My students would anticipate what came another unwanted response to adult attempts at imposing obedience and thus conformity using fear through punishment. Many voices spoke out of personal experience about that unwanted repose to fear, both as the child and the parent: rebellion. Children rebel.
This undesirable manifestation of the dominator model appears over and over, but when we looked at it, we found it quite remarkable under the circumstances of childhood. A child rebels against the parental figure that holds within its power to deny the child every essential of life. The adult controls food, shelter, clothing, safety in general, and the awe inspiring power of unconditional positive regard. From where would a child derive such unmitigated temerity to rebel? The child rebels and thus rejects the nearly sacred power of the child's universe. What a remarkable thing. When a parental figure responds to such rebellion, the adult does not know how to handle it and often responds as if the rebellion represented, once again, insubordination.
In such a case, the parental figure may well feel the need to crush such a rebellion and then act on that feeling. After all, most of us adults operate on a meaning perspective that demands adherence to the dominator model. As adults we live in and adhere to that model, and our children must learn the way in which this domination works and where their place is in that domination. The myth of the Oracle at Delphi speaks to us in a way that substantiates that idea. The Oracle said, "Know thyself." We may understand that phrase in modern ways in which the instruction tells us to go out and find ourselves, our true selves.[26] What the Oracle meant, historians tell us, was to find our best place within the structure of the hierarchy of domination. The dominator meaning perspective makes form out of reality, and when a child steps outside the line the perspective sets for that child, we see danger in rebellion for the hierarchy and for the child's future. When the child moves out of the structure of the hierarchy, the child steps outside the unwritten but profoundly felt law of domination. The child becomes a very young, but very definite outlaw. As parental figures, we cannot tolerate the idea that our child will live the life of an outlaw. Anything outside the conformity of domination makes for an outlaw, so we demand conformity all the harder to serve a higher purpose. But when the law is a bad and even stifling, the child may intuitively feel that making a stand outside the law serves their higher purpose: their becoming self.
Sadly, most of us, child and adult, who wish to say, "No," to the meaning perspective of domination have yet to develop a "Yes," to a place or an idea, or a new perspective. Using "No" alone makes us, and what we want by way of our becoming self, even more vulnerable to adopting the very thing we wish to reject: a dominated being.
"No" comes in rebellion, but does the independence or freedom needed for what we defined as a becoming self come with it?
The self exists as a conscious, independent entity which perceives the world, takes information from that perception, learns from that information, makes choices based on that learning, and acts freely on those choices. The self experiences the results of those choices, accepts the responsibility of those choices and results, and the process begins again.
My students told many stories about acts of rebellion in families who lived with the constraints of an essentially dominator hierarchy.[27] One of the more subtle forms of defiance toward domination came up from time to time. With some variations, a small child comes to her/his parental figure and asks for that figure to slap her/his hand. The parental figure asks the reason for such a request, and the child answers, "I want a cookie. You said I can't have a cookie. Every time I take a cookie without asking, you slap my hand. So I thought I would get the slap first, and I could enjoy the cookie without worrying about the slap." Other students laughed at such a story, and many of them thought the story "cute." When we get past the seeming cuteness of the story, we discover a subtle but nonetheless powerful form of rebellion. It serves as a rebellion against the form and function of the punishment model and meaning perspective behind domination. In such rebellion, we can also discover a way of critically reflecting on the nature of the punishment, dominator meaning perspective and see through its inadequate rationale.
The most vital element of punishment comes in its evocation of fear in the actor and in those watching the actor receive punishment. This fear arises from the rejection of the actor and not simply the act thus in a denial of unconditional positive regard. In that fear, the act becomes reprehensible to the actor in light of the punishment promised and delivered when the dominator, the parental figure, catches the actor in the act. This serves the higher purpose of making the actor responsible for the act and forces the actor to fear the dominator and the punishment the dominator wields with its coercive authority.
When the child asks for a slap in exchange for a cookie in all conscience, the child violates the structure or, better, exposes the illusory power of domination. Instead of the dominator wielding the power of judgment, the power of surveillance and capture, the dominator becomes the provider of illicit goods so long as the actor openly accepts the cost of taking those goods. It works as an inverted form of the old expression: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." The child has changed that dominator judgment, "I have caught you and here comes your dreaded punishment," into, "I want what I want, and I will take what you have to give me so I get what I want, so extract the payment you want from me, so I can get the thing I want now rather than waiting for the silly game to play out." The object of domination becomes a demanding subject in the transaction constructed by the dominator. It's as if I go to the police and tell them to arrest me because I plan on robbing a bank. I describe the theft, and suggest a plea bargain of three to five years. I serve my time, do my parole, and then I do the crime, take the goods I paid for with my time, and go on my merry way. The dominator won’t allow that because it has to maintain the fantasy that the actor fears the punishment rather than simply accepting the punishment as part of the perpetrator's career costs.[28]
This child has bypassed insubordination and become a subversive. She/he has said that she/he will stay inside the system insofar as the child will take what's coming to her/him by way of cost. However, the subversion comes in showing that the dominator doesn't really deplore the crime or the criminal so much as it wishes to exercise its power. The child subverts the system of domination by looking at the system and declaring boldly, "I'm not afraid of what you've got."[29] In this rebellion from domination, we will also find an abandonment of the possibility of unconditional positive regard and a deeply seated voice of inner unhappiness. The becoming self becomes nearly if not completely mute at such moments and hurt and anger flood our identity and our ego.