This paper examines the normative system of a free school and its effect on the development of small cohesive groups of free-school children. Since the small group is bound to its contemporaneous social field, it was hypothesized that the influence of the free school's humanistic norms on student group behavior should result in (a) empathetic understanding of deviants, (b) minimal pressures toward uniformity, and (c) humanistic norm development. It was found, however, that competition, interpersonal intolerance, and optimum pressures toward uniformity existed in the small cohesive, ftee-school group. It was discovered that the operant normative system of the free school was not consonant with the school's philosophy. The difficulty in operationalizing a humanistic alternative institution in a technocratic society is also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Back, K.Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 9-23.
2.
Back, K., Schacter, S., & Festinger, L.Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univer. Press, 1950.
3.
Becker, H. S.Sociological method. Chicago: Aldine, 1970. (Served as a methodological model for the study)
4.
Brehm, J., & Festinger, A.Pressures toward conformity of performance in groups. Human Relations, 1957, 10, 85-91.
5.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A.The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Pp. 97-102.
6.
Dennison, G.The lives of children. New York: Random House, 1969.
7.
Drews, E. M. Fernwood. In R. Gross, Radical school reform. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969.
8.
Ellerton, N., McBride, D., Gregory, D., & Schacter, S.An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 1951, 4, 229-238.
9.
Emerson, A. M.Deviation and rejection in an experimental replication. American Sociological Review, 1954, 19, 688-693.
10.
Festinger, L., & Aronson, E.The arousal and reduction of dissonance in social contexts. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Pp. 214-233.
11.
Festinger, L., & Hutte, H.An experimental investigation of the effect of unstable interpersonal relations in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 49, 513-522.
12.
French, J.The disruption and cohesion of groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1941, 36, 361-377.
13.
Goffman, E.Behavior in public places. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963. Pp. 3-30.
14.
Goodman, P.Freedom and learning: The need for choice. Saturday Review, May 18, 1968.
15.
Henry, J.The suburban nightmare. In R. Gross, Radical school reform. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969.
16.
Holt, J.Freedom and beyond. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1972.
17.
Homans, G.The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1950.
18.
Hughes, E. C.The knitting of racial groups in industry. American Sociological Review, 1946, 11, 512-516.
19.
Kelley, H. H.Two functions of reference groups. In G. E. Swanson, Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, 1947. Pp. 410-414.
20.
Kohl, H.The open classroom. New York: Vintage Books, 1970.
