Voices Silenced
Every Culture’s Subculture: The Underachievers
Draft (needs some work, but the
basic concepts are there)
(http://www.dolezalek.com/chris/silenced.htm)
Abstract
The American macro-culture is a free market society that applauds and rewards high achievers and champions often viewing second place finishers as losers. “Success” is viewed as the ultimate goal and is measured in fame and fortune. These values permeate many if not most of our subcultures thereby creating and maintaining micro-cultures of those viewed as unsuccessful. In fact, these subcultures themselves may be looked down upon and discriminated against based upon the general perception of “success” of the members of that culture. There are many among us who look down upon the “losers” and others of us which pity them as victims - neither of these perspectives is beneficial to them, our subcultures or our macro-culture.
Perspective / About the Author
My developmental psychology text book starts out with a section about the author as written by the author. I found that a bit unusual at first, but I discovered that it was very useful in giving perspective to what had been researched and how it was presented. Ideally, we would never interject our own beliefs and opinions into a topic paper whose goal was to be objective; however, it seems virtually impossible to completely leave out our own biases and beliefs without potentially overcompensating. Anyhow, I think it is relevant and appropriate to present my own history relative to this subject before moving mostly into the third person perspective of trying to be objective…
As an immigrant
child who learned English off the streets and in school, I certainly felt at a
disadvantage. My English was certainly
not up to par and the fact that I lived a German culture at home and spent my
summers in
Voices Silenced
Every Culture’s Subculture: Underachievers
|
Ability is what you're
capable of doing. Motivation determines
what you do. Attitude determines how
well you do it. Show me someone who has
done something worthwhile, and I'll show you someone who has overcome
adversity |
|
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
- Thomas Jefferson (1776) The
Declaration of
In thinking of Dr. Kenneth Clark's use of dolls in the famous Brown v. Board of Education case (in which the young Thurgood Marshall argued so successfully), one might recall how all children chose the light skinned dolls as the “good” dolls and as the ones they would most want to be like. Imagine if Dr. Clark had first asked the children “which doll do think is the smarter doll?” Or, what if he had first asked “which doll do you think will be more successful when they grow up?” One might be able to venture a guess at what the outcome would be if these questions were asked first. Would then the preference of the children for the light skinned doll be attributed to the skin color or the level of intelligence/potential for success they attribute to each doll? Granted, we must always be aware of the experiment where we “know” ahead of time what we are looking for, and we should never forget that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. If we told the children that all the dolls were equally intelligent and were all going to be equally successful as adults, would this have changed their preference? Perhaps not, but perhaps it is the image of what being intelligent and successful which matters more than actual reality that matters most in our society. Perhaps this is the point Marshall and Clark were trying to make. After all, it was a case which was being argued with the objective of improving the education and therefore the chances of success for all children…
From the very beginning of American history, there has been a drive of its people to find something better, to attain upward mobility and to be free to pursue our “happiness” however we choose. The Puritan work ethic itself reveals a great deal about our basic values. If we consider the motivation for becoming an American of so many before us and so many yet to come, we are mostly people willing to risk leaving a known environment behind in the hope of finding something “better” for ourselves and our children. We are, after all, a country of immigrants of differing cultures and backgrounds; what we have in common is what motivated us to come to American. To be American is to strive for upward mobility and to hold in high regard those best able to achieve that dream we all share. The danger lies in how we might regard those less able to fight to their way to the “top;” they do not represent the American ideal. They may find it hard to maintain their motivation among high achievers and strivers, and they may become downtrodden, silent overlooked or pitied.
In saying we (and/or our ancestors) came to America looking for something better does overlook at least two significant subcultures: those that were brought here against their will as slaves and the Native Americans who may have wandered across the continental drift long ago less conscious of any great move to a new world of opportunity. The Native Americans/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) have different cultural perspectives and many have never assimilated to the “American way.” Perhaps this contributes to the fact that “the overall alcoholism mortality rates of AI/ANs have been reported to be 950% greater than the national average. Ninety five percent of AI/AN have been reported to be affected either directly or indirectly (via family or friend's) by alcohol abuse” (APA, 2000). As for those who came as slaves and the descendants of those slaves, they did eventually find opportunity to break free and strive for that upward mobility. The Thurgood Marshalls, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther Kings of our past took great risks to create an opportunity to follow the American dream.
In his book A
Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, Donald Takaki (1993) walks the reader through case after case of
people that gave up their homes to come to this land of opportunity. It shows how they were taken advantage of and
how they had to struggle to achieve acceptance and success. As each wave of immigrants finds it way in
the American system, it is replaced at the bottom of the American hierarchy by
the next set of seekers of prosperity and pursuers of happiness. In his depiction of the Native Americans, it
becomes apparent that their way of life makes it difficult to survive within
the American system. By not assimilating
and submitting to society’s repeated pressures to adapt to the American way,
they become pushed to the side and silent.
However, one could also learn from Takaki that
upward mobility of various cultures within American society did not typically
come from the success of individuals alone, but from a unified effort to
improve the lot of that subculture. This
is illustrated in the efforts of unions often succeeding in improving living
standards for entire subcultures. Yet
many Americans hear the word “
The perception of
the benefits of a free market society is reinforced when considering the former
Soviet Union as compared to the United States.
Furthermore, one might also consider post-war
If we look at the
laws of nature and consider what
When we consider
the minorities within the American macro-culture, we often see discrimination
and bias. What are the attributes that
If we turn our attention to our children and their schools, classrooms and extracurricular activities, we also see an emphasis placed on performing, improving, winning and rewarding the winners. Those which do not excel in the eyes of teachers, parents and peers are pushed aside and let anxious and with little self-esteem. That alone can lead them to struggle with learning as well as create emotional issues to deal with for a lifetime. Yet the underachievers are continuously placed in a category separate from the overachievers. That is not to say that we should not have high expectations of our students. In fact, many teachers are quite clear about the fact that having low expectations for under achievers does them no favors and clearly reinforces their perception of themselves and their abilities.
Stephen Krashen’s “Affective Filter” hypothesis embodies his view that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition (Krashen, 2002)
“Pressure turns coal into diamonds”
In the book
My goal is to get a 3.7 or
higher… My dad will give me 50 bucks if I get it – even though 50 bucks isn’t
really that much… Do I have any other goals? [long pause] I mean look, grades
are the focus. I tell you people don’t
go to school to learn. They go to
school to get good grades which brings them to college, which brings them
higher paying jobs, which brings them to happiness, so they think. But
basically, grades is where it’s at. They’re the focus of every student in high
school in every place in |
To change this perception in our students, we first need to change our own perceptions (as teachers, parents, peers and members of the American culture and our own subculture) of what matters. We can choose to model a belief in other values and we can interact with students in a manner which conveys such a perspective. Modeling beliefs is a much more effective means of conveying them to students and children than simply preaching them (Coles, 1997). “Teachers can serve as student advisors… Kids have trouble making it alone. They need to sense that there’s at least one adult out there beyond the family who knows them well and cares how they function, how they feel and where they’re headed.” (Levine 2002 pp. 313-314).
“Tracking” or ability grouping widens the gap between high and low achievers (Dornbusch, Glasgow & Lin, 1996). In multi-grade classrooms, academic achievement, self-esteem, and attitudes towards school are consistently more favorable than in the single-grade arrangement (Lloyd, 1999). When older, more expert pupils teach younger or less expert pupils, both tutors and tutees benefit in achievement and self-esteem (Renninger, 1998). Perhaps the need to crystallize an understanding of the content at hand and then verbalize and transfer that knowledge to another pupil helps the tutors solidify and clarify for themselves their understanding of the content. Heterogeneous groupings have an advantage over homogeneous grouping that benefit both the higher and lower achievers by providing a greater breath of perspective on various subjects. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Public Law 101-475) mandates that schools place children requiring special supports for learning in the “least restrictive” environments that meet their educational needs. Largely due to parental pressures, mainstreaming has been extended to full inclusion (Berk, 2001).
Repeated negative feedback can cause children to develop learned helplessness (Berk, 2001). Learned-helplessness children may have parents who set unusually high standards yet believe their child is not very capable and has to work harder to succeed (Parsons, Adler & Kaczala, 1982). Pupils with unsupportive teachers regarded their performance as externally controlled, which predicted disengagement and declining achievement which led children to doubt their ability (Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck & Connell, 1998).
In the PBS television program A Class Divided (Peters, 1985), on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s death, a teacher did an experiment with her classroom. She decided to tell the children that all the blue-eyed children were the smarter and more gifted children and that the brown-eyed children were dumber. She proceeded to give positive attention to the blue-eyed children while acting negatively towards the brown-eyed children. It was astounding how quickly the class was divided and discrimination and segregation developed. The next day, she said she had made a mistake and that it was the brown-eyed children that were smart and the blue-eyed children that were dumb. The tables were turned and the blue-eyed children quickly became the dejected ones and the brown-eyed children marched around with great airs of superiority and showing great disdain for the blue-eyed children. It is a classic example of how prejudice works. Yet, if viewed from a slightly different perspective, it is also a clear example of what qualities are valued by our society. Were the brown (then blue) eyed children ridiculed, dejected, and discriminated against because of the color of their eyes? Or, were these children put down and de-motivated because they were viewed as dumb and the eye color was simply a means of identifying which children were smart and which ones were dumb? Does the American culture (or most cultures for that matter) reveal a prejudice against people of a different race, creed or ethnicity? Or is the prejudice against what is viewed as people that are less intelligent and/or successful, and the race, creed or ethnicity are simply means of quickly identifying groups with whom we associate these attributes? Making the generalized association is certainly unjust, but isn’t there also an issue with the discrimination against the less intelligent/successful members of our society?
We often see a great deal of emphasis placed on traditionally measurable intelligence in our children. Those that score high are given more opportunities and are viewed and treated more favorably. Those that perform less well on traditional measures of intelligence are stigmatized (whether consciously or subconsciously) by their teachers, peers, siblings and parents. The interactions between the members of one or more of the cultures of an individual child that is viewed as less intelligent may differ. Some may tease the child, others may patronize the child, and yet others may feel pity and empathy for the child. In all of these cases, the child gets the message that they are inferior. These children often seek each other out to find comfort with others in their lot; they may also to some extent be excluded by the high achievers. This segregation is detrimental to all, yet it is a common phenomenon to create a subculture of underachievers in many cultures. The children that perform below average on intelligence measures are perceived to be less likely to succeed. That perception (of the child itself and those around it) alone, may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Some time ago, a study was performed on such perceptions. Unfortunately, I was not able to track down the details of who conducted this study and when; however, most educators and psychologists will agree that the results are intuitive. In several classrooms, three students where randomly chosen as exceptionally intelligent and three other students were student to be slow learners. At the beginning of the school year, their teachers were informed of the abilities or lack there of or these randomly selected children. By the end of the school year, results showed that the students that had been labeled as exceptional were at the top of the class and the students labeled as slow learners were at the bottom of the class. Again, there was no correlation to their actual abilities and the only ones who believed these students to be exceptional and/or slow were the teachers. Apparently, as teachers we do treat children differently based on how we perceive their abilities and this putting the child in a box seems to result in that child actually performing to expectations.
Although there is much emphasis placed on our traditional understanding of intelligence, there are now also theories regarding notions of other forms of intelligence. Daniel Goleman speaks of “emotional intelligence” and refers to abilities to interact positively and productively with others. He proposes that such intelligence may actually contribute more to the “success” of an individual in many arenas more than I.Q. intelligence (Goleman, 1995). Robert Coles speaks of “moral intelligence” and its importance for our children. He also makes it very clear that our own perceptions and behaviors do much more in terms of educating our children about morals than anything we say (Coles, 1997).
Howard Gardener’s theory on multiple intelligences suggests that intelligence should be defined in terms of distinct sets of processing operations permitting individuals to engage in a wide range of culturally accepted and valued activities. Gardener dismissed the idea of general intelligence and proposes eight independent intelligences shown below (Gardener, 2000).
Gardener’s
Multiple Intelligences (Gardener, 2000)
|
Intelligence |
Processing Operations |
End-State Performance Possibilities |
|
Linguistic Logico-mathematical Musical Spatial Bodily-kinesthetic Naturalist Interpersonal Intrapersonal |
Sensitivity to the sounds, rhythms, and meanings of words and the different functions of language Sensitivity to, and capacity to detect, logical or numerical patterns; ability to handle long chains of logical reasoning Ability to produce and appreciate pitch, rhythm (or melody), and aesthetic-sounding tones; understanding of the forms of musical expressiveness Ability to perceive the visual-spatial world accurately, to perform transformations on those perceptions, and to recreate aspects of visual experience in the absence of relevant stimuli Ability to use the body skillfully for expressive as well as goal-directed purposes; ability to handle objects skillfully Ability to recognize and classify all varieties of animals, minerals, and plants
Ability to detect and respond appropriately to the moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions of others Ability to discriminate complex inner feelings and to use them to guide one's own behavior; knowledge of one's own strengths, weaknesses, desires, and intelligences |
Poet, journalist Mathematician Violinist, composer Sculptor, navigator Dancer, athlete Biologist Therapist, salesperson Person with detailed, accurate self-knowledge |
If we open our eyes to seeing that children and adults can excel on various plains due to various skills, we may become less likely to create a subculture of underachievers for those that do not excel according to our traditional perspectives.
Sports are another arena where American culture creates a rift between those that excel and those that do not. It has been said that no one works harder at playing than Americans. Just go to any little league baseball game and experience the pressure being put on children from a very early age. Watch a 3rd grade basketball team play and notice how the good player always gets the ball and the weaker players are essentially just bodies on the court. Watch and listen to their coaches and you may notice that they interact much more with their star players and play them more despite league guidelines stating that basketball is not about winning at this age. Notice that the coaches hold more practices than the league suggests ensuring more victories for their team. Go to a practice and discover that the strong players get the lion’s share of the attention and are picked first by the coaches when choosing teams. Sports are about winning, but they are also about teams. Playing the top players more and having the majority of set plays revolve around them, puts pressure on those players while also sending negative message to their teammates. It’s a lose-lose proposition and can lead to losses when good players miss a game, become injured or are double-teamed because opposing coaches recognize they can shut a team down by shutting down one or two players. If coaches work on the weaker players, it brings up the level of play of the entire team; it creates more options on the court, it forces opponents to defend against all players and creates new opportunities for the strong players. It’s a win-win strategy that is unfortunately rarely put to the test. Twenty years of coaching nationally and internationally have taught me that winning can be achieved more consistently by building the entire team rather than just a few star players. So, even with the objective of winning, we can succeed by not focusing solely on the winners. A chain breaks at its weakest link; so, why strengthen the strongest link? As for the weakest link in the chain, there are two schools of thought: strengthen it or remove it from the playing field/field of action. Similar pressure to succeed and excel exist in music and art in most American cultures.
If we turn to the
business world were so many compete and where so many of the values that are
brought home from work originate, we again see the rewarding of the winners and
the humbling of the low performers.
There are very successful companies that regularly rank all their
employees and lay off a certain percentage from the bottom. This creates a very competitive nature within
those companies. Management believes if
you increase competition, individuals will work harder and this will benefit
the company as a whole. The fact that
this is detrimental to team spirit and team interaction seems to be considered a
cost which does not outweigh the benefits of pitting the employees against each
other and degrading the non-performers.
In trying to figure out how to create a winning company, most businesses
look at other successful endeavors and do not consider businesses which failed
and why they failed. Failures are most
often attributed to lack of team work and internal politics (DeMarco & Lister, 1999). If we look at the software industry in
|
"Many forms of Government
have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect
or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said
that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that
have been tried from time to time." |
To be an American
is to believe in the survival of the fittest.
This plays out at a national level, at a team level, at a cultural level
and at the individual level. In fact, if
we look at most modern societies, we will see similar values (even among those
who initially claimed to be egalitarian).
This same phenomenon of “winners” being
elevated and “losers” being shunned and discriminated against may be found
within various subcultures within and outside of the
Addendum
After writing this
paper, my developmental psychology professor (Dr Paul Stegner
of
ROAD
LESS TRAVELED |
References
American Psychiatric
Association (2000). Statement of the American Psychiatric Association Before the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on
Interior and Related Agencies on Appropriations for the Indian Health Service
for Fiscal Year 2001 http://www.psych.org/pub_pol_adv/041100_test.cfm
Berk, Laura (2001). Development Through
Lifespan.
Coles,
Robert (1997). The Moral Intelligence of Children: How to raise a moral
child.
DeMarco, Tom
& Lister, Timothy (1999). Peopleware – Productive Projects and Teams.
Dornbusch, S.M.,
Gardener, Howard.E.
(2000). Intelligence
Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the Twenty-First Century.
Goleman, Daniel (1995). Emotional Intelligence – Why it
Can Matter More Than I.Q.
Levine, Mel, M.D. (2002) The Right to Differ in A Mind at a Time
(pp. 313-314).
Library of Congress - Exhibitions - Exhibitions Online Survey, October 18, 2004,
"With an Even Hand" - Brown v. Brown at Fifty
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html
Lloyd, L. (1999). Multi-Age Classes and High Ability Classes. Review of Educational Research, 69, 187-212.
Maxwell,
John C. (2001) The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork "Embrace
Them and Empower Your Team"
Parsons, J.E., Adler, T.F., & Kaczala, C.M. (1982). Socialization of Achievement Attitudesand Beliefs: Parental Influences. Child Development. 53, 310-321.
Peters, William (Producer &
Director) (1985).
Pope,
Dennis Clark (2001). “Doing School” How We Are Creating a Generation of
Stressed Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students,
Renninger, K.A. (1998). Developmental Psychology and
Instruction: Issues From and For Practice.
In
Schuetz, Ricardo (2002). Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language
Acquisition. http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-krash.html
Skinner, E.A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., & Connell, J.P. (1998). Individual Differences and the Development of Perceived Control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63(2-3, Serial No. 254)
Takaki, Donald (1993).A Different Mirror: A History of
Multicultural
References for Addendum
Stein, Henry T. Ph.D. (2003) Alfred Adler Institutes of San Francisco and Northwestern Washington http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/homepage.htm
Stein, Henry T. Ph.D. (1997) Five Fields of Striving for Significance http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/fields.htm
Stein, Henry T. Ph.D. (2001) Map of Striving for Significance http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/c-map2.htm
Notes and
Further Thoughts…
I may update this paper based on comments I have received and experiences gained
…
If you have comments, please email
them to
“silenced”
at “Dolezalek” dot “com”
(I’m not spelling out the email
address as doing so always leads to tons of spam once the robots have found the email address.