[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of
postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous
postings. Of late, the blog has been
looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their
subject. It’s time to post a series of
such summary accounts. The advantage of
such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a different
context by which to review the blog’s various claims and arguments. This and upcoming summary postings will be
preceded by this message.]
This blog, regarding the
effects of the natural rights view has on civics education, first focuses on
the tensions associated with maturation.
More specifically, it highlights the psychological factors one finds when
young people are exposed to the self-centered messaging one associates with
that process. That includes the resulting
consciousness that finds itself having to balance drives to further self-centered
desires and the expectations of any social arrangement from family to school to
the community.
Featuring
phenomenology, a psychological approach, one can approach this topic by
providing a mode of studying the development of consciousness through a
holistic view of a student’s lifeworld. Using
language as a main tool, self-definitions become of central concern among those
who work with these students. Do they
express themselves, for example, as doers or as victims? With such expressions, educators garner crucial
clues as to what concerns students face as they progress toward maturity.
In
this effort, one model that is helpful is that offered by Wilhem Fredrich
Hegel. The nineteenth century philosopher
identifies a usable maturing process: first,
a child accepts what he/she is told to be real; second, during adolescent
years, he/she questions authority and strives for freedom; and third, becomes a
mature person by coming to terms with authority and understands his/her freedom is helped by communal
assets. Obviously, the emphasis here is
on the second stage – a trying time for just about everyone.
Contextually,
that period has meaningful physical developments associated with puberty. One readily links awkwardness with this time
in life. The main aim is for the young
person to develop a conscious balance between the recurring turmoil of stunted
desires and those experiences that show the way to more liberating experiences. The process is fairly recognized as it enjoys
recurring references in popular media as evidenced by Michelle Obama’s book, Becoming,
and an often-used theme in a multitude of sitcoms.
To
understand this phase of life, one good place to start is with biological
studies. It turns out that the maturing
process can be detected physically by how the brain develops. And this adds to an understanding of how physically
based, bodily changes, including those of the brain, encourage young people to
engage in risk-taking behaviors. Advances
in these studies give one more of a foundation to judge psychological models
that depict the maturing process.
In
turn, those models originate with various psychologists. Along with the above cited (non-psychological)
Hegel model, one can look at the work of Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotski, and Jerome
Bruner along with cognitive development studies.
Of
importance here is these works’ emphasis on young people’s growing ability to
think abstractly. This ability among the
young has both positive and negative effects.
Abstract thinking is necessary to handle a complex world but, at the
same time, it opens the possibility of young people understanding and accepting
disreputable explanations of social realities.
In
an age of social media with its plethora of unfounded explanations and
descriptions, young people are easily disposed to accept prevailing messaging
that goes counter to communal or collaborative beliefs and hype self-centered images
that cater more readily to their immature dispositions. They are apt to formulate reinforcing mental
models that flesh out those explanations – as unsophisticated as they might be
(more on modeling below).
This
psychological ability to think abstractly counts on deductive reasoning. On the positive side, the young people have a
higher ability to foresee the future and to plan for it. With that, they can also form their own
reasoned arguments and, given their self-centeredness, are apt to advance their
perceived desires. They also acquire
subtle language skills such as uttering puns and other analogies to further
this general proclivity.
But
of course, their lack of experience proves to be a great hindrance in achieving
an effective, independent posture. And
without those experiences, developed limited beliefs and conclusions over
life’s challenges take root. Even if
dysfunctional, the beliefs tend to be protected as they help or hurt young people’s
approach to defining who they are. A
helpful exercise during these years is hypothetical thinking and that can be
nourished by educational experiences that have them hypothesize over social
conditions and problems – especially useful when this exercise is applied to
what they see as relevant in their lives.
Or
stated another way, if/then questioning helps a person to model reality. By a young person expressing that modeling, a
parent or a teacher can detect mental shortcuts such as a time when the
adolescent might prejudge conditions or people.
If predominately motivated by enhancing oneself or one’s desires, such
prejudging easily succumbs to natural tendencies such as viewing the social
world in Us/Them terms.
In
addition, the young person is likely to feel kinship with whatever those
beliefs are. What is known is that
people left to their own devises tend to grow a sense of loyalty to their own
initial views, regardless of how poorly they’re grounded. Or they want to believe their beliefs, and in
turn, these beliefs manage what is perceived in the future or what is accepted
as reality.
This
naturally often leads to problems in that it interferes with prudent
decision-making. Not accepting or
knowing reality has a way of getting people into trouble. And one should not just attribute this
problem to young people. For example,
the sciences, both natural and social sciences, concern themselves over self-deception
and, therefore, institute extensive protocols to guard against it.
St. B. T. Evans provides a relevant model about how people
generally develop models.[1] The model provides three principles. One, people rely on epistemic or validating
models based on singular experiences.
Two, these models serve as preconscious situational frames of mind that a
person utilizes by evaluating them against the perceived needs at given point
in time so as to arrive at desired outcomes.
These
constructed models take on their own value as their “parent” or creator feels a
paternal affinity for them. Of course,
such ownership does not dismiss subsequent consequences and, if the
consequences are strong enough, they force an evaluation of the model’s
functionality however painful that might be.
And three, a person, as result of any sufficiently negative
consequence, might reject his/her model.
If so, this rejection serves the individual to help him/her overcome an
immature trait or belief. Here,
instructional experiences in the classroom can assist the eventuality of this
process. And Evans’ model suggests the
instructional steps relevant lessons could take.
On the positive
side, this proclivity to form models supplies a necessary function, they serve
as “advance organizers.” As such they
allow the mind to proceed more efficiently by categorizing and prioritizing all
that a mind perceives. That is, it allows
one to assume, a necessary mental process that allows it to function. Without it, the amount of incoming data would
overwhelm a person rendering him/her incapable of doing even the rudimentary things
of life.
Next posting will pick up on how maturation proceeds.
[1] Jonathan St. B. T. Evans, “The Heuristic-Analytic Theory of Reasoning: Extension and Evaluation,” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 2006, 378-395, abstract accessed January 9, 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6746428_The_Heuristic-Analytic_Theory_of_Reasoning_Extension_and_Evaluation .
No comments:
Post a Comment