Do these following three
words – competition, aggression, violence – denote a regression? And if stated in opposite order, a progression? The second question can but does not
necessarily reflect a negative air about humans not agreeing. The first question, undoubtedly, does so and,
with that ascription, unquestionably introduces a value or perhaps a moral
judgement.
To
see disagreement as inherently bad reflects a childlike understanding of what
social intercourse should be, but a mature outlook sees it as not only
unrealistic but short sighted. In addition,
it sees it as counterproductive to good governance and politics. This is not only the case with formal
governance and politics, but also the governance and politics that ubiquitously
characterize daily human contact.
If
one agrees with the view that disagreement is functional, then one would be
inclined to understand that civics instruction and civics instructors should be
well informed about what causes, promotes, and leads to skillful exercise of
these various levels in whatever direction these ideas are considered. Granted, aggression and violence are upping
the stakes, but do they have a place?
Surely, civics instruction should not condone or advocate criminal
or unjustified aggression and violence.
But there are times when even these more extreme forms of disagreement
are called for. Hence, a military, a
police force, and self-defense classes have legitimate roles within one’s social
life. And Americans using violent
metaphors – e.g., adoption of animals known for their violent behavior as names
for favored sports teams including the Tigers and the Bears – reflects this
understanding that violence has its place.
How about the opposite trio – affiliation, reconciliation,
and altruism? Is that another progression/regression
at work? And in counter position to the first
threesome, does it deserve equal billing in a civics class asking after their
causes, their promoters, and their associated skills? Robert M. Sapolsky[1] provides one with
biological based insights useful in attacking these questions.
While
he admits to being a pessimist, he adds that knowing about the
biological/social contexts that relate to these elements of social life helps
in advancing what are determined to be of benefit in given situations, and that
gives him a source of optimism. And if one
agrees with Sapolsky in pursuing this study, he warns of three provisos.
They
are:
·
one cannot answer these concerns without
relevant biological understandings;
·
one cannot answer these concerns with only
biological understandings; and
·
one cannot segregate any
psychological/cultural understandings from the biological – they are hopelessly
interrelated, intertwined.
As
for the biology, he writes: “[I]t is
indeed a mess, a subject involving brain chemistry, sensory cues, prenatal
environment, early experience, genes, both biological and cultural evolution,
and ecological pressures, among other things.”[2] It is this “mashugana” that puts any attempt
at placing related information in categories a hazardous endeavor.
Categorical
thinking – some might say, simplistic thinking – is fraught with dangers. Its either/or format tends to gloss over the
nuances of life. And yet it is those
nuances in which one finds solutions for many of life’s challenges. That goes from moral thinking to
understanding why one might be sympathetic or belligerent.
Civics
teachers might do well not to look for “buckets” in which to put related ideas,
ideals, or information. Instead, one
should strive to take in and understand whole pictures or situations. In doing so, one needs to conceptualize the
limitations of boundaries and avoid being over reductionist – a critique
leveled at overly “scientific” visions of human behavior and cognitive
structures and processes.
Several
guidelines can be relied upon when thinking and researching human action and
human interaction. Be conscious that
such efforts cannot be overly committed to the approach of one discipline of
either a natural or social science. Reality
seems to be more akin to the following: Subject
A did X because of the release of hormone Q but was influenced by being raised
in environment R that predisposed the secretion of hormone Q in given situations. Messy?
“You bet.” And that’s without
getting into genes.
Sapolsky
states, “There are not different disciplinary buckets. Instead, each one is the end product of all
the biological influences that came before it and will influence all the
factors that follow it … No buckets.”[3] So, perspective civics teachers should pay
attention to all the classes he/she takes. Relevant information can and probably does
come from all of them. This topic will
be revisited in future postings.
No comments:
Post a Comment