Values In Conflict Essay, Research Paper

VALUES IN CONFLICT

Introduction

Each day as young people attend school they are bombarded with various

moral messages. These messages come in many forms. These differing forms

may be categorized in either of two different areas, moral instruction or moral

practice (Jackson, Boostrom, and Hansen, 1993).

Moral instruction refers to both formal and informal methods. Formal

instruction as part of the classroom curriculum is directed and intentional.

Sometimes formal moral instruction is not quite so obvious however. Rituals and

ceremonies such as pep rallies, graduations, and various assemblies may all be

categorized as formal moral instruction. Visual displays with moral content are

also considered as formal instruction, although they are of a more passive

approach. One can not walk the hallways of a typical middle school without

seeing numerous examples of posters and signs which attempt to convey some sort

of moral message. Perhaps the most subtle and least recognizable form of moral

instruction is the interjection of moral commentary within an ongoing activity.

Public recognition for doing exceptional work is just one example of such

commentary.

Moral practice methods may also be either formal or informal. The rules

and regulations within the school and classroom would be considered formal

forms of moral practice. A more informal method of moral practice would be the

expressive morality within the classroom. Expressive morality may be conveyed

either intentionally or unintentionally. Everything a teacher does, from facial

expression and body language to expressing personal beliefs, can have an effect of

influencing the values of an adolescent. Hence teachers should be extremely

aware of this possibility.

1

A Gallup (1980) public survey of attitudes towards schools showed that

79% of the respondents were in favor of some form of instruction which would

concentrate on morals and the development of moral behaviors. Along with

academic competence, character development is the most desired goal of educators

(Wynne and Wahlberg, 1985). Many states actually mandate some form of

character education by law. In Nebraska, state statutes 79-214 and 79-215

specifically outline this. Despite this apparent agreement between the public and

educators, as well as its legitimacy under law, the teaching of moral behavior and

values runs the risk of having a negative impact on the identity formation of the

adolescent when the values transmitted to them at school do not mesh with those

which are learned at home. Before we can discuss the possible impact of moral

education on the values and character as they relate to the identity formation of the

adolescent, we need to try and understand what character and values are.

Character and Values

Values are one’s principles and judgment of what is important in life. “We

are expected to develop out own opinions, outlook, stances to things, to a

considerable degree through solitary reflection” (Taylor, 1991). However, when

defining our identities this is not how things work. An individual’s identity is

defined through their dialogue with others, normally those who matter to them.

The impact of these dialogues, such as those with our parents, continue to

influence us long after they have left our lives (Taylor, 1991).

Character is “a complex set of relatively persistent qualities of the

individual person, and generally has a positive connotation when used in

discussion of moral education” (Pritchard, 1988). Generally, character is

observable in one’s conduct (Wynne and Wahlberg, 1985). The definition of

one’s character is essentially the

1

definition of one’s lifestyle. Much like values, an individual’s character is

influenced by those who matter in one’s life (Campbell and Bond, 1982).

Potential Causes of Conflict

Diversity and Difference

Today we live in an extremely diverse and complex society. It is a society

which could arguably be considered to be pluralistic. The varying ethnic,

religious, and cultural perspectives can make issues of character and moral value

extremely difficult to evaluate. In addition to this diversity, differences in things

like socio-economic status increase the complexity of the evaluation. A good

example of the problems which may possibly arise from this complexity occurred

in Lincoln just last year.

Two men of middle eastern heritage were arrested on charges stemming

from their marriages to two adolescent girls. These marriages were arranged by

the girls’ parents. According to their cultural heritage and customs, what these

men did, in cooperation with the girls’ parents, was perfectly acceptable.

According to the culture and customs here however, what they did was not only

considered immoral but illegal as well. For the purposes of this discussion, the

appropriateness of their actions is not at issue. The point is that the cultural

diversity involved resulted in a situation of extremely serious conflict.

Of more importance to the discussion here is how this situation may have

affected the two young girls. On one hand they had their parents exercising a

tradition which has been a part of their culture longer than our culture has even

existed. These are the same parents who raised and cared for them their entire

lives. On the other hand they had the state. The state is telling them that they

were put into a situation that was immoral and illegal. The disequilibrium which

these girls must have experienced must undoubtedly be enormous. What can they

reasonably

1

be expected to believe? If the state is correct, then the parents that had raised them

were not only wrong but immoral as well. If this is true then does that put into

question everything else that their parents had ever taught them? Is everything

they have been told to believe in wrong? What if their parents are right? Do the

girls now question everything they hear in school with regard to morality? Can

those who have wrongly persecuted their family be trusted? The possible

questions which might surface in the minds of these girls is endless. The full

impact on their identity formation is impossible to determine.

Environment

Many children today are growing up in conditions that do not provide the

moral and ethical framework which is necessary to develop good character

(Schaeffer, 1998). There is also the influence from the media. The messages

adolescents are receiving from advertising are rarely consistent with those they

hear in school. Increasingly the Internet may also have potential negative impacts

on what adolescents perceive as moral. The information which is easily accessible

over the so-called information superhighway runs the full range of the moral

spectrum. Marital conflicts, spousal and child abuse, and inconsistent discipline at

home are all related to antisocial behaviors in adolescents (Hinshaw and

Anderson, 1996).

Possibly, the most influential environmental condition which can create

moral and values conflict for the adolescent is the factor of peer pressure.

Surrounded by their equally confused peers, adolescents frequently make poor

decisions which result in harmful, and sometimes lethal, consequences (Schaeffer,

1998).

Personal Experience

My personal experience with the possible conflicts which can arise from

value and character issues involved my youngest son. One day he came home

1

looking rather disheveled and he was obviously distressed. When I questioned

him as to what had happened to him he appeared embarrassed and was hesitant in

telling me what had occurred. He began to relate to me the story of how two other

children in his class had attacked him after school. Although he did escape any

serious injury he was left with a small cut on his right hand. The cut was caused

when one of his attackers had dug his nails into my son’s hand. This occurred at

the same time that my son was being restrained by the second attacker. Both the

boys involved in the assault on the son were much larger than he.

One of the boys involved was a young man that my son had been having

problems with on previous occasions. I had contacted the school in regard to the

situation several times. On one of those occasions which my son was harassed he

retaliated. When he did so he was observed by the teacher. As a result my son

was reprimanded and I was contacted by the school’s principal. I told my son at

this point that he needed to make the teacher aware of when this other boy was

giving him trouble and that he should not attempt to retaliate in any manner. The

school had made it abundantly clear that violence of any kind would not be

tolerated even if it was done in self defense.

When I called the school after the last attack the teacher informed me that

there was nothing which could be done due to the fact that none of the teachers or

administrators at the school had witnessed the incident. I found this statement

incredulous. It was beginning to sound to me that a student could do anything and

get away with it as long as no adult had observed the action. It was then that I had

decided that it was necessary for me to do something in order to help my son.

My son is not the athletic type. The thought of one kid beating him up was

troubling enough, let alone two kids. So, in direct opposition to the wishes which

were expressed by the school, I told my son that he needed to start defending

1

himself. I sat with him and explained to him that he should respect and

acknowledge the rules of the school. I also explained that this did not mean that

he was required to suffer through the humiliation which he was currently dealing

with. We talked of things like dignity, honor, and self respect.

I then proceeded to teach my son how to go about defending himself. I took

great pains to inform my son that what I was showing him should only be used in a

situation where he was directly threatened. I informed him that under no

circumstances was he to use what I had taught him to vent his anger toward

another person. I further explained to him that in the event it were necessary to

use what I had shown him he most likely would have to face some serious

consequences at school. I assured him that those consequences would be limited

to school. I made it clear that he would receive no punishment at home and that I

would do everything within my power to reduce the severity of the consequences

that the school should decide to impose.

It is possible that my actions may have fostered a certain amount of

disequilibrium within my son. I hope that the impact of this was minimal given

the amount of time that I had devoted to explaining the reasoning behind my

actions. I do believe that he was already experiencing quite a lot of disequilibrium

due to the stress of the given situation.

Values and Developmental Contextualism

As mentioned earlier classroom rules and regulations are but one category

of moral practice. In the example of my personal experience I showed the possible

conflicts that can arise in this particular area. It is possible that this category may

provide educators with an easily observable method which can be used to initially

assess the character of students. However this initial assessment has the

possibility of being misleading as exemplified in my personal experience.

Although adherence

1

to selected external controls is considered to be a valuable indicator of good

character (Berkowitz and Grych, 1998), the many differences in culture, ethnicity,

religious belief, and environment would suggest that the exhibition of certain

moral behaviors is not necessarily indicative of a lack of character. Because of

this any universal assumptions based on specific behaviors exhibited by the

adolescent should not be made.

Conclusion

The public and educators alike agree that moral education is necessary in

our schools. Many states even require such education by law. The collective

intent appears to be the formation of today’s adolescents into adults of tomorrow

who exemplify good citizenry. Although there is this general agreement that our

schools should prepare our students to live a good life, there is also a common

ground that our schools should not be involved in actually defining what

constitutes a good life Rawls, 1971). It is a common argument that “you can’t

legislate morality.” However, this is not necessarily correct. It is dependent upon

the nature of the legislature. If a legislature is actually democratic, then the

legislation of morality is possible (Berkowitz and Grych, 1998). If this is the case,

the decisions and rules which are developed are increasingly likely to be just.

Also, through participation in the process, those involved will most likely have

their own development stimulated in a positive way (Power, Higgins, and

Kohlberg, 1989).

The extreme diversity of today’s society as well as the various

environmental factors make the transmission of values the possible catalyst for

serious conflict. The resultant conflict has the potential for increasing the stress

which enhances the disequilibrium most adolescents experience.

Although certain moral behaviors may be used to judge the character of

students it is important to understand that there are many different possibilities for

1

students to behave in a given manner in a given situation. Therefore any universal

assumptions based on observations which are taken out of context can only serve

to cause further problems for the adolescent. Furthermore because we define

ourselves through our interaction with others, to categorize students based on a

limited insight could prove to be disastrous for the formation of their identities.

Adolescents want to feel like they are being treated fairly. If teachers view

students as lazy, self-centered, and manipulative then it is doubtful that when

dealing with students these teachers will act in a manner which makes the

adolescents believe that they are being treated fairly. If we want students to behave

in a given fashion, we must be sure that they understand what is expected of them.

They must possess the skills which would enable them to perform in that manner.

Most importantly, They must be able to recognize that it is a responsible,

reasonable, and fair thing to do.

Although there are no simple answers to the questions which might arise

when there are moral and ethical conflicts, it seems likely that the potential

negative impacts of these conflicts can be minimized if teachers and parents can

maintain open lines of communication with the adolescent. The lines of

communication must be open not only with the adolescent but between parents

and teachers themselves. Parents need to be aware of what is viewed as desirable

and appropriate. educators must understand and be sensitive to the cultural context

of parenting (Berkowitz and Grych, 1998). It is vitally important to identify areas

which might create a clash with their values. The inability or unwillingness of

either educators or parents to do this might go beyond simply failing to stimulate

the adolescents moral growth. It may actually serve to undermine their moral

development entirely.

References

Jackson, P., Boostrom, R., and Hansen, D. (1993) The moral life of schools. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gallup, G. (1980, September) The twelfth annual Gallup Poll of public attitudes

toward public schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 62,39.

Wynne, E. and Wahlberg, H. (1985) The complimentary goals of character

development and academic excellence. Educational Leadership, 43(4). pp. 15-18.

Taylor, C. (1991) The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McClelland, D. (1982) Education for values. New York: Irvington

Schaeffer, E. (March, 1998) Character education in the curriculum and beyond.

The education digest. pp. 15-17.

Berkowitz, M. and Grych, J. (1998) Fostering goodness. From internet,

http://www.uic.edu/lnucci/MoralEd/aotm/fosterin.htm

Rawls, J. (1971) A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Power, F., Higgins, A., and Kohlberg, L. (1989) Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to

moral education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hinshaw, S. and Anderson, C. (1996) Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders.

In Marsh, E. and Barkley, R., Child psychopathology. pp. 113-154. New York