INTRODUCING MATURATION AS A FACTOR

 

[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 .

SOME FOUNDATIONAL INFORMATION

 

[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 has provided a bit of information on the origins of the natural rights view.  It has attributed John Locke as its main author.[1]  But he did not hit upon his ideas in a vacuum.  It turns out that two influences, that were having their effects on European thinking during Locke’s time, more than likely had their effects on him.  The two were the Enlightenment and the work of Niccole Machiavelli.

          The Enlightenment, a philosophic development, took place in Europe from 1685 to 1815.  It affected the politics, science, and communications of that continent.  Reflecting on its main effect, it was also known as the “Age of Reason,” since it questioned the foundational ideas and ideals that propped up the monarchial rule that prevailed at the time.  As such, it is credited with ideations that lay down the basic rationale for democratic rule. 

But before one totally attributes these democratizing developments to the Enlightenment, one should remember the ideals of democracy predate the 1700s by centuries in that the beginnings of those beliefs in European thought stretch back to ancient Greece.  Looking at ancient Athens, not only can one find the attributes of a “choice” polity (using Madison’s terminology) but can even find the expression of federalist values within the discourse of that city-state. 

Many of those norms were later picked up by the Romans especially during their “republic” years.  One should not mistakenly attribute full fledged allegiance to democracy or federalism to these earlier examples of governance, but the ideals can be detected by their rhetoric and even in the governmental structures they set up.

But the development of these views, ideas, ideals, and practices was not a straight line from the Greeks till the outbreak of the Enlightenment.  Instead they went into dormancy first with the fall of the Roman Republic and then, further, with the fall of Rome.  Eventually, in Europe, there arose the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe which held onto a theological view that was mostly antagonistic to democracy and, in many ways, to reason.

A more favorable outlook had to wait till the beginnings of the Renaissance in the 14^th century which lasted till the 17^th century.  The Renaissance served as a precursor, in some ways, to the Enlightenment.  Specifically, it reintroduced a priority or importance on reason and logic.  A lot of that shift flew in the face of the authority of the Roman Church and its foundational support of the various feudalistic monarchies in the various European nations.[2]

More specifically, the Church was most concerned with the Renaissance’s belittlement of otherworldly forces that were credited with determining what happened on earth.  Later, instead of inspiration, the Enlightenment promoted the sciences – experimentation and objective observation – to determine the attributes of reality in the physical world.  Originally, this newer emphasis was targeted on the study of physical forces and states of being but eventually spilled over to the study of human behavior.

As for the influence of Machiavelli’s work, his main contribution was his demystifying what was considered the bases of a ruler’s powers.  While not directly claiming that God has no role on who rules, his description of “good” leadership portrays prudent exercises in power as just an expression of promoting the self-interest of a leader.  He goes on to state that politics is amoral, a far cry from ironically the philosophical standards such writers as Aristotle had established.

The combination of the Enlightenment and Machiavelli’s work helped to establish how contemporary views of governance and politics are held.  It particularly has been instrumental in the development of the natural rights view.  Specifically, by placing politics as just another way to pursue personal goals, one almost has the justification for leaders – and one can extend to anyone – to be as selfish and narcissistic as one wishes to be.  Unfortunately, examples of this are too common in the current environment.

It also lends to an understanding of political behavior that is amenable to what has evolved in the study of political science.  That would be behaviorism, the prominent form of study that discipline uses.  To a large degree, behaviorism assumes this sort of reward/punishment calculations to political machinations.  Any reliance on self-sacrifice for the common purpose or good is seen as mostly naive to expect or upon which to rely.

But before leaving this subject, it should be emphasized that this is not the only way to interpret what the Enlightenment or even Machiavelli had to offer.  That is, what has just been described is really a set of assumptions held by those who adhere to the natural rights view.  When questioned they are apt to cite those sources (the Enlightenment and/or Machiavelli) as justification, either directly or by application of their reasoning.  Surely the reader has heard the natural rights view expressed by the complaint, “be real, politicians are just a bunch of crooks.”

But other views can also cite these sources with alternate, even opposing, adaptations or interpretations.  The Enlightenment’s call for reason and logic can also justify the need for policies that stray away from self-centeredness.  They can express that nations need to promote and sustain community and collaboration.  

In general, one can sense that the natural rights view approaches these sources on a very short-term basis – that is, the set of immediate conditions at a given time that face a person or group.  But if one uses a more long-term basis, and considers such factors as reciprocity, sentiment, and self-fulfillment, for example, one might more likely appreciate a nuanced application of these cited sources. 

These other factors tend to have their effects over longer time intervals.  If one affects another by some action, reciprocity might have to wait for the right conditions to administer either a targeted reward or punishment.  Sentiments – especially those relating to liking or disliking; loving or hating others – do not occur immediately but over time.  And self-fulfillment takes a lifetime to even appreciate.  And yet they have their effects day in and day out as one goes through the various challenges of life.

For a teacher adhering to the federation theory construct, the obvious connections to the Enlightenment can more easily be made than any connection to Machiavelli.  For that theory, citing Aristotle is more fruitful, but here are some thoughts in favor of Machiavelli.  First, one should remember that he was reacting to what existed during his time.  And that environment ascribed unjustified legitimacy, authority, and power to supernatural forces – basically the world that existed was attributed to the ongoing authorship of God.

The result of that connection was the readily available rationale for horrendous policies that promulgated unjust policy choices on the populations of European nations.  While Machiavelli does not directly question this connection, his work undermines it.  By casting as prudent the commission of selfish acts by a prince, he undermines the theology upon which that leadership depended.  That would be the Christian doctrines based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Here is a good example of how the espoused theories of a social entity make a difference.[3]

To be sure, one can readily cite abuses of that doctrine, but ultimately it served to legitimize these rulers’ power.  If one debases that foundation, which Machiavelli does, ultimately their rule and the power upon which it is based comes into more and more degradation within the minds of the governed.  Eventually, as it happened, that authority vanishes. 

One, under such a development, leaves behind a rationale for an “accidental” polity (based on nobility) and moves toward a “choice” polity (based on the establishment “of, by, and for” a people).  Hence, all this supports the foundation and maintenance of, for example, a federated union like that of the United States.

---

[1] For example, see “Piracy of the Highest Order,” June 4, 2019.

[2] An entertaining account of this history can be observed in the animation entitled The Greeks:  Chasing Greatness.  See The Greeks:  Chasing Greatness, Public Broadcasting System, Public Broadcasting System, season 1, episode 3 (2016), accessed April 9, 2020, https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/thegreeks_ep3_full/thegreeks_ep3_full/ . 

[3] See Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon, “Evaluating Theories in Action,” in The Planning of Change, Fourth Edition, eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985), 108-117.