Sunday, November 18, 2012

Elementary School: Development and Individuality

I believe that our parents or guardians are the very seed in which our individuality roots from. After being brought into this world, most of us begin in a stage of parent dependency. After all, according to John Stuart Mill, "nobody denies that people should be taught and trained in youth." Initially, our parents hold the role as our teachers - teaching us everything we need to know in order for them to someday feel comfortable in letting us out from under their reign. Personally, my parents applied a bit of reverse psychology in the way they raised my brother and I. We were given more freedom to decide what we wanted to do. Although this may seem unorthodox, the freedom to experiment shaped the beginning of our development. 

Development and individuality work hand in hand - I mean, it only seems common sense. As we age and grow into our own fate of who we are, we learn about ourselves through experience and, most notably, through others. Although the beginning of our development resides in our parents, or as Mill would say, "developed" humans, we truly flourish when we become independent learners. 

Personally, I believe school is the beginning stage of a child's independent development. Specifically elementary school. We view school as a place of education, however, there is much more to it. It is an environment filled with teachers and students, projects and tests, and lessons and rules. We are required to interact with the individuals around us and to learn from our teachers, but also from ourselves and others. This is the stage of our lives when we begin to acquire responsibility and the understanding of human interaction and communication. Apart from learning from our teachers' lectures, our development stems from our observations and understanding of others. 

While studying for my history classes, I always asked myself why I needed to learn about events and people that occurred more than 100 years ago. However, after reading Mill, I understood that learning from the past allows us to form our individuality. History teaches us of all the mistakes and successes of past individuals. It allows us to draw inference of whether something is wrong or right. Although it is important for people to introduce new truths and practices into the world, it is also necessary to improve past discoveries. A majority of new ideas stem from the knowledge of past ones, allowing individuals to formulate something different. Additionally, people are able to keep something present in our lives, whether it remains the same or is improved through time. As Mill points out, "Not only is it they who introduce good things which did not before exist; it is they who keep the life in those which already existed." Therefore, history class is more than a memorization of dates and important individuals, it is an eye-opener to learning from others and formulating our own beliefs and behavior or renewing the old. As a result, individuals can learn from us as well. 

However, although we are able to shape our individuality by learning through others, starting at a young age, we do not like when others copy us. Around the time of elementary school we are introduced to the term, "copycat." People do not like being referred to as a copycat, nor do they like ever being called one themselves. As Mill blatantly says, "no one's idea of excellence in conduct is that people should do absolutely nothing but copy one another." Therefore, there is a want of diversity amongst us, however, many people continue to rely on others as an instruction guide to how they should act. Think back to the times you heard the word "copycat" - when somebody mimicked someone, wore the same shirt, or even came to class with the same pencil as someone did the day before. According to Mill, these individuals wouldn't possess any character. These are the people who depend on someone else rather than learn from others. These are the individuals who do not offer their own individuality as something for others to learn from, instead they blend in with the crowd.

Evidently, although our parents are the starting ground of our development, the years we attend school are the basis of our independent growth. As students, we are taught the importance of learning from one another as well as the historical past of others. However, learning from individuals is not equivalent to copying others. While becoming aware of peoples' behavior teaches us the negative and positives of certain actions, it does not imply for us to fully conform to them as well. When we were young we were more aware of the idea of a "copycat." However, as we develop, we become more exposed to the conforming society in which we live. As a result, we begin to miss out on the importance of learning from others while continuing to distinguish ourselves from the majority. 

Therefore, it is necessary to look back to the times we learned from others and truly hated copying one another. The times when we grasped the idea of individuality without recognizing it. We once knew how to learn from others while still displaying our own qualities and characteristics. It was those elementary school days that taught us the importance of learning from others behavior while still withholding the characteristics of what makes you, you. We learned from others and allowed for people to learn from us in return. Within our conforming society, we need to rediscover the balance between upholding our own individual characteristics while gaining knowledge from others freedom of expression as well. Without a diversity of beliefs and behavior, we will be unable to discover our own individuality. We won't be able to learn from others and express ourselves freely. Our development will cease with our individuality as we all become "copycats" of each other. 




2 comments:

  1. Sarah:

    You make a very good point in that when we were young we would do anything to avoid being a “copycat,” and as we get older we are more willing to conform to society. Thinking back to Louis Menand’s article that we read in early September, when there was the ideal balance between learning from others and upholding individuality in elementary school, education supported Menand’s second theory of education. When people are able to learn from others, they are introduced to new beliefs and information. This knowledge makes them better people and educated citizens.

    Additionally, when I was younger, my parents played the role of “teacher.” They weren’t extremely strict, but they also did not give my sister and I the same freedom that you wrote about having when you were younger. There were many rules—some of which I now agree with, and some of which I still question. One rule limited the amount to TV that we were allowed to watch. There have been many blog posts recently about TV shows and how they relate to this class (I recently wrote one about Gossip Girl and connected it to Machiavelli). I think it is important to recognize that TV shows can serve a very important purpose, and Mill’s theory helps us understand their value. These TV shows allow us to view other’s experiments of living and learn from their success and failure.

    I liked the part of your blog where you wrote about the purpose of history classes, especially when you wrote, “history class is more than a memorization of dates and important individuals, it is an eye-opener to learning from others and formulating our own beliefs and behavior or renewing the old.” Like history classes, TV shows can also help people learn from others and form their own ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really like your take on the concept of individuality. I agree that our individuality begins at an early age, under the tutelage of our parents and early education professionals, but I am curious to know whether or not is is possible to be an individual at a young age. If individuality is the result of life experiences, is it even possible for elementary school to be the beginning of individuality? I believe that elementary school, and most of our primary education does not directly lead to individuality but provides us the tools and knowledge necessary to be come unique individuals.

    A primary education instills the necessary skills and ideas into people to allow for their interpretation and internalization of life experiences; school allows for these experiences to be understood from a different perspective. I think that is what you're getting at with your discussion of the value of history. History does not make s into individuals, but the knowledge and lessons bestowed upon us from studying history allow us to understand and analyze our experiences; history in this scenario acts as a tool that we use to find individuality.

    I think the same goes for parents. As children they attempt to instill values and morals into us that are not necessarily our own, and in the process, make us less unique as individuals. However, these values and morals shape us in our development as individuals by providing a way to understand and analyze our experiences. It is a more fluid construction to think about our parents merely providing us a base to start off from that changes with time, providing us different tools suited to our different needs. I agree that individuality comes with time, but I disagree that individuality starts off at young age. Our youth merely sets the stage for individuality to occur and prosper.

    ReplyDelete