Using Role Playing In The Classroom To Negate The Father's Authority In The Home.
(Personal note.)
by
Dean Gotcher
Excerpt from Human Relations in Curriculum Change, Kenneth Benne.
While the child might respond to the father's command (which he does not want to do) with a "Why?" the father, authoring the command and having the power to enforce it responds with "Because I said so," "It is written," "Never the less" retaining his authority in the home. When the child is given the "opportunity" to share what he wanted to do, that the father's command inhibited or blocked and vent his opposition (resentment) toward the father's authority in the classroom, without fear of reprimand, the classroom is being used to turn him against the father and his authority, 'liberating' him to do what he wants without restraint. This is the hallmark of Marxism being "taught" in the classroom. This is what is going on in the classroom today.
I sent a friend of mine (Phil Ring) one of the copies I had made of this book, which I had my students use as their textbook when I taught in the University (480 level class, for seniors only). He called it "a cookbook on humans." Continuing the work of Kurt Lewin, J. L. Moreno, etc., i.e., György Lukács and "Frankfurt School" (although not mentioned), who were all transformational Marxists—who merged Marxism and psychology, i.e., society and the individual—it goes into great detail on how to apply the process of 'change' in the classroom—using the classroom as a laboratory to 'change' America and the world. The NEA was involved at first in the project—then distanced itself in order to protect itself from being labeled Marxist (which never happened, even to those doing this project). It was begun in Bethel, Maine which continues to this day (Kurt Lewin, then instructing at Michigan State University, after moving there from Iowa State, helped set it up before his death in 1947—which carried on György Lukács's "Marxist Work Week" project, which he had set up in Thurangia, Germany in the late twenties, which "The Institute of Social Research" aka "The Frankfurt School" set up in Frankfurt Germany before coming to the states, with the project in the early 30's). It became the bases of the NTL's (the National Training Laboratories) which spread this ideology, i.e., transformational Marxism (with the help of the "encounter groups" on the west coast [Rogers and Maslow] and Tavistock in London [Bion], which followed and applied the same pattern) around the world. The "group grade" classroom ("Bloom's Taxonomies,"), TQM (Total Quality Management), BSTEP (THE Federal Grant for Education [out of Michigan State University, i.e., Kurt Lewin's project], which all Federal Grants for education are based on), etc. are a result of this work.
All socialist programs (going on today in the classroom, in the workplace, in community projects, in the government, even in the "church") have their ties to this work. That is why I found it amazing it explains how it works with the following simple example—between a father, a mother, and a child in the home—with the agenda, as you will see (read) of negating the father's authority in the home (and therefore in society)—what the 'change' process is all about. Despite it being put into praxis in the classroom in 1944 the process is still the same today (but a lot more sophisticated—or maybe not—with the issue of lipstick being replaced with drugs and sex, showing how far down this slippery, diabolical path we have come). Take it serious—because they have. As Will C. Woods, the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California stated on March 1921, "Has authority been banished in these later days? Has the world reached a point where it will condone the formation of pupil soviets?" (California Blue Bulletin, 1920) Although his warning pre-dates this work, the agenda has been around for a long time. Without the "wisdom" of Kurt Lewin I am convinced it would not have worked as well as it has—why his name shows up in almost all major works dealing with the process.
Excerpts from the following role playing session in the classroom: "keep notes on the aspects of effective parenthood and those of ineffective parenthood that we see. We'll discuss these observations later." "a sample of parent-child interactions which we can all observe and discuss." "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." "What specific suggestions would you make for changes in the behavior of the father, assuming he wanted to be a better parent?" "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." "It is from the spontaneity of reaction that the 'reality' arises. . . ."
For "educators" to do this in the classroom in order to negate the father's/Father's authority in the mind of the children, i.e., in order to destroy the father's authority in the home is quite maddening, i.e., wicked—for obvious reasons without informing (warning) the parent's of what they are doing. The role-playing is now "hidden" in the "group grade" classroom (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process)—where the traditional minded student must convert (compromise his, i.e., his parent's standards, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth and holding others accountable to them as well, for the sake of group harmony) or be silenced, censored, or removed (martyred—"excommunicated without writ"). Here it is if you want (care) to KNOW.
Do read the following all the way through.
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)
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 the 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.
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 enters)
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.
Evaluation continued
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
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 role assuming 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.
11 Lippitt, Ronald and Zander, Alvin. Adult-youth participation sheet. (Mimeographed) New York; Boy
Scouts
of America Research and Statistical Service.
The collection by the trainee of anecdotes pertinent to the topic for which he needs sensitizing is a helpful
"complacency shock." In parent child relations, for example, the student might
note instances of parent-child friction (or potential friction avoided) adding his own interpretation of causes
and cures.
Sensitizing to needs may also be done by
means of a simple check list of typical problems ...
It is from the spontaneity of reaction that the "reality" arises. . . .
"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," "open ended, non-directed," 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)—as predators, charlatans, pimps, pedophiles, 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 2021, 2022