CRITIQUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, VIII

This posting and the next one do a couple of things.  It continues the critique of the natural rights view by trying to describe an irony with that view.  It also flushes out what the last posting brought up, that being the favored natural rights answer for dealing with students who are not performing well or even their behaviors regarding disciplinary concerns.

          To remind readers, the natural rights view has a preferred approach to the study of governance and politics; that is the political systems approach originally offered by David Easton.  This approach strips from political analysis normative concerns as it objectively or scientifically goes about designing studies.

These studies have political scientists identify factors or variables so as to test them – through the measurement of behavioral responses to stimuli – and determine whether significant correlations can be detected.  If so, cause and effect relationships can be theorized as the aim is to discover explanatory causes for what reality has to offer.

Given that, the natural rights view also promotes levels of individualism, and while the above objectification of reality takes place, the view ironically favors that people have the right to do what they wish short of interfering with others to do the same.  The irony lies in that commitment toward individual agency might and does run counter to what scientific studies might discover would be most advantageous for individual actors but which they, tested individuals, might find distasteful to perform, consume, or support. 

For example, how should young individual students behave and conduct their studies in schools?  In line with that concern, do natural rights guided educators stay true to implementing what the social/psychological sciences find to be effective, or should they shop for an approach that caters to the wishes of individual students?

Some years ago, Barbara Lerner wrote,

 

Today’s teachers have been taught that self-esteem is the answer, and many believe that it is.  Others, who [usually] don’t often face great pressure to conform to the prevailing view.  Some have been effectively silenced, or driven out of the profession altogether.  The result is that the role of self-esteem in learning has a special status.  On a host of other pedagogical questions, teachers have varying viewpoints and express them freely.  On this one, the settled answer goes largely unchallenged.  Teachers seem to accept the modern dogma that self-esteem is the critical variable for intellectual development – the master to learning.  According to this view, children with high self-esteem forge ahead academically, easily and natural [sic]; children with low self-esteem fall behind.  They cannot achieve excellence, or even competence, in many cases, until their self-esteem is raised.  That, at any rate, is assumption one in what I call the self-esteem theory of intellectual development.

Assumption two is that many children are in this boat because low self-esteem is common in childhood.[1]

 

And more recently from Twinkl Teaching, the following is offered:       

 

Studies have shown that teachers' self-esteem is important for their success in teaching. It’s been found that teachers' positive and high self-esteem positively affects their pupils' self-esteem and enhances their learning. Teachers play a very important role in supporting children’s self-esteem. They have a significant, lifelong impact on their pupils, which extends further than just the fostering of academic skills. They’re also responsible for fostering positive self-esteem, which in turn leads to increased motivation and learning.[2]

 

Apparently, everyone needs healthy levels of self-esteem in order to teach or learn.  And how much do such views coincide with the elevated levels of natural rights thinking which is prevalent in the culture?  Self-esteem and personal wishes seem to this blogger to be two sides of the same coin.

          This blogger argues that humanistic learning theory psychology (described in the last posting), to varying degrees, has, if not by name but by substance, been accepted by educational academia and school district administrations around the country.  It congruently matches the whole market orientation and systems perspective described earlier in this blog except for the argument of the essentialists. 

In short, with its emphases on temporal perspectives and individualism, this psychological school is highly congruent with the philosophical historical development of the country since World War II – the years in which the natural rights view has had increasing levels of influence.

          But more to the point of this critique, as a prevailing, accepted position, it has become part of the sociological forces operating in the nation.  Its effects have furthered an atmosphere of irresponsibility.  Humanistic learning theory psychology does this because it neglects communal realities.  Culture and its sanctions toward improper behavior are relegated to an illegitimate role (considered as subjugation).  Sanctions are seen as interfering with the development of a “true self.”

          This posting will abruptly end here, and the next posting will finish this critique with this blogger’s concerns about humanistic learning theory psychology – or as it is better known, self-esteem psychology.

---

[1] Barbara Lerner, “Self-esteem and Excellence:  The Choice and the Paradox,” American Educator, 20, 2 (Summer, 1996), 9-13 & 41-42, 9.

[2] “What Is Self-Esteem?.” Twinkl Teaching (n.d.), accessed February 26, 2023, https://www.twinkl.com/teaching-wiki/self-esteem#:~:text=Studies%20have%20shown%20that%20teachers,esteem%20and%20enhances%20their%20learning.  Twinkl Teaching’s editorial stand seems to be in favor of self-esteem psychology.

CRITIQUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS VIEW, VII

 

This blog is currently critiquing the construct that more than any other is dominant in defining what governance and politics are for most Americans – that being the natural rights view.  In general, the critique centers on natural rights’ diminution of community.  That is, it presents politics as a consumer-based activity with little to no communal or common concerns.

          Along this line, educators have adopted certain concepts and paradigms that further this bias by compounding the prevailing individualism, anti-intellectualism, and temporal view of the American people and what they are about.  They have been poorly instructed about the historical turns and forces that led to the current state of affairs. 

These forces, in part, met their loosely “scientific” foundation in the psychology of humanistic learning theory, a theoretical base highly in tune with the elements of the natural rights perspective in that it focuses on individual perceptions and emotions.

 

Humanistic learning theory is grounded in the philosophy of humanistic theories of psychology, including person-centered theory … Primary contributors to humanistic learning theory include Arthur Combs, Carl Rogers, and Malcolm Knowles, all of whom believed the goal of education is to facilitate students’ development and self-actualization … Therefore, humanist educators have an unwavering trust in the individual’s growth capacity and view self-directed learning as most facilitative of growth … Additionally, humanistic theorists hold a phenomenological view of humans in that they believe each person’s view of the world is reality for that person and that learning is motivated by personal need based on one’s internal frame of reference … For example, a student with low self-efficacy might not attempt difficult projects because of a belief that “I am not capable,” whereas a student with a high level of self-trust can go beyond the direct instructions of an assignment to tailor the assignment to fit their learning needs. Highly self-actualized individuals view themselves as dynamic beings who are constantly growing and changing …[1]

         

To summarize:  what the concerned parties have had is a history that glorified individuals in their quest to obtain economic well-being.  A national philosophy has taken hold that demeans thought and reflection and has made the here and now all important.  Add to this mix a generally accepted psychological school of thought that leads to the idea that all of these biases are natural and lodged in the nature of humans.

          Basing their propositions on studies basically done with clinical patients, adherents to this perceptional-ist psychology apply clinical techniques to helping services such as education.  Relying on the ideas of two leading humanistic learning theorists, Carl Rogers[2] and Arthur Combs,[3] their main argument is that behavior is a product of perception; that dysfunctional people in the US society act that way because they have low self-regard for themselves.

          Health for these people is a product of, first, freeing themselves of social definitions about who they are or what they should be about, and, second, to get them to define their own standards of what is good and proper.  What is important in treating these people is not so much their psychological background, but their immediate behaviors and feelings they express.  Humanistic learning advocates then, in applying this line of reason to schools, advocate a curriculum that:

 

1.    Is characterized by a warm atmosphere in which the teacher is helper, communicating a warm positive acceptance, and demonstrating empathetic understanding;

2.    Never communicates that a student cannot accomplish the objectives set forth (making evaluation very problematic);

3.    Provides problems that are relevant to the student (preferably identified by the student); and

4.    Encourages the student to define his or her own sense of morality (they speak of responsible choices, but this does not seem to be defined).

 

Of late, the self-esteem movement in American schools is a direct product of the humanistic learning psychology.  While the viability of this bias varies over time, it has held a central commitment to date.

            So, whatever can be wrong with this mode or approach to teaching?  Only a Grinch can object to such an approach.  Before this blogger attempts to get into the negative aspects of this view, he wishes to express a tempered support for its prescribed educational claims and advocacies.  Yes, it is good to treat students with dignity, justice, and an upbeat approach that is encouraging of their efforts. 

But in all that, teachers need to be honest and respectful for the legitimate demands of the society in which they ply their trade.  And in that, humanistic learning theory tends to cut some corners.  And in conducting their interactions with students, effective teachers should not portray to their students false messaging that might sound more acceptable to their students, but in sum will not be beneficial.  The next posting will expound on these concerns.

---

[1] Katherine E. Purswell, “Humanistic Learning Theory in Counselor Education,” The Professional Counselor, 9, 4 (2019), 358-368, 359, accessed February 27, 2023, https://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Pages_358-368-Purswell-Humanistic_Learning_Theory_in_Counselor_Education.pdf.

[2] Carl Rogers, “Learning to Be Free,” in Readings in Curriculum, edited by Glen Hass, Kimball Wiles, and Joseph Bondi (Boston, MA:  Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1970), 219-239.

[3] Arthur W. Combs, “Seeing Is Behaving,” in Readings in Curriculum, edited by Glen Hass, Kimball Wiles, and Joseph Bondi (Boston, MA:  Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1970), 210-219.