In the last posting this writer focused on the idea of
becoming, per se, and attempted to
tie it to the developmental view of phenomenological psychology/philosophy. This emphasis looks at how individuals go
through life experiences and asks whether that person grows and matures by closing
the gap between his/her lifeworld (how that person views reality) and what
reality is.
This
posting assumes the reader has read that previous posting (if not, he/she is
invited to click on http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2018_11_13_archive.html
or just keep scrolling down to see the next posting dated November 13th
and give it quick read). At the end of
that posting, a preview of this posting was given in that it promised this
entry would share what Philip Selznick[1] had to
report regarding this view. And the
specific role Selznick plays is his review of G. W. F. Hegel’s thoughts on human
development.
Apparently,
Hegel provided a model describing and explaining the chief dispositions humans
experience through their personal, perceptional development. According to the philosopher there are three
major stages. Upon reading the
description of these stages and reflecting upon his own experiences, this
writer thinks Hegel’s model makes sense.
It also does not contradict any major developmental theory of which this
educator is aware.
The
first stage is one in which the individual has a disposition to accept the
external world with little or no interpretation or critical eye. Selznick uses the word naïve to describe this
consciousness. A youngster has a good
reason to be so disposed. He or she
simply does not have the experiences by which to compare what he/she is seeing
and feeling during those years.
In terms of the gap between the
subjective self and the objective reality in those years: “… subject and object are separate; they deal
with each other at arm’s length. From
the standpoint of moral development, [for example,] this is a time of
uncritical acceptance of parental authority or, as adults, of whatever is
demanded by conventional morality.”[2]
What is telling about this quote is
that by referring to adults, the model does not guarantee that generally or in
each concern, the individual matures and progresses to another stage. There are “child-like” consciousnesses among
the adult population. Perhaps the reader
can identify people in his/her social circles that demonstrate that lack of
maturing.
In stage two, the person enters a
more challenging consciousness. Here the
person strives and experiences a heightened self-consciousness. These accompanying thoughts and feelings become
a critical awareness sensitive to those aspects of life that places limitations
on his/her freedoms while the individual is formulating ideas and ideals as to
what that person can become in life.
The restraints are defined as possible
obstacles to those goals. Selznick here
uses the word “unhappy” to describe the general emotional state of mind. And in dealing with these challenges, reason
takes a back seat. As one can probably
guess, this second stage is destined to be a phase of life noted for a
recurring succession of frustrating experiences.
With enough of that, reason sneaks
back into a person’s calculations and, by so doing, stage three becomes potentially
available to the maturing person. And
that epiphany occurs when the individual accepts what needs to be accepted;
i.e., a realization that satisfaction must accommodate both the desire for individual freedom but within a communal
reality.
This is probably initially seen as
necessary compromises but can grow to an understanding that happiness relies on
what a community can provide in terms of that person’s emotional needs or
wants. The communal aspect, in a mature
person, is not a limiting aspect of life, but a liberating one. If nothing else, it opens physical and
emotional resources previously not available or not recognized.
In terms of the language of
phenomenology, in this stage the subject and object are reconciled. “Reflective persons make peace with their
community, and give it new vitality, by formulating and accepting the rational
principles that underlie a distinctive tradition. People can finally feel at home in a world
from which they had become estranged.”[3] The social landscapes that are particularly
rich in these opportunities are the family, the work space, circles of friends,
and the neighborhood.
So, the individual, through these
three stages, have their own form of a dialectic development reflecting the dialectical
ideation for which Hegel is famous – most people are introduced to Hegel in
that he influenced the thinking of Karl Marx in the development of the political/economic
theory, dialectical materialism. Here,
that theory of conflict is conducted within each person’s maturing process, but
one must remember, the development within any person can be cut short.
Adults, as stated above, can be
immature and surely there are ample examples of this all around. An inadequate, civics program probably adds
to those numbers. In the following
posting, this blog will get into the implications of this Hegelian model and
how maturity or immaturity provides resources or obstacles in the formulation
of a healthy commonwealth.
[Note: With the completion of the next posting, this
blog will begin a break – a respite of a month or so – to allow the writer to
conclude another writing project. In the
history of this blog, on the 400th posting, the blog took a break
that lasted about six months. This
upcoming break will be much shorter.
Hopefully, the reader will not judge this break too harshly – heck, he/she
might yell hallelujah! This break will begin
upon the completion of the 800th posting of this blog. The years do go by.]
[1] Philip Selznick, The
Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and
the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1992).
[2] Ibid., 66.
[3] Ibid.
