On the Dichotomization in Public Schools and our Public Educational System
Claim: School systems should consider refraining or minimizing the allowance of dichotomizing jargon in schools. Especially in early students who cannot place sufficient perspective on the terms being dichotomized.
Intro
This post is an argument against the usage of certain dichotomizing terms in the school place that hinder the ability of students to expand their minds. Dichotomizing terms divide viewpoints into two contradictory parts—binaries of opposition. Although one can argue that any term is dichotomizing, and I would tend to agree, I regard certain terms in certain conditions important factors in the encumbering of students. These conditions can be ameliorated by some simple alterations in the way we address judgments and determinations, and with some basic contextual or referential considerations.
This post is directed, for the most part, to parents of students and to educators, administrators, and staffs of schools. For the parents who read this, this claim is not a claim geared or directed to the affairs of the home. The way a parent runs the home affairs is up to their own discretion. However, as one reads this post, perhaps they will consider this presentation for its merits not only inside of the school place but also anywhere else.
There are instances in the school place where moral and ethical things or acts are judged (“Big, Bad, Wolf,” “Evil doers,” “That is wrong Billy,”). There are certain occasions where someone’s behavior is being valued (“You are such a good boy,” “You need to stop acting badly,” “He is behaving like a cruel boy.”). There are yet other cases where one is being measured and calculated in dichotomizing terms (“Tom is so slow,” “Eddy is very tall,”). The entire day may seem as if someone is judging, measuring, or valuing anything or any act (“I hate pizza,” “Bugs are so ugly,” “I am so weak,” “His dancing is awful”). Where most dichotomizing acts seem innocent, there are many instances where such acts can be dangerous. In these instances of judgment, we may be conditioning students to limit their range of perception, cement a point-of-view or state-of-being, limit expression proficiency, and/or starve their sense of perspective. Perception, open-mindedness, perspective and other characteristics of having a broad mindset are important factors in the ever-dynamic world the educational system is preparing the students to enter.
This post will illustrate several ways one can conduct our daily educational affairs in a way that diminishes such stifling acts. What I intend to demonstrate is that with some care and attention to the way we express our judgments
, we can dramatically reduce the problematic forms of dichotomizing.
If we are able to avoid and reduce our dichotomizing acts while we are educating students, we may increase the students’ self-esteem, fortify their sense of perspective, expand the realm of possibilities to students, and develop the ability for students to adapt in an ever changing environment. It also strengthens and encourages their ability to express and clarify their meanings, along with augmenting their vocabulary. Furthermore, teachers, staff, and anyone who participates will increase their sense of perspective, perception, and expression as well.
The following will provide a brief definition and description of what dichotomizing entails. I will illustrate several instances or examples of dichotomizing terms used in school. After providing some examples, I will point out several acts of dichotomization that can be perilous to students’ development and why it is the case. Lastly, I will suggest several ways one can lessen the impact or refrain from terms that dichotomize and the benefits of such an approach.
Meaning of “Dichotomization”
The general definition of dichotomy is to create binaries of opposition. What this means is that when one dichotomizes, one creates two possibilities that are polar opposites. These dichotomies share the same fundamental elements of a term but differ in that the qualities of those elements are their exact opposite. So if one uses the term “cold,” the elements of “temperature” and “sensation” are qualified—valued. In qualifying, division is created and a dichotomy is formed. The sensation of temperature is now separated into “cold” and “hot” and the varying degrees that pertain to either side.
The etymological origin of dichotomy is to cut or sever in half. It is our habit to continue the cycle of division, sometimes to a point of violent separation, when we name, categorize, differentiate, judge, and determine. Some whole notion, concept, or thought has been cut or slashed by our calculating mind. In that division, we coerce our mind to make a choice between that which has been divided. This may bring us conflict and anxiety because in deciding, we tend to fixate our worldview based on the decision selected, and the divided opposite stands as an opponent. So, to continue the example of “cold/hot,” if one feels some temperature and names or judges it as “cold,” a dichotomy has occurred. Furthermore, that sensation felt and thereupon judged tends to stay fixed under the category of “cold things.” One’s worldview and actions are based on this illusory fixation of the sensation of temperature that has been dichotomized into “hot” and “cold.” That divided notion that one is forced to select will be endlessly contested by the things of this world that challenges our fixated ideas of “coldness” and “hotness,” which may bring us conflict and anxiety throughout our lives.
One can dichotomize in a variety of ways. Two forms that I like to point as examples are: implied dichotomies and false dichotomies. Although the former is the most common, it is often overlooked. The latter is more known because it is used in debates or analyses of arguments. A false dichotomy, also known as a false dichotomy fallacy, is a point of contention raised to denote that the argument is flawed. In a false dichotomy fallacy one is “pin downed” to pick from two opposing sides where there might be other options available. Some common examples of false dichotomies are: “Either you are with us or against us;” “Either you win or you lose;” “Are you staying or are you going?;” etc. Although this type of dichotomization is prevalent, this is not the particular type of dichotomization I would like to focus on. This form is easily noticeable and is usually caught by school teachers, et. al. The form of dichotomization that I would like to focus on—what I call implied dichotomization—is often overlooked.
An implied dichotomy is one where the term used, usually a judgment, determination, or differentiation of some kind, automatically connotes a division into opposites. Simple dichotomies include: “Up” (which implies that there is a down); “left” (which implies there is a right); “fast” (which implies that there is a slow); etc. More hidden dichotomies include: “beautiful” (which implies that there is ugly); “good” (which implies that there is bad or evil depending on the context); “right” (which implies that there is a wrong); “fair” (which implies unfair); “useful” (which implies uselessness); and so on. There are more veiled dichotomies that I will use as examples throughout this post. Fundamentally, any description, determination, judgment, and meaning can only be understood by comparing the opposite qualities of its divided opposite. “Coldness” can only be fully understood by comparing the qualities of “coldness” with “hotness.”
In implied dichotomies, particularly in judgments and determinations, a participant in the judgment or determination tends to fixate their meaning on one side of the dichotomy, often neglecting the real presence of its opposite and all the various degrees in between. For example, if I were to judge Sam as untidy, those involved would tend to believe that Sam is stuck under the said paradigm—there is no way that Sam can possibly be anything else other than untidy. Sam might be convinced that his fate is to be untidy. Adults would constantly be prejudiced in analyzing his tidiness (surprised if he is tidy or confirming assertions if he is untidy). These implied dichotomies are problematic.
The following will present several instances of implied dichotomies in the school environment that I believe are dangerous and hinder the development of students.
How Dichotomizing or a Dichotomy (D hereafter) is Used in Schools.
Teachers, instructors, coaches, and staff members of any school use extensive D terms. Teachers enjoy utilizing phrases such as, “Good job Darrel,” “Don’t be a bad girl Sally,” “What you did is wrong Dwayne,” “Sally don’t be lazy,” etc. Instructors (Music Instructors, Dance Instructors, etc) and coaches use them to express the degree in which an act has been performed, “Good trumpet playing Billy,” “That is bad posture Sandy,” “That is the right way to play Duncan,” etc. Most of the staff members of any school may judge a student in a particular way, “Mike is such a good boy,” “Mindy is so cute,” “Xavier is so quiet,” “Amy, stop being so rude,” etc. The personnel at any school extensively use D terms in many ways. Furthermore, school personnel allow the students to use D terms with no repercussions, consequences, or explanation of the possible problems with the usage of such terms. The following will present several types of D that I find problematic and I will highlight which are more perilous.
Judgments dealing with issues of “Good vs. Evil” in the school place are of fundamental concern. Phrases such as, “That is an evil thing to say John,” “You are doing a Good deed Carlos,” or any phrase that includes “the forces of Good vs. Evil,” are a serious distress. Moral judgments—any determination or judgment that utilizes a moral code, such as: good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, virtuous vs. vicious, just vs. unjust, etc.—are also concerning. Common phrases may include, “Good job Tom,” “That is so good that you are behaving Lee,” “What is wrong with you Kim,” “Nigel, stop using bad words,” “Your are not being a gentleman Tom,” “What’s wrong Teresa?” etc.
Judgments dealing with behavior, conduct, and comportment are also concerning. We place judgments on students’ actions. We judge the way they are interacting with others. We judge their eating manners. We qualify their posture, their cleanliness, their playing habits, etc. Common phrases may include, “Dan, you are so social,” “Finley always cleans his plates,” “Tanya plays good with others,” “Crystal is messy after her craftwork,” “Clint is such a trouble-maker,” etc. These types of D I consider delimiting and in need of serious analysis.
School personnel constantly measure, quantify, and qualify actions of the students. Some examples may include, “Dan, you are slow,” “Betty is so tall,” “Eduardo is heavy,” “Lambert is smelly,” “Pete please stop being so impatient,” “Rosa, is quite shy,” “Sarah, you are so hysterical,” etc.
The most perilous are those dealing with moral/ethical judgments, behavioral/comportment judgments, and determinations of quality (determinations of character). Not all D terms fit snug into these categories. I place them in these categories for the purpose of sifting through what I consider the more hazardous types of D.
D that deals with measuring and quantifying are also critical but I consider of lesser importance. For the most part, judgments of measurement or quantification are usually relative—any determination made is usually in relation to something else. For example, if after a race someone says “Billy you were slow,” one can detect the reference point or context of the statement. There is a point of reference that Billy can detect or the school personnel can refer to that will provide perspective. Therefore, such judgments tend to have an opportunity to be placed in correlation. There are some instances where judgments of measurement and quantification do not have a point of reference and therefore might carry more threat, namely those phrases that determine an absolute without any context available at hand—“Feng you are slow.” Such phrases are often used by students and not the personnel. As such, only extensive vigilance is suggested.
For the most part, then, I will focus on those terms that involve moral/ethical issues, behavioral/comportment judgments, and determinations of quality. These type of D are problematic in a variety of ways.
Why D is problematic.
We Force our Mind to Pick and Consequently Stick with One Side of a D
Generally, D is problematic not because we have created binaries of opposition, but because we tend to force our minds to “pick a side.” Most of the time, the side chosen is the term utilized by the sender. When we use the phrase, “That is good Billy,” we have forced those who have heard this phrase to pick a side: Are we to believe that the act is good? Are we going to disagree and believe that the act is bad?
If the statement has been presented by an authority figure, for the most part, the statement will be asserted and the participants will thereupon believe that whatever Billy did is a good thing. It is unlikely that they will consider context because it was not presented to them. The notion that there is a possibility of flexibility—the possibility that some times the act is good and sometimes the act is bad depending on the context, or the possibility of degrees, will not be present in their minds. If the statement was presented by peers, then they are forced to choose between good and bad, and hold that side to be true. When we are presented with two options, and one option has been chosen, then the next time a similar choice needs to be taken, we tend to “choose tails”—choose the common occurrence or the choice of (what seems to be) consistent preference.
Fixated on a Side Causes Anxiety and Conflict
When one is categorically judging or valuing a thing or act done by students out loud, the student may believe that said value is unchangeable and unchallengeable. As mentioned above in the definition of D, such a rigid worldview is bound to be challenged by an opposition. D terms tend to fixate meaning in a certain position. However, the opposite position is asserted by other things in the world: The act done by Billy that was so “good,” Katie is doing and is not being highly regarded; or Timmy’s “bad” act seemed to grant him more value of some kind than the “good” act done by Billy. In such cases (and I would argue that the higher education classes of ethics are filled with problems such as these), the experiences bring a significant amount of conflict and anxiety that are unnecessarily forced on students.
Furthermore, Billy is forced to choose again: Should I continue doing “good” acts or should I do “bad” deeds, seeing that what was “good” is not providing sufficient value. In choosing again, the violent cycle continues.
D Terms Develop Hints of Absolutism and Violent Predispositions
In utilizing D terms, we condition the student’s mind to assume that what is chosen has no other alternative because the binary of opposition realized forces us to choose one side of the coin and completely renounce the other side. In rejecting the other side, we also condition our mind to fixate our beliefs on that side which may lead to absolutist tendencies—a belief that there are certain definitive standards and guides in which we should strive to achieve and stick with.
Statements with D terms illustrate no reference point—no point of comparison. If no reference point is given, there is no context or paradigm in which the student can fully grasp why such an act is good or bad. With no reference point, those at hand listening to this statement have no choice but to believe the statement to be true or false absolutely—definitively, and foundationally—a belief that has no supporting belief other than its own.
In denying the other side, you also initiate a cycle of rivalry against that other side, constantly in a struggle to uphold what you chose to be the case. Such a rivalry has a potential to develop violent predispositions (violent in a variety of ways including physical, psychological, and “spiritual” ways). How many times have you heard students argue with such dialogue as, “no its not…yes it is” or “my side is the best…no my side is,” or in worst cases, the “west-side/east-side” violent rivalry. Depending on the idea that is being held on to, the argument can increase in intensity and violence.
Position Held in D May be Ingrained in a Student’s State-of-Being—Their Sense of Self.
As one defends, promotes, and congeals the side that was upheld, that belief integrates into a person’s state-of-being. As a personal reference, I have friends who are Lakers fans who, after following, defending, endorsing, and praising the Lakers for many years, it seems as if they believed their Being were intimately connected to the Lakers (whatever that may be). The statement “I am a Laker” would spill out often. They believed unquestionably that their makeup involved the Lakers. This is an oft cited example of extreme fanaticism. Yet this extreme starts simple: Out of a wide selection of sports, leagues, conferences, teams, etc., one picks and sticks to that one option categorically.
In the case of sports, one has a wide variety of options that may lessen the probability of extreme fanaticism. In a D, one is compelled to select from two options. As such, we are left with defending and upholding our position chosen for the sake of being genuine and not flippant. The more one upholds the chosen side for the sake of being authentic; one begins to believe that in order to be “real,” one of our rudimentary elements of being-me is that chosen and defended side. The distinction between that which one chooses to follow, utilize, or promote, and that which one is has been muffled. A delusional sense of self is borne.
D Hinders “Outside the Box” Skills
America and the world are increasingly searching for thinkers and innovators that can think outside norms and standards. Engineers, inventors, and scientists always benefit from minds that can create their own paradigms. When we condition our students to believe that there are standards, such as “good and bad” or “right and wrong” actions and choices, we hamper their ability to decipher for themselves what is beneficial or a hindrance to their own being or to their ever-changing environment. When we determine what is tall or fast, beautiful or loud, attentive or restless, we entrap our students to believe and follow such determinations and they become inflexible and intolerant of change. Our world needs independent thinkers, not status quo followers. Since our judgments influence how we act, conditioning our minds to have narrow worldviews ultimately weakens our ability to act in an environment that tends to be fluid.
D Terms Limits our Vocabulary and Form of Expression
Problematic D terms also delimit our ability to express ourselves. The quickest way to express that something is beneficial, in agreement with your views, appropriate, or vise-versa, is by utilizing D terms. Especially problematic is the use of “good/bads.” Examples such as: “Tory has been so good today;” “Ellen, stop saying bad words;” “Xena, is such a good girl;” “Good Johnny!” are quick ways to express a person’s position about particular acts. Yet, why is it that Tory has been so good? What did he do to be deemed “good?” What are considered “bad” words? Does your list of “bad” words coincide with our principles of “bad” words? What particular act did Xena commit that was in agreement with you? Under what guidelines is one deemed “good”? Speaking in these terms or allowing students to express in these ways leaves a large part of meaning unclear.
These shortly-expressed judgments or determinations condition our students to use quick, ambiguous terms that do not express the intricacies, nuances, or complexities of situations and/or emotions. “You did so good Susan,” “I feel bad,” or “I am big,” simply should not be sufficient or adequate expressive structures, phrases, or words for students or their school staff. Using D terms greatly hinders our students’ ability to increase vocabulary and expression.
Some sentiments may be too complex for words to express. As we condition our students to express in D terms, students will simply employ D terms when attempting to express something complex. This constrains the development of creative forms of expression (the arts, metaphor and poetry, sports, hobbies, etc.). For example, if Mariette is undergoing a complex emotional state and someone asks her how she is feeling, perhaps there is no clear way that she may express her state in words. Nevertheless, she has been conditioned to apply simple, ambiguous D terms to describe emotions or feelings, no matter the complexity. Mariette resorts to expressing her intricate state as “I’m good,” or “I am sad” even though she may not feel precisely in the manner that she described. If she was not conditioned in such a matter, perhaps she would utilize or the school staff would encourage alternative forms of expression, such as dance or poetry, to attempt to express her state.
In sum, several elements make D terms problematic, some I have highlighted above. To reiterate, they are:
1) D terms tend to force one to choose and fixate to one side of the dichotomy, conditioning the mind to a superficially imposed and static state-of-mind.
2) As one fixates on a side of the dichotomy, inevitable forces outside of oneself challenges the set mental paradigm. This brings about anxiety, and conflict.
3) Anxiety and conflict in some cases ignites violent reactions towards the opposite position.
4) D terms may condition students towards absolutist tendencies.
5) Position held in D terms may be ingrained in a student’s sense of Being.
6) As D terms develop absolutist tendencies, they stifle outside-the-box-thinking.
7) D terms suppress vocabulary and form of expression.
These problems can be applied to any examples of D terms that I pointed-out as most perilous: Moral/ethical judgments; comportment/behavioral judgments; qualitative determinations.
The best and most often used examples are moral/ethical determinations dealing with “good/bads” and “right/wrongs.” All through this presentation I have supplied “good/bad” examples that show how moral/ethical determinations face the list of problems above. Now, I will provide instances of comportment/behavioral judgments and qualitative determinations.
One set of D terms that are often used when dealing with comportment/behavioral judgments are interaction judgments and statements of discipline or habits. “Timmy does not play well with others,” “Li, be nice,” or “Juan is such a team player,” “Roberto is so messy,” are all examples of such D terms. When we utilize these set of D terms with students, we condition their way-of-being. If we comment that Roberto is messy while Roberto is present, Roberto will be conditioned to believe that his state-of-being is of messiness. He will not consider that he has the potential of the opposite side. Often, he will be asked to strive for the opposite, “try to be cleaner.” For Roberto, this may become a point of conflict and anxiety, “How or why should I struggle to become something that I am not?” Roberto is forced with a decision to make: Should I struggle to change who I am, or should I just face the fact that I am messy.” One can envision how easily Roberto can select the side that has been stated before by “grown-ups.” If he decides to follow his messy fate, there is a possibility that he will increase his animosity towards “clean freaks,” with chances of violent predispositions. Roberto will tend to select tasks and objectives that are accepting of messiness. He may avoid any task, activity, study course, job, or career that deals with cleanliness. His frame of mind will only be within the realm of the possibilities of one who is messy. If someone would ask him why he is so messy, he would be unable to express anything outside his messy paradigm, perhaps simplistically explaining, “That is just the way I am.” This whimsical slippery slope has been provided not as a categorical claim of what is to come for Roberto. Instead, I provide this very plausible scenario to demonstrate how all the problems I highlight can become interconnected and increase in influence and intensity in the state-of-mind of the student.
Qualitative D terms also can be applied to the problems highlighted above. Frequent qualitative D terms deal with determinations of character or describing a person’s emotional capacity. Examples of such D terms are: “Mike is strong,” “Ann is quirky,” “Mark is sensitive,” “Dwayne, can you please stop being so erratic.” “You are so rambunctious.” In very similar fashion as the above example of Roberto, any determination of quality proclaimed about a student may lead to conditioning that student’s state-of-being. In Roberto’s case, the declaration made to him may be considered a “negative” trait. I will now provide a case in which the proclamation may be considered “positive” in quality.
An educator praises a student and declares, “Samantha, you are so funny.” Samantha needs to decide, “Am I or am I not funny?” If Samantha chooses to accept the assertion, then Samantha henceforth has confirmed that, part of who she is, is funny. She solidifies that quality about her and henceforth must demonstrate funny qualities. She jokes around, does “funny” acts, etc. Yet, there are times where her antics will not be funny. This will bring anxiety, confusion, and may lead to violent predispositions. In moments where her comedic quality has been confronted, she again needs to decide, “Am I really funny?” If she does not believe that she is funny, unnecessary disappointment is created. Her disenchantment may lead to a sense of failure. If she continues to believe that she is funny, she further cements her funny quality in her state-of-being. The funny quality may become an absolute element of her being. As Samantha goes through life, there will be times when complex emotions will arise. In an attempt to share or express her sentiments, she may be tempted to express her intricate feelings through her fomented quality: She will joke around or demonstrate some sort of comedy in attempt to communicate her emotions.
The above analysis of why D terms are problematic is not an exhaustive account of the myriad ways D terms hinder the development of a student. It is also not a conditional account of what is to come—If we use D terms with students, Roberto or Samantha-like fate will occur. It is a presentation highlighting what most of us tend to ignore or take for granted: Our statements, determinations, judgments, and opinions intensely matter in the way a child develops his state-of-being. In times when our educational system is looking for ways to improve and enrich the development of students in a world that is dynamic, global-minded, and full of possibilities, perhaps allowing students to keep an open-mind can be a beneficial element to hone.
Some might have several objections and concerns about this issue. Thus far, several concerns that I have heard from educators and administrators of schools systems range from: acknowledgment of a societal problems and passing the responsibility to other societal institutions; claiming that certain D terms assist in issues dealing with self-esteem, discipline, and conduct; and minimizing the severity of my claims. The following deals with some of these objections.
Some claim that D terms are, for the most part, a societal problem. I agree that the school place is not the only place where D terms are used. We have been conditioned to use D terms haphazardly, without any vigilance, and without real consideration of the repercussions. This presentation does not argue that this problem does not persist in society. Yet, the educational system should not stand idle in transforming the way society utilizes expression. We should be more aware of the usage of D terms in the school place, where students are developing skills to enter society. If we are able to heighten our awareness in school, perhaps we can alter our way of being-in-society.
Others might believe that because children need to develop a healthy self-esteem, D terms, among many other tactics, are adequate for such a task. Proclaiming that students did a “good job” is a great form of positive reinforcement. Some might also argue that we need our students to develop strong sense of discipline and ethics. As such, D terms like the “right/wrong” D have assisted in disciplining our students and providing a sense ethical direction. They will argue that absolutism can be viewed as a provider of guidance towards a strong state-of-being. As educators, perhaps we may believe that we can steer students to paths we feel will reward the student in the future. We may believe that absolutism, or “road tested” ideals and standards are great foundations for students’ future comportment.
The argument that educators and the school staff have a responsibility to provide ethical and behavioral conditioning is one that is up for debate in all levels of academics. Is the responsibility of the educator et al. to provide ethical and behavioral codes of conduct? Should they determine what is valuable or worthless in the students’ lives? Should educators have the responsibility to understand what the future will hold and steer the students on that path? How much of the responsibility (or burden) should educators hold in regards to discipline? How much of this type of concern is the parents’ responsibility? Why is discipline and comportment an issue in an institution of learning? Since we do not learn discipline or conduct because it is a conditioned and habituated development, why should an educator employ their energy on such a task? These issues are legitimate and it goes beyond the scope of this post to discuss it in further detail. It should be sufficient to note that because there is no certain resolution of this issue, perhaps avoiding a set position would be a healthier alternative. Educators et al. should steer clear of fixating on any kind of polemic issue, and the issue of discipline and conduct may be one of those controversial issues.
Others may present the view that this presentation’s dichotomous structure is too focused on extremes. What about the “grey areas” or degrees? Generally, most readers would be inclined to argue that perhaps I am exaggerating the severity of D terms’ usage. Most will and have believed that such pronouncements are washed away from the student’s psyche and there is no permanent affect.
This critique seems to be misunderstanding the nature of Ds. The statements or phrases I am so adamantly challenging are definitive statement—statements that provide no “wiggle” room for context, reference, or relation—that have inbuilt D terms. The statements or phrases that I contest are the phrases that contain rigid determinations, judgments, or descriptions.
There is little to no room for “grey areas” when one proclaims, “Ali is slow.” Where can one see degrees in the statement, “that is good Mei”? These statements clearly must be either accepted or rejected. Certainly, one can argue that one can decide to accept it now and reject in other occasions. This kind of mind-set may be viewed as hypocritical or “flip-floppy” however, which brings a whole set of problems and conflicts (within oneself or amongst others).
If the case is that some people consider these phrases harmless and with very little implications, I encourage those people to genuinely examine the chilling frequency of D terms. I can perhaps accept that if D terms were used sporadically, their influence would be trivial. However, the kinds of D terms I highlight are utilized regularly in various types of elements, situations, and circumstances. I claim here that the constant occurrence of these statements must condition, through repetition or through finally “sinking-in,” the mind-set of students, especially those who are in their nascent stage of development.
To sum, the extensive way that D terms are used at the school place is problematic. A wide array of developmental obstacles has been presented to demonstrate how D terms may hinder our nascent learners. There are some concerns and objections raised in regards to the severity of D terms. However, those objections do not seem sufficient enough to weaken my claim thus far. Therefore, I suggest that school educators and staff should be vigilant and conscientious in the way they handle determinations, judgments, opinions, or descriptions amongst their students.
It may seem that this is a grand task that may take years to implement and drastic platform changes. In deeper levels, perhaps this may be the case. However, what I am proposing to those who are reading this post, especially those who have children at school, are educators or school administrators, or who simply care about students, is that some basic changes in the way we express, describe, determine, etc., may make significant positive changes in the development of students. The following are my suggestions on how to avoid D terms and how to express determinations, judgments, etc. with more clarity.
Ways to Avoid D terms: The Proposal
The overall strategy I suggest to reduce our usage of D terms is rooted on a simple notion:
By avoiding definitive statements, phrases, etc.; providing context, reference, relationships, or perspective; by substituting certain D terms; by being more specific on our determinations; and by pursuing deeper descriptions from students, one can greatly stimulate a mind to be active, open, and accessible for the possibilities at hand.
Generally, if your statement about a student’s character, being, activity, or habit contains an “is” in it, there is a greater probability of it being used inappropriately. Eliminating or controlling the statements or phrases of determinations that include definitives—“isnessess” if I may, would mitigate D. If we were able to control the way we determine by making statements or phrases that provided context, point-of-reference, perspective, or a relationship, our clarity to the student would increase and their minds would not be hindered by the determination. With adequate contextual support, a student can place whatever statement uttered in a place that will be comfortable for them.
Let us return to the example of Roberto and his “messiness.” A simple way this potentially dangerous scenario could have been avoided is by simply stating: “Roberto, compared to your classmates, you tend to be messier.” In this alternate expression, one clearly stated that Roberto is messy, relatively speaking. One also made clear that one’s determination only applies to the classroom in which one has made observations. This alternate statement allows Roberto to understand the limitations of the proclamation and comprehend the relationship between he, his class, and his classmates (some children clearly do not understand that there are such relationships). We also could have stated: “Roberto, in relation to the rules of the classroom, you are being messy.” Note that by providing a disclaimer—“in relation to the rules of the classroom”—one has allowed to critique or judge Roberto’s messiness without the possible repercussions of D terms cited above. By providing a disclaimer, Roberto may more clearly understand why one called him messy. Most importantly, Roberto may also understand that just because he is being judged as messy in the classroom that does not mean that he is a messy person or that he is messy in other environments. This may cause Roberto to focus his attention on why he is particularly messy in the classroom and try to change that. It is a much less intense task to change a particular behavior in a classroom than it is to change one’s state-of-being. Other alternative phrases could be: “Roberto, people may perceive you as a messy person if you continue to do (detail);” “Roberto, if you continue to (detail), you may be keeping an inappropriate habit called ‘messiness’;” or “Roberto tends to do things that are considered messy.”
Samantha’s case could be phrased: “Samantha, you are the funniest person in the class.” This phrase continues to complement her special ability, but limits the praise to a relative space. She is able to feel confident about her comedic talents but could also understand that the comment specified that particular class. She would (or be encouraged to) observe her audience more closely to notice what made her the most funny person in her class. This could motivate her to be attentive to her social paradigm. Samantha would also understand that perhaps in other environments, she might not be as funny. If the case is that she is not funny elsewhere, she would not be too disturbed. Samantha will not associate her comedic talent as an integral part of her being. Instead, she would consider her “funny bone” a quality that she can utilize from a wide range of possibilities.
I have provided several examples of phrases that engender the problematic D terms highlighted above: Moral/ethical; Comportment/behavioral; and Qualitative determinations. I will now provide several alternative terms and phrases that diminish the intensity of D terms.
For ethical/moral determinations, especially the “good/bad” and “right/wrong” D, and some comportment/ethical judgments, a simple alternative is the usage of the word “appropriate/inappropriate.” Note that the suggested substitute is also a D. What makes this particular option noteworthy is the underlying implication of “appropriate.” Something is appropriate when a particular thing or some act fits a particular purpose, function, or intention. In order for one to determine whether something is appropriate, there must be a comparative relationship between the person being judged and the purpose, function, or intention of the situation or circumstance.
Although the usage of “appropriateness” is a better option, there remains some concern. If Billy is being judged as “inappropriate,” the phrase is still a D—there is a definitive being uttered. Yet, because there is an implied relationship between Billy, the act being judged, and the purpose, the D in this case seems to be limited. Billy can refer to purpose—the codes of conduct—or the function at-hand, and surmise why his act was not fitting in. More concretely, stating “That is good Billy” has ambiguity because there is no relationship implied. On the other hand, stating “That is appropriate Billy,” Billy, at the very least, may understand that there is a comparison or relationship between whatever Billy did and the purpose at hand. In order to make the “appropriate” suggestion stronger, I advocate further clarity. This can be implemented by adding context—“Billy, compared to (the purpose), your (act) is appropriate,” and by being more specific—“Billy (the particular act), compared to (the purpose), is appropriate.” This specificity goes a long way towards clear understanding of what is being done and expected, and learning how to speak more descriptively and lucidly. Other words that one can substitute for “appropriate” are: Adequate; suitable; fitting; and exemplary. These terms imply a relationship: “Adequate” has “equal” as its etymological root, which implies that a particular thing or act must meet the same criteria that was given, ultimately requiring a reference point or relationship; “suitable” and “fitting” requires a connection to a purpose, intent, or function which then needs to be compared to see if it coincides; and exemplary means to match the example provided, which implies a reference. These alternate forms of determination, judgment, etc., provide richer forms of expression than those of D terms highlighted above. They also lessen the probability that a student would inject a determination into their state-of-being.
Some might question the aptness of these suggestions when dealing with right/wrong situations. They would argue that, aside from the ethical/moral usage of right and wrong, there are some instances where one requires a right or wrong answer, such as math or science questions. For those who have this point-of-view, I would continue to encourage alternate words other than right/wrong because these words provide no implication—no underlying assumption—of the reference at-hand. “You are right, Sam,” simply does not express to Sam adequate information about what he is right about or how he was right. In such cases where an answer seems definitive, I would suggest the usage of correct/incorrect. This word, at its root means to rectify to the standards of truth. It signifies that the answer provided is in accordance to whatever has been established as the standard of validity.
Some might contest these alternatives because they continue to be concerned about the student’s self-esteem or self-confidence. They would argue that stating, “Good job Billy” supports self-esteem and increases the student’s self-reliance. They may also argue that by exclaiming “That’s so good Ri!” they are inspiring and motivating the student. Proclaiming any of the alternatives above would be too bland to incite a student positively.
Such concerns about the need of motivation, etc., may be legitimate. There would be cases where educators might prefer more motivational or inspirational determinations that would excite students. In such cases though, the usage of D terms would nevertheless be inappropriate for a student who should be learning how to expand their ability to express him or herself. For those who are concerned about motivational expressions, there is a plethora of words in the English language that are more suited than “Good/Bad,” “Right/Wrong,” or definitives. Some examples of preference include: Wonderful, marvelous, stupendous, magnificent, splendid, brilliant, great, grand, and excellent. Wonderful, marvelous, and stupendous are rooted in expressing enthusiastic astonishment to an act or thing that goes beyond the normal (the reference) paradigm. Magnificent, splendid, and brilliant connote an act or thing that is beyond the standard (the reference) to such an extent that it presents itself as bright or shining (like a diamond). Great, grand, and excellent refer to bigger than normal (the reference) acts or things. Aside from being exemplary vocabulary builders, these choice terms incite enthusiasm and promote self-confidence. More interestingly, these terms continue the notion of the need to signal the context or reference points.
All these expressions remark something outstanding, above and beyond the standard at-hand which naturally implies a reference point—the standard at-hand. When one projects, “That jump was marvelous Lucy!” one is indicating that Lucy’s particular act—the jump—incited astonishment due to its beyond-the-norm feat. Lucy has a greater chance of understanding what was expected of her and how she went beyond expectations. The statement does not allow Lucy to deduce that she is marvelous. The statement does not allow a vicious dichotomy—that her jumps could not be anything other than marvelous—because one specified that “that” particular jump was marvelous. Overall, the chance that Lucy cements a D notion into her state-of-being is less probable. Instead, Lucy might gather that she has the potential of doing marvelous things without the necessity of being marvelous—the world of possibilities are at her disposal devoid of necessitating a change-of-being. Stating, “That is good Lucy,” or “Lucy, you are such a good jumper,” only begs to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.
In making qualitative determinations such as, “Mark is shy,” an alternative way to address this determination is by providing context, “There are many kids who show quiet qualities which can be considered shy, and Mark seems to fit that character,” or simply, “Mark shows shy qualities when he is quiet.” That Mark demonstrates shy qualities when he is quiet does not make him a shy person. It does not make him a quiet person. Providing context has limited this determination to a certain situation. Mark can deduce that the times that he is quiet can be interpreted as being shy. Perhaps with such an understanding, he will consider more carefully his quiet demeanor. Furthermore, he has a clear comprehension of one more element that makes someone be considered shy—quietness.
All of these forms of apprehension allow the student to make independent deductions without the necessity to alter their being in any hindering manner. In making independent reasoning, they are also independently creating their reality by choosing what possibilities they want to embark on, clearly understanding that the possibilities are options for their being and not their being itself. This kind of development can be achieved if an educator encourages and cultivates open-mindedness through clear expressions and communication. Judgments, determinations, et al., should not be allowed to engender static mentality. Choice words and phrasing, and providing context can reduce the danger of inert state-of-being.
Additionally, there are several other general guidelines that are advocated. The obvious first task at hand is to educate the students of the meaning of the alternate terms and phrases, and why they are being used. At the nascent stage of education, students should be prepared to face D terms and learn ways to avoid them. They should learn the importance of context, relationships, and perspective. Establishing clearly the reason one uses certain terms over others is of utmost importance.
Educators should not hesitate in extending their statements for the sake to be clearer. There is no denying that in order to avoid D terms and phrasing, one needs to add a few more words into a sentence, often, abstaining from doing so. However, that should not be a sufficient justification to risk a student’s development. There is a greater upside in adding a few choice words to a statement than not. Often, the words or phrases foregone for the sake of brevity are the details or specifics of a determination. We often believe that those specifics are understood or we assume that they are a given. When we say, “You are so fast,” we really mean, “You are fast, today, in this track, with this group of students, in this weather, with these shoes, from my point-of-view…” ad absurdum. One can not be responsible to prepare such extended context. So to be brief and vomit the determination quickly, we assume that the context is understood and spill-out “You are so fast.” Clarity comes not in how much detail is divulged but rather what detail is referenced and how the statement is prepared. As such, the possible alternate to the definitive statement can be stated: “You seem faster than them.”
Lastly, as students attempt to express acts, things, events, emotions, and states, educators should encourage and stimulate students to be clear and specific. If you ask Eduardo, “How are you Eddie?” and he responds, “I’m good,” that simple expression should not be adequate. One should ask, “What does that mean? Can you describe it further?” This type of inquiry will not only encourage appropriate expression, but it will have the secondary benefit of creating a deeper bond with the student because you are genuinely asking about their emotions, concerns, etc. One would know more about the student. One would know more about oneself.
In sum, I propose educators et al., a few simple guidelines or alternatives that may avoid students falling into D traps:
- Avoid definitive statements, phrases, etc.;
- Use alternate terms that lessen the probability of problematic D terms;
- Provide and educate on context, reference, relationships, or perspective;
- Be more specific on determinations by delimiting to specific circumstances; and
- Pursue deeper descriptions from students.
These are mere guidelines. I am certain that educators have more abundant means to carry forth the intention.
The “Payoff”
In regards to students, if we are able to avoid and reduce our dichotomizing acts while we are educating students, we may increase the students’ self-esteem, fortify their sense of perspective, expand their realm of possibilities, and develop their ability to adapt in an ever changing environment. It also strengthens and encourages their ability to express and clarify their meanings, along with augmenting their vocabulary. Furthermore, teachers, staff, and anyone who participates will increase their sense of perspective, perception, and expression as well. Perception, open-mindedness, perspective and other characteristics of having a broad mindset are important factors in the ever-dynamic world the educational system is preparing the students to enter.
For the educator, promoting clarity not only satisfies educational standards, it increases the chances that the student-teacher relationship enriches. Picture a case where an educator is clearly providing contextual feedback on the performance of a student so that the student clearly understands his or her position. Imagine a moment when a student is encouraged to express more clearly what they feel and, as a result, how the educator is more keenly aware of the dynamic nature of the student. The responsibility of the educator may shift from a position of an authoritative enforcer of code and standards to a position of a contextual motivator and wisdom co-explorer.
The societal impact may also be tremendous. A more expressive and contextually grounded student would be more apt to integrate themselves in any environment. They are profoundly attuned to their Being which allows a constructive role in society by capitalizing in their abilities while being grounded within their limitations. America and the world are increasingly searching for thinkers and innovators that can think outside norms and standards. Engineers, inventors, and scientists always benefit from minds that can create their own paradigms. When we encourage our students to express more clearly their thoughts and emotions—through appropriate use of language, contextual support and relational limitations, we cultivate the ability of students to distinguish their Being from the ever-changing environment. Our world needs independent thinkers, not status quo followers. Since our judgments influence how we act, nurturing an independent mind ultimately strengthens the ability to act
