affective behavior."  "… we need to provide the range of emotion from neutrality through mild to strong emotion, probably of a positive, but possibly also of a negative, kind."  "… organized into value systems and philosophies of life …" 
"It is to be hoped that the taxonomy's analysis of problem solving methods will facilitate the exploration of new methods of teaching for high-level problem solving [thinking outside the box, outside the voice of authority, of tradition, of "right and wrong"] and assist in evaluating these methods."  "The objectives to be finally included should be related to the school's view of the 'good life for the individual in the good society.'"  "What are the important values?"  "What is the proper relation between man and society?"  "What are the proper relations between man and man?"  "It is recognized that unless the individual can do his own problem solving [external to truths learned under the praxis of unquestioned authority] he cannot maintain his integrity as an independent personality." [What Bloom does then, after isolating the child, separating him from his parent's authority, is reattach him to the "group experience," which, as you will read, is the same method for used for brainwashing.] "Closely allied to this concept of maturity and integrity is the concept of the individual as member of a democracy."  "Individuals in a democracy are responsible for the conduct of a democratic political system as well as a democratic way of life."  "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed....many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized."

Kenneth Benne, in HRCC, wrote: "How can a situation be brought about which would permanently change social interactions?"  "To bring about change, [the old constellation of] forces have to be upset." "Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions."  "Group decision facilitates change." 

Warren Bennis and Edgar Schein, in their book on brainwashing (how to do it on the American public),  Interpersonal Dynamics:  Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, wrote: "The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt [guilt not from disobeying his Father, the one (singularly), correlated with nationalism, but guilt for not working with "the group," the "one" (collectively), correlated with socialism] can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—

(1) a process of "unfreezing," ["Unfreezing. This term, also adopted from Lewinian change theory, refers to the process of disconfirming an individual's former belief system."  (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)  "A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level, and freezing group life on the new level." (Kurt Lewin) "In brief, unfreezing is the breaking down of the mores, customs and traditions of an individual – the old ways of doing things – so that he is ready to accept new alternatives."  (Edger Schein and Warren Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach)  Unfreezing is used in the consensus process to engender a condition known as cognitive dissonance where a person is caught between his belief, i.e. his desire to obey his conscience, i.e. what his Father, nation, or God says, and his behavior, i.e. his desire to be at one with (in agreement with) "the group" in the 'moment'] in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of "readiness" to be influence; and

(2) a process of "change," in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of "the people's standpoint" and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure."

"Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to "help" their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance.  Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image."  (ibid.)

". . . Once this process of self of self re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others." (ibid.)

"The Chinese have drawn on their cultural sensitivity to the nuances of interpersonal relationships to put together some highly effective but well-known techniques of indoctrination.  Their sophistication about the importance of the small group as a mediator of opinions and attitudes has led to some highly effective techniques of destroying group solidarity, as in the case of the POW's and of using groups as a mechanism of changing attitudes, as in the political prisons."   (ibid.)

The USSR constitution read: "Citizens are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society."  "Socially useful work and its results determine a persons status in society." Articles 66 and 14

Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities."

In a letter Alan Wolfe wrote, entitled Religious Diversity and the Common Cause he states:   "One school of political philosophy, originating in Kant and developed by John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, argues that citizens, even when they strongly disagree, can at least agree to deliberate rationally over their differences. Two contemporary political philosophers, Amy Gutmann and Stephen Macedo, in particular have extended this position to some of our contemporary controversies; both insist, for example, that because good citizens ought to be thoughtful and deliberative ones, public schools can legitimately turn down requests by fundamentalist parents not to have their children exposed to literature they consider irreligious or immoral. (Macedo goes further and suggests that liberal democracies ought to prevent fundamentalist parents from enrolling their children in private schools that teach from a fundamentalist perspective.) [In other words, by law, all children must be exposed to dialogue which negates their parents authority to inculcate their religious beliefs to their children] There is, in this tradition, a strong affirmation of a common morality, one rooted in the Enlightenment and then applied in the United States through our commitments to liberal democracy."  "Theologian Stanley Hauerwas ... calls on religious believers to consider themselves "resident aliens" in a liberal democratic society on the assumption that their faith commitments will never be welcome so long as a common morality is based on liberal assumptions."  [I only use the quotation by Hauerwas as an example, which I agree with, it being scriptural, not endorsing his theology.]

Where do you, your children, and your friends fit along this spectrum of 'change?'  Are you a slave (or becoming a slave) to the paradigm of dialectical 'reasoning.'?  Have you or your children (or friends) been brainwashed? no longer fearful of God, being more in love with  man's "wisdom" (men's opinions, how he "feels" and what he "thinks") than the Word of God (what God says).  "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7  Do your children fear God (or fear disobeying their father and his commands) or is there "no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18  "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6  Those of dialectic 'reasoning' can not allow you to do that.  You do not have that right (inalienable rights) in a dialectic world based upon the augmentation of "human right," making the world "Safe for Democracy."

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015