Is the world coming to an end? Are we going downhill? The rich industrialized nations pulling the whole world into destruction, catastrophic war or ecological collapse? Will we be swallowed up'and annihilated by our own inventions? Will we continue to replace our dying nature with technical devices to keep us alive? Will we one day depend on artificial atmospheric conditioning, on synthetic food, on man-made social programming from birth to death as in A. Huxley's "Brave, New World"?1 Will today's trend toward the global shopping center, the uniformed world market, world taste and world citizen, which the leaders of the global corporations envisage, continue its rapid transformation of the world?

Table of Contents

Prologue 1


Chapter I: Reality: a Human Construction 10

on intellectual analysis
just how real is reality
importance of concepts and language
reconsidering some choices
I and the world the new religion - objectivity

Chapter II: Learning: learning is personal development 20

two ways of learning and knowing
two ways of learning - summary
"ripeness is all"

Chapter III: Teaching: not Summerhill 29

education in permanent dialogue
Carl Rogers - Freedom to learn
the fundamental importance of trust
Martin Buber

Chapter IV: The Relativity of values and the Search for Meaning: 43

the "good old ties"
Sartre and the valueless value
losing oneself
the "port" for wandering man


Chapter V: Public Schools or the Production of the Consumer Society: 50

about decisions
no space for decisions - an example
becoming a creature of the school
school reform
the fundamental decision
the school and its place in society

Chapter VI: The World of the Adult: 65

worker dissatisfaction
capitalism, family and community life capitalism and work consumption
approaching the limits

Chapter VII: Changes: humanization of work 76

democracy in the economy
community organizing
deschooling the school

Notes 91

Bibliography 97


Is the world coming to an end? Are we going downhill? The rich industrialized nations pulling the whole world into destruction, catastrophic war or ecological collapse? Will we be swallowed up'and annihilated by our own inventions? Will we continue to replace our dying nature with technical devices to keep us alive? Will we one day depend on artificial atmospheric conditioning, on synthetic food, on man-made social programming from birth to death as in A. Huxley's "Brave, New World"?1 Will today's trend toward the global shopping center, the uniformed world market, world taste and world citizen, which the leaders of the global corporations envisage, continue its rapid transformation of the world?2
It seems that at all times people felt that the world was coming to an end, and in all times they talked about decay, collapse, chaos and disaster. But to dismiss the fears, concerns and warnings of contemporary social "worriers" on such grounds would indeed be a cheap cop-out. We seem to have reached a point where some fundamental changes in our accustomed life are necessary if we want to avoid the deterioration and decay of the quality of life and its possible final end.
While we are still the same kinds of people as those of earlier times and cultures, we must realize that we have been born into a world-situation which has never before existed, and that we face a task, which no people or culture before us have ever faced.
Man has set in motion forces which have united the world into one

global traffic, information, marketing, communication, warfare -- and while those forces have given man a lot of freedom, safety and comfort, they have grown and still grow in their power, taking a course evermore independent from, even against, our will and interest. If we don't succeed to gain control over our world, those forces will shape our lives, our environment, our possibilities, more and more according to their own needs and demands, and they will eventually break our world in their blind fury. While in earlier times catastrophes were local, relatively small disruptions in an overall stable ecological framework, modern man is now able to set off forces which not only scrape the surface of the world but which have the potential to completely destroy the ecological system of the earth, and to thereby threaten all life. Whether man sets off such forces on purpose or whether they happen out of our inability to deal with the powerful and explosive situation, the impact will be of large scale, possibly world-wide, and the damage and consequences of unwanted and unfortunate accidents are and will be serious. Paul Erlich3 describes in a scenario how a chemical and biological chain reaction leads to the "death" of the ocean. Unanticipated "side" effects and hasty and wrong ways to correct them -- something inherent in the finiteness of human intelligence -- can become a dance macabre in today's world. R. Heilbroner speaks about an "unequal balance between power and control" and he says: ". . . the external challenge of the human prospect, with its threats of runaway populations, obliterative war, and potential environmental collapse, can be seen as an extended and growing crisis induced by the advent of a command over natural processes and forces that far exceed the reach of our present mechanisms of social control." 4


The Pupil in Magic

"I am now, -- what joy to hear it!
Of the old magician rid;
And henceforth shall ev'ry spirit
Do whate'er by me is bid;
I have watch'd with rigor
All he used to do,
And will now with vigor
Work my wonders too.

Wander, wander
Onward lightly,
So that rightly
Flow the torrent,
And with teeming waters yonder
In the bath discharge its current!

And now come, thou well-worn broom,
And they wretched form bestir;
Thou hast ever serv'd as groom,
So fulfil my pleasure, sir! On two legs now stand, With a head on top; Waterpail in hand,
Haste, and do not stop!

Wander, wander
Onward lightly,
So that rightly
Flow the torrent,
And with teeming waters yonder
In the bath discharge its current!

See! he's running to the shore,
And has now attain'd the pool,
And with lightning speed once more
Comes here, with his bucket full!
Back he then repairs;
See how swells the tide!
How each pail he bears
Straightway is supplied!

Stop, for, lo!
All the measure
Of thy treasure
Now is right! --
Ah, I see it! woe, oh, woe!
I forget the word of might.


Ah, the word whose sound can straight
Make him what he was before!
Ah, he runs with nimble gait!
Would thou wert a broom once more!
Streams renew'd forever
Quickly bringeth he;
River after river
Rusheth on poor me!

Now no longer
Can I bear him;
I will snare him
Knavish sprite!
Ah, my terror waxes stronger!
What a look! what fearful sight!

Oh, thou villain child of hell!
Shall the house through the be drown'd?
Floods I see that wildly swell,
O'er the threshold gaining ground.
Wilt thou not obey,
Oh, thou broom accurs'd?
Be thou still, I pray,
As thou wert at first!

Will enough
Never please thee?
I will seize thee,
Hold thee fast,
And thy nimble wood so tough,
With my sharp axe split at last.

See, once more he hastens back!
Now, oh, Cobold, thou shalt catch it!
I will rush upon his track;
Crashing on him falls my hatchet.
Bravely done, indeed!
See, he's cleft in twain!
Now from care I'm freed,
And can breathe again.

Woe, oh, woe!
Both the parts,
Quick as darts,
Stand on end,
Servants of my dreaded foe!
Oh, ye gods, protection send!

And they run! and wetter still Grow the steps and grows the hall Lord and master, hear me call!
Ever seems the flood to fill,
Ah, he's coming! see,
Great is my dismay!


Spirits rais'd by me
Vainly would I lay!

"To the side
Of the room
Hasten, broom,
As of old!

Spirits I have ne'er untied 5

Save to act as they are told."

Like the sorcerer's apprentice, we couldn't resist the temptation to tinker with the forces of nature, as we discovered them. We had to try them out. We left the place in which we belonged, we have turned partnership with nature into domination, we have made ourselves kings over the earth - reckless and proud kings.
While the great tools which we developed certainly have the Potential to do much good, and while discovery and invention are fascinating tasks and irresistible temptations for almost all of us, in spite of the consequences they may have, we seem to be rather helpless and unable to cope with just those consequences. What we created as servant threatens to overpower us. Although we can see the negative impact of the continuous growth of our economies and the expansion of technology, the development of evermore powerful weapons, although we can see nature being pushed back into a corner more and more, although we can see the serious damage that has already been done to our environment, although we can see how minor mistakes become an increasing threat to the weakened ecological balance, although many people feel that the ongoing massification and standardization of life within large-scale organizations, corporations and bureaucracies turns their lives into routines that seem to have less and less meaning, although we can see that there is a big discrepancy between rich and poor in every country as well as among the world Population, and that the gap becomes wider instead of narrower,

although many people feel that this is not really the way they want to live and the world to go, and that the price they pay for the present standard of living and its future growth is too high, in spite of all this, we seem to be incapable of influencing the direction in which the industrialized countries move. The way toward more technology and bigger and bigger scale, toward more consumption, more need of raw Materials and energy, toward more and deadlier weapon systems, toward more starvation and overpopulation, toward further environmental deterioration, seems inevitable. We feel helpless, overwhelmed. Many withdraw into the protection of "private happiness," hopelessness, indifferent egoism or depression.
In Goethe's poem there is a happy ending, and the sorcerer's apprentice, we hope, learned his lesson. But where is our master? Who will come and stop what we cannot stop? And this is the theme in these pages: we need a master to stop what we have set in motion, and we must come to realize that there is and will be no master but ourselves. We must change things, if they are,to change at all. We must first try to understand what is happening all around us, and at the same time, we must ask ourselves how we feel and what we think about it, what we would want things to be. If we know what we want and what is, we can go to work and negotiate toward a new world.
I will be talking about politicization, about "education for critical consciousness 6, about growing up and standing on one's own feet, about strength. A broad uprising of consciousness, a popular movement to achieve the basic changes we need to strive for: to institute the principle of balance and cooperation instead of domination and rivalry in all aspects of individual and social life. Such a movement and change is what we need.
While every person should stand on his or her own feet, while every person should grow into a responsible, understanding and caring engagement and

relationship with the world, this will probably remain an ideal -- a worthy ideal, but an ideal nevertheless. Change will always be implemented, imposed to some extent. People will always surrender to authorities to some extent. However, and this is central in my view of the present times, there are ways to set in motion more of the human Potential which is now crushed and oppressed in various ways, to encourage people to stand on their own feet, to express their opinions and oppose and negotiate with the "system," whether the system is specific people that resist change, whether it is our own laziness, our habits, our temptation for power, or our lust for more and more of this and that. I feel that it is possible to set in motion such a process of broad politizization of regaining our political potency as individuals and as societies. I will show how our present society creates passivity and dependency and how we can set free the human energies that will rise against the powerful forces which are taking over our planet.
The situation in any case will never be either/or, it will always be "toward." An individual's experience will always be determined by fear and trust, by the desire and fear to love. Fear, protection, wanting to control, wanting therefore power and superiority, and the craving for love, intimacy and warmth are all part of our nature. Human rationality to me is the strength to acknowledge one's fear and to resist it, the conscious courage to openness, the ethical obligation to trust in the good in the other, to trust in fair play. Such strength must not be understood as rigid principle, but as a living attempt in the face of one's fear, a struggle within ourselves. Such strength and human rationality grow out of experience, effort, reflection and will. It is only out of such personal strength and security, that cooperation, respect, tolerance and peace can grow. It is certainly easier not to face the task to be strong and to live the life of a consumer, a


coward, pushing the responsibility which is inherent in being alive, over to the other, saying that "if they would, I would too" and "they never It also demands less courage to go on living in fear, to let fear turn us into animals. Unable to confront our fear, we are driven into competition, we try to be stronger, more popular, richer, more knowledgeable than the other. And not only are we as individuals pushed into the deadly spiral of wanting to be on top, but this is the irrational obsession of nations, economies, technological expansion, military growth, etc. And to be sure, the fear itself is not irrational, in the sense that nobody would do us any harm, if we gave up our position of power. It is possible that we will get hurt and be taken advantage of by others. The irrationality is rather our incapability to face this possibility and to accept it, should it really happen. Instead we live in blind fear and we are driven on and on in our flight, which at the end will be self destructive. The clearest manifestation of this irrational fear-ridden behavior is the evergrowing military power of the US and the Soviet Union. The ultimate consequence of a change toward cooperation would indeed be to accept the possibility of being killed by another. This courageous acceptance would end the power which fear now has over us. -- And, if we do it, it is unlikely that we would be killed.
And again, it is not a question of either all people are super-humans or the world is doomed to destroy itself. It is a question of moving and striving toward being - not super, but just - human. And contracts, agreements and laws will protect what human reason has come to see as necessary, and they will lessen the demands on the person's perfectness.

"Some say that mankind won't long endure, but what makes them feel so dog,unsure? I know that you, who hear my singing, could make those freedom bells go ringing!

And so we keep on, while we live,
until we have no, no more to give,
and when these fingers can strum no longer,
hand the old guitar to someone younger!
And when these fingers can strum no longer,
hand the old guitar to someone younger!


I do not intend to make a careful or comprehensive analysis of modern society. I want to examine the question of growing up, of finding one's place between impotence and omnipotence, of entering into relationship with and toward the world. Only when our society has become a society of persons, of "subjects" and has outgrown its degrading stage as society of consumers, of dehumanized "objects,"7 only when people encouraged and challenged begin to face the world, only then will we analyze what we see and debate among us about the "good life."8
The first chapters are theoretical in principle, yet reality (as I see it) often shines through -- I couldn't help it. The second part of this thesis is more practical, a battle between the theory, the ideal and the reality, so to speak.
As not to laugh at myself, (or to get discouraged) I have to often remind myself, and I want to remind you too, that, although I may often speak about the ideal, the perfect, the important is the "toward." This is all we can do and hope for, and it is enough.


Chapter I

Reality: A Human Construction

on intellectual analysis:
It seems appropriate to start out with somethoughts of the need and value and the problems of intellectual analysis. In order to be able to lead our lives, to negotiate with what claims to be "reality" and to compromise with it toward what we want our lives to be, we must be able to understand and see what this reality that wants to impose itself upon us, really is. Intellectual strength is therefore one quality which we need if we don't want to be the pin-ball with the machine of industrialized society.
The following summary of Peter L. Berger's theory of socialization9 (with some personal touch of mine to it) will be helpful in understanding better our relationship to reality and it's claims upon us.
Just how real is reality?
When man is thrown into the world, the world is chaos, an overwhelming
confusion. Selma Fraiberg describes in her book "Das verstandene Kind" 10 how the newborn baby at first closes out this Konfusion by hardly ever being awake, by rarely and only for brief moments focusing on something. It faces the Konfusion of unordered experience and the anxiety resulting from it very carefully, so as not to get overwhelmed by it. After some weeks, the baby has succeeded to make one stable connection, to find one little piece of solid, reliable order in the universe: Face and comfort (food, warmth, etc.) go together. In slowly making other connection, the chaos becomes some first structure, and it becomes less frightening to open up toward the


The child's interest in the world grows and it learns new things every day. Acquiring language enables the infant to get all things straight and manipulate them through wordsi Mama, Papa,the spoon, the car. It eventually also learns what is nice and what isn't, what the mailman is, how to cross a street safely, and many right and wrongs that make up our world.
Rules, norms, words, categories, intellectual concepts and approaches, values, behavior etc., build a structure to our life, build the "nomos" 11
of our society. Berger writes: " . . . To participate in the society is to share its 'knowledge,' that is, to co-inhabit its nomos.' The objektive nomos is internalized in the course of socialization. It is thus appropriated by the individual, to become his own, subjektive ordering of experience . . . "12 If a person encounters the same norms and truths, values and behaviors over and over again, if they constitute a part of the social nomos that is almost universally shared by all members of the society or at least by these people who are of significance to him (parents, relatives, friends, teachers, etc.) then they take on a quality of objectivity, of "God-givenness." The person, taking the specific part of the nomos for granted, is losing sight of the human origins of what is being socially communicated' and it becomes Iran objektive reality." 13
While the nomos of society protects us from the threat of anomy and complete disorientation, it also restricts us. We have grown accustomed to one interpretation of reality and we are blind to other ones. Unaware of it we have chosen certain values, norms, behaviors, ways of thinking, etc. It is only when we encounter a contradiction, when mother says this is so, while uncle says it isn't, that we become more aware of our choosing.
The importance of concepts and language:
I started out with the question what is and how do we deal with reality.


Well reality is what we choose it to be, but most of the times we are not aware of our choices, we have lost sight of the human origin of what surrounds us, and we have lost our sense of co-creatorship in it. Socialization always tends to narrow down a person's potency as co-creator of his life. The restrictions inherent in socialization may even become painful and tyrannic. Yet unaccustomed to question our reality, lacking the words and concepts which make reality comprehensible, we may not find the origins of our suffering, and we may thus continue to live in a feeling of Konfusion dissatisfaction, depression or anxiety, without the capacity to confront the "trouble-maker."
It is only when we have a concept and word of something that we can easily point to it, that we can have a firm grip on it. As long as we lack the word, we struggle in searching and defining what it is we want to express. I was told that in Cuba there is no word for strike. Imagine the amount of talking, explaining and thinking, the uncertainty and self doubt which people must go through, until "strike" has taken a clear shape and can now happen. Once we have succeeded in the effort of creating what we mean, we can give it a label, call it strike, or signifikant learning or consensus. To have the word is to be able to communicate efficiently.
Reconsidering some choices:
We will thus be helpless to argue with the reality of our society as long as we are unable to see large pieces of it. This is especially true for complex matters. While we mav have a vague feeling that something might be wrong with the principle of self-augmenting economic growth or with the taken for granted way of public education, it is very hard to get beyond the feeling, and we will often stay within unarticulate discomfort.
C. A. Bowers in his book "Cultural Literacy for Freedom" makes the case


that schools, as the only systematic introduction into the larger cultural issues on an intellectual level, transmit certain myths, that is "out-dated" parts are the nomos of our society, which are still shared very widely. In providing us with certain concepts which are supposed to explain reality, the school also provides us with the only way that we will be able to explain this reality, and this all the more because of the school's monoploy of learning and its mostly standardized middle-class world view.
The student's own experience, his doubts and questions, his observations and thoughts, are, of course, a Potential threat to such myths because, if they were taken seriously, they might lead to the re-thinking of what has been taken for granted. It is in this sense that a sincere relation to one's own experiences (of any kind) is essential for a critical consciousness and for the capability to keep in touch with the realness of reality. Consequently, in order to educate for "cultural literacy" the teachers must, as C.A. Bowers argues, always take in account and relate to the student's experiences. At the same time they must raise some critical questions about our culture and help the student to understand more deeply the reality of modern life. The teacher must especially address those widely shared myths that threaten the contemporary world. Autonomous technology, environmental deterioration and the dangers of ecological disorder, the threat of catastrophic war, the finiteness of natural resources, energy and raw material, the self-sustaining growth of production and consumption in a capitalist economy, etc. must be discussed in the classroom, If the students are to be enabled to cope with these problems effectively, they must be helped to rethink some taken-forgranted beliefs and principals involved in them. This implies, of course, that the teacher himself must be able to transcend the taken-for-granted myths of industrialized societies and to raise the critical questions that need to


be asked. As long as the teacher does not have vocabulary and conceptual tools to thus question his and his students' reality, he will be unable to enhance the student's intellectual potency, and student and teacher will be captives of their socialization.
I and the World:
A person's political agency, his potency as co-creator of his life, depends as we have seen, on his intellectual understanding of the influence the "world" has on him. In this sense, it can be important today to gain some analytical insights into the underlying beliefs and the governing princiPles of capitalist economies, of public education, of the organization of work in capitalist production, etc. It is clear, however, that such understanding by itself is not enough to create a convincing participant in the political debate about the good life. Such understanding of the world must be connected as fully as possible with the individual him or herself. It is only by having a clear sense and knowledge of my own needs and wants, my motivations for action and my strengths, limitations and blindspots, that I can emerge as a human being on the "political scene," sincerely concerned about the world and engage as such human being actively with the world. This is not to say that we all have to be perfect before we are allowed to think about or act in any way in the world outside. But it is to say that we must strive for such perfection, for the greatest possible sincerity in our concerns and the greatest possible congruence of what we say we are and what we are. As we know more about ourselves, we also know more about our relationship with the world, our motives, that govern our deeds. Any deed, any activity is in this sense subjective, the concern of an individual. To claim to be neutral is an illusion whether we know it or not, and whether we use it as such or not. There is confusion in our minds and in our culture about

neutrality and objectivity.
There is confusion in our minds and in our culture about neutrality and objectivity, which are often mistaken for the same. We can strive toward objectivity in the sense of sincerity and fairness, but we cannot be neutral, because that would mean that we would be free of ourselves, of every smallest part of individuality, or that we would be perfect, all-knowing, God.
Whenever people come together to debate about something or decide on something, they will see themselves and each other as more or less competent and convincing in this Situation. This order in competence is in constant motion with the changing world. While a flat equality, reducing everybody to one vote, is unrealistic, there still is equality in the sense that objectivity or competence are always attempts, struggles, in which everybody can and does participate, and nobody can be beyond the attempt.
Objectivity in its misunderstood form of neutrality puts a person, a way of thinking, or a specific myth into a superior position, above the others. It gives the power to say right and wrong regardless of the "masses." The individual's relationship to the claim of neutrality is therefore important, because it determines the degree to which he or she surrenders uncritically to such a claim or opposes it and dares to take part in the political debate. If specific persons, modes of thought, principles or values have the Status of neutrality for many people, the society will to this extent become the slave of those persons, values or principles. The political debate becomes more restricted and will finally cease to exist. Looking at the modern world of science and technology, it is precisely this which happened.

The New Religion: Objectivity.
The French Revolution of 1789 can be seen as the official declaration

of reason as highest authority and the reduction of religion to a position of only relative, private authority. Now it was through reason that man tried to define good and bad and right and wrong. Unreasonable authority (kings, religious beliefs, etc.) were slowly dismantled. "Religion stopped being something like the sky and became something like a bank of clouds." 14
Reason, with its tendency toward context-free abstraction, away from individual idiosyncracies, unreasonable or emotional reaction and needs, traditions, cultural differences, etc. found those same principals of abstraction and standardization in the minds of the engineers, who had at the same time some remarkable successes as inventors and constructors of new machines, which soon set off the broad stream of industrialization. The product of the engineers were so impressive and enlarged human independence, safety and comfort so immensely, that the mode of thought, the basic principles of such wonderful success soon reached a status which gave it legitimacy far beyond its original field of application, spilling over into other areas of life and merging with the ideal of reason. While some thinkers of reason may have thought the definition it had taken somewhat narrow, it nevertheless was soon accepted as new religion, and its principles became the tools and guidelines for the organization of life. Efficiency in terms of largest output, smallest input and minimal cost, componentiality, the idea that the whole is but the sum of all parts, progress, linear advancement toward more and more, seen as natural and good a priori, rationality, to do a task in the shortest time or the cheapest way, etc. etc., became the tools and principles with which to solve all problems. In contrast to their a priori legitimacy, other concerns were seen as irrational, unreasonable or disturbing, and people who voiced them were stupid, romantic, unrealistic, irrelevant or conservative. The questions were called silly or unimportant.

1 7

Jürgen Habermas calls the scientific-technical mode of thought and action "purposive rational thought or action." 15 Purposive rational action, originally a subsystem of the "institutional framework," 16
has become a system itself, embodying and governing all other modes of thought or action like religious beliefs, traditions, mystic orientations, etc. Politics have become the domain of the expert. The expert solves the social problems, plans the future and decides in the present according to the princiPles of purposive rational action. Claiming to be neutral, they nevertheless shaped modern life in specific ways according to the demands of rationality, efficiency, progressivity, etc.
How is it then, that the deficiencies of purposive rational thought and action, of the problem-solving approach of social engineering, etc., which lie mainly in their inherent blindness to qualitative concerns and the unique context of all life, is taken as inevitable and causes only very few people to challenge the appropriateness of purposive rational action in its selflegitimizing position? Why is it that its standard answer to the question for the good life, "growth of productive forces, extension of power of
technical control" was never challenged?
The answer to that lies in our habituation to the religion of objectivity, in the confusion of objectivity and neutrality. The scientific or technocratic expert has become the new priest- While we do not understand his language, the expert on the other hand believing in his neutrality himself, does not leave this closed system of knowledge, logical in itself, to ask more fundamental questions like "what do we want,' questions which we could discuss in ordinary language. He and his colleagues, his teachers and his textbooks will define such issues as the domain of the philosophers or politicians. They only provide the solution to the problems presented to them.


Being socialized into the nomos of modernity, into the norms and values of purposive rational growth, we are quite helpless when we try to challenge the arguments of purposive rational thought. Most people cannot easily understand what we say when we transcend the taken-for-granted beliefs of progressivity, efficiency, etc., and even for ourselves it is a difficult task to envisage and believe in other waysof acting and thinking, to create a new world beyond the present reality. To legitimize ordinary language against the resistance of many with an uncritical belief in the expert, against the narrow-minded experts themselves, and against our own doubts is the first step toward the creation of this new world.
In order to be able to imagine realistic alternatives, lives for human beings rather than machines, we need to make explicit the beliefs and principles that govern and organize modern society. We need to work out new concepts and new language with which in discussion and experiment we can concretize social change. We must have original political debate in the subjective language of real human being. We must abandon the statically hierarchical division of society into those who plan and those who consume life, which thehn makes it unnecessary for people to bother about anything but consuming -and showing up for work on time." 18 We must draw the expert into this debate, utilizing his knowledge when it seems appropriate. Abstraction, general rules ideologies, etc. must always be subordinated to the experience of life, so that they be tools to our ends rather than the other way around. Only when we have de-mystified the sciences, technology and economics, as they impose themselves upon our minds now, can we have a real political debate about what we want.
To know the outcome of such a debate in advance would be the creation of
a new hierarchical leadership of planners. I don't think there will ever be


an outcome in the sense of final stage or reached paradise anyway. The creation and development of alternative in theory and practice must grow out of continuous communication, where redefinitions of ideas, goals, values, etc., is possible, whenever somebody believes it necessary. And, once more, we must stop to be consumers of whatever "they" come up with, and we must take care of our lives ourselves.
In the next two chapters I will discuss real learning and how it can be enhanced. Later, I will then describe how in my view, public schools constantly sabotage all possibilities to grow up to one's full size, but rather turn their students systematically into objects, molding them into their form of school.


Chapter II


Learning is personal development:
Learning goes on throughout our lifes. We learn while we grow older. Therefore I can say learning is personal development, and personal development is learning. Learning is inevitable. No matter what we do, we learn. What we learn is another and, of course, quite important question. Learning is not so much a desire, but a necessity for man. We face a task and try to cope with it, be it the climbing of stairs, the expression of one's needs and wishes, the fixing of a radio, the communication with a Frenchman, the running of a business, the organizing of a political action, the raising of children, the life in an intimate relationship, etc., they all contain learning. Learning is a consequence of our wish or need to be successful in what we want or must do. In periods when we feel excited about learning, we feel how we approach the mastery we desire, how we are getting there. At other times when learning seems slow and unproduktive, it is hope which keeps us going.
When we are forced to learn something, the degree of our concentration depends on the importance which we are able to find in this matter. Most everything is of some importance to us. But while most everything can be relevant to a person, every person has his own "entrances" into the matter, and everybody wants to get something different out of the encounter, depending on his own questions, tasks and needs.
The fact that human beings, children especially, often ask questions is
a symptom for the ever-present drive to make sense out of what they see and


experience. Berger 19 talks about a "human craving for meaning that appears to have the force of instinct." He relates this need for meaning to the threat of anomy, that is chaos and disorientation. Learning may so indeed come out of our deepest fear, the fear of the uncertain, the fear to be attacked, the fear that our life, this tender spark in our body, will be blown out and then everything is over for good. To be able to control and explain one's world and to make it predictable, is the only way we can diminish this ultimate danger and fear. - However we choose to explain it, the fact remains that people ask questions. These questions in all degrees of complexity and intensity of interest all say "that's strange, tell me about it! What is that? How does it work? Why do you do this? Where do you go?
They are all manifestations of ongoing learning, of finding the explanations
to one's experiences.
Man thus has an innate curiosity or desire to learn. The desire is there, even though its degree varies because of the individual's genetic make-up, his experiences in early childhood or later life or a mix of all the above.
Yet the way we deal with this natural tendency in those who enter school with whatever degree of curiosity is simply crazy. We seem to have stumbled over the same rock and taken the same wrong path which we took in our relationship with the environment: Here too, we trust more in our capacity to control and improve nature than in the natural processes at work. In recent times we become increasingly aware of the limits and costs of what we thought to be our strength and advantage as we see more and more clearly the consequences of our failure to tune into rather than to take over the environment. Habermas, referring to Marcuse's concept of an altered relationship to nature, says: "Instead of treating nature as the object of possible technical control, we can encounter her as an opposing partner in a possible interaction." 20


Even when a person's drive to learn is weak, it is only by encouraging this existing drive, by tuning into the other's life, by engaging in interaction with the other "as an opposing partner,' that we can stimulate and center the incidental learning, 21 which is unseparable from life. Schools instead force man-made programs and methods upon the student, giving him more or less assistance to establish a minimall meaningful relationship between the imposed subject matter and himself and, since this is not always successful, they insure a two percent presence through constant grading. They are only concerned with the program, pouring it upon 20 or 30 kids. They first block any learning a student may have been engaged in and then they start their own program designed for "the age-group" and equipped with the largest amount of special gags, as to catch the student's attention which, as it seems, must always be caught and dragged to where it is supposed to be according to the curriculum or clock.
The attitude toward learning in our society appears to be a typical "yes-but" attitude. "We acknowledge that human beings are motivated to learn and that such natural learning could bring good results. We know this living kind of learning ourselves and enjoy it. But . . . (Take your books and read on page 47!)."
The issue therefore isn't the question whether we must force people to learn (because otherwise they wouldn't learn anything) or whether they would learn if we encourage and stimulate them. I could quote many authors here who would agree that an individual would undertake a lot of learning (starting from small, going to big) if we encouraged him and gave him the freedom to follow his interests, and that furthermore the quality of such learning would be much higher than the quality of imposed learning. The real issue thus seems to be man's fears and his need for control.

In the prologue I discussed the constant tension between the fear to be hurt and the desire to be close, in which man lives. We control out of fear. Education in partnership is not possible as long as fear dominates ourselves and our social institutions. Partnership can only be when we face our fear, gather our courage to trust and so, by applying our will, create ourselves as human beings and humanity. The change to partnership in education will not happen, just because the experts say that it would improve the quality of learning. It will happen only if those who engage in teaching (which includes many more people besides teachers) are encouraged to face their own need to control and then, acknowledging its existence, try to slowly overcome it and to practice trust.
Far from being something mystical such development toward courage and openness can be enhanced by others and it could therefore be part of the teacher's training. Change will not fall from the sky, we must work for it, if we want it. Education in partnership, the attempt to deepen and intensify learning and personal development, will be the concern of the next chapter. But before that, I want to describe two ways of learning and knowing. This will be a repetition of much which I have said before, implicitly or explicitly. I hope however, that in summarizing and re-formulating, it may help to make my ideas more concrete and clearer.
I will call the two kinds of learning and knowing "living learning" 22
and "dead learning." It is obvious that no learning can be entirely dead, as long as the person is not dead himself. No learning can be entirely "living" either, for any structure which defines us is in a sense "dead," but without it we cannot exist. These names seem appropriate, because they point to the heart of the matter: "living learning" is linked to and motivated by the individual's questions about life, to his search for sense, for the "good life."


"Dead learning" by contrast is disconnected from the individual's searching. It is a task apart from the person's development or growth.

Two ways of learning and knowing:
The connection between the person and the knowledge of the world outside is a central characteristic of living learning. Learning of this sort is the intellectual enterprise, making logical connections, checking one's findings with other people, etc., and the emotional experience of sudden understanding, of revelation, of new clarity or being engaged in a meaningful task. Living learning is an individual enterprise, it happens when an individual is working on his or her own questions and puzzles, follows his or her interests. Living learning is not only easy going and pleasurable, it can become a grim pursuit, a serious effort to conquer what one wants to conquer. Living learning is somehow a vital part of the learner's life. What is experienced as signifikant learning cannot be forgotten, but it will be melted into the whole of the person. Living learning is related to a person's values, ideas and interests. Its results, opinions and conclusions cannot be correct or incorrect, they cannot be evaluated on an objektive scale. This is not to say that one cannot criticize these results. While they deal with subjektive truths, the learner's thinking can still be narrow-minded, superficial or incoherent and illogical. He can still rely on incorrect facts or unconvincing theories.
Dead learning by contrast deals with closed systems of knowledge, which in themselves are logical and coherent but which do not seek to relate to broader issues and questions. Physics for instance, presented as a closed system, is only concerned with its internal structure and its internal consistency. A learner who studies physics as a closed system will be told by the teacher, the textbook, other students and people of the same mindset, that


they are not competent or interested in ethical or similar questions. This is the implicit message of the closed system of knowledge which tends to contaminate people's minds with the fantasy of neutrality: ethical questions are then the domain of the philosophers, worries about the environment are the domain of the ecologist, etc. People then say that they are not competent to deal with those issues and to leave the realm of the closed system becomes illegitimate. The differentiation into closed system and open knowledge does not lie in the nature of things, but it is rather a product of our minds. As I have shown in the previous chapter, the widespread treatment of the natural sciences as closed systems is the product of certain historical developments. People are free to identify or refuse to do so with this notion. Closed systems are attractive because of the safety and order which they provide through their exclusiveness. The perception of a certain "body of knowledge" as a closed system can become a "hideout" for man so as to "escape responsibility for his way of living," 23 just as Martin Buber describes Adam hiding "from the face of God"24 after having eaten from the tree of knowledge. Not only can closed systems of knowledge have such a function, bor they are maintained and defended as "hideouts, for "every man is Adam and finds himself in Adam's situation." 25
Dead learning is not coming from within, but rather it is imposed on the learner. It is not linked to the learner's questions, but rather to the demands of a program, teacher, curriculum, to a standard notion of what one should know. It turns the learner's attention toward external standards and points of reference, rather than toward his own. It is bound to be uncritical consumption of knowledge and cannot be consumed critically because of the missing link to the student's own experience, his own questions, etc. It tends to be dull and what has been learned, if not carefully maintained, tends


to deteriorate quite fast into a jumbo-mumbo of irrelevant and often distorted fragments and incorrect memories. Dead learning is not by itself rewarding and enjoyable. If it is satisfying it is because it makes possible the satisfaction of another need, quite separate from the content of the learning: the hope for a good grade or money becomes the Motivation for any learning or work, and it is there where the satisfaction comes from.

Two ways of learning summary:

Living learning
learning is part of one's life

one wants to do it
involves personal risk
ultimate evaluation from within
increases independent, critical awareness
directly rewarding and satisfying
pressure from outside is inhibiting
learning is an infinite process
individual truths
tendency toward generalizing
creative and active
seek relationship with the rest of the world
everyday language
creates philosophers
tendency toward partnership

Dead learning
learning is artificially attached to one's life
by someone else
one has to do it
doesn't involve personal risk
ultimate evaluation from without
decreases independent, critical
indirectly rewarding and satisfying
pressure from outside is helpful
learning is a finite process
standard truths
tendency toward specializing
consumptive and passive
does not seek relationship with the
rest of the world
specialized jargon
creates experts
tendency toward hierarchy

"Ripeness is all":
To conclude this chapter I want to speak about "ripeness" or about the "points of readiness" within the individual.
Our environment is filled with suggestions for learning. The degree in
which we react to them depends upon our ripeness. When a suggestion succeeds


to touch a point of readiness within us, we will answer the call and get involved. A child has seen the chess-board for years. One day it says "I want to learn to play chess!." Trees are around us all the time. Sometimes we answer their call and climb them.
Such readiness is often deeply dependent on the person's biological growth. Studies which try to find the general principles of the person's development can give us cues, which may be helpful in understanding and clarifying our experiences. Piaget's work for instance, may indeed tell us something about the child's cognitive development, and we can thereby get a sense of the differences in persons of different ages. However, the very great danger is that we stop engaging with a child as a real person because of our knowledge. By knowing we turn a relationship upside down. Instead of getting to know the child in interaction, by being with him or her and then reacting to him or her, we have a concept of the child in our mind and the child must be brought to Icorrespond with it. Instead of being open to the individual and all it tells and shows us about him or herself, we are restricted by our knowing and expecting, and we perceive only what confirms our pre-established concept of the child.
We know these points of readiness from our own experiences. We hear something we have heard many times before and all of a sudden it makes a whole lot of sense, becomes very relevant, while before it was just an empty sentence. And it may even be that we had read a book about the very same thing some years back or that a friend wanted to convince us of its importance. Büt the best book and the most enthusiastic friend must find this point of readiness in us, and often we are not ready.
Here is another "yes-but" attitude. We experience the importance of
ripeness so often in our own lives, but when it comes to school, our heads


become all fogged up and, losing our common sense in confusion and anxiety, we try with whatever means we can to get students to learn the material, whether they are ready or not. Why such panic and confusion? -- Well, as teachers in a school of today, we feel the expectations of society, we feel the watching eye behind us, we have no time to "lose," no time to wait, no time to seek and no time to trust. A very important part of this pressure seems to be our unconscious belief that schools are the only place of learning and that once school is over, the chance to learn something, to get into what we would like the students to get into, is gone for ever. And as it is now, life after school does indeed contain little encouragement and space for learning.
Well, learning works. But we need to learn more than we naturally do, especially if we want to peep over the walls of our social nomos. In the next chapter I will focus on the teacher and how we can add the teacher to the learner without spoiling the whole thing.


Chapter III


Not Summerhill:
For a long time "alternative school" was practically identical with "Summerhill" for many people. I therefore want to describe the points in which I differ from Neill's thinking. 26 If what I discuss on the level of underlying ideas and principles would ever take a concrete shape in the form of an alternative school, the main difference would be that in such a school, whatever its detail would be, the adults would seek to become actively involved in the lives of the kids, while Neill tended to leave the kids alone, so that they could grow up without the adults, who through their interference would inhibit the children's natural development. It was thus up to the child to initiate contact, especially for learning. There are two things which I disagree with in this approach.
First, when teaching really was asked and took place, Neill was little concerned about the how and the what of the teaching. I remember having read in one of his books that he felt that whatever you do, school is and will always be a drag and, while there are ways to sweeten the pill, it will basically remain a bitter one. in addition, he says that any method is as good as any other, when someone really wants to learn something. 27 I agree that the will to learn something is essential. However, there still are adequate and inadequate methods to teach. There is a difference in teaching reading, to take an example, in the way of "run Jane, run. There is the ball" or in the way in which Sylvia Ashton-Warner taught her preschool kids. While I admire his firm belief in


human growth and his courage to stand up for his idea against all criticism, and to live it, I think in this respect he surrendered rather uncritically to what one often hears, feels or says about schools accepting the deteriorated forms of learning and teaching usually found in schools as unchangeable reality. I think that precisely the interaction, which we may call teaching, is of central importance in education in respect of its how and what.

Second: Neill's concept of freedom, his emphasis of no interference by adults and of self-government, seems to be an over-reaction to the reckless authoritarianism that he saw and experienced in his own youth. It seems simply unnatural for an adult to restrain him or herself from reacting to a kid because of some theory, that this would be bad. This perverts the adult into an unreal, rather dead person, who will in addition, himself always feel uncomfortable with kids. It may well be that this critique is more in place with those who were influenced by Neill than with Neill himself. It may be to those that Graubard speaks when he says: "By being there . . . the adult cannot help 'loading the environment,' influencing the young people no matter how much he is committed to not initiating, planning, or in any way interfering with the childrens' own doings. More than that, the laissezfaire mode of 'being there' is often a very serious value decision It also projects a definite feeling about relationships, what it is to care and

to take responsibility." Furthermore, and of greater importance in this context, the principal of "don't interfere" is an inefficient way of educating. I am using this contaminated word not in the sense of measurable in- and output, but inefficient in stimulating and centering the studentts development and growth into the world.
We have seen in chapter 1 how the normal process of socialization re-
stricts our capacity to negotiate with the world and take an active part in the

3 1

struggle for the good life. We are imprisoned in one interpretation and ordering of our experiences corresponding to the official truths, values and norms of our society. This restriction is not only an intellectual one, directed toward the world outside. The encounter with contradictory explanations, with different truths which make us aware of our freedom to reconsider what we took for granted and to choose differently, has an emancipating influence on the whole person. But this is precisely the point. These encounters do not take place because what this person is taking for granted is taken for granted by most everybody else. And, as I said earlier, except for very simple issues, one or two accidental contradictions to a powerful and complex social myth will at best create some vague feeling of maybe, or perhaps, but they cannot bring the clear understanding which is needed for emancipation.

Education in permanent dialogue:
In Summerhill therefore, where the kids are left alone and where little attention is,paid to the methods and contents of school, the students are not likely to outgrow substantially the restrictions inherent in any socialization, in any single interpretation of the world and oneself. I find it therefore very important that the student's taken-for-granted concepts be challenged, that he finds himself again and again confronted with a view of what constitutes right and wrong, good and bad, relevant and irrelevant, that deviates from the common beliefs. This will enable the student to look at his own interpretation of reality from some distance and see it as just one possibility. This dialogue should ideally not be concerned with the understanding of the world outside only, because the psychological emancipation of a person from his or her "script," "trauma" or however various psychotherapeutic traditions call the emotional hang-ups of people, is the indispensable foundation for all emancipation on a more abstract level, if it is ever to be more than theoretical crap.


The question now is how do we maneuver between the Scylla and Charybdis of too little Stimulation and to much Stimulation (which would push the student inevitably into mechanical learning). This tender balance is at the heart of any communication and Ruth Cohn pointed exactly to this moment where life
when she said: "to give less than necessary is theft, to give more is murder."30

Carl Rogers-- Freedom to learn:

Carl Rogers writes in his book "Freedom to Learn" 31 that one cannot teach anything, and if one succeeds the results are destructive. They "seem" to cause the individual to distrust his own experience, and to stifle signifikant learning." 32 I think this is true. Whenever a student learns something, which he did not choose, whenever he is consuming instead of conquering knowledge, the gap between the person and his knowledge or ideas widens. Whenever he learns the answer to a question he has not asked himself, he has made another step toward being a consumer rather than a person, toward not being in touch with himself, toward not being able to see and to ask questions. Dead learning disconnected from the person can, of course, be taught in set programs, long lectures. It doesn't need the learner's questions.
Rogers feels that all one can do is to facilitate learning, to create
an atmosphere of freedom and acceptance in which the learner would be encouraged and helped to find and pursue his interests. Consequently he talks about the facilitator rather than the teacher. This doesn't mean that the teacher must retire altogether, that his knowledge, his experiences and insights have no value in the learning process anymore. This is often misunderstoad and Roger is accused for flat egalitarianism, which diffused the differences between students and teachers in terms of their quantitative and qualitative differences in knowledge and insights. Rogers himself does indeed not say much to the


question of how much a facilitator can still be a teacher. In the examples he describes in "Freedom to Learn" 33 1 still find that the reality of the differences in knowing and insights between teachers and students is present, transformed into a produktive tension. Not to do that, not to share one's knowledge and insights, would in Ruth C. Cohn's words be "theft," and while theft isn't nearly as bad as murder, we would rather want to avoid it, of course. In the following I will pretty much describe Rogers' ideas on learning and facilitating, for they are of central importance to me.

The basis for one's capacity to create an atmosphere of trust is trust. This sentence is the heart of the matter, simple and difficult at the same time. It is important that I know the difference between trusting and having trust as an ideal or concept. If I miss this difference, I will soon be disappointed and disillusioned with the whole stuff.
There is what Maslow called the need for self-actualization in every person, a drive to move on from step to step and grow into a full human being, into his unique fullness. This drive also includes the wish to learn, to enlarge the range of one's experiences, to develop one's creative strengths, to understand and know more. Maslow described this tendency and has influenced many others with his concept of self-actualization: " . . . the human being has within him a pressure (among other pressures) toward unity of personality, toward spontaneous expressiveness, toward full individuality and identity, toward seeing the truth rather than being blind, toward being creative, toward being good, and a lot else." 34 A very fundamental need of people is relationship with others, caring, tenderness, acceptance. Maslow says that "our deepest needs are not, in themselves, dangerous or evil or bad." 35 This is not to say that man is good just like that, but that man tries to be good, constructive,


considered and concerned, that man is "pressing toward what most people would call good values."36 It seems to me that a basic force which makes us want to be good is our desire to be close to other human beings, to be recognized by them. Obstacles in our way can distort this desire and we may seek relationship, attention and care through indirect means, arguments, status, hatred, showing off, putting down, etc. , behaviors which we have come to call "bad" and whose "carriers" are bad persons. If we have experienced the truth of this hypothesis, we will encourage a person to truly be what he or she is, and by doing so we assist the person in growing into goodness. In our wish to be good our human rationality (not the factory-kind) mediates between the discrepancies of overall concerns and our momentaneous pleasures. Maslow says: "we can now reject . . . the almost universal mistake that the interests of the individual and of society are of necessity mutually exklusive and antagonistic." 37
Traditional schools are institutions of mistrust. By force we must secure, so goes the argument on conscious and unconscious levels, the continued existence of our culture, because we cannot trust people, that people would understand this necessity and would consequently sit down and learn what needs to be learned to keep our culture and society alive. Besides the impact of today's schools, their contribution to making little objects out of people, I do think that a basically different education would still continue the culture of our society, because: 1) human beings are curious and they want to learn, and 2) they are reasonable and they can subordinate their own spontaneous
wish for pleasure to larger concerns arising from our co-existence in groups and large societies, even our sharing of the planet earth with other life.

If this is my conviction, I look at a student as one who basically wants


and enjoys learning and as one who has a will for good in him. If this conviction has grown out of experience and experiment, I will be trustful and thereby I will spread an atmosphere of trust, which will encourage the student to be, to trust himself, to move toward openness, toward risk, toward exploration. To be trustful is for most of us difficult because we see little examples at present, and if we want to deal with other people and children in such an atmosphere, we must slowly learn it, not through a book but in trial and error, in action, in giving some freedom, in recognizing and accepting the discrepancy between what we want to be and what we are. To be a teacher should actually include to be encouraged throughout one's life to learn and to try this.

The fundamental importance of trust:
Rogers describes three characteristics of the person who is facilitating
learning: empathy, acceptance and realness. 38
Realness addresses the issue that most of us who would like to be per-
fect facilitators are not. Rogers writes: "In his functioning as a facilitator of learning, the leader endeavors to recognize and accept his own limitations." 39
He tries not to show more patience, more openness, more acceptance or interest, etc., than he really feels. To go beyond one's limit and improve, we must face them and not ignore them. As I accept the other, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with what he does, what he thinks or how he feels. I accept him as he is and I accept his choices as real. That I myself would choose differently doesn't make any difference. I trust the other, his wanting to be good, his desire to grow, to reach out, to relate.
This trust is firm knowing, certainty, no trying, no hope, but the reality of accepting the other as he is. When the student realizes that I, the teacher, do not want to correct him, do not want to impose what I consider (and what might objectively be) a

better choice, but that I believe that he can take care of himself and that he has the capacity and wisdom and the right to choose, he, the student, will suddenly feel the air of freedom.
Our schools, as part of a larger society, work with threat and pressure, rather than with encouragement and freedom. Condemning and criticizing are basically different, although often confused. Condemning is what is dominant in traditional schools. Criticism as I understand it, is a contrast of opinion, of choice. The other, considering my criticism is free to deal with it in a way which seems appropriate to him, to partially accept or refuse, to agree or disagree completely, in short he is free to continue his own way, and I accept his choice not only on a rational level, but I truly agree that his choice is the right choice for him to make. Condemnation is an attempt to wipe out the other person. Criticism in the spirit of condemnation means you either accept what I say, my choice, my way of thinking or feeling, or I won't accept you.
If you don't accept my choice, you do it out of stubbornness, stupidity, superficiality or some other bad side of yours. To think that your choice is a good choice for you and quite appropriate to your reality, as some people say, is silly. Condemnation divides everything into good and bad, right and wrong, and an education of condemnation makes people obsessed with constant worry, where on these scales of good and bad, right and wrong, they stand. Right-wrong, good-bad begins to be an underlying theme and constant Kommentary to all we do, write, think, feel or don't feel or write or say. We thus cling to all those norms established and drilled into us by those who knew about right and wrong and our first concern is to be smiled upon by what or whoever Our authority is and to sit close to it. (At the cost of others, who are less successful in the pressure cooker of competition.) And thus constantly orienting ourselves toward the standards around us, we never get to ask "what do I think? - what

do I want? - what do I feel?" While there is nothing wrong with realistic comparison and re-evaluation of one's position and choices, this is something completely different, this is fear driven irrational adapting. While the adapters are losing touch with their own intellectual and psychological reality, this reality becomes more threatening because of its unpredictable tendencies to deviate from the reality of others.
The second big achievement of education through condemnation, judgment, putting down, etc., is defensiveness in all situations, where one has still some hope that one can defend oneself against the other. Defensiveness is the fight of the underlings to be right. The issue of the fight is of course not to discuss, to learn or to listen. But the issue is to not let the other get on top of you and with each inch I "give in," the other's position becomes stronger and he will then begin to destroy me, then I must submit to his will. Taking my freedom away and not accepting me, he will say what is right. Once I have admitted that I am afraid to fail in Math and that therefore I didn't show up for the test, he will say: "Oh, but you don't have to be afraid." And whether he does it in a sweet and concerned way or in a brutal, impatient way, he denies that being afraid is my reality and that it may even be a reasonable choice, considering my past record in Math. And if he doesn't respect my fear, he might just push me into it because he has the power and he will not react or even hear me, even if I die in Math.

I have described as the central quality of living learning its connectedness with the person, its origin in real questions, in searching. I have also said that this is the way of growth, of strength. The main impact of education through condemnation is that all connection with oneself is lost. Being defensive, I defend something, without ever looking at it. Being adaptive, I always look toward the outside for values, thoughts or other cues to which I


then adapt. All inwardness is thus blocked or diverted, and all selfexpression is frozen because of the fear to venture out into the unknown, hostile world. Trust by contrast encourages self-expression, and without self-expression there is no real learning.
Carl Rogers has developed his concepts of facilitating growth in pschotherapy, and this is the only field where his approach has really been tried out today. The pressure on schools is for conformity and is apparently bigger than on what people do with their private lives. The functioning of acceptance is often visible in psychotherapy. The capacity to learn and think depends upon the feeling of safety, the trust and confidence of the person in those things and persons that are around him and have to do with his learning. Acceptance, courage, self-expression, exploration is the way of psychotherapy and the way of intellectual growth as well.

One aspect of acceptance thus is not to be judgmental. But this could still be cold indifference. Another side of acceptance is empathy.

Empathy is interest in the other, interest in what he does, what he thinks, how he feels, in short in the other's reality. The purpose is not to be then able to analyze or correct or judge the other and to prescribe the recipe for recovery and improvement. Interest has no purpose, it is simply interest, curiosity, sharing, learning, enjoying the other person and community. Thus interested in the other, in his reality, which we accept as his, we create through this interaction the other person, for by opening up, by expressing himself, the other person becomes not only visible to the teacher, the listener, but also to himself. The student becomes a person. He emerges in increasing clearness through the dialogue. Often he will discover a new little something within him, he will formulate a new sentence, which bears unknown meaning and expands himself into an area where he had before only unconsciously been. While

I am writing and throwing away and rewriting, I too, am sometimes surprised and excited about something that becomes all at once much clearer and emerges as a new aspect of myself, of my personality. Learning about the world and about oneself is always an entity and not, as many seem to believe, two different things. Doing one, I inevitably do the other.
Especially for people who have lived with little acceptance and empathy, such an experience can be very revitalizing and encouraging. One suddenly discovers that "I really have some value! This isn't stupid! I am not just a dummy!' And with renewed energies one ventures out into the world, exploring and learning and participating in a way one didn't dare to before. People differ greatly in what they experience as encouragement and punishment or threat. If we don't know a person too well, it is wise to be very careful and tender, for it often takes very little for a person to feel threatened. We see here once more how inner being and outer knowledge are one. A person's theoretical and intellectual doings are always carried and influenced by a person's basic mood. Interest in what we do, we all know, can be encouragement, and although one aspect of growing up and becoming strong is a firm belief in what one does such as to be able to keep going rather independently from what others say. But we will never be able to go for ever without fuel, and many need very much to build up this strength within them.

Martin Buber:
I have read only little about and by Martin Buber. There appears to be much similarity in attitude between Buber and Rogers. One of Buber's main concepts is the "making present" through "confirmation". 40 This seems to be what I described in the previous section as "creating the other person through one's interest. Friedman, discussing the main themes in Martin Buber's thinking, says: Through this 'interhuman' relation men confirm each other,

becoming a self with the other. The inmost growth of the self is not induced by man's relationship to himself, 'as people like to suppose today,' but by the Konfirmation in which one man knows himself to be 'made present' in his uniqueness by the other . . . The goal is completing distance by relation, and relation here means mutual Konfirmation, Kooperation and genuine dialogue . . ." 41 "Making present" is "an event which happens partially whenever men come together, but in its essential structure only rarely." 42 The concept of making present by Konfirmation (acceptance and empathy) emphasizes the creation of an individual unique and quite distinct from all other people. It makes very clear the "distance" from myself to any other. And in again and again clearly perceiving myself as an individual different from others and unique, in being supported in this uniqueness rather than attacked for being different, and in being helped and encouraged to make it even clearer and explore it further, I grow up and I will be able to bear being different and standing in the world alone, as myself to the degree I know myself and as authentically as I dare. This makes the strong person, the one who lives rather than is being lived.

"Do you say that I must always agree with what my students say? I must always say 'yes, good!' even if I find it very narrow-minded or if it is very different from what I would say?"
"Do you mean to say that there is no difference between a kid and an adult anymore? That I am just like them?"
"Do you mean to say that all knowledge is equally valuable, and that we cannot make any judgments about the quality of books or papers or presentations, etc?"
Do I? -- No. If you judge, however, be aware that you are saying something
about you and don't de-legitimize the other's position. Comment on it or


criticize it, but don't put it down. Accept that either the other's way of thinking, reacting, doing or feeling is appropriate for him in his world, or if it isn't (and your questions, comments, suggestions that come out of simple sharing, talking, may help him to transcend his present position), trust that he will realize this when it is time and that he will move on when it is time for him, when he is ripe for it. And as far as the difference between the child and the adult goes, the difference is precisely in knowledge, experience or insights. The difference is not, as we have become accustomed to, in the adult's superiority as a human being, which puts him in the position to determine what is right and wrong, good and bad for the. child, regardless of what the kid says. In this sense, there is indeed no difference. We must expect a
child's no as much as we expect anybody else's no.

John Holt describes the teacher-student relationship as one between friends, where we would not hesitate to express our different viewpoints, where we agree and disagree and where we all the while accept the other's right to not accept what we say. Holt says that kids themselves don't like flat and routine acceptance and professionally warm understanding, or adults who pretend to be kids. And this would certainly be a cheap parody of the teacher/ student relationship Rogers has in mind. Emphasizing trust as indispensable basis for signifikant learning, he then says: "As the acceptant classroom climate becomes established, the facilitator is able increasingly to become a participant learner, a member of the group, expressing hisviews as those of one individual only." 44
Encountering students today will always mean that we must first be careful in treating them as equals or friends (which all this really,means), because they have learned that they are not. They have learned to consume, to be afraid, to agree and they cannot think. And if this is the student we have to deal

with, we cannot get around this reality by closing our eyes to it. Trust is the first and absolutely fundamental basis for any intellectual debate or meeting of the minds. If their relationship is to be a produktive one, student and teacher must both learn to be equal and unlearn their role. If the teacher, following a rigid principle or his own fear of real encounter, just plays equal, pretending that there is no problem, the student is quite helpless, often lost. Most students find it very difficult to grow into equality without help. For a teacher who recognizes the situation, this means a chance for real education, for liberation.
When we encounter kids who are not habituated to flip into a student/ teacher role (putting the teacher on the pedestal and submitting to or fighting him then), the relationship would develop like any relationship between friends. At first there is less criticism or disagreement, more politeness, checking out, interest, getting to know each other. Our primary concern in friendship always is to keep the communication going, and we adjust our behavior, our degree of intensity, disagreement or even agreement, our positive and negative reactions to the other's thoughts, feelings, behavior, etc., to what we feel the other is able to take. This sensitivity toward the other is important. Without it communication Kollapses and, that is, education Kollapses because the exchange between young and old has stopped.
Thus there is a special tension in the relationship between teacher and student. The teacher wants to give much, and yet he must at the same time be sensitive toward the student's capacity to take, he must in a way, protect and defend the student against his own wish to instruct, to show, to explain, to correct and teach, to disagree. And beyond ordinary friendship, the teacher must be aware that most students are deeply wounded and treat them very carefully.


Chapter IV

The Relativity of Values and the Search for Meaning

This chapter is about the meaninglessness of life, the despair and disorientation that many, maybe mainly younger people, find themselves in; a disorientation which is greater than ever before, as some say. Especially the post-world-war II Generation of the middle and upper class has become disillusioned with the golden promises of affluence. Moreover, many of them see destruction and deterioration all around them and they feel utterly helpless against powerful forces, which seem to have got out of human control. Overwhelmed by those powers, they are painfully aware of their weakness. In this situation hope becomes crucial, hope that sustains ourselves and our optimism -, a moderate optimism, which is based on a clear sense of our place between impotence and omnipotence. -- I may not be very successful, but in the following chapter I want to look into what could be the source of realistic optimism, and into the ways, we may find it in times of need.
Paul Goodman talks about a religious crisis, 45 and Robert Heilbroner says that the deepest problem of our times may be the gradual disillusionment with materialism, which as philosophers have long said, does not provide all the ingredients to happiness. 46 For the intellectually inclined, the existentialists have with cruel intellect removed all gods out of the sky; they have emptied it from our a priori values. While life has become very easy for many in these modern times, it also has become difficult.
What is the meaning of life? -- How we struggle with this poisonous flaw of the creation, how we confront this question and answer it, is central, for


it is the source of all Motivation to live, to hope and to try. If we do not find hope and meaning in life, why should we care for the world? Where would the strength to try come from? Where would the belief in what we do come from?

The "good old times":
Todays middle class in industiralized countries is far less faced with immediate necessities than even 30 years ago. In earlier times when one worked for just food, a room, clothing and the threats of freezing or starving were quite real, a person may have suffered from the burden of life, he may have even raged against it, but the question of its meaning was much clearer. The meaning was to stay alive. There was little doubt then that more security and comfort were valuable. The connection with the very basic instinct of survival which stirs to direct action, was a very close one. Other than the freedom from direct material or biological necessities, we also find ourselves much freer today in Our thoughts and way of life. We even discuss whether God is really dead or not. In earlier times there would always be the grass to cut before the rain comes, there would be very strict social norms (not the anonymous "nobody knows me here" of the big city), norms which did not invite you to be greatly different from others. There would always be the priest as an undoubted authority, stepping on one's toes when one felt like losing faith. And who steps on our toes today? Who makes us move on, when we start to wander off into doubting, questioning and worrying. Wherever we go we find nothing, only fog. People say: "If they would only reinstitute the draft that would get people moving." And in a similar sense I hear especially young people say: "A war wouldn't be so bad in a way," and,in Germany some older people say with some longing: Nell, under Hitler there was at least some order', and order here means much more than clean streets.
As a student I experience the erosion of all "right and wrong" I once,

more innocent, possessed. Where is a piece of truth to hold onto? Where is something that makes sense and cannot be rendered nonsense by someone else?
And once off on that deadly spiral, one gets very easily to the point, where any action (even the most humanitarian one) becomes questionable. "Sometimes I wonder why I am breathing,' a young fellow told me the other day.

Related to the sickening and burdensome relativity of all values is the complexity and anonymity of modern society, where only very rarely it is possible to get a firm grip on something or someone, for all is hidden in the anonymity and exchangeability of experts and, depending on their talk, it seems impossible to ever understand the complex machinery of modern economy or politics. People who once had courage and thought about their life in this world and about confronting their "reality," become so overwhelmed with its complexity and abstractness that they cannot stand the confrontation. They create their own little space, they withdraw into some closed system of belief, into religious righteousness, in apathy, egoism, cynicism, pessimism, romanticism or indifference, all ways of stopping to care, stopping to hope, stopping to try.

Sartre and the valueless value:
To be sure, for many people there still is right and wrong, and for many there is still God. But for an increasing number, Sartre's words become merciless reality when he says that "we are now on the plane where there are only men" and where "there can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it." 47 This brings us into a difficult situation. While I know that I cannot do The Good, for I cannot think it with my limited mind, I nevertheless decide and define my values. While I stand up for them and strive to live them, I at the same time know that they have no value. They are values only because I chose them as such. But this seems absurd. Do I choose out of blind desperation and do I say that all men


construct their universe of values, which they arbitrarily choose? -- While this may seem so, I don't believe that it is the case. For, although we can theoretically argue for and against any choice, our physical and emotional existence appears to save us from the absurdity of meaningless meaning.

Losing oneself:
Sartre describes man as free to choose himself and says: I cannot
base my confidence upon human goodness or upon human interest in the good of society, seeing that man is free and that there is no human nature which I can take as foundational." 48
This view of human beings seems to be symptomatic of what A. Lowen, a big man in bioenergetics, may have meant when he said: "Alienation describes the plight of modern man. . . Although we speak of alienation as the estrangement of man from nature and from his fellowman, its base is the estrangement of the person from his body." 49
The human brain is a great tool and a great danger. We can always fall into the nothingness of the theoretical, we are always in danger to lose ourselves in speculative, intellectual thought which becomes, when we wander too far, the only firm ground we believe to have. We cling to our thought, to this meaning, like a man who, falling from a cliff, creates the illusion of safety by holding onto his own belt buckle. It is indeed difficult to do that and to keep desperation away from us. When Sartre says that ". . . there is no human nature which I can take as foundational", he is this man, a homeless meteor in the universe of intellectual speculation, lost in his brain. He has lost his humanness and has become an intellectual. But no, for his reality cannot be theoretical and against his will, he still has a "human nature."

The "port" for wandering man:

While Sartre's concept of the man who chooses himself appears logically coherednt and points out in a very powerful way man's potency and freedom to

choose, it is silly to assume that man creates all of him through decision. We are born with the nature of an animal, not with the nature of a computer, which we can subsequently program to our liking. Our exposure to the environment shapes this biological material of man. Although we do have the freedom to choose we can only theoretically choose ourselves completely. There will always be a firm base within us which remains unimpressed by our choosing. We may call this base nature. In it we are rooted, whether we like it or not. Certain experiences give us pleasure, others pain. As animal beings and members of the same culture, we share certain basic values very widely with others. Our enjoyment of and need for love, comfort, warmth, eating, drinking, sexual pleasure, caring and playing, movement, changing, risking are such human values. They are elements of the human nature which Sartre declares as non-existent. They are values for all people who experience life without interpreting it. The desire for love, for reaching out, for tenderness and caring is a basic human value. However much it may be distorted by protective and defensive reactions of fear, beyond these borders lies the clear statement of their human nature. We do want to be close to others and we do want to express it, and we are fearful and afraid whatever might go on in our brains.
It almost appears as if what can happen to the individual is happening now to modern civilization. Habituated to and also intrigued by it, we are half lost in the sphere of the theoretical, having grown distant and detached from our "port," our immediate experiences, ultimately our body, that we make thought more and more the center of our lives, putting it on the throne of legitimacy, giving it the highest jurisdiction and government in our lives, accepting its kingdom as real, and shutting up our "nature," our neediness, our fearfulness, our tenderness, our anger, our sexual lust, our animal-like


immediacy into the basement of the palace, covering our nakedness with clothes, hiding our immediacy in the fog of guilt, shame, privacy, inferiority, irrationality and badness. Modern civilization thus losing touch with its humanness, drifts more and more into the "pit of meaninglessness," 50 where people, overwhelmed by complexity and caught in intellectual relativity of all values, remain helplessly disoriented and in their homelessness they become the playball of the forces whose power and momentum they further increase through their passive participation and helplessness.

Now we have completed the circle, somewhat stumbling, to return to the theme of politization. Politization cannot just mean to make everybody choose some arbitrary value in an act of desperation. The finding of oneself, which can be encouraged in the dialogue with the other, will include the finding and Konfirmation of one's human nature, ones immediate needs, one's emotionality, all of which are primarily expressed in and through our bodies. The connection we have or don't have with our body is therefor crucial if we want to keep our sanity in the midst of the mental and moral relativities of our times.
"When I have lost my body, I have lost myself. When I find my body, I find myself. When I move, I live and move the world. Without this body I am not and as my body I am. Only in movement . . .
do I experience myself. My body is the coincidence of being and knowing, of


subject and object. He is the starting point and the end of my existence.'

While growing into our bodies is a task of each of us, it must also be the concern of education. To the extent we succeed with ourselves, we will begin to confirm the other, the student, as a "whole" person, recognizing and accepting his feelings as well as his ideas, his physical needs as well as his mental needs, his physical conditions as well as his mental conditions. When the student finds all of him respected and loved, he himself will begin to trust in what Rogers, Maslow and others called the "wisdom of the organism." The student will begin to feel good about himself, about all the aspects of himself. And it is only when we love and know ourselves as physical, intellectual and spiritual beings that we can love others and feel secure in a world which by definition is never quite secure.

Where we found pleasure and safety we will build our values, which will more and more reach out into the world and they will be the material to the "good life." There is a reality which we did not make, and this is the reality of our body, our feelings. When we are faced with the task to create the meaning of our life or better to find it, this is the source to go to, the place where our knowing, our thinking and puzzling begins.to listen and to perceive what is there. We don't find meaning in the pit of intellectual theorizing and we cannot create it through intelligent thinking. Political action thus comes from the heart, from desire, wish, hope, and our intellect is the mediator and consultant when we want to realize that which we want.


Chapter V

Public Schools or the Production of the Consumer Society

About decisions:
Schools and education in general have a long history of discontented critics, each of whom has emphasized different aspects of what was said to be wrong with schools, using different words. I will not try to take up all these various perspectives on public schools. I want to focus on one of them, the center of which is the function of decision in the course of growth. At first I want to describe this function without the context of the school, in abstract terms. This will enable us to then look at public schools from this specific angle.
The world outside puts demands on us, calling them reality. We have to look at them and decide how we want to respond to them, how much realness we grant them. A student for instance will face the demand "you must learn Math, for this is important in the real world." Ideally this demand will make him think, analyze, weigh all arguments, the possible consequences of agreeing or disagreeing, his own wants and wishes in this world. He would then decide to either accept the demand or to refuse to accept it, or to modify it. In doing so he tests the realness of this demand for his own situation at present. Whatever his decision is, it is always open to re-evaluation, whenever he becomes uncertain of its appropriateness, or whenever others urge him in the name of "reality" to reconsider his choice.
Decisions are therefore important moments of growth, for in a decision the student defines himself and his relationship to the world, and he says a clear yes or no, thereby "signing" his decision. In committing himself fully to something, he says "this is me. Look at me."
In youth many of the demands of "reality" are put before the student by teachers and parents. While it is important that a person acquire the strength to "pull himself together" and take on some of these demands, it is also important that he acquire the strength to keep other demands off his back. A student who wants his highschool diploma has to face the reality of the requirements. He must not agree with the whole system of credentials, but if highschool diploma is what he wants, some unpleasant, maybe mindless learning becomes a real necessity. To be able to see this and to choose to take on the challenge, not because he has to, but because he wants to, is an exercise in strength, a step in growth. And in the process of decision, the student will learn much about himself, about his laziness, his unrealistic feelings of omnipotence, his anxieties and many more things, and about the world, the system of credentials, the functioning of compulsory education, the advantage of knowledge, etc. If a teacher could in the way I described in chapter III help the student to work out a decision, and it must not be Yes, this would be educational work at its best. We must be aware that the decision is ultimately the student's decision, and while my choice may be to accept those requirements, I cannot but argue for it, I cannot know what is good for the other. I can be the partner in a dialogue, helping to clarify what is involved in this decision, but not more.
The importance of mature decision-making (the first step in this process being the awareness that there is freedom to choose!) becomes clear in the second half of my statement above: it is also important that the person acquire the strength to keep other demands off his back. If my father tells me, "I want you to become a lawyer," it is very important, regardless of his tone and intentions, that I have experience in deciding for myself, the awareness of freedom, the strength of


coherent thought, a sense of my capacities, my strength and weaknesses and of my place between impotence and omnipotence in this world. When Hitler says "let's have some war," it is important that it is me who consciously and fully decides, and that I am not influenced by the forces of adaption, accepting, giving in, which always tend to undermine our independent and sincere stand in the world.

No space for decisions; an example:
To see what this has to do with school, let me construct an example.
We are in a school. It is time for Math (according to the lesson- plan). The student is involved in a discussion with two friends-the issue is President Carter's words "our (military) strength is growing, and I thank God for it." If we have habituated the student to accept as a matter of course the lesson plan's orders, to drop the interesting debate and begin his math class, we have trained him to miss his decision,we have trained him for submissiveness. Not that with one such example we create a completely submissive, politically impotent student, but every decision the student misses, every decision we taught him to regularly miss, is a small lesson in becoming an object rather than a subject. Paulo Freire used these terms and he says: "To the extent that a man loses his ability to make choices and is subjected to the choices of others, to the extent that his decisions are no longer his own because they result from external prescriptions, he is no longer integrated. Rather, he
has adapted . . . The integrated person is person as Subject. In contrast, the adaptive person is person as object." 52

However, if the student tries to seriously decide, we face several problems: How and what will he decide? If he is not a "mature" chooser (and maturity comes with practice) he might easily be inclined to choose that which is more pleasurable at the moment, without much


consideration of a more abstract value, an overarching purpose (which, let's assume, he once chose). Ideally this little decision would be a good opportunity for the student to redefine himself and to thus recreate the meaning of his life in a dialogue with the teacher, who can point out many aspects of that choice which the younger one might not be able to see because of his lack of knowledge and experience. But is the teacher availeble even for two minutes? And what if a real dialogue takes longer? Is there someone to challenge the student to consider the effort of growth, of the time beyond the present moment? No, the teacher must (the lesson, we know, is short) teach the masses, and even if he spent two minutes with the first student,.what about the second and third one, and what about tomorrow and the day after tomorrow? We seem to be caught in the dilemma between the possibility of quick and maybe rather poor choices in a laissez-faire environment, or no choice in an authoritarian environment.

It is possible to some degree to individualize teaching in school, and this might increase the communication between the teacher and the single student, but then we face the next question, what will the student decide.
This time he will decide to not attend the math class. Trouble ahead. Let's say the teacher enters into a serious dialogue with the student, trying to work out a good decision. Both may soon agree that the discussion about the arms race is much more valuable for the student than the math class. Is the teacher free to choose this? Shall he not rather convince the student to just play the game for the sake of peace so as not to get in trouble or make the teacher's life more difficult? Shall he ask him to come to class although he agrees that it doesn't make sense to do it? Shall he thus teach the student a lesson in getting used to being unreal, or, as Jules Henry puts it, to being absurd? 53 Shall the student learn that one follows the rules whether they make sense or not? Shall he learn to perceive rules as God-given laws, beyond man's


freedom and right to disobey? -- If so, the student will soon stop asking. He will submit and he will have learned his lesson in absurdity.

Maybe the student does not want to go to the math class, but this time the teacher thinks it would really be good if he went. The teacher can then choose to either force the student to obey which would be a lesson in submission to the hierarchical authority, a lesson in "better do what they tell you to," or the teacher can decide to respect the student and to not violate his freedom. But can the teacher really respect a decision that goes against the rules of the school, can he respect the student's no? Can he in terms of rules, and can he psychologically, in a school where he himself is under constant training of hierarchy and obedience? Can he be open to questions which threaten his own existence as teacher, questions which, if he took them seriously, may come to mean for him the collapse of his own beliefs and norms, of his professional legitimacy? This example by itself, as I said before, is not the all-decisive disaster, but in school there are many, many decisions that are being missed, and practically none which are taken as a practicing ground for decision-making.
In the above example the situation is still sort of taim, for as long as our choices are between discussing politics and going to math class we are still pretty much within the relm of decisions, which are considered okay by our schools and by our culture at large. The situation gets more tense, when our students realize, that the options we have are in fact much broader, that they could include taking a nap instead of working, spending time with a friend instead of doing one's chors, dropping out of a class instead of sticking it through … That's where big time change happens. But that's also when personalities and empires start to crumble and the abstract phrase of the importance of conscious decision making shows its human and its political potential.

Most students are not really aware that the school keeps making important (and seemingly unimportant) decisions for them all the time. Habituated into their new existence as students by friendly first and second grade teachers with the help of a subtle technology of smiles and frowns they get use to a one-dimensional life, where the routine of the school becomes the only one they can imagine. Most students never get in touch with the underlying question and basic choices, and with the possibility open to them and all others to not conform.
Students do not seriously ask themselves whether they want to go to school or not, and for most teachers and parents only one answer or decision is possible or imaginable, regardless of the real value of the children's going to school. The schedule of the classes takes away the decision of how long to do something, and when to move to another classroom or to go home. The rule that they must
sit still turns their bodies into the property of the school administration and cuts off their relationship to them. They cannot sensitively react to their wish to move, to stretch, to run, to lie down, and therefore they must become unsensitive toward such impulses. And the rule that they should not talk unless asked, neither to the teacher nor to the other, de-sensitizes them to their spontaneous impulses to get involved in what goes on around them, teaching them to behave ever more stiffly, inhibited and unnatural. The curriculum decides what is to be learned and when and how and how much. It decides which questions are relevant, ignoring the others, decides which answers are correct, and what kind of thinking is good thinking. The length of schooling, of a specific program, decides how long school and learning is important.
The point here is not that every student should always be able to follow his impulses, that there should be no restriction, We must in almost all situations "behave ourselves," and our mind is almost always mediating between our immediate impulses and our situations. The point is that when we consciously decide to compromise with the world or to conform, or -- to use Paulo Freire's term to integrate with the world, we are critically aware of the human origin of a specific rule, norm or Tradition and of our relationship with it, and if we don't decide consciously, we are not. Paulo Freire writes: " . . . Integration with one's context, as distinguished from adaption, is a distinctively human activity. Integration results from the capacity to adapt oneself to reality plus the critical capacity to make choices and to transform that reality.'154
To miss a decision in school means to move toward being an object. Psychologically and intellectually numbed, we become unable to feel the tension that warns us that the outer and inner reality are being in conflict, and even less able to detect the cause of such tension. Thus students become incapable of asking any questions of their own, be it in regard to their own lives, to a


book they have just read or a lecture they have just attended, or in regard to the everyday world we see and hear around us. And I don't think that I am exaggerating, highly educated one's too (in fact, I know them best), as incapable to ask a relevant and original question in full awareness of their freedom, to look at their cognitive, behavioral or enotional routine from some distance, and distance is the prerequisite for choice and change. And it is in this sense that schools could be the "training-ground" of alertness, where we would increase our sensitivity to violations of our freedom and our critical capacity to decide whether we want to conform to, to refuse or negotiate with the invasions of the outside world and their attempts to manipulate us.
Since school is the game of the adults, since it is invented, planned and programmed and run by them, the chances to decide are gently taken away from the children. To pretend that schools foster independence is absurd, for not only do they slowly blind students so that they become unable to perceive anything else but what is given to them, but they also "actively" de-legitimize or weaken any thinking, feeling or behaving which does not fit into the things which are chosen to be important, relevant right and good by the rules of the game. It is not so much that the unfit child is brutally destroyed, but rather it is placidly ignored.
Becoming a creature of the school:
Since the teachers are extensions of the planners and designers, kept in line by those above them (administrators, school board, etc.), they can ultimately only confirm what is in agreement with the order of the school. I am using the word order deliberately, because its double meaning of structure and command points very well to the deeper character of structure, of programs, lesson-plans, of the structure of buildings, which are indeed all command to the children and the teachers.
In almost all encounters between the teacher and a student, the teacher

5 7

perception of the situation is heavily structured by his position as teacher in this school. I have described the way in which a person becomes present, becomes visible to himself and the other, in a dialogue. I have said that such emergence as oneself in the dialogue with one's teacher are the moments of growth, of personal development, of learning. The teacher in a traditional school can only very rarely enter into such a dialogue. In most situations he cannot confirm what he perceives, but what he must perceive, for in most situations he encounters the student as teacher, as extension of the school, and he will and must look at the student with the eyes of the school, with the expectations and judgements, the intentions and limitations that make up school. To sit still is good and to give the right answer is good too. To daydream or to ask too many questions (let's say more than two or three) is not good. To cry or to be angry is not good, but to be quiet is good. To believe what the teacher says is good, to not believe it is not good. To take a long time trying to formulate something is not so good, to be very articulate is good. To ask interesting questions can be not good, if they do not belong into the lesson. To help the other kids is not good, to write good grades and be the best is good.
Forced to "manage" his class according to the expectations of the institution school, in most interaction with the student the teacher will confirm the student only when his behavior,thinking, feeling or reacting is in agreement with the order of the school. To confirm, that is to be interested and to take seriously those parts of the student's reality which do not fit the system, takes too much time, becomes too confusing or threatening. The teacher will (and has to) withdraw from the student in his full humanness and many aspects, limiting his attention, his confirmation of him to certain aspects, relevant and wanted in school. Since a person only emerges out of an interaction with


another, as 1 have said before, the child will, to the degree that it is abandoned in empty space, lose himself. Being submitted to the same structure of confirmation for a long time, it will be unable to find again or stay in touch with those aspects of himself, which remain unconfirmed by the teacher, which have no place in school.
Since the teacher furthermore needs to violate the child's freedom again and again (and a violation it is regardless of the tone and the good intentions), so as not to get fired, the child's fear which results from such danger makes confirmation all the more urgent. Not being confirmed as it naturally expresses itself, even being stamped upon, the child has no other choice that to become the creature of the school, because as such it will be confirmed.
Thus the school is a fairly systematic (and successful) attempt to draw the real person by ignoring and sometimes frightening him, cultivating a small part of him into an almost lifeless cardboard figure which holds anxiously onto and depends from the order and orders of the school and of all others in later life, persons and institutions, traditions, norms and fashions. For only by adapting can he live. If he does not adapt, he will not be confirmed, nor respected, he will not be drawn.
The creation is called the consumer which today is the common name for what once was called the citizen.
School reform:
The atmosphere in education and in our schools has changed considerably over the last few decades. The approach today is soft, democratic, participatory or human. The motto is "the jailer, my friend and helper,' 55 The antagonism between teachers and students which was frequently manifest and obvious in more authoritarian times of corporal punishment, is diffused and transformed into relaxed indifference and nonchalant participation in the school game.

The change in schools seems to parallel the change in society at large, where the once evident class conflict between the Kapitalist and the working class had become the degree to which the standard of living had risen. The exploiter has become the neighbor or fellow-citizen. Marcuse says in this context that "the concept of alienation seems to become questionable, when the individuals identify themselves with the existence which is imposed upon them and have in it their own development and satisfaction. This identification is not illusion but reality. However, the reality constitutes a more progressive stage of alienation. The latter has become entirely objektive the subject which is alienated is swallowed up by its alienated existence, There is only one dimension, and it is everywhere and in all forms . . . in a specific sense advanced industrial culture is more ideological than its predecessor, inasmuch as today the ideology is in the process of production itself . . . The productive apparatus and the goods and services which it produces 'sell' or impose the social system as a whole." 56
School reform in this sense is the integration of the critics in the whole.
They live and think in this one dimension, which Habermas later expanded on
and called "purposive rat:bnal thought or action," and by doing so they help stabilize and perfect this "irrational society" as Marcuse calls it in the work cited above. "All of us, who think about how to improve schools, are
already the victim of the mode of thought generated in them," says the German H. von Hentig.

This is quite obviously so in the conscious effort to reform curricula, to improve the learning and teaching material, to standardize classroom management, behavioral objektives and the evaluation of students. Those attempts are symptomatic for the problem-solving approach of "purposive rationality," of technological consciousness aiming at increased control and taking for granted that more scientific research and expert knowledge will solve the


problem (that is eliminate the disturbance which stands in the way of the status quo or of continued progress).
Psychology has made other, more ambiguous contributions which we may call attempts to decontrol students which deal with the student as a person. While guidance and counseling programs may be helpful, they are also used, as Edgar Z. Friedenberg points out 59 to bring deviant students back in line with the system, not much asking what the system is. Democratic classroom management, listening and communication skills, decentralizing instruction, etc., are all movements which rather uncritically identify with the schools as they are and their focus is mainly on more effizient learning through improving the human climate. They do however, provide some space for the student to conquer by himself the knowledge of the world, and they provide some acceptance of and encouragement for the student to express himself. But these techniques do in a way also improve the teacher's control by disguising the basic conflicts and seducing the student in more refined ways to accept the fundamental order without opposition.
The reform effort aiming at more partnership in school is thus of a paradoxical nature: they liberate the student and emphasize independence in an instution which is essentially unfree and demands dependency. Those who humanize schools will again and again encounter its limitations and they must decide to either (against their belief) submit themselves to those limitation s and persuade the students to do the same, or to challenge the order of the school which they, student and teacher, recognize as irrational and unreal and to transform or transcend it. Needless to say that submission to the system in which one does not believe is cowardice and to persuade one's students to conform and to not stand up for their beliefs is to teach them unrealness, to break the unity of theory and practice and to turn life into a

6 1

game. Also needless to say, is that we sometimes deliberately and wisely choose submission and conformity.
If we believe in freedom, in the right of everybody to be respected, in non-violence, in the fact that learning is an unseparable part of living and that threat and fear is its killer in the human wish to communicate and to relate to orhers, inEhort if we believe in human freedom and growth, then we realize that school as it is does not enhance, but rather inhibit the growth of people. If we are consequent, we will soon start to abolish school piece by piece and we will turn its fundamental principle upside down.
The fundamental decision:
The great misunderstanding which characterizes school is the switch from the child's activity to the adult's activity as the primary force in education.
School is the product of adult experts who thought out what, how, when and where to teach the students. The child who enters school is persuaded and forced to surrender his activeness to the school, to let the school take care of him or her, changing from a curious being who seeks to engage itself with the world, who thereby learns and grows, to a person with no such powers, with no movement or impulses of his own, or rather with the feeling that they are not right or legitimste. The game is to hold them back, to not bring them out, to not express oneself and go off into the world on one's own, but to wait and see what the other, the school, is coming up with. Once all activity has stopped, the adult begins to reactivate the child, controlling all activity carefully and directing their flow into specific channels, trying to establish a specific direction, intensity and way of working.
We adults develop the children instead of giving them the space and good conditions to develop. The child has become the passive object, education is an effort of well-intentioned adults. Specialists talk about equipping the


the students with "conceptual tools..... self respect" 60 or "with a broad range of skills . . ." 61 like a mechanic who equips a car with a stereo system or screws a lamp onto a bicycle. The word education itself is a deceptive word, for it implies that it can be done to another person, and this is fundamentally wrong- We can patch on to the child all sorts of things and we .can shape his behavior by compelling him to attend school and forcing him to eat what we feed him and to conform to the order of the school. But this is not real growth. If strong and independent people, competent citizens are what we wish our children and other fellow human beings to be, schools are not the place to send them too. It even seems to bean environment that is very hostile to such development. If we want to have control over the other, if we want to shape them into uniform people whom we can predict and handle or manage, schools are doing fine. lf we are serious in our claims to be democratic countries, then schools are unconstitutional, for hierarchical and democratic spirit and organization do not go together. Schools allow freedom only in certain prearranged situations and they set the Paraneters out of power, not out of interhuman concerns. The school for democracy should be the one where communication between independent people, negotiation and confrontation with the always present respect for the other's freedom is the basic principle. School is indeed the preparation for life. But as they are now, we must not tell ourselves that we are teaching independence.
We must eive up control, uniformity and standardization. We must change to communication, encouragement and acceptance and, once more, communication. The school as factory in which teachers, programmed by a remote elite of experts, produce people, has certainly crossed what Ivan Illich called a watershed, 62 the point where it turns from being a liberating to being an oppressive institution. We do not need more of it, but less, far less.


The school and its place in society:
Jules Henry, criticizing the public school sharply himself, is on the other hand very skeptical of all enthusiastic talk about de-schooling and freeing the children, saying that ". . . we must conserve culture while chang-
ing: . . . Whenever a new idea appears our first concern as animals must be
that it does not kill us Schools, according to J. Henry, install the
three "essential nightmares" of our culture: fear of failure and envy of
success which provide "the fierce human energy required by techological
drivenness," 64 and absurdity as a way of life. And by doing so, schools

lirender an important service to the culture." Henry's skepticism in regard

to school reform seems appropriate, less so his resigned and cynical tone.
J. Holt who for some years was a reformer of schools without much regard to the whole which they are part of, has turned to such a broader look on education in his book Freedom and Beyond: "People, even children, are educated much more by the whole society around them and the general quality of life in it than they are by what happens in schools. The dream of many school people that schools can be places where virtue is preserved and passed on in a world otherwise empty of it, now seems to me a sad and dangerous illusion . . . Moreover it seems clear from much experience that most adults will not tolerate too
great a difference between the way they experience their own lives and the

way their children live their lives in school." And I would add not only

will they not tolerate, but more important, they are unable to imagine a different way of life than their own. Holt says very rightly- "More and more it appeared that a large part of our problem is that few of us really believe in freedom. As a slogan, it is fine. But we don't understand it as a process or mechanism with which or within which people can work and live. We have had in our own lives so little experience of freedom, except in the most trivial


situations, that we can hardly imagine how it might work, how we might use it, or how it could possibly be of any use to us when any serious work was
-siQ_, to be done. For our times the corporate-military model seems to be
the only one we know, trust and believe in." 67
To speak up once more for the liberation of the kid, to find new grand words for the "freedom to learn" is therefore indeed a "wasted effort," as Hentig said, 68 in this society of "comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom,"69 as long as we restrict ourselves in the decent way of experts, to considering schools and their reforms by themselves. Graubard takes the same view in his book on the free school movement which he says must be part
of a broader movement for social change if it is not to remain the escape for

70 a few lucky ones.

I will therefore turn to the world of the adult now so that we see more clearly the interaction of education and the rest of life and how they mutually influence each other.

6 5

Chapter VI

The World of the Adult

I will first talk about work because it is of central importance to most adults. The experience of work influences greatly the rest of a person's life and its organization and mood is therefore central to the mood of the entire society: John Holt writes: " . . . what we do in one part of our lives carries over into the others. We do not and cannot lead moronic, machinelike lives for eight hours a day, or even six or four, and then turn around and for the rest of the time be aware, intelligent, responsible, creative. Even if the hours of work are greatly reduced, most people, however much they may dislike their work, are going to think of it as the most
purposeful and serious thing they do. If it seems empty and pointless and

stupid, so will much of the rest of their lives."

lf we want to change from a society of consumers to a society of citizens, of people, from guided and administrated masses to masses of people who govern themselves, who pursue their own happiness, their own lives as individuals, communities and countries, the reorganization of the workplace must be, I believe, one of the top items on the list of social change. This change, which would open up more possibilities for what Maslow once called "universal selfactualization," 72 is a change from a Kapitalist to a socialist economy. I am reluctant to use these big words, for they have often lost their credibility, they have come to sound pompous and empty, propaganda talk and narrowminded "good-guy/bad-guy fanaticism" have abused them badly. Yet the basic issue is still there: capitalism as a system of domination cannot tolerate too much freedom. The will and the action of one person to free himself from


dependency, will encounter the will and action of the other to keep this person in his service, to keep him dependent and unfree.
I am skeptical about the chances of sweeping revolutions, the overnight liberation of the people, in spite of my belief that our system of domination, submission and exploitation is unjust. For most people life is quite comfortable and the many goods and services of modern capitalism have changed class struggle into the midsummernight's dream of consumption and pleasure, as J. Henry describes the American middle class life. Since the slaves live a good life, they are not so keen to raise against their masters. However there also is discontent among many people, and there will be more of it, I believe, as the race for profit goes on and puts more and more strain on people, the environment and the economy itself.
Worker dissatisfaction:
Work is drudgery for most people. Many are openly dissatisfied with their jobs, many others just do them because they have to. For others again, having rather interesting work, it wouldn't be so bad, but they feel the constant pressure of competition, a struggle to make it, to move on and upward. Driven by the fear to be a failure which as J. Henry describes are sharpenedto a licutting edge" by the school, they find themselves in the ratrace, the big game of middle and upper classes.
In the late 60's and early 70's worker dissatisfaction was very widespread and equally widely discussed. High turnover rates, absenteeism, sabotage, alcohol and other drugs on the job, wildcat strikes and other rebellious activities diminished the productivity of the American worker. A study conducted for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare entitled Nork in America" says: "Moreover, a growing body of research indicates that as work problems increase, there may be a Konsequent decline in physical and

6 7

mental health, family stability, community participation and cohesiveness, and 'balanced' socio-political attitudes, while there is an increase in drug and alcohol addition, Aggression, and delinquency." The study goes on, "Many workers at all occupational levels feel locked-in, their mobility blocked,
the opportunity to grow lacking in their jobs, challenge missing from their
tasks." Since then things have quieted down. With a tighter job market, people are forced to put up with almost everything and the question of satisfaction, even safety and health standards, become secondary compared to the
question of having a job at all. Most people are thus forced into jobs, "which, 74 from the standpoint of an intellectual, appears to be the epitome of tedium."

Capitalism, Family and Community Life:

In the early 19th century, about four-fifths of the population in the US were self-employed. This figure declined to one-third in 1870 and to onetenth in 1970. 75 Most persons who once were "employer and employee" at the same time, who had to rely on their own skills and Cleverness their own decisions and industry, their family members and neighbors, became workers during this time. The change from the self-employment of a small farmer or
storekeeper, a craftsman or fisherman, was usually forced upon the people, when " 77 they couldn't make a living anymore. "The Assistant, The Grapes of Wrath"

and many other novels describe vividly how the little guy was slowly or abruptly pushed out of business. The increasing complexity of large-scale technology brought growing advantages to those who could afford to buy them. The greater productivity of the industrial factory made it possible to pay the workers and yet have a large profit left to expand and reinvest and thereby force more and more independent craftsmen, farmers, etc., out. Having thus lost their livelihood, they couldn't but join the army of wage-Iabarers.
While the Kapitalist mode of production became ever more dominant, the


self-sufficiency of the workers decreased. In earlier times, a farmer
and his family for instance, would grow their own food, prepare and conserve it for winter, repair their own tools, build and maintain their own house, build much of their furniture, make butter, take care of the sick animals and people as well, bake their bread, etc., etc. When the family then started to work in the factory, money began to replace what they didn't have the time to do themselves. When more and more factories concentrated in cities, much of the raw material or space for such activities was not available anymore, so that the self-sufficiency of a family decreased steadily. And, although workers around the turn of the century usually still grew some of their own food and had some animals, capitalist entrepreneurs transformed more and more of the so-called unproductive labor into productive labor. Instead of sewing one's own clothes, canning one's own vegetables or fruit or building one's own house. this would now be done by other workers employed by a capitalist, who can now derive profit from thus activities, which were unproductive before. This sets off a spiral of continued reinvestment and continued search for new markets.
The relative richness of earlier lives, the many things which a family did every day, was thus gradually replaced by one big piece of time called Itwork" which one or two members of the family spend in some other place earning the money which enables them to buy goods which they have once produced themselves, and services which have once been help or assistance between friends, family members or neighbors. What used to be human interaction, relationships, is now often reduced to a financial transaction. The role of the family as a group of people working and living together as well as the role of the community or neighborhood, has undergone a great change during the last 150 years, during which more and more of their concrete functions and

need for Kooperation have been abstrakte from them, leaving them in a rather difficult situation. Emptied from their concrete contents of daily necessities and real interdependence, they become a place of expected emotional and moral satisfaction and support. They are,so to speak, abandoned and condemned to create and develop their own artifical meaning and coherence from within. They have both lost their vital reality and they have in a sense become unreal. They have become cut off and separate from real activities and engagements with the world, from surviving, producing and creating, which gave them a common cause and interest. Needless to say that the absence of real tasks and interdependence puts much strain on families and neighborhoods.
While the new form of work as an activity separate from the rest of one's life, has thus impoverished and weakened the family and community, it has also made possible independence to a possible independence to a degree unthinkable in earlier times. If we have work and therefore money, we can live in complete separateness from everybody else. We can buy on the personal market all the goods and, moreover, all the services which once required the membership in a group or community, which one had to ask other people for; health care, entertainment, education, fire protection and security, repair services. However, what some call independence is insulation for others, who are equally forced to go to the market for their needs, to live in a world of market relations rather than human relations.
Having divided life into the useful and useless, into work and free time, capitalism has also transformed work itself into an evermore specialized, simplified and dehumanized routine.
Capitalism and Work:
"Having been forced to sell their labor power to another, the workers
also surrender their interest in the work process, which has now been 'alienated.'


The Labor process has become the responsibility of the capitalist." 79 The Kapitalist of course, assumes control over the work process so as to get Most out of the labor time he has bought, so as to maximize the profit he can make from every worker.
One of the first moves to increase efficiency was to have the workers
work in the factory. Operations could then be more easily combined, new Materials could be distributed more easily and Most important, the Kapitalist could now control the way in which the worker worked and his time. At first the Kapitalist had contracted craftsmen who worked for him in his factory. But he soon found out that many operations which his rather expensive and skilled craftsmen did as recurring parts of their jobs, could be done just as well by cheaper, less well-trained people. Thus capitalists began to divide the labor. Throwing a pot, glazing and firing need a skilled worker. Carrying clay, loading the kiln, preparing the clay and cleaning the shop could be done by someone else for much less money. Furthermore, instead of having one shop making bowls and plates and cups, why not have one team make the plates, one the bowls and one the cups.
Around the turn of the century, F. W. Taylor took another step toward increasing efficiency. Looking at the operations of different workers, he found that they could often be performed more efficiently, that much energy was wasted with unnecessary motions, undue slowness or unpractical Arrangement of the work-place or factory organization. He started to make his famous time/motion studies, analyzing a multitude of tasks with meter-stick and stopwatch and writing out afterward very precise instructions on how to do the job. From now on the workers autonomous participation in the process, based on his knowledge, skills or Tradition, was transformed into a job routine designed for exchangeability by the efficiency expert. "Scientific Management
7 1
extracted all mental work from the labor process, and thus gaining compiete control over the worker, could "scientifically" maximize the worker's efficiency as a human machine.
"This dehumanization of the labor process, in which workers are reduced almost to the level of labor in its animal form, while purposeless and unthinkable in the case of the self-organized and self-motivated social labor of a community of producers, becomes crucial for the management of purchased

labor." 80
Through the drive for maximum profit work has thus become continuously fragmented and simplified so that work, which once was the center and heart of one's life, the challenge to survive, the joy to be produktive and creative and thereby relate and interact with others, build and succeed together, this work today is a boring routine for most people, lacking all initiative, autonomous decision, creative and intelligent thinking, challenge or satisfaction. The characteristic I have emphasized in discussing the public schools of today is again in even greater extreme, the main characteristic of work: dependency and strict external guidance. One's work -- and this is true for most white collar work as well -- is predetermined and programmed by managers to the largest possible degree, defining exactly what to do and what not to do, how to handle this, when to take a break, what to be interested in and what not, how many hours per week and which ones to work, when to take vacation, when to quit smoking. In this respect there is little difference between a production worker, a teacher or a middle manager of a big corporation. Freedom for co-creatorship is minimal and the decisions left to the employee or worker are irrelevant-. "All we can decide is whether we want the Christmas party on Wednesday or Thursday," a clerk from the university administration told me the other day. The prescriptions can very rarely be discussed or reworked with others. They are

7 2

commands, a tight order imposed upon the worker or employee.
It is only because of the long and thorough training in being absurd and unreal, in following rules and accepting unquestionably any authority, in doing alien tasks for external rewards, grades, in accepting one's involuntary imprisonment in stuffy classrooms as the victim of life, it is Only because of this "preparation for life' that people can stand their work, not even recognizing their own unfreedom and experiencing as natural.
I am not speaking up against the value or necessity of work, but rather against our total habituation to a mode of work which is deeply unhuman because of its hierarchical organization. Beyond the concerns with the stupidity and mindlessness of most work, with the unjust distribution of participation, power and income, with the loss of craftsmanship and so on, lies an ethical question: what right does one person have to order another person around, to make this other person work for him and to gain a profit from the person's work?
How can a world, which calls itself the "free world" tolerate and encourage such a mode of production. How can the "free world" ally itself with such an unfree and unhuman mode of interaction, officially sanctioning it as our economy.
The drive for ever higher production has, of course, its conterpart in the drive for ever greater consumption. The worker or employee must now be driven to consume all the junk he has before been driven to produce. For a while this certainly made sense and the rise of the standard of living was a success. The products were more or less in line with what people wanted and consumption was spontaneous. However since World War II things have changed.
Once there was the free market, where goods and services were offered
by competing firms. The customer chose and was king. The customer thus was

7 3

once a potent figure, like the kings and queens of England. But as appears to be the fate of kings and queens these days, "king customer" has only representative functions today, he is a public relations item. Barnet and MÜller write about the new market: "In the world of the global oligopolies, products are shaped not to the requirements of the public need but the requirements of corporate growth. These are not the same. In 1966, the'British Institute of Marketing changed its definition of marketing. 'Assessing consumer needs' was scraped in favor of a more revealing one: 'Assessing and converting customer purchase power into effektive demand for a specific pro-
duct . . . so as to achieve the profit target or other objektives set by a

81 company. Marketing is now recognized as the science of need creation."

Fewer and fewer firms with ever growing power share most of today's Markets. They advertise a wide variety of products which often appear to compete with each other, while in fact they are products of the same firm with only small differences among them. Barnet and MÜller describe a rather bizarre example of how the illusion of the free market and the competing interests is kept well alive for the innocent customers: "The casual connection between labels and product was dramatized for us on a recent visit to an applesauce factory. As the cans came rolling off the assembly line, a group of women grabbed them at random and arbitrarily pasted on one of six different labels, representing supposedly competing product lines." And they go on: "The most profitable sort of innovation for a large corporation is what is known as product differentiation. This is a polite term for irrelevant or marginal changes in a
product for the purpose of creating new markets without basic new production
82 costs."

Marketing and advertising are the head of every firm today, and they work at keeping the customer in constant anxiety and excitement about all the


things he might miss, he must have, he must throw away and replace. This is not only irresponsibly wasteful, but it also diverts the customer from his real needs and wants, and constantly seduced to try a new product, he is pulled and pushed through a life of never fulfilled hopes. Expecting to find happiness always behind the next corner, he moves on and on and on.
Approaching the limits:
It seems to many that we are approaching the limits of this continuously expanding system. Progress as continuation of the present development would lead us into the totally artifical environment, the world as machine, where all the physical and psychological conditions of life are controlled and determined by the world-center, by a handful of experts.
People are aware of those limits in many ways. They find less and less satisfaction in their work. They miss Variation flexibility, participation and responsibility. People lose more and more hope that buying a new stereo system or making an additional $500 a year will really make a difference. People find themselves confronted with increasing pollution, increasing prices and a sudden and real shortage of energy, with rising unemployment and corporations, which move their production abroad, where the "business climate" is better, where pollution standards, safety control and wages are lower and unions outlawed. .83 People hear about the end of the wails, extinct within just a few decades because of the unceasing demands of expansion. They are more and more worried about nuclear accidents, about the influence of big business on regulatory commissions and the rest of the government. Many people become aware of their placement in the backseats of society, women, old people, blacks and other ethnic groups feel left out. The war in Vietnam 84 or the role of the "free West" in Chile or Iran and other countries makes more and more people skeptical about their own leaders in government and industry and


their good intentions. Parents and teachers and students are unhappy with their schools. A "good education" has lost the market value it Once had. In short, many have lost their belief in the promises that Western societies have made to their people for a long time. Many are discontent, anxious about the times ahead, worried about pollution and war, Korruption and destructive shortsightedness of the economy, about helpless governments, etc. Many cannot articulate what they feel, and unable to envisage another way of life, they take part in the "rat-race," they "play the game," they just go along. But an increasing number of people have begun to articulate what they think goes wrong, and many have begun to experiment with and develop alternatives in living arrangements, schools and businesses, alternative politics or health care, etc. It appears that we not only need to turn away from the deadly spiral of more and more, of frightened competition, but that a growing number of people realize this and that they are ready for alternatives.


Chapter VII


Humanization of work:
When worker discontent began to threaten productivity in the late 60's and early 70's management started, in some cases, work-humanization projects of different kinds, ranging from having some plants, more light and color in the shop, to surrendering to the worker much of gement's control over the day-to-day operations. To increase worker participation did indeed improve the workers' moral and their productivity too. However, after a while, the initial optimism, which characterized the beginning of these experiments in worker participation and control, diminished and the experiments were often abandoned. While the tighter job market after the years 1973-74 made a return to management control certainly easier, the actual cause of the unhappy endings of such experiments lies deeper than this. The story of the "successful failure," as Marglin called the fate of the humanization projects, goes about like that: "When the employees at Kaiser's sailing plant in Fontana, California, took over essential management functions and turned the operation around, "Kaiser executives were delighted. But when some of the workers began to reason that if they were acting like management they should be paid as management, the executives saw trouble." 85 Humanization and exploitation do exclude each other and when they are brought too close together they constitute a very explosive mixture. Marglin writes. "Observe that the conflict is between control and productivity, not between control and profit. For capitalist control remains a pre-requisite to profit. Weaken capitalist control, and productivity increases will likely take the form of higher wages or lower effort, not the form of higher corporate earnings. Eliminate capitalist control
altogether and profit disappears as an economic category. It is no wonder that when control and productivity are in conflict, managers instinctively choose self-preservation.' 86
Those experiments thus sharpen the awareness of the antagonistic character of the relations between Kapitalist employer and employees. The fact that humanization and self-actualization and productivity go hand in hand, as has been shown in many of these experiments, points out quite drastically the irrationality of this system, where control doesn't promote productivity or efficiency nor human satisfaction, but profit for a few only. But the fact that the experiments in workplace humanization did fail is also encouraging, because it gives a very clear indication of their Potential 'Workers who have been successfully socialized to accept their inferiority relative to supervisors and 'engineers' are emboldened by their mastery of control in one small area to reach out for more . . . the experience of control enlarges not only the capacity for control, but the individual and group sense of capacity," 87 says Marglin, and he calls these projects "a mechanical process by which change is automatic, once set in motion.' 88
Changes at the workplace toward democratization thus bear a great potential for individual self-actualization and increasing satisfaction through One's work. They heighten the individual's self-confidence and thus increase the individual's and the group's political potency. There is a way to becoming a person, to living as subject, rather than object.

Democracy in the economy:
We have seen that management cannot really take any steps for humanizing work. It is unlikely that people given the chance to experience their competency, their Potentials, beginning to communicate with each other, acQuiring more and more knowledge and insights into their work, being soon capable to


run their place themselves, seeing more possibilities and feeling more energies, starting to not just take orders and do things according to prescriptions, but to think about them, that these people will leave intact the privileges of managers, who are losing their factual superiority (their monopoly of business management know-how) rapidly, and that they go on laboring for the manager profit. It is rather more likely that they will try to vote the managers out or leave and start their own business or cut down on those privileges.
Before discussing the positive potentials of such a transformation, I will look briefly at the problem of legitimacy and likelihood.
To call the capitalist employer a slaveholder is certainly overstating the case, but it is difficult to see for me why the constitutions of the free democracies of the West, which indeed enable democracy in the political sphere, why these same constitutions written in the spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity, should allow exploitation as they do now. The parallel with slavery is insofar appropriate, that for a long time slavery was regarded as normal and quite compatible with democracy and freedom and Christian love, and most people did truly not unterstand the argument of a few who criticized their country. Such critics were called ungrateful or exaggerating. In our times property, private ownership of industry, the functioning and fairness of the democratic system, hierarchical organization are so much taken for granted and felt to be normal, that to call the system unhuman is likewise fanatic exaggeration and ungrateful behavior. However, Carol Pateman says that "the logic of some of the central arguments of liberal democratic theory itself leads to organizational democracy. However, to admit this as a legitimste element in democratic theory is to undermine a central, structural feature of liberal democratic theory: namely, the separation or autonomy of the


political and private spheres.' 89

What is the likelihood of the development of economic democracy? - I have said before, that many people are ready for alternatives. Models of worker controlled enterprises, increased discussion of these issues, etc. will set in motion the potential stored in people, who now do not know the way out. But besides the generally growing awareness, changes also occur out of necessity. The practice of big business to close down those parts of an enterprise whose profits have fallen beneath a certain level, and to reinvest the capital in a more profitable location (often abroad) has been felt more and more in the US during the last ten years. Especially the states of the Midwest and Northeast are constantly loosing jobs and tax money because of run-away shops.90 In Detroit alone, according to a study from Wayne State University, 27 plants shut down between 1971 and 1976, displacing about 50,000 workers.91 Alternative forms of business have sometimes been created out of such situations, and the likelihood of such creations increases once more Legislation favoring community and worker controlled enterprises has been enacted and the awareness of,this possibility has increased. Communities and workers usually find (and sometimes to their surprise) that abandoned factories can still make profit and that small business can often be run more effectively than big business. This contradicts two "myths about big business," as Whyte calls them. 92 Many believe that capitalist economy cannot exist very long any more, because it finds itself in evergrowing difficulties. Rifkin and Barber write that "Capitalism is not likely to exist anywhere in the world a hundred years from now. Our childrens' children will read about it in history books." 93 Whether this will be so or not remains to be seen. However, things are moving, social change is not plan and future, but actuality.
The potential in the reorganization of the workplace is in short this:


it will tend to make a person's life more whole, more balanced. It will tend to do away with the fragmentation of a person's life into an educational, a produktive and an obsolete (old age) period. The job will be a challenge, in which the whole person gets involved with his or her imagination, physical and emotional capacity, intelligente, etc. The job will be a social event too, teamwork, decisions and discussion will bring communication, common interests and getting to know each other. Friends and human relations and work will go together. Work, the service or product that is being produced, will become part of the community, will in flexible ways adapt to the needs of the surrounding community. The public sphere of the community with its interests and needs and problems and plans, and the "private" sphere of the business will melt together in a unity of common interest. They will begin to respond to each others' needs, there will be communication, because control and ownership will not be thousands of miles away anymore. Leisure, work, learning, vacation, hobbies can be mixed by the worker as far as circumstances allow it. Part-time agreements, early or late retirement, learning on or outside the job, creativeness within the job, new ideas are not blocked through rigid regimentation, if they can be made possible they will, life and politics will unite, because involvement at the job, Konfirmation and growing self confidence will lead to involvement in communal affairs (and any political issue is lastly a communal affair too). The new sense of themselves will stimulate
people to organize their own lives in other respects too.
Daniel Zwerdling presents in his book "Democracy at Work" a series
of case studies on worker participation, in which all these characteristics can be found: some seamstresses kept their elderly workers (that is, those above 50), in spite of their lower productivity, for they felt that we all get older and they wouldn't want to be fired themselves. Workers at Harman


International Industries started to run various courses of educational contents for their community and themselves. Food and other collectives are frequently engaged in some community education work. The "Cooperative Central," started by farm workers in California with no or only ver-v little formal schooling, are running seminars for other people in their own school on how to get a cooperative business off the ground. International Group Plan, an insurance company in Washington, D. C. promoted continued on and off the job education, so that personal growth and work did not exclude each other. I myself have experienced the feeling of participation, of doing something together, in a democraticly organized school.
All these experiments seem to confirm that it is indeed possible to work toward the "good life' in democratic way, not through representatives, but through open participation. It is often difficult to get used to new forms of planning and decision-making, and it might take "many evenings" at the beginning. But most people find it worhwhile, and after a while the organizations usually develop their style of self government, and the strain on evenings lessens. The experiments furthermore show that in spite of differences in detail, there seems to be a common theme in the debate about the good life: balance where it has been lost. I am convinced that when the discussion reaches the level of "what do I want?" a level beyond party lines and theories, we will find a latent want common to all people, the desire to actualize themselves, which is a force that strives for personal unity and a well rounded, balanced life, and for congruence of have to's and what to's as much as can be.
Community organizing:
Change can also come from orher sources of discontent, which are not
directly related to the workplace. Contentment and discontent also depend


on people's home. Most people become discontent when a highway is built right through their bedroom, or when some real estate people put some skyscrapers where the neighborhood park had been before or those nice, old brick houses. Most people don't like the noise from the airport close by, and ideas to enlarge it don't appeal to those who have to live with it. Most people don't like to see their river polluted by a firm whose managers enjoy a private swimming pool far away. Most people enjoy the convenience of the small neighborhood store and they'd rather keep it alive. Some people like to have a day-care center for their kids, and streets and parks where they can safely play.
Small is not only beautiful as a recent book title proclaimed, small is, as an increasing number of people say, also more functional and often more effizient (in spite of our belief in bigness). Ivan Illich argued in "Tools for Conviviality," that the modern industrialized societies have reached a stage where their once useful institutions and technologies have turned into the masters of their creators. They have become so big in scale and so inflexible through central technocratic organization, that people are increasingly unable to use them to their ends, but they must in the contrary, adapt themselves more and more to their "tools" (institutions, technologies, etc.). To "retool society" would mean a change to smaller scale, which allows more independent use of tools in any way a person wishes to use them, as long as the person doesn't interfere with another person's equal freedom and independence.
Morris and Hess deal with the same issues in a more concrete way in their book "Neighborhood Power": "This book is a call for a return to a human scale of organization, a return of power to the people affected by that power, and a return to a sense of community." 95 They describe in their book the various forms this return to a human scale of organization has taken

8 3

in a neighborhood and community organizing movement all through the United States. At first people begin to be active in their community because of some need: a day-care center, a petition against building a highway or pulling down good and cheap housing, organizing services for old people or others, starting free schools or food coops to get cheaper and healthier food into neighborhood, and many other issues can become the starting point. During such a process neighborhoods become neighborh oods once more. People get to know each other, they begin to talk, and they realize that they have many things in common with their neighbors they have lived with for so long. New plans emerge once the movement has gained some momentum. Open meetings are held to find out more about other people and get more interested and involved. New projects are started, an infirmary on the block,for instance, for patients who need only little care and a bed and prefer the intimacy (and the lower costs) of the block hospital. People begin to realize that much of their neighborhood life is affected by city decisions: issues of zoning and planning, public transportation and other services, etc. They may begin to form committees who keep an eye on what is cooking in the various departments of the city, so as not to be the helpless and always surprised recipient of city programs. The heighborhood may soon want to form a government, an official way for planning and deciding, and a voice toward the outside. All this involves a lot of learning; learning how to contact people and whom, how to deal with city agencies, how to organize group meetings and how to build a larger government which combines open participation for everybody and effectiveness, learning the basics of economy, of law, of business management and many more things.
Morris and Hess describe how, after an initial phase of offering services to meet some obvious needs, initiatives and plans become more ambitious, developing a neighborhood credit union or a neighborhood development bank,


which provide low interest loans for purposes beneficial to the community. This is very important,for large banks often pursue purposes that are of no concern or even against the interests of those whose savings they hold. People begin to be more aware of such issues while their sense of community grows. Morris and Hess also describe how neighborhoods started their Own economy. Beginning with a food-coop or something of this sort, they may expand into repair services, into low capital production of small scale, into food production and processing. Solar greenhouses and rooftop gardens begin to appear and they provide a sense of security as they lessen the almost total dependence for the very basic needs of life from complex structures and organizations, which most people find themselves caught in today. When the neighborhood begins to develop its own economy, it also begins to make its own profits, rather than to buy goods and services from the outside and thereby give all its money away and out of their own neighborhood. New ideas and approaches to business will bring interest to new, more human, small scale or appropriate technology. Neighborhoods often experiment with solar energy in one or another form, because of environmental concerns and because of the possibilities of self reliance. Neighborhoods, becoming one living body, make their voices more and more heard as their political awareness grows. They want to take part in decisions that affect them, and they are concerned about bigger issues in their country, economic, energy and other questions. They want to participate in the decision-making of big government and they have little respect for the ilwe do it for you" mood, that often characterizes the bureaucratic machinery of Western democracies.
A movement toward decentralization and smallness seems to have two major aspects; first it is seen as the way out of many crises and of course a way quite different from the way which is generally thought to lead out of those


crises. As Ivan Illich puts it: "While evidence shows that more of the Same leads to utter defeat, nothing less than more and more seems worthwhile in a society infected by the growth mania." 96 Decentralization means turning away from big corporations, which pursuing global profit maximization have no interest in communities or people, decentralization means turning away from big bureacracies which devour much tax money and become increasing@y unable to respond adequately and efficiently to the needs of the people. Decentralization means to turn away from the central organization of power be it political or economical, to bring it to those people who have to live, to work and function with its,results.
The other aspect, besides the functionality of decentralization, is that it seems to enable a lifestyle which allows for great individual and social self actualization. Decent'ralization means activity of many people in many ways, the participation of everybody in the common life. Decentralization, an environment of small human scale organization is the environment which has room and enhances the independence of growth, the development toward political potency, which is so much inhibited in the hierarchical and centralized organization of modern societies.
Now at last, we can go back to the question of the education of the young.
Deschooling the school:
So finally I arrive at what originally was my starting point, alternative schools (or, as it began to look like more and more) alternatives to schools. As I was trying to clarify my ideas about the "model school," I found myself more and more involved with the overall social conditions of education and the school as part of the larger society. It became clear that [t . . . liberal reformist discussions of school problems are essentially too

narrow and that hopes for solutions are fated to be disappointed if conceived of only in an educational and pedagogical perspective." 97 Educational and general social changes must be viewed together and they build an entity in practice.
I have talked about learning being nothing else but personal development, and that the best learning environment is a good relationship with adults, where the natural difference in knowledge, skills and insights will bring about the most produktive education. 1 have also said that every time we seduce someone else to not be true to himself or herself, but to do what we want them to, to do what we call "good," without their personal affirmative commitment, that every time when this occurs we have moved a little toward dependency, while on the other hand, the more we encourage the other to decide for himself and to be truly himself in that decision, we promote growth, independence and strength. In discussing public schols it has become clear that they are not what I want, because they are a persistent invitation to be dependent, to not decide, to not think (except in the prescribed paths). In the following, I will try to describe what kind of school I do find appropriate to promote personal growth, independence and strength. I will however, not develop a specific and detailed model, for this must emerge out of discussion and circumstances. I will talk about underlying principles and an underlying dynamic in the school's development.
Ivan Illich has raised a wide and wild discussion with his radical proposal to deschool society. It seems impossible! -- In highly industrialized countries like the US there is, as many have noted, simply no place to go for children or adolescent, no place except the schools. To close the schools would very likely produce much chaos and disorder and little constructive social or individual development. John Holt, George Dennison, Paul Goodman

8 7

and others have developed plans that seem to be in the middle between total deschooling, where the children would be left to their own devices, and total schooling, as systematic preparation for the "little boxes' to come. Dennison and Holt describe how the large factory schools could be replaced by small free schools. 20 or 30 kids, one professional teacher and other adults (parents, volunteers, college or highschool students, etc.) would make a school. They would organize their own learning which would tend to be more individualized and flexible or disorderly as others may call it. Some inspection would provide a safeguard against flagrant misuse and some standards would have to be met. Paul Goodman proposed further that schools should officially end after the sixth grade, and the adolescent should then be allowed and encouraged to go into the real world, to engage in real life and real learning. The six years of school before that would mainly serve to "delay socialization." They should be more like an exciting playground where you can do pretty much what you like. The little learning that is necessary will happen more or less incidentally, if we don't make it all look so terribly complicated by our attempts to TEACH. The second half of Goodman's plan, the going out into the world, poses more problems, I think, and it seems to be at the point where the possible alternative crosses the border to Utopia. Hartmuth von Hentig expresses the problem when he says: "Before we can begin to deschool society, that is to do away with schools, we must make society itself educational." 98 He proposes therefore to deschool the school, that is, to give back more and more of its functions to society, to the degree that the latter becomes capable to fulfill these functions. Over a longer period of time, schools would so indeed shrink away, and education would once again become an intricate part of the real life, where young people live with, learn from and work with older people, and go to "school" only when they need to know something which is not readily available


in the common world. The idea of going out into the world as Goodman presented it, makes sense to me, once we have created an environment that encourages participation, responsibility, learning, exploration, experiment and development.
This is then.the first principle of an alternative school as I see it: the school constantly tends toward dissolving into real life. Students may, for instance, if this is within the reaim of the possible, do some volunteer or paid part- or full-time work. They can always come back to gischool" after they have been out in the world. Teachers should likewise become more and more obsolete in their artificial classroom role and turn into regular people, giving other people (outside of the school) the chance to get involved with the students and share their skills and wisdom. This sort of two-way community involvement is a frequent goal of free schools.
A second principle is the realness of the teacher. Holt and Goodman have stressed this point too. The teacher as the totally altruistic person, who spends hours hanging around students, eagerly waiting for a chance to be helpful or to correct the students, depending on his style, like an overly protective nurse, is a somewhat absurd figure. "In this school the teachers do not only teach . . . they discuss, decide, explore, change, report, they are engaged in politics, they produce things, have friends and families and live here or go away for activities that cannot take place here . . . The
children do not only learn, but they participate in all this or they do it
themselves and thereby they learn." Teacherssometimes become dull and lifeless people under the strain of daily routine and their narrow role. Dealing with the same 5th or 9th grade material year after year they fall mentally asleep. This is not the kind of teacher I have in mind. It is in the contrary important, very important, that the teacher himself be an interested and

interesting person, who likes to share his interests and is curious to learn more. The adult who is intensely engaged in the real life can be an exciting companion, whereas the adult who gets bored easily and is little interesting is a dull and boring companion. The realness of the teacher and the striving into the real world make "real projects" likely. Rather than to learn or practice something in a spirit of getting ready, so that in ten or twenty years you will be able to apply this , much learning and practicing can take place in a real situation, in an involvement with the real world: literature may develop into the performance of a play which can be put on in the real world, little theaters or in streets, maybe connected with raising money for the school, a political or charitable purpose. Social studies may develop into active involvement with one's environment, bringing information about some concern of interest out into the public, campaigning for or against something, etc. Crafts classes can be taking the form of constructing a new building (for the school or other purposes) together.
The third principle is that communication should replace rules and rigid structures as far as possible. This can never be completely realized, as many free schools have experienced. 100 When we abandon structure, it should not lead to neglect. Communication between adults and children is important because, as I said in the third chapter, it is in communication that the student will become present again and again, and in defining and redefining himself, the student will become an increasingly clear sense of himself. This does not mean that the adults have to watch over the students all the time and to constantly urge them into full presentness, deepest communication and commitment, but contact must again and again be established. Communication of a less heavy kind, an atmosphere of acceptance,empathy and serious interest in the kids and their enterprises will encourage them to be, to express themselves


and explore themselves and the world ever farther.
We have come to the end. We have seen ideas, speculations, realities. I am tired in a way that talks about the smallness of a single man and the pressure which big words and hopes can produce. My call for change, for growing up and strength, for liberation makes me think of the eternal human striving for the better life, for happiness and for perfection. This longing seems to be the moving force in all human life, new in all of us and old, "The fact is, that this something 'new' is really not at all new, it is very ancient, and
its being ancient makes it new because there is nothing new under the sun and what is old is new when it is viewed from an angle hitherto neglected." 101
I have made the old new, new for myself by looking at it for a first time, by stepping outside and thinking about life.
Hartmuth von Hentig has once compared "freedom" with an ancient Chinese vase: we like it, we think it's very valuable, but we don't use it because we're afraid it might break. 102
1 have shown many instances where people took the old vase out of the showcase and began to use it. I want to encourage myself and others to do the same. Let's test it and play with it, let's take little risks and make little experiments with it. We might learn to trust in it. We might find out that freedom is not the fragile thing we thought it to be, but rather that it is made out of solid, dynamic and very reliable stuff. And only by trying, risking and experimenting can we move toward the vision of a better life, where human beings are not submitted to their world anymore, but where they create their world, a world of free people, community and Kooperation


1 Aldous Leonard Huxley, Brave New World (Harper, New York: 1946).

2 Richard J. Barnet and Ronald E. MÜller, Global Reach: the Power of the Multinational Corporations (Simon and Schuster, New York: 1974). Barnet and MÜller describe in Global Reach the development to a global economy and the increasing influence of multi-national corporations on human life around the world.
3 Paul Ehrlich, "Eco-Catastrophe!" Alvin Toffler, ed., The Futurists (Random House, New York: 1972).
4 Robert L. Heilbroner, An Inquiry into the Human Prospect (W. W. Norton, New York: 1974), p. 57.
5 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Goethe's Works, v. 1 (G. Barrie, Philadelphia: 1885), pp. 81-3. Goethe's poem is, I think, a rich analogy to the situation of modern man as I have just described it.
6 Paulo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness (Seabury Press, New York: 1973). This is the title of a book by Paulo Freire which treats concerns similar to my own.
7 Paulo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness, p. 4. Freire makes a distinction between people as objects and people as subjects.
8 Clinton Rossiter, Conservatism in America (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton: 1948). Clinton Rossiter, a representative of the philosophic conservatism, describes the "search for the good life' as the purpose

of politics.

9 Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City, N. Y. 1967), especially chapter one.
10 Selma Fraiberg, The Magic Years; Understandin@ and Handling the Problems of Early Childhood (trans. of Das verstandene Kind, Scribner, New York: 1959), especially chapter two.
11 Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Cano py. This is a term used frequently by Berger in The Sacred Canopy.
12 Berger, p. 21.

13 C. A. Bowers, Cultural Literacy for Freedom (Elan Publishers, Inc.

Eugene, OR: 1974), p. 32.


14 Alvin Ward Gouldner, The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology: the Origins, Grammar and Future of Ideology (Seabury Press, N. Y.: 1976). Eric J. Hobsbawm: The Age of Revolution, cited in Gouldner.

15 JUrgen Habermas, Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics (Beacon Press, Boston: 1970), especially chapter 6.

16 Habermas, this term is also used by Habermas.

17 Habermas, p. 93.

18 David Morris and Karl Hess,Neighborhood Power (Beacon Press,
Boston: 1975), p. 7.

19 Berger, p. 22.

20 Habermas, p. 88.

21 Paul Goodman, The New Reformation (Random House, New York: 1970).
An expression used by Paul Goodman.

22 Ruth C. Cohn, Von der Psychoanalyse zur Themenzentrierten Interaction (Klett Verlag, Stuttgart: 1975). Ruth C. Cohn uses that expression in her theoretical and practical work. Her "theme-centered interactional method" (TCI) is an attempt to establish and transmit the parameters which make living learning in groups more likely to occur.

23 Martin Buber, Hasidism and Modern Man, edited and translated by Maurice Friedman, (Harper & Row, New York: 1966),Pp. 133-4.

24 Buber, p. 133-4.

25 Buber, p. 133-4.

26 A. S. Neill, Summerhill - a Radical Approach to Child Rearing (Hart Publishing Co., New York: 1960). The school existed for forty years before it achieved sudden, widespread publicity.

27 Neill, chapter 1.

28 Sylvia Ashton-Warner, Teacher (Simon and Schuster, New York:
1963). Reading and writing for her pupils was an extension of their

emotional and social life.

29 Allen Graubard, Free the Children (Vintage Books, New York:

1974), pp. 221-2.

30 Ruth C. Cohn, "Ich bin ich - Ein Aberglaube: Interview with Ruth

Cohn," Psychologie Heute, VI, 3, pp. 23-8.


31 Carl R. Rogers, Freedom to Learn (Charles E. Merrill Publishing

Co., Columbus, OH: 1969).
32 Rogers, p. 153.

33 Rogers. All the examples Rogers gives take place within the regular classroom.

34 Abraham Harold Maslow, New Knowledge in Human Values, p. 126.

35 Maslow, p. 128.

36 Maslow, p. 126.

37 Maslow, p. 129.

38 Rogers. Those concepts are the same ones that he emphasizes

in psychotherapy.
39 Rogers, p. 166.

40 Maurice Friedman ed., The Knowledge of Man: a Philosophy of the Interhuman by Martin Buber, (Harper Torchb'ooks, New'York: 1965). See Maurice Friedman's T@ntrod@uction to Buber's The Knowledge of Man.
41 Friedman, p. 21.

42 Friedman, pp. 38-9.

43 John Caldwell Holt, Freedom and Beyond (E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc.,
New York: 1972). I found many points of my own thinking confirmed in this book.
44 Rogers, p. 165.

45 Goodman, The New Reformation.

46 Heilbroner, particularly in Chapter one.

47 Walter Arnold Kaufmann, Sartre: "Existentialism as a Humanism"
in Kaufmann's Existentialism from Dastoevsky (World Publishing Co., Cleveland: 1963).

48 Kaufmann, loc. cit.

49 Alexander Lowen, Bioenergetics (Penguin Books, New York: 1978),

p. 107.

50 Maslow, called thus by Bertalanffy in his essay "Human Values in a Changing World," reprinted in Maslow's New Knowledge in Human Values, p. 74.


51 H. Petzold, Psychotherapie und Korperdynamik (Jungermannsche

Verlagsbuchhandlung, Paderborn, West Germany: 1974). Vladimir Iljin, Paris, 1965, quoted in Petzold. Translation and emphasis by myself.

52 Freire, p. 4.

53 Jules Henry, Culture Against Man (Vintage Books, New York: 1965). See in the eighth chapter his penetrating description of the hidden messages learned in schools.
54 Freire, p. 52.

55 Holt, Freedom and Beyond. I wouldn't have dared to call teachers jailers and s'chools jails. I found this blasphemy in Freedom and Beyond.

56 Marcuse, Herbert, One-Dimensional Man (Beacon Press, Boston: 1964), pp. 11-12.

57 Habermas, chapter six.

58 Hartmuth Von Hentig, Guernavaca: Alternativen zur Schule (Ernst

Klett Verlag, Stuttgart: 1971), p. 71.

59 Edgar Z. Friedenberg, Coming of Age in America.

60 Maxine Greene, Teacher as Stranger; Educational Philosophy for

the Modern Age (Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, CA: 1973), p. 273. This strange use of educational jargon stands in contrast to her philosophy of education as she presents it in this book.

61 Terrence E. Deal and Robert R. Nolan, Alternative Schools:
Ideologies, Realities, Guidelines (Nelson-Hall, Chicago: 1978), p. 51.

62 Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality (Harper & Row, New York:

1973), especially chapter one.

63 Jules Henry, Culture Against Man, p. 284.

64 Henry, p. 296.

65 Henry, p. 301.

66 Holt, pp. 4-5.

67 Holt, pp. 3-4.

68 Von Hentig. He recognizes the importance of "educational society"
in order to have an "educational school."


69 Marcuse, p. 1.

70 Graubard, Free the Children.

71 Holt, p. 167.
72 Maslow, p. 129.

73 Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation

of Work in the Twentieth Century (Monthly Review Press, New York: 1974), p. 31.
74 Braverman, p. 29.

75 Braverman, p. 53.

76 Bernard Malamud, The Assistant: a Novel (Farrar, Straus &
Cudahy, New York: 1967).

77 John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath (Viking Press, New York: 1939).

78 Braverman. The continued expansion of capitalism into all of life is described very well in chapter thirteen.

79 Braverman, p. 57.

80 Braverman, p. 113.

81 Barnet and MÜller, p. 350.

82 Barnet and MÜller, p. 352.

83 Jeremy Rifkin and Randy Barber, The North Will Rise Again:

Pensions, Politics and Power in the 1980's (Beacon Press, Boston: 1978). This topic is dealt with extensively in Rifkin and Barber and Barnet and MÜller.

84 Lifton, Robert Jay, Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans: Neither Victims Nor Executioners (Simon & Schuster, New York: 1973). Lifton describes the mood around the Vietnam War, the disillusionment with the US Government, and the American way of life.

85 Barnet and MÜller, p. 332.

86 Stephen A. Marglin, Catching Flies with Honey: An Inquiry into

Management Initiatives to Humanize Work, p. 21.
87 Marglin, p. 15. Emphasis is my own.
88 Marglin, p. 20.



Carole Pateman, "A Contribution to the Political Theory of Orzanizational Democracy" in Garson, David and Michael P. Smith, Organizational Democracy: Participation and Self Management (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1976), pp. 10-11.

90 Rifkin and Barber. Rifkin and Barber document this process,

and they discuss ways in which affected communities and workers could deal with this situation.

91 Don Stillman, "The Devastating Impact of Plant Relocations" Working Papers, vol. 4, pp. 42-53.

92 William Foote Whyte, "The Voluntary Job Preservation and Com-

munity Stabilization Act: Government Support for Worker Participation and Ownership in the United States," unpublished manuscript prepared for the Ninth World Congress of Sociology, August, 1978, Session on "Political Conditions for Generalized Self-Management." The third t emyth" that he explodes is "that the expansion of big business means more jobs
93 Rifkin and Barber, p. L

94 Zwerdling, Daniel, Democracy at Work: a Guide to Workplace

Ownership, Participation and Self-Management Experiments in the United States and Europe, Association for Self-Management, 1414 Spring Rd NW, Washington, DC:- 1978. They range from managementinitiated workplace humanization projects to worker-owner and controlled enterprises.

95 Morris and Hess, p. 14.
96 Illich, p. 8.

97 Graubard, p. 260.

98 Von Hentig, p. 105. My translation.

99 Von Hentig, p. 110. My translation.

100 Deal, Alternative Schools . See, for example, the case studies on alternative schools presented in Deal and Nolan under Part II: Realities.

101 Maslow, p. 94. Suzuki, "Human Values in Zen," reprinted in Maslow's New Knowledge in Human Values.

102 Von Hentig, p. 12.


Ashton-Warner, Sylvia. Teacher. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963.

Barnet, Richard J. and Ronald E. MÜller. Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational Corporations. New Y'ork: Simon and Schuster, 1974.

Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1967.

----------- et al. Modernization and Consciousness. New York: Vintage Books, 1974.

Bowers, C. A. Cultural Literacy for Freedom. Eugene, OR: Elan Publishers, Inc. 1974.

Braverman, Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capital: the Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974.

Buber, Martin. Hasidism and Modern Man, edited and translated by Maurice Friedman. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

Cohn, Ruth C. Von der Psychoanalyse zur Themenzentrierten Interaction. Stuttgart: Klett Verlag, 1975.

----------- "Ich bin ich - Ein Aberglaube: Interview with Ruth Cohn," Psychologie Heute, VI, 3.

Deal, Terrence E. and Robert R. Nolan. Alternative Schools: Ideol-
ogies, Realities, Guidelines. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1978.

Ehrlich, Paul. "Eco-Catastrophe!" Alvin Toffler, ed., The Futurists.
New York: Random House, 1972.

Fraiberg, Selma. The Magic Years: Understanding and Handling the Problems of Early Childhood (trans. of Das verstandene Kind). New York: Scribner, 1959.

Freire, Paulo. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York:
Seabury Press, 1973.


Friedenberg, Edgar Z. Coming of Age in America.

Friedman, Maurice, ed. The Knowledge of Man: A Philosophy of the
Interhuman by Martin Buber. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965.

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Goethe's Works, v. 1. Philadelphia@.
G. Barrie, 1885.

Goodman, Paul. The New Reformation. New York: Random House, 1970.

Goodman, George J. W. (pseudonym is Adam Smith). Powers of Mind.
New York: Random House, 1975.

Gouldner, Alvin Ward. The Dialectic of Ideology and Technolon: The Origins, Grammar and Future of Ideology. New York: Seabury Press, 1976.

Graubard, Allen. Free the Children. New York: Vintage Books, 1974.

Greene, Maxine. Teacher as Stranger: Educational Philosophy for
Modern Age. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973.

Habermas, JÜrgen. Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest,
Science and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970.

Heilbroner, Robert L. An Inquiry into the Human Prospect. New York: W. W. Norton, 1974.

Henry, Jules. Culture Against Man. New York: Vintage Books, 1965.

Holt, John Caldwell. ' Freedom and Beyond. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1972.

Huxley, Aldous Leonard. Brave New World. New York: Harper, 1946.

Illich, Ivan. Tools for Conviviality. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

Kaufmann, Walter Arnold. Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1963.

Keniston, Kenneth. Youth and Dissent; the Rise of a New Opposition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971.

Lifton, Robert Jay. Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans: Neither Victims Nor Executioners. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973.

Lowen, Alexander. Bioenergetics. New York: Penguin Books, 1978.

Malamud, Bernard. The Assistant; a Novel. New York: Farrar,
Straus & Cudahy, 1967.


Marcuse, Herbert. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964.

Marglin, Stephen A. Catching Flies with Honey: An Inquiry into
Management Initiatives to Humanize Work. Unpublished manuscript.

Maslow, Abraham Harold, ed. New Knowledge in Human Values.

Morris, David and Karl Hess. Neighborhood Power. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975.

Neill, A. S. Summerhill - a Radical Approach to Child Rearing. New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1960.

Pateman, Carole. "A Contribution to the Political Theory of Organizational Democracy" in Garson, David and Michael P. Smith, Organizational Democracy; Participation and Self-management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1976.

Petzold, H. Psychotherapie und Korperdynamik. Paderborn, West
Germany: Jungermannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1974.

Polster, Erving and Miram Polster. Gestalt Therapy Integrated;
Contours of Theory and Practice. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1973.

Riesman, David. The Lonely Crowd; a Study of the Changing American Character. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950.

Rifkin, Jeremy and Randy Barber. The North Will Rise Again: Pensions,
Politics and Power in the 1980's. Boston: Beacon Press, 1978.

Rogers, Carl R. Freedom to Learn. Columbus OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1969.

----------- Counseling and Psychotherapy; Newer Concepts in Practice. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1942.

----------- Becoming Partners; Marriage and its Alternatives.
New York: Delacorte Press, 1972.

Rossiter, Clinton. Conservatism in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1948.

Steinbeck, John. Grapes of Wrath. New York: Viking Press, 1939.

Stillman, Don. "The Devastating Impact of Plant Relocations." Working
Papers, vol. 4, pp. 42-53.

Von Hentig, Hartmuth. Guernavaca: Alternativen zur Schule. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1971.


Whyte, William Foote. "The Voluntary Job Preservation and Community Stabilization Act: Government Support for Worker Participation and Ownership in the United States." Unpublished manuscript prepared for Ninth World Congress of Sociology, August 1978, Session on "Political Conditions for Generalized Self-Management.'

Zwerdling, Daniel. Democracy at Work: A Guide to Workplace Ownership, Participation and Self'-Management Experiments in the United States and Europe. Washington DC: Association for Self-Management, 1414 Spring Rd. XW, 1978.