Responsabilidad ética

To assist in answering my previously stated research questions, this literature review focuses on theories and research related to two particular domains. The first domain consists of theories and concepts related to the construct of critical moral consciousness and

Mustakova-Possardt’s theory of how such consciousness develops. Investigating literature related to this domain will help to contextualize and clarify Mustakova-Possardt’s theory. This investigation will involve reviewing the historical, philosophical origins of the idea of critical consciousness itself, as well as the origins and development of the related concept of “authenticity.” Furthermore, since Mustakova-Possardt adds to Freire’s idea of critical consciousness a dimension connected with developmental psychology, it will be helpful in order to better understand Mustakova-Possardt’s developmental theory, to review both some of the developmental theories that she says she has built hers on as well as some current critiques of developmental psychology and developmentalism in general. The second domain I will review consists of literature providing overviews of current approaches to moral education, as well as literature specifically pertaining to a category of moral education that I have named morally transformative education (which includes approaches that have been described as experiential education, transformative education, spiritual education, and “encounter groups”), a categorization that I feel most closely fits the approach taken by the

42

Community-building Institute. The purpose of reviewing literature from this second domain is to situate the pedagogical approach of the Community-building Institute within the broad and diversified field of moral education and to identify some specific elements of and concepts related to morally transformative education that may be useful in analyzing the Institute’s curriculum.

Critical Consciousness

Arguably, the roots of the concept of critical consciousness can be traced back to classical Greek philosophy. Perhaps most famously in his allegory of the cave, Plato distinguishes between uncritical consciousness dominated the illusion of appearances and critical consciousness, which through sustained intellectual and moral effort in search of Truth, Beauty and Goodness is capable of having authentic knowledge of reality. Within this classical perspective, critical consciousness has been characterized as “the impulse and willingness to stand back from humanity and nature, to make them objects of thought and criticism…instead of remaining enslaved to custom, tradition, superstition, nature, or brute force of political or priestly elites” (Thornton, 2005, pp. 3-4).

The modern version concept seems to have developed mainly out of Marxist thought, especially in the Frankfurt School. In this tradition, critical consciousness is conceived primarily as the capacity to see through the veils of “false consciousness”, i.e. a state of consciousness produced by hegemonic social forces, which keep oppressive social

relationships in place and hidden from view. The idea of false consciousness originates in Marx’s and Engels’ writings on “ideology,” specifically their ideas of how the intellectuals

43

who created dominant ideologies legitimizing the structures of their societies deluded themselves into ignoring the reality of oppressive class relations. The concept of false consciousness (a term Marx and Engels actually never employed themselves) was further developed by Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs, who conceived of it as “a distorted and limited form of experience in society that could be applied to all social groups and classes”, i.e. not just to intellectuals (Eyerman, 1981, p. 43).

Beginning in the 1930s, this idea was considerably elaborated on by the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School, particularly by Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and Fromm who made the problem of reification and the social and psychological mechanisms that produced “false consciousness” a primary focus for their research and theorizing (p. 52). Particularly noteworthy in this regard is Fromm’s (1983) detailed psychological description of “alienation” (i.e. another term for false consciousness). For Fromm, alienation refers to a state of consciousness, which he associates especially with the effects of living in a

capitalistic system, in which a person “does not experience himself as an active bearer of his own powers and richness, but as an impoverished ‘thing,’ dependent on powers outside of himself, unto whom he has projected his living substance” (p. 114).

While these critical theorists of the Frankfurt School wrote detailed explanations of the nature and origins of false consciousness, their depiction of the nature and development of a form of critical consciousness capable of seeing through and transcending false

consciousness appears to be less developed (perhaps because it was taken for granted that such consciousness was simply consciousness characterized by a developed capacity for critical thought). However, the task of defining critical consciousness was taken up later in the twentieth century by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. Indeed, it is with Freire that the

44

term critical consciousness is most commonly associated, especially as it applies to education. Freire (2005a) understood critical consciousness to refer to the capacity that distinguishes human beings from all other animals, the capacity to “experience [the] world as an objective reality, independent of oneself, capable of being known” and to “relate to their world in a critical way…apprehend the objective data of their reality (as well as the ties that link one datum to another) through reflection” as opposed to being “submerged within reality” as other animals are, unable to “relate” to reality consciously but rather only responding to it “by reflex” (p. 3). According to Freire, such consciousness allows human beings to “organize themselves, choose the best response, test themselves, act, and change in the very act of responding” (p. 3). Thus, to possess critical consciousness is to be capable of transforming one’s reality through the praxis of reflection and creative action (Freire, 2005b, p. 87). To further clarify the nature of critical consciousness, Freire (2005a, 2005b) points out that such consciousness enables a person to be a Subject rather than an object of epochal, historical forces.

An historical epoch is characterized by a series of aspirations, concerns, and values in search of fulfillment; by ways of being and behaving; by more or less generalized attitudes. The concrete representations of many of these aspirations, concerns, and values, as well as the obstacles to their fulfillment, constitute the themes of that epoch, which in turn indicate tasks to be carried out. The epochs are fulfilled to the degree that their themes are grasped and their tasks solved…. Whether or not men can perceive the epochal themes and above all, how they act upon the reality within which these themes are generated will largely determine their humanization or dehumanization, their affirmation as Subjects or their reduction as objects. For only as men grasp the themes can they intervene in reality instead of remaining mere onlookers. And only by developing a permanently critical attitude can men overcome a posture of adjustment in order to become integrated with the spirit of the time. (2005a, pp. 4-5)

45

Authenticity in Education

A related theme, which both Freire and Mustakova-Possardt explicitly connect with the concept of critical consciousness, and whose relationship to education a considerable amount of recent literature has explored, is the notion of “authenticity.” Kreber et. al. (2007) recently conducted a review of literature on authenticity and its relevance to education, noting that interest in this theme is especially pronounced in North American literature on adult and higher education. In the context of this literature, authenticity is generally lauded as a valuable goal for education in that it is assumed to help learners become, among other things, “more whole, more integrated, more fully human, more aware, more content with their personal and professional lives, their actions more clearly linked to purpose,

‘empowered,’ better able to engage in community with others” (p. 24). This literature also frequently suggests that, to achieve the goal, it is “critical that educators be authentic themselves” (p. 25).

How then is the term authenticity understood within this literature? My review of relevant literature shows that the term is frequently linked with the notions of true or genuine identity, self-determination, critical reflection, and consistency between values and actions. For example, authenticity has been defined as having “a sense of self that is defined by oneself as opposed to being defined by other people’s expectations” (Tisdell, 2003, p. 32) and as “being conscious of self, other, relationships, and context through critical reflection” (Cranton and Caruseta, 2004, p. 288). It is said to involve critical reflection on how we have “uncritically assimilated” social norms and to further involve determining what we each “really believe” and “hold dear” independent of other people’s views and opinions (Cranton,

46

2006, p. 84). To further clarify the relationship between the concepts of authenticity and self-determination, it should be noted that, while the literature generally associates authenticity and identity, not all identities are considered authentic. Rather, a person’s identity is understood to be authentic only to the degree that it has been self-determined or self-discovered rather than having been passively received from and determined solely by one’s social environment (Tisdell, 1998, 2003). Furthermore, in seeking to explain its relevance to teaching, Cranton and Caruseta (2004) offer a fairly extended description of authenticity as “a multifaceted concept that includes at least four parts: being genuine, showing consistency between values and actions, relating to others in such a way as to encourage their own authenticity, and living a critical life” (p. 7).

The concept of authenticity is explicitly associated with “transformative learning theory” (which I will write more about later in this review) especially as developed by Robert Boyd and his associates (Boyd, 1989, 1991; Boyd & Myers, 1988). Building on Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning, which presents an approach to education meant to help learners transform their “meaning schemes” (specific beliefs about self or world) and “meaning perspectives” (comprehensive worldviews) through critically reflecting on underlying premises (Mezirow, 1991, pp. 6-7), Boyd and Myers (1988) propose an

alternative approach to transformative learning grounded in Jung's concept of individuation. They propose that their approach to transformative learning ideally “moves the person to psychic integration and active realization of their true being. In such transformations the individual reveals critical insights, develops fundamental understandings and acts with integrity" (p. 262).

47

The relationship between the concepts of authenticity, identity and integrity has been further elaborated on by Parker Palmer (1993, 1998, 1999), known for his extensive writings on the role of spirituality in education. In his book The Courage to Teach, Palmer (1998) suggests that “good teaching cannot be reduced to technique” but rather “comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher” (p. 10). Here, Palmer defines identity as “an evolving nexus…a moving intersection of the inner and outer forces that make me who I am,

converging in the irreducible mystery of being human” (p. 13). He then describes integrity as “relating to those forces in ways that bring me wholeness and life rather than

fragmentation and death” (p. 13). For Palmer, integrity further implies “that I discern what is integral to my selfhood” and thus become “more real by acknowledging the whole of who I am” (p. 13). Palmer argues that this inner connectedness or wholeness is vital to a teacher if he/she is to be successful in creating the kinds of connections that, according Palmer (1999), constitute good teaching.

I’ve asked students around the country to describe their good teachers to me…all of them describe people who have some sort of connective capacity, who connect themselves to their students, their students to each other, and everyone to the subject being studied…bad teaching involves a disconnect between the stuff being taught and the self who is teaching it. Throughout the secularized academy, there is a distance, a coldness, a lack of community because we don’t have the connective tissue of the sacred to hold this apparent fragmentation and chaos together…there’s a wholeness in our lives, but it’s a hidden wholeness. It’s so easy to look on the surface of things, especially in the academy, and say there is no community here at all… But if you go deep, to the depths you go when you seek that which is sacred, you find the hidden wholeness. You find the community that a good teacher evokes and invites students into, that weaves and reweaves our lives, alone and together.” (p. 27)

Palmer (1993) summarizes this approach to education by noting that to truly teach is “to create a space in which the community of truth is practiced” (p. xii). To clarify this idea, he proposes that educators should,

48

re-vision education as a communal enterprise from the foundations up – in our images of reality, in our modes of knowing, in our ways of teaching and learning. Such a re- visioning would result in a deeply ethical education, an education that would help students develop the capacity for connectedness that is at the heart of an ethical life. Such an education would root ethics in its true and only ground, in the spiritual insight that beyond the broken surface of our lives there is a ‘hidden wholeness’ on which all life depends. (p. xix)

Finally, it is worth noting, consistent with Parker’s last statement above, that

authenticity, especially inasmuch as the term refers to a sense of “true” identity and integrity, is frequently connected with the concept of “spirituality.” Many theorists, such as Fox (1995), Palmer (1998), Kessler (2000), Miller (2000), hooks (2003), Mustakova-Possardt (2003, 2004), Tisdell (2003), Chickering et. al. (2006), and Dillard (2006), emphasize that living authentically implies finding and acting out of the center of one’s being, i.e. an essential core of one’s self that has been alternatively referred to by such terms as heart or

soul or spirit etc. These scholars also frequently call for education “to engage not only the

rational mind but also the ‘hearts and spirits’ of educators and students” (Kreber et. al., p. 27).

Philosophical Origins of the Concept of Authenticity

The philosophical origins of the concept of authenticity are explored by Charles Taylor (1991) in his book, The Ethics of Authenticity. In this book, Taylor points out that the notion of authenticity, as currently understood in the fields of philosophy and psychology, is peculiar to the modern era, originating in the late eighteenth century with European

Romanticism. At that time, building on earlier forms of individualism, such as Descartes’ disengaged rationality (the principle that each individual has the responsibility to think for

49

his or her self), and the political individualism of Locke (the view that individual agency is prior to social obligation), the idea came to be increasingly articulated and widely accepted that each human being possesses an inner voice or intuitive sense of right and wrong to which he/she aught to listen and remain true. This idea presented “a new form of

inwardness, in which we come to think of ourselves as beings with inner depths,” depths that “we have to attain to be true and full human beings” (p.26). Perhaps the most prominent early articulation of this idea appears in the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who argued that achieving true morality is a matter of “following a voice of nature within us” and so “recovering authentic moral contact with ourselves” (p. 27). Rousseau similarly promoted the closely related notion that to be free, the individual must decide for himself how he/she will think and behave (i.e. who he/she will become) rather than allowing him/herself to be passively shaped by external, social forces. Taylor goes on to point out that, after Rousseau, this idea was further developed by Herder, who suggested that every individual human being has “an original way of being human” (p. 28). In this perspective,

there is a certain way of being human that is my way. I am called upon to live my life in this way, and not in imitation of anyone else’s…this gives a new importance to being true to myself. If I am not, I miss the point of my life, I miss what being human is for me” (pp. 28-29).

Subsequent to its origins in the Romantic movement, the concept was significantly further developed in the twentieth century philosophical schools of Phenomenology and Existentialism. This articulation of the concept is most often traced back to Kierkegaard. In the context of defending his notion of religious faith, Kierkegaard proposed that “subjectivity is the truth,” thus suggesting that being true to one’s inner, intuitive sense of truth, beauty and goodness aught to take priority over following any system of universalizable ethical rules. In this view, to be authentic is to freely choose one’s actions based upon one’s own

50

convictions. Kierkegaard contrasted this authentic way of being with the tendency to accept and follow what he called “the crowd of untruth,” by which he appeared to refer to prevailing public opinion (Crowell, sect. 1.1, para 1-4).

Later, similar to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche also concluded that the blind following of social convention led to a weakened and enslaved condition for human beings. But, contrary to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche saw the restoration of psychological/existential health and strength to human beings as stemming from one’s autonomous choice to create one’s own meaning and value in the world based on one’s own inclinations and passions, rather than as lying, as Kierkegaard believed, in one’s choice to have faith in a transcendent foundation for authentic meaning and value (Tarnas, 1991).

After Nietzsche, the most significant articulation and development of the idea of authenticity arguably appears in Heidegger’s existential phenomenology. Like Nietzsche, Heidegger argued that authentic existence involves seeking and confronting truth for oneself rather than allowing one’s identity and worldview to be determined by comfortable routines and social norms. For both philosophers, this was seen to involve facing one’s own

possibilities and ultimate limits, the most significant limitation being the fact of one’s mortality. Heidegger elaborated the concept by using a phenomenological method to

contrast authentic living with two other human conditions that he called “everydayness,” i.e. unconsciously accepting and doing what everyone else is doing, and “inauthenticity,” i.e. consciously doing the same and so deliberately concealing one’s authentic being from others. Heidegger also originated the existentialist notion that to exist as a human being does not simply denote a neutral condition of merely being. Rather, engagement in a “project” is inherent in every instance of human existence. Thus, intentionality for Heidegger is

51

inseparable from being. Human existence is always oriented towards a future possibility (the aim of one’s project), in light of which one evaluates the past (determining what remains to be done and no longer needs to be done) and gives meaning to the present (giving relative significance to present conditions in accordance with their relation to what needs to be done). So, for Heidegger, all human actions “historize”, i.e. imply a narrative unity with beginning, middle, and end. To exist authentically, in this view, is to consciously commit oneself to