If one accepts that present social structures in Canada systematically distort human potential, then clearly a commitment to the release of human potential involves critical reflection and political action in some form.28

However, the human relations philosophy subordinates the political dimension to the personal one, thus denying it independent effectivity. Individual control over one's personal life is seen as primary--little or no emphasis is placed on collective control over political and economic structures which profoundly limit and shape our field of personal action, and our very aspirations in this regard. Thus, while the human relations approach is often able to counter the adaptation tendency within the context of the social relations of the, classroom, it is largely ineffective outside of this limited setting. For example, Martin argues:

The primary technical difficulty faced by educators engaged in human relations programs is that of following up, the problem of integrating learning from intensive small group sessions into the living situation of each participant. The obstacles to maintaining frank and honest exchange among people in a highly competitive social system are generally so great that learning from such groups is suppressed by the participants very soon after the "artificial" training environment is dissolved.29

The human relations approach represents an advance over the technocratic one within ABE programs, but because it offers few tools and little support for critical analysis and collective action with regard to larger political and economic forces, it leads to the same practical result--adaptation of the poor to the structure of inequality. For this reason, many adult educators have found the human relations approach inadequate. Martin points out that:

The human relations approach represents an advance over the technocratic one within ABE programs, but because it offers few tools and little support for critical analysis and collective action with regard to larger political and economic forces, it leads to the same practical result--adaptation of the poor to the structure of inequality. For this reason, many adult educators have found the human relations approach inadequate. Martin points out that:

The ‘human relations movement' became a significant force in Canadian adult education during the late 1960's, aiming at renewal of the field as the counterculture with which it was associated aimed at a renewal of society. In only a few years, much of the counter-culture had been smothered and commercialized to the point where it represents no serious effort to change Canada's social structure; and some of the visionaries of the 'human relations movement' can now be found conducting seminars for major corporations and government departments, oiling the organizational machinery which they used to speak of transforming. More socially critical adult educators who used to be associated with the movement have since moved to more explicitly political positions, leaving the area largely to those who see it as a set of "neutral" techniques.30

In summary, while the human relations approach supplied a valuable corrective to the technocratic emphasis of the liberal perspective-particularly in downgrading the role of external rules and authority and emphasizing intrinsic needs, motivations and feelings in the ABE classroom--it failed to provide an effective alternative to the theme of adaptation and domestication. Even as modified by human relations concepts, the liberal perspective remains as oriented to social control and ideological incorporation of the poor as any of the earlier perspectives on illiteracy.