Social engineering through philanthropy

 

Judith Rodin, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the world`s leading philanthropic organisations, tells her audience about the foundation`s plan for disruptive innovation.

Disruptive innovation might be a new term but it actually has a long history. An illuminating article appears in Historical Studies in Education that examines the effect on child rearing practices of the mental hygiene movement which was funded by the Rockefeller organisation (1920 - 1969).

The authority of parents was disrupted by advocating a more permissive parenting style. For instance, in place of regular feeding routines for babies that would fit in with a mother`s schedule, feeding on demand was promoted as the best way to raise a secure infant. From the earliest the child was allowed to dominate the parent. In a similar manner, children`s happiness was to take priority over teaching in the classroom.

Disrupting the traditional bonds of respect between children and their elders, the peer group would play a more significant role in the lives of children. I am reminded of The Crisis in Education by Hanah Arendt:

As for the child in the group, he is of course rather worse off than before. For the authority of a group, even a child group, is always considerably stronger and more tyrannical than the severest authority of an individual person can ever be. If one looks at it from the standpoint of the individual child, his chances to rebel or to do anything on his own hook are practically nil; he no longer finds himself in a very unequal contest with a person who has, to be sure, absolute superiority over him but in contest with whom he can nevertheless count on the solidarity of other children, that is, of his own kind; rather he is in the position, hopeless by definition, of a minority of one confronted by the absolute majority of all the others.

http://learningspaces.org/files/ArendtCrisisInEdTable.pdf

Having placed a wedge between children and their parents, Rockefeller funding was removed from the mental hygiene movement and pushed towards communication research that would affect the displaced child. It asked the question: how do you manage communication research to change social attitudes ?

The pop industry, fashion, computer games, super-heroes and all the rest show there is method in the madness.

Of course, my interest in the Rockefeller article was in the parallels it points to in regard to the Named Person scheme.

The intention of the Named Person policy is neither here nor there; there will be consequences. What is going to happen to a generation of children who are encouraged by agents of the state to put their own parents under the microscope and find them wanting, whilst singing the praises of GIRFEC ? Where will their loyalties lie then ?
 
The Hand that Rocked the Cradle: A Critical Analysis of Rockefeller Philanthropic Funding, 1920-1960  by Brian J. Low is well worth a read and can be found below.

http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/edu_hse-rhe/article/view/434/581