The psychology of
becoming
February 26, 2003
Some might look at this title and think,
"This sounds like something from Abraham Maslow or Carl Rogers."
The world view of systems governance is
humanism, a religion immersed in the concept that "no deity will save us,
we must save ourselves" (Humanist
Manifesto, 1973). To that end, systems governance has been developed
and fine tuned over a period of several decades, the purpose being to
"create the future;" to decide what the world is to look like at a
designated future time, then design and align everything to achieve that
vision. The ultimate goal is to attain and maintain the global sustainable
environment.
The concept that we must save ourselves
finds basis in the humanist principle that man has no spirituality or
self-determinism, that man is merely a product of his environment and must,
therefore, be "conditioned" to the perceived environment of the
"created future" as one system of many systems (see Systems Thinking — What It Is; What It Hopes to Accomplish).
Conditioning necessarily requires the
change of one's existing world view -- one's existing attitudes, values, and
beliefs, one's existing behaviors. In book after book written by those
advocating systems education, that it is the behavior of the individual that
must be changed is apparent:
"... a large part of
what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective
objectives through challenging the students' fixed beliefs and getting them to
discuss issues." (Bloom, 1964)
"The individual acts
consistently in accordance with the values he has internalized at this level,
and our concern is to indicate two things: (a) the generalization of this
control to so much of the individual's behavior that he is described and
characterized as a person by these pervasive controlling tendencies, and (b)
the integration of these beliefs, ideas, and attitudes into a total philosophy
or world view." (Bloom, 1964)
"Since the real
purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities
but to bring about significant changes in the students' patterns of behavior,
it becomes important to recognize that any statement of the objectives ...
should be a statement of changes to take place in the student." (Tyler,
1949)
"... education, as
now conceived, leads to demonstrable changes in student behaviors, changes that
can be assessed using agreed-upon standards." (Conley, 1993)
The question becomes how to achieve the
change in behaviors ... world view ... attitudes, values and beliefs.
George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel developed
a process known as the Hegelian Dialectic in which opposites (thesis and
antithesis) are brought together in compromise (synthesis) to form a new thesis
which becomes the view of the group participants, individually and as a whole.
Hegel theorized that through a continual use of this process, small groups
would evolve to a "higher plane" signified by their becoming part of
an ever larger group, until "oneness of mind" in a society
theoretically would occur.
Today, this process is known by at least
three other names: the Delphi Technique, the Alinsky Method, and the
facilitated process of consensus building. It is also the process of the
"guide on the side, not the sage on the stage" — the teacher (now
called a facilitator) in the classroom. It is the process of critical thinking,
conflict resolution, peer mediation, focus groups, consensus circles ... The
process has the effect of forcing the individual, in order to be a member of
the group (which is aggressively encouraged and pursued), to give up his
individual beliefs for the beliefs of the group.
Building on Hegel's theory, Marx came to
the conclusion that religion, with its authoritarian principles and higher
authority, caused alienation of the individual from the group. As such, Marx
wrote, religion is antithetical to the cohesion of the group and must be
eradicated.
The Hegelian Dialectic is about
compromise — the bringing together of opposites, and from those opposites,
theoretically, a new truth emerges. In this environment, there is no right or
wrong answer, only differences of opinion — how people "feel" about
an issue. In this setting right and wrong stand on equal footing.
What happens when you synthesize right (good)
and wrong (evil)? Which will prevail, right or wrong?
If you believe that man is inherently
good (humanist world view), you will say that man will choose right over wrong,
good over evil. But if you believe that man has a sin nature (Christian world
view), then you will say that man will, unless he has been instilled with a
moral compass of right and wrong in obedience to the teachings of a higher
authority, choose wrong or evil.
Man, under a higher authority, will
aspire to climb the mountain to better himself. Those who believe that man is
inherently good will go down the mountain believing that good is whatever they
perceive or rationalize it to be.
It is of note, at this point, that the
compromise of the two world views is the New Age world view concept of
self-divination. No higher authority, but all authority coming from within man
himself, self-divination, inner wisdom leading to the concept that
"perception is reality."
Before he died, Dr Abraham H Maslow
stated that his theories — what became known as Third Force Psychology — failed
because they were built upon the false premise that man is inherently good,
that they failed to recognize or take into account the sin nature of man. The
theories of Maslow and those of Dr Carl Rogers, furthering the theories and
philosophy of Hegel and Marx, are the basis of the non-directive,
feelings-based education system now in schools under the moniker of education
reform.
Returning, for a moment, to good and
evil, and the synthesis of the two, when you compromise the authoritarian
principles that inspire man to climb the mountain to better himself, man loses
the will to aspire, and evil prevails.
Some may recognize this concept in a
Chinese symbol that has been around for many a century, but became a more
universal symbol when it was adopted by the "hippy movement" of the
1960s. The symbol is the yin and yang symbol.
Some will also recognize it as the New Age symbol.
The white represents good, the black evil. Within the circle of compromise,
white, when mixed with black, is no longer white. This is symbolic of the
compromise of Satan and Christ in which Satan prevails and the resulting
synthesis of good and evil is said to be good even though it has taken on the
vestiges of evil.
Another symbol that resulted from this
concept, also emanating from the hippy generation, is the "peace
symbol." The lines within the circle represent what is known as an upside
down "broken cross." Within the circle, the peace symbol represents
the
victory of Satan over Christ when Christ died on
the cross for the sins of man. The symbol is a statement that if we accept evil
on an equal basis with good, harmony will result. This finds basis in the
concept that man is inherently good, a concept that Maslow, himself, admitted
was a false premise.
So it is, in consensus building, that
right does not prevail, but wrong does prevail in the name of synthesis. As
stated in one conflict resolution curriculum, "conflict resolution is
rarely about honesty or establishing truth—it is more about unifying
perceptions." (Bodine, 1994) If you have a bully and his victim in
conflict resolution or peer mediation to achieve consensus (compromise), who
will prevail in such an environment? Obviously, the bully will prevail.
Returning to the concept that man must
be conditioned to the perceived environment, one proponent of the New Age world
view wrote:
"You can only have a
new society, the visionaries have said, if you change the education of the
younger generation. ... Of the Aquarian Conspirators surveyed, more were
involved in education than in any other single category of work. ... Marion
Fantini, former Ford consultant on education, now at the State University of
New York, said bluntly, 'The psychology of becoming has to be smuggled into the
schools.'" (Ferguson, 1980)
When Ferguson's book, The Aquarian Conspiracy, was
published, people scoffed at the very idea of it. After all, it was really too
bizarre to be taken seriously! Little did people know that it was being implemented
right under their noses and they had no idea it was happening.
At this point, it is imperative that we
remember what the new basics are: "team work, critical thinking, making
decisions, communication, adapting to change and understanding whole
systems" (WTECB, 1994)
As noted above, in book after book,
advocating systems education, it is made very clear that behavior must be
changed to achieve the wanted outcomes or exit outcomes defined at the state
level, benchmarked to the national goals for workforce development, and
implemented at the local level. Assessments are the tool used to determine if
the wanted behaviors are being achieved.
This is occurring in the classroom via
teachers (facilitators) and paraprofessionals (facilitator aides); in the
counselor's office; in the school psychologist's office; on the playground and
in the hallways via social workers who watch students and note their
observations (called "profiling"). Some schools even have what are
called "buddies," small hand-held computers in which the bar code
that serves as the unique identifier of the student and the bar code of the
observed behavior can be scanned much as a scanner in a store registers the bar
code of a product when swiped over it. The data entered into the hand held
scanner is later downloaded to the student's school file.
Do any of these individuals have the
training, clinical experience, or license to use psychological practices and
techniques on children on school premises to change their belief systems? No, they
don't. Not even a school psychologist. And lest we have forgotten, the
psychological techniques and theories of Maslow and Rogers were originally
intended to be used on people with mental disorders.
What is happening in the classroom, in
the name of education reform, amounts to medical malpractice. What is even
worse is that the created future cannot be achieved unless a majority of
children in the government school acquire the wanted belief system. That
psychological manipulation is the only route (because the philosophy is not
normal or natural to the human condition) from present to future should serve
as a wake-up call to parents and citizens.
But many parents are going along with
this, believing their child(ren) actually needs psychological help. Very few
children really need psychological help, and those who do certainly do not need
the type of psychological help they are getting in the government school.
The name that has been given this
non-directive, feelings based education system is "psycho-education."
Psycho is right. It is destroying or badly damaging young lives and leaving
children ill-equipped to meet the realities of the world beyond the classroom.
Some Christian parents send their
child(ren) to the government schools, believing that in so doing, they are
following the commandment of God to "go forth and witness." The bible
also says, in three consecutive chapters;
"But whoever causes
one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin ... to stumble ... to be
offended, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung about his neck,
and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (KJV)
Can we surmise that Christ commanded us
to protect these "little ones" from harms way? Most adults could not
withstand what these children are being subjected to on a daily basis in the
closed environment of the government school. How could any Christian parent
believe their child(ren) could withstand the same?
In closing, remember the song from the
hippy generation of the sixties, "The Age of Aquarius" by the Fifth
Dimension (May, 1969) in which the group proudly proclaimed the sixties to be
"... the dawning of the age of Aquarius?" The age of Aquarius, the
psychology of becoming, has arrived.
Sources:
Bodine,
Richard J, Donna K Crawford, Fred Schrumpf; Creating
the Peaceable School; Champaign (IL): Research Press; 1994.
Conley,
David T; Roadmap to Restructuring;
Salem: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon;
1993.
Ferguson,
Marilyn; The Aquarian Conspiracy;
New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons; 1980.
"High
Skills, High Wages;" Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
(WTECB); Washington State; 1994.
"Holy
Bible;" Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2, King James Version.
Krathwohl,
David R, Benjamin S Bloom, Bertram B Masia; Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives; Book 2 Affective Domain; New York: Longman;
1964.
Kurtz,
Paul and Edwin H Wilson; Humanist
Manifesto II; 1973.
Tyler, Ralph; Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction; Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1949.
© 2003 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights
Reserved