In order for the revitalization of society to be complete it must make the radical journey beyond the currently accepted values and beliefs of Quadrant three to that of Quadrant four. Western industrial society, firmly situated in Quadrant three, is not only based on socio-political and organizational structures that concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the few while isolating and fragmenting the majority but also, in the words of sociologist Erich Fromm, it "makes[s] for the development of a personality which feels powerless and alone, anxious and insecure."¹ Democracy, as Quadrant four's exemplary social environment with a focus on the simultaneous optimization of autonomy and interdependence, becomes the "antidote" to these trends thereby inversing the poisonous attributes of Quadrant three. If we are not in Quadrant four already, how do we enhance, teach, and educate individuals to participate in a democracy? Secondly, what skills are needed in order to function and operate effectively within Quadrant four?

One can conceive of addressing the above questions on two levels, which can be roughly described as the sociopolitical level and the psychological level. On the sociopolitical level the educational process would center around educating the individual's capacity for becoming an autonomous human being who is capable of community building. The psychological level, intimately related to the sociopolitical, would center the process around the education of the intuitive function, otherwise known as the capacity to shift paradigms and to be creative; and the education of the feeling function with its capacity for advanced empathic resonance. Theoretically, the distinction between these two levels is made in order to more fully expose and explore the subtleties of the educational process required to move from Quadrant three to Quadrant four according to the potential paths of change described in chapter three: moving from Quadrant three via either Quadrants one or two to Quadrant four. The first section of this chapter will review some of the historical arguments which center around the sociopolitical domain and are concerned with the process of developing autonomy and building community. The second section will define the various educational techniques used to enhance empathy and creativity in the individual on the psychological level.

It should go without saying that both the sociopolitical and the psychological levels need to be addressed in order to transform society into Quadrant four. However, what may be less understood is that the combination (on the sociopolitical level) of autonomy with community building, and (on the psychological level) of creativity with empathy is necessary for the revitalization of society. This distinction uncovers a danger associated with the potential paths of change of being co-opted in order to support the status quo and Quadrant three processes. For example, the development of autonomy/creativity according to an NT (Quadrant one) preference is susceptible to having an individualistic

and isolationist view of paradigm shifting and creativity. This function could then be used to foster entrepreneurship to the detriment of community cohesion. Co-optation is also likely in the case of the education of empathy according to an SF (Quadrant two) preference, which is prone to focus that capacity almost entirely on community building and sustaining community to the exclusion of individual autonomy. Having such a narrow focus on group cohesion and teambuilding can be easily used in the service of the "status quo" by ignoring "diversity" issues and by effectively marginalizing, even scapegoating, those members of the community not in full agreement with the majority. Even though alone each capacity is not sufficient for change and even though alone each capacity is very susceptible to co-optation, both empathy/community building and creativity/autonomy are necessary for creating societal change. The obstacles to this change process will be discussed more thoroughly in chapter five.

The revitalization process involves shifting paradigms of social interrelationships and the building of social cohesion that subsidizes a particular paradigm (symbol/meaning system). This is two sides of the same coin. Democracy as a minimalist structure is conducive to and protects these processes. This will be the focus of the last section of this chapter.

Socio-Political Level

It must be made clear at the onset that when I use the term "authoritarianism" it is defined as the combination of heteronomy and independence (of the elite and as fragmentation for the many). Secondly, "democracy", as a counter-force to authoritarianism is defined as the combination of autonomy (of all) and interdependence.

Western society is rooted in an authoritarian ethos. Generally, the conditions of heteronomy and independence can be found in the family for the child, in schools for the student, in organizations for the worker, and in society for the citizen. Anyone who is or has been involved in counteracting these conditions would typically agree that it is a long and laborious process to break these patterns and instill a "democratic" ethic from which to act. For example, there is the union organizer seeking to bring about worker solidarity in order to address social injustices in the work place; or there is the battered women's shelter worker who provide safety for battered women while attempting to educate society in order to stop patriarchal domination. The list goes on and on and for each situation one can find people describing the sustained effort one must make in order to break through these debilitating conditions.

Perhaps one of the clearest examples of the degree to which individuals voluntarily embed themselves within an authoritarian situation and acting against their own values is social psychologist Stanley Milgram's investigation into the nature of obedience in his book Obedience to Authority an Experimental View. Milgram states, "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself [sic] as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions."² These studies were concerned with the voluntary obedience,

Milgram states, "of those who willingly comply because society gives them a role and they are motivated to live up to its requirements"³, as opposed to the involuntary obedience resulting from punishment, coercion, and brutality. The results of their investigation was disturbing to them for they found "with numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under to the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe."⁴ The findings indicated that there was a high level of susceptibility to rule and role governed behavior even though many of the subjects held moral views concerning acceptable conduct.

Subjects have learned from childhood that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt another person against his [sic] will. Yet, almost half the subjects abandon this tenet [and proceeded to punish the victim for wrong answers until they reached the most potent shock available on the generator] in following the instructions of an authority who has no special powers to enforce his [sic] commands. To disobey would bring no material loss or punishment. It is clear from the remarks and behavior of many participants that in punishing the victim they were often acting against their own values.⁵

Milgram attributes this change in behavior of the individual to the internal modifications that are required for a self-regulating individual to successfully operate within a hierarchical system. This shift can be described as moving from that of a self-directed individual to that of an agent executing the wishes of someone else. "Once an individual conceives his [sic] action in this light, profound alterations occur in his [sic] behavior and his internal functioning. These are so pronounced that one may say that this altered attitude places the individual in a different state from the one he [sic] was in prior to integration into the hierarchy."⁶ Milgram calls this state the "agentic state" which he defined as a term to be used in opposition to autonomy. The end result of the shift to an agentic state is that the individual becomes instrumentalized for the purpose of carrying out the actions and wishes of another. To reinforce the efficiency of the agentic person as an instrument within a hierarchical system a process of "tuning" occurs in the individual. The result is that the individual becomes highly sensitive to the needs and communication of the authority figure while, at the same time, muting any signals or feedback coming from below.

In other words, the core obstacle to developing autonomy and community building is the agentic state -- the instrumentalization of the individual into specific roles within a hierarchical system. Bureaucracies are set up and defined according to roles that individuals need to fulfill. Once the various roles are established with their corresponding rules for behavior and action then it becomes all the more possible to control the means and quality of interaction between roles -- hence, between people.

J. Krishnamurti (1895-1986), a renowned spiritual leader, makes a similar distinction to the one Milgram makes between obedience to a "role" versus the individual

acting autonomously. Krishnamurti states that there are two kinds of relationship: one that is focused on images (associated with roles) and the other that is centered upon being attentive to the moment. Images define and structure, ensuring that the person or object is predictable. Images establish concrete roles that fixes one's behavior. Furthermore, Krishnamurti adds, "we create these images in order to be sure, certain, in order to possess and in that possession feel the power, the pleasure, the strength of that possession."⁷ While this form of relationship is the continual search for "certainty," the second form goes beyond the image-making process to that of pure attention where, as a result, structure is dissolved and becomes non-existent. Krishnamurti states, "the structure exists with all that we mean by structure: that is, the desire for certainty, the picture, the image, which we have made about another. When we are totally attentive, there is no structure, and therefore you are beyond the image-making...".⁸ Attention is the awareness of whole movement, the whole movement of an ever-changing relationship that is not attached to a static idea, image, or thing.⁹ In addition, Krishnamurti continues, "each relationship demands that you learn about it constantly, because relationship is constantly changing, moving, vital; otherwise you are not related at all."¹⁰ This attention to the emerging and constantly changing relationship is what Peter Slade, an early practitioner (1930's) of drama in education, describes in his book Experience of Spontaneity as spontaneous interplay, which has profound educational value. "By allowing the unconscious to flow in a simple and natural way we achieve the golden hour or moment..."; in addition, Slade continues, "during this process, forms of group sensitivity [F], group intuition [N] and awareness of the needs of others, appropriate behaviour for a given situation and lessons in harmonious aesthetic achievement can be learnt, both in speech and movement, but better perhaps than in any other way."¹¹

A Partial History of Autonomy in Education

In order to develop autonomy within the individual one has to educate the faculties responsible for an individual's creativity, whether you call that the imagination, intuition, or play (this will be covered more extensively in the psychological section). Secondly, autonomy and the appreciation for freedom is typically described in the educational sphere as moving people into democratic behaviors or as the shaping of a democratic "character" -- in other words training individuals in self-determination and collaboration. There have been a number of theorists, educators, and sociologists who have found it necessary and practical to articulate the kind of character that would be at home in a democracy and go on to describe the educational processes that would develop that kind of character.

At the heart of John Dewey's philosophy of education is the formation of a democratic character. Dewey found that in order to enhance this process one must focus on learning how to learn as opposed to learning a specific role. "In a democratic community... a child could not, moreover, be educated for any 'fixed station in life,'... schools had to provide him [sic] with training that would give him [sic] such possession of himself [sic] that he may take charge of himself; may not only adapt to the changes which are going on, but have power to shape and direct those changes."¹² Furthermore, Dewey believed, "the goal of schools... should not be to adjust individuals to social institutions, if by adjustment is meant preparation to fit into present social arrangements and conditions."¹³ This belief stems from Dewey's interaction with Jane Addams, who co-founded the Hull House in Chicago with Ellen Gates Starr in 1889. The Hull House was a settlement house associated with the trade unions who fought together for, among other things, improved worker legislation and city services. Addams promoted the House as an experimental bridging of class cultures. This was a place for practical activism, and was considered a step toward the vision of an organic democracy, via social work, which sparked Dewey's "...faith in democracy as a guiding force in education."¹⁴ Furthermore, Dewey elaborates, "since education is a social process... the two points selected by which to measure the worth of a form of social life are the extent in which the interests of a group are shared by all its members [F], and the fullness and freedom [N] with which it interacts with other groups."¹⁵ In other words, Dewey found that setting up barriers either internally or externally to the free intercourse and communication of experience was undesirable and inhibited the development of democratic character. Accordingly, Dewey asserts, "a progressive society counts individual variations as precious since it finds in them the means of its own growth. Hence a democratic society must, in its consistency with its ideal, allow for intellectual freedom and the play of diverse gifts and interests in its educational measures."¹⁶ However, despite Dewey's ambitions for changing the nature of schooling, he "did not have much of a strategy for making American schools into institutions working on behalf of radical democracy."¹⁷ Furthermore, according to educator Joel Spring in his book, A Primer of Libertarian Education, Dewey's educational philosophy has had little influence on the daily workings of the public schools or the overall educational system. "Dewey certainly translated his philosophy into classroom methods, he never suggested ways the educational establishment could be changed so that his methods could be put into practice. Dewey's method became a topic of discussion but not a practical tool."¹⁸

While Dewey focused on this particular path toward the formation of a democratic character, the work of Theodore Adorno et.al. in describing the "authoritarian"

personality, in their book by that name, took a different route. Their efforts were explicitly in the service of identifying those individuals who are anti-democratic and distinguishing them from individuals who are supportive of democratic processes. This distinction was made according to the "f-scale" (fascist scale) which was a survey tool they developed in order to empirically measure traits that can be attributed to the authoritarian character. Adorno et.al. believed that "knowledge of the personality forces that favor its [fascism] acceptance may ultimately prove useful in combating it."¹⁹ Secondly, they also found that there were degrees to which an individual accepted anti-democratic behavior, "individuals differed in their susceptibility to antidemocratic propaganda, in their readiness to exhibit antidemocratic tendencies."²⁰ Given that personality evolves out of a social environment, states Adorno, "means that broad changes in social conditions and institutions will have a direct bearing upon the kinds of personalities that develop within a society."²¹ Combine that idea with the fact that statistically the vast majority of corporate CEOs are ST types brings new meaning to the following statement by Adorno.

It seems well understood today that whether or not antidemocratic propaganda is to become a dominant force in this country depends primarily upon the situation of the most powerful economic interests, upon whether they, by conscious design or not, make use of this device for maintaining their dominant status. This is a matter about which the great majority of people would have little to say.²²

In addition, Adorno believe that programs (education) should not be limited to just creating environments which call for, or manipulate individuals into, democratic action but that "they should be devoted to increasing the kind of self-awareness and self-determination that makes any kind of manipulation impossible."²³

The result of Adorno's study using the f-scale demonstrated that individuals who tested high as authoritarian types showed a deficiency in imagination which Adorno called a "constriction of fantasy [N]." However, those who scored low on the scale exhibited "...greater creativity, imagination, and ability for empathy...", which contributed to "...greater autonomy of the low scorer."²⁴ The low scorer also appreciated and emphasized the process of self-expression as an end in itself rather than in obtaining value through the achievement of some goal or in dutifully fulfilling a role. Adorno et.al. states, "abstract and open-ended, they [low scorers] always leave room for further development and they can never be defined in terms of simple behavior formulae or rigid rules... creativity is valued above efficiency..."²⁵

Likewise, Erich Fromm, who's work precedes Adorno's, attributes the inclination to "escape from freedom" to the authoritarian type. "The right to express our thoughts...",

Fromm elaborates, "means something only if we are able to have thoughts of our own; freedom from external authority is a lasting gain only if the inner psychological conditions are such that we are able to establish our own individuality.... [for the modern person] we have pointed out the economic conditions that make for increasing powerlessness of the individual in our era... we have shown that this powerlessness leads to the kind of escape that we find in the authoritarian character, or else in the process of which the isolated individual becomes an automaton, loses his self..."²⁶ Fromm also found that education failed in developing the conditions for freedom and free expression, "in our culture", he writes, "education too often results in the elimination of spontaneity and in the substitution of original psychic acts by superimposed feelings, thoughts, and wishes."²⁷ Fromm also notes that even under conditions where the "individual" becomes free and divorced from traditional authorities they may be are all the more susceptible to being instrumentalized and used for purposes outside of themselves thereby establishing a new form of bondage. In contrast to this, Fromm believes that positive freedom needs to be cultivated in response to these corrupting conditions. "Positive freedom... is identical with the full realization of the individual's potentialities, together with his [sic] ability to live actively and spontaneously."²⁸ "Spontaneous activity", according to Fromm, "is free activity of the self and implies... of one's free will."²⁹ Spontaneous activity was found to be a relatively rare phenomenon in our culture. "Organic growth is possible only under the condition of supreme respect for the peculiarity of the self of other persons as well as of our own self. This respect for and cultivation of the uniqueness of the self is the most valuable achievement of human culture and it is this very achievement that is in danger today."³⁰ Fromm's idea of "supreme respect" for the uniqueness of each individual echoes what many anarchists mean by valuing the intrinsic worth of the individual rather than valuing them instrumentally as a means to some other end. Therefore, according to Fromm, democracy represents the best possible system for valuing the full development of the individual, while "fascism is a system that, regardless under which name, makes the individual subordinate to extraneous purposes and weakens the development of genuine individuality."³¹ In other words, Democracy values the whole person rather than the instrumental role the person fulfills within the organizational system.

In the 1920's and 30's Wilhelm Reich, a social psychologist, defines "rigid" character types and finds them to be strongly associated with the authoritarian personality. The formation of a rigid character results from the repression of feeling, thereby inhibiting the feeling function from developing and operating on higher levels. Reich poetically describes this debilitating condition as an "emotional plague" where individuals "do not hear nor see nor feel with their hearts what they see and hear and perceive."³² In addition, Reich states, in the absence of the heart there is the building of character armor

which "result[s] in an inability to function spontaneously and naturally.... the type of character produced by this armoring was one most amenable to authoritarian or fascist political organizations."³³

In response to these tendencies, Reich argues for the establishment of a "work democracy" founded on the basis of a self-regulating autonomous character structure. The rigid character structure focuses on certainty and roles, while a self-regulating character will not rely on such pre-existing structures in order to act or respond. "In a self-regulated work-democracy", Reich continues, "...no government or political structure would be required to organize a system of railroads or conduct a postal system; these organizations would grow directly out of the social needs of transportation and mail delivery.... this dream, of course, was similar to the dream of the traditional anarchist."³⁴ Therefore, if one is do develop a society of self-regulating individuals, Reich argues, one has to establish social conditions that are based on free social interaction of the whole person rather than on the establishment of controlled and repressed static roles. Reich often uses the concepts of freedom, love, and spontaneity in place of the term self-regulating character.

A. S. Neill, an educator who was profoundly influenced by Reich, relevates the concept of creative love [NF] asserting that "within a capitalist state... there is no hope of creative love as opposed to possessive love. Only under some form of Socialism have freedom and love and education a chance."³⁵ In light of this vision Neill established Summerhill where "the child would not only be free of the authority of the family but would also be in stimulating company of a wide-variety of self-governing people."³⁶ It was at Summerhill that Neill accepted and put into practice Reich's idea of "work-demcracy," where self-regulating individuals were free to form social organizations out of need and desire not from pre-existing rules or traditions. Neill believed that the existing social structures of the family and school would be modified through the infusion of Summerhill-like schools developed across the nation. Therefore, Neill ultimately advocated for was the replacement of one school system with another.

However, contemporary educators Paul Goodman, Ivan Illich, and Paulo Freire went beyond Neill and others who were only concerned with the type of schools and curriculums that were currently in practice. They challenged the very assumptions that held together the whole educational system itself. As a result they provided a radical social critique of the educational system which they saw as being in the service of Quadrant three social systems and hegemenous ideologies. "The socialization process of the school shapes a particular type of character which meets the needs of the dominant power within the society... and the socialization process schools people into an acceptance of their social position..."³⁷ It was understood, according to these educators, that the school system was geared toward valuing the individual instrumentally only in their capacity to fill a specific role in society. Paul Goodman argued that the practice of

compulsory education must be revoked. In his book Compulsory Miseducation, Goodman states, "...the real function of education was to grade and market skills. This means, in effect, that a few great corporations are getting the benefit of an enormous weeding out and selective process -- all children are fed into the mill and everybody pays for it."³⁸ Furthermore, Goodman found that the school system created an atmosphere of mechanical conditioning that left no space for spontaneity or the free development of the potential inherent within each person.

Ivan Illich, in furthering the tradition of libertarian education, in the late 1960's argues that schools themselves are the problem. They are the source of ideological control, and they reproduce and reinforce the existing social structure. The schools also serve to alienate people from their learning and make them dependent upon the authority of institutions and experts."³⁹ Furthermore, Illich questions Neill's assumption that focusing on something called a "school", even if it be called a "free school", would be sufficient to circumvent the limitations of our existing and highly structured society. Through using Neill's approach, Illich argues, "what individuals might actually learn in such a school was that they needed an institution to give them freedom."⁴⁰ Therefore, Illich rejects the concept of the "school", be it "free" or otherwise, as having any educational legitimacy and argues that the deschooling of society and the institutional arrangements that contribute to treating learning as a commodity is needed in order to enhance the development of true autonomy.

Paulo Freire, a radical multi-cultural educator, in his book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, critiques the whole educational system's approach to learning that he calls the "banking" method of education. The "banking" method treats the student as an empty object to be filled with the appropriate materials that are defined by the teacher. In response to this Freire's educational method centers around the process of expanding consciousness through recognizing the social conditions one is in while simultaneously deconstructing and expelling the "false" consciousness of internalized images and roles foisted upon individuals by society and the elite. Denis Goulet summarizes Freire's approach:

Education in the Freire mode is the practice of liberty because it frees the educator no less than the educatees from the twin thralldom of silence and monologue. Both partners are liberated as they begin to learn, the one to know self as a being of worth -- notwithstanding the stigma of illiteracy, poverty, or technological ignorance -- and the other as capable of dialogue in spite of the strait jacket imposed by the role of educator as one who knows.⁴¹

Implied in the above passage is the transcendence of the instrumentalized role in the educational process. The educator is freed from the position of authority while the educatee is raised to an equal position of honor that frees them from the stigmatizing role

of being the "uneducated". A successful educational interaction depends upon the quality of dialogue established in the mode of reciprocity. Dialogue is the horizontal relationship between two persons who are engaged in a joint search. In addition, Freire continues, "born of a critical matrix, dialogue creates a critical attitude. It is nourished by love, humility, hope, faith, and trust. When the two 'poles' of the dialogue are thus linked by love, hope, and mutual trust, they can join in the critical search for something."⁴² In opposition to dialogue is anti-dialogue which centers on vertical relationships (as opposed to horizontal) where one individual is "over" the other and as a result, in the words of Freire, "the relation of 'empathy' is broken."⁴³ Freire's ambition is to foster the type of learning that goes on within the context of a group reasserting its rights to self-determination.

To conclude, the process of educating the capacity to be autonomous, in order to be effective, must squarely address and openly challenge the instrumentalization of the individual. Therefore one must combat all hierarchical systems because by their very nature they impose static and "instrumental" roles on individuals. A hierarchy requires individuals, for the sake of efficiency and the "bottom line", to shift into an "agentic state" for the sole purpose of carrying out the actions and wishes of those higher up in the system. According to Krishnamurti, where image-making and structure dominate the relationship one must seek to deconstruct and dissolve these preconceived thoughts, habits and structures in order to establish, in that space of non-structure, authentic communication (attention). Furthermore, philosopher Joseph Kupfer, in his book Autonomy and Social Interaction, states, "our relationships with others can just as obviously enhance or even make possible autonomy of action. Other people can bring possibilities to our attention as well as facilitate the realization of our goals."⁴⁴ Therefore, maintaining relationships that focus on the intrinsic worth of the individual through establishing a dialogue that is beyond ascribed and instrumental roles of teacher / learner will further the development of autonomy .

However, Illich, Goodman, and Freire leave us with several unresolved issues. These issues center around how to establish democratic learning environments (Quadrant four) in the absence of a centralized educational system in a Quadrant three society that actively resists it. Secondly, there is the obstacle of having to break the dependency on educators such as Freire that may form in the process of establishing and maintaining dialogue and ensuring that the development of critical awareness within the individual will take place.

Educational Processes in Community Building

If the school was to foster the social spirit in children and develop democratic character, [John] Dewey argued, it had itself to be organized as a cooperative community.⁴⁵

This section will address some of the history behind the education of those faculties responsible for building community, whether that is called interdependence, solidarity, feeling, or empathy. The emphasis of the exemplars cited here is on the building of social solidarity. However, autonomy is also explicitly supported throughout many of these works.⁴⁶

The Adorno et.al. book on the authoritarian personality in discussing the subject of social relationships relevates some important distinctions between a democratic person and an authoritarian one. They discovered that the authoritarian character formed interpersonal relationships on the basis of power and its acquisition. Secondly, they find that an "admiration for the strong and contempt for the weak accompany this attitude. Thus, high-scoring subjects show predominantly what may be called a hierarchical conception of human relationships whereas those who score low conceive of an equalitarian mutuality in such relationships."⁴⁷ An exploitive-manipulative-opportunistic attitude pervades and is expressed in the authoritarian's social behavior by using social roles and economic status for the purpose of establishing certainty in position. Or, for the more adventurous, their activity will be to use interrelationships for acquiring a more powerful position within the hierarchy. This is countered by the democratic character whose attitude is one of personalized nurturance grounded in valuing the intrinsic worth of the friendship. To be able to assess whether individuals are more susceptible to a structured or a non-structured conception of interpersonal relationships will greatly assist in determining what will be the areas of resistance as well as what is needed to create communities that honor diversity and autonomy.

Philip Slater, in his book on T-groups entitled Microcosom, identifies a number of important attributes that are associated with the development of interrelationships created in a nonhierarchical setting. The purpose of T-groups is to explicitly deepen the awareness of group/individual relations. Because there is no explicate order, structure, or goal that holds the group together, this produces the conditions necessary for the group to directly confront their own projections concerning roles, structure, and purpose. Typically this kind of "structureless" environment produces enormous amounts of tension and strife for the members of the group. In order to stop the group from escaping this precarious position in their desire for certainty via structure and rules, the T-group has a workshop leader, though not in the usual sense. Even though the role of leader is filled the leader did not do anything to control or lead the group. As a result, Slater notes, "...since the group leader plays such an ambiguous role, the member [of the group] can assume either that (1) the situation is really just like any classroom where the rewards go to the good little boy or girl [or]... (2) the group leader is really leaving everything up to the members".⁴⁸

The first assumption is usually expressed through the actions of members trying to guess what would please the leader and therefore act according to their own projections of what is appropriate and what is not. Group members holding the second assumption will tend to ignore the "current" leader and set up a peer hierarchy with

rewards to fill the absence. However, the leader does nothing to definitively reward either of these assumptions and indirectly stops the group from falling into these behaviors. "The leader seems to give no rewards, and as long as he [sic] is present, no one will fully accept a peer leader."⁴⁹

The resistance that many groups have toward this experience of uncertainty is very high and is usually focused as an attack on the leader. Slater states, "an attack on the leader occurs as frequently as it does precisely because he [sic] is neutral and impartial."⁵⁰ In addition, "if the group consistently needed to attack the leader in order to stay together, we would feel that they had not progressed very far beyond their initial dependent state."⁵¹ However, the role of the leader as inactive, impartial, and neutral is an important developmental device in the group's growth and awareness of interrelationships. "The presence of an ambiguous authority figure allows the members to share a fantasy, and as they become increasingly engrossed in this sharing, they are gradually seduced into sharing a reality instead and are thereby freed realistically to confront one another."⁵² Members of the group, in sharing themselves more deeply with each other without a judging or "active" authority figure, will naturally develop a structural solution that would ensure that such sharing would continue to take place unimpeded. As a result, the loose structure and leadership that would normally arises out of such a situation would be democratic in nature.

Carl Rogers, a humanist psychologist, used his experiences with T-groups and sensitivity training groups to develop a person-centered approach to education, psychotherapy, and group development. The person-centered approach is based on the hypothesis that "individuals have within themselves vast resources for self-understanding and for the altering of their self-concepts, basic attitudes, and self-directed behavior; these resources can be tapped if a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be created."⁵³ Rogers argues that there are three important conditions that must be present in order for the climate to be growth promoting. These conditions are as follows: 1) genuineness, realness, or congruence, 2) acceptance -- "unconditional regard", and 3) empathic understanding. It was these basic conditions that Rogers used in order to create community environments within a workshop setting. "In these groups we have come to focus our efforts on providing a climate in which the participant can make his or her own choices, can participate equally with others in planning or carrying out activities, can become more aware of personal strengths, can become increasingly autonomous and creative as the architect of his or her own life."⁵⁴ The group size in these person-centered workshops varied from that of a small group of 12 or so to upwards of 170 participants from 22 different countries. Despite the difference in size or the number of days that the workshop continued, the "group" demonstrates an amazing capacity for using what it is

given in order to reach community. "The freedom to be individual, to work toward one's own goals in a harmony of diversity, is one of the most prized aspects of the workshop."⁵⁵

Rogers found the significance of this approach for education to be great indeed. To build upon this person-centered mode of education, Rogers argues, would bring about a learning climate where: "it could free students, faculty, and administrators alike to engage in a participatory mode of decision-making about all aspects of learning... [and] it could be a situation in which both students and faculty would increasingly discover the source of values in themselves, coming to an awareness that the good life is within, not dependent on outside sources."⁵⁶ Such an educational community, Rogers continues, would encourage valuing the process of learning throughout one's life rather than in the goal of acquiring information and stature.

While Rogers and Slater approached community building from a primarily socio-psychological perspective, Jerzy Grotowski, a theater director, uses theater and ritual to establish a sense of community. Grotowski developed what he called "paratheater" as a place where individuals joined together in a workshop setting for the purpose of discovering and revealing hidden personal themes and finding new ways of behaving with each other. Theater and its tradition of playfulness with shifting roles and meanings provided the means for expressing what individuals found in their "discovery" process. Richard Schechner, a performance and theater professor, describes Grotowski's process as having a "reliance on I-thou immediacy [in Martin Buber's terms], what [Victor] Turner calls 'spontaneous communities,' to generate the rules of the game... [and a] dependence on 'group creativity' to come up with the various elements [of the performance]."⁵⁷ The workshop environment encouraged building relationships based on authentic communication. Through his insistence that the rules and structure arise out of the group, Grotowski sought to transcend static roles and bring about a level of personal insight into one's own behavior to oneself and to others. Grotowski states these concerns as a series of questions: "How to become oneself, having rejected games and everyday pretense? How to go beyond professionalism? How is it possible to be spontaneous between the routine of professionalism and the temptation of chaos? ...What is creative in man [sic] in the face of the living presence of others, in a mutual communion?"⁵⁸

The common principle found throughout the works of Philip Slater's T-groups, Carl Rogers's person-centered workshops, M.Scott Peck's community building workshops (described in chapter two), and Grotowski's paratheater workshops is that of placing individuals into situations where structure is depotentiated. In other words, in the absence of structure and Quadrant three processes, participants are given the opportunity to function and learn within a Quadrant four culture. In particular, the T-group allows for the leadership role to be filled but it is also depotentiated thereby strengthening Quadrant four culture. The group is forced to experience "structurelessness" and to explore the process of the deconstruction of social conventions and structures as the group seeks to re-establish itself as a "community" with the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

As a result, participants develop those skills that are appropriate to Quadrant four in order to successfully adapt to this "new" environment.

However, Rogers, Slater, Peck, and Grotowski encountered problems for expanding their approach outside of the isolated group experience into the larger society. Rogers states (1980), "we have not resolved the 're-entry problem' -- the person who seems to lose the gains he or she has made in the workshop upon return home."⁵⁹ Slater (1966) found this to be true for group members coming out of the T-group experience. In addition, Peck (1983) also echoes this concern when he talks about the problem of bringing the experience of community back into everyday life.⁶⁰ Similarly, Schechner states, "Grotowski did not work out, nor were his clients able to supply... reintegration. There was no way that the participants in Grotowski's paratheater could bring it home or do it publicly. Participants were left hanging: they were separated, stripped down, made into tabulae rasae; they had deep experiences, were "written upon," made new; but these "new selves" were not reintegrated into the ordinary world."⁶¹

Rogers, Peck, Slater, and Grotowski were all very successful in building Quadrant four environments that were isolated from the larger social sphere of our Quadrant three society. As a result, part of the problem with "re-entry" is that the larger society is not undergoing the deconstructive process, similar to what the participants experienced in the workshop setting, of breaking down Quadrant three structures that inhibit Quadrant four processes such as authentic communication. Furthermore, the apologists of Quadrant three and those who are in power in our society actively resist developments that call for its own deconstruction. Secondly, this resistance is not experienced in the workshops themselves because they are conducted in a protected environment that is free from those restrictions. This is done to ensure that Quadrant four explorations can occur. These workshops are set up as a "retreat" from the problems inherent in our society. As a result, workshop participants, although they might be inspired by the experience, find themselves returning to a world that is highly resistant to the practice and implementation of the skills they recently acquired. Since the majority of the population are indoctrinated in the culture of Quadrant three, many participants are faced with school, work, home, and church environments that are indifferent to the building of communities that foster personal autonomy. This can be viewed as a clash of two cultures.

While it is necessary and important to create retreat-like environments, it is not sufficient for changing the larger social conditions of Quadrant three which are in direct opposition to the work being done within the workshops. The question then becomes how do we bring this important work outside of the "retreat" setting? One method for doing this would be to structure the workshop retreat in such a manner that it becomes a rehearsal for action in the real world. This is the type of work that Augusto Boal, creator of Theatre of the Oppressed and internationally renowned Brazilian director and political activist, does through a unique form of theatre that actively engages the audience. His work over the last 40 years has opened up a whole new field in the theatre. In the late

1960's "through storytelling techniques, Boal worked with groups to create a scene in which a protagonist is failing to achieve what she needs or desires. Audience members stop the dramatic action at any moment they feel the protagonist has an option she is not exercising. They then physically replace the protagonist in the scene and improvise their alternative action, thus rehearsing for social change."⁶² This new format came to be know as "forum theatre." Forum theatre, along with a number of other theatre techniques Boal developed, centers around an oppressive incident for which one wants to find an effective solution -- hence, Boal names this the "Theatre of the Oppressed." Boal later developed what he called "image theatre" which is a series of exercises built around the expression of feelings and experiences without using words. After selecting a particular theme, participants use each other's bodies to "sculpt" images that represent either what they are feeling or the meaning of the chosen theme. These images are then "unfrozen" through exercises that assist in their movement. The other major form that Boal devised was what he called the "invisible theatre." In this setting, a sequence of events is rehearsed beforehand and then played in a public non-theatre environment. It is both real life and theatre at the same time. By incorporating the people who do not know they are watching a planned performance "the goal is to bring attention to a social problem for the purpose of stimulating public dialogue."⁶³

These dramatic forms are very different from the usual understanding and practice of theatre as it is performed on the stage using scripted roles. However, Boal reminds us that this was not always the case.

In the beginning the theatre was the dithyrambic song: free people singing in the open air. The carnival. The feast. Later, the ruling classes took possession of the theatre and built their dividing walls. First they divided the people, separating the actors from spectators; people who act and people who watch -- the party is over! Secondly, among the actors, they separated the protagonists from the mass. The coercive indoctrination began!⁶⁴

Boal's theatre techniques and forms reclaim many of the features that were once prominent in "pre-literary theatre".

Accordingly, the improvisational ensemble is an exemplary social format in which community building can be learned. This form prefigures the later day occurrence of T-groups and sensitivity training groups that I discussed above. The improvisational ensemble is a quintessential NF training ground for spontaneity [N] within an inclusive group setting, the ensemble [F]. This is what Jonathan Fox, a contemporary psychodramatist, practiced with his "Nonscripted Theatre." Fox states, "the nonscripted theatre clearly shows a strong affinity to the preliterary drama paradigm -- valuing action over words, collectivity over individuality and hierarchy, simplicity and environmental involvement over technological grandeur."⁶⁵ The emphasis on building community

is evident in Fox's description of the inner workings of his theatre company, "there was no title for the show. We did not enact plays. The actors had other jobs, some full time. We only rehearsed once a week. In our practices we spent almost as much time on group process as on skill building."⁶⁶ The material for the program and the response to the performance comes from the audience. The audience is no longer seen as separate from the performance, for it is their hopes, fears, challenges, and questions that are enacted on the stage. As the night carries on, the separation between actors and the community dissolves as they are invited onto the stage to be a part of the process. Therefore, the social sphere becomes inextricably intertwined with the theatre process.

Jonathan Fox's Unscripted Theatre is an outgrowth of the work that pioneering psychodramatist Jacob Moreno (1889-1974) did in the 1920's and 30's. It is from Moreno's work that come the concepts and exercises of role playing, role reversal, and role simulation. The "encounter movement" of the 50's and 60's came out of Moreno's articulation of the power and importance of the "moment" and the spontaneous creative encounter. In addition, "he was also unique in being one of the first to develop the concept of the patient as co-therapist rather than the victim of the 'helper.'"⁶⁷ The gestalt therapy group work developed by Fritz Perls and Paul Goodman is seen as an extension of Moreno's work.⁶⁸ Moreno, though more known for his work in creating the psychodrama field, was also very productive in his work on group development and behavior, which he termed "sociodrama." "Psychodrama", in the words of Moreno, "has been defined as a deep action method dealing with inter-personal relations and private ideologies, and sociodrama as a deep action method dealing with inter-group relations and collective ideologies."⁶⁹ While psychodrama is centered around the individual, the subject of sociodrama is the group.

It is the group as a whole that has to be put on the stage to work out its problem... But as the group is only a metaphor and does not exist by itself, its actual content are interrelated persons composing it, not as private individuals but as representatives of the same culture. Sociodrama... has to essay the difficult task of developing deep action methods, in which the working tools are representative types within a given culture and not private individuals.... The concept underlying this approach is the recognition that man [sic] is a role player, that every individual is characterized by a certain range of roles which dominate his [sic] behaviour, and that every culture is characterized by a certain set of roles which it imposes with a varying degree of success upon its membership.⁷⁰

Through the technique of relevating cultural roles using dramatic methods, Moreno seeks to uncover and explore the more sophisticated aspects of intercultural relations. Having done this it becomes all the more possible to play out and resolve deep intergroup conflicts and tensions. Contemporary diversity and intercultural sensitivity training owes a great debt to the sociodrama method developed by Moreno.

The theories and methodologies presented in the socio-political section demonstrates not only that autonomy and community building can be developed but that each can support the other in that process. However, for the most part the education of these capacities are done outside of everyday life because of the threat that this shift poses to the existing socio-political framework.

For example, much of Moreno's work centered around the expression and release of feelings and emotions. It is this emphasis, Fox believes, that may have contributed to Moreno's lack of a broad audience, "I think one reason why Moreno, despite his early appearance on the scene, always remained outside the establishment was his willingness to go all the way in the direction of purging feelings. The result, consistently, was high drama and a jolt to our habits of emotional distance and rationality."⁷¹

[table of contents]  [previous]  [next]