Concerning the "middle class":
Why those of dialectic 'reasoning' must negate it's authority in society if they are going to create a "new" world order of 'change.'


Dean Gotcher

There is much talk about the "middle class" today.  A work done back in the late 40's was all about the "middle class" and how to "negate" its effect upon society (preventing 'change').  Transformational Marxism is the belief that man is basically "good" (or neither "good" nor "bad") in and of himself, but given the right or wrong environmental conditions becomes "good" or "bad," "good" being based upon his 'willful' participation in social 'change,' "bad" being his intolerance of 'change,' i.e. his 'resistance' to or inability to contribute to 'change.'  Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba  in their book, Adolescent Character and Personality identified that the problem in education was not the liberal minded teachers (rich or poor, who tolerated deviancy, according to them, the rich because they could afford to be deviant, not caring what other had to say about them, and the poor, living up to somebody's else's standards not being an issue) who wanted 'change' (freedom from "religious" morality which stratified them, inhibiting their ability to "survive" in, i.e. 'change' within their particular domain) but the "middle class" teachers who inculcated disciple and absolutes (rigidity of thought and action) in their children (so that they might be able to "climb" the social ladder) inhibited 'change.'  Havighurst and Taba wrote: "The school must itself be changed if it is to serve more effectively in the formation of good character. It must make room for the deviant student.  This person will be able to discriminate among values and to deviate from the moral status quo of the community, when such deviation is necessary to the realization of higher [socialist] moral principles.  How such persons can be discovered, and, above all, how such persons can be produced in greater number is the major problem for research in character formation." (Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba, Adolescent Character and Personality)  emphasis added

This was a research project done in the late 40 using a small town in the Midwest renamed "Elmtown," looking at it through a "neo-Marxist" lens for the purpose of 'change.'  Just to give you an understanding of what this "lens" is: Karl Marx (KM) put it this way: "The philosophers [wanting to understand the world] have interpreted the world in different ways, the objective is to change it." (KM, Feuerbach Thesis #11)  Marx wrote, regarding who the resisters to 'change' were and how to 'change' them: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx Theses On Feuerbach #4)  The "middle-class" is the "earthly family" who resists 'change,' and who, according to Marx (and all who 'reason' dialectically), must be "annihilated," i.e. negated (that is, no longer recognized as of worth or value, i.e. perceived as being "irrational" and therefore responded to as being "irrelevant") in the thoughts of the individual and in the actions of society, if 'change' is to be initiated and sustained.  It was the uniting of the adolescents thoughts of 'liberation' from parental authority (not being strong enough to do it on their own as individuals and not having social support) and societies action to negate the parents authority (social action being based upon the adolescent's personality, the desire for 'liberation' from parental authority, "common" to all people, put into action) that allowed not only the 'changing' of the individual but also the 'changing' of society as well, i.e. the individual's of society becoming "one" in thought and action, united in the action of social 'change' (praxis).

Hollingshead in his book Elmtown's Youth: The Impact of Social Class on Adolescents wrote:  "This volume and Elmtown's Youth may be viewed as companion pieces since they have been based upon research in the same community, and in part on the same boys and girls. They differ in that each volume is focused upon a different facet of adolescent life."  (August B. Hollingshead, Elmtown's Youth: The Impact of Social Classes on Adolescents)  (The focus upon "adolescent life" was due to, in there mind, the adolescent's "natural inclination" to resist and rebel against parental authority, i.e. their rebellion against the "old" way of doing things).  Hollingshead's life focus was upon the "negative" impact the traditional "middle-class" family had upon the next generation (preventing 'change') and how it played a key role in the mental health of society (engendering 'neurosis' and schizophrenia―the persons inability to tell what is real and what is not real apart, in this case, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' religion being not real, yet being treated as real, affecting not only the individual but also society, see Hegel's opinion regarding Christ's resurrection).  At Yale, Hollingshead published a famous work (The Four Factor Index, an unpublished work, until this century, which has been heavily used in the fields of medical and public health) using occupation, sex, and marital status (the key indicator here being the male as the head of the household which was later changed, as times 'changed,' i.e. as education progressively liberalized the husband-wife-education-work relationship, to the husband and wife's' occupation and education) as the criteria from which to identify social stratification (and schizophrenia-that is, a person not being able to tell the different between what is real and not real, the "ethical" concern for those of dialectic 'reasoning' being: if man believes and acts upon his belief that God is real then he can not be "himself," nor can he allow other's to be themselves, i.e. human, i.e. "religion" being an obstacle or barrier to socialist harmony and worldly peace).

Ralph Tyler, in Frank Brown's book Education for Responsible Citizenship wrote: "Citizenship is not merely a matter of inculcating moral and social precepts. The school furnishes opportunities to discover and use facts, principles, and ideas that are more accurate, balanced, and comprehensive [according to social engineers] than what is provided in most homes, work places, or other social institutions. The school is usually an environment that represents the American social ideals more closely than the larger society."   He believed that without 'changing' the school environment from the teachers preaching and teaching facts to where they encouraged the students (the adolescents in particular) to dialogue their opinions concerning social issues (including the home), social 'change' could not take place.  That the home experience of the students and the traditional education system instead of augmenting social 'change,' prevented it.   His leadership in the Eight-Year Study was instrumental in the 'changing' of the American education system, for the purpose of social 'change'which included (required) negating the "middle-class" with its tendency to moralize. Tyler described the method developed in the Eight-year Study as essential to the "mapping" or taxonomizing of the classroom "community" for the purpose of 'change.' He wrote: "Although these instruments were derived from techniques developed from the Eight-Year Study, their application to the field of personal beliefs, where "right" and "wrong" is strongly emphasized, represented a new venture [education no longer being used to supporting the "middle class" parent's authority and values but now being used to challenge them]. (Eugene R. Smith and R. W. Tyler, Appraising and Recording Student Progress)

Bloom's Taxonomy Book I, is dedicated to Ralph Tyler.  Book one is based on the belief that "truth and knowledge are only relative," "that "there are not lasting truths for all times and all places" (thereby countering the categorical imperative, "Because I said so" nature of the traditional home and traditional education system).  Book 2 talks about "opening Pandora's Box,"  "challenging the students fixed beliefs," developing  "attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents," and the "conflict and tension" the "new method of education" was causing "between parents and children."  All done with the intent of breaking down the "middle-class" home, by 'changing' (negating) the traditional education system which supported it.  As Warren Bennis, in his book, The Temporary Society, put it: "artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas."  As Bloom wrote in Book 2, sighting James Coleman's work The Adolescent Society: "objectives [of 'change'] can best be attained where the individual ["during the adolescent period"] is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other."  Bloom also admitted that his principles of education (his belief, i.e. his 'drive' and 'purpose' in life) as being Marxist, sighting two Marxists, Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm as his world view or paradigm, the word he used was "weltanschauung."

Someone asked me to "prove" that Bloom as a Marxist.  As the saying goes: "If it walks like a duck ...."  One thing about the "enlightened" (those steeped in dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifying' themselves in their own eyes, according to their own carnal nature), when you show them the light, like the blind, they can not see.  "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."  Ephesians 4:11-24 emphasis added.

James Coleman's book, The Adolescent Society, was all about 'change,' about negating the "middle-class" through the education system, refocusing its energies away from supporting parental authority to the creation of a classroom experience which would 'liberate' the adolescent from parental authority, thus engendering social 'change.'  While Tyler advised six of our Presidents on Education, Coleman advised our Supreme Court instead.  His other work Public Private Schools shows how to to secularize private schools, bringing them into the "new" world order of 'change' ("humanizing" them).  His book, Equality of Opportunity was used by the Supreme Court to 'justify' their making of major changes in the school system in the 60's.  His book Community Conflict was about how to identify those in the community who were "resistant to change" and how to better neutralize their efforts to resist and prevent the 'changing' of society.

The focus of all this work is upon 'changing' the view of those in authority (As Theodor Adorno stated it in his book The Authoritarian Personality, "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents behavior toward the child." ) to where they will seek to "understand" and incorporate the view of those under their authority in making decisions, that is, moving away from using punishment for doing wrong, i.e. punishing the child for his participation in the world of 'change,' to using the techniques of therapy, i.e. to psycho-analysis and psycho-therapy which embraces 'change,' which instantly negates the "top-down" authority of the Father―the "equality" system of secular humanism negating the "top-down" system of religion "Freud speaks of religion [obedience to a higher authority, accepting their authority and obeying them in faith] as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  In this way the adolescent "community" of 'change' (of sensuousness, of feelings and thoughts,  of opinions and theories, subject to the whims and pressures of the 'moment') is used to pressure the adults into "embracing" the process of 'change' rather than judging and condemning it, i.e. forcing, through chastening, the adolescent to accept their "old" world order of unchangingness (of righteousness, of preaching and teaching established truth and facts, of belief, of "religion").

The hallmark of the "middle-class" is the stabilizing of society, thereby maintaining a "class system" of those who "have" and those who "don't have," with a "middle class" preparing their children to better their lives so that they can "have."  Dialectic thinkers and activist, claimed the "middle-class" prevented the "have not's" from advancing by their "moralizing" in the classroom and therefore that they must, for the 'purpose' of 'change,' negate the "middle class" as they, (in the eyes of the public) supposedly worked to "save" it.  It is then possible, through the conflict between the poor and the rich, the "have's and the have not's" (including in the home) to "divide and conquer" and thereby take over control of the nation and the world (facilitate 'change'), for the 'purpose' of social 'change' (socialist change).  Hegel understood and promoted this way of thinking .

Just because someone says he wants to decrease tax on the middle class does not mean he really wants to (or will) do it.  Those of the "upper-class" need the "middle-class" since they support their way of living (those of the "middle class" working to attain it for themselves and their children).  Those of the "lower-class" need the "middle-class" since it is the only way to get to to the "upper-class" as well.  Destroy the "middle-class" and both rich and poor become "equal" (along with the "middle class"), "equal" in a "new" world order of abomination, that which the "middle-class" tends to inhibit and restrain, chastening their children when they think and act that way, preaching to them and teaching them of a better way, a way of discipline, accountability, and honesty (in the true meaning of those words).  Not saying that the poor and the rich (in mind) don't have these standards or desire them, they do, but unlike the poor and the rich (I explain how those of dialectic 'reasoning' think) the "middle-class" (in mind) tend to ingrain them in their children (I say you can be poor or even rich and have a "middle-class" mind, the poor using it to get ahead, the rich retaining it in how they got ahead).

Government can only "help" the "middle-class" by leaving it alone, by letting parents inculcate into their children doing what is right and getting ahead through working hard and doing their best for their family, better yet as unto the Lord. The same is true for the family business.  Government "help" (through socialist work) will only destroy it (as is intended, which social workers will deny, to deceive themselves and all who support their "felt" needs, which is working).  Like competing with the third world's economy (focusing upon making the poor and the rich "equal"), you eventually become the third world's economy (poor).  How far are we into debt?  The "enlightened," those of dialectic 'reasoning,' like pimps and drug pushers, i.e. ever seeking and promoting 'change,' don't know what "bottom line" means other than when they run out of other peoples money they look for more "customers" to "help" them meet their "felt" needs.  As Carl Rogers admitted, those in government, who 'reason' the dialectic way, are not interested in stopping crime, as they might say, they are only interested in "using it," to get their way.

The greatest poverty is not the absence of money, it is the absence of morality, of righteousness, which the "middle-class" tends to uphold (this is the platform of those who 'reason' dialectically).  Those of dialectic 'reasoning' must negate righteousness, not poverty, if they are to produce a "new" world order of 'change.'  At least that is what their own research acknowledges as being their intent.  "Class Consciousness" (the oppressed-oppressor, "haves" and "have not's" syndrome) is the hallmark of Marxism ideology, for which we now stand.  Thanks to those of dialectic 'reasoning' facilitating 'change,' 'justifying' "human nature," i.e. unrighteousness as being the "norm" (over and against righteousness, it can't be "equal"), we are no longer looking at our heart, i.e. our thoughts and our actions according to God's Word, i.e. according to what our Father says, i.e. which is (was) the "middle-class" way.  Those of dialectic 'reasoning' don't mind your soul being around, as long as they own it and not God.

When someone brings up the issue of "the middle-class," now you know what it is really all about.  You can't have it around running things if you want 'change.'

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015