The Definition of Relativism
The concept of relativism we will discuss for this article is the absence of absolute truth. All truth is relative to the cultures and circumstances of the situation. Universal truths for the relativist do not exist. Therefore, the concept of right and wrong cannot be taught. Everything comes down to choices based on the what is acceptable and appropriate according to the situation and societal norms. I should not have to point out that this philosophy is mainly embraced in the agnostic and atheistic Western world. Most of the world's religions dictate a definite right and wrong, and thus take issue with this philosophy. Therefore, when dealing with a theory that has as its base the theory of relativism, the first item of business for you to decide is whether or not you believe in a definite right and wrong. Are there behaviors that are universally wrong? Are there behaviors that are universally right? I find it interesting that even in the Western world, some circumstances make even liberals throw out their relativism. Case in point, the trial of the Boston Marathon Bomber. In a state that absolutely abhors the death penalty, he received the death penalty to satisfy everyone's sense of justice. If there are no absolute right and wrong, why would these people need justice in this situation. For everyone that has a hard time with this concept, I suggest you read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. I have never seen someone tear apart relativism like Mr. C. S. Lewis.
Relativism and Choices
Probably the most obvious sign of relativism in early childhood theory is the prevalence of choices over obedience. Since right and wrong are all relative, it is not proper to teach children right and wrong as they did in the old days. Children must be led to appropriate choices. Does this sound familiar early childhood people? Instead of making a child choose between right and wrong, we give them two positive choices to teach them how to make good choices. However, when in life as adults do we ever get to choose between two positives? Do we not most of time have to choose the lesser of two evils or it is a clear choice between a positive we should do versus a negative we want to do? Is not the latter really the choice that faces most children? How does two positive choices prepare children for the choices of the real world? It does not. However, when you remove the concept of right and wrong, you must find another way to instill social norms. Do not get me wrong, liberals have their own concept of right and wrong. They just do not want to call it that. They want a world without having to answer to a higher authority. They want to do what is right in their own eyes, but believe me, if you cross their social norms, you will feel the wrath. They will make you feel like you are the most evil person on the planet because you crossed what they feel is socially acceptable. I am afraid God built into us a sense of right and wrong that we just cannot shake. It comes out despite our best efforts to create the world in our own image of reality.
How Relativism Affects Environmental Structure and Practice
You might be wondering how in the world does relativism come into play in how I set up my environment. The answer to that is one word - accessibility. How many times does that word accessibility show up in rating scales and accreditation standards? The concept of accessibility has its roots in the foundation of choices over obedience. In the world of relativism children should be allowed to grow and discover on their own terms and not the terms of the adult. Adults should not exercise authority over the children but lead them down appropriate paths. Children should have access to a multitude of choices and limiting those choices through inaccessibility will hinder their development. I hope that sounds as silly to you as it does to me. Early childhood practitioners in parts of the world outside the Western world find this notion of accessibility to be one of the worst concepts of Western philosophy. They look at this as the reason our children are spoiled brats. Of course, I have already spoken to how people outside the Western world feel about our notion of choices over obedience. They understand that the notion of accessibility flows from the concept of choices. It flies in the face of their cultural foundation. When I dropped down to unregulated, one of the first things to go out the door was accessibility. The children in my care have been so much better for it. I have spoken in other posts about the "poof" environment where everything that is broken or lost is immediately replaced. Accessibility plays heavily in the "poof" environment, which is not healthy for children. They will never learn responsibility if everything magically reappears when they have destroyed or lost it. When my children reach preschool age the destruction of my materials is almost nonexistent. Toddlers still destroy things but even they soon learn better when those things go away when they destroy them. My good materials only come out for special occasions, and that has not in the least stifled the development of the children in my care.
How Relativism Affects the Teaching of Academic Content
In the world of relativism adults should never dictate to children but lead them into appropriate choices. It should be obvious how teaching academic content to preschool children and relativism would clash. Academic content takes teacher directed lessons. Relativism wants child directed lessons. In recent days I have come across an article that states that teaching academic content to preschoolers actually hurts them in the long run. The bias for that article is so intense it makes blood boil every time I see it. Remember I told you that it is impossible to divorce a study's philosophical base from its results. You must take a study of this type and filter it through its philosophical bias. The philosophical bias for this is relativism. Adults should not dictate the content of preschool. The children should dictate the content of preschool. That is the bias of that particular article. Let us look at this logically. Are they saying that children unlearn concepts when they get older? Does a child that learns their colors at two or three develop learning problems later in life because they learned their colors too early? Does learning your letters and numbers at three and four cause you to have learning difficulties in elementary school? This is so ridiculous I do not even want to comment, but I will. In all my years as a preschool teacher that teaches academic content to two and three year olds that were ready for said content, I have never EVER seen negative results. Now, there have been many children that were not ready for academic content at three or even four because they had language delays and immaturity issues. You cannot teach academic content to those children before you fix the language delays and immaturity issues. I would wager lots of money that the above study used children with language delays and immaturity issues to prove their point. Trying to teach them academic content would make them hate school and do worse in elementary school. However, a good half of the population can be taught academic content in preschool and do well for the rest of their life. Remember, I do not take age into consideration. I take skill level no matter how old they are. Maybe one of these days grouping by age will go out the window, and we will understand that not all two-, three-, four-, five-, six-year olds, etc. are created equal.
How Relativism Affects Child Discipline Practices
In the world of relativism adults should not dictate right and wrong. No where in the early childhood field does the effects of relativism become more evident than in the area of child discipline practices. Teaching children to be obedient is equated with child abuse in many circles. Children must be given choices not told "no." Toddlers must be redirected not told '"no." Punishment leads to violent tendencies in children. We must facilitate children's upbringing never dictate. I am actually very thankful that few facilities follow this philosophical train wholeheartedly. A great big majority of preschool teachers tell children "no" often, but just not when the state people are present. Also, when it comes to certain aspects of a child's environment, dictating by the rules is completely acceptable. Case in point - handwashing and other sanitary practices. It is perfectly acceptable to force children to wash their hands a thousand a times a day. However, when you hit the areas that have for generations upon generations been considered "wrong" behavior, you had better redirect or give two positive choices. People it really is all about removing God and all He stands for from the classroom. These discipline rules are ridiculous. I will in a future post look at most of these topics in more detail. I just wanted to give you a taste of how relativism finds its way into nearly every aspect of early childhood "best practice."
I hope you have enjoyed this post. Goodbye and God bless!! https://linktr.ee/natawade
No comments:
Post a Comment