Kohn writes:
I find these are interesting questions in the context of an IB World School where we are promoting international mindedness. Martin Skelton, in a presentation to ISB, talked about the development of self, the awareness of other and then to the self and other co-existing. He talks about the development of family or tribe through to nation and then international and eventually to an awareness of independence and interdependence on a global scale. He asks the question: What is good international education? One of the outcomes of good international education is to produce better global citizens which involves an "openness to otherness, a willing to be challenged and other similar characteristics of personality and mind". My question would be, if behaviorism is a means of controlling people, if it prevents the free exchange of ideas among equals, then is behaviorism also likely to get in the way of the IB mission statement which aims to develop learners who "understand that other people with their differences can also be right"?
Behaviorism is fundamentally a means of controlling people, it is by its nature inimical to democracy, critical questioning, and the free exchange of ideas among equal participants. (Chapter 2)Question 2 asks is manipulation or seeking compliance morally wrong? Question 3 asks is Kohn right to be attacking behaviorism rather than rewards?
I find these are interesting questions in the context of an IB World School where we are promoting international mindedness. Martin Skelton, in a presentation to ISB, talked about the development of self, the awareness of other and then to the self and other co-existing. He talks about the development of family or tribe through to nation and then international and eventually to an awareness of independence and interdependence on a global scale. He asks the question: What is good international education? One of the outcomes of good international education is to produce better global citizens which involves an "openness to otherness, a willing to be challenged and other similar characteristics of personality and mind". My question would be, if behaviorism is a means of controlling people, if it prevents the free exchange of ideas among equals, then is behaviorism also likely to get in the way of the IB mission statement which aims to develop learners who "understand that other people with their differences can also be right"?
A great connection, Maggie, between international mindedness and control. Here are my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThinking critically about everything with which we are presented is crucial for understanding that people, with very different opinions, can both be right. Or, indeed, that there are many shades of grey (depending on the context) to any argument. Kohn makes a bogey man out of behaviourism, and Skinner in particular. In fact, it would seem appropriate to question whether he is being manipulative in his choice of language, a central way in which we 'control' others. And, if we accept that he is being deliberately manipulative, we should question whether this is morally acceptable, especially when he appears to argue that it isn’t. While I agree with many of his arguments regarding rewards, and they are supported by past and current research on motivation, I wonder if Kohn’s arguments are as 'balanced' and ‘principled’ (IB Learner Profile) as they seem.
There is a growing philosophical and scientific consensus that all our conscious actions, thoughts and feelings are controlled or ‘determined’ to some extent and that the common notion of free will is illusory. However, this is certainly a contentious belief that has vexed human thinking for many thousands of years. The question as to why we believe we have free will is a fascinating one that will continue to engage anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, economists and more for many years to come.
As a thought experiment, let us assume that free will is illusory. In this context, the question of ‘control’ becomes morally ambiguous. It is clear that we don't like to be controlled, or certainly, we don’t like to believe that we are. If there is no 'free will', is it morally acceptable to hold onto the belief that we don't inevitably control and manipulate others by our actions and interactions, intentionally or otherwise? It would seem either naïve or disingenuous to deny this unavoidable control we have over others.
Perhaps, it is not the act of control that is morally wrong, but the intention of the acts themselves. Maybe, some forms of control are malign while others benign. It is much like Kohn's 'rewards' - it is not the reward itself that is the problem, but the nature of the act of rewarding. Would it be morally wrong to 'reward' smoking, if we believed that this was the best way of decreasing the intrinsic motivation of people to smoke? On the one hand, reducing the number of people that smoke would be good for the health of the human population (among other things). On the other hand, we are sending a mixed message whereby our intentions (reduce smoking) are at odds with our message (smoking should be rewarded).
Could we extend this thinking to the case of the behaviourist movement? It is not that behaviourism per se has nothing to teach us, or is wrong in all things, but that, as with all types of thinking, we should consider the moral implications of its application in a diverse range of contexts. Kohn’s ad hominem attack on Skinner is designed to increase the authority of his argument and entertain his audience while actually having significantly less to do with why rewards are bad. At the same time, it is clear that Kohn has many fascinating ideas to share with us. As does Bruner and Piaget and Skinner and Watson and Dewey and Seung and Harris and Skelton and Descartes and Rousseau and Plato and Aristotle etc. International mindedness, perhaps, is about finding a reasoned and rational synergy between many modes of thinking and ideologies without being tied to one. No one person has all the answers. Not Skinner. Not Kohn.