Role-Playing The Negation Of The Father's Authority In The Classroom.
(Kenneth Benne, "Human Relations in Curriculum Change.")
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16
If you do not take it serious, you should after reading the following issue on using role-playing to negate the father's/Father's authority in the home, in the classroom, in society, and in the individual. First some opening information before we get to the role-playing session. The focus in education today is upon negating the fathers'/Father's authority in the home (and in the classroom), making "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating the standard for determining right and wrong behavior instead of doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will, using dialogue to accomplish the deed. Obedience to the father/Father, i.e., the father's/Father's authority is negated (in the thoughts and actions of the teacher and students) in the praxis of using dialogue in the classroom in order (as in "new" world order) to determine right and wrong behavior. It is the fathers'/Father's authority, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will that is being negated in role-playing, negating the verses below.
"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:19, 30; 12:47-50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9
Instead of the father/Father directing the children, "educators," i.e., facilitator's of 'change' (as "big brother") are seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the children into rejecting the father's/Father's authority, following them, i.e., doing their will instead.
"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
In other words, according to Karl Marx, et al., "Lust reconciles you to the world." In dialogue doing the father's/Father's will is replaced with "lust," i.e., the Karl Marx in your heart. The process (rejecting the father's/Father's authority in the name of "pleasure," i.e., Marxism) is so close to you, i.e., is so dear to your heart, i.e., is so natural you can not see it until someone points it out (and even then you can refuse to accept it, i.e., you tend to "deny" it, i.e., the truth).The role of the mother (and teachers) in the following role-playing session for teachers is not to support the father (the father's/Father's authority in the classroom, in the home, in society, and in the individual) but to 'liberate' the children (and the teacher) from the father's authority by getting the traditional minded teachers and students to compromise the father's/Father's standards for the sake of "relationship," i.e., socialism negating the father's/Father's authority in the classroom, in the home, in society, and in their "self." Whether the father is right or wrong (according to established commands, rules, facts, or truth) is not at issue here, but the negation of the father's/Father's authority system itself (in the thoughts and actions of all participants—which is the hallmark of Marxism).
"Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated, negated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)
"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)
"Bloom's Taxonomies" were developed to accomplish the deed, i.e., the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the students thoughts and actions. "Blooms' Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents." See also the role of the facilitator of 'change' in negating the father's/Father's authority in the students classroom experience. The following, found in the training manual for teachers, Human Relations in Curriculum Change is an example of how role-playing is used in the classroom to negate the father's/Father's authority in the students thoughts and actions. Although the following was done in the late 40's in the classroom, i.e., in the National Training Laboratories it is the model being used for all social 'change' (sensitivity training) in all professions today. While the content changes over time, the method does not (it only gets more sophisticated, i.e., subtle).
GROUPS AND GROUP METHODS SENSITIZING THE GROUP TO THEIR TRAINING
(Kenneth Benne, "Human Relations in Curriculum Change," pp. 223 - 241)
WHAT IS ROLE PLAYING?
(From Charles E. Hendry, Ronald Lippitt, and Alvin Zander, "Reality Practice As Educational Method", Psychodrama Monographs, No. 9, Beacon House, Inc., 1944, pp. 9-24)
. . . A "Reality-Practice" Session
The classroom use of a role-practice presented here is based upon a parent-child relations problem in a sociology course on The Family. This description of the role-playing technique of studying such a problem is hypothetical in order that it may more quickly cover and more clearly discriminate the usual stages in the development of the method than might a verbatim account of an actual classroom situation. The procedure is typical of that used in a wide variety of teaching projects. Marginal notes indicate the various steps of the role-practice process. These notes are expanded in a later section. The educational objective of the teacher here is to go beyond textbook information to a situation that will forge attitudes and give "behavior-practice'' more likely to result in a changed pattern of actual living.
The scene is a typical co-education classroom with about 25 students. The teacher opens the class period . . .
TEACHER: We have been examining the problems of modern family life and effective parental behavior. To review a bit: We spent several days examining carefully the changes in family living, and the change in the functions of the family during the last fifty years. Then we studied the findings of
SENSITIZING THE GROUP TO THEIR TRAINING NEED for deeper insights into the dynamics of family living. This is especially necessary in learning areas tat ordinarily give the student complacency because of their "every-day nature. This discovery that "we see the same event differently" Is a stimulation to "learn to look more deeply." research on parent-child relations and saw how the pattern of these conflicts has changed over the years and how it is different for different; aged children and for different cultures. Yesterday we heard reports made by two teams on their actual observations of family life over several days and in a number of situations. You will remember how amused we were several times, and how disturbed we were in other instances when we realized how frequent and petty parent-child conflicts can be, and how differently those in one group see and interpret these events. In our discussion of the reports. we agreed that parent-child conflict is probably inevitable, but that it might better lead toward an eventual improvement in understanding rather than a constant running battle. . .
Pointing out the value of common experience for the thinking of the group. Words mean different things for us. We need to check up on ourselves.
TEACHER: Today we are ready for a deeper look into parent-child relations. The procedure we will use, the playing of roles, in a specific situation, will ensure us that we are talking about the same thing when we use the same words. Today we will share our experience. This will prevent the kind of confusion we had several days ago when Hanson said that mostly family troubles were concerned with "discipline", and a number of clam members revealed that they had entirely different notions of what "discipline" is. Today we shall be able to discuss something we have all experienced rather than to talk about the "meaning" of words. Then too, as you shall see, we'll get some practice in the skills needed in meeting an actual parent-child relations problem.
All right, let's imagine our family is father, mother, and young adolescent girl, say 12 or 13 years old. What might be a typical problem for this small family?
STUDENT 12: She wants to wear make-up and her parents think that she is too young.
(After some counter proposals this conflict is accepted as a. typical one.)
TEACHER: What kind of a family might this be?
STUDENT 5: Middle class.
Sometimes a specific problem of one class member is used but there the total class shares creating the problem and situation.
STUDENT 6: And the parents are late middle-aged.
STUDENT 23: He owns a shoe store, a fuddy-duddy one.
STUDENT 5: In a small town.
(Similar additions round out the general situation)
Cooperative defining of the roles.
TEACHER: That is enough about the situation to give our players cues for setting up the role-playing. Let's give them some leads on the kinds of persons these three are. Krall has already suggested that the parents be middle-aged. Any other suggestions?
STUDENT 12: The girl is a cry-baby.
STUDENT 24: She never tries to think things through.
STUDENT 23: She tells fibs.
(Other suggestions are made about the girl's personality. Note in the review of methods below that there are a number of methods for getting characters defined)
Getting specific examples of behavior for role defining.
TEACHER: What is the Father like?
STUDENT 20: A middle-aged man with a soft mustache and a big pipe. The kind that wears white suspenders.
STUDENT 23: He is a Deacon in the church.
STUDENT 15: If he worries about make-up he must be bothered about the behavior of kids.
(Other suggestions are made about he Father's and Mother's personality)
Taking the roles
TEACHER: Now we know what the family is like. Who'll take these parts? (Most of the class become suddenly intent on writing notes or examining floor) (silence) Who do you suggest for the role of the girl?
STUDENT 20: Jeanie Harris!
TEACHER: How about it Jean? All right. How about Jud as the Father? (Class grins assent) Who'll be Mother?
STUDENT 24: Ann Lombard would be swell.
Defining the situation—continued.
TEACHER: We'll give the three players about two minutes out in the hall in order for them to rough out the plans for depicting a family conflict over the wearing of make-up. Remember, just the situation, no planning of what to say. (The three role-takers leave the room). During the role-playing let's keep notes on the aspects of effective parenthood and those of ineffective parenthood that we see. We'll discuss these observations later.
Getting the group to observe intelligently.
STUDENT 15: When the players return will they be trying to give a picture of an ideal family, will they be acting as they, themselves would in such a situation, or what will they be doing?
TEACHER: They will each give their own interpretation in action of the role we sketched out for them in broad terms. Remember that the object here is not an accurate portrayal of roles or a portrayal of a "perfect" family but a sample of parent-child interactions which we can all observe and discuss.
(The players return)
TEACHER: What are your plans?
MOTHER: We have decided that our setting will be in the living room shortly after supper. Father will be reading the paper and listening to the radio. Mary, the daughter, will not enter until we have talked a bit. The situation further defined by the role-players, to make it as "real" as possible and to warm up the participants in their roles.
TEACHER: Tell us a little about the room. Where are the chairs, the radio, and so forth?
MOTHER: (Indicating) This is Father's chair next to the radio.
FATHER: And here is the entrance from the kitchen.
(More questions are asked about the setting)
TEACHER: O.K., let's go.
FATHER: (Seated before radio, fiddles with the dials, leans back to enjoy paper and pipe)
MOTHER: (Entering) Mmmm! That is nice music. (Sits absently)
FATHER: Yes, it is.
MOTHER: Be home this evening?
The role-playing starts easily. The behavior and conversation flow spontaneously from the family experiences of the participants, rather than from any "learned lines".
FATHER: Uh-huh. What is Mary getting ready for?
MOTHER: She's going skating with Sunny Morse.
FATHER: Better be sure to tell her to get home early. (A bit of silence) I hear the most terrible stories down at the store. Some of the kids in this town are plenty wild. (pause) In fact, kids aren't like the way they were when we were Mary's age. Why Lennie's kid doesn't miss a single movie that comes to town. When I was his age, I wouldn't have had the time to go to shows if they had 'em. I was so busy. And they're on the streets at all hours!
MOTHER: (Nods as though it is an old story from her man but one with which she agrees. She is knitting)
FATHER: (Mumbles as he swings sheets of newspaper)
MARY: Good night, Mom. Good night, Pop.
MOTHER: Have a good time. Your father says he wants you home promptly at 9.
FATHER: (Looks out from behind newspaper) And we mean nine! No later! (Frowns, looks closer) What have you got on your face?
MARY: (Begins an embarrassed reply) Its
FATHER: 1 know very well what it is! (louder) It's ROUGE and LIPSTICK!
MARY: No it isn't. I just washed my face and rubbed hard with the towel.
FATHER: It's paint! Enough to make you look like a painted woman!
MARY: (Doggedly) But I'm old enough to
Taking roles releases many inhibitions of “polite classroom behavior.”
FATHER: Old enough be damned! I don't want your Mother to wear that stuff!
The portrayal of actual problems mustn’t be censored.
MARY: (Voice beginning to break) Oh Daddy! All the kids wear it. They would laugh at me. . .
FATHER: So, it's more important what they think than what; your father and mother say? The scandal I hear about kids in town makes me shudder . . . and now you're one of them!
MARY: I never have anything to do with the Olympic Athletic Club kids but I might as well. You think I do Oh! I won't go!
MOTHER: Now you are going too far. You said just the other day that you knew that you could always trust Mary. . .
FATHER: This has nothing to do with trusting her. I want her to wash her face, that's all.
MARY: Never mind, I'm not going, (On verge of tears)
MOTHER: I agree with you about the paint but I don't think that makes Mary any 1ess trustworthy.
FATHER: Why, she denied that she had the stuff on, a few minutes ago! That was a lie, wasn't it?
(Mother continues knitting while Mary softly sobs)
FATHER: (Self-righteously) Now, I'm not going to soften like I usually do. I know what I'm doing. I made a point and I am going to stand by this one.
MARY: (Still sobbing)
MOTHER: I think that father was too harsh too—never mind, Mary. (Gently) Stop crying.
FATHER: (After a pause-somewhat softer) Mary, stop crying.
MARY: (Continues sobbing)
MOTHER: There, there. . . (to Mary)
FATHER: (Beginning to retreat) I didn’t mean that you never could wear it. Maybe when you're old enough you can wear it.
MARY: (Still sobs)
FATHER: Well, go ahead, Mary. Wear just a little bit. Maybe that won't bother me so much.
MARY: (Rises and wanders out of the room, still dismal in the midst of her victory)
TEACHER: That is a good place to stop. Let's first; list the behavior. that is typical of the father, then we can experiment with other ways in which Father and Mother may have handled this family situation.
GROUP EVALUATION of the "drama"—making use of the common experiences of the audience. In the discussion the following points are made about the father's behavior:
1. He is not aware of modern mores.
2. His imagination is colored by an uncritical belief in vague rumors of scandal about young people.
3. The child is unfavorably characterized in her presence.
4. The father is inconsistent.
5. The father is far from firm in his convictions.
6. The father has no comprehension of the pull of loyalty and the degree of judgment an adolescent attributes to her friends.
The discussion turned to the girl:
1. The friend's esteem is more valued than that of parents.
2. "make-up" is apparently considered a sign of "belongingness" to the group—both boys and girls.
3. Though she does engage in mild tantrums, it is probably because she is unable to develop any other course of action under the unreasoning pressures put upon her.
4. She is showing signs of snobbery.
TEACHER: What specific suggestions would you make for changes in the behavior of the father, assuming he wanted to be a better parent?
After a vigorous discussion as to whether such a man could change his behavior the following behavior changes are recommended:
1. The father should have and state a more adequate reason than "his own wish" for asking the daughter to refrain from wearing make-up.
2. He needs an accurate conception of the present mores of youth and should indicate to, his daughter that she can trust his information.
3. He should be more consistent, since his inconsistency is confusing the girl. Part of his change in that respect can be taken care of by making sure that he does not take a stand which he feels he may not be able to give full support.
RE-PLAYING THE ROLES. Practicing more desirable behavior patterns. The teacher-director has an intimate role of friendly supervisor.
TEACHER: Let's have Jud play the father aver again trying to make the changes in his behavior recommended thus far. We'll assume that the daughter and mother know nothing about his resolve to change his behavior so that they will act the way they always have in their relations with the father.
(Scene is repeated as before with attempted changes in behavior on the part of Jud but no changes by mother and daughter)
A concrete discovery and verbalization of a basic psychological principle.
TEACHER: Now, what problems did you have in your attempt to change roles? We'll Evaluation continued. gain understanding of parent problems if we know the difficulties they have in making changes in their relations with their children.
JUD: One difficulty was the way the mother and daughter were acting toward me. They expected me to act just the same. That expectation of theirs, and their behavior being the same as it always was, put me in the position of repeating my previous pattern of relations with them. It was more comfortable to return to the former way. For example, I wanted to make sure that I said nothing against her friends. Yet, she lied to me the minute I spoke to her and didn't seem to notice that I was trying to be a better parent.
Learning to get insight into "the other fellow's role" is an important part of achieving this particular educational objective.
TEACHER: Probably Mary needs more knowledge of how you actually feel toward your daughter-arid how you react to her. Mary, you assume the role of the father, and Father, you take Mary's role. As soon as you are in the mood of these switched roles, let's go through the scene once more.
(The spontaneous drama is repeated with switched roles)
Summarizing learnings from this experience.
TEACHER: On the basis of this glimpse into a family conflict what general principles about parental behavior may we derive? We can test; them later in roleassuming experiences.
The summary discussion of learnings points up that:
1. One of the most important conflicts between today's parents and children is a cultural one—disagreement between past and present standards.
2. Parents can push so hard that their children are forced to tell lies.
3. Attempts at changing behavior in a family setting are complicated by the expectation that the rest of the family puts upon you to behave the way you have been doing in the past.
TEACHER: The last suggestion is especially pertinent to today's role-playing experience. The first two suggestions can often be found in the literature on the family. What other ideas about family life did you get from this class experience which we have not seen in our readings?
JUD: I felt as though I were having a chance to experiment in living with people. You gave me the idea that the father was a scared, crabby man—so I just got as mad as I wanted to. I don't think I ever noticed before how people act when I get sore. Poor Mary! I was afraid she thought I meant it!
STUDENT 12: I have come much nearer to an understanding of the concept of "role". The descriptions in the sociology books have never made it "live" for me as did this (play) today. Keeping the whole classroom experience oriented toward the realities of life outside the classroom for which this reality-practice experience serves as a genuine preparation.
TEACHER: Let's continue the observation of family life this week-in our own homes or in other families with which we come in contact. Look particularly now for examples of how potential conflict situations are handled so that harmony instead of conflict occurs. And of course those of us that are living at home can do a little "trying-out" of some of the techniques we are learning—and perhaps make a report to the class on what happens.
DISCUSSION OF METHODS USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REALITY-PRACTICE EXPERIENCE
The development of the educational role-playing situation usually follows a definite sequence of steps: (1) sensitizing to need for training; (2) the warm-up, role-taking, and definition of situation; (3) helping the audience group to observe intelligently; (4) evaluating the role-playing; and (6) re-playing the situation. In the classroom the methods used in fulfilling each of these stages may vary with the topic, group, and teacher. The following discussion summarizes some of the variations in practice that have been used in each of these stages of role-playing in using this method to achieve a variety of educational objectives . .
Sensitizing to Need for Training
The object of need-sensitizing is to disturb the complacency of the student and thus to make him aware of his need for learning certain skills or information. It is premised on the assumption that few persons are able to realize, let alone verbalize their lack of skill, especially in interpersonal relations. Relatively seldom is there an active and intelligent readiness to learn-oriented toward a specific educational objective. The teacher in the above classroom used two techniques for sensitizing her students to the need for deeper insights into family relations: (1) presentation of the dramatic facts; and (2) reports on observations of family life. The former is a familiar technique and needs no enlargement here. The latter method suggests a variety of possibilities. The observation is usually made with the aid of an observation instrument, the development of which may be a student project11. This tool is a set of rating scales, check list, or questions, which serve to guide the eyes of the observers to areas of importance. Observations may be made of films, stories, printed descriptions of group action, or case materials on class groups, families, nursery schools, offices, indeed whatever reservoir of specific description of human interactions are suitable for the topic in hand. Observations made on personal interactions without an instrument to guide the observer have their value. Reports made by several observers who viewed the same situation at the same time reveals, as does no other method, the lack of reliability between observers due to predisposition to select different aspects for notations, thus implying that "your way of seeing things" is not the only way. This method reveals the basic semantic difficulties for students of social events and shows the common problems of misunderstanding social interaction dynamics. This experience usually creates or heightens the feelings of "need to learn something more" about all this.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4
Facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychologists, i.e., behavioral "scientists," i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Marxists (Transformational Marxists)—all being the same in method or formula—are using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) process, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from/through their "lust" for pleasure and their hate of restraint, in the "light" of their desire for group approval, i.e., affirmation and fear of group rejection) in the "group grade," "safe zone/space/place," "Don't be negative, be positive," soviet style, brainwashing (washing the father's/Father's authority from the children's thoughts and actions, i.e., "theory and practice," negating their having a guilty conscience, which the father's/father's authority engenders, for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—called "the negation of negation" since the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience, being negative to the child's carnal nature, is negated in dialogue—in dialogue, opinion, and the consensus process there is no father's/Father's authority), inductive 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings," i.e., their natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—dopamine emancipation—which the world stimulates, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their "sense experience," selecting "appropriate information"—excluding, ignoring, or resisting, i.e., rejecting any "inappropriate" information, i.e., established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of their desired outcome, i.e., pleasure—in determining right from wrong behavior), "Bloom's Taxonomy," "affective domain," French Revolution (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) classroom "environment" in order (as in "new" world order) to 'liberate' children from parental authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm)—seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them as chickens, rats, and dogs, i.e., treating them as natural resource ("human resource") in order to convert them into 'liberals,' socialists, globalists, so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., "lust" with impunity.
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17
Home schooling material, co-ops, conferences, etc., are joining in the same praxis, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's as well as Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's agenda of using the pattern or method of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning," i.e., 'reasoning' from/through your "feelings," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world (including your desire for approval from others, with them affirming your carnal nature) in order to negate Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., your having a guilty conscience when you do wrong, disobey, sin, thereby negating your having to repent before the father/Father for your doing wrong, disobedience, sins—which is the real agenda.
"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates over and therefore against the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2020