Kohlberg and Environmental Sustainability: A Problematic Double Bind

JENNIFER JILL NIEDZIELSKI
Western Michigan University

Introduction

    The Culture in which we live both directly and indirectly shapes who we become as individuals. More so, our cultural upbringing socializes us to the norms it demands. As we unknowingly adopt a culturally situated frame of mind, we come to know ourselves, our identities, and our moral obligations within this specific cultural context. Since our culture is such an integral part of our creation of self, it seems unnatural to question the way it dictates our thoughts and actions in our everyday life. However, as we reenact cultural norms at a level that escapes our awareness, we run the risk of perpetuating habits of mind that are problematic for both our social and environmental communities. As educators, cultivating a conscious awareness of the fact that we are all products of our cultural upbringing is essential as we influence future generations with our words and actions both in and outside the classroom. Becoming aware of our taken-for-granted, most often, deep seated cultural assumptions is vital for educators primarily because Education “plays a critical role in the dissemination of an interpretation of reality unique to our own era” (Smith 1992, 19). To honor the influential position we hold in our culture and community, it is obligatory that we not only possess, but frequently employ the ability to critique the norms of our cultural upbringing that perpetuate both social and environmental injustices.

    What begs to be illuminated is our lack of awareness in regards to the manner in which our culturally created lenses, or ways of seeing the world, influence how we interact with the social and ecological communities that surround us. As we unconsciously engage in the Western culture in which we were raised, we risk perpetuating a mindset deeply entrenched in the industrial revolution ideology that not only reinforces a consumer dependent lifestyle but also stresses notions of anthropocentricism, Individualism, and rational thought.

I believe that as educators, it is our responsibility to question and critique the curriculum we put forth for elements that run counter to promoting social and environmental justices. An EcoJustice framework is essential for critiquing the implicit curriculum found in our systems of education that work to reinforce the dominant Western ideology that contradicts environmental sustainability. Using an ecojustice framework as a lens to evaluate elements of our curriculum creates an awareness of the ways in which the dominant Western ideology is implicitly perpetuated. Once we are able to consciously see and critique the underlying cultural assumptions embedded in the curriculum we teach, we can truly educate future generations about ways of living in the world that are not dependent upon an autonomous individual consumer orientated lifestyle. More so, as we sharpen our ability to recognize and question underlying dominant ideologies that shape our frames of mind and bring this insight into conscious awareness for our students, we instill this awareness and wisdom in them.

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how using an ecojustice framework to critique a “high-profile” or widely accepted theory of moral development found in many undergraduate educational psychology textbooks illuminates taken-for-granted mindsets of a Western  ideology that threatens revitalizing the Commons, ensuring the prospects of future generations, and eliminating eco-racism. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate how the implicit curriculum of Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development influences the mature members of our society, primarily teachers, to think about the developing moral responsibilities of human beings as autonomous individuals that engage in a non-participatory relationship with the environmental community. For this is the problematic double bind we now face. As this high-profile theory of moral development is reinforced in teacher preparatory programs to teach moral development, there is an inadvertent side effect; the implicit conveyance of taken-for-granted cultural assumptions that are modernistic in origin. These assumptions in turn shape individuals’ frames of mind in a way that lends itself to ecologically destructive behaviors. Thus, the more we reinforce high-profile theories such as Lawrence Kohlberg’s, in effect, the more we perpetuate cultural ways of knowing that are harmful to the natural world. In developing an awareness of our culturally influenced habits of mind, it is important to question and understand how these habits of mind came to be.

Modernity

The 17th century was a time in our Western history when great innovations were taking place, and all were enticed by its promise of a better world for human beings. It was a revolution of sorts. A revolution that promised its followers with major advances in science and social thought based upon human powers of logical reasoning and rational thinking. This modern world was considered “innovative” and “progressive,” and individuals were enthralled with the optimism of science and technology to explain all elements of the natural world in rational and mechanical terms.

As the modern age came to rely upon scientific inquiry to explain all things, two modes of thought were used to guide such investigation: rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism is the belief that we can have knowledge without experience. Renee Descartes focused on knowledge that can be known for certain without relying upon Tradition or our senses, e.g., experiences. Descartes viewed the universe as a “vast machine wound up by God to tick forever,”(Berman 1994, 34), and he believed reason and rational thought to be the best guide for our human actions. The only thing that Descartes believed we could trust to bring about knowledge was our reasoning.Bacon on the other hand, embraced the idea of empiricism. Empirical thought was based upon objective observation. Empiricism is the belief that the best way to be certain of something is to test it with actual experience. Bacon believed that knowledge was based upon what we could observe and test. For Bacon it was the analysis of physical reality that produced knowledge, and he saw the “foundations of knowledge in sense data, experiment, and the mechanical arts . . .”. Descartes on the other hand saw “only confusion in such subjects and [found] clarity in the operations of the mind alone” (Berman 1994, 33). Putting together the two tools of scientific inquiry, Descartes’s rationalism provides for Bacon’s objective empiricism a framework that enables the “manipulation of the environment to take place with some sort of logical regularity” (Berman 1994, 34).    As the 1600-1700’s was associated with the birth of the modern world view, the quest for certainty was born. Pure thinking was defined with scientific thought and mathematical reasoning. According to these founding fathers of the modern age, human beings have the power within their minds in which to objectively, mechanically confront all elements of the natural world. In adopting this frame of mind, humans began to separate themselves from such objects of study, e.g., the natural world. It was only in separating oneself from that which was being studied, otherwise termed “detached objectivity,” that one could truly understand and manipulate it. But “adopting a position of detached objectivity in an attempt to master nature, we have tended to forget our fundamental connection to the world we observe” (Smith 1992, 26). As we forget our fundamental connection, we forget how to value, respect, and honor the natural environment for its sense of mysticism or divinity. Thus, a separation between “man” and “nature” became evident with the new world view. As humans exercised their abilities to think rationally and logically about the universe in order to free themselves from the confines of the natural world, they began to identify themselves as autonomous individuals void of any participatory relationship with the environment. The modern era revolutionized humans’ world view about their nature as human beings, the environment, and their relationship to it. There are three assumptions upon which a modern mindset rests. The first assumption supports a world in which human powers of rational thought are able to demystify the seemingly mystical workings of our universe. The second assumption positions the autonomous individual as the basic social unit. And the third assumption relies upon the notion that the “individual’s rational process, when properly informed, is the ultimate basis of authority” (Bowers 1997, 7).

Schooling

In ways that exceed our awareness, our educational institutions pass on cultural paradigms through the explicit and implicit curriculum. While the explicit curriculum is made obvious and evident to all, the implicit curriculum exists at a level below consciousness. This is where taken-for-granted cultural knowledge is asserted. In fact, it is the knowledge found in the implicit curriculum that is argued to be more influential than the aims of the explicit curriculum. Thus, it is “the unintended outcomes of schooling, the ones that teachers and administrators seldom plan in advance, [that] are of greater moral significance-- that is more likely to have enduring effects—than those that are intended and consciously sought” ( Jackson, Boostrom, and Hansen 1993, 44). The “unintended outcome” of schooling that concerns this paper is the perpetuation of a detached, autonomous individual habit of mind. In this particular light, the traditional thought that all education is advantageous is challenged as one becomes conscious of the implicit curriculum. A conscious awareness of the implicit curriculum demonstrates that “education can equip people merely to be more effective vandals of the earth” (Orr 2004, 5). 
The modernistic values of individualism, autonomy, rationality, and objective analysis have come to culturally influence our frames of mind, and they are important to highlight as I turn my attention to critiquing Kohlberg’s theory of moral development from an ecojustice framework. This framework provides a method of evaluation that allows for the illumination of culturally situated paradigms that interfere with understanding our essential relationship to the natural world. For it is within the implicit curriculum of Kohlberg’s theory where taken-for-granted cultural assumptions that are modernistic in origin are embedded and thus convey a world view that distances one from the natural world. The implicit curriculum of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development found in college-level psychology texts “exerts an important influence on what aspects of the culture are transmitted to the next generation” (Bowers 1993, 32). Lawrence Kohlberg’s established theory conveys modernistic assumptions and mindsets of autonomous individualism at both an explicit and implicit level. The two hallmarks of the modern era that I will focus on bringing into high relief from Kohlberg’s theory are autonomous individuality and progressive rational thought.

As students in teacher preparation programs engage in a psychological study of human development utilizing Kohlberg’s theory as a model, they learn that moral development “involves learning how to center oneself according to the moral norms of the cultural group” (Bowers 1997, 160). Kohlberg’s theory is based upon the notion of successful completion of the “stages” of life, and it is psychosocial in nature—an emphasis is placed upon the relationship between culture and the individual. According to Kohlberg, as an individual progresses through life, there are “stages” which one must successfully navigate in order to Progress in development. The key to successfully developing within his stage theory is the way in which the individual chooses to rationally solve each moral dilemma he/she encounters.
His six-stage sequence of moral reasoning “is demarcated into three levels: pre-conventional level, conventional, and post-conventional” (Lapsley 1996, 67). These three levels represent the ways that an individual emotionally relates to the moral expectations of society. According to Kohlberg, an individual progresses in moral development as a result of one’s own rational thinking about “situations to which there is no clear-cut right or wrong response” (Ormrod 2000, 98). As individuals engage in discussions and debates with others, they are apt to find their views and thoughts challenged, thus engaging in individual rational thought. Kohlberg asserts that one develops their moral sensibilities as a direct result of such rational thinking in response to the moral dilemma at hand.

In terms of “progression,” Kohlberg argues that “each succeeding stage is better than the preceding stage on psychological grounds. Thus, each new stage is more differentiated and articulated than its predecessor since each new stage employs cognitive operations that are more stable, more reversible, more equilibrated” (Lapsley 1996, 45). For Kohlberg, each stage of moral development becomes a closer approximation of the ultimate moral ideal identified in stage six. Thus, it is the inherent reliance on progressive rationality within his theory that implicitly conveys the modernistic value of progress.

Kohlberg: Pre-Conventional Level

This initial level of development represents the moral reasoning of a child between the ages of four to ten. It is during stage one, “Obedience and Punishment,” that one’s behavior is primarily motivated by the desire for physical pleasure and the avoidance of physical pain. During this stage, “individuals make moral decisions based on what is best for themselves, without regard for others’ needs or feelings.” Stage two, “Individualism, Personal Reward Orientation,” represents the moral reasoning of most preschool children, many elementary children, some middle school students, and few high schools students. In this stage “individuals begin to recognize that others also have needs. They may attempt to satisfy others’ needs if their own needs are also met in the process. They continue to define right and wrong primarily in terms of consequences to themselves” (Ormrod 2000, 99). This stage reinforces the notion that one’s interests are best served if they exchange favors with someone else. Also at this stage, children begin to learn that there is not just one right way of doing something. Rather, moral reasoning becomes relative to individual desires and needs, thus each person feels they are free to pursue his/her individual interests.

Kohlberg: Conventional Level

     “Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society’s conventions concerning right and wrong, and “the self internalizes the expectations of authority” (Lapsley 1996, 67). The individual obeys rules and follows society’s norms even when there is no reward for obedience and no punishment for disobedience” (Ormrod 2000, 99). It is during this level of development that individuals, ages ten to twenty years old, learn to conform to rules and expectations of society, hence the term “conventional.” In stage three, “Good Boy- Nice Girl Orientation,” individuals are entering their teen years when they begin to realize that one should live up to the expectations of the family and greater community. It is during this stage that “individuals make moral decisions based on what actions will please others, especially authority figures. They are concerned about maintaining interpersonal relationships through sharing, trust, and loyalty” (Ormrod 2000, 99).
Stage four, “Law and Order,” is typically categorized as the point when “individuals look to society as a whole for guidelines concerning what is right or wrong. They perceive rules to be inflexible and believe that it is their ‘duty’ to obey them” (Ormrod 2000, 99). Individuals in this stage understand rules to be concrete, and one is driven to maintain social order for its own sake.

Kohlberg: Post-Conventional

   The third and final level of Kohlberg’s theory is appropriately titled, “Autonomous Level.” At this level,“what is outside (expectations of authority and of society) and what is inside (self-chosen principles) are clearly distinguished, with emphasis placed on the latter for defining moral options” (Laspley 1996, 67). The ages that individuals morally develop within this level varies. During stage five, “Social Contract,” the individual comes to terms with the notion that “good is determined by socially agreed-upon standards of individual rights” (Woolfolk 1993, 80).  Essentially, “individuals recognize that rules represent an agreement among many people about appropriate behavior” (Ormrod 2000, 99). “Correct action” during this stage is a matter of personal values and individual opinions. Stage six, “Universal Ethical Principle Orientation,” is considered the “ideal” stage that few if any individuals ever reach (Ormrod 2000, 101). It is during this stage that an individual adheres to a “strong inner conscious, rather than to authority figures or concrete laws, and they willingly disobey laws that violate their own ethical principles” (Ormrod 2000, 101-102).

However, Kohlberg notes that many individuals never reach this level of moral reasoning. In fact, stage six is retained as a hypothetical endpoint of moral development. The reason why stage six is maintained in Kolhberg’s theory even if not typically reached by all is because “it nonetheless provides a standard to achieve a ‘stage of optimum complexity’ for moral development to progress to” (Lapsley 1996, 64).

Implicit Curriculum

 Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development implicitly puts forth modernistic habits of progressivism, autonomous individuality, and rational thought. As the taken-for-granted habits of mind are made evident here, it is important to be cognizant that “Kohlberg’s stages reflect the abstract perspective of the rational moral subject,” and these stages “provide rational foundations for morality independently from context” (Lapsley 1996, 47). The theory’s focus on concepts that are to be studied independent from context and abstract in nature further supports the inherently modernistic value of “detached objectivity” and abstract rational thought.

The modernistic principle of linear progression is evident in the structure of Kohlberg’s theory. His theory of moral development aligns itself along a continuum of adequacy--one develops more adequate moral rational thought progressively (Lapsley 1996, 43). Central to Kohlberg’s theory is the notion that development from a less adequate to a more sophisticated form of moral reasoning is dependent upon progressive advancement toward a premium final stage that represents ultimate moral rational thought. This final stage, stage six, “Universal Ethical Principle,” represents the epitome of locating rational moral authority within the individual.
Furthermore, the pre-conventional level represents morality and rules to be external to the individual. The conventional level represents morality and rules as being internalized by the individual. And the post-conventional level represents a combination of moral rational thought that is located both outside and inside the individual, with a focus on rational thought as located inside the individual for defining moral options. Thus, what gets implicitly reinforced is the idea that naïve moral reasoning by children represents a less developed form of rational thought, and this is considered to be “undesirable” in the adult years for a rationally stable autonomous individual. Thus, the role of culture and society is to intellectually challenge the individual to develop their rational thinking and moral sensibilities in a progressive, linear manner in order to achieve an autonomous sense of self. Consequently, as individuals unknowingly adopt a world view where in which change signifies progress toward an epitomized ideal, from a ecojustice perspective, time honored traditions and established customs are seen as backward and naïve because they lack the element of “progress.” Understanding this, traditions and customs that respect and encourage sustainable ecological practices are devalued because of their lack of the modernistic zeal of progressiveness.

Following along the continuum of Kohlberg’s theory, one progresses to the ultimate stage of moral thought which represents a “highly” developed rationality. This highly developed rational thought found in stage six is considered to be progressively “good” and “desirable”—a perfected model of human reasoning for an individual functioning in the modern world. Kohlberg’s theory represents rational moral thought as developing toward a glorified end that locates rational moral authority within the individual. This notion of progress supports a frame of mind that shapes how one views their developing moral identity, e.g., as an autonomous rational agent where moral authority lies within the individual.

Being progressive in nature, Kohlberg’s theory relies on level three to represent idyllic rational moral thought. Stage five, “Social Contract” and stage six, “Universal Ethical Principle,” both exemplify and perpetuate hidden cultural assumptions that reinforce autonomous individualism and the location of rational authority in the individual. As stage five and six serve as a reference point that allows one to judge growth of rational moral thought in the previous stages, these stages serve to symbolize high-status privileged moral rational thought of the individual. In stage five, “the person reasoning according to the social contract understands that a society of rational people need socially agreed-on laws in order to function” (Eggen and Kauchak 2001, 110). And according to Lapsely (1996), “standards that maximize and protect individual human rights are established by free persons. . .” (72). As stage five focuses on establishing rationally agreed on laws that protect the Freedom of individuals to be individuals, it also positions humans as hierarchically “above” nature in the human-Earth relationship. Because of the theory’s progressive nature, placing these ideals in stage five, a stage that is regarded as an ultimate ideal in which to strive toward subtly communicates that which is of utmost value in our modern world—individual freedom to be self-directing void of any communal ties and managers of the natural world. These hidden modernistic assumptions shape one’s frame of mind in ways that discourage and devalue connections with one’s community and the environment.

What are the implications of utilizing a high-profile theory to teach moral development that furthers taken-for-granted assumptions that idealize the progressive nature of autonomous morality? Rational personal choice is stressed. As “a person reasoning on this level understands that what is considered right by the majority may not be considered right by an individual in a particular situation,” moral responsibility is viewed in terms of self-interest (Bowers 1993, 93). As individual autonomy and rational moral choice are stressed as the epitome of Kohlberg’s theory, what results is a lessened moral obligation towards our environment. As “authority is located in the rational process of the individual” (Bowers 1993, 28), one makes rational personal choices that are based upon an autonomous individual frame of mind which is orientated toward self and human concerns. Thus, there exists little room for conscience thought toward concerns that exist outside one’s self. For example, as individuals adopt this frame of mind, environmental obligations are diminished and an “anthropocentric view of the world is understood and valued only from the perspective of human needs” (Bowers 1993, 27).  With this anthropocentric frame of mind in place, one believes it to be rational to “manage” the Earth’s resources for individual human gain.

Problematic Double Bind

    The notion of a double bind entails both intended and unintended consequences that result from taking action toward a desired end. To be specific, using Kohlberg’s theory to teach moral growth has intended outcomes—the conveyance of the “facts” to future educators regarding how one develops rational thought and moral sensibilities within a culturally based society. However, in addition to the intended outcomes of using his theory to teach these “facts,” an unintended, multifaceted outcome occurs. This unintended outcome is the implicit conveyance of taken-for-granted cultural assumptions that rely upon the notion of centering oneself according to the autonomous individual frame of mind. Furthermore, it is this frame of mind that serves to undermine ecologically sustainable practices of interdependency, connection, and community while further privileging a Western mindset based on autonomy, personal moral authority, and individuality. As one adopts a mindset where in which one’s moral obligations primarily center around one’s self, obligations toward the natural world are dramatically diminished.

    Personal responsibility as a root metaphor of the autonomous individual also reinforces the centering of rational and moral authority within the individual as opposed to community or traditions. As moral authority is based upon individual rational thought, traditional forms of authority are lessened. “This view of the rational process, in being based on a competitive model that locates the authority in the rational process of individuals, rejects tacit and more contextually grounded forms of knowledge” (Bowers 1993, 28). Typically, these “tacit and more contextually grounded forms of knowledge” position the environment as a living entity, one with value and worth beyond what it can provide for human use.

    It is this unintended consequence of the double bind, learning to center oneself according to the autonomous individual frame of mind where in which moral authority is located within the individual, that the sense of being interdependent with the larger social and biotic community is undermined (Bowers 1993, 27). The root metaphor of the autonomous individual carries with it Cartesian ideals of being an independent, objective observer of the natural world, one who is separate from it for the purpose of objective observation and human control.

    The root metaphor of the autonomous individual positions nature “outside” of the individual. We have cultivated this notion as we rationally distance ourselves from the Earth to better understand and control it. In “adopting a position of detached objectivity in an attempt to master nature, we have tended to forget our fundamental connection to the world we observe” (Smith 1992, 26). When we feel no connection to our surrounding biotic community, we disrespect it without adequate consideration of the consequences. In doing these things, we forget that we “remain dependent on soil and air and water for our very existence. These resources, we are now discovering, are inescapably finite. Furthermore, as we damage them, we injure ourselves” (Smith 1992, 26). And since our culturally situated frames of mind only allow us to understand things in terms of the individual, not the individual in connection to a life supporting system, we lack the awareness of reciprocity between us and the natural world.

Conclusion

As high-profile theories are used to educate teachers about moral development, taken-for-granted modernistic assumptions of autonomy, individualism, and moral reasoning based on rational thought get inadvertently reinforced. Thus, the more we rely upon the utilization of such theories in teacher education programs, the more we reinforce these cultural assumptions upon educators that in turn influence future generations. Reinforcing cultural assumptions that privilege an autonomous individual frame of mind put out of focus important values of ecojustice, such as interdependence, community, and connectedness. As a result of acting accordingly with an autonomous individual frame of mind, individuals further distance and detach themselves from the natural world. It is this act of detachment that serves to exacerbate the Ecological Crisis. This is why it is crucial that teachers not only become aware and observant of how the dominant Western ideology gets implicitly communicated within the curriculum they teach but utilize an ecojustice framework to critique these taken-for-granted assumptions that further distance us from living sustainably with our natural environment.

References

Berman, Morris. 1981. The Reenchantment of the World. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University.

Bowers, C. A. 1993. Education, Cultural Myths, and the Ecological Crisis: Toward Deep Changes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bowers, C. A. 1997. The Culture of Denial. Albany, NY:  State University of 
            New York Press.

Eggen, Paul. and Kauchak, Donald. 2001. Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms.  (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pretice-Hall.

Jackson, Phillip., Boostrom, Robert., and Hansen, David. 1993. The Moral Life of Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lapsley, Daniel. 1996. Moral Psychology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ormrod, Jeanne Ellis. 2000.  Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pretice-Hall.

Orr, David. 2004. Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect.  Washington, DC:  Island Press.

Smith, Gregory. 1992.  Education and the Environment.  Albany, NY:  State
University of New York Press.

Woolfolk, Anita. 1993. Educational Psychology.  (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster, Inc.