Autonomy in Educational Environments - Essay Example

Autonomy in Autonomy in Educational Environments Client’s of Autonomy in 2 Autonomy in Educational Environments When an individual embraces a personal state of autonomy, a responsibility for judgments and choices has been accepted. According to Colin Wringe’s (2010: p. 4) interpretation of Kant, “one’s autonomy is one’s power to follow a self-chosen moral law arrived at in the reason of light alone.” The purpose of education is to create a path on which a student will follow toward a successful life. In the process of creating such a path, it is hopeful that a sense of civic morality will be instilled within the student. However, in the effort to create a well-educated individual, the concept of critical thinking is sometimes lost in favor of memorization and regurgitation of facts and figures. As educators are overburdened by regulations, freely derived thought processes are sometimes subverted for raised test scores accomplished through spoon fed information. This essay will show that while the educational criteria of learning goals promotes a sense of understanding of the work of those who have come before, it is essential to teach students how to evaluate choices that lead to the ability to have autonomous thought. The central debate on the concept of autonomy is in the way in which that autonomy is directed. If autonomy is then directed, it may be questioned for being truly the product of rationale and reason or if it has conformed to the thoughts of others. As a society, it is necessary to determine behaviors that are considered appropriate and responsibility with that culture, however, to encourage a responsibility for one’s own choices is to provide reasonable choices from which to design a personal moral platform. The concept of socialization is a central issue of the education process as students are gathered by age groups so that they may not only learn at an even rate, but so that they may learn the nature of functioning together as a group and as members of a community. This suggests that similar patterns of behavior are expected to develop Autonomy in 3 so that congruous moralities will be chosen in order to form a harmonious future. However, this does not necessarily fall in line with the teaching of autonomous thought. According to Dworkin (1988: p. 22), autonomy requires that choices be made not on the direction of others, but by the choice to follow that direction. In other words, if one chooses to follow a law, it is done because that law has been chosen as morally and ethically correct, not simply because it is law. To truly be autonomous, every choice must be made because it has been through a reasonable rationale. However, one must question then if the choice between acceptable consequences and unacceptable consequences provides grounds for a claim to autonomy. If one chooses to not do drugs because the consequences of that choice puts one at risk for incarceration, then the question becomes is that decision made because the consequences have directed that choice or because a decision has been made autonomously to not risk the consequences. Therefore, as Frankfurt (1999: p. 73) addresses the issue of free will, it is clear that while the will is free, it is constrained by cultural norms that tie it into society, thus being limited in its freedom. Choices become subject to preconceived ideas that are transferred on generational terms. This follows a pattern of choices that include the decision to obey parents, the state, or a source of worship. In deciding to follow the directions of authoritative figures, one might consider the fact that there is an alternative choice proof that a sense of autonomy has been achieved. A choice that is made rationally because to choose otherwise would have detrimental consequences might be seen as a course that is chosen. However, if the choice would not have been made had the authoritative figure not established consequences does not have a clear claim to established autonomous choice. This also begs the question as to whether choices made to Autonomy in 4 conform can ever be considered autonomous. One answer might be found in the idea that if virtue is presented as a viable choice, then the rational person will choose virtue. Wringe (2010: p. 10) quotes the Aristotelian point of view that true virtue is found in one who has chosen virtuously because of the merit of those choices rather than the instruction that guides him or her to do so. However, once again, one must have a determination as what defines virtue which is a cultural concept. One culture may find human sacrifice a virtuous act for the community, while another might find the loss of any human life to be contrary to all sense of virtue. Thus, the choices presented to a person that lead to reasonable conclusion will always be directed by the cultural norms that are present. As well, the way in which education is formatted will be lead by that nature of the culture. A contemporary example might be that as a society it is common to believe that murder is wrong, but the taking of life in a military campaign is acceptable. However, in some sects of the community, as an example the Quaker societies, it is always unacceptable to take life without exception. Conclusions reached as reasonable and virtuous are different in one society than in another society based on cultural traditional thought. How then can the educational system possibly hope to truly teach autonomy? Wringe (2010: p. 11) suggests that trying to define autonomy by such extreme structures does not suit the argument and it is stipulated that the community has influence over how conduct is defined as moral. He suggests that in the contemporary world there are a vast number of moral and ethical values from which to choose allowing for autonomous thought to be reached through exposure to all of these value systems. Under this sense of direction, autonomous thought is derived from a select number of systems that are introduced. The student is taught the way in which to critically Autonomy in 5 evaluate these systems and then given the choice of which way in which to embrace a set of values. This also allows for a new set of values to be evaluated should the information given lead the student to new patterns of thought that had not previously be instilled within the student. There are dangers to both teaching conformity and to teaching autonomy. When conformity is taught, there is always the danger of rebellion to that conformity even with dire consequences being the result of rebellion. However, when an education leaves the moral decisions to the student with only the instructional level providing the basis from which to choose, dire results can be found to for those who do not understand or who do not find an appropriate path. Freedom of the choice of values can also result in contradictory social orders to be formed which lead to rebellious actions. According to Winch (2006: p. 73) “No child can be brought up outside some conception of the good in political society.” In other words, there can be not semblance of a social or cultural education without a core sense of what is considered good. It is the variance of the definition of this concept that allows for the most reasonable practicality of autonomy. Wringe (2010: p. 13) addresses the issue of teaching conformity and the dangerous results. In dictating a set of values, one risks a complacency that will deteriorate the core set of values. As well, traditions become a matter of sentiment rather than reason and will no longer have reasonable value. Terrance H. McLaughlin and Palmira Juceviciene address this in their essay Education, Democracy, and the Formation of National Identity (Bridges 1997: 21). They suggest that there are two aesthetics that must be addressed in forming a democratic thought education that promotes autonomy. The first is that because no sense of education can be without a value system, a choice of which core value system must be infused within the system. The Autonomy in 6 second addresses the issue as to how many different variances should be included in the presentation of that value system. As the choices in a democratic society are vast and varied, it becomes a difficult task to give enough information so that the systems are not corrupted, without allowing complacency to emerge through a difficulty in creating distinction. I agree that in teaching a core set of values, it is important to set a social foundation of expected ethics while promoting the ability to critically evaluate the many theories of ethics and morality in order to form more specific concepts through autonous thought. Cristman (Stanford 2009) suggests that the realization of autonomy is defined by ”the independence of one’s deliberation and choice from manipulation by others.” Therefore, the decision to approach education from the standpoint of autonomy means that the importance of teaching critical thinking and the ability to recognize manipulation have vital prominence in the way in which information is approached. Smith (p. 10) addresses the issue of the teacher’s role as being both encouraging autonomy and being autonomous. The teacher must find the line between what is authoritarian and what is freedom of thought in order to be effective. Dearden (1984: p. 110) addresses the issue of morality as it relates to autonomy and concludes that since it is possible to be autonomous but amoral, it is more wise to decide on a core set of values upon which autonomous thought is built. This is in agreement with the nature of culture and with the contemporary version that Wringe has presented. Since the core values do not contradict the variety of philosophical theories available, this still allows for a great deal of autonomy. The issue of autonomy in education becomes centered on the definitions of the kind of society is the desired outcome of that education. Autonomy cannot be absolute, but freedom of moral choice can be given on the basis of pre-determined moral ideals. Autonomy in 7 Bibliography Bridges, D. (1997). Education, autonomy, and democratic citizenship. London: Routledge. Christman, J. (ed.) The Inner Citadel: Essays on Individual Autonomy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Dearden, R. F. (1984) Theory and practice in education. London: Routledge. Dearden, R.F. (1972) Autonomy and education. In Dearden, R.F., Hirst, P.H., and Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge studies in philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frankfurt, H. G. (1999). Necessity, volition, and love. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, R. C. Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. PDF Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2009). Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. Cristman, J. viewed 2 February 2010 Winch, C. (2006). Education, Autonomy and Critical Thinking. London: Routledge. Wringe, C. (2010). Autonomy. Read More