A Cookbook On Humans.

Dean Gotcher

While reading over 600 social-psychology books (over a five year period) I came across a book written by Kenneth Benne entitled "Human Relations in Curriculum Change." It explains how to 'change' the student's, teacher's, parent's, community's way of thinking (paradigm) in a "group" setting. That 'change' is referred to as a "paradigm 'shift.'" When I shared this book with Phil Ring, a friend of mine, he called it "a cookbook on humans."

In a traditional classroom the teacher (whether a man or a woman) occupies the position of a "father," reflecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., a Patriarchal paradigm—where 1) commands and rules are preached, to be obeyed as given, facts and truth are taught to be accepted as is, by faith, and any questions (those under authority have regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth) are discussed at the one in authority's discretion (providing they have time, those under authority are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority), 2) those obeying authority and doing things right are rewarded, 3) those disobeying authority and/or doing things wrong are corrected, reproved, and/or chastened, 4) and any who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack authority are cast out (expelled). The Patriarchal paradigm, i.e., the father's/Father's authority engenders a guilty conscience in the child when he is thinking about doing, is doing, or has done something wrong or disobeyed. This in turn engenders individualism, under parent/God, as the child evaluates his "self" and the situation he finds his "self" in from his parent's/God's commands, rules, facts, and truth.

For example. If I have twenty students in my classroom, each from a different home—each home differing from the other regarding their commands, rules, facts, and truth—I have twenty individual students, under parent's/God's authority, who do not get along with one another when their parent's/God's commands, rules, facts, and truth are called into question (by the other students). I, as an educator, can only teach those commands, rules, facts, and truth which the parent's accept as right. The outcome of my classroom are students doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, having a guilty conscience when they do wrong, disobey, sin. Therefore the outcome of traditional education is students holding themselves accountable to "a higher authority" than their "self" (individually and/or collectively, i.e., as a group) regarding right and wrong.

If the objective of education is 'change,' then traditional education must be replaced with a method of education which allows the students "freedom" to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's/God's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. In such a classroom environment, the students "feelings" must be incorporated into the curriculum, i.e., in how they are being taught. Children by nature love pleasure and hate restraint, i.e., approach pleasure and avoid pain. It is the child's carnal nature to desire ("lust" after) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates. This in turn engenders the carnally minded child's hate of restraint, i.e., hate of missing out on pleasure. Anger actually heightens the dopamine level in the child's brain, 'justifying,' in the child's mind (if he does not humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self," i.e., "detox" his "self") his hatred toward the restrainer.

In this environment, called belief-action dichotomy, where the child is caught between the father's/Father's authority, doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth and desiring the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, which go counter to the father's/Father's standards, the child find himself either humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining his "self," doing the father's/Father's will willingly or talking to his "self," i.e., dialoguing with his "self," 'justifying' his "self," i.e., his love of pleasure over and therefore against the father's/Father's restraints. This dialogue is made manifest in the "Why?" the child asks of the father'/Father when he is told to do something by the father/Father that he does not want to do— that gets in the way of his carnal desires of the 'moment.' In this act (praxis), if the father abandons preaching, teaching, discussing, rewarding, chastening, and casting out, which initiates and sustains his authority over the child and goes into dialogue with the child instead, he and the child become "equal"—there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue. In order to retain his authority, with the child refusing to go into discussion—which maintains the father's authority—the father cuts off the dialogue with "Because I said so," i.e., "It is written..." If the child continues "Why?-ning" the father is then forced to either chasten the child or, if the child refuses to recognize the father's authority, cast him out. Fearful of being chastened or worse yet cast out the child obeys, yet continues to dialogue with his "self," 'justifying' his carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.

It is in this sequence of events that dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' is initiated. It is therefore imperative, in order for 'change' to take place, that an environment be 'created' where children can "feel safe" in sharing (dialoguing with one another) their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and their dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's restraints (authority)—finding common ground in their carnal nature, i.e., in their love of pleasure and hatred toward the restrainer (authority). By bringing dialogue into the classroom, letting the students desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., the affective domain become a part of the curriculum, the father's/Father's authority, which divides the students from one another, is overcome, resulting in the students 'discovering' their commonality, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, negating the father's/Father's authority (along with the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) in their thoughts and actions in the process. In the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus, affirmation, which is intoxicating, addictive, and possessive takes over their lives, uniting then in the agenda of 'liberating' all children from the father's/Father's authority.

"Human Relations in Curriculum Change" explains "how to cook humans." "Bloom's Taxonomies" put "Human Relations in Curriculum Change" into praxis in the classroom (in the 50'). The "cooking of humans" continues to this day in the "group grade" ("group think"), "group psychotherapy," facilitated,' Transformational Marxist, soviet, brainwashing, "safe zone/space/place," "positive," i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus classroom (from pre-school to and beyond the University and Vo Tech—public, private, and Christian, including the home school), 'liberating' children and adults (in their thoughts and actions) from their parent's/God's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (something Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud all had in mind).

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2019