Hedonism
and its Hold on Education
Matthew
Whoolery and Brady Wiggins
Brigham
Young University
Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association of Behavioral and
Social Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 2002
Correspondence about this article may be sent to Mat Whoolery by e-mail: mwhoolery@aucegypt.edu
Hedonism and its Hold on Education
The philosophy of hedonism is so much a part of modern educational theory
that its presence remains almost hidden to educators and students.
Much of modern education, even character education, is based on a model
assuming that students are motivated to learn only by the expectation of reward
or avoidance of punishment (Kohn, 1997). The
philosophy of hedonism has been implicated as a guiding (though unacknowledged)
paradigm for the behavioral sciences (Fisher Smith, 2000; Slife, 2000) and
business (Calapp, 2000), but remains uncriticized as a tenet of educational
theory. However, we argue that
hedonism is an underlying assumption of education. We will discuss some problems with this view and provide an
alternative philosophy that we believe would serve education more effectively
and encourage morality and responsibility in students.
Hedonism
and Control
Hedonism
is the assumption that all organisms seek pleasure and avoid pain.
From a tree growing toward sunlight to animals seeking survival, this
search for pleasure is seen as a guiding principle of all behavior.
Hedonism is often used in a derogatory sense as the seeking of “mere
pleasure,” but we define hedonism more broadly as the ultimate and universal
motivation of self-interest. The social sciences have accepted hedonism as an underlying
motive for all human behavior with little dissent (Slife, 2000; Gantt, 2000).
This is illustrated by one author claiming that hedonism “offers the
best—and perhaps the only—hope for meaningful progress in social science”
because hedonistic explanations are the most basic and fundamental way to
understand human motivation (Rule, 1997, p. 79).
Hedonistic explanations are at the root of most theories of human
behavior and are meant to be fundamental and universal (Slife, 2001).
In other words, hedonism is assumed to be at the root of ALL human
behavior, without exception. There
is not a denial of “altruistic behavior,” but the assumption is that the
ultimate motive for even serviceable actions toward others are ultimately for
self-benefit. So though people may
learn to serve others and even with some self-sacrifice, their motivation at its
root must be for the self. For
example, if a student were to help another student with his or her homework, the
student must have acted ultimately to impress the teacher or in expectation of
some kind of reward.
Though hedonism is theoretically at the root of
education, we are not arguing that this is true of all educators.
Many teachers in all levels of education seem to be seeking for a way to
help their students reach out to others in a caring manner.
However, the prevailing hedonistic models of education leave many
professors and teachers with paradoxical intentions: engaging students in a
subject matter without using methods of control and manipulation.
This kind of control presents itself in the educational endeavor by
encouraging manipulative strategies, restricting the teacher’s view of
students, and committing to a universal methodology rather than the student.
We do not assume that all teachers follow these notions.
Happily we believe that many do not.
Due to the dominance of hedonism in psychological explanation, many
social scientists explain altruistic behaviors hedonistically (Beyers &
Peterson, 2000; Reber, 2000). Since
all behaviors are believed to be for self-benefit, even behaviors that appear to
be in service of others are interpreted as being ultimately for self-interest. This is obviously not an alternative to the philosophy of
hedonism. True altruism creates an
opens the possibility of a person acting for the benefit of another, ultimately
for the sake of the other. This is
not to say that all human behaviors are considered to be for the benefit
of others, but that the possibility to act for the sake of others is
real. While hedonism assumes a
universal position, altruism allows for the possibility of actions to be for the
sake of others or for the sake of self. This openness to possibility has important implications for
education.
Hedonism
and Altruism in Education
Behavioral
control.
Since hedonism is believed to be a universal characteristic of all
people, education can be seen as management or control of student behavior.
If students always act out of self-interest, this universal
motivation provides predictability to behavior.
And if teachers are held responsible for the learning of their students,
the search for a universal tool of manipulation is understandable.
Many educators may say, “If it works, why not use it?” Hedonism becomes the ultimate way in which to motivate and
control a student’s behavior. For
example, the traditional grading system is based upon the assumption that
students will not learn unless we provide a self-interested incentive for their
learning. From the grading system
to “academic probation” programs, educators and administrators set up reward
and punishment contingencies to control student behavior.
One
way I remember this system being used was in my middle school.
Our school mascot was the Spartan. We
were given “Spartan points” when we were found doing some behavior that was
deemed to be helpful or pro-social. These
points could later be redeemed for various sweets and other items.
I remember even at the time being confused about receiving points for
doing what I thought was just the “right thing to do.”
While meaning to teach us to help others and our school, they were
inadvertently teaching us that we did “good” things in order to get stuff,
in this case something like a candy bar or eraser.
I think we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that this is not an
educational experience just as powerful as memorizing our times tables.
We were being taught to think hedonistically. This kind of “token economy” was not and is not an
anomaly. Many of us can recall
similar kinds of experiences throughout our educational experience. However, we must examine whether these subtle, and even
not-so-subtle forms of manipulation are helpful in educating students.
Token
economies, of which there are many variants, including our grading systems,
operate under the assumption that we can control others with things they find
pleasurable (or painful). The
assumption is that if we allowed students to come to class if they “choose”
to, they would simply not come to school. The
compulsory nature of education belies the assumption that we believe we must
control students into learning, force them into being educated.
The use of manipulation or methodological trickery follows from a
hedonistic philosophical base.
Honest
communication.
While hedonism presupposes a relationship of manipulation and control,
altruism assumes an equality of relationship.
The teacher has no ready-made “tricks” to use to make a student
learn. Instead, a teacher must
engage the student honestly and straightforwardly.
The focus, then, would be on the opportunity for, and possibility of,
education. Teachers would openly
acknowledge that they can do nothing more than provide opportunities for
students to do things like learn, work together, and serve their community.
For example, if a teacher were to assign a service-learning opportunity
and provide the students with a chance to serve their community, there is no way
to make them have an altruistic experience.
Instead, the teacher would need to explain to the students what the goal
of the service opportunity is, and then allow the students to have whatever kind
of experience they choose. The
teacher can invite students to have an altruistic experience, but cannot force
them to do so. This requires a
reliance on the good faith of the student rather than the assumption of control.
Limiting
the student.
Under the rubric of hedonism, teachers are bound to see students as
pleasure-maximizers. With hedonism,
there are no other options available. No
matter how “charitable” or “self-sacrificing” a student’s behavior may
seem, we are left with only one explanation—that the ultimate motive must
have been for self-benefit. This
limitation restricts the way teachers interact with their students, binding them
to one explanation. As with the
token economy system, the teacher passes this limiting hedonistic view onto the
students, where many may begin to believe what they are being taught.
By
the time students reach college, many are convinced that they are in education
because there is something in it for them, even if it is only because they have
been taught that it is so. In his
book The End of Education, Postman calls this hedonistic motivation the
“god” of economic utility (1995). Education
becomes a means to an end, and a hedonistic end at that.
Students are taught to be concerned about what kind of money they will
make after they are done with school. Education
for the sake of service to society or pure desire for learning seems to be an
antiquated and idealistic notion.
Freeing
the student.
An altruistic perspective allows for the student to act for the sake of
others or for their own benefit. Rather
than being determined by a universal motivation, as hedonism asserts, students
are free to pursue goals with or without self-seeking motivation.
Thus, as teachers approach students altruistically, they free students to
have whatever experience they choose. While
this allows the student to not engage in the education process, it
provides meaning to those who choose to learn for the sake of others as well as
self.
The
attitude of the teacher toward the student is an important aspect of the
educational process. If a teacher
encourages students to be open to the possibility of altruistic, other-focused
motivations, the students are able to experience this motivation in themselves
and others. Rather than restricting
their views of the world as selfish, students would then be open to the
possibility of serving their community or seeking to meet the needs of their
peers before their own. This opens
the possibility of a true community in a classroom setting, where students feel
responsible for the learning of their peers and for their own educational
experience. In the altruistic
experience, students are responsible for their motivations and therefore
ultimately for their own learning.
A
universal methodology.
The final implication of a hedonistic assumption in education is the
focus on methodology rather than the students.
We may use a universal methodology because we are working under the
assumption of a universal motivation. Since
all students are assumed to be acting out of self-interest, all students are
inherently alike in their motivation for education.
Though the external motivations may differ, the ultimate motive is the
same. For example, some students
may come to school to avoid getting in trouble with the law while others may
come because they will feel pleasure in pleasing their instructors.
The underlying motivation is the same in both cases, self-interest.
If
all students, and indeed, teachers as well, are in it for their own benefit, the
primary focus should be getting the information from the mind of the teacher to
the mind of the students in the most efficient manner.
Students may become objects of teaching rather than fellow humans engaged
in a learning relationship. The
increased focus on “information technology” and technology-based education
increases a teacher’s focus on providing multimedia presentations and internet
based activities, often ignoring the educational and personal needs of the
individual students. Many times the
funding of education is used to increase the availability of technological
equipment rather than the hiring of more teachers or decrease of classroom size.
This is not to say that technological enhancements of teaching are wrong,
but that the focus on method rather than students can be problematic.
A focus on technology or methodology can be an escape from the
responsibility of engaging students honestly.
Teaching
as relating.
In contrast to a “methodological” or technical focus encouraged by a
hedonistic system, altruism encourages a focus on education as a form of
relating to others. Since students
are more than just pleasure seeking automatons, they must be respected as
agentic, moral people. A Danish
philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, explained it this way: “If one is truly to
succeed in leading a person to a specific place, one must first and foremost
take care to find him where he is and begin there.
This is the secret in the entire art of helping” (2000, p. 460).
We seek an understanding of individual students and their needs instead
of focusing on our efficiency or use of technology.
Teaching becomes a way of relating to people respectfully and honestly
rather than manipulation under the guise of “making them learn.”
If
teaching is one way of relating to others, it is infused with values and
personal morality. The teacher may
altruistically reach out to the individual students or focus on personal
aggrandizement. The possibility for
other-focused action is open for educators as well as students.
We can reach out to students humbly or take the approach that “If I
nevertheless want to assert my greater understanding, then it is because I am
vain or proud, then basically instead of benefiting him I really want to be
admired by him. But all true
helping begins with a humbling. The
helper must first humble himself under the person he wants to help…not to
dominate but to serve” (Kierkegaard, p. 460).
Education is a relationship of service and responsibility.
In conclusion, hedonism is an underlying assumption in much of our
educational theory. The constraints
of hedonism on our view of students and the process of education are great and
deserve careful reflection. While
hedonism encourages control and a focus on methods, altruism opens us to the
possibility of relating to students respectfully and morally.
If we can shake the grip of hedonism, we may be able to redeem ourselves
as educators and our students as human beings.
References
Beyers,
M.S. & Peterson, M.J. (2000). A contradiction in terms: Hedonistic altruism.
The General Psychologist,
35, 78-80.
Calapp,
J. W. (2000). The problems and prospects of hedonism
in business organizations. The General Psychologist,
35, 86-88.
Fisher
Smith, A. (2000). Limitations in the psychotherapeutic relationship:
Psychology's implicit commitment to hedonism. The General Psychologist, 35,
88-91.
Gantt,
E. (2000). Cognitive psychology, rationality, and the assumption of hedonism. The
General Psychologist, 35, 82-86.
Kierkegaard,
S. (2000). The
Essential Kierkegaard. H.V.
Hong and E.H. Hong, Eds. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Kohn,
A. (1997). How to not teach values: A critical look at character education.
Phi Delta Kappan, February 1997.
Postman,
N. (1995). End of education:
redefining the value of school. New
York: Knopf.
Reber,
J. (2000). Privileging hedonism: Confounds and consequences.
The General Psychologist, 35, 80-82.
Rule,
J.B. (1997). Theory and progress in
social science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Slife,
B. D. (2000). Hedonism: a hidden unity and
problematic of psychology. The General Psychologist,
35. (Introduction, pp.77-78, and Summation, p 94.)