A HUMANES‘HC WEE)” 0F
' SELF {N CGNFLICT ENTERVENUON

Dissertation for ths Degree 0f P91. 5,
MECHEGAN SWIE UNWERSITY.
MAN. WARNER PEEK
1973

‘Y‘J’i

L 1133‘? ii ‘5‘; '3,” 9" ,5

i
I‘:li«.:hig2:1 Sta-1::
University .

3——

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A HUMANISTIC THEORY OF SELF
IN CONFLICT INTERVENTION

presented by

JEAN W. PEEK

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PH . D . CURRI CULUM

degree in

a) l _
'~~—< ( EVIL/l 7—32 "5-5"(( g1 L "y #1,,

jMajor professor
Date 7 /Z—;’ 9 ‘7)
7 //

0-169

 

 

‘9' .. ~=
BINDING BY "

HOAB & SUHS'
800K BINDERY INC.

LIBRARY BINDERS

mmcroyr. moment :

ABSTRACT

A HUMANISTIC THEORY OF SELF
IN CONFLICT INTERVENTION

BY

Jean Warner Peek

An analysis of seven identified models of change agent
intervention to release interpersonal or intergroup conflict blockages
placed these interventions on a continuum of perceived effect upon
persons in conflict; the continuum envisions a range from coerceive/
controlling relationship of agent to client to a more autonomous/
sharing relationship between members of a synergetic group or dyad.
The analyses of the seven models is secondary to the theoretical
purpose of the study which is to propose an eighth model of self
in the process of humanistic intervention in conflict blockage.

In order to establish the premise that conflict is essential
to the humanistic agent of intervention, research from the fields
of sociology, psychology, religion, political science, and education
was examined to demonstrate classical writing and current thinking
on the positive aspects of conflict and to differentiate among the
concepts of violence, competition, and conflict. Conflict was
established as a force of essentially positive potential within the
humanistic stance in education. The problems which remained were:

first, the establishment of a continuum of conflict interventions

Jean Warner Peek

which moved toward the more humanistic processes of conflict interven—
tion; and secondly, to synthesize the models into a theory of Self
for the humanistic change agent to examine with the view of having
all models as open alternatives to his interventions to unblock and
having the committment of existing within and being changed by CVcry
intervention he chooses to make.

Following the review of related literature, each of the
seven models of intervention were analyzed in separate chapters. TheSc
models were originally isolated by William Houston and the author
while research fellows in values at Southern Illinois University,
Edwardsville. The models of intervention are:
Neutrality
Status Quo Supportive
Depreciating
Directive
Creative Problem Solving

Clarification
Supportive

\IO‘U'I-PUONH

In attempting to move from this list and to contain all of
the list as alternatives for the humanistic agent, it was necessary
to examine several theories of conflict intervention from the various
fields. Kotarbinski's sociological theories of praxeology (the
science of efficiency) and agonology (the science of struggle) contributed
to the view that alternatives must be open even if they are not valued.
Ghandi's theory of satyagraha (which enbodies the involvement of the
interventionist in the change and which provides a theory of reSpect
and love for the "other" while engaging in a struggle for truth through

love and nonviolence) played an important role in the development of

Jean Warner Peek

the model of Self. Abraham Maslow's work, particularly his

vision in Eupschyian Management,began to draw Kotarbinski and Ghandi's

 

theories into one theory. Finally, the theories of involvement in

a selfish/unselfish unity in conflict as expressed by Maslow, Dewey,
Simmel and Taoist works drew the model finally together into a
statement of theory for practicing humanistic agents of change to
investigate. This model of self intervention includes all of the other
models as possible alternative actions for change while seeing even

the most coerceive models discussed as events which might be entered
into by an interventionist who anticipated his own change as a result
of his love, truth, and non-violent intentional exchange with a client
who might perceive the exchange as negative.

The theoretical effect is to provide the humanistic change
agent a model which can successfully include all other models of change
proposed by writers identified with more controlling and coerceive
educational theories. Thus, the humanist is allowed to consider the
use of alternative models even while valuing the human being he
touches and the human being he is in the processes of conflict and
change. As the model of self intervention emphasizes the importance
of the agent's self change and human intentions, the ultimate vision
is one where each man is the person in conflict, the person released
from the blocks of conflict, and the agent who effects the release.
The theory looks toward man as autonomous, seeking5.and socially

humanistic.

A HUMANISTIC THEORY OF SELF IN CONFLICT INTERVENTION

by

Jean Warner Peek

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum
College of Education

1973

Copyright by
JEAN WARNER PEEK
1973

“V“
'.. ..b

 

DEDICATION

To Janie, without her patience and love so many happy and
growthful experiences would not occur . . . she is always a person
of my own heart . . . who brings me gently back to myself

and to our children of last year, this year, and next year . . .

Stephanie, Beth Ann, Timothy3'Mark, Dion, Merri, Jerri, Sean,
Barb, and David.

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Beyond the school buildings, beyond the politics of board and
bond elections, beyond the positions and the status, and beyond, even,
the interpersonal relationships of colleague, peer, student, and teacher,
lies the great machine of American education. Some call it a great
polisher, others a great leveler; some see it as the essential element
in a melting pot. For those who remember the experience of having
been through the machine there are many more violent images called to
mind; and these see in the machine that social or cultural phenomena
which causes things that stick out to get knocked off.

It may only be a pity that the most beautiful flower is early
plucked to adorn our tables or that the ripest fruit and choicest
beast is that which we hold most appetizing. It becomes more severe
a problem when that which is chosen is so rare that duplication or
repetition is unlikely or impossible, when we knock off the last of
zarare species of animal which even man in his own rarity cannot
duplicate or when the rushing waters of a mountain stream are damned
or diverted for someone's play.

The problem grows beyond reason when we turn on those humans, whose
rare resources may lead us to beauty and whose unfortunate uniqueness
calls forth our anger to victimize those differences, to knock the edges
off the human race so that in some way we all become alike and measureable

quantitatively. We then knock off edges until every man.will be a king

iii

iv

with a free will to rule in harmony with equal beings over a culture and
a world so barren and bleak and sterile that our once paradise will not
have even the joy of the contrasts of personal hell but will be, rather,
a common limbo.

I work in the field of teaching. It may be an assumption to say
that I can teach anything to anyone at any age; but I do not believe it
an assumption to say that human beings do learn and that they seem to
learn different things differently and that they seem to learn to choose
what to learn and how to learn not only out of the mystique of individual
heredity, but also out of their associations with fellow human beings.

I feel it is also reasonable to say that some things are learned more
powerfully because of the way they are encountered. When these things
are learned they cause change in the totality of the individual. The
individual has an effect on the totality of the culture which then
transmits more powerfully the experience to other human beings. For
better or worse, according to the way you have been changed, this is
the beginning of the teaching-learning process, of education.

I feel it is also reasonable to assume that change causes conflict
in some proportion to the dissonance caused by the confrontation of new
choice, belief, or action with the old. Here, I feel, we come to the
problem of just what constitutes a leveling force to make the individual
more like some other individual. There are two propositions which I
would like to set forth at this point; First, "real" change will set
forces in motion which will eventually involve confrontation with some
other human being; and second, the conflict which is born of "real" change
is something which is profitable in terms of human growth and something

which can be used to reach out for the best growth in terms of each

individual involved in the conflict.

w

—.

.x.

O l

i.

n\-

F\-
n: -

 

'w

 

.wa

 

I do not believe that much has been done in education to encourage
conflict as an essential part of what might be a humanistic growth
experience. More often individuals who conflict with established
societal patterns are leveled or are isolated or are destroyed. We
humans tend to fear those who are different; we tend to fear not only
the individuals who are different but also those small groups which
threaten the larger group. This fear leads US‘UJstifle the dissent,
to execute the visionary, to imprison the experimenter, to shun the
stranger, and to be systematic in our destruction of the minority. It
is not the conflict which destroys all Of these stick cuts but rather
the response of the threatened and powerful. It is not the new idea
itself which turns upon the inventor--the frankenstein monster is not
evil and destructive--but the reSponse of the powerful to the invention.
Given this, it is my feeling that the idea of motivation for learning
or changing is no more than a complex curiousity, perhaps ever changing
and elusive, while the problem of analyzing responses to change, to
conflict, to confrontation, is one that can be dealt with by persons
with some skills in various fields. Yet, even the problem of response
must involve the complex fields of perception, communication, sociology,
psychology, and heredity. I do not have skills in all of these areas
as I limit my beginning theory to an analysis of response patterns to
perceived conflict situations in the field of education.

For helping me and confronting me in what I am able to do, I owe
much to many peOple. I would like to mention a few of them.

First of all, my parents, Bess and Gene, who allowed me freedom

to grow differently from.them and were still proud.

 

 

pow-.-
I ~ _

'O-acu

‘
0....
3...,

,.
ll!

(1.

to

 

vi

To the late William Houston, a friend and colleague research
fellow at NEXTEP at Southern Illinois University, I owe much of the
basic analysis of the response patterns. I hepe I've eXpanded our
mutural ideas in a way he would have. Bill was a twenty year Navy chief
who had drOpped out of high school and, on the way to becoming the
highest ranking enlisted man in the Navy, acquired his high school
diploma, his bachelors, and his master's degrees; Bill's year at
NEXTEP was his first year as a full-time college student. He died
shortly before completing his doctoral degree. Bill knew what it was
like to have confronted society and to have been forced to conform or
be destroyed; his choice of the service was a kind of limbo I imagine
many unique, poor, and alone people have chosen.

I also want to thank my close friend, John Kolesa, who taught for
eighteen years, had eight kids, and is now a bricklayer and farmer.

He confronted me with patience, quiet, respect, and trust--things I
felt, at the time, I could expect from no man so much unlike myself.

And to close friends who are sometimes teachers and sometimes
students: Art Draper, Jack Evans, Chris King, Dave and Larry Reynolds,
Bob Ross, Bob Stanish, Jim Crawford, Joe Roberts, Bob Dunn, Mike Kenney,
Bill Shaw, Wes Walker, Bill Nelson, Ann Shelly, Ruth Belleville, Norm
Sterchele, Gary Ebrecht, Lu Bruch, Paula Stein, and Keith Ward, thanks
for so changing me without demanding I be like you.

There are some persons who remain as teachers in the best sense;
I can only hepe our exchanges have approached sharing. First of all,
Troy Stearns, my chairman for my doctoral work, is a lesson in Openness,

sharing, assistance; in the best sense of the progressive and humane

p F
I" r

J3. a»
ro' "
I
I... ‘
- n..'
“ I‘l
*D‘V‘

l

on: A-
v-

I. l.
" L
‘.c I
I1.» ‘-

 

 

 

 

:‘..
,A
.‘1

Vii

men he worked with in his long teaching career which ranged from

work with Dewey and Counts to teacher education and curriculum innovation
in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the United States, Troy is the essence of

the good teacher. Other teachers have given me freedom to grow. I

want to thank Dale Alam and Charles Blackman for sharing their excite-
ment about the work being done at Michigan State University. To

George Ferree, George Myers, Pat Rode, John Suehr, and Virginia

Wiseman, at Michigan State University, and Merrill Harmin and Jules
Zanger at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, who taught me

how alive and beautiful higher education can be; thank you all for

all you have shared with me to help me grow.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNMEDGEWNTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . .
Need . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . .
The Problem of the Author . . .
2. REVIEW’OF RELATED LITERATURE . . .
3. THE NEUTRAL NON-MODEL INTERVENTION
4. STATUS QUO SUPPORTIVE . . . . . .
S. DEPRECIATION . . . . . . . . . . .
6. DIRECTION . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING . . . . .
8. CLARIFICATION . . . . . . . . . .
9. SUPPORTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . .
lO. SELF INTERVENTION . . . . . . . .
ll. REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIXooocooooooooooocco

IN CONFLICT

BLOCKAGE

Page

iii

ix

11
ll
13
15
41
49

6O
70

87
100
116
130

141

O O O O O 147

153

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
3.1 The Neutral Non-Model Intervention . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.1 The Status Quo Supportive Intervention . . . . . . . . 57
5.1 The Depreciating Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.1 Direction by Fiat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

6.2 Direction by Collaborative Planning for Change . . . . 84
7.1 Creative Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.2 A Sub-Model of Creative Problem Solving Most Used in

Educational Strategies. The Leader Exists as

Leader but Subjects Himself to Change .. . . . . . . 97
7.3 A Sub-Model of Creative Problem Solving with an

Emergent and Changing Leadership Totally and

Equally Involved in Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.1 The Leader of Teacher Clarifying Intervention . . . . . 113

8.2 The Gandhian Satyagraha Intervention for Clarifi-
cation and Healing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

8.3 The Intervention for Clarification as a Mutual
Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

9.1 The Supportive Intervention in Group . . . . . . . . . 127

9.2 The Supportive Intervention by an Agent to Unblock
Persons in Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

9.3 The Supportive Intervention as a Person to Person
Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Martin Haberman, writing in the 1971 ASCD Yearbook Freedom,
Bureaucracy, and Schooling presents a thesis for my introductory
chapter when he states: "Hoping for organizations to radically change
themselves is a victory of expectation over experience. Competition
in the tradition of economic liberalism is a more effective process
of change."1

For too long the American humanistic education movement has
hopped along on one leg fettered by the perception that all competi-
tion was inherently evil because of the generally negative examples
set by business, science, and athletics in influencing the education
of youth. It is certainly time to admit what those who have engaged
extensively in any kind of laboratory learning, micro teaching, or
encounter group experience have known.for a long time; that is, that
conflict, competition, and confrontation can be the basis for the
greatest leaps in personal growth. Adversity, not sentimentality, is
the essence of the growth experience, of learning. Success comes
from'being preperly prepared, intellectually and emotionally, to meet

the challenge of achievement. If educators wish to concentrate on

 

1Martin Haberman, "Educating the Teachers: Changing Problems"
in Freedom, Bureaucracy and Schooling,‘Vernon F. Haubrick, (ed.),
ASCD 1971 Yearbook, p. 118.

{ICES

Us .6

 

7:?

.n.‘

 

'
1!.
hid

5“.
v._
e

‘.
7" .1
A
5...‘

’ I
”-
tn

,' n .—
I“?

 

 

S

2

success experiences for human beings, the way to do it is to give
human beings the tools to meet the challenges they feel willing to
face. This is necessary even if one of the tools must be, as it must
often be, the ability to know one's real limits and to meet the challenge
of facing those limits with wisdom. Such wise, rational, and growing
human beings form organizations which also reflect these qualities.
Yet, change does not occur in organizations. Any change that is planned
change is imposed change. The planning of change involves manipulation
of human beings; the assumptions behind such manipulation are diverse
and complex. Nevertheless it is, in the long run, the principle of
coercive manipulation through the expertise of some self, group, or
organic change-agent that remains the dominant feature of planned
change. Even the most "humanist" of change theorists discover that
they are in the process of accepting the authority, if not the
responsibility, for changing a human being or a human organization.
At this point, these theorists cop-out. They begin to talk of the
"collaborative" aspects of the "helping relationships". They begin
to speak of the responsibility of the "expert" in discovering or
freeing data or structures which the "client-system” needs in order
to move forward. In reading the literature of planned change one
does not get the impression that change occurs without the use of
some unblocking agent with a predetermdned unblocking strategy and new
"collaborative" goals established for direction when the client system
has been freed.

This is, of course, so much nonsense. Dewey knew it and we are
beginning, in education, to understand it again. Yes, there are blocks

which momentarily inhibit movement of people or organizations. The

3
fact remains, however, that human beings do move forward--sometimes
at a very quick pace indeed. If there is a need for someone to
assist in unblocking, this person will emerge from.the group. Certain
individuals will take the lead and the individual or group will be
freed. Unfortunately, the problem exists that such "helpers” move
so clumsily that the freeing of an entity often involves attendant
damage and, at tflmes, extinction of that entity. There is a need to
perfect the science of intervention, or the unblocking response to
conflict, and there is a need to assist every individual to grow to
leadership and growthful intervention in relieving the conflict blocks
in his group. There is no need to plan what happens after one has
helped another; this seems akin to bearing eternal responsibility
for the person whose life has been saved.

System analysis, rational emotive therapy, the "science” of
educational administration, welfare programe, and the sequence and
scope theories of curriculum all fall into the very mdxed bag of
eternal responsibility described above. Perhaps a solution to this
burden of responsibility is to train oneself to intervene in a
situation which one determines to be blocked; recognition of blockage
becomes the primary concept while pre and post planning of strategies
and goals becomes secondary to the motion of unblocking. In this
theory, the change-agent bears the moral responsibility only to himself.
He may choose to continue in some other relationship with the entity
now unblocked, but this choice belongs to some other field than that
of change-agentry. A person cannot know just what direction is best.
To assume that he does is to play Cod--an act much more difficult in

an art/science such as education than it is in, for example, the

b.\

1‘!

.v

I!

4

materialism of the assembly-line process where goals are clearly
non-human and problems of change affect human beings only in so

far as those humans are useful to products manufactured. From this
emphasis on the individual and the moral and professional responsi-
bilities of the individual to intervene for change, the conclusion
might be drawn that this definition of change-agentry is concerned
only with human change and not with the buildings, the hardware

and software, the academic disciplines, the skills and fields,

etc. This is true. There are no important changes in material
goods save in the way that human beings in the process of growth
may immediately view these goods as momentary crutches to assist
them. If humans do so view these as necessary to their growth, it
is not the business of the change-agent to be concerned with this
belief unless it is, of itself, a blockage perceived by the
change-agent as needing removal.

Does the change agent, given this disinclination toward
planning and structuring goals, have any method of predicting and
determining his intervention points? Yes, he does so by whim; and,
as Thoreau has written, whim is the prepared and able individual's
weapon against ideological and technological control. Whim, the
pleasure of being acceptant toward one's own feelings, gives the
freedom to guide the unblocking of others in the direction they need
to pursue. One cannot produce change without removing blocks to
growth. One cannot be a change-agent unless one is self-satisfied,
actualized, by the efforts to change that he produces. Despite this
emphasis on whim, which does admit that any person may act as a

change-agent, the most effective person for the agent's position is

5
he who has perfected skills in many areas and who brings these skills
into play with the timing and care of the professional.

Yet, I do not advocate the training of individuals to be
change-agents. Such people train themselves; they emerge. A
change-agent cannot be predetermined; a system might seek the most
honest, least fearful, employees or consultants and look to their
emergence as agents of change. Change-agents emerge when all trust
others to be loveable and capable and trust that human beings work
toward ends that are good and pleasurable for them. There is no
real choice save for an organization to wait for such appropriate
emergence. The daily and excellent administration of a system has
little to do with change; no decision to control a human organization
or group of organizations has ever been effective for long. The
problem, however, is not just one of returning to some laissez-faire
concept such as those advanced by William Graham Summer long ago; a
change-agent can be of assistance by choosing to free men more
quickly than they might free themselves. Yet, to do this is not
the same as planning where they go after the agent has intervened in
their' lives or their organizations. What is needed is a science of
conflict response and intervention which presupposes no desire to plan
the future goals of the client-system but which operates as a sort
of human crowbar to break the system which blocks progress. This means
that the change-agent, the interventionist, must carefully examine
his reasons for seeing blockage and for choosing just here and now
to intervene.

Organizations are the people in them. These people must be

equipped to meet challenges. They must be helped to realize the

problems of working with others from other cultures, of other values
systems, and of other goals. If interventionists can provide
individuals with the ability to face challenges by operating from

a variety of possible responses to threatening situations, those
who intervene will have gone a long way toward helping people in
crisis situations to use their own knowledges and emotions
adequately to respond bravely to the stress of conflict, to the
emotion of confrontation, and to the fact of change. In this way
changes begin which are responsive to those involved rather than
changes which attempt to make those unfortunately involved responsive
to them.

Even if one agrees that change comes from human beings and if
one realizes the need in a humanly responsive organization for those
who create change and those who face it to confront honestly, one
still must face the researched fact that change or an attempt to
change will evoke withdrawal in those who are new to the idea.2
When we face, as change-agents, the resistance of those we hope to
change, we must remember that any conflict behavior on the part of a
resisting individual is an expression of his that the organization
(the party, the country, the family, the group) to which he has seen
himself as belonging is not meeting his needs. Leland W. Howe in
his unpublished doctoral dissertation (1969) had this to say:

". . . as this study demonstrates, (disruptive) behaviors may be

 

2Jack R. Frymier, Fostering Educational Change, (Columbus,
Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969), p. 8.

7

viewed from another perspective not as necessarily anti-organizational
but as, essentially in many cases, a drive toward health on the part
of the demonstrators. In this view, the demonstrations are simply
highly visible indications that the organization is not meeting the
needs of at least those persons who are demonstrating."3

In a recent convention on "Conflict and Confrontation", I
spoke to this same point in demonstrating, through statistical
reference, the fact that those who strike out against an institution
or in an interpersonal situation are not those inalterably opposed or
removed from the situation but, rather, those who are involved enough
and capable enough to express their feelings of dissonance and

diassociation.4

Social anomie is a reflection of non-involvement not a
reaction against involvement; those who are truly alienated neither hate
nor love the person or situation with them. John Gardner in §§l§;_
Renewal (1963) said: ". . . the (disruptive) behavioris more likely
to be perceived as 'self-renewing' and thus, prized at least in the
long run, as healthy for the organization."5

Conflict is a viable, a human(istic), endeavor; it is the
frustration at not being fairly met, of being cut off or unprepared,
Vduch makes competition, conflict or encounter inhumane. Change

comes about through helping individuals learn how to face themselves,

others, new ideas, and new structures so that they feel adequate and

 

3Leland Wright Howe, "Toward A Humanistic Model of School
Organizational DeveloPment", (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1969), pp. 8-9.

4Jean W. Peek, "Confrontation and Conflict", MASB Reporter,
(reprint of Nov. 2, 1972 speech, Michigan Association of School Board).

5John W. Gardner, Self-Renewal: The Individual and the
Innovative Society, (Harper Colophon, 1963), pp. 33-40.

 

8

involved in the situation. In education--especially in curriculum

and instruction-~humanists must encourage confrontation. People must

be assisted in their preparation to be involved. If educators can

help people discover alternative models of resolution and/or
communication within the encounter situations, educators will then

be able to establish institutions for education which are democratically

participatory and responsive.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine general models of
intervention in perceived blocks to human needs by change-agents
in public school education and to develop a humanistic intervention
model for handling the conflict blockages which inhibit the free
exchange of ideas and emotions necessary to relevant and responsive
educational goals.

The model I propose in Chapter X goes far beyond the
structures of the seven models I analyze in Chapters III through
IX, and it proposes human qualities of introspection and personal
analysis for growth which might identify this model with religious
thought for some readers. The transition between Chapters D( and X
is a difficult one to make for Chapter IX deals with a sensitive
and supportive, but traditional, change methodology while Chapter
X proposes a transcendence of group identity and an internalization
of change which the reader must accept or experience as an alternative
to our present methods and models of change. Yet, Chapter X is a
method of intervention in conflict which is a particularly effective

model; it is, for me, the ideal proposed not only for changing self but

also for changing others and the organizations we all must build in

a society.

Eggd

"In a national seminar focused on needs for more relevance
in.curricu1um (Danforth Foundation, et. al., 1970) it was concluded
that the most important single change schools should make would be
their mechanisms for developing responsiveness in curriculum."6

The great difficulty in establishing responsive practice and
decision-making structures in education seems to be that school
officials seek to re-establish status quo when faced with the stress
of confrontation by pressure groups.7 This results most often in
increasing the pressures rather than working toward any collaborative
effort among students, community people, school executives, and
faculty which would establish some meaningful change and improvement
in curriculum.and instruction.

Dr. Glenys Unruh has said: "One of the most useful functions

of theory is that of serving as a guide to new knowledge by suggesting

testable hypotheses and engendering research."8 A11 curriculum and

 

6Danforth Foundation. Institute for Development of Educational
Activities, and National Association of Secondary School Principals.
'Toward a More Relevant Curriculum; Report of a National Seminar",
quoted in Glenys G. Unruh, "Toward a Theory of Responsive Curriculum

IDevelopment", (unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. Louis University,
1972), p. 21.

7M; A. Chesler, "School Crisis and Change", cited in Student
IJnrest: Threat or Promise?, (Washington, D. C., Association for
SuPervision and Curriculum Development, 1970), pp. 100-121.

8Glenys G. Unruh, "Toward a Theory of Responsive Curriculum

Eggelopment", (unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. Louis University,
:2), p. 8.

10

instruction may be seen as theory in action. Few absolutes have been
discovered in either the art or the "science" of education on which
educators can lean and on which educators can expect clients to depend.
The emotion of the curriculum/instruction process demands the
individual's introspection for new ideas being constantly tested and
researched. The emotion engenders conflict and confrontation which
must be dealt with before decisions can be made.

The need to establish models for responding to the confron-
tations of deve10ping curriculum/instruction decisions parallels a
single teacher's need to learn how to handle a single disruptive
child. In order for the change-agent to survive the vagaries of
community responsiveness, he must learn stop-gap measures and move
toward a plan for encouraging greater responsiveness to community
even while utilizing the emotion of a moment or confrontive
situation.

If educators assume that the curriculum change-agent has a
sane values system and the leadership ability necessary to curriculum]
instruction deve10pment and change, then they must assume that any
stop-gap confrontation technique is valid so long as the agent
mwwes toward techniques which open him and his work to greater
confrontation by seeking greater relevance and community
responsiveness.

This study, then, seeks to define styles of response by
*agents and to suggest the models of interaction which will be utilized

‘88 a result of the use of a certain style. Various psychological
theories will support the response styles and the models of inter-

action proposed. However, I will not attempt to justify any

11
particular theory, and the language used in describing a given style

of response will not be the technical language of the psychologist.

Definition of Terms

Curriculum/instruction--any process which is in any way
connected to the teaching-learning function within the school.

Conflict/confrontation--any blockage in the teaching-learning
process which inspires a person or persons to utilize skills to
produce unblocking.

Change-agent-interventionist--only those individuals or
groups which produce catharsis in the human beings being blocked in
their efforts to help others or themselves by the teaching-learning
process they favor. A change-agent's work is his own effort to choose
places to disrupt complacent and ineffective systems in those places
the agent sees as blockages. The change-agent determines the blockage
area.

Intervention--any action taken or attitude established by a
change-agent which causes conflict to become momentarily or
effectively unblocked.

Humanist(ic)e-any person or plan which focuses upon the inherent
regard each person has for all others involved. Any person or plan
placing the human process above the impersonal product. Any person or
plan visualizing the affective state of all involved as being the prime

determinant of positive growth for all involved.

Limitations
1. In no way do I intend the models presented here to cover

all of the complex forms of human action and interaction

12

incorrectly subsumed under the conflict rubric.
Especially, there is no effort to deal with the actual
violence and subtle violence which occurs between groups
with separate goals and with pOpulations so large as to
prevent reasonable communication systems. My efforts

are aimed at interventions to unblock conflict within
relatively small groups with human beings who are
operating within or in connection to systems having
generalized commonalities.

I have created a continuum for the first seven models
which defines the first models as being more autocratic
and the final models as more autonomous. My bias will

be obvious. Yet, my final model will demonstrate a value
I see even in the most coercive of the first models.
Therefore, this thesis does not purport to create a
taxonomy of intervention models; to do so would, I believe,
violate the fluidity of the models in practice. I isolate
them here for examination with the purpose of inclusion

in the model I create in Chapter X.

This is a thesis of a curriculum generalist. Neither in
my review of the literature nor in the seven models have

I attempted to include the vast research and theoretical
writing in the field. Each model is easily a dissertation
topic. Rather, I present my vision of interaction models
I have experienced with the intent of adding a new theore-
tical model of humanistic interaction in conflict blockage.

A limitation of this type of dissertation is the inability

at

a

-i
'-

3

l3.

{:5

‘P
I“‘

13
of the writer to include all the interesting materials
available for each model.

4. Finally, I do not attempt to prove in any quantative/
empirical study the existence of the seven models or
the efficacy of the model I create. The literature of
change, conflict, intervention, etc. provides many
empirical studies to demonstrate the existence of
intervention strategies by these titles and by others
which can be so translated. It is beyond the scope of
my effort to include such efforts or to discuss the
effect of combination interventions utilizing several

models simultaneously.

The.Prob1em of the Author

 

If the reader examines the statements, the purpose, the
definitions, and the limiations of the thesis presented above, the
problem becomes clear. Theoretically, it is possible to present
a school system where the electives and the stimuli are so varied
as to present conflict to the individual or group; it is also
theoretically possible to claim a support system within which
the individual determines the program, through open dialogue and
confrontation, which best suits his present and continuing needs to
arrive at his truths. As Ray Houghton has said: "Implications of
such a system would be: (a) that individuals are capable of

making their own decisions and that when left to their devices will

A75

5}»

.m|~\ All.

 

14

tend to make "good" decisions; and (b) that process is preferable
to stasis in an essentially dynamic world."9

I accept the theory. Ivan Illich presented a possibility.
Paul Goodman provided another more realistic possibility. I face the
reality, in this dissertation, of the world, divided as it is between
humans benevolent in their control, those who wish to control for the
sake of power, and "humanists” who face complex problems interpersonslly
when dealing with other's control and the principles the humanists
eXpouse in facing this reality. I provide a temporary vision of the
human being choosing to intervene, to unblock, for change but choosing
not to involve himself in the long term effects of his intervention.
I term this a temporary vision for, theoretically, all persons will
come to the point where they intervene with themselves and where the
world is a humanistic, self-determining, body of individuals.

This dissertation shall be divided into 11 chapters. Chapter
I seeks to outline the problem, define terms, set limitations, and
establish goals. Chapter II is a review of the literature of change
and conflict with an emphasis on resolution techniques. Chapters
III through IX explore seven response and intervention techniques and
attempt to analyze the conditions under which such techniques might
be used. Chapter X preposes a technique of conflict resolution and
change-agent role which I term humanistic. Chapter XI is devoted to
conclusions, suggestions for research, and reflections on the value

of this dissertation work to the author.

 

9Raymond'W. Houghton, "Dimensions for the Future", To Nurture
Humaneness: Commitment for the '70's, Mary-Margaret Scobey and Grace
Graham, eds., CAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Deve10pment,
NBA, Washington, D. C., 1970), p. 235.

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Before I can examine alternative responses to conflict
situations (blockages) or before I can propose a model for humanistic
change-agentry (intervention), it seems necessary to review the
literature of conflict response and change-agentry. It is
interesting to note at the beginning of this review of literature
that my computerized search of the ERIC materials revealed only one
article which attempted to combine the concepts of humanness and
conflict. ERIC obviously does not cover all available materials,
but it does provide insight into recently funded empirical studies.
There seems to be little concern by funding agencies for solving
conflict through humanistic methods. Most of these materials are
involved in helping groups control other human beings through analysis
of psychological, sociological, technological, or economic defects
exhibited by these human beings. It was necessary to select ideas
and theories from studies primarily philosophical in order to formulate
background for a way of acting which I felt I had personally evolved
after several years of being placed, or choosing to place myself,
in positions of conflict and change-agentry in the field of
education. It has been exciting to follow the efforts of a fellow
graduate student, Robert Dunn, at Michigan State University in his
efforts to live this role and describe and analyze it for his
doctoral dissertation. None of Dunn's materials or conclusions are

15

.AH"
p
.Ju-U

..
3C...

-
i‘“‘

n t“
.c u:

.-
~)

A

-A‘~
rt :5

he].
:51

‘ v-

. i‘

‘5.”
‘
“Van

.
r...

lg..

0‘
,.

ti

 

‘

 

16
herein contained and none of my experiences, research, or theories are
contained in his dissertation. However, I suspect that a reader
would much profit by reading Dunn's accounts of his work at Walter
French Junior High School in Lansing, Michigan,while, at the same
time reading the theories I arrived at after involvement in change-
agent experiences involving conflict intervention.

Although my own experiences in education have led me to the
conclusions and recommendations I reach in the final two chapters
of this work, along the way certain writers have given me support. It
is literally impossible and probably absurd to attempt a cognent
review of the literature separately or in combinations involving the
concepts of change, conflict and confrontation, humanism, and curriculum
and instruction. The work of the National Training Laboratories (NTL),
of the University of Michigan's Center for Conflict Resolution, of the
various areas for humanistic thought and effort, of the ASCD, and of
the many separate studies of these concepts is beyond the scope of one
person. I attempt, therefore, to cite a few of the works that support
my thesis and a few which seem to be opposed to the humanistic theories
of conflict and change-agentry. In a few instances, the effort to be
humane and to plan change is combined; generally this effort fails,
and control and planning dominates the humanistic philosophy.

As I worked, over the past seven years, in this area, one
seminal influence seemed to provide a philosophical basis for my
efforts in the field and, now, in theory; that work belongs to the
sociologist Georg Simmel. Quite frankly, Simmel leaves me a bit
confused; for, although he provides me a philosophical base, often
he becomes far too cynical (to satisfy my needs) in his analysis of

human beings' ultimate motivations.

17

Simmel's work entitled Conflict presents the rationale for
my assumption that conflict is necessary to the humanistic stance,
that it is valuable to the humanist to recognize and to engage in
honest conflict and confrontation in order to achieve authenticity.
Simmel first saw conflict as an interaction, a sociation, which aims
at a peace, a resolution of the tensions which have created conflict~»
hate, envy, need, desire. Simmel saw men as achieving some unity,
or some congruence in Carl Roger's terms. Simmel said:

The individual does not attain the unity of his

personality exclusively by an exhaustive harmoni-

zation, according to logical, objective, religious,

or ethical norms, of the contents of his personality.

On the contrary, contradiction and conflict not only

precede this unity but afe operative in it at every

moment of its existence.

Simmel's vision of the unity of the individual leads me to a
like vision of the unity of the group. From this I can see that a
group must experience emotional and ideological contradiction and
conflict in order to achieve unity on a position. I have always found
conflict, often conflict which eliminated ideas rather than seeking
resolution of ideas, in such groups on their way to ”change". Simmel
spoke to the elimination of dissenting opinion in this fashion:

If we did not even have the power and the right to

rebel against tyranny, arbitrariness, moodiness,

tactlessness, we could not bear to have any relation

to people from.whose characters we thus suffer. We

would feel pushed to take desparate steps--and these,

indeed, would end the relation but do not, perhaps,
constitute 'conflict'.2

1Georg Simmel, Conflict, trans. by Kurt H. Wolff, (Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1955), p. 15.

21bid., p. 19.

(1'

50”..

 

 

11a

516 c

'7". I‘.
s.-
. ‘C

 

l8

Often, in education, we reach some point where we believe we
have improved curriculum, instruction, etc., but where we have only
eliminated, or successfully intimidated, the opposition to the change
that leadership planned. The change-agent must work to interfere with
such practice for two reasons: first, the practice of eliminating
any philosophical entity is undemocratic and, generally, inhumane;
second, changes which come about as a result of such practice are
likely to be destructive not only to those eliminated but also to
the creativity and the unique humanity of those who continue to
exist within the "changed" structure. In my introduction to this
dissertation, I mentioned a favorite theory of mine--"things that
stick out get knocked off". This theory, which is supported by
research on groups and leadership in Berelson and Steiner,3 operates
only when an authoritarian atmosphere prevails in an organization;
in a democratic, humane, organization of the type described by

4

Abraham.Maslow in Eupsychian.Management getting knocked off is not

 

one of the possibilities unless it is self-initiated. When conflict
operates along the guidelines established by humanistic theory, it
provides such "unconditional positive regard" for the conflicting
human beings, each for each, that extinction is impossible. It is
unfortunate that such extinction of dissenters takes place within

groups that contain individuals with common goals, common

 

3Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner, Human Behavior: An
Inventory of Scientific Findings, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World, Inc., 1964). Sections A2.2, p. 330; Bl, p. 331; Bl.la, p. 332;
Bluh3b, p. 335; BZ, p. 337; B2.2, p. 337; B3, pp. 338-9; C1.l, p. 34;
63'39 P. 343.

 

4Abraham H. Maslow, Eupsychian Management: A Journal,
(Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1965), p. 173.

 

l9

philosophical features. We tend to confront strangers objectively
and to hold our uniqueness in reserve in a pattern of non—judgmental
humannesss; the closer we come to touching, however, it seems the
closer we are to wronging the humanness of others. It is no accident
that our newspapers report that the greatest violence, extinction
behavior, occurs not between strangers but among members of the same
family or social group. Simmel said that:

the degeneration of a difference in convictions into

hatred and fight ordinarily occurs only when there

were essential similarities between the parties. The

(sociologically very significant) 'respect for the

enemy' is usually absent where the hositility has arisen

on the basis of previous solidarity.
Thus, we can see, if we agree with Simmel's research on conflict, that
the fact that confrontation exists demonstrates a tie to the group for
all of the factions in conflict. (The sociological phenomenon of war
does not enter into this discussion; however, I feel that even this
unique phenomenon exhibits the tendency described above. Seldom
donations enter into war without having a common ground of interest
which might be settled through some less violent form of conflict
resolution if individuals of power on all sides were to operate out of
a humanistic base rather than a base demanding dominance and
submission.)

All of Simmel's theories present a problem for the change-

agent who determines to operate out of a humanistic base. He must

see that the presence of conflict within a group is a healthy sign of

 

 

5Simmel, 22. gi£., p. 44.

6Ibid., p. 48.

20
the groups' democratic spirit; he must realize that, with the
solution of conflict which he assists to provide, the group will move
toward extended unity of purpose and establishment of customs and
rules; he must see that this same establishment of customs and rules
leads a group away from the democratic process and toward the
extinction of dissendents; and he must endeavor to encourage or to
act personally to place stress upon these same customs and laws to
provide room for further conflict which will again begin the process
of democratization and humanization. In other words, change is constant
for the sake of growth and the unblocking of a conflict leads to the
need for the unblocking of the stasis resulting from the resolution.
The process is circular, never ending.

From this we can see the "inevitability of conflict".7 From
this inevitability of conflict and the result and change, we can
determine that there is instability and "instability is proof of
something the matter, of absence, deficiency, incompleteness."8
This constant--instability—-determines the need for a person who
can live with the instant and produce models for those who are
disturbed by the unstable condition. This person may be unique in
his recognition and acceptance of the instability; in his realization
of his actualized state of authenticity, he must act. However,
realizing as he must, that no act is universally specific, he acts

as Dewey's scientific man and "experiments with this and that agency

 

7Joan Bondurant, Conflict: Violence and Nonviolence,
(Illinois: Aldine/Atherton, 1971), p. 13.

8John Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy, (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1957), p. 107.

21

applied to this and that condition until something begins to happen:
until there is, as we say, something doing. He assumes that there is
change going on all the time, that there is movement within each thing
in seeming repose; and that since the process is veiled from perception
the way to know is to bring the thing into novel circumstances until
change becomes evident."9 Dewey describes here the change~agent
acting in a creative way to examine the process and to have a personal
effect upon it to bring the process into focus for himself and others
and to confront the forces of conflict even if they are, seemingly,
the forces of stable repose. To proceed in this fashion requires a
person of a "high degree of rational control over feelings--control
that can then allow for adequate inquiry, and for the thought that
must precede the deed."10

We have, then a person in the process of reacting to something,
of having a vision of the inhumane or the inefficient and responding
to that vision. We do not have a man alone for he is, according to
Simmel, tied to the process which he examines;11 he is the most
involved party but the one who in his subjective response is able to
act with the most objective effect. This "reaction process" may be

the most important class of all conflict processes.12 This person

 

9Ibid., p. 113.
10Bondurant, _p_. gi_t_., p. 22.
11Simmel, 22, gig., pp. 26-31.

12Kenneth E. Boulding, Conflict and Defense: A General Theory,
(New York: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 24.

22
acts as an anti-entropic force for his group; without his intervention
the group deteriorates either becoming structurally stable and
repressive or unbecoming. If no intervention occurs, individuals
will seal themselves from each other and no conflict or growth will
occur.13 This person must then intervene. If he does so choose,
he must either choose a process of manipulation or he must risk
intervening as a human being who may fail, who may injure the purpose
of the group, individuals in the groups, or himself. His inter-
vention is either his responsibility to himself or it is others'
subservience to his design. He may involve himself so that he risks
change or he may involve others so that they enter his perceptual
iield as effective and growing. This is the dilemma. Some authors
advocate change-agentry tied to a solution of the problem; these
authors often cover this assumption that such a solution can be
predetermined by citing efforts at democratic processes along the
way or prior to the determination of solutions. Few authors advocate
the entry into the process without a plan, without an agenda, but
with the strength of having confidence in ability and willingness to
risk self-change. Before I can so advocate the latter style, the
planned change innovation design must be carefully examined.

In the introduction to the Planning of Change Bennis, Benne,

 

and Chin aptly expressed the predicament good people who teach, or who

help others in any way, quickly discover; they said:

 

13W. A. Rosenblith, afterward in Norbert Wiener, The Human
Q§§ of Human Beings, (New York: Avon Books, 1967), pp. 265-281.

23

The predicament we confront, then, concerns method;
methods that maximize freedom and limit as little as
possible the potentialities of growth; methods that

will realize man's dignity as well as bring into

fruition desirable social goals.

Concerning the methods of change, we can observe

two idea systems in the contemporary scene that

are directly counterposed: the law of non-inter-

vention and the law of radical intervention.

They establish their concept of "planned change” as "the
only feasible alternative to these methods",15 it is, they say,
"a method which employs social technology to help solve the
problems of society."16 The foundation of their work lies in the
"application of systematic and apprOpriate knowledge to human affairs
for the purpose of creating intelligent action and change."17 The
authors accept the responsibility for establishing a plan and an
outcome for the plan. In many of the articles contained in their
collection the authors face the possibility that the means change
the ends in the process; but it seems, to me, that this is never a
concept they might seek to disestablish, that is, they never choose
only to act without great concern for the end. Their view of
humanistic involvement includes responsibility for all that comes

from that choice; their consequences are not only their own but

are consequences they impose on others for whom they feel responsible.

 

14Warren G. Bennis; Kenneth D. Benne; and Robert Chin,
The Planning of Change, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966),
p. 2.

24

There is a kind of coercion which they recognize between change-agent
and "client system" no matter how democratic the involvement may be.18
Karl Mannheim said that he is concerned about the aspect of control
which exists in planned change. Mannheim admits that "If this
(democratic, parliamentary) control is destroyed in the effort to
establish a planned society, planning will be a disaster, not a cure"19
Yet, Mannheim continued, with the other authors in this group, to
advocate planning change even while failing to completely investigate
the stage of social technique which he termed "invention". The
concepts argued in the last chapters of this dissertation would be
seen by Mannheim as falling into his "invention" stage which he
placed, historically, as preceeding the stage of planning. Kenneth
Benne attempted to keep the methodology of planning democratic by
establishing five democratic norms, rules by which change-agents who
believe in democracy should live. These norms are:

Democratic Norm 1: The engineering of change and

the meeting of pressures on a group or organization

toward change must be collaborative.

Democratic Norm 2: The engineering of change must be
educational for the participants.

Democratic Norm 3: The engineering of change must be
experimental.

Democratic Norm 4: The engineering of change must be
task-oriented, that is, controlled by the requirements
of the problem confronted and its effective solution,
rather than oriented to the maintenance or extension
of the prestige or power of those who originate
contributions.

 

18Ibid., p. 14.

19Carl Mannheim, "Freedom under Planning", in The Planning
of Change, p. 140.

 

25

Democratic Norm 5: The engineering of change must be

anti-individualistic, yet provide for the establishment

of appropriate areas of privacy and for the development

of persons as creative units of influence in our

society.

It is obvious that Benne has given his work on change serious,
democratic, and humanistic thought. The problem seems to be in his
wanting to do too much, in his desire to see the change-agent as
collaborator with the administrator or daily problem solver of the
organization. This same thesis is echoed in the work of Ronald G.
Havelock. In A Guide to Innovation in Education, Havelock attempted
to set up an "ideal" example of how a change-agent works. Havelock
emphasized relationships with and acceptance by the "client-system".
At times Havelock seemed to find this pleasant atmosphere the key
to "successful" change. This work does not lend itself so well to
the rubric of humanism as does Benne's work. Rather, Havelock seems
to have established a guide to good administrative practice rather
than an effort to analyze what he briefly discusses as the "catalytic"
nature of the change-agent.21 Bennis, Benne, and Chin face the

problems of the emotions and the individuality of the change-agent

in their Introduction to Part Two of The Planning of Change; they

 

come quickly to the conclusion that the change-agent must "learn

 

20Kenneth D. Benne, "Democratic Ethics and Human Engineering"
in The Planning of Change, p. 142.

21Ronald G. Havelock, A Guide to Innovation in Education,
(Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge,
Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1970), p. 7.

26
to use his own feelings an "emotional apparatus"22 and that "No
cookbook can tell him exactly what idea to use".23 In other words,
the change-agent must trust his own feelings and create his own
model for intervention. How then, if we recognize the vast variables
which occur in the identity of the agent for change, can we assume
that this agent can plan for an end which results from the interplay

between his complexity and the many complexities certain to exist

within his "client system"? The authors of The Planning of Change

 

admit that:

A change-agent always encounters varying degrees of low
predictability and lack of control. Therefore the
despairs of the change-agent over the limits of his ability
to act 'scientifically' must be converted to an
acceptance of incomplete predictability as a condition
of his work. We propose that a midpoint between
unrealistic demands for predictability and control and
defeatist acceptance of the all-too-true realities

of unanticipatable consequences is the position for

the change agent to occupy. He must become a
'probability expert'.

In this tacit admission that Walden Two will never come about

 

as a result of planned change, but that its only hope is for a
totalitarian atmosphere as Skinner suggested,25 we have the failure
of the behavioral scientist to become effective in the long range

democratic planning of change. It is unlikely that, in the long run,

 

22Bennis; Benne; and Chin, 92, cit., p. 193.

23Ibid., p. 195.
241b1d., p. 7.

258. F. Skinner, Walden Two, (New York: MacMillian and
Company, 1948).

 

27

even the most behavioristic manipulation of man will be successful;
it is unfortunate that the behaviorists will have some effect on
some human persons especially in the extremely totalitarian
organizations and governments. It is equally sad that men of such
human vision and designs such as those mentioned above, including
B. F. Skinner, should devote so much of their time to efforts to
control the futures of other human beings.

What, then, is an alternative to the behavioristic-humanism
described above. First of all, we must deal with the concept of
humanism as an educational ideal. One tenet of humanism seems to
be that all persons are of value, that each human being can bring a
unique skill to a situation and that every skill has value and use
because it is of the human who offers it. If this is true, then
we cannot establish a change-agent skill as being of greater value
than an administrative skill or a skilled human acting as a minute
gear in the operation of an organization.

We might come to the conclusion that the change-agent is,
if anything, less human in his instance of change for he removes
himself from the involvement of his initial cathartic act by choosing,
from his own human experience, to effect that act upon other persons
in the hgpg of helping. We might go so far as to deny the existence
of the helping relationship as a facet of change-agentry and see,
instead, this agent acting out of his own perceptions and skills to
do what he feels must be done without hoping for a relationship
between his action and the involvement of the individual or group it
affects. The change-agent is an eclectic therapist who encounters

his clients at his will and infects them with his power and beauty,

28

but who denies to them access to him to use as a crutch. The humane
change-agent understands that the thrust of his work is to hurry
persons and their organizations toward that way which they will find
eventually without his assistance. He assumes that persons work to
their own good ends and that they will seek and find the competence
to solve their own problems. His intervention is his own need, at
times his own pain, to work for the swift evolution of that which
will come naturally. In evoking his power, he recognizes that he
will place himself in the position of being forever unable to evoke
the same power again but will change and grow so much as those he
touches change and grow. In this human relationship which begins
with a less human intervention the agent may become client and the
client agent--the existence of the conflict (the blockage) and the
decision to attempt to unblock is all. The events which alter all
concerned and the outcomes of those events cannot be determined.

Little has been written about this catalytic aspect of
change-agentry. Perhaps in the Satyagraha theory of non-violent
intervention we find the most supportive evidence that such change-
agentry can and does exist. However, prior to any discussion of
Satyagraha, the theories of praxeological change-agentry must be
discussed. The agent who chooses to intervene does so with
intelligence as well as desire and the praxeological theories of
efficiency and the theories of efficient conflict resolution can
be of use to that person who designs intervention in human processes.

As I stated above, the praxeological approach concentrates
on efficiency above all else. There are no moral, value or emotional

considerations save that they reflect an effort to provide an approach

29
most efficient to resolve the blockage perceived by the agent of
change. So basic to the praxeological approach is the science of
conflict that this science has been given its own term, agonology
(the science of struggle).26 The Polish philosopher Tadeusz
Kotarbinski is the creator of this science of struggle. Generally,
in Kotarbinski's terms,agonology employs all methods to efficiently
defend against "an enemy assumed to be, by comparison with one's
own side, richer, stronger, and less scrupulous."27 We can see how
agonology differs from the humanistic-behavioristic approaches
described earlier. In attempting to be moral, collaborative, and
public relations-oriented, the American behaviorists have made their
abilities subject to some sort of Judaic-Christian ethic which is also
the foundation of humanism, and they have seen their change-agent
designs as operating in a pseudo-democratic state even while they
face the problem of being essentially coercive in their planning of
change. This dilemma has not been solved for them as they are unable
to separate their essential emotion and western morality from their
task of change and the consequent involvement with those changed.
Agonology, on the other hand, sees only the efficient end to conflict
as important; the means are not important nor are the human beings in
the process important. In valuing the efficient end of conflict the

basic process of resolution for agonologists is one of avoidance. The

 

26Margaret Fisher, "Contrasting Approaches to Conflict” in
Conflict: Violence and Nonviolence, p. 184.

27Fisher, pp, cit., p. 193.

30

issue is not communication of needs between the strong and the weak
so that the strong, the expert behaviorists, may seek solution; rather,
it is an effort to eliminate the conflict with minimal human and
other resource costs. Given this, agonology becomes a most closed
and rigid system of conflict resolution even while being the system
most eclectic in its use of resolution response. The behaviorists,
on the other hand, become a sort of middle of the road resolution
system when they are involved in collaborative planning for change.
The behaviorists' theories might be placed in the procedural school
of conflict resolution. Kenneth Boulding, described this process of
resolution:

If the parties can neither conquer nor avoid each other,

some form of pgocedural resolution of conflict is likely.

In procedural resolution, the parties have to stay

together and live with each other; conflict, in general,

may not be resolved permanently insofar as the parties

continue to exist in contact, but particular conflicts

may be resolved simply in the sense that they come to

an end as social systems andzgre replaced by other
conflicts and other systems.

 

Boulding described three types of procedural resolution methods, all
of which would seem to describe the processes which Benne, Bennis,
Chin, Lippit, Havelock, and others advocate in their works on
planning change and innovations. Boulding said the three methods are:

l. Reconciliation-~va1ue systems of the images of the
parties so change that they now have common preferences
in a joint field;

2. Compromise--va1ue systems are not identical and the
parties have different optimum positions in the joint
field; however, each party is willing to settle for
something less than his ideal position rather than
continue the conflict.

 

zaBoulding, pp. 5333., pp. 309-310.

31

3. Award--a settlement is reached because both parties

have agreed to accept the verdict of an outside
person or agency rather than continue the conflict.29

If we assume that the effort to create change is an effort to
choose among the many options available in an educational setting we
can see how the behavioristic planning model is reflected in the three
procedural styles described by Boulding. The change-agent enters the
field in favor of a stance, usually one imposed by hierarchial
authority, and attempts to change a system toward that stance. The
system has felt conflict in moving toward any stance; the introduction
of some agent for change releases some blocking but introduces other
blocks as the agent continues through the course of the plan. The
procedural resolution which Boulding has called "award" most accurately
reflects the resolutions reached by agents with plans for change.

In both the agonological resolution methodology and the
methodology of behaviorism there is a recognition, as basic to the
theories, that there is "another"--an enemy. When we assume this
"other" exists to be defeated efficiently, to be avoided so that our
designs prevail absolutely, or to be changed by some dominance of
expertise or power, we demonstrate a value that denies the equality,
the humanness, of that "other". Such methods do not belong in a
humane or in a democratic society; they may very well fit in a
society dedicated to powerful action for efficient purposes or a
society involved in the production of goods which must be consumed

quickly so that more goods can be produced. These two societies are

 

29Ibid.,

32

often one; Ivan Illich sees them as the same society and as the
establishment of all Western schooling.30

There are other methods of conflict resolution for change.
One of the most important is the Satyagraha ("adherence to truth")
philOSOphy of Gandhi. Before discussing this theory, it is necessary
to note that it came about much like the praxeological theories did,
as a result of the weak attempting to defeat the strong. It has,
however, the flavor of the East and the flavor removes it from the
Western design for efficiency and capitalistic consumption of goods;
it is less involved with economics than are the other two theories
discussed above.

Kenneth E. Boulding in Conflict and Defense: A General Theory
presented Satyagraha as a alternative to the avoidance, conquest,
and procedural forms of conflict resolution. He said that Satyagraha
"assumes that the enemy is not merely another, to be crushed or
excluded from the society, but is part of the same social system

as the defenders."31

The guerilla writings of Mao support his belief
in this concept when he says "let one hundred flowers bloom." Too
often, as in Mao's case, the flowers are tended by a gardener who

sees one kind of bloom as more productive than another and, although

there may be no enemy to be crushed or excluded, there are persons or

 

30Ivan Illich, [eschooling Society, (New York: Harper and Row,
1970), pp. 1-24.

31Boulding, 22, 935,, p. 336.

33

groups which need re-education, this re-education often takes the
form, at worst, of agonology and, at best, of the Western behaviorists.
Gandhi, in his emphasis on non-violence intended something more
humanistic than does Mao; still, it is important to understand that
Gandhi's theories developed as a reaction to a position of relative
powerlessness in dealing with the conflicts in his society controlled
as it was by those he did consider "others".

Gandhi saw that the existing laws were not only "rules of the
game of economic and political competition. They are also a means of
running the game, if some of the players can, as in fact they do,

32 The law becomes the situation which is the

write the laws".
blocking force, the basic conflict; the law and the society which
creates the law then must be the focus of the change-agent's efforts.
The change-agent finds himself in a very odd position if he is a
member of that society as well as the one who has chosen to change

the society. The word "chosen" is important here because the
individual change-agent recognizes the likelihood of personal defeat
when he chooses, as Gandhi did, to oppose a more powerful force without
violence and without destruction or compromise. Some other resolutions
than avoidance, destruction, or procedural agreement must occur as a
result of his change strategy. He cannot avoid the conflict; he is

of it. He cannot destroy the more powerful entity; it is interwoven

into the fabric of his existence and the existence of all he values.

 

32H. L. Nieburg, "The Threat of Violence and Social Change",
in Conflict: Violence and Nonviolence, p. 80.

 

34
He cannot make procedural deals, for those lessen his vision and
subvert the society by dividing it. He must act in a way that
encourages his opponent to grow and to change toward a vision of
unity so different to the existing circumstance as to be revolutionary
not evolutionary. Joan Bondurant in her article "Creative Conflict
and the Limits of Symbolic Violence", described Gandhi's Satyagraha
as "a means which potentially: (a) embraces a method of inquiry,
(b) uses pressure but contains it, (c) focuses upon problemrsolving
rather than problem-creating. It is essentially a method for effecting
change, and, when applied vigorously, it safeguards, and does not
threaten, basic values."33 Bondurant continued to discuss the
objectives of Satyagraha and said that the primary objective of
Satyagraha is "the constructive transforming of relationships in a
manner which not only effects change (such as a change of policy)
but also assures the restructuring of the situation which led to
conflict. This calls for a modification of attitudes and requires
fulfillment of the significant needs of all parties originally in
conflict."34 This introduces an element not essential to the other
theories of conflict resolution discussed above; here there is no
change-agent apart from the conflict, called in as a consultant by
a system, but a change-agent who is a part of the process. This is
very unlike the theories of change of the behaviorists who, even in
their most collaborative musings, project upon the conflict some person

whose skills and designs are just what is needed. Satyagraha also

 

33Joan Bondurant, "Creative Conflict and the Limits of Symbolic
Violence" in Conflict: Violence and Nonviolence, p. 122.

34Ibid., p. 124.

35

gives us a person who is, himself, likely to be modified. It is
not a procedural plan which bears the pressure of change and
compromise; it is the initial agent himself. This theory is different
from agonology in proposing that the issue in conflict resolution is
not winning or neutralizing the dominant party in the conflict but
the issue lies in the changing human attitudes and the "restructuring
of the situation which led to conflict".35 Margaret W. Fisher in
"Contrasting Approaches to Conflict" saw the process of developing
a theory of conflict adequate to our times as centering "upon the
basic kind of ethical consideration that, in holding that power lay
in pursuing and asserting truth, led to the development of
Satyagraha".36

We see in Satyagraha, then, an effort beyond one man or one
group's designs for the "good". Yet, we see an effort by man, with
a vision of the "good" to struggle to place that vision before those
in power, to melt and to influence the prevailing vision, and to
become a part of a larger truth apparent to everyone. All of these
requirements seem to point to the initiator of such efforts of
resolution as being the authentic person, the self-actualized man
that the humanistic psychologists describe. Indeed Joan Bondurant's
description of the Satyagrahi (one who uses Satyagraha) is pretty
much in keeping with the descriptions we read in Maslow, Rogers,
Allport,‘Moustakas, Jourard and others who have influenced the

humanistic viewpoint in psychology. Bondurant said the Satyagrahi

 

35K; Sathanam, Satygggaha and the State, (India: Asia
Publishing House, 1960), p. 14.

36Fisher, 22, gi£., p. 200.

36

"develops an interacting force with the Opponent to produce a new
movement in order to change the direction or even the content of
the force thus generated. The opponent is engaged in a manner
intended to transform the relationships into a form or pattern which
could not earlier have been predicted with any precision. The
subtleties of response from the opponent are channeled back into
the Satyagrahi's movement and these responding pressures are given
the maxinum Opportunity to influence subsequent procedures, and even
the content of the Satyagrahi's own claim and objectives.“37

Bondurant, and other Western writers, have gone along a

slightly less metaphysical path than.Gandhi's followers. K. Santhanam

in his monograph entitled Satyagraha and the State called the methods

 

of Satyagraha three dimensional embodying love, truth, and non-

violence.38

The Western commentators neglect the concept of love

and tend to translate it into some sort of respect for the enemy

or loyal opposition concept. Santhanam saw the change-agent, the
satyagrahi, as working within the societal structure to give good
example, propaganda, and non-violent direct action to that society;
the satyagrahi perverts Gandhi's theory when he indulges in the
symbolic violence of demonstrations, fasts, and direct actions. "The
satyagrahic methods of opposition to evil and injustice may be

broadly classified as non-cooPeration, refusal, and resistance", said

Santhanam.39 Santhanam went on to question even non-violent resistance

 

37Bondurant, gp. cit., p. 123.
38Santanam, 22, cit., p. 14.

391b1d., p. 15.

37

and saw a great danger in such action violating the doctrine of truth
expounded by Gandhi which "does not permit anyone to assume that his
own conception of truth is superior to that of any other."l'0

Gandhi saw his change-agent, the satyagrahi, as being above
the state. He saw the acquisition of property as theft. He despised
the technology of the West and often spoke passionately on the beauty
of rural civilization and the greatness of the spinning wheel. He
saw railroads and factories as evils; evils he could not avoid. He
favored the traditional so far as to believe that sons should follow

their fathers in trade.41 Gandhi's ideal satyagrahi is the "sthitha-

pragna" (man of perfect understanding) as described in the last portion

of the second chapter of the Bhagavad Cite. This has been summarized
by Sri C. Rajagopalachari in the following words:

The good man does the tasks to which he is called and
which appertain to his place in society. In all his
activities, he does things like others outwardly; but
inwardly he maintains a spirit of detachment. He does
everything without selfish motive, and maintains
equilibrium of mind in success and failure, pleasure
and pain, joy and sorrow. Purified thus, the good man ‘
is qualified for further progress by constant meditation,
prayer and devotion, and finally he sees himself in
everything and everything in God. YOGA consists in
living this dedicated life in the midst of worldly
affairs.42

From this description we can make a connection between the satyagrahi
and the self-actualized agent of change. Yet, we can also determine

that they are not identical. The self-actualized agent of change is

 

401b1d., p. 17.
411b1d., pp. 20-24.

421b1d., pp. 12-13

38
the man of the Bhagavad Cita's description and he is the satyagrahi;
but he is also a man of the modern world, a man who is selfish and
powerful in his unselfishness and humility. He is a man who employs
the efficiency of struggle of the agronologists, the careful personal
planning and personal structures of the behaviorists; he is a man of
humanistic vision and collaboration; and he is a man of truth, love,
and essential nonrviolence. Above all, he is actualized and he
recognizes and utilizes this state in those peak moments when he calls
upon himself to be an agent of change.

There may be no way to bring a person to the point where he
decides he is actualized. Abraham Maslow, in Toward a ngcholggyfiof
Being, led me to believe that such a state cannot be striven for nor
can it be denied; he agreed, I believe, with Lao-Tzu in feeling that
"the way to do, is be" Maslow said:

To the extent that we try to master the environment or

be effective with it, to that extent do we cut the

possibility of full, objective, detached, non-interfering

cognition. Only if we let it be, can.we perceive fully.

.Again, to cite psychotherapeutic experience, the more

eager we are to make a diagnosis and a plan of action,

the less helpful do we become. The more eager we are to

cure, the longer it takes. Every psychiatric researcher

has to learn not to try to cure, not to be impatient. 3

And yet, we know that actualized persons do emerge with the
appropriate skills to deal with the situations in which they find
themselves. If we propose an actualized agent of change in curriculmm

and instructional practice and if that agent of change perceives, as

I do, that unblockage of conflict is his primary purpose then it is

 

43Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, (New Jersey:
D. Van Nostrand Company, 1962), p. 173.

39

important to examine in an agronological/praxeological efficiency of
struggle model, in a model utilizing the planning format, and in a
model emphasizing aspects of conflict that involve loving, truthful,
violence and non-violence, those conflict response patterns which we
identify as existing in education, particularly in the area of
education known as curriculum and instruction. The following seven
short chapters are modifications of conflict response patterns that
were identified by William Houston who worked with me as a research

44 I have added

fellow in values at Southern Illinois University.

my own examples, discussion, and conclusions to his identifications.
Chapter X presents a view of the actualized change-agent, his

modes of operation, and his effects of change. As I stated in

Chapter I, the model of Self Intervention presented in.Chapter X

presents a transcendent view of conflict intervention which

constitutes a great cognitive leap from the previous seven models.

Self Intervention attempts to include the previous models in a vision

of change-agentry which unifies agent and client as one and which seeks

intervention which is selfish and unselfish in its connection to

other human beings. In this model, doing and being are unified in

the taoistic sense. Therefore, the reader may wish to view'Chapter

X not as a model like the seven presented previously but as a model

separate from.the format and the thrust of the others. The final

chapter is a personal statement about the effect of this work has had

 

44William Houston, "Laboratory for Handling Disruptive
Behavior", (unpublished papers in NEXTEP Research Fellowship,
Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois, 1967-1968).

40
on me and some conclusions concerning the value of research in this

model of change-agentry.

CHAPTER III

THE NEUTRAL NON-MODEL INTERVENTION IN

CONFLICT BLOCKAGE

In moving from.one end of the continuum of intervention process
which demonstrates authoritarian methodology to another which demon-
strates less direct, more humane, democratic methodology, it is
necessary first to consider resolution strategy which may be chosen,
in a praxetelian sense, by an agent perceiving a blockage but
which may represent no philosophy at all. The concept of neutral
intervention is a difficult one to grasp; it is, however, not to be
confused with non-judgmental intervention. Non-judgmental intervention
is best seen as the open effort to clarify. The reader might do well
to contrast the non-model presented here with the model of clarifi-
cation of values, etc., presented in Chapter IX.

Neutral response to perceived blockage does not involve intent
to unblock on the part of the person who identifies with the change-
agentry function. Yet, when such a person, because of past involvement,
status, or ability recognized by the blocked forces in conflict as
having potential for relieving the stressful situation, refuses to
participate or intervene to cause relief, the consequences of this
course of action may have results more powerful than an active

course would have.

41

42
A neutral response to a perceived blockage has been defined
as "a verbal response, action, manner, or gesture in which no intent

is implied".1

Criteria for identifying such a response is:

l. the response does not support, reprove, or direct

action against either side in a blocked conflict
situation;

2. the response consists primarily of ignoring the expressed

needs and the behavior of the blocked parties;

3. no attention is given to the affective behavior of the

blocked parties;

4. the response avoids informational input of any kind which

might assist the blocked parties.

The outcome of such a response cannot be safely predicted as
there are occasions where the blocked parties do not recognize the
agent's presence or do not recognize the situationto be blocked as
the agent has perceived it to be. Nevertheless, not to respond is to
respond; it has been my experience that the effects of such non-action
are negative for all parties concerned and tend to be even more
negative for the agent and for his future effectiveness as a inter-
ventionist.

Generally speaking, the agent, because of his past influence,
will be looked to by the parties in conflict for assistance and

intervention to lead to unblocking the conflict. When such aid is not

 

'Houston, 22. cit.

43
forthcoming, the anger of the conflicting elements unable to reach
resolution is likely to turn, in unity, on the neutral force. Thus,
one product of a change-agent's neutrality is to unify, temporarily,
forces in conflict and to redirect their anger toward the neutral
interventionist. This is not to say that such a ploy is successful
generally in unblocking a conflict situation; it is to say that
persons recognized as possessing qualities needed by a group will be
rejected, at least emotionally, if efforts are not made to give those
qualities to the group.

What we have, then, in terms of an intervention model (non-
model) is a presentation of the individual agent as a part of the
group or recognized as essential to the group who has, for some
reason unknown to the conflicting elements of the group, chosen, at
a point perceived by most group members to be vital to the success of
the group, to respond without emotion or cognition. This response is
self-alienating. The reaction of the others in the group will be to
assist the perceived change-agent in achieving the alienation he has
requested by remaining neutral. A11 sides in the conflict will act
to punish the agent and to seek some other force to unblock the
situation. This is to say that groups do naturally work to seek
resolution and forces of intervention to relieve blockage. What occurs
in the neutral response is to effect the emergence of a previously
unrecognized person of ability to unblock, to intervene.

It is necessary to clarify here the assumption I have made
that the reader acknowledges the change-agent designation to include
all persons or sub-groups who so act in this capacity and not just a

single individual. However, it has been a personal experience of mine

44
that the change function or responsibility is that of a lone individual
in a group for any given situation and that the change function often
is forced upon the same individual deSpite his capacity to unblock any
given conflict situation. The emergence of a new agent is a
phenomenon not sought or anticipated by either the recognized agent
or the conflicting parties.

It might be argued that a neutral response by a very saphis-
ticated agent might have the purpose of his retiring as the agent in
the group and the purpose of assisting the group in its search for
new leadership for conflict resolution. This theory simply ignores
the definition of neutrality and it smacks more of a neurotic ego
involvement on the part of the change-agent than it does of an effort
to help. Such an action would be primarily directive in nature as
the agent's past role would be intensified by his ability to create
new agents. This seems to go beyond the actualized self of the agent
and into some sort of blocking conflicting experience where the
agent enters the conflict with an added block in order to participate
in the chaos. Such an effort would seem to have a totally negative
effect upon an already negative situation. Such an action mdght occur,
but it would seem to signal the dissolution of a personality and a
skill recognized by others to be healthy and helpful. One considers
King Lear's confusion and his essential neutrality as he acts to give
away power and to retain it at the same time; the process not only
turns Lear, the agent of change as perceived by his daughters and
his subjects, insane but also essentially destroys the lives and goals

of the parties in conflict whom'Lear might have helped with another

45
kind of resolution response. Even innocent parties outside the
struggle are injured by such indecision which so decides.

How might we graphically envision the intervention response
(non-response) which we have called neutrality? We must deal with
several elements:

1. a group as a whole;

2. conflicting elements of the group blocking group progress

by being in conflict;

3. the element of the group perceived as an agent of

intervention and change;

4. the agent's neutrality;

5. the response to the neutrality when it is recognized by

the group;

6. the reaction to this unhelpful stance; and

7. the search for new agents to unblock the conflict.

Figure 3.1

A.
} Parties in conflict

C The perceived linking,
changing, intervening force.

 

 

A B Directions for total group
movement perceived by A & B.

&_a-r--J

The Total Group

T C The agent, reflects a neutral

.. response.
< Aé«:.C.;-’IB . >

 

 

46

A & B redirect their antagonism and
A B .
reject C.

 

 

__ A & B present elements for new
A in Of B change and dissolution of
conflict and blockage

 

 

B >>, A & B adopt previous stance to
await intervention by
emergent change-agent D.

 

 

This model is seen only as one operative in a blocked/conflict
situation. In no way can this situation bear resemblance to the
concept of "trainerless" groups proposed by Jack R. Gibb in T-Group
and Laboratory Method. Gibb said that: "Trainerless groups are
optimally effective when significant norm-inducing activities occur

in the total training community that produces a participative and

47
supportive climate for provisional learning. As the educational
literature indicates, trainerless groups in other educational climates
are often notably unsuccessful."2 Gibb supported our thesis that
skilled interventionists may contribute to the problems of the group
when their decision to act or to be neutral is not helpful.3

Nor is the model of neutral response to be confused with
theories of organization and management calling for more trusting,
open, participative involvement by leadership. The neutral response
is not an effort to become one with the problem and is not an
effort by the perceived agent to more completely share the
interventionist function. Such participative leadership and
intervention will be demonstrated in Chapter X.

It might also be argued that the interventionist's general
response is a non-directive or Taoist response which presents the
agent as purposefully passive or stupid to the situation. There is
more purpose in each of these non-actions than there is in neutrality.
Alan W. Watts gave us some insight into these theories--and their
sameness-~when he said:

The way of liberation.is the way down and out'; it is

taking, as water does, the course of least resistance;

it is by becoming stupid and rejecting the refinements

of learning; it is by becoming inert and drifting like

a leaf on the wind. What is really being said is that

intelligence solves problems by seeking the greatest4
simplicity and the least expenditure of effort . . .

 

2Jack R. Gibb, "Climate for Trust Formation" in T-Group Theory
and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-Education, edited by Leland P.
Bradford, Jack R. Gibb, Kenneth D. Benne, (New YOrk: John.Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1964). p. 299.

 

3Ibid., p. 300.

éAlan‘W. Watts, Psychotherapy East and West, (New York: New
American Library, 1961), p. 65.

48

The style of the Taoist reflects a humane, yet praxeological
approach. There is nothing either humane or efficient in the model
of the neutral response presented above. We can observe, then, in
this first model seen as possible for the unblocking agent, that the
models are labels for complex sets of actions which may be devised
by the change-agents or perceived by the parties affected by the
agent's intervention, as efforts different from the rubric which
might be immediately applied by an outside observer. The analysis of
a set of actions which successfully unblock a situation in conflict
is extremely difficult; for this reason this non-model and the set of
six models in the following chapters are presented more as models of
intervention in an immediate sense for an agent's consideration for
planning than they are presented as total movements in a successful
effort to seek resolution. Chapter X presents a more total
action-oriented philosophy for the change process of unblocking a

conflict.

CHAPTER IV
STATUS QUO SUPPORTIVE

An alternative response, that might be seen as coercive and
tending toward the authoritarian end of the response continuums is a
change-agent's response that tends to argue for the support of the
status quo, or, to use a word in vogue, the establishment. Such a
response is not one made on the basis of the issues involved in the
blocked and conflictive situation but is, rather, one which considers
only a perceived necessity to keep the organization unthreatened.
Although a lone agent of change might choose to make such a response
at some time, a pattern of status quo responses would seem to identify
a person whose role was that of continuing administrative leadership
where ideas and personal values are so often compromised in an effort
to achieve conflict resolution. In a group which was not cohesive,
where leadership had not been strong, and where group values had not
been established, the change-agent's response might be an appeal for
a return to previous structure or for a creation of structure. These
responses, however, do not fall under the "status quo" rubric
established here; rather, they would be seen as more direct actions
or problem-solving elements designed to lead a chaotic situation to
some solid ground, efforts to direct new organization.

Before providing examples and a model of the "status quo
supportive" response, it is necessary to provide a clear definition

49

50
of the response as was done for the "neutral" response pattern
identified in Chapter III. The definition of an intervention response
which supports the status quo or the establishment is: a verbal or
nondverbal response that has as its purpose the justification of
leadership's action in the conflict and a plea to all group members

1 Some crucial criteria for the.identification of

for cooperation.
such a response must include the following:

1. membership of the conflicting sides perceive the inter-
vention as emanating from a hierarchial position as apposed
to a position of participatory membership in the total
group or a position seen by the blocked, conflicting,
sub-groups as a change-agent position;

2. the interventionist himself views the intervention as an
effort to support the established views of leadership in
opposition to some dissendent sub-group;

3. the intervention has an element of justification of a
position held by those who have held leadership; the
intervention does not only attempt to unblock in favor of
established power but it also justifies the power;

4. the intervention and the agent initiating the "unblocking"
seeks to enforce a policy that has been viewed by some
sub-group as negative;

5. no effort is made to placate or to arbitrate the conflict;
the effort is coercive in the extreme and dissipates the

power of the sub-group if successful.

 

1Houston, _p, gig.

51

On the continuum which sees the possible intervention styles
as moving from coercive and authoritarian toward clarifying and
participatively democratic, the "status quo" response is at once
the most coercive and the most authoritarian approach possible. Yet
it is one often used especially where large groups (school systems,
industry, government, etc.) establish intermediaries to dull the
protests of the minorities within the larger group. Seldom does the
perception of change-agent or interventionist enter into the planning
of either the established leadership or the oppressed and complaining
sub-group. The response is predicated on the ability of the
leadership of the establishment to "sell" their interventionist to the
sub-group as a person who represents all interests in the conflict.
Perhaps the greatest example of this in schools in the United States
is the ombudsman office created by the establishment, supported and
staffed by the establishment, and effective only if the establishment
allows it to be. Elsewhere, the ombudsman has been a viable force
growing from a participating community; in schools in the United
States the idea has been effectively subverted to the ends of the
establishment.

Perhaps the best brief discussion of the type of society which
most often produces the "status quo" response is presented by
Hannah Arendt in her volume On Violence. Arendt distinguished the
direct action of the tyrant from the Status Quo supportive action

of the bureaucrat. She said:

52

Bureaucracy is the form of government in.which

everybody is deprived of political freedom of the

power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-

rule, and where all are equglly powerless we have

a tyranny without a tyrant.

Arendt helps us see the difference between the neutral
response ("no-rule") by a perceived interventionist and the response
which supports a status quo where no persons can be identified but
a hierarchy does indeed exist and does coerce sub-groups into
submission to policy without reasonable discourse. Arendt also
adds a clarification to the end of the intervention continuum we
draw in these chapters when she notes the dehumanization of the
bureaucracy and the lack of direction for action. One recalls the
frustration of trying to discover the reasons behind the school rules
which were so frustrating to us as children and the "answers" so often
given by the harried teacher or principal who could only plea for
obedience to rules from somewhere else which made also little sense
to him; one recalls, and still sees, the "regular" bathroom times of
the day and the "times" when we sing, read, or play. Arendt quoted
Jens Litten, a German student, when she supplied the term praxisent
zug ("the suspension of action")3 to the action taken by bureaucracies
to control foreward movement, change, or unblocking interventions.
Arendt also makes us aware of how close we are to violence when.we

demand obedience to a depersonalized hierarchy; not the violence which

comes out of the anger at being ignored which occurs in the

 

2Hannah Arendt, On Violence, (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and
World Inc., 1969), p. 81.

31bid., p. 81.

53

neutral response discussed in Chapter III but the violence of
revolution, of physical destruction not frustration. An appeal to a
sub-group in conflict to subvert its own needs for the irrational
needs of the depersonalized bureaucracy is an appeal to human beings
to deny their emotions. Such an appeal to the "rational" is
irrational itself. Arendt said that "to cure man of them (rage and
violent emotions) would mean nothing less than to dehumanize or
emasculate him".4 Arendt saw this effort to dehumanize when one
provides interventions in behalf of the bureaucratic establishment;
she said: ". . . the greater the bureaucratization of public life,
the greater will be the attraction of violence. In a fully developed
bureaucracy there is nobody left to whom one can present grievances,
on whom.the pressures of power can be exerted".5

We have, then, a response which supports the established
power not identifiable persons, a response which denies emotions
as a viable part of the group process, and a response which is no
response at all but, rather, a restatement of previous policy. In
short, a response that is authoritarian and coersive in the extreme.
Yet, we do have a process occurring which does involve thought and
persons acting toward some goal; we have more of an unblocking model
of conflict intervention than we have in the nonrmodel of neutral
response presented in Chapter III.

Kenneth Boulding provided us with a definition of an

authoritarian epistemological process in Conflict and Defense: A

 

 

4Ibid., p. 64.

51bid., p. 81.

54

General Theggy. This definition presents a vision of the bureaucracy

and the inability of interventions made in support of the established

order.

Boulding said:

In the authoritarian process, the image and the
inference are stable, the image is sacred and not
to be touched, and the authority is supposed to be
capable of drawing the right inferences so that
revisions can be made only in the perception of the
message. If the message conforms to expectations,
this of course confirms the image. If the message
does not conform to expectations, the message is
rejected as false.

Such an image and such a message to support the image is

unlikely to support change, even change supportive of the eventual

survival of the establishment. Bureaucracies, Status Quo Supportive

operations, contain within them the seeds of their eventual destruction.

The eventuality in the process, however, is destructive of the human

beings and their immediate needs. JOhn.Dewey in Reconstruction in

 

Philosophy noted this effect when he wrote:

and

Where there is change there is of necessity numerical
plurality, multiplicity, and from variety comes
Opposition, strife. Change is alteration, or 'othering'
and this means diversity. Diversity means division, and
division means two sides and their conflict.7

The tendency to treat organization as an end in itself
is responsible for all the exaggerated theories in which

 

 

55

individuals are subordinated to some institution to

which is given the noble name of society. Society is

the process of associating in such ways that experiences,

ideas, gmotions, values are transmitted and made

common.

In dealing specifically with an intervention by a change-agent
to unblock a conflict situation in education with the effect of
supporting the status quo, one must deal not only with the negative
aspects, the coercive, authoritarian aspects, of supporting what is
likely to be a bureaucracy; but one must also deal with an essential
reblocking of the learning process as the product and the order of
the establishment always tends to control the individual's progress
toward his own goals. For this reason, the present concepts of state
assessment of schools, educating persons with a wide variety of goals
and past achievements, must be viewed as a fine example of a change-
agent intervention which tends to be supportive of the purpose of the
establishment to control the product; we must also view the
intervention of state assessment as an intervention which in no way
deals with human beings' learning but deals only with the establishment's
need to provide rationale for its own existence and worth. Yet, no
tyrant, no human needing to control others, is necessarily behind the
creation of such change/intervention movements. The bureaucracy

creates men to support it. Dewey also responded to this particular

educational example of status quo intervention when he said:

 

81bid., pp. 206-207.

56

Acquisition of skill, possession of knowledge,

attainment of culture are not ends: they are morals

of growth and means to its continuing.
and

The idea of education as preparation and of adulthood

as a fixed limit 06 growth are two sides of the same

obnoxious untruth.

And, yet, the Status Quo Supportive response is one used almost
as much in determining (not—determining) future actions as the neutral
(non-involvement, non-commitment) response. We seem to operate,
within this democratic state, as if we did not care or as if we
only cared for womb-like protection from ourselves.

Elements which might be necessary to be present to identify an
intervention which is Status QUO Supportive are:

1. the group as a whole--not divided clearly but with an

indicated place of dissent;

2. an element of the group perceived, established, as an
instrument of intervention and change;

3. a graphic demonstration of the dissent being re-subsummed
into the organizational paradigm or being rejected from
the whole;

4. a vision of the re-established whole.

These elements are presented graphically in the next four

illustrations:

 

91bid., p. 185.

57

Figure 4.1

The Status Quo Supportive Intervention

d

A Status quo
B The wedge of dissent

C Established interventionist,
ombudsman, agent of unblockage

influence
action

 

B Options:

1. To remove or be removed
from.the group

2. To re-think dissent, to
become re-educated, to
re-cant, to be re-cycled

The status quo exists as before-
untouched by the dissent or by the
intervention.

58

The intervention in favor of the status quo tends to eliminate
opposition; it can have the effect of eliminating dissenting factions
or re-educating them so subtly as to cause no growth of opposing
outside forces and to leave no infection inside the organism, the
establishment. This is not the medical paradigm of diagnosis and
prescription which will be mentioned in Chapter VII on problem
solving for there is no healing aspect involved, no attention given
to the dissent other than recognition. Rather this response is much
closer to the neutral response than to any other. As Alan DeWitt
Button has written in The Authentic Child: "'Come let us reason
together,’ like so many bromides, sounds fine and may even be
effective in making us think, for a while that we are reasoning.
But what actually happens is the imposition of the stronger set of

values and prejudice upon the weaker set."10

The next response, and
those following, begin to recognize emotional contexts in dealing
with human beings as individuals or groups; the Status Quo Supportive
response does not recognize anything more than an irritation to be
removed or solved.

The Status Quo Supportive response belongs on the continuum
because it does involve action of some sort, involvement as it were.
In this way it differs from the non-model of neutral response presented

in Chapter III. It differs from the model of Depreciation in

Chapter V because there is no affective recognition, even negative,

 

1oAlan DeWitt Button, The Authentic Child, (Boston: Random
House, 1969), p. 40.

59
of the dissenting, conflicting, parties and there is no recognition

of the other party as a valid entity.

CHAPTER V
DEPRECIATION

A different problem is faced in attempting to present a model
of depreciating or reproving response than was faced in Chapters III
or IV. In those chapters the difficulty of the model was in
demonstrating how a non-response or a response essentially ignoring
persons in the process could be responses at all; they might be better
modeled in terms of avoidance of conflict or blockage rather than in
the terms of intervention or change of blocked/conflictual situations.
Yet, in their own way, they do envision a reaction to conflict that
must be noted. The problem in presenting responses which recognize
the emotional context of blocked communications or interactions is
one of placing a process on paper. It might suffice to discuss the
singular, non-interpersonal, responses of Chapters III and IV; but
interaction of emotion and idea almost requires a script to provide
examples. Script analysis is unweildly in this attempt to provide
brief models to exemplify the praxeological options available to the
agent of intervention. Therefore, some extensive'reference to works
of other authors is more in keeping with the process of the next
five chapters than it was necessary to the models of the last two.

A response that intends to punish, to mock, to denigrate a
conflicting party is one which does not recognize his humanity, his
personal value, even while it is one that reflects emotion and
extended attention to the threat the individual, or the group, presents

60

61

to the dominant force. Although we no longer deal exactly with the
anomhimity of the bureaucracy as we did with the Status Quo response,
we are forced to deal with a response in which the interventionist
does not respect or investigate the intellectual or emotional dissent
of the lesser party. The conflict reflects, as it did in the Status
Quo response, a dominant group unwilling to allow a sub-group to
participate or to change. Here, at least, the coercive/authoritarian
continuum reflects a real and recognized threat of change and the
conflict is perceived as a blockage to the larger group's line of
progress. The product of the sub-group is evaluated by the established
agent of change and is seen as disruptive or negative in the process.
The process of conflict is not valued by the interventionist, and
his effort is to unblock the process of the larger group not to
consider both processes as one. A definition of such a depreciating
response is: “A verbal response, action, manner or gesture that
contains reproof or hierarchial disapproval of the dissenting group
and which seeks to dissipate dissent through the force of negative
propaganda."1

Essentially an Ad Hominem response, for it argues against the
existence rather than with the facts or emotions of the conflict, the
depreciating response has the positive effect of recognition of the
dissenting party even while having the negative effect of attempting
to lessen the self of those individuals who dissent. In such
responses to the threat of minority opinion and needs, we place all

of the words of prejudice toward peace, religion, and so on that

 

1Houston, pp, cit.

62

have characterized man's inhumanity to man throughout the ages. The

crucial criteria for such a response is:

1.

the response has the purpose of declaring the displeasure
of power with the dissent;

the response really or subtly indicates behavior which
must be corrected by the dissenter;

the response contains a threat to the assumed freedom

of the dissenter;

the interventionist making the response views the inter-
vention as an effort to support the more powerful group;
the intervention has an element of justification of a
position held by those who have power; the intervention
does not only attempt to unblock in favor of established
leadership but it also justifies the power of that
leadership;

the intervention and the agent initiating the "unblocking"
seeks to enforce a policy that has been viewed by some sub-
group as negative;

no effort is made to placate or to arbitrate the conflict
(on the contrary, an effort is made to antagonize which is
authoritarian and coercive in its effect of denegating the
opposition in the vision of the majority);

there may be no relationship between the blocked situation,
the conflict, and the intervention (in fact, one effect is
to lessen the stress of the blockage by creating other,

more negatively emotional, areas of conflict so that the

63
dissenter is forced to defend aspects of his person which
he had not considered a part of the conflict).

Once again, the choice of this option on the part of an
intervention agent has the effect of identifying that agent as a
part of the establishment and as a tool for the coercion, manipulation,
of minority dissenting parties. The transaction here seems to
employ a child strategy of denigration to effectively eliminate the
adult strategy of considered confrontation by previously loyal parts
of the system; it may, however, be incorrect to label such a strategy
"child like" when it is one which is used so often in the workings of
government, business, and education. Obviously, no matter what
psychological label is attached to this interventionist response, the
outcome is to disestablish the intellectual, emotional, human bonds
which might have grown stronger and more organizationally healthful
if encouraged and explored.

Clark.Moustakas in Creativity and Conformity spoke of;the
value of Open disagreement in the classroom when he said: "In the
classroom confrontation, the child must have the right to be in
disagreement with his teacher. Paradoxical as this seems, when persons
can openly disagree, it is possible for them to establish genuine
bonds."2 Yet, the tendency even.among leaders who characterize
themselves as responsive and democratic, is not to trust that such
bonds will be established through the natural processes of dissent

and affection but to attempt at the very best to structure such

 

2Clark Moustakas, Creativity and Conformity, (New York:
Van Nostrand-Rineholt, 1967), p. 46.

64

relationships, to manipulate toward "good" interpersonal effectiveness,
and to attack dissenters who fail to move toward the good and human
ends devised by the established power. All of these actions, of
course, reprove and depreciate the dissenter. The depreciating
response, however, holds no desire to aid the dissenter in moving
toward a positive re-education in the eyes of leadership; but this
reaponse simply attacks, giving the dissenter the choice of defending
other areas than the one he was concerned with or of joining the

fold after having been chastised.

The depreciating reSponse is at once more human and more
violent than either of the responses discussed in Chapters III and IV.
Chalmers Johnson writing in Revolutionary Chang; gave us insight
into the nature of such responses when he said that "we may define
violence as action that deliberately or unintentionally disorients the
behavior of others. Violence is either behavior which is impossible
for others to orient themselves to or behavior which is deliberately
intended to prevent orientation and the development of stable
expectations with regard to it".3 Thus, the disorientation of the
dissenters is an act of violence; their attention has been turned
away from the problem they identified for the group and must focus
on the personal aSpects of the interventionist's attack which not
only depreciates them personally but disorients their confrontation.

Such a response may well unblock a conflict situation and lead to

 

3Chalmers Johnson, Revolutionary Changg, (Boston: Little
Brown and Company, 1966), p. 8.

 

65

resolution for the established group. It also will not produce such
a violent reaction as the Neutral response or possible withdrawal as
did the Status Quo response. It does, through the human recognition
of the dissent, dehumanize the process of the dissenting group; it
does do violence to those persons who dissent by disorienting their
purposeful drive and by presenting them.with authority's rebuke for
their existence as less able, less desirable, members of the larger
group.

Such a depreciating response to a blocked situation will have
the eventual effect of strengthening a new dissident group who has
learned the tactic by observation of leadership or by the sad
experience of members of the new group. The concept of strength in
this new group may be misleading to the reader; strength here is the
ability to manipulate the situation to one's own ends. Thus, when
the larger group demonstrates its violence in putting down rebellion,
new conflict situations may see the use of such violent and
denegrating tactics by members previously supportive of the larger
group. Georg Simmel clarified this possibility for us when he said:

. . . the degeneration of a difference in convictions

into hatred and fight ordinarily occurs only when there

were essential, original similarities between the

parties. The (sociologically very significant) 'respect

for the enemy' is usually absent where the hostility

has arisen on the basis of previous solidarity.

and

 

H-

('Simmel, gp. c c., p. 48.

66

. . . all customary norms are related to one another

through solidary interdependence, since the violation

of a sgngle one weakens the principle and thus every

other.

The larger group, once again as with the previous responses,
sows the seeds of its own eventual destruction by engaging in
destructive behavior toward its own members. The elimination of
the blockage, the resolution, is not a viable end as the means (the
real ends) have determined the future destruction of the group.
Eventually, because of the successful defeat of a dissident group
through violent or negative action, the larger group will face a
variety of conflict situations and be forced to deal with them.
Simmel said: ". . . if one finds oneself against a diffuse multitude
of enemies, one gains more often particular victories, but has
great difficulties in achieving decisive actions which definitely
fix the mutual relationship of the forces."6 In other words, coercive
action by perceived leadership will lead to a non-growthful and
chaotic organization where the whole focus of leadership is the
attempted supression of conflict which seems to emerge from more and
more directions as the organization ages.

However, agents of change do act in ways which reprove or
depreciate groups in conflict with the larger group's goals. Persons
seen as intervention agents to unblock conflict do accept the role

of attack agent for leadership. One has a vision of the change-agent

described by Ronald G. Havelock in A Guide to Innovation in Educggion

 

51bid., p. 95.

6Ibid., p. 91.

67
be aggressive and angry is formed in all self-actualized people, who
are able to let it flow forth freely when the external situation
'calls for' it."8 Such anger is purposeful but it cannot be used as
a reproof to another human.

The elements necessary to distinguish a depreciating response

from.a response from an agent such as Maslow envisions are:

l. the depreciating response is a strategy used by an inter-
ventionist who represents authority and who seeks to
disorient the dissenting minority elements by means of ad
hominem attack (the agent is therefore seen as belonging
to the larger portion of the group);

2. the agent's attack is upon the dissenting minority but
it does not deal with the issue blocked in conflict but
rather with other aspects of the dissenting group or
individual;

3. the desired, and violent, effect is to disrupt the
dissenting group and dissipate their purposeful confron-
tation;

4. the end result envisions a group whole again with the
members of the dissenting group disorganized and lessened;

5. a consequence of such polarization by violence is to
educate other groups in the process of attack and dissent

(the final figures demonstrate the emergence of new

 

8AbrahamH. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, (Princeton,
New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962), p. 183.

68
as a person who does not act with any growthful intent but acts to
injure or to disorient what he, or his collaborators, perceive to be
disruptive elements in the organization. Intent is the all important
concept here for prodding and clarifying may be interventions which
anger another human being; reproof also angers but it seems to have
a different intent. Havelock's description of the catalyst change-
agent has more the tone of an agent of reproof or depreciation than
one assisting in the other's growth. Havelock said (and his
introductory statement here is philosophy enough to assure the negative
tone):

Most of the time most people do not want change; they

want to keep things the way they are even when outsiders

know that change is required. For that reason some

change agents are needed just to overcome this inertia,

to prod and pressure the system to be less complacent and

to start working on its serious problems.

The "system” might read human beings. The "outsider" might
read agents of authority. "Prod" here reads coerce. Havelock's
change-agent is designed, throughout his work, to be a servant of the
majority. The change-agent model proposed in Chapter X is of an
agent who seeks to intervene and who may see his intervention to
unblock the essence of the situation as opposed to Havelock's concept
of support of generalized majority goals even while acting as an
outside agent to prod the organization and the persons in it.

Abraham Maslow pointed out the difference between prodding for self

and being used as a prod to others. He said that "the ability to

 

7Havelock, pp. 345., p. 7.

69
groups of dissent and the efforts required to contain the

groups which turn the larger group from its wholeness, its

purpose).

A The larger group

B The dissenters blocking the
larger group's progress

C The intervention agent repre-
senting the larger group's
goals

C's plan of reproof, depreciation,
symbolic or real violence to the
body of B but not to the area of
conflict between.A and B

B--dissenting group B1’2’3’4
sub-groups created as a result of
reproof, depreciation, symbolic
or real violence.

B1’2’3’4 are new elements of dissent
which have new conflicts with A

and new members but who have learned
C's tactics to disrupt A. The
larger group has educated the
smaller group to violence, symbolic
or real.

 

Figure 5.1

The Depreciating Intervention

CHAPTER VI

DIRECTION

In an intervention style which remains more toward the
authoritarian end of the continuum than not we find the change-agent
unblocking forces, which he perceives to be in conflict and which have
turned to him, by giving directions of some kind or by advocating some
path of investigation or right action which will lead toward an outcome
advantageous to all but conforming, more or less, to the expectations
of the majority with whom the change-agent identifies. The inter-
vention response is made toward the blockage as opposed to reacting
to the blockage by supporting the Status Quo (Chapter IV) or by
attacking a party deviating from the established design (Chapter V);
the problem is important to the interventionist here. The effect of
this response to the blocked situation may be to cause essential
change in the structure of the controlling or majority factors in the
total system in conflict. Such was not the effort in any of the
three intervention responses described in the preceding three chapters.

Because this response deals with the unblocking of a
situation and with the future change Of organizational structure (or
individual personality, etc.) this response has many sub-groups which
are too numerous to delineate in this thesis. Rather, let the reader
expand the examples given and construct appropriate analogies wherever
the reader observes an agent operating in this fashion. It is my

Opinion that much of what goes on in the industry, the society, and

70

71

the schooling of the Western world falls into this intervention model
at best or into the three previously described models at worst. All
of these processes of intervention may have human use for human good,
but the emphasis placed on the first four response models to conflict
situations is extreme. Over the past seven years, various colleagues
and I have questioned educators regarding their responses to perceived
conflict or blocked communication; approximately three-quarters of

all those tested responded by using one of these four models (Chapters
III through VI) or by utilizing combination response patterns which
emphasized these models in the extreme.

Before going further, it is necessary to provide a beginning
definition for this very broad response model. The definition of an
intervention response whidh gives direction or which advocates a
path of investigation toward solution of the conflict is: a leadership
response to perceived conflict or blockage which calls upon a recognized
change-agent to effect unblockage either by direction or by intro-

duction of a planned course Of action or investigation.1

The planned
course Of action or investigation may call for collaborative planning
and interpersonal relationships among all humans involved in the
process; however, the cognitions and affect of persons involved are
seen as necessary to the solution of an organizational problem.rather
than of real importance in and of themselves. At all times the
planning or direction toward solution is the force which guides the

change-agent in his work with others involved. Some crucial criteria

for the identification of such a response must include the following:

 

1Houston, pp. cit.

72

the forces in conflict perceive a need for removal of the
blockage which keeps them from resolving their differences
or the interventionist is accepted as an arbitrator of
the conflict;

the interventionist either perceives a solution not only
to the blockage but to the issues which he is capable of
providing by direction or perceives that the parties
blocked are able to collaboratively develop with his
leadership a plan of action or investigation which leads
to unblocking the conflict and to reaching problem
solutions;

the parties in conflict are perceived by the interven-
tionist as part of a whole system rather than isolated
groups and the interventionist works to direct or to
institute a plan which Operates for the whole rather than
a part or a hierarchy;

most often, the interventionist works from status quo
premises but toward unblockage and problem solution which
may modify the status quo;

effort to placate and to arbitrate the conflict is made
or the entities in conflict are directed toward
cooperative efforts;

the interventionist effort is less coercive than in the
three previous models but assumes rational and organiza-
tional solution as a result of unblocking the conflict;
the interventionist is more likely to be an outside agent
agreed upon by the blocked entities in this model than he

is in the three previous models;

73

8. the interventionist often acts in a reward-punishment

situation to effect control of the process and to

eliminate or to placate persons deviating from the plan

or directed change.

Perhaps the most coercive of direction models is that of the

King or the God. .As this symbol is placed apart from the group but is
essential to it, a "divine right" syndrome is in operation and the
persons in conflict are given commands or are forced to obey laws
without opportunity for questioning or for clarification. This
differs from the coercive support of the interventionist for the
Status Quo and is seen as being less violent as the directions presented
are Often kindly and are most often accepted by those in conflict as
being desirable solutions to the blockage. This is the extreme hierar-
chial position where the interventionist is the absolute leader and
where it is virtually unthinkable to question the intervention.
Modern societies and organizations tend to reject intervention by
such absolutes but they also tend to recreate such absolutes within
their structures. Parents, especially males, have been seen in such
a relationship to their families in the Western world for a long
time; only recently have such relationships in the family been seriously
questioned in the United States. In education, as the schooling of
children moved further and further away from.dependency on an
establishment which was God's and toward a loose governmental structure,
the concept of in locus parentis appeared. The leadership-teachers,
administrators, adults-of the schools have assumed for some time the
right to absolute direction of children. This concept is also being
challenged and suggestions and applications for removal of this

hierarchy and absolute dictatorship are being accepted.

74

Less directive are the aims of the syndrome best represented
by science in the medical profession. The diagnosis-prescriptive
medical syndrome has begun to take the place of accepted direction
without diagnosis. It is my Opinion that this syndrome is equally
directive and that we have now changed only the name of the direction
from God, King, Parent, or Teacher to Scientist. It is also my conten-
tion that this medical syndrome is too simplistic and too emergency/
sickness oriented to have value as more than a minor tool in education.

Most representative of this new direction is B.F. Skinner
who has devoted his life to the establishment of a society and an
educational establishment which could best dictate the growth,
functioning, control, and happiness of human beings. It is significant
that much of the work which constitutes "proof" for the behavioral
psychologists has been done to animals in laboratories or under
controlled conditions. There is much to be learned about efficiency
and planning from these scientists, but there is much which is patently
coercive and hierarchial in the mode of the old gods and kings. B. F.
Skinner has attempted to defend his behavioristic psychology by
demonstrating that human beings are absolutely environmentally
controlled and unable to transcend environmental influence, that man
must accept the influence of environment and plan to shape himself
toward greater knowledge and management, that the individual must be
subject to the control of the group through his environment, and that
self-expression is selfish and harmful not only to the individual but

to the society.

Skinner has found all human interaction manipulative and

directing. He has found the more permissive social organizations and

75

the more autonomous person examples of either perfect controls
accepted or ineffective efforts to manipulate leaving the group or the
individual lost and eventually seeking more effective controls for
more purposeful direction. Skinner discussed change in Beyond
Freedom and Digpity:

It is a surprising fact that those who object most
violently to the manipulation of behavior nevertheless
make the most vigorous efforts to manipulate minds.
Eventually freedom and dignity are threatened only when
behavior is changed by physically changing the
environment. There appears to be no threat when the
states of mind said to be responsible for behavior

are changed, presumably because autonomous man
possesses miraculous powers which enable him to

yield or resist.

and

Up to a point the literature of freedom and dignity

have played a part in the slow and erratic alleviation

of aversive features of the human environment,

including the aversive features used in intentional

control. But they have formulatedthe task in such a way

that they cannot now accept the fact that all control is

exerted by the environment and proceed to the design

of better environments rather than of better men.3
It is exciting for the humanist to note that Skinner goes so far as
to admit the possibility of "aversive features used in international
control". However, Skinner immediately returns to the need for such
intentional controls of the environment and the denial of autonomous
man. He remains clearly at the direction intervention stage and will
do no less than advocate his reality that all human action, emotion,

and thought are of that stage. In one more example of the Skinner

direction model, Skinner wrote in the unlikely, for Skinner, periodical

 

2B. F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, (New York: Bantam/
Vintage, 1971), p. 86.

31bid., p. 77.

76

entitled New Humanist and said in an argument which might be applied
to the final model of my thesis in Chapter X as a ploy of devil's
advocacy for the statements in that chapter:

What we feel when we have feelings and what we Observe
through introspection are nothing more than a rather
miscellaneous set of collateral products or by-products
of the environmental conditions to which behavior is
related. (We do not act because we feel like acting,
for example; we act ppp feel like acting for a common
reason to be sought in our environmental history.)

Do I mean to say that Plato never discovered the mind?
Or that Acquinas, Descartes, Locke and Kant were
preoccupied with incidental, often irrelevant, by-
products Of human behavior? Or that the mental laws

of psysiological psychologists like Wundt, or the stream
of consciousness of William James, or the mental
apparatus of Sigmund Freud have no useful place in the
understanding of human behavior? Yes, I do. And I
put the matter strongly because, if we are to solve
the problems that face us in the world today, this
concern for mental life must no longer divert our
attention from the environmen a1 conditions of which
human behavior is a function.

Yet, despite Skinner's dedication to control one feels that he is not
so much a coercive and manipulative person as a person who has lost
faith in man's ability to individually transcend the environment;
much of what he wishes for man is healthy and growthful in essence.
I do not perceive Skinner's direction to be as de-humanizing as
Neutrality (Chapter 111), Status Quo Supportive (Chapter IV), Depreciation
(Chapter V), or the god-king-parent-teacher-scientist absolutism which
preceeded this brief look at the behaviorism of Skinner.

Rather, Skinner provides a half-way stance between the divine
right of authority and the concepts of benevolent and collaborative

control advocated by self-styled humanists and planners of "Innovation"

 

4B. F. Skinner, "Humanism and Behaviorism", New Humanist, Vol.
88, No. 9, (London, January, 1973), p. 356.

 

saic

H37 l

cal

77

in human structures. Foremost among these are the writers on planned
change in education: Bennis, Benne, Chin, Lippitt, Havelock, Bradford
and Gibb to name a few. These authors emphasize the collaborative,
participative, nature of the intervention process. Rather than
designing an end and directing the means as a true behaviorist might,
they are careful to work with the persons, especially the hierarchy,
in the process as a means of making what often is a pre-determined
and seem more palpable and, therefore, more successful to the
individual and his group.

Ronald Havelock writing in A Guide to Innovation in Education
said:

. . We have found that most practicing change agents

organize their work and their thinking about innovation

of specific projects in which they are involved, projects

which have a defined beginning and an end and a sequential

history.5
Havelock rejected the behaviorist S-R response and suggested what he
called a rational problem-solving model which the reader might do well
to contrast with a less coercive problem-solving model, presented in
Chapter VII. Havelock stated with a stimulus in his model but
"subdivides the responsive 'activity' into four steps: (1) a decision
to do something, (2) an active attempt to define what the problem is,

(3) a search for potential solutions, (4) an application of one or more

potential solutions to see if it will satisfy the need."6 To accomplish

 

SHaVBIOCk, 22. SEE.’ p, 4.

61b1do, Po 5.

78

these responsive activities, Havelock identified the person Of change-
agent, a human who may act in three primary ways: catalyst, solution
giver, and process helper. Havelock virtually ignored the solution
giver which Skinner might emphasize and he seems not to experientially
understand the concept of catalyst, which will be examined in Chapter
X of this thesis; Havelock's model is based on the change-agent
as "process helper". What Havelock meant by this is that the
interventionist, change-agent, is primarily a "how to" guy and,
as Havelock said, that's what his book is all about. But, more than
a "how to" guy, Havelock's change-agent comes across as a public
relations expert; more than a collaborative helper, he comes across
as a pleaser and a subtle manipulater. Havelock said: "The first
task of the change-agent is to establish contact and build a
relationship with the peOpleizhe wants to help."7 Havelock went on
to emphasize this first step by saying: "While innovation is
generally difficult it can become impossible if there is a bad
relationship between the change agent and his client."8 Havelock
completed his emphasis on the acceptance of the change-agent and
on the change-agent's conforming and pleasing role when he stated:

. . . the outsider who initiates change would do well

to enlist the inside support of some member who both

understands the client system and is familiar with the

change process. Preferably, this insider would be

someone within the system, eigher as a leader, an
influential, or a gatekeeper.

 

71bid., p. 11.
8Ibid., p. 39.

92%., P0 51-

79

Havelock, and those who identify with the science of change-
agentry as it is now generally defined in educational circles, tends
to disassociate with the behavioralism of Skinner and, yet, to cling
to a behavioristic stance modified primarily by the concept of
collaborative planning which is, in the long run, little more than
a weakened and benevolent Skinnerism. Bennis, Benne, and Chin in
The Planning of Changp supported Havelock when they said:

. . we view collaboration as a necessary ingredient

of the planned change concept. It is necessary not

only because it generates the necessary trust that

facilitiates the collection and interpretation of

meaningful data, but also because the positive aspects

of the relationship quo relationship are vitally

necessary in order to overcome some of the strong

fears of and resistance to change in the client

system. 0
According to these authors, collaboration is a technique designed to
weaken the Opposing force; this would seem to pervert the humanistically
cooperative stance so much as to place this part of the intervention
model of Direction more in the model of Status Quo intervention
described in Chapter IV. The need to coerce here is, in my opinion,
less human and less honest than is Skinner's model. Indeed, the
authors of The Planning Of Change begin to admit the coercive nature
of their model when they said: "A relationship between a change-agent
and client cannot be truly 'permissive', 'totally democratic', and
so on. A kind of coercion is present, a coercion hopefully in the

"11

service Of liberation . One is reminded Of nothing so much

 

10Bennis; Benne; Chin, pp. cit., p. 13.

111b1d., p. 14.

ast

1'11:

su;

be:

to!
bv
co:
pa

be

P1

:‘SIH

80

as the slogan from the Viet Nam.War--"we were forced to destroy the
village in order to liberate it."

And yet in the movement toward T-Group change effort one of
these same authors, Kenneth Benne, examined, with fellow authors
Bradford and Gibb in their work entitled T-Group Theory and Laboratogy
Method, the nature of trainerless, participative, groups versus the
nature of trainer, persuasive, groups and determined that, in a
supportive and participative total community, the trainerless groups
become more productive, more trusting, more encouraging of diversity,
more creative, and more leaderful.12 It is not quite so easy to
totally condemn the pioneer efforts in the planning Of change made
by these men and others. Although they are basically behavioristically/
control oriented, their work has made efforts to transcend scientific
paradigms and to explore varieties of self-direction and actualization
beyond Skinner's vision of man and environment. Perhaps these aspects
of the 'sensitivity" group work and the leaderless support groups
better belong in a discussion of the interventionist models entitled
Person Supportive and Clarifying which are examined in Chapters VIII
and IX.

Finally, in discussing the very complex model I have entitled
Direction, a new aspect of direction and planning for change must be
briefly mentioned. There is some doubt that the aspect of machine
controlled change or unblockage of conflict can be safely subsummed

under this rubric of Direction. It may be that the human and individual

 

12Leland P. Bradford; Jack R. Gibbs, and Kenneth D. Benne, (eds.),
T-Group Theory and Lpboratory Method: Innovation in Re-Education,
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964), pp. 294-299.

81

intention controls the machine model as well as other intervention
models. I would hope this is true for then the machine does not control
man. However, at the present time, the use of machines to arbitrate
disputes, to unblock humans in conflict, to gather influencing data,

or to provide emotional, intellectual, and physical feedback to
individuals or groups, seems so controlled by hierarchy and so

godlike and absolute in application that I feel it best belongs as

a part of the model of direction.

First of all, the systems approach to decision-making is a
branch of the earlier planned change model of Direction. The system
approach has taken many turns but it is most often associated with
the data gathering and analysis skills of the computer. It is
frightening to note that this approach was originally necessitated
by and designed for modern.warfare--the violent interventions which
have been purposely avoided in this thesis--and that this approach led
to such successful recent adventures in actual violence as the Viet
Nam War and in the symbolic violence symbolized by the Watergate
scandals of the systems prone Nixon administration. Yet, educators
seem dedicated to introducing this planning device to learning in
the guise of greater individual instruction, greater space utilization,
greater responsive and participative planning. This may be a useful
tool for education, but the proof of its value is yet to be presented

with a balance sheet outlining its destructive contributions to

humanity. One useful text in discovering the broad applications the

 

82

system approach to education may have is New Look at Education by
John Pfeiffer.13

Beyond the actual use of the computer, education is experiencing
a whole host of experimental models Of machine induced direction which
are given value by way of education's concern for the medical diagnosis
and prescription mode. Even free spirits in educational circles
advocate hardware for audio-visual "approaches" to learning and
examine the use Of Alpha-biofeedback machines to assist in strengthening
the creative, comtemplative spirit in learners. Given the worship

for machinery that we in the United States have, it is impossible to

 

evaluate such use of hardware or systems approaches in terms of long- SJ
run effectiveness as intervention strategies or models. It may well
be that the effective and human use of machines will present the
least coercive model; for now, I feel it belongs in the model of
Direction toward planned solution or investigation. 4

It is necessary to look at the necessary elements of an
intervention model of Direction. This is the most complex, if not the
most abstract, model to be presented in this dissertation. It is
complex because, although Direction is most often seen as belonging
to the more authoritarian end of a freedom continuum, it is a more
human, and often a more humane, intervention than the others described
previously in this dissertation. This model, along with the model
of problem-solving presented in Chapter VII, is a transition model
from the coercive/control end Of the continuum.to the more open and

autonomous models presented later. And, this is the last model where

 

13John Pfeiffer, New Look at Education: Systems Analysis in
Our Schools and Colleges, (New YOrk: The Odyssey Press, 1968).

' - I
. 'I.
th“

83

the concept of the interventionist as a specialist representing

recognized conflict unblocking talents is apparent. The elements

of this model of Direction are:

1.

 

the group as a whole but with areas of dissent or
blockage;

an outside interventionist or an insider separate for the
time of unblocking from the total group;

either a model Of direction by the agent unblocking the
conflict or a model of the agent modifying the structure
through collaborative effort;

the desired effect is to reshape the form or direction

of the total group.
Figure 6.1

Direction by Fiat

The structure of the original
system or its direction

Entities (A,B,C) from system emerge
and are involved in blocked,
conflict, relationship. Dotted
lines represent areas of tentative
relationship and continued
direction/structure

 

84

 

Change agent (E) gives directions

and elements must come together for
the health of each entity. The change
agent is either totally from outside
or is removed from the system to
perform the direction function. No
feedback to E is necessary for
directed change

Entities come together to represent
a new structure or new goals. New
structure represents E's analysis
of needs, structure and direction

Figure 6.2

Direction by Collaborative Planning for Change

 

The structure Of the original
system or its direction

Entities (A,B,C) from system emerge
and are involved in blocked, conflict,
relationship. Dotted lines represent
areas of tentative relationship and
continued direction/structure.

 

’

’l’72-“\\\ Entities examine areas Of relation-
I
I

ship and collaborate with the change-
I

7
,, ' agent (E) in order to determine new
@ ______ ‘1 __ structure and direction. ----- Each
I
I

-_—

F: B entity not only examines relation-

“\ ships in blocked situation but also

gives feedback to central planner.

The whole returns reshaped and
with new direction as a result of
collaborative planning

v

Figure 6.1 may be seen to represent the divine right of absolute
direction sometimes transferred to human beings as a result of their
hierarchial or traditionally dominant positions with relationship to
the structures with which they are associated. This concept also
essentially represents the diagnostic-prescriptive medical model
wherein the patient has a sickness and the doctor solves the problem
'without his prescription being scrutinized by the patient. Extreme
behavioristic science might advocate such arbitrary and non-human
manipulation of environment.

Figure 6.2 may be seen to represent a direction model but one
where the unblocking agent is not entirely godlike but purports
responsibility to the entities in conflict and demonstrates a desire
to collaborate with the entities in order to reach an agreed

new structure and direction. Feedback lines exist but are less vital

86

than the lines of direction which emanate from the intervening party.
The image for those originally blocked is seen as more representative
of their original desires but, in reality, the needs which caused
blocked communications and conflict have not been met have been
compromised.

Figure 6.2 can also graphically demonstrate the effect of
machine intervention in human conflict for the machine is only partially

responsive and primarily directive.

CHAPTER VII

CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

There is an Obvious and natural connection between the system
mentioned in Chapter VI and the Creative Problem Solving model of
this chapter. In many instances the essential mechanism of problem
solving is identical to the mechanics involved in the more directive
models of Chapter VI. The major distinction between these two general
models--Direction and Creative Problem.Solving--is the emphasis the
latter places on the person involved in the process of unblocking.
Interventions described in the last chapter reflect a greater desire
for convergence of structure, thought, and emotion; the whole design,
for example, of the benevolent behaviorists of collaborative planning
in Chapter V1 is to bring the individual or the conflicting entities
back together. The interventionist seeks to unblock primarily to
establish a plan for solution and unity.

Although unity may be an alternative which is considered by
the interventionist who utilizes a Creative Problem Solving model,
the emphasis is a.divergent thinking with the goal of creative
unblocking not for the sake, necessarily, of creating a unity but
for the sake of freeing human beings to move toward the solution(s)
most ideal for them. There may be, at the end of this unblocking
intervention, a division Of whatever previous unity existed prior
to the conflict and blockage.

87

88

The freedom continuum, then, has been moved along past the
middle line and into the area where organization and consensus
becomes less important than the individual and his autonomous decision-
making. It is precisely at this point where most modern organizations
and most definitions Of change-agentry for intervention in conflict
are left. Yet, it is my belief that it is at this point and even
further into the next three models that one arrives at the essence
of change-agentry, at its actualized state. This is not to say that
the models described previously contain no value. It is to say
that they are used far too often and this model and others to follow
are ignored because they concentrate on individuality, divergence,
emotion, and intuition as opposed to the emphasis on organization
for structure's sake, convergence, cognition, and quanitative
evaluation of the four models we have already outlined.

There are many definitions for the Creative Problem-Solving
processes discovered by various schools involved in this generalized
model. The definition which seems to best fit our concentration on
conflict blockage through intervention by a change-agent is this one:
The intervention has as its goal the restructuring of conflict
situations in order to redirect divergent movements by all concerned
toward greater cognitive and emotional growth in ways best suited
to the individuals involved as opposed to outcomes which might
recreate a previously established group or organization.

Some crucial criteria for an intervention determined to be
problem solving and creative would be:

1. the interventionist chooses to intervene in a conflict

blockage perceived by the interventionist;

89

2. the interventionist presents certain creative problem
solving strategies which are accepted and participated in
by parties in conflict.

3. no outcome other than unblocking each individual's
creative potential is sought;

4. no individual or group goal or structure is held in
greater value by the interventionist than any other;

5. there is no coercion to involve any party with group
decision although a subtle coercion to act rationally and
to move creatively toward a more healthy state may be
noted as essential to the intervention process initiated;

6. in the process the interventionist becomes one of the
participants and may release himself to change;

7. in the process, new interventionists may emerge to create
better models for solution or further unblocking;

8. the interventionist's role becomes one of initiator based
on original perception and becomes fluid not static as a
coercive/control interventionist might be;

9. the outcome is not necessarily an efficient structure for
production but may be efficient and personalized for
individual creative growth.

This is a new role for the interventionist; a role that is more
immediate, less likely to be permanent and less likely to control the
outcome of the intervention. It is also a role that is more difficult
to accept in the Western world. To be powerful and creative and to
learn to be content with those moments when your power and creativity

are useful to the group is not generally in keeping with the competitive

90
and hierarchial world we know and understand. The world created by
this model--and moved even further away from the other models by the
three models to follow--is a world of trust and interpersonal risk.
It is not a model for secure outcome. It is not a model where change
can be easily predicted and controlled. MOreover it is a model of
learning for all involved as opposed to the past models where teacher
(intervention agent) and learner (parties in conflict) are role
divided.

There are few formal organizations which apply this model to
resolve conflict. One hears of certain aspects of the model being
applied at the executive levels or in the creative communications
industries; however, the model is most often applied for cognitive
expansion and not for structural change or emotional unblocking.
Before presenting my effort to demonstrate graphically this model,
clarification would, perhaps, be helpful to the reader. Process has
been of greater importance to Creative Problem Solving than has been
the writing in the field. Yet, limited as the linear field of this
dissertation is, I believe some light can be shed by referring to
certain efforts to define Creative Problem Solving.

Arnold Toynbee commented on the need, in United States education,
for emphasis on creative problem-solving when he said:

. . . if America is to reassure and foster all the

creative ability she has in her, a new and right

spirit Of change has to be injected into her

educational philosophy. The rather rigid egaliterian

models Of educational selection and treatment, which

seem to me to be tenaciously held by the affluent
majority of American peOple, will, I should press, have

91

to be refashioned to include the creative talents
of the coming generations.l

Brainstorming, the best known sub-model of Creative Problem
Solving, was first called organized ideation in 1938 when it was
developed by Alex Osborn in the business world. The concept can be
traced back to Hindu teachers who used the method with religious
groups.2 Osborn supported Toynbee's analysis for the need for such
creative models in the organizations of our society when he said:
"Civilization is the product of creative thinking."3

Osborn went on to analyze the inventions of man and to cite the
role ingenuity has played in developing a new country. Osborn, however,
felt that as a country grows more structured, formal efforts to open
creativity to all the people must be made. It is time, he said, to
reach out for imaginative exercises and not to expect them to exist

4 There is structure here and even

within the natural environment.
connection to the purposeful behaviorism of the followers of Skinner.
Yet, Osborn came from the ranks of competitive business and did not

represent the most creative use of the Creative Problem Solving models.

 

1Taken from a letter to Calvin W. Taylor, Professor at the
University of Utah, from Arnold Toynbee, April 18, 1968.

2Quoted from paper NEXTEP #77, and #78 by Sarah Sowell,
Southern Illinois University, 1967. (mimeographed).

3Alex Osborn, Applied Imagination, (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1963), p. 2.

 

4Ibid., p. 2, S8.

92
Calvin W. Taylor presented a vision of creativity beyond the
structure of organization use when he said:

Imitative processes are not the same as creative
processes. Nor are the good learner and the
creative producer necessarily the same person,
because receiving and reproducing existing
knowledge-knowledge that someone else has earlier
produced--is a different psychological process
frombthinkingandproducing something new of your
own.

Taylor went on:

all this leads to the conclusion that what is needed

in education is not just more of the same. In other

words, we want students to be not merely learners

but also thinkers; not only memorizers and imitators

but also searchers and innovators; not merely scholars

of past knowledge but also producers of new

knowledge . . .

Robert Eberle, who was most responsible for introducing me
to understanding the field work in Creative Problem Solving, has
identified forces in education which resist the development of
creative imagination. He listed these forces in Scppper, his recent
short book of creative games for imagination development; Eberle said
these are the forces which are organized to stamp out creative
imagination:

Pressuring children to conform may very well be

the major cause for the inhibition of creative-

imaginative expression.

Activities selected and goals set by adults,

standardized home and school routines, controls
exercised by clubs and organizations, and

 

SCalvin W. Taylor, "Creativity--What Is It?", AC'CENT ON TALENT,
Vol. 1, NO. 1, (September, 1966), p. l.

 

6Ibid., pp. 1-2.

93

inflexible school curricula are examples of the
repressing society in which the child lives.

Domination by others and the threat of retaliation

serve to choke off creative-imaginative response.

To be told: 'That's a stupid idea.‘ or 'Why don't

you grow up and act your age?‘ destroys feelings of

self-worth and effectively blocks creative imagination.

Imaginative thought and expression requires playing

around with ideas, toying with possibilities, and

roaming around in the world of make believe. The

non-acceptance of play attitudes, particularly in

association with school pork, establishes a rigid,

restrictive environment.

It can be seen, then, that the Creative Problem-Solving model
serves to connect us with the model Of Direction in that the exercises
and definitions created by Osborn can be made to serve the purposes of
an existing organization; however, workers in the field of education,
such as Taylor, Eberle, Gowan, Torance, Williams, Suchman, Rogge,
and others, have seen the problem-solving efforts as a move toward
individual creative growth and even, in Eberle's definitions, as
opposed to the structure of the established school system.

Once again, we have a model so complex and diverse in
definition as to defy exact placement on a continuum ranging from
disinterest to coercion/control to individual cognitive and emotional
freedom. Because the Creative Problem Solving model does involve itself
so much with exercises and strategies, it seems to allow for less

individuality than Eberle would like; and it seems to involve

structures, while not coercive and absolutely controling which do tend

 

7Robert F. Eberle, SCAMPER: Gges for Imagination DevelOpment,
(New York: D. O. K. Publishers, 1971), pp. 8-9.

94
to organize human behavior in an effort to free human creativity. Even
Eberle, in the directions to his games in SCAMPER, recognized the
necessity for leadership--"It takes at least two to Scamper, a child
of three or older, and a young adult Of any age. The adult, as game
leader, may serve an individual child or a group numbering up to
about thirty-five."8 And although Eberle recognized the need of the
leader "to entertain extravagant and unrestrained ideas"9 and to
change honestly, the leader remains the leader.

In some ways, my vision of the Creative Problem Solving
model for intervention goes beyond the writers on creativity in that,
ultimately, I envision the leader melting into the process and new
leadership emerging. I am, however, not dealing with the variables
of age, intellect, previous structures of those involved, etc., but
am concerned with the generality of presenting a skeleton of
intervention with creative problem solving into a blocked conflict
situation as perceived by an individual who has skills in the areas
of creativity and problem solving and who chooses to intervene.

It is certainly beyond the scOpe of this thesis to delve
into all the possible literature on creativity or problem solving.
The purpose is to present a series of options which might be chosen
by an interventionist. To that end and to preserve the continuity of

the continuum, the model presented in this chapter must not only

 

81bid., p. 15.

9Ibid.

95

reflect my vision but must also reflect less autonomous visions Of

the creative problem solving strategies. The distinguishing,

skeletal, elements Of such a model are:

1.

the Creative Problem-Solving intervention is a strategy
used by a person, with specific skills, who perceives a
blocked and conflict situation and who chooses to attempt
to unblock by introducing the entities in conflict to
strategies which will allow for creative unblocking;

no party in conflict is under attack;

no directions are given and no plans for solution are
developed by the interventionist;

the desired effect for the interventionist is the
participation of blocked parties in a creative and
problem-solving atmosphere;

the interventionist may: (1) introduce the strategy and
act as resource; (2) introduce the strategy and withdraw,
(3) introduce the strategy and participate completely;
the interventionist's Opening strategy, if successful, may
lead to continuing introduction of creative problem solving
episodes by all involved;

the result of such encouragement of divergent solution-
making may not be a unified group; rather than working
toward a return to or restructuring of the original
system, smaller systems may develop and new conflicts may
be brought into the open for solution by the methods

introduced originally by the agent Of intervention.

96

In order to present graphically the possibilities Of the
Creative Problem Solving Model, it is necessary to demonstrate in
three separate illustrations the range from Osborn's original
production model which is so closely related to the model of Direction
in Chapter VI to the standard leader--involved model which belongs
to the writers in education on creative problem solving and, finally,
to Figure 7.2 which presents a model of emergent interventionist in
Creative Problem Solving which can act as a transition model toward

the less structured models of Chapters VIII and IX.

Figure 7.1

Individuals or entities (A,B,C)
within a common system (D) have

an area of conflict or blockage (X)
An interventionist E who is involved
with A,B,C, within the system (D)
perceives the blockage (--)9 and
initiates, with the agreement of
A,B,C, Creative Problem Solving
Strategies.

 

As a result of these strategies,

the entities A,B,C, are unblocked.
The nature of the previous relation-
ship is changed with A,B, growing
(for example) closer and being
cooperative and C parting struc-
turally. From A,B, and even
altering the nature of the larger
organization D. The interventionist
E remains essentially untouched by
his involvement. All are pleased
with the outcome. The result is
individually creative and does not
divide the productive system but
alters it creatively for greater

 

97

production. This illustration
attempts to present a model much
like that used in business and
first created by Osborne. The
effect is similar to the effect
illustrated in the final model of
Chapter VI save that the inter-
ventionist is a part of the system
altered (D).

Figure 7.2

A Sub-Model Of Creative Problem Solving Most Used
in Educational Strategies. The Leader
Exists as Leader but Subjects Himself to Change

 

Within the system D exists individuals

or entities A,B,C,E,G, blocked in growth
or in conflict (--)9. The interventionist
E chooses to introduce a Creative Problem
Solving Model to intervene and to remove
blocked areas. The interventionist E is
recognized as a leader but may be a part
of the blocked group A,B,C,E,F,G. He
participates actively and honestly in

the creative unblocking.

As a result of the creative effort all
parties may alter their structure and
direction. The leader E may change even
while retaining recognized leadership.

The system D may be altered. Alternatives
may include decision to leave system D to
form.new system H. System H would then be
a separate entity or might contain
elements Of A,B,C,D,E,F,G. There, is, in
this sub-model, the element of involved
leadership which changes but retains some
influence for future intervention. This
also is the first illustration where a
newly creative and communicating (--))
force H is the positive result of inter-
vention. This illustration attempts to
depict the classic stance of educators

in utilization of creative problem
solving.

98

Figure 7.3

A Sub-Mbdel of Creative Problem Solving with an Emergent
and Changing Leadership Totally and Equally
Involved in Change

Within a generalized common system D,
exist communicating elements ABCEFCH.
Aspects of relationships are blocked

and there is conflict among these

equal parties. Some entities are
directly conflicting (////); others
reflect growth apart and do not touch.
Equal entity E chooses to intervene with
a creative problem solving strategy.

 

As a result of E's intervention, the
conflict is unblocked and the structures
and directions of ABCDEFCH are all
redirected to the satisfaction of each.
Alteration is made in the original system
D. Possibilities exist (I,J) that
entities will leave the larger organi-
zation or that new outside groups will
have influence. The interventionist E
may discover it is creatively productive
for him to maintain nominal contact with
other entities and hold tentative contact
with the original system D.

 

I ‘\ 1".‘
\

‘J ‘I’
\ ’ \ .
\ I

99

New blockages may be perceived as
conflicts requiring intervention.

E may no longer wish or be able to
assume the intervention role. This

does not matter for F or some other
entity will perceive the conflict

of ABC and will introduce creative
problem strategies to unblock and to
restore the entities to a wholeness

or to a new structure which meets their
needs. Thus, it becomes a continuous
re-evaluation of blocked areas of
conflict. The emphasis here is on
changing, emerging, team leadership

and on (although not illustrated) the
effort to intervene not only cognitively
and structurally but also interpersonally.
Lines of communication remain established
even though new structures may exist

and the old system may be seriously
altered or may even be eliminated.

 

CHAPTER VIII

CLARIFICATION

Looking to the projected continuum along which these chapters
lie, the intervention models have parted from the coercion and control
aspects which tended to represent the methodology of the change-agent
in the first four models and now have moved past the planned and
collaborative intervention models of the last part of Chapter VI and
of Chapter VII. With the emergent leadership model (Figure 7.3) of
the last part of Chapter VII, we enter an area of intervention where
interventions become sharing reactions, with leadership and control
becoming more and more fluid a concept where it becomes difficult to
state fully in linear terms the reactions of the participants in
intervention exchanges. The:mostly fixed patterns of reaction or
intervention of earlier chapters begin more and more to look like
patterns for prejudiced response for they are so inalterably involved
with the words of coercion, control, leadership, and planning. Only
the nondmodel of neutrality described in Chapter III remains ambiguous
enough to deny the efficacy of words but also remains negative and
harmful in its model of judgemental.

Although we do find work in the non-verbal area of Creative
Problem Solving, it is primarily an intervention devoted to creating
solution or solutions. And if Creative Problem Solving is a personal
encounter, it creates an atmosphere not of acceptance but of need to
progress toward some perfected state. The model presented here begins

100

101

to look toward the avoidance of all those ”prejudices" which are so
essential to the more authoritarian models and to begin, even, to lose
concern about the concepts of authoritarianism and freedom. Certainly,
here, I attempt to provide in a language those things which so clarify
man's interpersonal relationships that the concept and the usefulness
of even language itself disappears.

The movement, in the Clarification model of conflict inter—
vention, is away from the intensional orientation toward involvement
into the extensional orientation where the word is not the non-verbal
reality.1 But this goes too far into the "language" of the general
semanticist and away from this attempt to present a model of
clarification as an optional interventionist strategy to unblock
perceived conflict.

A definition of the Clarification model of intervention cannot
say the reality of the model; yet, I will attempt to define this model
in this fashion: clarification consists of a verbal response or a
nonwverbal action, manner, gesture, or effort which shares with another
one's availability as an interventionist who will effect interpersonal
exchanges to assist the other in examining alternatives of cognition,
emotion, action, etc., and the consequences of alternatives in a
non-judgmental way and who will accept the other's eventual decisions.
The interpersonal approach carries with it the hope that the other
will intervene with the same intent when he perceives blockage and

will use skills he has to clarify non-judgmentally. Also implied

 

1S. I. Hayakawa, Symbol, Status, and Personality, (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1953), p. 113.

102

is an ultimate sharing of basic values in an honest, interested, and
non-judgemental exchange.

This definition tends to overlap the defintion of Chapter IX
for the Supportive Intervention model but these two models have much
in common and are difficult to separate exactly with words. Just as
at the beginning of the models there was difficulty in exactly measuring
the coercive and directing/controlling effect, here there is a more
positive ambiguity in measuring the intensity, the quality, of
difference between a clarifying and a supportive relationship in that
both are essentially extensional,non-judgemental, and interpersonally
complex.

It would be useful to attempt to establish criteria for the
clarifying relationship and intervention which go beyond definition.
Such criteria should include:

1. the interventionist perceives a need to clarify on the

part of the entities blocked;

2. the entities in conflict accept the overtures of the
interventionist and desire clarification of their blocked
state;

3. there may be no common system which will be affected by
the establishment of such an intervention for clarification;

4. the clarification has the purpose of assisting the parties
in conflict to examine alternative methods for unblocking
and the consequences of each alternative;

5. clarification need not lead to absolute unblocking for

conflict may be accepted by the parties as a growthful

103
continuing relationship; this decision would then
constitute unblocking;

6. clarification is non-judgemental on the part of the
interventionist;

7. the interventionist seeks mutual clarification to assist
him in unblocking the conflicts the others may not perceive
which exist in him and in his relationships;

8. alteration of the entities is not a goal of the inter-
ventionist; that entities originally blocked alter as a
result of clarification is totally their choice and is
neither part of the interventionist's plan nor is
considered an improve state.

There are some methodologies in education as well as the other
"helping professions" which currently identify with the clarifying
relationship as the ingredient basic to their philosophies. These
methods do not fulfill all of the criteria above but they have a
tendency to move ideally toward such criteria. A few examples of the
structures and relationships of the model of Clarification intervention
might serve to clarify the criteria above.

The most structured clarification efforts come, indirectly,
from pure scientists in any field. Their efforts, though scienti-
fically structured, intervene without direction in the blocked growth
of learners who choose to attend lectures, to read books, to perform
experiments, or to teach according to information gained without
interpersonal contact. This information and research, in these days
of such complete and immediate media, acts with almost the same

mechanical surety as the computer but without the systematic plan for

104

change that the computer provides. Such information and research
provides answers where questions have not been asked. It might be
said that anyone who chooses to disseminate data without inter-
personal contact with the receiver of the data has clarified and
intervened in a process he is ignorant of. Yet, these same data
are intended to influence and do influence through knowledge and
affective clarification. The receiver of such data, however, is left
to choose what pleases him.based on unclarified past belief. It is
unlikely that a receiver will attempt to cause himself dissonance,
and so this clarification generally serves to support past prejudice
immediately and to change slightly and without direction.the receiver's
established direction. Such data may unblock, and the sender intends
to influence but not control in most cases, so the dissemination of
information through.med1a must be seen as an effort, generally, to
clarify albeit a most structured and ineffective one.

The most influential educational movement in clarification
technique is the values clarification methods most popularly presented
by Raths, Harmin, and Simon in their text Values and Teaching. The
clarification intervention originally proposed by these authors dealt
with the highly structured teacher-student clarification of student
values. As such, this was a highly structured interpersonal exchange
involving an established hierarchy. In some ways this methodology
might better be classified with the more directive or'ProblemrSolving
Intervention models.

As a result of spending a year as a research fellow with
Merrill Harmin, it is my personal conclusion from.working with

Harmin and'others trained in this methodology that the interventions

105
are more effective when based on an equal status relationship rather
than the teacher-student hierarchy. Much of the effort in the three-
year research program called NEXTEP which Harmin directed at Southern
Illinois University at Edwardsville was designed to look for new
forms of public education and teacher education which would serve as
non-hierarchial structures for mutual interpersonal clarification of
values among those within the new structures. Harmin and his
researchers also advocated new looks at curriculum in an interventionist
strategy of clarifying the current curriculum values of fact and
generalization.

Raths, Harmin, and Simon did not tend to view values as
hierarchial as the developmental psychologists might; rather they saw
values existing on a continuum from clear to unclear with the purpose
of their strategies to establish, for the human who was blocked at
the unclear end, a greater and more personalized "clarity of relationship
to society".1 The authors identified value rich areas and attempted
to establish primarily verbal exchanges and strategies which would
take another person through a process toward personal value clarity.
The authors perceived these strategies to be value free but emphasized
the need for Open value sharing on the part of the initiator of such
strategies. Not all things are values--the authors created a rigid
list of crucial criteria to examine the value being clarified; items
which did not fulfill all criteria were called value indicators. The

criteria established by the authors were:

 

1Louis Raths, Harmin Merrill, Sidney Simon, Values and Teaching,
(Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966), p. 4.

106

l. choosing freely,
2. choosing from among alternatives,
3. choosing after thoughtful consideration of the

consequences of each alternative,
. prizing and cherishing,
. affirming,
. acting upon choices,
. repeating.

\JO‘WP

Although the authors originally were interested only in
providing a‘method of identifying personal values which led away from
other, more authoritarian, less personal, ways and although the
authors at first de-emphasized the use of clarification techniques
in either knowledge examination or interpersonal social/emotional
exchanges, these areas are currently being examined by Harmin and
Simon and other proteges of the senior Raths. Harmin and Simon began
publishing articles on subject matter still emphasizing values in
1968.3 Since then, these authors and others have expanded the original
vision of clarification of values to clarification of other aspects of
human growth and concern.

One of Values and Teaching's major contributions was a list

 

of "clarifying responses" which was the basic method for responding to
student verbal or non-verbal cues. The object of these responses was

to assist the student in the examination of the seven criteria for
establishing a value cited earlier. The authors emphasize brief,
prodding, encounters, anon-judgemental attitude on the part of the
teacher and judicial use of the process so that not too much is
attempted and so that that the response system does not become a "trick"

or a pattern of speech which loses meaning. Appendix A of this

 

21bid., pp. 28-29.

3Merrill Harmin and Sidney Simon, "Subject Matter with a Focus
on Values", Educational Leadership, (October, 1968), pp. 34-38.

107

thesis presents the original thirty clarifying responses and the

explanation Raths, Harmin, and Simon presented in Values and Teaching.

 

Less structured examples of clarification exist as do more
structured ones. Any attempt to intervene in the blocked patterns of
another human being which has the intent of helping in a clarifying
non-judgemental.non-coercive fashion might be termed "clarifying".
Certainly, most of the eclectic and even the non-directive counseling
practices are seen as clarifying by the practicioners. Even such a
patterned and directive strategy as simulation and the various
therapies which grow from it, such as T-A, primal scream, massage,
and so forth attempt in their analysis and feedback to be more than
just problem-solving exercises but attempt to clarify interpersonally--
and essentially non-judgmentally--the individual's conflicts be they
of values, facts, emotions, or communications interpersonally.

Perhaps no one has really begun to approach the total
clarification technique called Satyagraha as developed by Gandhi. It
at once combines the action and the resistance to other's negative
action with the spirit of truth and love for self and other. Although
Gandhi's Satyagrahi (the man who practices Satyagraha) was most often
pitted against another human force, the essence of the philosophy is
non-violence and non-resistance. There is no opposition in proper
Satyagraha. Many times Gandhi's philosophy has been used improperly
as a force of direct opposition as in sit-down and sit-in strikes
in the United States and in India. However, despite this misuse,
Satyagraha is most well used as a method of clarification of thought,

emotion, action, value, and position of another.

108

K. Santhanam writing in Satyagraha and the State presented the

 

essential elements of Satyagraha. Santhanam said:

The word 'satyagraha' was coined by Gandhiji to describe
his method of action. Its liberal meaning is 'holding
on to truth', i.e., to persist in the ways of truth

in spite of all difficulties, dangers and sufferings.

It may be even more accurate to define Satyagraha as
action based on truth, love and non-violence.

These three words constitute the cornerstone of all
Candhiji's actions and teachings. They are not separate
entities, nor is the meaning of any of these words a
fixed concept. The word 'truth' is used to denote a
wide range of ideas beginning with Spoken truth to the
ultimate truth of the universe, Brahman of the Vedanta.
Similarly, 'love' is used to indicate all degrees of
affection and kindness beginning with the instinctive
attachment of the cow to its calf and ending with the
compassion of Buddha for all living creatures. 'Non-
violence' may, according to context, mean mere abstention
from the use of physical force; but, in its highest form,
it is used to indicate not only the absence of anger and
ill will but the presence of active good will toward
persons guilty of the most heinous crimes. Sometimes,
turth is equated to God and embraces all other virtues.
Similarly love or non-violence is occasionally described
as the higest virtue, the possession of which implies
perfection of character. From the point of view of a
logician, all this appears to be confusing. But if one
gives up the idea of taking any of these words out of
context and converting it into a fixed abstract

notion, there will be no difficulty 12 understanding

its import in the particular context.

Santhanam went on to justify the act of intervention, despite

the seeming requirement of perfection felt above, when he discussed

the time when it is appropriate for the satyagrahi, the clarifying

one,

to act. Santhanam said:

In this dynamic view of satyagraha, each person is bound
to be on a different level and no one can claim to be a
perfect satyagrahi. It does not mean that one has to

 

ASanthanam, op, cit., pp. 3-9.

109

sit quiet till he reaches perfection. It is the duty

of everyone to act according to his best light in any

particular context.

Although the clarification technique of Stayagraha is primarily an
interventionist model to unblock power relationships between the state
‘with power and the minority without power, the techniques can be used
for positive action between non-warring entities or with love and truth
to unblock entities in conflict through example. As with most
clarification interventions the unblocking comes from achieving a

state beyond reason and a sense of detached interpersonalness which
might be best described in Korzybski's concept of the extensional
person and extensional relationships.6

As a final note, some have felt that the use of tactics
reminiscent of Gandhi by radical groups in the clarifying of relation-
ship between power and oppressed minority in the United States smacks
more of Problem-Solving interventions at best and violence (an inter-
vention purposely avoided, save for symbolic violence, in this thesis)
at worst. This may be true of some radical efforts which claim to
clarify.

It is my feeling however, that some of the most radical
clarifications of our society have come from individuals who were
essentially positive, non- judgemental save of the blockage they
intervened in, and not self-seeking. Names like John Gardner of
Common Cause, Ralph Nader in his interventions to relieve conflict
between consumer and industry, Barry Commoner in the environmental
clarifications, Buckminister Fuller and‘Marshall'McLuhan in clarifying

5;§;§., p. 11.

6Hayakawa, gp} cit., p. 86.

110

man's relationship to science, and Saul Alinsky in clarifying the
state of the generalized poor in the abundant country.

There are some who would find the tactics of these men and others
violent, uncompromising, and judgmental. My perception is that they
represent forces of love, truth, and non—violence in helping clarify
those conflict blockages in our society by powerfully and unselfishly
intervening.

Saul Alinsky has, for me, been the person who best symbolized
the model I present in.Chapter X. However, the model of clarification
intervention with Gandhi's concepts of love, truth, and non-violence
is so important to my final model that I feel a need to quote from
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in this chapter. Alinsky believed in
helping to improve others toward the ends that would make them.most
powerful and most congruent to their sense of the good; to do this he

worked within the system that contained the people. He said:

As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it
is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the
world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to
change it into what we believe it should be--it is
necessary to being where the world is if we are going

to change it to what we think it should be. That means
working in the system.7

and, in discussing his ideology, he gave a clarifying response to the
concept of ideology as well as claiming that he sought clarifying

interventions from others when he said:

To begin with, he (Alinsky, the organizer) does not
have a fixed truth--truth to him is relative and
changing; everything to him is relative and changing.
He is a political relationist. He accepts the late
Justice Learned Hand's statement that 'the mark of a
free man is that ever-gnawing inner uncertainty as

to whether or not he is right.‘ The consequence is

 

7Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, (New York: Vintage Books,
1971), p. xix.

111

that he is ever on the hunt for the causes of man's

plight and the general propositions that help to

make some sense out of man's irrational world. He

must constantly examine life, including his own, to

get some idea of what it is all about, and he must

challenge and test his own findings. Irreverence,

essential to questioning, is a requisite'. Curiosity

becomes compulsive. His most frequent word is 'why?‘

Given these examples from the extensive literature of clari-
fication some of the elements necessary to a graphic view of the
Clarification Intervention model can be established. Perhaps the
element which most separates the model in this chapter from the
Supportive Intervention model is the active adventure.of the teacher,
the exemplar of virtue, and the radical social clarifier into the
minds, hearts, and structures of others who desire to or are
encouraged to accept this intervention; although this excursion is
less demanding than even the self-change of the final model in
Creative Problem Solving (Chapter VII), it is more an act4of inter-
vention than the positive presence of the Supportive Model in
Chapter IX. The elements of this model are:

1. the clarifying interventionist chooses to intervene in

another's need for clarification that the agent perceives;

2. the interventionist utilizes strategies which appreciate

the other person's position and which clarify without force;

3. the interventionist opens himself to love, truth, and

non-violence to the immediate or eventual strategies for

clarification by the other;

 

81b1d., p. 11.

112

4. clarification interventions are generally directed toward
conflicts and blockages within entities rather than those

between or among entities.

113
Figure 8.1

The Leader of Teacher Clarifying Intervention

A, a leader or teacher, perceives
—~ ‘\ a need in B, a student or less able
individual, and proceeds to inter-
-.. vene by clarifying the areas A sees
as unformed. This occurs over a
- _ .. 51

long period of time.

//’ \\

/ \
I B, grown whole from.A's inter-
. vention, seeks to assist A in
\ A clarifying an area of concern.

A and B become whole

114
Figure 8.2

The Gandhian Satyagraha Intervention for Clarification
and Healing

’,r—-\\\ A, a less powerful but a loving,

’\ truthful, and non-violent minority
1".,” \ .,"‘\/’ of individual, is attacked Cut“;j§
\’ B by B; A perceives this attack to
result from B's lack of completed
I ,\ ,’\ , self.
‘/ \I \’ ‘ I

A intervenes in B's attack and
clarifies B's incomplete aspects
by non-violence truth, and love for
B (\,NVO which does not help B
become whole but completes areas

of prior need to attack.

 

Under A's continued clarification
A and B become one in the sense of
non-violence, truth, and love.

115

Figure 8.3

The Intervention for Clarification as a Mutual Experience

A envisions a need for clarifi-
cation of some aspect of B in
order to make B more whole.

A clarifies B and the emotional
intellectual, or structural
blockage is removed

B envisions a need A has for
clarification and makes contact
with the blocked aspect of A.

A and B establish a mutually
clarifying relationship based on
mutual love, truth, and non-
violence.

A and B become Whole.

CHAPTER IX

SUPPORT IVE

The Supportive Intervention Model is at the autonomous end of
the continuum created by this chapter and the six preceeding chapters.
It is here that the contact made by the interventionist may utilize
learned conflict unblocking skills as in the other models but it is
also here that these skills must begin to evidence emotional truth to
the parties in conflict. The cognitive effect of skills used is less
important in this model than in the others; and despite the possibility
that Supportive skills may be acquired through the most autocratic
training, these skills are seldom truly effective with persons in
conflict unless the interventionist is perceived as being "real".

The range of structures which demonstrate Supportive
Interventions is wide. From the formal efforts to change behavior in
the t-group, where "real" exchanges of emotional support characterize
moments in the group when need and process overcome the behavioristic
control and product of the traditional group, to the encounter among
persons who touch each other briefly and who intervene unforgetably
in that brief touching in each other's emotional lives.

The Supportive model is concerned with emotional support rather
than with intellectual support. It is concerned with touching and
being touched. There is, at times, a beginning formality, perhaps
a structured encounter, which provides a safe atmosphere for the risk

of support. Eventually, such risks must be taken person to person

116

117
without the structure of the training group. Ideally, any group
process serves to eliminate the need for the group's support in each
and every individual in the group; this is not to say the group
cannot continue but is to say that, having achieved its purpose, the
group can function only as an entertainment. All learning to
share and to support others in order to help those others unblock
conflicts is learning to be, alone.

The definition I have constructed for an intervention which is
supportive of the persons experiencing conflict blockage is: A
Support Intervention is an individual response, either in a structured
or an unstructured process, to perceived conflict bloackage; this
response demonstrates emotional support for all involved and models
health that the conflicting parties might strive for in an effort to
unblock by accepting, with unconditional positive regard, the emotional
needs of each other. The interventionist is a model of reception and
acceptance and frees others to be the same by denying the conflicts
which previously were seen to exist. There is no seeking for solution
by the interventionist for the questions which produced conflict are
no longer the essential identifying relationship but are replaced by
a deeper respect for the humanity of the parties in conflict by those
parties. Such an acceptance might mean that conflicts of ideas, for
material goods, etc. might remain following the intervention; but
the conflict is now between persons who accept the humanity and
emotional truth of the other.

Some crucial criteria for the identification of a Supportive

Intervention must include the following:

118

l. the interventionist perceives a conflict blockage and
accepts the feelings of the persons in conflict;

2. the interventionist is accepted by the parties in conflict
as a person able to process and to accept the feelings of
each party;

3. the interventionist's unconditional positive regard, his
empathy with each person involved, and his efforts to
clarify the emotions of the conflict are seen as a model
by the blocked parties;

4. no solution or resolution is sought by the person who
chooses to intervene;

5. the intervention respects the autonomy of all involved
parties and presents a model of acceptance and encouragement
of differences;

6. the interventionist views the blockage as being caused
by inability or reluctance of parties to be acceptant of
different emotional reactions to a situation;

7. the result of the intervention may not be agreement,
resolution of differences, or unity but rather is an
assistance in accepting the other and understanding the
other's position and emotion for each party in conflict.

One example of the most structured forms of Supportive Inter-

vention may be seen in the efforts to modify behavior--or to create
an atmosphere for taking risks to modify behavior--of the t-groups,
encounter groups, sensitivity groups, human relations groups, etc.
There are far too many variations of these experiences to allow even

adequate discussion in this thesis. Such experiences range from the

119

highly structured exercises and groups which have goals of modifying
participant behavior according to some ideal to unstructured and
trainerless groups. Perhaps the most famous of these structured
experiences is the t-group.

In a t (training) group, the persons who submit to this
structure have the task of assisting each member toward some growth.
The trainer's role is to establish processes for data collection,
data analysis, and generally loose diagnosis and prescription.1 The
t-group is seen as an unstructured experience as contrasted with the
structures and restrictions faced in the daily society of the
participants. The participants, with the intervention and modeling
assistance of the trainer, create society from immediate group
experience. The data processed are from the "here and now", and
conflict blockages are viewed as analogies for daily communication
and societal conflicts outside the group. The t—group does not
offer therapeutical assistance for a major assumption is that all
persons in the group are essentially healthy individuals who wish
to enhance and to explore that health in relationship with others of
a like mind. The trainer as a supportive interventionist has a
generally positive regard for those in the group despite the somewhat
tOp-down relationship of trainer to participant. An important aspect
of the t-group is the design which is established and the structure
of intervention; although t-group trainers often deny pre-set
agendas, the fact remains that the classic t-group of the National

Training Laboratories is an experience designed and controlled by the

 

1T-Group Theory and LaboratoryyMethod: Innovation in Re-
Education edited by Leland P. Bradford, Jack R. Gibb, and Kenneth D.
Benne, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964), p. viii.

120
trainer and his organization. Bradford, Gibb, and Benne described
the design process in the following manner:

1. Design must support an integrative learning
experience for each participant. This calls for
developing creative interrelationships among a
number of aspects of learning often treated as
antitheses in educational programs--common and
individual learning, emotions and ideas, involved
action and objective analysis, practical experience
and research knowledge, learning with the help of
peers and learning from an expert teacher.

2. An adequate design is seen as a set of structures
to induce and guide participant experience, analysis,
and evaluation, with increasing initiative from
participants in directing and evaluating their own
learnings.

3. Finally, an adequate design achieves a balance between
the use of tested methodologies and activities and
the introduction of new training inventions which will
advance staff learning and contribute to the
professional knowledge of a growing community of
laboratory trainers.2

Despite the agenda created by the design and training emphasis,
the goals of the t-group experience are to assist the individual in
unblocking social-emotional conflicts within the "safe" structure of
the group in order to transfer group learning to daily life. The
editors of T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method had this to say about
the human relations goals of the T-Group:

The very complexity of the T-Group creates a variety

of uanticipated consequences which, as the action

unfolds, would be impossible to take into account.

To some extent, however, the trainer's goals and

methodology structure the situation; and while his

operations, as in science, determine the results,

consideration will be given first to the desired
results and goals.

 

2Ibid., p. 79.

121

There are two major goals of the T-Group which can be

indivisible in Operation: (1) that group members

become more aware of the enabling and disabling factors

in decision making in groups and of their own behaviors

and feelings in groups; (2) that group members utilize the

the group as a crucible for increasing their repertoire

of skills in managing group processes and their own

behaviors in groups.

I said earlier that the variations of the original T-Group are
enormous not only in relationship to the original concept of training
"normals" but also in relationship to various groups for therapy which
may have trainers or be trainerless. Essential to all of these is
the concept of group identification; and the support derived from
such experiences, though often'helpful and of value outside the group,
is somewhat artificial in essence because of the designs and agendas
of the various groups. The reader can see that the Supportive
Intervention, if seen only in group context, might better fall into
one of the earlier models. What determines the place of the
Supportive Intervention on the continuum projected is not the use of
the group nor the training for "back home" use of group techniques
but the emotionally supportive atmosphere modeled by the trainer
and, most often, practiced in conflict interventions by group members.

Beyond the group is the individual who possesses the ability
and the spirit to intervene in conflict and to risk supporting the
emotions of persons in the conflict process. William Schutz has
offered a beginning to the description of the individual capable of

bringing the Supportive Intervention into unstructured daily human

interaction. Schutz said:

 

3Ibid., p. 272.

122

Awareness of feelings and emotions allows experience

to be felt and integrated into the self. The person

who is open to experience, and able to feel and to

appreciate has more experiential elements than the

constricted, denying individual who cannot allow

himself to feel deeply .

The job of helping a person become more Open and

enriched is therefore, threefold: (l) removal of

emotional blocks; (2) development of an awareness

of himself and his feelings; and (3) development

of a sensitivity and perceptivengss about other

peOple and the world around him.

Sthutz's vision, despite his original identification with the
more structured group process, is one of the individual growing to
interact and intervene as a result of his own security, his joy, and
with the goal of sharing with others his self so that others,
expecially those blocked in emotional conflict, might feel secure
and joyful.

The Supportive Intervention eventually rests on the desire of
the person choosing to intervene to fulfill two basic psychological
needs not only for the parties he perceives to be in conflict but also
for himself. As Freud said, man in order to become congruent, needs
to be loved and needs to feel capable in the work he does. In Reality
Therapy, William Glasser identified the two psychological needs necessary
to the supportive relationship when he said:

Psychiatry must be concerned with two basic psychological

needs: the need to love and be loved and the need to feel
that we are worthwhile to ourselves and to others.5_

 

4William C. Schutz, Joy: Expanding Human Awareness, (New York:
Grove Press, Inc., 1967), pp. 56-57.

5William classer,M. D. , Reality Therapy: A New Approach to
Psychiatry, (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 9.

 

123
Lest the reader find the<1asser reference too therapeutically oriented,
Glasser's definition of reality therapy allows us to envision the
relationship of therapist and client as one which might occur between
any persons. 0. Hobart Mower in his introduction to Glasser's book
said:

In Reality Therapy, the helping person becomes both
involved with and very real to the patient in a way
which would be regarded as utterly destructive of
the transference as conceived and cultivated in
classical analysis.6

Sidney Jourard, who goes far beyond the model of Supportive
Intervention, relates the supportive relationship when he wrote about
the dialogue situation portrayed in.Martin Buber's work. Jourard said:

In dialogue, as Buber portrays it, each experiences
the other as a person, as the origin and source of
his intentional acts. Each participant aims to

show his being to the other as it is for him.
Transparency, not mystification, is one of the goals.
It matters little whether the dialogue is ‘nonverbal or
verbal; whether it occurs between a philosopher and
his pupil, a therapist and his patient, a parent and
child, or two friends. The aim is to show oneself
in willful honesty before the other and to respond
to the other with an expression of one's experience
as the other has affected it. Dialogue is like
mutual unveiling, where each seeks to be experienced
and confirmed by the other as the one he is for
himself. Such dialogue is most likely to occur when
the two people believe each is trustworthy and of
goodwill.7

 

This dialogue and Carl Roger's concepts of non-directive
therapeutic relationships which foster mutuai.uncondit10nal positive

regard are the basis for the furtherest reaches of the Supportive

 

6O. Hobart MOwer, introduction to Reality Therapy, p. xii.

 

7Sidney M. Jourard, Disclosing Man to Himself, (Princeton,
New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1968), p. 21.

 

124

Intervention. To engage in a mutual intervention of this kind is to
enter the "being" of the Taoist and the self-actualization of Maslow.
This is the transition to the model I develop in Chapter X as a new
way to effect change and to intervene. However, the Supportive model
does have elements imbeded in the continuum which admit control as
an important factor in intervention and which, reluctantly at times,
envision relationships Often termed professional which are essentially
hierarchial and which structure one person as leader in the helping
or controlling dialogue.

The elements necessary to distinguish the Supportive
vention from either the preceding Clarifying Intervention or the
model in Chapter X are:

l. the Supportive Intervention may be a structured design
to assist a person in a group to grow according to his
own needs, or it may be an unstructured meeting of
emotions, a dialogue, which discloses the agent who
intervenes equally as well as the initial person who is
blocked and in conflict about disclosure;

2. conflict here, as well as in the Clarifying Intervention,
may not involve several parties but may be a blocked state
within a single party which is unblocked by the support
and modeling behavior of the interventionist;

3. the role of interventionist is fluid and may emerge from
a group or be exchanged, back and forth, in dialogue;

4. there is no resolution to conflict between two parties
necessary but simply an understanding and regard for the

other who differs;

125
5. there is only revelation and acceptance when the
interventionist unblocks a conflict area within another
person--no change is predicted or desired beyond the
change of interpersonal disclosure, trust, and positive
regard.

Such elements represent three of the many possibilities of a
Supportive Intervention to unblock conflict; these three represent
levels of autonomous dealing with emotions of another person. The
first figure below represents the design of the group method with the
trainer supportively intervening and the effect creating a person
whole with the group and capable of giving support. The second
figure represents a Supportive Intervention by an agent perceiving
two persons or entities in conflict which can be freed by providing
a model and a support system for each. The third figure is the ideal,
autonomous, Supportive Intervention which serves as a transition
to the discussion of Chapter X. In Figure 9.3 an individual intervenes
with emotional support in the inner conflict of another person. The
intervention is not interference but acceptance of the oneness of the
two as they meet.

The continuum projected in this thesis ends here. It has
been an attempt to demonstrate possible interventions to unblock
persons or groups in conflict; violence in terms of the physical
destruction of war in all its major and minor manifestations has
_been ignored as an intervention to unblock. Large groups have not
been considered in their economic, religious, cultural blockages
to conflict. These were both beyond the scope of this thesis and

are possibly beyond the scope of human intervention. The complexity

126

of the interventions, if there are any possible, necessary to free
humans from their societal, organizational, violence is enormous.
It is likely that the interventions described in the last seven
chapters could receive some greater names but it is doubtful that
the concept of intervention is applicable beyond rather small
organizational structures.

The projected continuum ranged from negative and autocratic
interventions to relatively autonomous and freeing interventions. The
fact that these terms--autocratic and autonomous--are meaningless in
the long run for the person who seeks to unblock himself will be
demonstrated in Chapter X. However, for the sake of praxeological

considerations the continuum projected is illustrated below:

0 . n ' :u on U...-

 

. O
.V 0 0

0°
N :3”
" *1
0 o
d” ,7
w
0 c?

 

127

Figure 9.1

The Supportive Intervention in Group

designated trainer whose skills are
the force which unifies the group C
through J are group participants
«” \@ seeking support and change through
‘:;> connection with B and because of the
[Eli] process A (--- ) represents supportive
interventions. Gradually, and
ideally, B's supportive and the new
support of membership unites the
group. B seldom gains full member-
ship because Of the original design

B possibly a t-group. B represents a

i. \Z% A represents a design of a group,
£6;L~..l ‘i ’

Of the group process; the group
‘::3;:7 unifies and connects with B under
’4\ B's leadership.
I'\
\ I'\

128

Figure 9.2

The Supportive Intervention by an Agent to
Unblock Persons in Conflict

A perceives conflict blocking inter-
personal effectiveness of B and C and
intervenes in a supportive fashion
\y', ABC become one and share interpersonal
~ support even while B and C may retain
superficial disagreements.

5

ABC

129

Figure 9.3

The Supportive Intervention as a Person
to Person Identification

'-" A demonstrates (---->) support of
A _ ____ _ B and acceptance of B with uncondi-
-- - — — 3 tional positive regard.

4" "" "' - "" B returns the support in the way he
A <"" - "" can after learning from A's model of
supportive intervention.

as

on

 

A8 are one in understanding and
support.

 

 

AB

CHAPTER X

SELF INTERVENTION

I seek, in this chapter, to express a reality of being in words
all too inadequate. The past chapters, the continuum, all deal with
forms of relating and becoming. The models proposed in the past
chapters--even when attempted in combinations--are models which
separate, dichotomize, man's intellect and his being. In this chapter,
I propose a model which envisions the change-agent, the interven-
tionist, as the self-actualized efficient Taoist who is all being
and intervenes with his being, the world and the people in it, in
ways unencumbered by either the dichotomy of emotion and intellect
or the dichotomy of essence and existence.

To propose such a free agent of change will sound absurd
to some readers. The agent I propose, however, is not some contemplative
metaphysician; the interventionist, here, is purposive, pragmatic, and
existential in addition to having the totality of contemplation that
accompanies the metaphysician. To propose this agent in a short
chapter as a model for intervention requires that the aspects of such
an agent be explored.

In the writings on change, such an agent occurs incomplete as
Gandhi's Satyagrahi, as Suzuki's Zen master, as Maslow's self-
actualized man, as Roger's learner, and as Kotarbinski's praxeological

130

131

warrior. All of these theories are important to understand the role
model I suggest, if not the man who is the model.

Given such a possibility, all the interventions presented in
the past seven chapters become equally valid when this agent
intervenes. They exist within the man and his interventions are with

self; he is the person and the process. H.G. Creel in Chinese Thought

 

from Confucius to Mao Tse-Tung presented the most complete model in

 

his explanations of the purposive Taoist philosopher, but Creel finds
such a person difficult to imagine. Creel said:

It seems doubtful that they (Taoists) actually expected

to be taken altogether seriously. They were poking fun,

acting as gadflifs, and undoubtedly they performed a

useful function.

Creel's scepticism is prOperly Taoistic, but I feel he has
missed the point of Taoistic unity when he fails to realize that to be
serious is not to be serious. Abraham Maslow understood this aspect
of Taoist thought better when he created his picture of his self-
actualized man. Maslow described the peak-experience and found it a
rare thing among rare men; in this Maslow strayed from the possibilities
I present here that the self-interventionist is all men and that "peak-
experiences" are the daily lives Of all men. What clouds men is the
organizations to which they belong which Often lock them into
hierarchial and other~conflictual existences for long periods of life.
Certainly all newly born human beings are "self-actualized" and are at

constant "peak-experiences". In our effort to become as children

though integration of experience and inner being we begin to reject

 

1H. G. Creel, Chinese Thought from Confucious to Mao Tse-Tun_g,
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 114.

132

organization from outside even while being most capable of the
greatest organization inside. Maslow described the "subjects" he
saw in creative self-actualization in the following way:

Another Observation was that SA creativeness was in
many respects like the creativeness of fill happy and
secure children. It was spontaneous, effortless,
innocent, easy, a kind of freedom from stereotypes
and cliches. And again, it seemed to be made up largely
Of 'innocent' freedom of perception, and 'innocent',
uninhibited spontaneity and expressiveness. Almost
any child can perceive more freely, without a priori
expectations about what ought to be there, what must
be there, or what has always been there. And almost
any child can compose a song or a poem or a dance

or a painting or a play or a game on the spur of the
moment, without planning or previous intent.

It was in this childlike sense that my subjects were
creative. Or to avoid misunderstanding, since my
subjects were after all not children (they were all
peOple in their 50's or 60's), let us say that they
had either retained or regained at least these two
main aspects of childlikeness, namely, they were
non-rubricizing or 'open to experience' and they were
easily spontaneous and expressive. If children are
naive, then my subjects had attained a 'second
naivete', as Santayana called it. Their innocence
of perception and expressiveness was combined with
sophisticated minds.

Yet, a picture of a sophisticated child as interventionist might
frighten peOple. There is more to the quality than what Maslow saw.
Children, even in their innocence and spontaneity, are often cruel.
Earlier, I said that with the model of agentry that I propose, all
seven of the previously described interventions, many of which I have
identified as coercive, become equal. Is, then, the agent here
described capable of cruelty in order to achieve ends? No, because

in this model nothing that is done is perceived by the agent to do harm;

 

2Maslow, 92. cit., p. 130.

133

all his suffering, as perceived by others, and all the suffering
others see him cause is not suffering but right action. As the agent
transcends his importance and his involvement, his interventions
transcend the quality of pain, slavery, and even death. This thought
is basically Taoist but it has roots in German and American
Transcendental thought as well as in modern philosophy in Heidegger's

work. Creel, writing on the book Chuang Tzu, described such

 

transcedence with recognition of the unity with worldly effort to
effect change when he wrote, paraphrasing the Chuan Tzu:

The universe is the unity Of all things. If one once
recognizes his identity with this unity, then the parts

of his body mean no more to him than so much dirt, and
death and life, end and beginning, distrub his tranquility
no more than the succession of day and night.

Taoist concepts are very close to the more modern Zen Buddism.4
To give an even more modern flavor we have the musings of the existen-
tial philosopher Martin Heidegger on the work of Zen Buddhist D. T.
Suzuki; Heidegger is quoted by William Barrett in the following way:

'If I understand this man correctly'. Heidegger

remarked, 'this is what I have been trying to say in

all my writings'.
Barrett continued:

For what, after all, is Heidegger's final message but

that Western philosophy is a great error, the result Of

dichotomizing intellect that has cut man Off from

unity with Being itself and from his own Being.5

The agent acts as the sophisticated child who cannot injure,

who cannot dichotomize his transcendence and his reality. Perhaps

 

3Creel, 32. 915., pp. 100-101.
41b1do , pp. 200-2020

5William Barrett, ed. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D.
T. Suzuki, Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1956), p. xi.

134

Maslow's descriptions of the self-actualized man might be useful here
in understanding this seeming paradox. Maslow often recognizes his
debt to Taoist principles in writing about self-actualization; Maslow
defined his very work in counseling as having roots in Taoism. Maslow
said: "Counseling is not concerned with teaching in the ordinary
sense of telling people what to do and how to do it. It is not
concerned with propaganda. It is Taoistic uncovering and then helping".6
Briefly, given this debt to Taoism, let us examine Maslow's concept of
self-actualization as contributory to the model of intervention I
propose. Maslow said of the self-actualizor:

. . . the human being is so constructed that he presses

toward fuller and fuller being and this means pressing

toward what most peOple would call good values, toward

serentity, kindness, courage, honesty, love, unselfishness,
and goodness.

In these healthy people we find duty and pleasure to be
the same thing, as is also work and play, selg-interest
and altruism, individualism and selflessness.

. . . the ability to be aggressive and angry is found

in all self-actualizing people, who are able to let it
flog forth freely when the external situation 'calls for'
it.

For self-actualizing peOple, there is a strong tendency
for selfishness and unselfishness to fuse into a higher
superordinate unity. Work tends to be the same thing as
play; vocation and avocation become the same thing.

I would like to relate Maslow's self-actulizor to Creel's purposive

Taoist. Creel said:

The Tao is the absolute, the totality of all that is.
If one regards himself as simply a part of that then it

 

6Abraham H. Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature, (New
York: The Viking Press, 1971), p. 52.

7Maslow, _p, 515., p. 147.

81bid., p. 183. 9Ibid., p. 192.

135

is clear that no matter what happens to him, he cannot
get out of it. One seeks then to become merged into the
Tao; the Lao Tzu tells us:

This is called the mysterious absorption

He who has experienced it cannot be treated as an
intimate, or

rebuffed,

Cannot be helped, or harmed,

Cannot be honored, or humbled,

Therefore, he occupies the first place among
all the world's creatures.

This is the transition. One who is absorbed into the

Tao cannot be hurt because he recognizes no hurt. One who
cannot be hurt is impregnable. One who is impregnable

is more powerful than all those who would hurt him.
Therefore, he is the chief and the most powerful of
creatures. The Taoist sage has no ambitions; therefore,
he has no failures. He who never fails alwa s succeeds
And he who always succeeds is all-powerful.

The Praxeological science becomes, then,a part of the inter-
ventionist who is self-actualized, taoistic. This coercive, controlling,
defeating science of efficiency called praxeology becomes a growthful,
freeing, success force in the hands of the agent I describe in this
chapter. Margaret W. Fischer gave us the description of the
praxeological approach needed to more completely describe the inter-
ventionist model I present; Fisher said:

The praxeological approach, on the other hand, elevates

efficiency above all other values, takes no account of

any ethical, moral, or emotional aspects Of conflict

except insofar as they may effect efficiency, seeks

either victory or the denial of victory to the Opponent,

restricts means only by criteria based upon expediency,

and assumes a basic need to guard at all times against
human depravity.

 

10Creel, pp, 215., pp. 110—111.

11Margaret W. Fisher, "Contrasting Approaches to Conflict" in
Conflict: Violence and Non-Violence, edited by Joan V. Bondurant,
(Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, Inc., 1971), p. 184.

136

Margaret Fisher proceeded to compare this science of efficiency

with the Satyagraha of Gandhi.

approach is clear.

The distaste for the praxeological

Fisher even cited the originator of praxeology,

the Polish philOSOpher Tadeusz Kotarbinski, as finding the system he

identified as ethically negative and distasteful.

12 The essence of

Satyagraha has already been discussed in earlier chapters but Fisher's

comparison Of the two systems might be useful in identifying the

essential and seemingly, paradoxical elements which I prOpose as parts

of the self model of conflict intervention.

Objectives and Directives:
Satyagraha

To achieve an agreement with the
Opponent acceptable to both sides,
by engaging him on a search for
'truth' using only non-violent
means.

Search for avenues Of cooperation
with the Opponent on honorable
terms; never take advantage of his
difficulties.

Protect the opponent's person and
his resources.

Reduce your demands to a minimum
consistent with truth.

Avoid a static condition, but

launch direct action only after
exhausting all other efforts to
achieve honorable settlement.

 

12Ibid., p. 192.

Gandhian Satyagraha and Agonology13

Agonology

To defeat the Opponent, or at
least avoid being defeated, using
whatever means may be expedient.

Make the opponent's position as
difficult as possible; make
difficulties for both sides if
they will embarrass the Opponent
more than they will you.

Strike first at the opponent's
most vital parts; use his resources
against him.

Try to leave your Opponent only
one way out.

Economize your resources, but
ensure one your own freedom of
movement and restrict the opponent's
even at some loss to yourself.

13Agonology is the branch of praxeological theory which speci—

fically deals'with conflict.

"science of struggle".

Fisher.adopted this term for purposes of
comparison with Gandhi's Satyagraha.
Ibid., p. 184.

Fisher defines agonology as the

137

Never lie; hold nothing back; keep Deceive the opponent. In general,

the Opponent, the public, and refuse to disclose your intentions,
participants informed as an but disclose them occasionally;
integral part of the movement. the opponent may be deceived, or

his next move be made more predic-
table by you.

Extend areas Of rationality. Commit 'irrational' acts at times
to confuse the Opponent.1

Under the model I present, Gandhi's Satyagraha and Kotarbinski's
praxeology are one and the same. There can be no defeat and no truth
in what is done. There can be no opponent and no cooperation. The
person is singular, and striking and protecting are the same. Demands
are not dichotomized. All action is both direct and indirect, selfish
and unselfish. There are no lies; all statements are truthful.
Irrationality and rationality cannot be separated or identified.

All Of this speaks of an interventionist who transcends
description and technique. For the interventionist in this model, the
unblocking is a further actualizing of self with greatest efficiency.
All interference in what might be seen as others' conflicts is
expression of the agent's need to further touch his own being. The
perception of a blockage can only be an internalized challenge to
further exist, to further experience. Sidney Jourard wrote about
transcendence and challenge; he said:

To be challenged--by a person, by God, by a possibility

that has been imagined, by a problem, or by a crisis--

means that an individual cannot ignore the situation at

hand and devote his attention elsewhere. Challenges,

almost by definition, are attention-grabbing. A
challenge is similar to a call for help.

 

14Ibid., p. 190.

15Jourard, 92, cit., p. 223.

138

Jourard.identified the growth toward acceptance of such
challenges which transcend the immediate man and are presented to the
actualized, taoistic, learner. Jourard said:

Growth is the disintegration of one way of experiencing

the world, followed by a reorganization of this

experience a.reorganization that includes the new

disclosure of the world. The disorganization, or

even shattering Of one way to experience the world, is

brought on by new disclosures from.the changing

being of the world--disclosures that were always

being transmitted, but which were usually ignored.

Being is change. Change is in the world. The being

Of the world is always changing. My body is in the

world, and it changes from instant to instant.1

Erich Fromm has said that'faith that others can change is the
outcome of the experience that I can change."17 The essence Of all my
references to various writings is my effort to change myself. This is
what the final model is all about. I believe I am a part Of all that
I touch and I believe that all else is a part of me. To operate as an
interventionist under such a belief is to be changed by all conflicts
in which you choose to intervene. When others' blocks are released,
no matter what strategy is chosen, I am released. There can be no
planning of change for change is a constant and I am.part of it; what
I plan can only be what I am.of the instant. The infinite possibilities
I discover in being this model are not frightening; the unlimited
freedom and the unending responsibilities are not overpowering for they
represent my selfish gift to myself as well as my unselfish gift to

the totality of our Being. This is not a pragmatic stance for there

is no purpose that makes my action productive; there are no traces

 

16Ib1d., p. 153.

17Erich Fromm, The Revolution Of Hope: Towgrd g Humanized
Technology, (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 14.

139
of the past, rewards or punishments, which determine action. Nor
is this model existential for I am not finite but transcend any
existential removal from God but am, as in the Tao.

It returns, in a way, to the non-intervention model of
neutrality. But where neutrality was not an act but a reaction to
others, this model of self is both non-action and action for a self
which is one with others. The interventions performed are spontaneous
and natural. They are not strained as neutrality is. They are not
Being-destructive as the Depreciation model is. They are not
resistant to change as the Status Quo model is. They do not turn
outside themselves to attain direction and control which is
uncertain and unsuccessful as the Direction model does. They do
not seek for creativity to solve problems but are creative in their
harmony with the laws of the universe. They do not clarify and
separate meaning from.meaning or stive for that which is beyond
reach of the learner in the moment. They do not seek to dichotomize
intellect and emotion as supportive interventions might and as the
other interventions do.

Rather, self-intervention does all of these and more of them
in a state where the interventionist is one with Tao, the natural,
and where the interventionist seeks the efficient and actualized
action without a label in order to be one with the action, the
unblocking, the conflict, and the persons involved.

The crucial criteria which I attempted to create for the other
models may be created here by the reader for they are his. The elements

necessary to present illustrations Of this model of intervention.may

140

also be created by the reader for those elements and the illustrations

are him. Just as I am one with the reader and illustrated below.

CHAPTER XI
REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

What I would like to do in Chapter X1 is to share some things
I have learned for myself in the process of writing this dissertation.
What I have said in the dissertation are personal learnings about
conflict and the interventions people make in attempting to unblock
the structures, communications, and emotions of their lives. My model
of Self Intervention in the last chapter reflects a way I have
experienced at times and a way I am become. I mentioned earlier in
the dissertation that I did not wish to create even a rough taxonomy
of conflict intervention despite my decision to communicate by a
vision of a continuum. I do not even want to suggest all should
experience the same vision that I've projected here either of the
first seven models of intervention or of the model of Self Intervention.
I want to present my experience honestly, and I hope that the reader
‘will check out his own to determine the truth or falsity for him.of
what I have said here.

I am disappointed that some of my feelings about my model of
Self Intervention simply have not been expressed in the depth I feel.
In some ways I was too frightened or threateded by the task to give
full freedom to my feelings. Perhaps this realization and the
experience Of relating it will allow me to examine my needs and my
values more honestly in my future writings and actions not only as
a professional but also as a person.

141

142

I was tempted to relate some of the success and much of the
failure I have had in accepting the roles others have seen for me
in change-agentry in education and in choosing to use my energy and
skills in intervening in situations or persons I perceived to be
blocked. I do not feel the narrative Of these experiences would be
worthwhile for the reader. I feel these stories Of the past have
continuing worth as a part of my person, but I would hope that the
reader's "here and now" would allow him to place his own experiences
in the context of these eight models and determine how complete and
how accurate my perceptions were for him.

As one writes and invests self in the risk of the dissertation
process, one grows so much as he risks. The conflicts of the process
can be enormous and many valuable persons never complete the
experience because they cannot unblock the emotions of the situation.
For me, the value Of the process has been more in the decision to
involve myself with others who might be too critical of my work or
my beliefs; the value of the dissertation is in the completion of the
task. The block is released.

I shall be in conflict with the thoughts of this effort
immediately; what has been an alive process soon joins other efforts
as a dead product on the shelves of the library. At times, it will
contribute to the growth Of human beings in some way; hopefully, it
will never, become so accepted as to block others' growth in their
own ways and to their own ends. Best of all, there may even be those
who read this work and find some joy in it.

A book--a dissertation--is a has been phenomona. It exists,

only as part of a praxeological system; it is mechanistic and controling.

143
The process of writing and creating is in the style of satyagraha; it
is "adherence to trut ". As writer and creator I am self adhering,
I hope, to truth as I see it.

It seems to me that as I need to seek to intervene in my
growth, my process of being self, so others might, in their own way,
‘wish this process. It is not a process I see encouraged in any of
our large enterprises or institutions. Perhaps such a process is too
anarchistic, too chaotic, for our world of efficiency. I have
experienced such an atmosphere Of freedom to grow to self in small
groups and in pockets of institutions. I feel some of my work as a
teacher in public schools has led to more alternative pockets. I
amnmmch excited by the beauty of the people I see involved in letting
other people grow. I acknowledged some Of these persons at the
beginning Of this effort. My training forces me to make two final
references even in this last chapter. I see these as the recommendation
part of the chapter.

First of all, I would like to quote from.Theodore Roszak's
The Making of a Counter Culture. Roszak presented a powerful alter-
native tO the conflicts Of julgement which now awe educators involved
in state assessment; competency-based programs, and other impersonal
forms of judging the growth of our fellow man. Roszak commented on
the myth of Objective consciousness:

. . . our appraisal Of any course of personal or social

action would not be determined simply by the degree to

which the proposal before us squares with Objectivly

demonstrable knowledge, but by the degree to which it

enlarges our capacity to experience: to know ourselves and

others more deeply, to feel more fuliy the awesomeness of
our environment. This, in turn, means that we must be

144

prepared to trust that the expanded personality becomes

more beautiful, more creative, more humane than the search

for objective correctness can make it.

If Roszak leads us to a vision of non-judgemental acceptance of
the desire for growth Of others, then Carl Rogers gives us a vision of
the teacher acting non-judgmentally but with the power, beauty, and
strength of being a person. Rogers saw this loved and capable being

congruently:

. . being the person that he is, and being Openly

aware of the attitudes he holds. It means that he

feels acceptant toward his own feelings . . . Because

he accepts his feelings as his feelings, he has no need

to impose them on his students, or to insist that they

feel the same way. He is a person, not the faceless

embodiment of a curricular requirement, or a sterile

pipe through which knowledge is passed from one

generation to the next.

It seems to me that if we attempt, as persons, to bring about
honestly our own visions Of the good and the true for ourselves, we
will have gone a long way toward a world where all men value their

own needs and learnings.

Finally, five years ago I taught at Northwest High School in
St. Louis, Missouri; I chose to attempt to create an atmosphere of
acceptance of diversity, acceptance of conflict and intervention, and
acceptance of person. There are many ways I would be different now for
I have grown and changed. I would hope I could now live more

comfortably and contribute more freely and equally to that very Open

 

1Theodore Roszak, The Making of a Counter‘Culture, (New York:
Doubleday and Company, 1969), pp. 236-237.

2Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person, (Boston: Houghton.Mifflin
Company, 1961), p. 287.

145

and creative atmosphere in which the people of those classes and I,
as appointed teacher, existed for a year. I'd like to close this
effort to write about conflict and intervention with a letter I sent

those people after I moved to a position out of the classroom.

CHRISTMAS - TO NORTHWEST - 1969

When we started we fell into analysis, giving reasons, using logic
to answer the other's questions about the reality of us.

"Are you for real, man?"
We Often sat alone and we Often walked, stOOp-shouldered, through
lonely halls even when we were surrounded by the love of the others
who were always with us.

'Thxn, I really haven't changed."

"I'm sorry, love, I'm really into these people."
All you blond, black, different shapes of male, female, and me,
were wandering toward each other and desperately hoping to
touch, to love, and to find capacity for holding tightly
to all those things none of us could explain. I was called
teacher and you student but we worked out those labels others
had given us to deal with.

"Go ahead, send me to the office!"

"I can't ; I really can't do that."

"Phony!"
Soon, more soon for some, we sat together at times and
walked touching shoulders, bumping each other's solitude and
smiling at the agony we had separately suffered and now jointly
celebrated. Parting we could be less apart. Letting go of
the whys of our meetings and sharings and letting the existence
of this good depth be, we said hello to others who could
become us.

"I really, really love you."

”I love me, too. You really turn me on."
I shall never know all of the things that torture you and
give you joy, but I am aware that your torture and your joy is in
communion with my own. I love my pain and my ecstasy because it
is yours, my students, my friends, my selves. Now, because of you,
when I meet a person I am.with him so much as you taught me. We
search each other's eyes--these strangers and I--and begin somewhere
that you led me to. We confront life together--all pleasure and all
pain is shared.

"I know it's a dark night, stranger; but let me risk

saying that I'd like to get to know you."

"Stragely enough, I feel the same about you."
We cannot hOpe to remember each other's names. Nor can we desperately
cling to each other either to protect or for protection. Some of our
acts will make us far more lonely than we now believe possible. Some
of our acts will limit our possibilities to discover what we could

146

be. Yet, I feel a being with you, and I feel this sustains me in
pain and heightens my joy. Let the destiny of our lives enter
into the mystery and unpredictable essence of our growth as
single souls, but let our compassion and our comprehension mingle

freely as we part, in some way never to be parted or single or
alone again.

There is no need to run outside
For better seeing,
Nor to peer from a window. Rather abide
At the center of your being;
For the more you leave it, the less you learn.
Search your heart and see
If he is wise who takes each turn:
The way to do is be
Lao-tzu

Right On--Beautiful People!

Jean

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A New Look at Prggressive Education, prepared by the ASCD 1972
Yearbook Committee, James R. Squire, Chairman and Editor,
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
Washington, D. C., 1972.

Alinsky, Saul D. Rules for Radicals. New YOrk: Vintage Books, 1971.

 

Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and WOrld,
Inc., 1969.

 

Benis, Warren G.; Benne, Kenneth D.; Chin, Robert. The Planning of
Change. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

Berne, Eric. Games People Play. New York: Grove Press, 1964.

 

Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane S. The Managerial Grid: Key
Orientations for Achieving Production Through People. Houston,
Texas: Gulf Publishing Company, 1964.

 

Bondurant, Joan V. Conflict: Violence and Nonviolence. Chicago,
Illionis: Aldine/Atherton, 1971.

 

Boulding, Kenneth E. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory,
New York: Harper and Row, 1962.

 

Button, Alan DeWitt. The Authentic Child. New York: Random House,
1962 O

 

Chesler, Mark A. "School Crisis and Change" in Student Unrest:
Threat or Promise? Washington, D. C.: Association for
Supervision and Curriculmm DevelOpment, 1970.

 

 

Cleary, Norman B. "Cross-Cultural Communication, Powerlessness,
Salience, and Obedience of Professional Change Agents."
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University,
1966.

Combs, Arthur W. The Professional Education of Teachers: A
Perceptual View Of Teacher Preparation. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc., 1965.

Conflict in the Classroom: The Education Of Children with Problems
2nd edition, edited by Nicholas 8. Long, William C. Morse, and
Ruth C. Newman. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Inc., 1971.

147

148

Creel, H. G. Chinese Thought from.Gonfucius to Mao Tse-tung.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Dewey, John. Reconstruction in PhilosoPhy. Boston: The Beacon
Press, 1957.

. The School and Society (Revised edition). Chicago,
Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1959.

 

Doll, Ronald C. Curriculum Improvement: Decision-Mgking_gnd Process,
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1964.

Eberle, Robert. SCAMPER. Edwardsville, Illinois: The American Press,
1972.

Egan, Gerald. Encounter: GroupiProcesses for Interpersonal Growth.
Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1970.

Fish, Kenneth L. Conflict and Dessent in the High Schools. New
York: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1970.

Flanders, Ned A. Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970.

Freedom, Bureaucracy, and Schooling, ASCD Yearbook, 1971. Vernon F.
Haubrich Chairman and Editor. WaShington, D. C.: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NBA, 1971.

Fromm, Erich. The Revolution Of Hope: Toward a Humanized Technology.
New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1968.

. The Art of Loving. New York: Harper and Row, 1956.

 

Frymier, Jack R. Fostering Education§17Changg. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1969.

Gandhi, M. K. Non-Violent Resistance: Satyagraha. New York:
Schocken Books, 1951.

Gardner, JOhn W. Self-Renewal: The_;ndividual and the Innovative
Society. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1963.

Glasser, William, M.D. Reality Therapy: A New Approach to Psychiatry.
New York: Harper and Row, 1965.

Goble, Frank G. The Third Force: The Psycholggy_of Abraham'Maslow,
foreward by Abraham Maslow. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1970.

Goodman, Paul. Growing Up Absurd. New York: Vintage Books, 1956.

. New Reformation: Notes of a Neolithic Conservgtive.
New York: Random House, 1970.

149

Hall, Everett W. Modern Science and Human Values: A Study in the
History of Ideas. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.,
1956.

 

Harmin, Merrill, and Simon, Sidney. "Subject Matter with a Focus
on Values", Educational Leadership, October, 1968.

 

Hayakawa, S. 1. Symbol, Status, and Personality. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, and World, Inc., 1953.

 

Havelock, Ronald G. A Guide to Motivation in Education. Ann Arbor:
Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge.
Institute for Social Research, 1970.

Howe, Leland W. 'Toward a Humanistic Model of School Organizational
Development." (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1969).

Houston, William. "Laboratory for Handling Disruptive
’ Behavior". (Unpublished papers in NEXTEP Research Fellowship.
Edwardsville, Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1967-1968).

Humanizing Education: The Person in the Process. Edited by Robert
R. Leeper. Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1967.

 

Humphreys, Laud. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places,
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970.

Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.

 

Jencks, Christopher, et. a1. Inequality: A Reassessment of the
Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1972.

 

Jersild, Arthur T. When Teachers Face Themselves. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1955.

 

Johnson, Chalmers. Revolutionary Change. Boston: Little Brown and
Company, 1966.

 

Jourard, Sidney M. The Transparent Self. Princeton, NJ: D.
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1968.

 

Disclosing Man to Himself. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand
Company, Inc., 1968.

 

Knapp, Mark L. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. New
YOrk: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972.

Leonard, George D. Education and Ectasy. New York: Delacorte Press,
1968.

 

150

Lorenz, Konrad. On Aggression. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World, Inc., 1966.

Maslow, Abraham H. Toward a Psychology Of Being. Princeton, NJ:
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962.

 

. The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: The
Viking Press, 1971.

 

Moustakas, Clark. Creativity and Conformity. New York: D.
Van Nostrand-Rineholt, 1967.

Neill, A. S. Summerhill: A Radicalgépproach to Child Rearing.
New York: Hart Publishing Company, 1960.

Nonviolent Direct Action. Edited by A. Paul Hare and Herbert H.
Blumberg. washington, D. C.: Corpus Books, 1968.

Osborn, Alex. Applied Imagination. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1963.

Peek, Jean W. "Confrontation and Conflict". (Speech before Michigan
Association of School Boards) November 2, 1972.

Pfeiffer, John. New Look at Education: Systems Analysis in Our
Schools and Colleges. New York: The Odyssey Press, 1968.

Power and Conflict in Organization. Edited by Robert L. Kahn and
Elise Boulding. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964.

Rapaport, Anatol. Fights,,§§mes, and Debates. ,Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 1961.

Raths, Louis; Harmin, Merrill; Simon, Sidney. Values and Teachipg.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1966.

Removing Barriers to Humaneness in the High School. Edited by J.
Galen Saylor and Joshua L. Smith. washington, D. C.: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1971.

Rogers, C. R., and Stevens, B. Person to Person. Lafayette,
California: Real People Press, 1966.

Rogers, Carl R. On BecominggA Person. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1961.

Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill,

 

 

1969.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free
Press, 1962.

Roszak, Theodore. The Making of a Counter Culture, Reflections on
the Technocratic Society and Its YOuthful Opposition. New York:
Doubleday, 1969.

151

Santhanam, K. Satyagraha and The State. Bombay, India: Asia
Publishing House, 1960.

Schutz, William.B. Joy. New York: Grove Press, 1967.

Severin, Frank T. Humanistic Viewpoints in Psychology. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Simmel, Georg. Conflict. Translated by Kurt H. Wolff. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1955.

Skinner, B. F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Bantam/Vintage,
1971.

. "Humanism and Behaviorism”, New Humanist, Vol. 88, NO. 9,
(London: January), 1973.

 

 

Walden Two. New York: MacMillian and Company, 1948.

 

 

Social and Technological Change: Implications for Education. Philip
K. Piele and Terry L. Eidell, editors. Eugene, Oregon: The
Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1970.

Sowell, Sarah. (Paper from.NEXTEP #77, and #78, Southern Illinois
University) (mimeographed), 1967.

T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education,
Edited by Leland P. Bradford, Jack R. Gibb, and Kenneth O.
Benne. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

Taba, Hilda. Curriculum.Development: Theory and Practice. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962.

Taylor, Calvin W. "Creativity--What Is It/", AC'CENT ON TALENT, Vol. 1,
NO. 1, (September), 1966.

The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Translated, edited, and with an
introduction by Kurt H. Wolff. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free
Press, 1950.

The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha. Edited by E. A. Burtt.
New York: The New American Library, 1955.

Toward Humanistic Education: A Curriculum Of Affect. Edited by
Gerald Weinstein and Mario D. Fantini. New York: Praeger
Publishers, 1970.

Toward Social Change: A Handbook for Those Who Will. Edited by Robert
Buckhout, et. al. New YOrk: Harper and Row, 1971.

Toynbee, Calvin W. Letter taken from Calvin Toynbee, Professor at
the University of Utah. April 18, 1968.

152

Unruh, Glenys G. "Toward A Theory of Responsive Curriculum
Development." (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saint
Louis University, 1972).

Watts, Alan W. Psychotherapy East and West. New York: Random
House, Inc., 1961.

Wiener, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings. New YOrk: Avon
Books, 1967.

Wiles, Kimball. The Changing Curriculum of the American High School,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

Williams, Marjory. The Velveteen Rabbit. New York: Doubleday and
Company.

Wilson, John. Language and the Pursuit of Truth. London: Cambridge
University Press, 1969.

Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D. T. Suzuki. Edited by William
Barrett. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1956.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

THIRTY CLARIFYING RESPONSES,

There are several responses that teachers who have worked with
the clarifying approach have found very useful. A list Of some Of
these is presented below. As the reader goes through the list, he
might make note of some he would like to try; that is, make his own
list. There are too many noted here to keep in mind at one time. It
is probably best then, to gather a dozen or so together, ones which
sound as if they could be used comfortably, and try them out,
perhaps expanding or revising the list as experience dictates.

Be reminded, however, that the responses listed here are recom-
mended as useful clarifying responses only when they are used in
accordancegwith the ten conditions listed earlier. The acid test
for any response is whether or not results in a person reflecting on
what he has said or done, clarifying, getting to know himself better,
examining his choices, considering what he prizes, looking at patterns
in his life, and so on. If the response makes the student defensive,
or gets him to say what the adult wants him to say, or gives him the
feeling that the adult is nagging at him, it is being used improperly
or with poor timing. An accepting, noncommittal attitude on the part
of the person making responses is crucial. ‘

The reader might note that some of the responses listed below
are geared directly to one or another of the seven valuing components:
prizing, searching for alternatives, thinking critically, choosing
freely, incorporating choices into behavior, examining patterns of
living, and affirming choices. Some other responses stimulate reflec-
tion in a more general sense. But, in 511 cases, responses are open-
ended--they lead the student to no specific value. NO one must
deliver a "right" answer to a clarifying response. Each student must
be permitted to react in his own personal and individual way.

1. Is this something that you prize?

 

To respond in a way that gets the student to consider whether he
prizes or cherished something he has said or done helps him to clarify
his values. The response could, Of course, be in a different form and
have the same intent, e.g., "Are you proud of that?", "Is that something
that is very important to you?", "Is that idea very dear to you; do
you really cherish it?" The particular situation in which the response
is being made, as well as the age of the child to whom.it is directed,
will help determine the precise wording.

153

154

2. Are you glad about that?

This encourages the student to see whether things he feels, says,
or does are things that he is happy about and make him feel good. One
could also ask if the student is unhappy about something. Such ques-
tions stimulate a child to evaluate his life and to consider changing
it if he finds it does not bring him satisfactions. Note how different
the effect of this reSponse is from the scolding, ”Aren't you ashamed
of that?" Clarifying reSponses are accepting and illuminating, not
rejecting and moralizing.

3. How did you feel when that happened?

It advances clarification for a person to understand that his
feelings are part of his understandings and awareness and that they
have to be considered in decision-making. He needs to know that feelings
are important, that we respect his right to have his own feelings, and
that feelings do not have to be suppressed.

4. Did you consider any alternatives?

Note how this tends to widen, to open up the thinking Of children
(and adults). With this response, as with all the others in this list,
teachers will need to accept whatever the student replies without judg-
ment. After he answers the question, leave him with an honest,'0h.
Now I see," or ”I understand," or "You stated your views clearly," or
"I appreciate hearing what you say," or some nonjudgmental phrase or
gesture.

5. Have you felt this way for a long time?

Questions that get at the same thing are, "When did you first begin
to believe in that idea?" and "How have your ideas or undersuindings
changed since the time you first considered this notion?" Herethe per-
son is pushed to examine the history of his beliefs or attitudes, to
look at their origins, and to see if they are really his or if they
have been absorbed unthinkingly. Note how the next response might
follow after a student replies to this one.

6. Was that something that you yourself selected or chose?

This reminds persons that they can make their own choices, if they
want to do so. An affirmative reply to this response might well be
followed by response Number 7.

7. Did you have to choose that; was it a free choice?
Here, no matter what the student says, it is probably wise to say

no more but to discontinue the conversation with some nonjudgmental
closing.

155

8. Do you do anything about that idea?

This reSponse helps persons see the reSponsibility for incorpora-
ting choices into actual living. A verbalization that is not lived has
little import and is certainly not a value. Another way of saying the
same thing: "How does that idea affect your daily life?", or "In what
ways do you act upon it?"

9. Can you give me some examples of that idea?

This helps push generalizations and vague statements of belief
toward clarity. Note also the relevance of the next response.

10. What do you mean by . . . ; can you define that word?

This also pushes understanding to clarity and helps prevent the
mouthing of words students cannot really mean because they do not really
understand them.

11. Where would that idea lead; what would be its consequences?

This encourages the student to study carefully the consequences of
ideas. No meaningful choice can be made unless the consequences of
alternatives are understood. Therefore, it is often very useful to
help children examine the consequences of each available alternative.
Accordingly, one could also ask, "What would be the results of each of
the alternatives?", or "How would those ideas work out in practice?"

12. Would you really do that or are you just talking?

Again the encouragement to see the importance of living in accord-
ance with one's choice.

13. Are you saying that . . . (repeaQ)?

It is sometimes useful merely to repeat what the student has just
said. This has the effect of reflecting his ideas and prompting him to
ask himself if he really meant that. It is surprising how many persons
seldom hear what they say. Sometimes the phrase, "Did I hear you
correctly?" can be used for this purpose.

l4. Didyyou sey that . . . (repeat in some distorted way)?

Sometimes a teacher does well to purposely twist what a student
has said. Will the student attempt to correct the distortion? After
trying it, one senses that the effect is much the same as response
Number 13.

15. Have you thought much about that idea (or behavior)?

Of course one accepts whatever reply a student makes to this. It
is destructive to the valuing process to attack a negative answer to

156

this question with something like, "Well, in the future it would be wise
to think before you Speak (or act)." An accepting and non-judgmental
mood is vital for the valuing process.

16. What are some good things about that notion?

A simple request for justification of expressed ideas in some such
non-judgmental words often brings dramatic re-evaluation of thinking on
the part of students. Many persons rarely realize that there could or
should be good, desirable, worthwhile aspects of ideas they hold. The
ideas are just there, unexamined and unevaluated.

17. What do we have to assume for things to work out that way?

Many persons have neglected to examine the assumptions upon which
they rest their ideas, aspirations, and activities. This probing helps
persons understand better, make choices more wisely, and make valuing
more possible. It is sometimes useful, in this context, to suggest an
assumption that the student seems to be making and ask him is he has
considered it, e.g., "Are you assuming that there was nothing good about
the depression?"

18. Is what you express consistent with . . . (note something else the
person said or did that may point to an inconsistency)?

To present such a disconcerting challenge, to nde an exception, to
relate things with other things, can produce real clarification.i£ it is
not done with an, ”I think I have trapped you in an error" tone of voice.
The idea is not to slap students down, but to open things up for them
so that they can think with new insight, if they want to do so. (Happily,
teachers trying this approach seem to find that most students do want to
do so.)

19. What other possibilities are there?

This raises alternatives to students and thus it aids them in
valuing. Sometimes this question is posed to a group and all alterna-
tives are listed on the board, without judgment again. Of course, other
students and the teacher, too, can say which alternative they prefer, but
there is no judging a child because he chooses a different alternative.
NO teasing or otherwise deriding others' choices is tolerated or else
there is no free choice.

20. Is that a personal preference or do you think most people should
believe that?

To inquire whether a statement is intended as a personal preference
or whether it is something that should be generally endorsed is one way
of helping to distinguish an attitude or prejudice from a social principle.
"Is this idea so good that everyone should go along with it?" is another
way to get at this.

157

21. How can I help you do something about your idea? What seems to
be the difficulty?

This question reminds the student that action is a component of life
and intentions are incomplete until acted upon. Sometimes such questions
uncover suppressed feelings or misunderstandings. Obviously, they locate
real or imagined obstacles, too. Also try: ”Where are you stuck?", or
"What is holding you up?" (But be prepared to offer help it it's asked
for.")

22. Is there a purpose back of this activity?

Asking students what, if anything, they are trying to accomplish,
where they are headed with ideas or activities, sometimes brings the
realization to students--and for the first time--that they might really
have purposes and goals and that they might relate their on-going
activities to those purposes and goals.

23. Is that very important to you?

This gets students to consider more seriously what is and what is
not important to them. It is also often useful to ask students to put
several things in order of rank. Assigning priorities is a variation,
and a useful one.

24. Dogyou do this often?

"Is there any pattern to your life that incorporates this idea or
activity?", one might inquire. The idea here is to help students see what
is repeated in their lives and what is not and to leave them with the
decision of whether or not to build a pattern.

25. Would you like to tell others about your idea?

Inviting a student to explain his ideas to the class or others pro-
vides two challenges. It tests to see whether he is committed to his
beliefs strongly enough to affirm them in public. It also puts him in
the position of thinking through his ideas well enough to explain them,
and perhaps justify them, to others.

26. Doyyou have any reasons for (saying or doing) that?

This tests whether or not a choice has been made and to what extent
that choice was based on understanding. DANGER: Avoid using that ques-
tion to pull up short on a student who isobviously' ‘not thinking. If
you want to tell a student that you believe that he is not thinking, tell
him so. But use the above question when you really want a student to
consider his beliefs or actions.

Incidentally, when a student does (or says) something and the teacher
inquires, "Sonny, why did you do that?", the student Often hears, "Sonny,

158

now why in the world did you ever do something as foolish as that?"
"Why" questions are usually to be avoided when attempting to help
students clarify their values. ”Why" questions tend to make a student
defensive, tend to prod him into making up reasons or excuses when he
really has none in mind. Besides, the question, "Why did you do that?"
carries with it the assumption that the student knows why, and that is
perhaps the reasons he tends to concoct a reason when he has none. It
is much more effective, for value clarifying purposes, to ask, "Do you
have a reason?" and then sometimes follow up an affirmative reply with,
"Would you mind telling me?"

27. Would you do the same thing over again?

This helps a student to evaluate things that he has done, to con-
sider why he has done them, and perhaps to affirm the wisdom of doing
it in the future. Do not use this question everytime someone does some-
things that ygp do not like. That would be an example of not-so-subtle
moralizing. Use the question when you want to stimulate thinking, and
strive to keep it non-judgmental.

28. How do you know it's right?

When a child makes a moral or ethical judgment about something by
saying that a thing is right or lovely or good, it is useful to ask how
he knows that that judgment is correct. Sometimes we ask how he was
able to decide. Note this dialogue.

TEACHER: "I see you're hard at work on that project, Jimmy."
STUDENT: "It's not good to be lazy, you know."

TEACHER: "How do you know it's not good?"

STUDENT: "Everybody knows that. My parents always say it."
TEACHER: (Walking away) "I see."

Thus may a teacher subtly and persistently suggest that one might think
about such matters as tightness, or beauty, or goodness if one wants to
do so.

29. Do you value that?

Merely picking out something a student has said or done and asking,
"Is that something that you value?" helps to stimulate clarifying thinking.
Perhaps such a question could have been added by Jimmy's teacher in the
above dialogue, e.g.,

TEACHER: "I see. Is working something that you value then, Jimmy?"
STUDENT: "Huh? I suppose so."
TEACHER: "0.K., Jimmy. Thank you.

159

30. Do you think people will always believe that? Or, "Would Chinese
peasants and African hunters also believe that?" Or, "DidypeOple
long ago believe that?"

Such questions are useful to suggest to a student that his beliefs
may be unknowingly influenced by his surroundings, by his social milieu.
It helps him gauge the extent to which he may be conforming. See also

response Number 5.

 

Louis Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney C. Simon, ve1ues and TeaChiflfi
(Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966), Pages 55-62.

“‘lmmm