One of the first things that stood out to me after
reading this chapter was the debate between agency and structure. The term
agency focuses on the individual’s ability to make choices (17). While the term
structure refers to how our society practices and mentality can restrict the
choices that individuals make (17).
I know that in undergrad (psychology), much emphasis was put on the nature vs. nurturer debate. In short, nature is based on the idea that our psychological / behavioural characteristics are due to our inherited genetics. While nurturer sees the environment as being the most influencing factor in our psychological / behavioural make up. In the beginning the debate was over which theory – nature or nurturer – was more important. In recent times many psychologists now acknowledge that both nature and nurturer are prominent factors in development and growth of characteristics.
In the same manner, I can see both agency and structure playing a part in our choices. For example let’s say that you are a very good singer and your dream is to become a world – wide famous pop star. Based on the idea of agency you may decide to work as a singer. Now let’s say that perhaps you got close to a record deal but, were told that you did not have the proper look. This is where structure comes into play. The societal perceptions of pop stars (such as how they look, sound, ability to brand… etc) may deter people / limit their choices to pursue such endeavors. In this case becoming the pop star they’ve always dreamed of. This idea is related to the concept put forth by Pierre Bourdieau known as habitus. Habitus, meaning that “our decisions may be our own decisions but they are greatly guided and restricted by the social structures that exists within each of us” (36).
Another thing that really interested me while reading this chapter was the part on Emile Durkheim and his thoughts on morality. The issue of morality has always been an interest of topic to me. As a future teacher – as I am sure most – want our students to grow up as good hearted people. Personally, if I had to choose one thing for my students to walk away with at the end of the year, I rather have it being of a good character than academic superiority / achievement. I believe that moral education is of importance. I think that instilling good values (e.g. trust, honesty, loyalty, love… etc) in our children will help them to grow into good people later on, therefore making our world a littler kinder. Furthermore Durkheim believe that “it is only through education that a given society can forge a commitment to an underlying set of common beliefs and values as well as create a strong sense of community … “ (20). Personally, I can see why he believed this as schools are one of the largest institutions that children are a part of. Schools are also where children are expected and required to learn the “things” they will need for later success in life. Combining these two factors alone, we can see why Durkheim saw “the role of education in society [is] to instill society’s morals in the minds (and actions) of its young people’s” (20). However with all of this being said, one has to see the other side of the spectrum such as, are we then engaging in the practice of a hidden curriculum (the biases or “the subtle ways that students are taught to be co-operative members of the class system” (24))? In addition is the idea of moral education a form of “brainwashing” in our society and also, at the mere base of it all one must question: what makes a person good? What is even considered as good moral believes and values?
Although this chapter brings up many interesting concepts, these were just two of the things that stood out to me.
Question: Do you believe that there is a place for moral education within the school? If so, which “moral” characteristics would be a part of this and how would you teach this? OR do you believe that moral education is simply intertwined and acquired through daily lives and interactions? OR do you think that it is right and responsibility of the parent / caregiver to teach their child about moral conduct?
I know that in undergrad (psychology), much emphasis was put on the nature vs. nurturer debate. In short, nature is based on the idea that our psychological / behavioural characteristics are due to our inherited genetics. While nurturer sees the environment as being the most influencing factor in our psychological / behavioural make up. In the beginning the debate was over which theory – nature or nurturer – was more important. In recent times many psychologists now acknowledge that both nature and nurturer are prominent factors in development and growth of characteristics.
In the same manner, I can see both agency and structure playing a part in our choices. For example let’s say that you are a very good singer and your dream is to become a world – wide famous pop star. Based on the idea of agency you may decide to work as a singer. Now let’s say that perhaps you got close to a record deal but, were told that you did not have the proper look. This is where structure comes into play. The societal perceptions of pop stars (such as how they look, sound, ability to brand… etc) may deter people / limit their choices to pursue such endeavors. In this case becoming the pop star they’ve always dreamed of. This idea is related to the concept put forth by Pierre Bourdieau known as habitus. Habitus, meaning that “our decisions may be our own decisions but they are greatly guided and restricted by the social structures that exists within each of us” (36).
Another thing that really interested me while reading this chapter was the part on Emile Durkheim and his thoughts on morality. The issue of morality has always been an interest of topic to me. As a future teacher – as I am sure most – want our students to grow up as good hearted people. Personally, if I had to choose one thing for my students to walk away with at the end of the year, I rather have it being of a good character than academic superiority / achievement. I believe that moral education is of importance. I think that instilling good values (e.g. trust, honesty, loyalty, love… etc) in our children will help them to grow into good people later on, therefore making our world a littler kinder. Furthermore Durkheim believe that “it is only through education that a given society can forge a commitment to an underlying set of common beliefs and values as well as create a strong sense of community … “ (20). Personally, I can see why he believed this as schools are one of the largest institutions that children are a part of. Schools are also where children are expected and required to learn the “things” they will need for later success in life. Combining these two factors alone, we can see why Durkheim saw “the role of education in society [is] to instill society’s morals in the minds (and actions) of its young people’s” (20). However with all of this being said, one has to see the other side of the spectrum such as, are we then engaging in the practice of a hidden curriculum (the biases or “the subtle ways that students are taught to be co-operative members of the class system” (24))? In addition is the idea of moral education a form of “brainwashing” in our society and also, at the mere base of it all one must question: what makes a person good? What is even considered as good moral believes and values?
Although this chapter brings up many interesting concepts, these were just two of the things that stood out to me.
Question: Do you believe that there is a place for moral education within the school? If so, which “moral” characteristics would be a part of this and how would you teach this? OR do you believe that moral education is simply intertwined and acquired through daily lives and interactions? OR do you think that it is right and responsibility of the parent / caregiver to teach their child about moral conduct?
No comments:
Post a Comment