The last posting stressed how the self-esteem
movement has taken hold in American schools – how it both affects approaches to
curricular content and in how school staff handle disciplinary issues. This posting provides an overview of how self-esteem
affects teacher-student interactions.
Generally, the focus of this movement is to emphasize the individual
students’ perceptions; how they define the social world around them.
Observers of any age, such as this blogger, can
readily detect meaningful change – some good, some not so good – in how those
interactions take place, what assumptions are at play, and surely how outcomes
materialize. For example, time
dimensions seem to have altered; yesterday’s effects are now cast as
unimportant and with them, a source of shame for wrongdoing is forgotten.
First, Americans did away with sin when they
disposed of Calvinism[1]
and now they do away with social standards.
As the self-esteem view puts it, statements about generally accepted
notions of right and wrong behavior are seen as cumbersome and in the way. And along with this trend, views considering
discipline are affected. Discipline and
its demands are deemed to be irrelevant, except as it might be useful to
acquire material success (a middle-class belief that seems to be shrinking
along with the size of the middle class).
Roy Baumeister has done meaningful research on
the effects of boosted self-esteem advocacy or to be more accurate, advocacy
for humanistic learning theory. In 2006
he reports,
Unfortunately for the low-self-esteem theory, researchers
have gradually built up a composite image of what it is like to have low
self-esteem, and that image does not mesh well with what we know about
aggressive perpetrators. People who have a negative view of themselves are
typically muddling through life, trying to avoid embarrassment, giving no sign
of a desperate need to prove their superiority. Aggressive attack is risky;
people with low self-esteem tend to avoid risks. When people with low
self-esteem fail, they usually blame themselves, not others.
Faced with these incongruities, we cast about for an
alternative theory. A crucial influence on our thinking was the seemingly lofty
self-regard of prominent violent people. Saddam Hussein [dictator of Iraq who
was alive when these words were written] is not known as a modest, cautious,
self-doubting individual. Adolf Hitler's exaltation of the "master
race" was hardly a slogan of low self-esteem. These examples suggest that
high self-esteem, not low, is indeed an important cause of aggression.
We eventually formulated our hypothesis in terms of
threatened egotism. Not all people who think highly of themselves are prone to
violence. That favorable opinion must be combined with some external threat to
the opinion. Somebody must question it, dispute it, undermine it. People like to
think well of themselves, and so they are loath to make downward revisions in
their self-esteem. When someone suggests such a revision, many
individuals--those with inflated, tenuous and unstable forms of high
self-esteem--prefer to shoot the messenger.[2]
What this suggests is that the whole notion of
self-esteem – which everyone should have a realistic dose of – is a more
nuanced factor in how people, even young ones, function in social settings like
those of schools.
Baumeister
goes on to argue in another published work that if children are taught a false
sense of self-esteem, i.e., a child is convinced he or she is more talented
than the child’s ability justifies, such incongruence with reality will
encourage violent behavior on the part of the subject. This is apparently due to the frustration
engendered by the person’s expectations and the reality the person
encounters. He writes,
High
self-esteem means thinking well of oneself, regardless of whether that
perception is based on substantive achievement or wishful thinking and
self-deception. High self-esteem can
mean confident and secure – but it can also mean conceited,
arrogant, narcissistic, and egotistical.[3]
The
progressive pedagogy, and its philosophy, pragmaticism, lack a firm ethical
base[4]
and this has made it susceptible to the humanistic learning theory arguments. Peter F. Oliva identifies this psychology,
which he calls perceptual psychology, as a main branch of progressive education.[5] Strangely, perceptual psychology seems to be
the one element of progressive education that has been extensively adopted in the
nation’s schools[6] – is its
popularity by way of attempting to keep the “customer” base happy or, at least,
appeased?
As
such, one finds two consequences. One, the
effects of excessive concerns for self-esteem on civics education have been bolstered
by the assumptions laden within the natural rights perspective in ways
described earlier in this blog. Primarily,
that would be in terms of rights – one has the right to self-define oneself
regardless of what the facts are. And
two, this bias easily becomes part of the “hidden curriculum”[7]
which has transferred its messages of individualism and anti-communal sentiment
in ways more effective than any formal instruction could.
And
with this review of humanistic learning theory and its effects on American
schooling, the critique of the natural rights view comes to an end. The next posting will provide a summary statement
of the natural rights construct and a “bridge” to its most vibrant antithesis, critical
theory. This latter area of contention –
natural rights vs. critical theory – weaves a contemporary tale that is finding
its way more frequently into the evening news.
[1] George Santayana, “The Genteel Tradition in American
Philosophy,” The Annals of America, 13, (Chicago, IL: Encycloaedia Britannica, Inc., 1968),
277-288. Readers should not consider
this posting as an argument to reinstate Calvinism as a dominant view of
morality or even of good behavior.
[2] Roy F. Baumeister, “Violent Pride,” Scientific
American, August 1, 2006, accessed February 26, 2023, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/violent-pride/.
[3] Roy F. Baumeister, “Should Schools Try to Boost
Self-esteem?,” American Educator, 20, 2 (Summer, 1996), 14-19 & 43, 41
(emphasis in the original).
[4] Boyd H. Bode, How We Learn (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1940).
[5] Peter F. Oliva and William Gordon, Developing
Curriculum, 8th Edition (Boston, MA: Pearson, 2013).
[6] As the last posting pointed out, in American schools
progressivism doesn’t prevail. That
honor goes to essentialism. That view
can be defined as:
Essentialism
tries to instill all students with the most essential or basic academic
knowledge and skills and character development. Essentialists believe that
teachers should try to embed traditional moral values and virtues such as
respect for authority, perseverance, fidelity to duty, consideration for
others, and practicality and intellectual knowledge that students need to
become model citizens. The foundation of essentialist curriculum is based on
traditional disciplines such as math, natural science, history, foreign
language, and literature.
See “Essentialism,” SIUE (n.d.), accessed March 5, 2023, htpps://www.siue.edu/~ ptheodo/foundations/essentialism.htlm. SIUE refers to Southern Illinois University
Edwardsville’s School of Education.
[7] “The term ‘hidden curriculum’ refers to
an amorphous collection of ‘implicit academic, social, and cultural messages,’ ‘unwritten
rules and unspoken expectations,’ and ‘unofficial norms, behaviours and values’
of the dominant-culture context in which all teaching and learning is situated.” See “Teaching the Hidden Curriculum,” Boston
University (n.d.), accessed March 4, 2023, https://www.bu.edu/teaching-writing/resources/teaching-the-hidden-curriculum/#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9Chidden%20curriculum%E2%80%9D%20refers,teaching%20and%20learning%20is%20situated.
No comments:
Post a Comment