Unlike the theorists responsible for many of the popular learning theories, the only true laboratory I have available is my life experiences. Thus, trying to develop my personal learning is a challenging task. However, after careful consideration of the major learning theories, I have been able to “extract” concepts which I feel have accurately reflected my experience both as a developing child, a student, and an educator. Since my personal learning theory is a combination of ideas from other learning theories, it is helpful to first have an overview of the major learning theories: behaviorism, social cognitive theory, and cognitive psychology.

Behaviorists see learning as a continuous process which is based on a series of stimulus-response behaviors. The development of different responses to different stimuli is generally referred to as either classical conditioning or operant conditioning. The classic example of classical conditioning was the experimentation and research done by Ivan Pavlov in his study of the reactions of dogs to different stimuli such as scents or sounds. What Pavlov found was that some responses could be taught and some were unconditioned inborn reactions. Another follower of classical conditioning was John Watson who continued experiments of conditioning on humans and came to the conclusion that all behavior was a result of conditioning by what we have learned from our experiences and the environment. B. F. Skinner was a behaviorist who proposed a theory of operant conditioning. Skinner believed that the likelihood that something would occur was based in the nature of the consequences. Put simply, if behavior resulted in something positive, the behavior would be “reinforced” and was likely to occur again. Similarly, if behavior resulted in something negative, the likelihood that it would occur again decreases (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

Social cognitive theorists accept some of the concepts of behaviorism. In particular, they accept that behavior is essentially learned and that the environment does influence our learning and development. They do not, however, accept that all behavior is simply mechanically organized as a series of stimulus-response actions. Social cognitive theorists believe that the mind is powerful and that we use our cognitive abilities combined with our environmental inputs and experiences to alter our responses to new situations. These theorists also believe that a lot of what we learn is based on what has been modeled to us, including observations of rewards or punishments for various behaviors. Social cognitive theorists also note that we do not always adjust our behavior based on our observations or that there may be a time lag between learning a behavior and imitating it. Contemporary social cognitive theorists believe that the relationship between our cognitive abilities, our environmental inputs, and our behavior is an interdependent one. From this view of interdependence, one can recognize that just as the environment influences our behavior, so too can our behavior change the environment (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

Cognitive psychology is a more recently developed learning theory and is different from the above mentioned theories in the lack of significance it places on the role of the environment in learning and the emphasis it places on mental processes themselves. This is in stark contrast to behaviorists who specifically avoid considering mental processes with the justification that mental processes are not measurable. Cognitive psychologists are concerned with how the brain works. Their interests include looking at the process of remembering and retrieval of information and the development of problem solving skills. Many cognitive psychologists such as Jean Piaget also identify specific stages of development that each individual sequentially goes through. Cognitive psychology is very good at explaining how individuals at different stages of development will have different perceptions of or different reactions to the same reality (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

Of these three broad groupings of theories, the one I have the most criticisms of is behaviorism; ultimately, behaviorism reduces us to beings with no free will. I believe, on the other hand, that we make decisions based on things that we value and values are different for each individual. If strict behaviorism were true, why can’t we simply exert stronger control on individuals we would like to see changed? Is our ability to engage in strong conditioning limited by our moral or ethical ideas about human treatment? If this were true, couldn’t we theoretically be conditioned to not care about ethics or justify our actions by saying that conditioning and uniformity is in their best interest? Additionally, when looking at human behavior, we see that people act irrationally very often, as illustrated in the following few examples. Some people gamble and keep thinking that they are going to “beat the system” despite the negative consequences of losing their hard-earned money. Many people smoke cigarettes or eat fattening foods despite the negative long-term health effects of such consumption. People may drive above the speed-limit despite the threat to their safety and the safety of others, and despite the possibility of a hefty ticket and increased insurance costs. Are these actions all simply products of conditioning, or is there an element of free will which should be factored in?

As mentioned before, social cognitive theories also consider the environment to be important to our learning, but in contrast to behaviorism, social cognitive theories also include observations of how our interpretation or analysis of the environment factors into the decisions we make on how we behave. Cognitive psychology will, similarly, introduce our thought process in illustrating what we have learned. In the three examples above, there may be explanations about why people behave irrationally which may, ultimately, help to explain the behavior as rationally chosen behavior. We may be missing the point of gambling if the act of gambling brings the individual a greater sense of value than the monetary value being lost. The person living the decadent life with smoking and consumption of unhealthy foods may also engage in healthy activities like regular exercise that makes it easier for him to justify his actions. Furthermore, his health check-ups may show no significant reason for him to modify his behavior. Finally, the person driving quickly may have observed that traffic is not heavily regulated in a particular area and believes the risks of getting caught breaking the law are negligible compared to the thrill of the ride or the value of getting to her destination earlier. All of these explanations factor in cognitive processes as the basis of our decisions and illustrate that we may not simply be puppets of determinism.

Social cognitive theories and behaviorist theories do share some similar ideas. One similar idea is the impact of punishments or rewards on an individual’s decision-making process. Behaviorists believe that reinforcers or rewards which follow a behavior will increase the likelihood of the behavior repeated, and the opposite is true of punishing a behavior. This is based on personal experience the reward or punishment, thus reducing the behavior to something that is essentially based on a stimulus-response model; the individual strives to engage in behaviors that bring them some form of satisfaction. According to social cognitive theorists, simply observing the punishment or reward of certain behaviors can influence an individual to act a certain way. However, learning does not always lead to a change in behavior, and this is where the individual’s cognitive abilities based on values, past experiences, and vision of future expectations come into play (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

Although I mentioned earlier that I have the most criticisms of behaviorism, there are elements of conditioning that I feel are valuable. Repetition can lead to improved learning, especially in things like memorizing the alphabet or learning the multiplication tables. Additionally, as difficult as it can sometimes be, habits can be broken. In the same way that conditioning can lead to the development of habits, so too can conditioning be used to break bad habits. Finally, and most significantly, behaviorism is ultimately looking at behavior, and behavior means some sort of action has taken place (Ormrod & Rice, 2003). I do believe that taking an active role in learning does lead to an improved learning experience providing that the action can be channeled in a positive manner.

Theories aside, there have been many personal experiences that have contributed to my beliefs about learning. As you will see below, much of the behavior illustrated here can be grounded in the modeling of desired behavior by people who are strong role-models for me. Additionally, you will see how my family experience and my education in the United States helped build my self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can briefly be summarized as being the idea that people behave more based on their perceived belief in their own ability rather than their knowledge or skill (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

In my personal home experience, I was given a lot of flexibility in my education. My parents provided me with the necessary structure and modeled behaviors that they hoped to see me engage in. From my earliest memories, I remember both my parents reading bedtime stories to my brothers and me. Both my parents also read the newspaper each morning. My brothers and I each had a dedicated space for us to do our own work as well as (somewhat financially limited) supplies-pencils, paper, and so on-to do our work with. We could mimic our parents’ behavior by sitting at our own desks while they worked at theirs in the next room. My whole immediate family sat down together for dinner every night and we also spent a considerable amount of time together with our uncles, cousins, and other relatives. My paternal grandmother lived next-door to us while I was growing up and I observed firsthand the level of care shown to her by my gather and her other children.

Growing up, my family encouraged my interests to the best of its abilities. I learned how to cook from observing my father cooking, and I learned how to draw and engage in other artistic activities from observing my mother doing embroidery and quilting. When I moved to the United States towards the end of my elementary school years, my mother and my maternal grandfather encouraged me to develop my musical abilities by buying me a cassette recorder and a microphone. One of my uncles gave me one of his acoustic guitars from when he was a teenager, and another uncle introduced me to some graphic design software to help me extend my artistic abilities to my growing interest in computers.

My family also tried to stress the importance of self-ownership of physical items. While they were willing to support me when they could, many of my material possessions-for example my first car, the majority of my musical instruments, and all of my computer hardware-were bought with my own money saved either from allowances when younger, or from my work earnings past the age of 15. This led me to appreciate things better because I knew how much time and work had gone into each item. Because I was responsible for these things, I also learned how to best “research” the items before I purchased them. This in itself is a very valuable skill to me.

Things were not always so easy. In my elementary school experience, I had considerably less flexibility. The learning environment was highly structured, very competitive, and very clearly designed in terms of grade specific requirements. There was little deviation or individual choice in many school matters. For example, all students wore a uniform and teachers assigned permanent seats which were organized in straight rows facing the front of the class. Corporeal punishment was commonly used and in many cases was an effective source of diminishing negative student behavior. This could be seen both as an example of behaviorism and of social cognitivism. From the behaviorist perspective, the individual student misbehavior is decreased because the experience is unpleasant and non-reinforcing. However, from the social cognitive theorist’s perspective, group misbehavior also decreased because the class was able to observe the punishment that went along with certain behavior patterns. Students were able to decide how to act based on what they saw as punishment. For some students this was a big deterrent-they would not only be punished in school, but some would also get in trouble at home because of their actions at school.

My education in the United States was more varied. I had good access to high-quality public-school education. I had a good network of friends who were considerate, smart, conscientious, and responsible, and they served as great peer-aged role models. I also attended summer programs at the local university to explore the options of at least getting a bachelor’s degree. The program was designed for students whose parents had not completed a college degree, and since both my parents had attended a nursing school and then went straight into the workforce, I qualified. Although my school educators did impart a great deal of knowledge to me, in retrospect, I would have to say that my positive peer interactions and the alternative perspective I gained from the summer programs I attended have played a stronger role in influencing who I am today. The summer programs exposed me to a wider range of opportunities than were ever mentioned in school. My peers were quite non-judgmental and accepted the range of interests that we each held as individuals. One could say that our common-ground was that there was little common ground, and it would explain why we are all scattered around the world now engaged in a great variety of work ranging from poverty research to software development to custom-designed furniture to law-enforcement. As was the case while we were classmates, there is still a lot of support and interest in what we are each doing.

A lot of what I have read about the different learning theories combined with my personal experience leads me to believe more strongly in the social cognitive theories. I have learned a lot from my observations, and as a result, have made strong conscious decisions about my behavior. For example, as a child, I observed the behavior of drunken adults since we lived next door to a bar. As a large portion of the men in my family also drink quite heavily and I decided early on that drunken behavior is undesirable to me, I have still never had a drink nor felt the pressure to do so. This is not something that I had to be conditioned to do, and as is acknowledged by social cognitivism, learning a behavior does not necessarily mean that one will exhibit that behavior.

For me as an educator, social cognitivism also matches well with many of the goals I have for my students. I want my students to be self-motivated, socially conscious, resourceful, and resilient to setbacks. To teach my students these skills, I need to be able to model them well and to be able to point to others in the community who may do the same. As such, I do not fully support the use of punishments or rewards in the classroom, but rather, I try to create an environment in which the students are engaged and have some ownership of their education. Much like the added value I felt with the material items I purchased with my early paychecks, I believe that students get added value from an education they are truly allowed to partake in. Additionally, as an educator, I have little control over the environment my students go to once they leave my classroom. As such, it is even more important for me to make my classroom one where they feel comfortable and safe. Giving students the opportunity to develop in a safe, flexible-yet structured for learning-environment will help give them the confidence or self-efficacy they need to succeed outside of the classroom too.

As can be inferred from the brief description of cognitive psychology, the stages of development are also important in education. I find this to be true in my classrooms as well. One cannot expect to teach children at a level far beyond their abilities to comprehend the material being presented. From the perspective of a cognitive psychologist and from the perspective of social cognitive theory, it is important to ensure that lessons are teaching age-appropriate skills and concepts. It is equally important that lessons are not under-stimulating since that ultimately reduces a child’s motivation to learn. Giving children a voice in the classroom as mentioned earlier can help reduce the likelihood of this happening. If students recognize your sincere concern about the lessons you are presenting them, they are more likely to respond favorably.

Finally, while I do not believe that we are simply mechanical beings, I do believe that there are times where theories of behaviorism are quite applicable to my classroom. This generally holds true in cases of classroom management goals, but is equally true in cases where rote memorization may be helpful. Multiplication facts, for example, can be learned by rote memorization first, following which the teacher can focus on the actual mathematical principles behind the work without the distraction of having students doing multiplication via addition or using some similar method. Additionally, this becomes a skill that stays with you for a long time. In my personal experience, while we were allowed to use calculators in high school, I had only one college mathematics class and no university mathematics classes where I was allowed to use a calculator. I know this is not the case for every university, but I was thankful that my basic math skills had become somewhat second-nature through-admittedly tedious-repetitious work.

As you can see, my personal learning theory is not exactly a theory, but rather a fusion of selected ideas from several theories. As my life as an educator progresses, I am likely to modify that theory. The same can be said if I am put in a position where I can conduct more comprehensive quality research; as I mentioned earlier, the only laboratory I have had available has been my life. As much as I can empathize with the different backgrounds of different individuals, I have not lived their lives, so flexibility in my teaching methods is also quite important. I have also recognized that my students will not all come to me with the same level of self-efficacy, and for those with lower self-efficacy it is important to find ways to help them develop this. As such, I cannot expect to simply teach to the class, but rather, I need to find more efficient ways to teach to the individuals.

References

• Ormrod, J. E. & Rice, F. P. (2003). Lifespan development and learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

There are three main categories of thought distinguishing these educational theories: developmental, environmental, and crossover. While there is variation in the ideas of theorists within each group, there are a few generalizations that can be made about each. The following paragraphs will give some very basic background into each theory to help illustrate the differences between them.

Development theories include Jean Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, Lawrence Kholberg’s stages of moral development, and Eric Erikson’s stages of psychological development. These theories are primarily based on cognitive processes and rarely, if ever, include introspective processes. The individual’s perception of the world changes during each sequential development stage and individuals cannot skip development stages.

B. F. Skinner’s operant conditioning, Edward Thorndike’s law of effect, and Ivan Pavlov’s classical conditioning are all examples of environmental theories. For many environmental theorists, the idea of free will is an illusion. Behavior is fully conditioned and determined by outside forces including genetic factors or environmental inputs.

Some examples of crossover theories include William Glasser’s choice theory, Lev Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, and Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Crossover theorists may ask questions like “What is the role of consciousness in behavior and development?” or “How does one’s self-identity affect their decision making process?” In addition to acknowledging the impact of external forces, crossover theorists also often include cognitive processes when analyzing behavioral choices.

Unlike other species, humans are not born with instinctive survival skills, yet we are the most developed species on Earth, having constantly adapted the environment to suit our needs. As humans, we are constantly learning from each other and always building on what we know. For example, parents raising children today have much more information about how to prepare for the moments before childbirth. Doctors are better prepared to conduct the delivery of a child and ensure that both the mother and child survive the process. With such a view, can we really say that all of our learning is structured, intentional and pre-determined as would be the perspective of environmentalism? Similarly, can we fully remove the effect of the environment-imagine someone unable to afford a decent hospital in a developing country-on our development and focus on cognitive processes?

Albert Bandura felt that neither approach was entirely satisfactory. From the point of view of behaviorism, all that we know is a series of conditioned responses. This view, while it did help explain some behaviors, was very narrow and mechanical and would not explain why we have such advanced cognitive abilities and how we have progressed so far. To deal with these shortcomings, Bandura expanded the work of development theories to include ideas from cognitive theories. He promoted the concept of what he ultimately termed “social cognitive theoryAlthough Bandura’s work is often referred to as social learning, he chose to change his theory’s label from learning to cognitive because he wanted to place an emphasis on the role of cognition on things like our perception of reality and out ability to self-regulate (Pajares, 2002).,” a key component of which is an individual’s perception of their self-efficacy. He also wrote of how we learn to make the best of chance encounters-an subject in psychology he felt was particularly lacking. This paper will look at Bandura’s social cognitive theory in more detail and explain what he means by self-efficacy.

Before jumping into Bandura’s theories of human development, here is a brief biographical sketch. Bandura was the youngest of six children and grew up in a small town in Canada. His elementary school and high school years were spent at the only school in this small town where, because of scarce resources, students often worked based on their own initiative. He happened onto psychology by chance when he was attending the University of British Columbia and needed an early class to complete his schedule. He continued his study of psychology at the University of Iowa where he went on to receive his master’s degree and his PhD (Pjares, 2004).

Bandura’s earlier work focused on aggressive behavior developed through social learning. His initial theories were based on his observations of adolescents coming from families where the parents also displayed aggressive behavior. However, his most significant work in this area involved his study of preschool children (Ormrod & Rice, 2003). His experiment involved the placement of a blow-up doll in a room of toys and exposing three separate groups of preschool children to different behaviors in the playroom. One group saw an adult being aggressive towards the doll, hitting it with wooden mallets and other objects and using aggressive language towards it. A second group saw an adult come in and play constructively with other toys in the room and display no violent behavior. A third group had no adult modeled behavior in the playroom. Later placed in the room with the blow-up doll, the children who saw the aggressive behavior were the most aggressive of the three groups and the children who saw the adult engaged in constructive, non-aggressive behavior were the least aggressive of the groups.

What this illustrated for Bandura was the importance of modeling in social cognitive theory. In one of his earlier articles, Bandura (1963) acknowledges that some behaviors are indeed the result of direct training or conditioning of some form. He feels that certain things, personality patterns for example, come from modeled behavior, usually the behavior of the parents. He gives the example of a parent hitting a child as punishment for things like bullying or fighting with peers. The purpose of the punishment is to decrease the aggressive behavior, but in fact, the act is teaching the child other forms of aggression to imitate.

This form of modeling is not restricted to parents, however. Bandura repeated the blow-up doll experiment (1963) to have children watching videos, some with human models and some with cartoon characters, with videos portraying similar behavior to the earlier mentioned example. Bandura had other groups this time; some videos were extended to let children see the aggressor being punished as a consequence of bad behavior. Bandura observed the same pattern of behavior was displayed by viewers who did not see the extended videos, but observed a decrease in the undesirable behavior by children who saw the consequences of the action. This reinforced the idea that we can learn how to act based on our observations alone and that the subjects we observe do not have to be live models but can be abstractions of reality. In fact, in a more recent study, Bandura (2001) wrote:

Televised representations of social realities reflect ideological bents in their portrayal of human nature, social relations, and the norms and structure of society (Adoni & Mane, 1984; Gerbner, 1972). Heavy exposure to this symbolic world may eventually make the televised images appear to be the authentic state of human affairs. (p. 12)

Modeling is also present in how we develop language abilities (Bandura, 1989). While we may use abstract terms when talking with adults, we do not model that action with children. Parents who use language that matches the cognitive abilities of their children at different stages will help children develop language skills more quickly. Parents can also actively promote language development by modeling more progressive linguistic concepts as their children’s language skills develop. In addition to introducing new elements of language into children’s experience, parents can also promote language development by restating their children’s comments using a different syntax than the syntax used by their children. This models different ways of expressing the same things and helps children develop linguistic and cognitive skills more quickly.

There is good reason that Bandura puts a lot of weight on the social cognitive theory that he proposes. Using the principles of the theory shows us that not only can modeling teach us behaviors, it can also teach us judgment, morality, and help develop cognitive abilities (Bandura, 1989). The development of cognitive abilities is of particular interest because it shows us that modeling can be seen in two fundamentally different-yet both relevant and applicable-ways. From one perspective, responses to modeling are somewhat concrete; individuals mimic the modeled behavior very closely as in the case of aggressive behavior. From an alternate perspective, responses to modeling are quite abstract; individuals can transpose information they have gained from one modeled scenario and apply it in different areas. These ideas are important because they mean that we do not necessarily have to experience something to know how to behave or respond. An example, again using linguistics, would be our ability to construct similar sentences about entirely different things based on an abstract idea of appropriate syntax. This also means that we are able to develop a sense of empathy in our emotions.

Notice from the above explanations that there is still a considerable amount of determinism that factors into social cognitive theory. For example, not everyone will have parents who can appropriately model sequentially advanced linguistic structures, so the development opportunities for those children may be more limited. Because social cognitive theory accepts a certain element of determinism in development, it is helpful to consider the position of the individual amongst other deterministic inputs (Pjares, 2002). Bandura proposes a form of what he terms reciprocal determinism which is a tri-modal interplay between the individual, behavior, and the environment. Essentially, what Bandura is trying to illustrate with this model is that we are not simply reactive organisms but that we have the ability to actively alter our environment and our behavior (1998). Consider the following interdependencies and their modes of reciprocity. In considering the dynamics between the individual and behavior, behavior depends on elements such as the individual’s expectations or goals. Similarly, behavior can be conditioned, thus controlling the individual. Individual achievement can be hindered by environmental inputs such as socioeconomic factors; these effectively limit the individual’s access to certain developmental opportunities. However, just as the environment affects individuals, so too can individuals affect their environment; a strict boss, for example can alter the environment of a room with their only action being their entry into the room. Our behavior also determines our environment. In our daily lives, our environment may be quite limited, consisting only of our work or home settings. Similarly, since our environment is not a static one, it can have an effect on our behavior.

Basically, all of these interrelations and the inclusion of the individual in the process of their own development help lay the groundwork for one of the main recurring theories underlying Bandura’s work. In his paper Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation, Bandura (1991) writes:

People possess self-reflective and self-reactive capabilities that enable them exercise some control over their thoughts, feelings, motivations and actions. In the exercise of self-directedness, people adopt certain standards of behavior that serve as guides and motivators and regulate their actions anticipatorily through self-reactive influence. Human functioning is, therefore, regulated by an interplay of self-generated and external sources of influence. (p. 249)

As we can see, in comparison to many other theories of human development, this places a lot of responsibility on the individual in terms of how much they are affected by determinism.

Central to social cognitive theory and critical for the ability for individuals to engage in the sort of self-regulation that Bandura refers to above is the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the idea that people decide how to behave based more on their belief in their own capabilities of accomplishment rather than in their knowledge or skills (Pajares, 2002). Self-efficacy is not a simple “believe in yourself and you will succeed” concept because certain knowledge, skills, and experiences are also prerequisites to success. Still, self-efficacy is important for several reasons. It helps determine our life choices, it motivates us, and it helps us deal with failures and setbacks in life (Bandura, 1994). That said, people’s self-efficacy and their actual skills or abilities do not always match or combine in productive ways. Sometimes, someone who is extremely skillful or knowledgeable may actually have low self-efficacy, thus hindering their abilities to accomplish grander things. Having varied levels of self-efficacy among individuals can help explain why two individuals with very similar skills and knowledge can end up exhibiting extremely different behaviors.

The good thing about self-efficacy is that it can be developed over time. Bandura (1994) identifies four main sources of self-efficacy. First, experiences in which the individual can experience success helps build self-efficacy. However, success should not come too easily, since if success always comes easily, it is likely that when the individual encounters failure, they will have a harder time recovering from it. Second, self-efficacy can be built by the observation of models similar to the individual who are achieving success. The strength of the self-efficacy is more strongly influenced if the individual associates very closely with the model. Third, encouragement or persuasion by others is another source of self-efficacy. While not usually totally effective on its own, persuasion accompanied by the identification of elements which may enhance the likelihood of success are more likely to improve self-efficacy. Finally, self-efficacy is also built based on an individual’s judgment of the state of their bodies-for example personal strength or tiredness-and their emotional state.

For educators, Bandura’s theories hold several implications. Ideas of conditioning can still be used in the classroom to help classroom management; however, since teachers cannot control the environment the students encounter outside school, teachers should also look into ways in which they can help students build self-efficacy. This requires a setting in which individuals can succeed, but also an environment in which individuals are adequately challenged. Teachers should use a multi-dimensional approach to disseminating knowledge to their students thus helping students develop different cognitive capabilities. Teachers should also be models for their students and be ready to explain differences in their modeled behavior from behavior that may be modeled in popular media.

Creating an educational environment as mentioned above will give individuals the tools necessary to take an active role in their education. Additionally, having helped develop high self-efficacy, teachers will have enabled students with the skills to cope with the difficulties that one encounters in life. Bandura (1999) mentions a proverb when writing of how self-efficacy can help people deal with these difficulties: “You cannot prevent the birds of worry and care from flying over your head. But you can stop them from building a nest in your hair.”

Additionally, high self-efficacy can help make people make the most of chance encounters. As we can see from the discussion above, our knowledge of cognitive abilities and an individual’s environment is not enough to predict how our lives will end up. Bandura (1982) feels that our ability to accurately predict outcomes is even further complicated by how different people deal with chance encounters. While his analysis of chance encounters is too extensive for the scope of this paper, it still does shed some light on another reason self-efficacy is important: our lives are full of chance encounters which may be quite fortuitous, and if we have low self-efficacy, we are less likely to take the chances these offer us and are more likely to be stuck in a somewhat stagnant lifestyle.

There are some things, for example our genetic makeup, that we have no real control over. However, we are not slaves to our environment. Given the necessary foundation for growth and achievement, we can escape the traditionally held confines of elements like poverty, gender constructs, or access to education and take personal control and responsibility of our life outcomes.

References

• Bandura, A. (1963). The role of imitation in personality development. The Journal of Nursery Education, 19(3).
• Bandura, A. (1984). The psychology of chance encounters and life paths. American Psychologist, 37(7).
• Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (248-287).
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
• Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications. (Reprinted in D. Cervone & Y. Shoda [Eds.], The coherence of personality. New York: Guilford Press.)
• Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communications. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillman (Eds.). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed. 121-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Ormrod, J. E. & Rice, F. P. (2003). Lifespan development and learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Pajares (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retreived March 20, 2006, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html
• Pajares, F. (2004). Albert Bandura: Biographical sketch. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/bandurabio.html

In the education field, teachers often spend as much time engaged in classroom management as they do teaching. Additionally, it seems that teachers are being held increasingly responsible for teaching proper behavior. Because of this, it is important for educators to have an awareness and understanding of some of the theories regarding human development, especially those that are concerned with behavior management or behavior modification. This paper will look at the classical conditioning and operant conditioning behaviorist theories and present some hypothetical classroom scenarios illustrating how these concepts can be used to improve the learning environment.

Classical conditioning resembles an involuntary response; it is sometimes referred to as signal learning and refers to where the stimulus occurs just before the expected behavior is to occur (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 57). It is generally easy to see examples of classical conditioning in the behavior of animals; a cat may come running for food the moment if hears someone using a can-opener or a dog may start excitedly jumping up and down when someone says the phrase “Do you want to go for a walk?” The most common example with humans would probably be the non-verbal “warnings” that parents can give their children when they want their attention. Similarly, children can try to use classical conditioning on adults by noticing, for example, that every time they complain that they feel sick, their parents pay special attention to them. While I have just given an example of a person in early adulthood being conditioned, most effective classical conditioning occurs during the infancy and early childhood years making it perfect for certain educational goals such as memorizing multiplication facts.

Classical conditioning can occur unintentionally. Too frequent exposure to humiliation, failure, or other negative feedback may lower in individual’s self-confidence and lead to withdrawal. For example, if a child is constantly corrected during a reading exercise, the child’s feelings of humiliation may ultimately be replaced by a fear of reading aloud. Eventually whenever the teacher announces read-aloud-time, the child may withdraw or begin exhibiting undesirable behavior. For this reason, it is important for teachers to be careful or prepare their students very well when engaging in such potentially “risky” activities in the classroom; it is important to minimize embarrassment or disappointment in the case of failure.

Operant conditioning is similar to classical conditioning in that both are concerned with how we can teach others how to behave. Operant conditioning adds the concept of a reinforcer or a reward. The basic idea of operant conditioning is that behaviors which are followed by something pleasurable will be reinforced; the reinforcement will result in the behavior being repeated (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 68). Operant conditioning can occur effectively at all levels of development including early adulthood providing that a suitable reinforcer can be identified for the individuals. To better understand the implications of this behavior theory, it is also important to understand the following terms: baseline behavior, terminal behavior, shaping, and extinction.

Identifying the baseline behavior helps us understand the effect of operant conditioning. The baseline behavior or free operant level is the likelihood that the behavior will occur prior to the introduction of reinforcement (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 71). In a classroom, for example, teachers can use their observations of behavior at the beginning of the school year to identify the baseline behavior. The baseline behavior will be different for each student. When asking students to line up, for example, a teacher may observe that some students do so quickly and quietly, while others may push others around or wander off. These are behaviors occurring in the absence of reinforcers and serve as a basis for developing a terminal behavior.

Terminal behavior usually refers to something very specific-for example the teacher may say “I want to see everyone reading quietly for the next five minutes”-and includes what can be termed the “form and frequency of a desired response” (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 71). In the earlier example of students lining up, the teacher’s desired terminal behavior may be something similar to “I want all of my students to quietly line up within one minute of my first asking them to do so.”

Terminal behavior like in the example above can be quite difficult to achieve. If, at the beginning of the school year, the class typically took ten minutes or more to line up, getting to the terminal behavior can be quite a feat. The operant conditioning theory keeps this in mind and recommends the use of shaping to gradually achieve the terminal behavior. Shaping is especially useful when an individual’s baseline behavior is very low. In the process of developing the desired terminal behavior plan, the teacher should develop a set of reference points that show that the student is progressing towards the terminal behavior. Instead of focusing on the terminal behavior, the teacher should reinforce each successive benchmark. Once behavior at one level comes “naturally” or without reinforcement, the teacher should start reinforcing at the levels that bring the student closer to the terminal behavior (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 72). In the example of lining up, the teacher may begin by first reinforcing how students behave in the line, and later focus on reducing the amount of time it takes students to respond to the request to line up.

So far, we have mentioned reinforcers many times but have not clearly defined what reinforcers are. Reinforcers are almost synonymous with rewards. More specifically, it refers to a consequence that increases how often a behavior occurs (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 68). For reinforcers to be effective, it is important that (1) they follow the behavior immediately, and (2) they occur only if the terminal behavior occurred. Reinforcers are categorized as primary and secondary reinforcers. Primary reinforcers satisfy a biological need, for example food or water, while secondary reinforcers are not biological necessities, for example snacks or toys. If an individual has low self-esteem, praise, encouragement, or other emotional support are also examples of primary reinforcers. Giving children money for good grades would be an example of using secondary reinforcement.

Reinforcement can further be classified as either being positive or negative (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 74). Positive reinforcement involves presenting a reward immediately following the desired behavior, like taking a child out for ice-cream following a school play that they were nervous about participating in. Negative reinforcement is the removal of a negative stimulus following a desired behavior. Allowing a child to not do their chores for a week after bringing home a good report card is using negative reinforcement. Because each individual has different values, one can assume that different types of reinforcers will be more or less effective at modifying behavior. If attempts at shaping are not leading to progress towards the terminal behavior, one explanation may be that the reinforcers being used are not valuable to the students.

Classical conditioning and operant conditioning can help us achieve desired behavior in the classroom; however, sometimes individuals have been conditioned in ways which are not beneficial to their development. What do we do when an individual comes to us conditioned with an unnecessary fear, as in the case mentioned earlier of the student who has become conditioned to be afraid of reading aloud? Both classical conditioning and operant conditioning refer to a process called extinction. Extinction refers to a conditioned behavior dissipating over time (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 71). Extinction can be difficult to achieve and is a very slow process. Extinction is rarely complete, and the original fear is likely to easily reappear. Sometimes undesired extinction may also occur. Imagine this classical conditioning scenario: if dog owners repeatedly get their dogs excited about going on a walk and then not take them out, eventually the initial conditioning will no longer be observed. For operant conditioning, extinction represents a return to the baseline behavior for that individual. If a teacher achieves a terminal behavior of getting students to sit quietly in their seats by reinforcing the behavior with candy but then stops reinforcing the behavior, most likely, students will revert to their baseline behavior.

The process of extinction is different for each individual and we may occasionally observe extinction bursts. An extinction burst is a scenario where an individual actually increases the level of undesirable behavior prior to extinguishing a behavior (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 71). A smoker who is trying to quit might actually smoke more in the months before they actually quit smoking because of nervousness. Sometimes, instead of an extinction burst, the individual may engage in a variety of behaviors to help them quit their behavior. Another smoker may try chewing gum or chewing on toothpicks to decrease their cravings for cigarettes; however, if neither of these new behaviors help, they will probably return to their original behavior.

Classical conditioning also suggests counter-conditioning to help in cases when individuals have been conditioned to produce undesired responses. Counter-conditioning replaces the original conditioning with conditioning that is more beneficial (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 63). An individual may be conditioned to feel fear when they have to go to take part in gym activities because they were humiliated by a former teacher for their body-weight. In counter-conditioning, the teacher may try to find something totally unrelated that the student can participate in while in the gym and gradually getting the student more comfortable with being in the gym. The process of counter-conditioning will attempt to sequentially build on what the student feels comfortable with to the point that their original fear is replaced by positive feelings. Counter-conditioning requires the identification of a suitable stimulus that will always produce a positive response that is stronger than the negative response.

Punishment is a commonly used method for behavior modification. Sometimes punishment is mistakenly called negative reinforcement. However, the two are quite distinct. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something unpleasant as the result of a desired behavior while punishment is the introduction of something unpleasant as the result of an undesired behavior (Ormrod & Rice, 2003, p. 75). From the perspective of both classical and operant conditioning, the use of punishment can be counterproductive on children’s development since it creates a fear reaction in children; fear often results in a disinterest to learn while reinforcement encourages interest in learning.

Punishment in schools is even more ineffective than general punishment because there is often a time lag between the undesired behavior and the selected punishment. For children this can lead to a mental disconnect between the action and the consequence so behavior modification is less likely to occur. Consider the following scenario: a student misbehaves in the classroom causing the teacher to write a disciplinary action request for that student, yet the student remains in the classroom until the principal acts on the disciplinary referral. Integrating the principal into the discipline system has created a significant delay between the disruptive behavior and the punishment. The prescribed punishment is also often ineffective with many students. Students consistently given in-school-suspension can quickly become desensitized to the punishment. This form of punishment does little to actually help the student constructively deal with-or consider the consequences of-their disruptive behavior.

Put simply, neither the classical conditioning nor the operant conditioning theory recommends punishment as a way to shape behavior. Instead, both theories prefer to focus on trying to identify elements which bring the individual to some form of pleasurable or desirable result. To better see how conditioning can help in a classroom, here are a few more examples to consider.

Classical conditioning: In a drumming class, a teacher was having a difficult time getting the students to listen when she wanted their attention. It was a class-wide problem not related to specific students, so she had been trying to find an effective solution. Visual cues did not work because the students were always so excited looking at what their classmates were doing that they rarely noticed the signals. Finally, she decided to tap into their enthusiasm for drumming loudly by increasing both the volume and speed of the drumming when she wanted everyone to stop playing. Students learned to recognize that a crescendo was a signal for silence to follow.

Classical conditioning: A teacher has observed that a particular student can get quite agitated when working in small groups. The student is smart and engaged in classroom activities. The teacher has talked with both the student and his parents and the student has come to identify several significant things. First, he does not always notice what he is doing-often he is excited and feels that the others in his group are being too slow. Second, in the case that the teacher publicly calls his name out, he gets even more aggravated and becomes more disruptive. Together they decide that when the teacher comes and stands right next to him, that will be a signal for him to check his behavior and take a moment to cool down.

Operant conditioning: A teacher has noticed that students get very excited about going to the computer lab towards the end of the school day every Friday. After visiting the computer lab, the class returns to the classroom for a ten-minute weekly classroom clean-up including things like sweeping, straightening the chairs and supplies, and emptying the trash. The teacher has two behavioral problems to deal with. First, because the students are excited to go to the lab, they often rush to line up but also leave their desks quite messy. Second, because the students are excited about what they did in the computer lab, they are rarely in the mood to clean up once they return to the classroom. The teacher decides to try negative reinforcement by telling the students, “If everyone cleans their desks up before we line up to go to the computer lab today, then we can have ten minutes of choice activities instead of having to do our weekly classroom clean-up.” His strategy works; since the classroom clean-up is not something the students generally look forward to, the students are happy to clean up their personal areas.

Operant conditioning: A teacher is very impressed with the overall behavior of her class. Still, everyone makes mistakes-like forgetting to do their homework or forgetting to raise their hands before answering questions-and mistakes should have consequences. The teacher believes in the use of reinforcers instead of punishment so she devised a system of points where students can redeem a certain number of points for missed assignments. She takes time to acknowledge the earning of points by the students by giving them positive verbal reinforcement when they engage in her desired terminal behavior and also makes sure not to make them feel bad or insecure when they forget to turn in an assignment or speak out of turn.

It is possible to achieve effective classroom management without the use of punishment. Using reinforcement can achieve many of the same desired behaviors without students feeling embarrassed or humiliated as can be the case when punishment is used. These examples of conditioning are also quite unobtrusive; while they are likely to help you during your academic year, they are unlikely to make a permanent impact on the children’s behavior. This is actually a positive feature, because just as there is a wide range of behavioral issues and learning styles, so to is there a wide range of teaching styles; not every teacher desires to have his classroom exactly like another teacher’s-and that includes the terminal behavior they hope to observe. Used carefully, classical conditioning and operant conditioning can both be effective tools for teachers in maintaining a classroom that is conductive to learning.

References

• Ormrod, J. E. & Rice, F. P. (2003). Lifespan development and learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

As a child in Trinidad, I remember that fear of punishment in school was a great motivator for my good behavior and desire to perform better academically. I also remember, however, that not everyone else in my school had the same response to punishment. My friend, for example, seemed to love getting in trouble and often went home with welts from the bamboo cane. What irked my teachers even more was that he was also one of the top students in the class. For me, the threat of punishment was a form of aversive stimuli and was enough to cause me to behave a certain learned accepted way.

My elementary school also used a system of group punishment and reward. All students were randomly assigned to one of six school-wide groups when they enrolled; on different weeks, different groups were responsible for things like tending the garden, keeping the campus clean, or re-shelving library books. Also, each group was given an overall tally for personal hygiene which included clean pressed uniforms, combed tidy hair, and neatly trimmed dirt-free fingernails. Much of the regulation we engaged in was a sort of self regulation for the benefit of fitting in with the group. Based on the group’s overall score, group members would be given different things like hardcover story books, a week off of yard-duty, or honorary certificates of recognition at school-wide events like sports-day. Poorly scoring groups, conversely, were “punished” with extra duties. Again, this provided an incentive for group members to improve their individual performance or risk provoking the anger of the other group members for being punished for one person’s actions. Results similar to these were found in a 1984 study which concluded that “both rewards and punishments have been found to be effective influence modes in appropriate [group] settings, but using rewards to induce compliance seems to have no or only positive side effects, while using punishments often has the negative side effect of provoking face-saving retaliation” (Oliver, 127).

Punishment was also present in the home in different forms-usually something like a spanking, going to bed without a bedtime story, or not getting to watch Saturday cartoons. Overall, however, I do not have any strong recollections of being punished. This is not to say that they did not affect me; I know they affected me because over time I modified my behavior based on what I was getting punished for. Still, I was fortunate to not have grown up in a home where a common phrase was “This hurts me more than it hurts you.”

At home, rewards often came in a way that is probably better classified as encouragement. A lot of my successes were greeted with phrases like “Wow! That is great! Why don’t you try doing this next?” So, for example, when I came home from school excited that my first attempt at hydroponics had been successful, my father suggested I get some different plant seeds from my grandmother and try growing them in a little patch of our back yard. I do not remember too many rewards which came in the form of either physical things like toys or treats, or as perks like getting to stay up past bedtime or not having to wash dishes; much of this probably stemmed from the strained financial situation of growing up in a small developing country. However, by the time my family had moved to the United States, I had developed a habit of looking at each accomplishment as one small step towards something better. Furthermore, it was clear to me that while I had the emotional support of my family, I was ultimately the person responsible for my advancements. According to Manning and Butcher, (2003) using encouragement instead of praise-a form of intangible reward-encourages the development of confidence and self-esteem; the use of praise alone may cause children to develop a dependence relationship between praise and the value of their work.

In a sense, that is what Alfie Kohn referred to in an interview when he proposed that rewards are just as damaging to ones motivation to learn as are punishments. Both punishments and rewards stifle the motivation to learn (Brandt, 1995). Taking a personal example, when I moved to the United States, I became very interested in playing music. If my mother had decided that an appropriate punishment for me would be taking my guitar away from me, she would be stifling my natural motivation to learn to play music better. Additionally, if the only way I would get to play my guitar was as a reward for having done my work or chores, eventually I could just decide that the prerequisite work was not worth it to me and I could become disinterested in playing my guitar. Instead, my mother encouraged me to play music-even offering to pay for music lessons. Interestingly, I refused the music lessons, as my level of interest was just as a personal hobby rather than a professional priority. When reading the interview with Kohn, one thing he said was “A lot of people have had the experience of having done something just because they loved it until they started to get paid for doing it, after which they wouldn’t dream of doing it again without getting paid. The phenomenon whereby extrinsic motivators cause intrinsic motivation to evaporate is not on the tips of our tongues, but it’s not that far from consciousness, either” (Brandt, 1995; ¶ 26). While going to guitar lessons is not the same as getting paid, in my mind attending guitar lessons would make playing the guitar more like “work” and I would be stifling my natural curiosity to learn the guitar on my own.

Reviewing the literature and my personal history, I still cannot say that I disapprove of the use of rewards. Rather, I think that rewards should be carefully designed to promote personal motivation. Too often, rewards are used inappropriately-for example upon completion of personal duties-leading children to expect rewards at the wrong times. Rewards should be offered very selectively, and should not be limited to success; in fact, sometimes effort is more important than success (Robb, 2003; Rozycki, 1999). I clearly remember getting measles in second grade, and consequently missing weeks of school and performing very poorly on my exams when I returned. My class rank dropped from third to twentieth, and I was terrified that I would be punished when I took my report book home. Instead, I found that my parents were very understanding and supportive-they even gave me a tangible reward (ice-cream, one of my favorite treats!)-and they simply encouraged me to keep my motivation up; very shortly, I was able to return to my original level of performance. In my mind, this was a perfect example of reward being used appropriately and in conjunction with encouragement. When rewards can truly empower the recipient, it should most certainly be used.

References

• Brandt, R. (1995, September). Punished by rewards: An interview with Alfie Kohn. Educational Leadership, 53(1).
• Manning, M. L. & Bucher, K. T. (2003). Classroom management: Models, applications, and cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ; Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Oliver, P. (1984). Rewards and punishments as selective incentives: An apex game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(1), 123-148.
• Robb, M. (2003). Rewards and punishments: A continuing debate. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/social_emotional_learning/103854
• Rozycki, E. G. (1999). Rewards, reinforcers and voluntary behavior. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/RewRein.html

Questions about learning are complicated and have been debated for many years. Philosophers across cultures have debated questions about the root of education and what makes us who we are. In more recent times, behavioral studies have also been conducted both on humans and animals. Many of these questions are ultimately incorporated into a more fundamental question of human nature, specifically whether humans are born good or otherwise. Central to this debate is the importance of “nature” and “nurture” in how we develop. The nature theory proposes that certain parts of who we are as individuals are hereditary. Certainly, we are born with a genetic makeup that is hereditary, but even our development before birth can be affected by our environment. This view that the environment affects our development is referred to as the nurture theory. When looking at the nature or nurture debate, the question is not exactly an either/or one, but rather a recognition that human development is a combination of both theories.

Looking more closely at the nurture theory and accepting that the environment we live in does affect our learning and development, we can begin asking more specific questions. How much of our environment, for example—including factors such as culture, economic class, or a family’s educational level—plays a part in how we learn and develop? I will present some arguments and examples below which illustrate the nurture perspective and which should at the minimum serve as a foundation for further debate.

One environmental input that I think is significant in learning and development is the role of the family unit. I grew up in Trinidad where my family was very close both in terms of our relationship with each other as well as in our physical proximity. Most of my extended family of aunts, uncles, and cousins lived within easy walking distance from my home. Traditionally, individual actions were often thought of in terms of our larger family unit, and it was using that organizational method that my grandparents were able to send their three youngest children (of whom my father was one) to a professional school following graduation from high-school. One benefit of this extended family was that there was always adult supervision available for children, usually an uncle, aunt, or grandparent. Because of the strong family unit and because caretaking roles were being shared among adults, there was always a good commitment from everyone involved.

When I moved to the United States just before my teenage years, I found that many of my new friends had somewhat different experiences growing up. Caretakers during the hours following the end of the school day were not relatives; my friends were usually sent different places for after-school care. More notably was the emphasis on the individual as opposed to the family unit. What was remarkable was that we shared a similar respect for family and elders, and we all took education equally seriously—even at a relatively young age. The expectations of our elders were clear to us, and perhaps that was one of the most significant contributions from our families to our development.

Clearly, family is influential, but what about other environmental elements like technology? Technology is becoming more commonplace across the United States, and children have much easier access to media today. Many households have more than one television—sometimes even a television in almost every room. Computers are increasingly becoming ubiquitous in homes across the country, and internet access along with them. Radio programs are less censored today than they were in the past. With all these changes, how much effect do media have on how people learn and develop? Judging by news reports, one would be tempted to say that media plays a huge role in how and what we learn. One can think of both reported and hypothetical situations of when media is blamed for children’s behavior. A child guilty of a school shooting says in an interview that he listens to certain kinds of music which, upon analysis of the lyrical content, encourages antisocial behavior and glorifies suicidal tendencies. A teenager is arrested for stealing a car and informs us that she was acting out a scene from a videogame. A student touches a classmate inappropriately and justifies his actions saying that he saw it in a music video. A teenage girl speaks disrespectfully of her mother and other authority figures and reports that she learned these ideas from a song on a CD she owns.

Despite the sensational media coverage that these incidents may get, is the media truly to blame? Does the media really have that strong of an influence on our behavior? If the media were such an important player in where we learned how to act, shouldn’t we expect that incidents like the ones above should be occurring at much higher rates all around the country—maybe even the world? If the media were so powerful in shaping our lives, would that mean that we have no free will and instead that our lives are determined by the creators of the things we see and hear in the media? If the media were found to be as powerful as it is sometimes presented to be, why wouldn’t a larger portion of the public, thinking in terms of benefits for society overall, “disallow” its existence? Clearly, while the media is influential, it cannot bear the burden of all the blame for these incidents.

Many of the issues about how people learn are further complicated by matters of economics and by parent’s education. Lower income families, for example may have a higher tendency to use media as an impromptu babysitter especially if they do not have adequate resources to provide quality after-school care for their children. Older children may be given responsibilities which are not age appropriate (such as starting working young to bring in additional family income or being assigned the role of a babysitter for younger siblings) and these responsibilities may negatively affect their academic performance and their outlook on life. Parents with low education levels or migrant parents who do not know English very well are at a disadvantage because even if they were concerned with their children’s well-being, they may not be able to make the connection between what their children are exposed to and how they are behaving. Additionally, because of their own educational shortcomings, they may be more intimidated by the school environment, and consequently participate less in their children’s education.

With all these factors influencing how we develop, who is responsible for the education of children? Education should start from the home in the moments following birth. This is not the same education we expect from school, but during this time, children should be supported in their development of things like routines, structure, respect and responsibility. Children should be clearly shown that some behaviors result in rewards and some end unpleasantly. They should begin to understand why the results are as they are so that in our teaching of discipline, we are not just try to achieve automatic conditioning, but rather trying to develop a process whereby children start being more aware of their actions.

School naturally is the place where much of what we would consider traditional education would occur. Within the school students can begin to develop teamwork skills and build a sense of community. As students develop a stronger sense of how they fit into society, they can become more successful being autonomous in their decisions and actions. Although some parents place unreasonably high expectations on teachers, it is important for parents to recognize that while teachers do get to be with children for a significant portion of children’s daily lives, teachers do not usually get to be with the children in the after-school hours or during summer recess. Additionally, in some cases, the relationships which develop only last the academic year, so it is important that the responsibility isn’t perceived to be one which is borne by teachers alone.

This paper is just an introduction to some of the many things we need to consider when we think of the question of how people learn. Learning begins at birth and continues through the course of life. Some of the learning in our lives is structured and intentional. Some of the learning happens without our knowing, or are things “learned” by living in a particular environment. Being more aware of how we learn and of how others may learn allows teachers (who can be anyone in one’s environment) to be more effective at increasing the body of knowledge available.

In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was renamed No Child Left Behind (NCLB). One key component of the 1965 ESEA was the provision of quality educational assistance to low-income families to help break the cycle of poverty (Schugurensky 2002). The passing of the ESEA led to the creation of preschool programs such as Head Start to help reduce the already present achievement gap between the poor and more affluent families. NCLB, in turn, proposed several additional methods to reduce the achievement gap including increased accountability, revised standards of teacher qualifications, and higher educational standards.

One noteworthy inclusion in NCLB is the provision of funds of almost $1 billion annually for out-of-school-time programs (forthwith referred to as OST programs) called 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st-CCLC) (Budget of the United States government). Broadly defined, a community learning center is:

an entity that assists students in meeting State and local academic achievement standards in core academic subjects, such as reading and mathematics, by providing the students with opportunities for academic enrichment activities and a broad array of other activities during nonschool hours or periods when school is not in session (such as before and afterschool or during summer recess). (Frequently asked questions).

With the federal government promoting the creation of 21st-CCLC programs and with the number and variety of OST programs publicly and privately available, the educational significance of OST programs in narrowing the achievement gap is of interest.

This paper will present some elements which go into creating and managing a high-quality OST program that improves educational access to educationally disadvantaged individuals. More specifically, this paper will serve as the foundation of a larger study that will explore the requirements for the successful scaling-up of existing OST programs to meet the existing demand and needs for OST programming. It will begin by explaining some traditionally held views regarding the significance of OST programming. This will be followed by an overview of proposed program-design standards that contribute to more effective OST programming. Finally, it will look at the challenges or implications of these standards on scaling-up access to OST programs.

The rise in the number of OST programs available can often be explained in socioeconomic terms. As the number of single-parent families increases, the divorce rate rises, or both parents spend more of their time at one or more jobs, the need for quality OST care increases (Zhang & Byrd, 2005). In a sense, it is not necessarily the case that parents today do not care as much as older generations did about the welfare of their children; it is more likely the case that parents today simply do not spend as much time at home as they did in the past. This problem is further impacted by income, with parents in lower-income families working longer hours with fewer benefits such as paid vacation or the flexibility to take days off to care for their children if the need arises (Miller, 2003).

Child safety is often the most cited reason for the need of OST programs; children who are unsupervised in the hours between the end of the school day and the time that their parents are home from work are more likely to be at risk than children engaged in productive activities. Findings by the US Department of Justice and the US Department of Education show that these afternoon hours are the hours during which most youth begin experimenting with drug use, sexual activity, gang activity, or crime (Carter, 2003; Vinluan, 2005). The harm does not only come in the form of group activity, but can also come in the form of unsupervised individual access to media such as television programs, video-games, or internet sites which may be inappropriate for youth. Sometimes collective referred to as “screen time,” excessive unsupervised exposure to screen media has been shown to result in lower standardized reading test scores, contribute to health problems like obesity, and contribute to more aggressive behavior (Miller, 2003).

In addition to safety, however, OST programs are also important because they encourage children to take different approaches towards learning. One significant difference usually comes in the form of the teaching method or the learning experience. OST programs are more likely to cater towards kinesthetic or visual learners, helping make up for the largely auditory learning experiences they may be exposed to at school; this alternative approach, consequently, may encourage some children to develop an interest in learning (Beck, 1996). In fact, the diversity of what individual learners can gain from OST programs has been cited as being perhaps more significant than the actual educational gains from participating in such programs. According to one recent report (Massachusetts After-School Research Study [MARS], 2005):

it is not clear that expecting programs to have direct academic effects is a fruitful avenue for the afterschool field in general. There is a growing consensus that, while afterschool programs can contribute to improving academic achievement, they are best suited to support development in what might be termed the “prerequisites” for academic success.” (p. 2).

These prerequisites can include improved self-esteem, the development of leadership skills, and better behavior management.

Safety can also be seen from the program design perspective. As one can imagine, a poorly designed OST program can be almost equally damaging to children as leaving them unsupervised could be. Many similar problems-including poor diet, feeling neglected or insecure, not completing work, or not getting enough physical activity-can occur within a poorly structured OST program. Considering the potential number of hours participants may spend at an after school program each week, the program becomes, in a way, part of their “homes” so a program design that allows participants to feel comfortable is very important (Hall et al., 2003).

Keeping the above in mind, how does one create a safe OST program environment that supports positive youth development? What are some elements of effective program design standards, and can they, indeed, be generalized as standards in the OST workplace? What are the challenges associated with implementing these suggested standards?

Going beyond safety, there are a number of other program design considerations worth mentioning. In attempting to reinforce the prerequisites for success, it is important for OST programs to provide a setting in which a participant can develop significant positive relationships both among peers and between participants and adults. There are many programs which focus simply on providing positive role models-mentor programs-to help children become more confident expressing themselves. Positive reinforcement may also be lacking from their regular school-day activities or even in the home, and providing this reinforcement at an OST program can have long-lasting positive social effects on participants. OST programs can also be a perfect opportunity for a participant to have increased social opportunities by spending time with peers who may be from different schools or of different ages.

In conjunction with the creation of positive relationships, especially between participants and staff, OST programs are usually in a unique situation where they are able to offer very individualized instruction. This may be in the form of homework assistance, or in the form of special projects which serve to develop a participant’s interest. It is important, however, that these projects serve a clearly defined objective. This is not to say that programming should be restrictive or the approach towards the delivery of the lesson should be uniform, but rather that the instructor should be able to identify the significance of the work they are doing (Hall et al., 2003).

In cases where a relationship between the participant and staff has been well established, the participant should clearly understand that the expectations for success are high. Higher expectations often lead to increased motivation, especially if the participant can be assured that failure will not result in dissatisfaction or punishment (MARS, 2005). To ensure flexibility, OST program staff should try to make their projects both challenging and relevant. Offering participants challenges can show participants that the program staff has confidence in them and also allows the participant an opportunity to try to find a new or different way to do something. Success in a particularly challenging project also boosts participants’ confidence in their abilities. Making sure that projects are also relevant gives students a chance to “own” their work, and encourages students to have the initiative to achieve things on their own (Hall et al., 2003).

For older participants in OST programs, the feeling that they have a voice or that they have ownership of certain elements of the program can also help contribute to the prerequisites for academic success. This goes beyond having them decide which activities they want to partake in and having them take active leadership or decision-making roles. Allowing older OST program participants these sorts of choices can also help improve their confidence while naturally helping develop their leadership skills.

In addition to the above recommendations for OST program design, OST program staff-or at minimum, the OST program coordinator-should also keep current with basic care programs in the community. These community services can be used when program staff encounter problem they are not qualified to deal with and can include services for emotional well-being, health, or family services. In addition to these services, the OST program should also be able to provide a well-maintained comprehensive collection of local networking resources that can help participants both during and upon completion of the program. These can include apprenticeships or other extracurricular activities such as art or sports that may not be a priority for the OST program (Hall et al., 2003). Being able to accurately refer a participant to a community service that they ultimately find helpful helps build trust and reinforces their impression that someone is genuinely concerned with their wellbeing. Both of these are significant in the development of a foundation for personal success.

As can be seen above, many of the above recommendations are not concerned with academic requirements. The assumption is that providing OST program participants an environment that exhibits these characteristics will provide participants an environment that contributes to the development of empowering skills. As mentioned earlier, building up these skills will ultimately lead to participants who are more interested in learning and more confident of their abilities to excel.

Many of the recommendations for improving OST programs may appear to be simple, obvious suggestions, yet they are not all commonplace in OST program environments. In fact, integration of these qualities in OST programming can be quite challenging for several reasons. The most obvious restriction for many OST programs would be funding. Insufficient funding can have negative consequences on staff development, space for program operations, or insufficient resources for activities. Staffing concerns are further compounded by a shortage of people willing to work at OST programs either because of reduced hours-many of the jobs are part-time-or because of lower pay than regular teaching jobs. Additionally, at an OST program, the educators often come from a range of backgrounds including retired volunteers, college students, or even high-school students. While this diversity is often good for participants in terms of giving them more opportunities to connect with a caring adult, it also puts a strain on the OST program from a managerial perspective of matching the skills of the educators with the needs of the participants. Effectively utilizing a diverse group of educators also requires a greater commitment in the OST program design for standardizing the program objectives to ensure continuity in programming.

Obtaining funds for OST programs can be a major problem in itself. OST programs are still not uniformly recognized as significant educational institutions; as mentioned earlier in this paper, looking for a direct relationship between OST programming and improved academic performance may not be the wisest part to take to begin with. Because the educational importance of OST programs are in question, responsible OST programs also need to create a system of accountability and data collection that can be used to merit the need for further funding. As OST programs scale-up, these measures of accountability can also be used internally to ensure a consistent level of quality within the program. A program is more likely to receive funding if it can exhibit both that it is growing as well as that it is consistently achieving positive outcomes.

In some cases, even with funding, certain elements of OST programming such as space restrictions still cannot be adequately addressed. In these cases, strengthening the network of community resources becomes even more important for programs which are growing. Although the approach is very time and management intensive, coordinating with other OST programs which offer programs with different areas of specialization is one approach that can allow programs to offer different activities in the short run. An academically oriented OST program, for example, may not be adequately equipped with the space for physical activities; coordinating with another OST program that has access to a gym may help the academic OST program in the short run as well as help develop a stronger sense of community.

As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, analyzing the success of educational programs is tricky. Additionally, the OST educational environment is increasingly being viewed as a significant agent for reducing the education gap that exists in education in the United States-so much so that the federal government has earmarked significant funds in the budget for the operation of OST programs. With the wide range in the types of OST programs available, and with the number of students participating in these programs increasing each year, it is important to be able to ensure that the scaling-up of program services does not come at the cost of a reduction in the quality of services being offered.

References:

• Beck, E. L. (1996) Prevention and intervention programming: Lessons from an afterschool program. (UMI No. 9716619).
• Budget of the United States government: Fiscal year 2007. (2006). [Education section].
• Carter, J. B. (2003). Factors that influence afterschool care: Program coordinators’ job performance as it relates to documentation of accountability in the National School Lunch Program snack service. (UMI No. 3103648).
• Frequently asked questions — 21st Century Community Learning Centers. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/faq.html.
• Hall, G., Yohalem, N., Tolman, J., Wilson, A. (2003) How afterschool programs can most effectively promote positive youth development as a support to academic achievement. Boston After-School for All Partnership: Boston, MA.
• Massachusetts After-School Research Study (MARS) Report. (2005). Pathways to success for youth: What counts in after-school. Intercultural Center for Research in Education (INCRE) Arlington, MA: Author.
• Miller, B. M. (2003). Critical hours: After-school programs and educational success. Brookline, MA: Miller Midzik Research Associates.
• Schugurensky, D. (2002). Elementary and Secondary School Act, the ‘War on Poverty’ and Title 1. In D. Schugurensky (Ed.), History of Education: Selected Moments of the 20th Century. Retrieved February 18, 2006 from http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~dschugurensky/assignment1/1965elemsec.html.
• Vinluan, M. H. (2005). After-school programs alter lives of at-risk youth. Parks & Recreation, 40(8). Retrieved from Research Library database.
• Zhang, J. J., & Byrd, C. E. (2005). Enhancing the quality of after school programs through effective program management. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 76(8). Retrieved from Research Library database.

It seems that it is an important distinction that the target audience is an educated middle class one, since it is a distinction that it serves the argument of an inevitable uprising very well. Involving the middle class makes them more aware of class distinctions and often ultimately leads to questioning whether inequality is worsening or whether the gaps are closing. If the conclusion is that the general direction things are going benefits only one class, that for example, the wealthy owners are the only ones who benefit at the suffering of the working class, one can expect heightened tension between the classes.

In Jack London’s novel, we have Ernest Everhard, a member of the working class, become involved with middle class society by being invited to events such as dinner parties. At these parties, through time, he socializes with university professors, Bishops, and storeowners. Ernest proves to be a very strong contender in the discussions he has with these individuals and earns a certain degree of respect from a few of them, even though they do not agree with his predictions and messages.

Ernest begins with the subject of metaphysics to involve this middle class into the class struggle. He feels that their metaphysical concerns do not allow them to see reality clearly. Ernest points out that this middle class has no knowledge of life for the working class, and that the metaphysics they preach are such that they do not pose a threat to the capitalist class. This allows them to “herd with the capitalist class in another locality…. The capitalist class that pays you, that feeds you…” This middle class survives because it does not challenge the established order. More significantly, however, the middle class does not challenge the established order because it is entirely unaware of the established order.

To raise awareness in this middle class, Ernest presents some of the members with challenges. One such individual is Bishop Morehouse. The Bishop and Ernest engage in a discussion where issues such as class hatred, class struggles, selfishness, social science, censorship, and capitalist economics are all addressed. Ernest promises to the Bishop, “I will take you on a journey through hell,” to make him aware of the working class condition. In this journey, he promises to expose the Bishop to child labor, excessively long working hours, and the unjust ways of the capitalist class. Ernest points out that should the Bishop accept the challenge of facing the truth and the facts, that he runs the high risk of being suppressed by other members of his class. The Bishop accepts the challenge, and Ernest’s predictions about what he will see and what will happen turn out to be true.

In the same scene where Ernest poses the challenge to the Bishop, he also shocks his wife to be, Avis, by telling her that her clothes are stained with blood. In fact, all that she comes in contact with on a daily basis—her house, her food, and such—are all stained with the blood of the working class. As an example of what he means, he tells of a worker who lost his arm at the end of a long workday when he unthinkingly tried to prevent a machine from being damaged. He took the company to court, arguing that the accident would not have happened had he not had to work such long hours. He not only lost his arm and his job, but also he lost the case, the argument being that he was careless. Ernest uses this event to describe the power held by the capitalist class to control the law—to decide what justice means. When Avis asks why she had never read of the case in the newspapers, Ernest points, once again, to the power of censorship held by the capitalist class.

I do not feel that Ernest’s actions were meant in any way as shock treatment. He considered himself a social scientist. He was concerned with the facts. Ernest comes off as a person who not only feels the need to raise awareness, but to be the kind of person who wants to “force” action upon people. Following the well rounded information about socialism presented by The Young Pioneers, I did not actually think much more about socialism for quite some time, until I enrolled in a university Chicano Studies course called Globalization and Transnational Social Movements. Marx was on our reading list, and the course focused largely on the exploitation of the underdeveloped world by the United States capitalists. Action was needed to correct these wrongs.

The coursework involved a lot of research into sweatshop labor, where conditions in underdeveloped world very much resembled the conditions which London was writing about in The Iron Heel. The class was divided into several groups, and each was assigned a multinational corporation to study. Almost 100 years after The Iron Heel, we were asking the same sorts of questions that were included in Ernest’s arguments. Who is in control? Was it the governments and laws, which were supposed to represent the people? Or was it the money and the people, or rather, the creatures formed by “selfish capitalist notions” who were in control?

There were other issues with which parallels could be drawn between The Iron Heel and the world today. One of the groups of people who Ernest gets to best begin to see the conditions for the working class were the shopkeepers in the middle class. There is a scene where a discussion of fairness was taking place. The once successful, profitable shopkeepers were complaining that their profits were being eaten up by the trusts. Ernest asks them about their previous profitability. Their success had come from efficient organization, so efficient that they had managed to cut prices below what their competitors could charge. For a time, then, they were behaving much like the trusts—absorbing all the profits of the competition until there was no room for competition… until a “more efficient” mode of organization came along and drove them out of business. Today, there are many who feel like their jobs are being taken away by workers in developing countries. They complain about their wages being depressed because of the international supply and mobility of labor (and for that matter, of capital also).

There are certainly many disturbances that accompany large-scale change. The problems that were read about in my Chicano Studies course were real problems. I am not, however, confident with evolutionary theories of markets and class struggles as predicted by Marx, and in this case, London. Even if the end of capitalism, or should we look at the situation more accurately, the end of an open market economy was inevitable, what is to guarantee the outcome be a socialistic one? When we look at the turbulent history of economic growth, we are bound to find individuals and groups who are hurt by the changes. Overall, however, the historical evidence tends to mostly show that the growth benefits all groups—not just the rich.

There is another problem with socialism that does not get treated much in The Iron Heel. Early on, Ernest describes the evolutionary view the following way: “The cycle of class struggles which began with the dissolution of rude, tribal communism and the rise of private property will end with the passing of private property in the means of social existence.” In the absence of private property, what are the incentives for innovation. Even Ernest and the Bishop admit to people being selfishly motivated. People would tend to put premiums on certain jobs, services, or duties. We see this even in countries that claim to be communist. Even within these countries there are class distinctions. Different individuals have access to different goods, jobs, and even “public” services such as education.

Bluntly put, we do not live in a perfect world with perfectly ideal, moral, human beings. We hope for things to become better. We hope that our children will be living in a better world—making better decisions than we do. We hope for inequality and exploitation to just be something we read in the history books. We actively try to raise awareness of what is going on—on both a personal level as well as informing others. Revolting against a system that to a great extent works would do nothing but make those hopes more intangible. Finding a way to work with the existing system and make it more effective would be a more beneficial proposition.

The goal of this paper is to present the reader with a brief background of the global experience with sustainable development in the past fifty years. Considering the broad range of issues involved with sustainable development, I decided to divide the paper into ten interconnected sections, each of which would be worthy of extensive analysis on its own.

I will begin by introducing the notion of sustainable development and introducing some of the questions that arise from with our ever-changing “new world order.” Following this will be a brief discussion of the first development experiences, which started as development assistance to help Europe recover following World War II. The success here provided confidence to expand assistance in other parts of the world. The third section covers the changes in the organization of society that provided the environment in which Western wealth and growth originated.

With this basic background of growth and development, I will then begin to present some of the more current issues concerning sustainable development. The fourth section addresses concerns that globalization will result in the extinction of individual cultures, with the world’s cultures ultimately being standardized. Section five is focused around knowledge inequalities and the technology gap between the developed countries and the developing ones. Multinational corporations are often accused of not contributing anything (in terms of such things as transferring management skills and technological knowledge) to the countries in which they operate. Section six briefly looks at these concerns. Inappropriate approaches towards growth also have severe consequences on the environment. A few of the environmental problems stemming from growth are the topics of section seven. Section eight raises questions about the measurement of the standard of living and discusses some recent ideas for improvement. This is followed by a short discussion of a fundamental question that should be asked when analyzing development experiments: does growth help the poor? With that question asked, I will end the paper with the convergence theory—that is, that the incomes of the late starters to growth converge quite rapidly with those of the leaders.

Sustainability in a Changing World

As economies grow and as a country’s national markets become increasingly interconnected in world markets, concerns of future events—such as an international “financial and economic meltdown”—as well as concerns for the well being of future generations arise. There are two major aspects of sustainable development that can be linked to these future concerns. The first is that for already developed countries, there is the desire to ensure that future generations enjoy at least the same material standard of living as we do today. For the developing countries, there is the hope to “catch up” with the developed countries in a relatively short period of time, while at the same time not loosing sight of the goal of sustainability. Sustainable development implies that “current needs are to be met as fully as possible while ensuring that the life opportunities of future generations are undiminished relative to the present” (Howarth 473). Perhaps the fundamental goals of sustainable development are to promote growth that will eliminate poverty, and to assist with stability. As a result of globalism—”a state of the world involving networks at multicontinental distances” (Keohane 104)—economic shocks travel across the globe “within seconds” (Beynon xii).

There have been many different approaches towards sustainable development, and these ideas are continually being reworked, analyzed, and expanded upon. There have also been many questions concerning the legitimacy and interest of development assistance. The past two centuries have shown incredible growth in wealth and the standard of living. These advances have not, however, been universal, and there has been a good deal of research aimed at explaining how some countries advance while others lag far behind. Among the proposed ideas are that the advance of the Western economies was a result of exploitation, including its use of slavery and colonialism at various points in its development. But this argument does not help answer the question whether growth is good, nor does the historical story of western growth fully support this claim concerning the West’s rise to wealth. These questions have, however, led to questions about whether growth leads to greater inequality—between countries and within them—or whether convergence is occurring. In other words, is growth really good for the poor? Has aid and development assistance succeeded in its goal to reduce poverty?

The Early Development Experiences

Following the Marshall Plan, which helped post-war Europe to recover, we have had a half century that has been called “a period of considerable international generosity.” Early on, Cold War competitive ideology also played a major role in spurring on the development experience, with the two main schools of thought concerning the means of achieving growth being the adoption of democracy and market economies, versus development aided by central planning and some form of authoritarianism (Sagasti 4). The “American Model” was fueled by a certain degree of overconfidence, public support for aid that was supposed to “modernize” what many considered “backward” economies, and a degree of fear of the powers of the Soviet Union. Similarly, the Soviet Union sought to strengthen its alliances by development assistance. “Soviet aid was seen as another weapon in the fight against Western capitalism” (Sagasti 20).

One of the interesting outcomes of these early development experiences stems from the perception that the countries being assisted were often considered to be culturally “backward.” The result of this view was that a country’s failure to “modernize” and conform to Western tradition and values was in part to blame for the backwardness of the economy in that country. Traditional ways were seen as a hindrance to economic progress, and were often disregarded and replaced by Western ideas (Sagasti 90). There are pros and cons to this argument. Much of the historical evidence points to the requirement of appropriate political systems, institutions, and values to encourage change and growth. Traditionalism, which asks us to accept the established order, is thus a hindrance to growth.

Traditionalism and Growth: The Environment for Innovation

We can take the example of China’s experience as an illustration here. China had incredible science and technology, with inventions such as paper, iron casting and medicine hundreds of years in advance to Western Europe. Yet, starting in the 17^th century, Western Europe took the lead, and by the 19^th century, the economic gap between them was incredibly large. One explanation is that the Chinese leaders valued stability, and were thus often skeptical of new ideas. In addition, China kept herself very isolated from the rest of the world. Everything she needed could be found or produced within her boundaries. Thus, early Westerners were seen as barbarians who had nothing to offer her. Indeed, Chinese leaders felt they were offering a service to these backward traders by letting them establish ports in a country that was morally advanced (The Economist, Dec. 31 1999, p12).

By contrast, Western Europe saw institutional changes such as the separation of the economic sphere from political and religious control. The West’s growth was the result of a society that developed a set of institutions that were favorable to change. Four rights are cited by economic historians Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell as contributing to the environment for the growth that was to come for Western Europe. These were: the authority of individuals to form enterprises; “enterprises were authorized to acquire goods and hold them for resale at a profit or loss”; enterprises were given authority to determine the activities they engaged in and; property rights were more clearly defined, and the property of enterprises were made “immune from arbitrary seizure or expropriation by political authorities” (22). Traditionally, these rights and decisions were made in the political and religious spheres, where leaders were interested in maintaining the status quo.

At the same time this was happening, Western European markets were also freer from religious and political control than markets in other societies were. With the granting of authority to make the above-mentioned decisions to enterprises and the individuals who owned them, the owners were made responsible for the economic outcomes of their decisions. The markets in turn determined the success or failure of an innovation, as well as determined the rewards to innovation (Rosenberg 23).

It is interesting to note that what this setting resulted in was not technological progress due to scientific progress (although there was considerable scientific progress—again from the changed set of values which allowed for a shifting away from the binds of political and religious control). The advances of the mid 18^th century to mid 19^th century were brought about by “artisans or engineers with little or no scientific training. They were men of common sense, curiosity, energy and vast ingenuity…Their goal was not to understand, but…to make machines that worked better and…at lower cost.” Not all innovations succeeded, perhaps only as few as one per hundred. But the significant innovations involving political and economic institutions of the time provided increased incentive to try new ideas, and in doing so, prepared Western Europe for the changes which were going to accompany their upcoming growth (The Economist, Dec. 31 1999, p11).

Globalization and Cultural Identity

Recall the origin of the above discussion of Western Europe’s ability to promote growth and achieve its wealth. I began by pointing out that some of the early development projects tended to try to discard many traditions and values within the country receiving aid, with the justification that the existing traditions were “backward” and hindered progress. As noted, there is a con to this argument. Apart from the unattractiveness of the concept of a homogenous world culture, there are other problems with this…egotistical… view of development assistance. There is a certain degree of pretentiousness which may involve such a program which could likely lead to resentment of the donor countries by those receiving the aid.

As mentioned before, ideas concerning development have constantly been changing and adapting. Adapting is the key word here. One of the main problems with assuming one approach to be the only way to achieve success is that such a view does not account for variability, not only in individuals, but also in location. Rosenberg and Birdzell address this in the conclusion of their book on the history of Western growth, How the West Grew Rich. “We wish particularly to avoid any suggestion that the West’s historical path to wealth contains any simple formula that, if used in the Third World, would produce a similar outcome…. Another fundamental consideration is that the West has been remarkably willing to pay the price of growth, in the form of changing the whole structure and interpretation of Western life” (327-328).

Francisco Sagasti feels this penetration of Western culture is even more significant today, with the agent of distribution being modern telecommunication and other such technological advances. The “images of affluence” portrayed on television can create cultural tensions in the developing world. These images of Western life brings with it “pressures to standardize (Westernize?) aspirations and cultural values,” while at the same time, there is a growing desire to “reassert individuality and cultural identity” (53). This set of contradictory aspirations may play a significant role in addressing why certain development programs have had little or no effect on promoting growth. As a result of the acknowledgement that what is good for one is not necessarily best for everyone, we observe in more recent development approaches increased levels of “case-by-case” and “country-focus[ed]” attempts to try to address regional and cultural differences (Sagasti 16).

It is interesting to be able to observe this struggle between traditionalism and standardization on American television. One can observe, for example, the version of MTV that is broadcast in various parts of the world—including on the domestic international channels. While MTV Mexico or MTV Asia definitely tend to embrace American pop culture, the music is often definitely different and frequently employs each region’s respective traditional instruments. One can then question whether we are dealing with cultural degradation (should MTV be there in the first place?), or whether the transformation can be more appropriately termed selective cultural assimilation (whose MTV is it?). Building on the unattractiveness of a homogenous world culture, and the experience with things such as the various international versions of MTV, perhaps the emerging “global order” will be more like Jack Weatherford sees it: “We need to share some values such as commitment to fundamental human rights and basic rules of interaction, but we can be wildly different in other areas such as lifestyles, spirituality, musical tastes, and community life (290).

The Inequality of Knowledge

Whatever the situation, development programs have begun to address cultural concerns. As Sagasti points out, “Even international institutions like the World Bank, previously known to focus exclusively on economic and social questions, are beginning to pay attention to cultural questions” (55). The addressing of concerns of cultural degradation are not the only changes taking place. An additional host of issues such as human rights issues, environmental protection, relief assistance, labor rights concerns, education, leadership training, and the restriction of weapons trade are all topics that have become part of foreign development assistance. Many of these alternative foci are pursued by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which tend to “promote particular goals rather than the broader goal of development” (The Economist, Jan.29 2000, p27).

Often, however, many of these issues are crucial to the success of a sustainable development program. We can start this discussion with investments in human capital—specifically in the importance of knowledge for growth. The rate of change in knowledge generation and use has been increasingly rapid. “It took from the time of Christ to the mid-eighteenth century for knowledge to double. It doubled again 150 years later, and then again in only 50 years. Today it doubles every four or five years. More new information has been produced in the last 30 years than in the previous 5000″ (David Linowes quoted in Sagasti 59). With the transformation of the importance of knowledge in the global economy today, property rights and ideas have transformed ideas into capital, and capital has always been a major economic barrier to entry (The Economist, Apr.08 2000, p17). Access to knowledge, increased incentives to create knowledge, and a promotion of the ability to make use of knowledge through education and training, will prove to be very valuable for a developing country in trying to achieve sustainable growth.

A reading of a textbook on macroeconomics will point out that capital accumulation cannot be the source of sustainable economic growth, but rather that growth “must ultimately be due to technological progress” (Blanchard 461). This is because with a given level of technology, capital eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns, where each increase in capital leads to smaller increases in output. Technological progress can change this by increasing the effectiveness of labor, making the existing capital more productive. Technological progress can also mean new products and different types of products. Much of what has pushed growth in recent years has been the result of innovation. “Innovation has become the industrial religion of the late 20^th century” (Valery The Economist “Innovation Survey”, Feb. 20 1999 p5).

Well-defined property rights have been key players in contributor to providing incentives for innovation. It may also provide some explanation of what can be termed the “technology gap” between the developed countries and the developing ones. Professor Paul Romer, a “new growth” theorist, addresses some of these questions of knowledge, competition, and convergence in his essay The Origins of Endogenous Growth. Professor Romer points to five basic facts about economic growth in the neoclassical model of growth. Here are three of them. “Discoveries differ from other inputs in the sense that many people can use them at the same time.” Seen in this light, information is a nonrival good—the additional cost of providing ideas to another person are zero. “Technological advance comes from things that people do.” Discoveries will not be made if people do not pursue activities that lead to discoveries. “Many individuals and firms have market power and earn monopoly rents on discoveries” (Romer 12-13).

Professor Romer’s last fact is significant. Neoclassical growth models treated technology as a public good. With such treatment, it was difficult to explain why developing countries could not absorb the more productive technologies of the developed countries and then enjoy a period of rapid economic growth. Public goods are not only nonrival, but they are also nonexcludable. Firms and individuals typically control access to their information and use of their information “for at least some period of time,” making “economically important discoveries” not fully subject to the treatment offered by neoclassical growth theories (Romer 13). Temporary monopoly power in the form of property rights may play an important part in encouraging innovation (Romer 18). Professor Romer feels that deriving from his work with investments in human capital one can find a policy prescription for economic success which involves “more saving and more schooling” (20).

The Role of the Multinational Corporation

The findings of Romer and of others who have looked at the importance of knowledge and research on growth have been reflected in more recent growth experiences. Francisco Sagasti feels that “creating and consolidating scientific and technological capabilities in the developing regions” will be one of the major themes in the “development-cooperation” experiences of the years to come (148). Much of the controversy concerning multinational corporations, for example, is that their power combined with their drive for profits often lead to very exploitative working conditions. The ability for multinationals to easily shift from one country to another—based on features like the tax incentives, environmental regulations, and labor costs offered countries competing for investment—have led many to question whether globalization is ultimately going to lead to a race to the bottom (Ross 71; The Economist, Jan. 29 2000 p21; Breecher 19-27). Many people fear that these corporations are mostly engaging in production of goods which do not require much skilled labor, and as such, do not contribute much in the way of technological “know-how” transfers to the recipient country.

This is not quite the case. There is the argument that multinationals are more afraid of possible protest in their home countries than they are of “resentment abroad” (The Economist, Jan. 29 2000, p21). Nevertheless, “every so often, a multinational does something stupid,” but on the whole, they do achieve in success in creating jobs quickly, and these jobs often pay better than local firms do. They are also better at transferring technology, at least between the parent firm and their foreign counterparts (Greider 22).

Environmental Concerns and Sustainability

The United Nations feels that businesses are indeed their “Partners in Sustainable Development.” In a publication by that title, the United Nations discussed the role of business and industry in improvement of the production process (at home and abroad) “through the introduction of technologies that use resources more efficiently and minimize environmental impacts” (Alvarez-Rivero iv). While the UN does admit that there are great costs associated with research and development (R&D) involving cleaner production technologies, it points out that the long run benefits outweigh these costs, and that furthermore, the large market would help absorb the costs. In a number of case studies, the clean technologies not only had environmental benefits, but they also generally resulted in higher production efficiency (Alvarez-Rivero 1). One of the major obstacles to investment in cleaner production identified in the UN report is misinformation about the costs of environmental protection. Part of the misinformation stems from the difficulty in doing cost-benefit analyses involving environmental costs. The UN recommends increased use of environmental accounting—using a framework that would allow firms to internalize the environmental costs to better determine whether a given project would “meet their benchmark for rate of return on investment” (Alvarez-Rivero 6).

The effect of growth on the environment is an important one to look at when the goal is sustainable development. “Trade liberalization, per se, is not necessarily linked to either environmental degradation or environmental preservation.” It is likely, however, that trade can be an “effective agent” for sustainable development (Schultz 424). Environmental issues are of international concern and span many generations. Matters of intergenerational equity arise when considering environmental issues, because there is often a trade off to be made between “efficiency, [which] puts society on the utility possibilities frontier…[and] sustainability, [which] is a matter of distribution of assets across generations” (Howarth 473). There is also the concern that our placing a value on sacrificing something today for future generations may not be a value that is passed down through generations. We may be inclined to wonder about whether our efforts today may simply be foiled by acts of these future generations.

The environmental concerns regarding sustainability have many different aspects. These include problems stemming from agricultural practices, increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and concern about global warming. Improper farming techniques, for example, while embodying good intentions such as providing more abundant, cheaper food, has resulted in environmental damage in the form of soil degradation, pollution, water scarcity and biodiversity loss. Soil degradation is taking place as a result of over-planting and overgrazing, accompanied by poor drainage and improper irrigation techniques. Pollution arises from the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides. In addition to contaminating water sources, it is also causing many biological problems “throughout food-chains…in both man and beast.” Water is running out as a result of inefficient use in farming. Farm practices such as intensive monoculture programs, deforestation, selective animal breeding, and genetically modified high yielding, fast growing crops, have had a severe impact on biodiversity. “Over a sixth of the 3,800 breeds of domestic animals that existed a century ago have disappeared” (El Feki The Economist “Agriculture and Technology Survey,” Mar. 25 2000 p11).

This is not to say that the situation concerning the environment is entirely bleak. The World Trade Organization, for example, has begun to include statements in its publications of interest in environmental issues and, as a more active stance, formed the Committee on Trade and the Environment in early 1994 (Schultz 425). There have also been environmental subsidy provisions that permit “governmental assistance to promote the adaptation of existing facilities to new environmental requirements (Schultz 429). Such acts as eco-labeling are being promoted by environmental groups and help raise public awareness and information about the goods that they consume. Perhaps the most well known case was the US ban on Mexican tuna that was not dolphin safe. At the time, tuna canners began a program labeling their products “dolphin safe.” Interestingly, such programs may “obviate the need for governmental product regulations,” by letting consumers express their environmental preferences by the informed choices they make in the marketplace (Schwartz 435).

In addition, international economic relations are increasingly being formed conditional on adopting environmental protection measures. A few countries have already begun to position themselves “to compete in what will be one of the most dynamic markets of the future, environmentally sound technologies. Being able to provide environmentally friendly technologies is rapidly becoming a source of competitive advantage in the global search for new markets” (Sagasti 50). Studies have also found that “while increased economic output tends to be associated with higher CO₂ emissions, a rising standard of living also slows down population growth and leads to reduced energy consumption per unit of output” (DeCanio 41). One thing that is key to success, however, is the rate of change at which new policies for promoting environmental sustainability are enforced. As Lester Brown points out, “This is not a spectator sport…the central issue [to the environmental challenges] is the need to restructure the global economy quickly” (20-21).

The Change of the Worldwide Standard Living

The measurement of a country’s standard of living also needs to be addressed when talking about sustainable development. Traditionally, economics has relied on real per capita GDP as their measure of the standard of living. Naturally, such view leads to a bias “toward economic growth as a policy objective, rather than striving for balanced human development” (Easterlin 8 ). More recently, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has begun to annually report a human development index (HDI), which includes such measures of human welfare as health, education, and democratic freedom. This is a result of a recent evolution of development-cooperation that illustrates the concept of “sustainable human development.” “Sustainable human development” aims to provide current and future generations not only the opportunity to expand (and support) their capabilities in the economic realm, but also to expand capabilities and put them to their best uses in the political, social, cultural and environmental realm (Sagasti 17). While over the past 100 years “the gap between the richest and poorest countries has widened dramatically” in material standards, the HDI measurement of standards of living show a sharp decrease in global inequality over the past 50 years (The Economist, Apr.15 2000, p86).

The last two centuries have seen what has been termed by Richard Easterlin, “A revolution of the human condition.” In making this statement, he is referring not only to the incredible material transformation that has taken place, but also in terms of basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter, as well as in terms of conditions that enhance the life experience, such as improved health and education (7). In an intensive study aimed at finding out “what people want out of life,” the findings were that while living level—or one’s material position—was a major concern in many of the counties, concerns of family, health, values, and work were also important to many (Easterlin 9). While some of these measures clearly have upper limits (for example, literacy has an upper value of 100 percent), there is still a lot of room for advances in quality the quality of life (Easterlin 23).

Growth for the Poor

Easterlin begins his essay with a qualification, “Although the picture is not one of universal progress…” (7). This brings us back to the question of inequality and growth mentioned at the beginning of this paper. Earlier this year, prior to the meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, demonstrators were gathering to protest acts by these institutions which protestors claimed “impoverish and oppress the majority of the world’s peoples…while enriching themselves and corporations” (The Economist, Apr. 15 2000, p76). The complaint by many people who oppose globalization is not so much that globalization is bad for growth, but rather that the rewards of growth are only observed by the rich. There is the feeling that the rich get richer and the poor get left out, thus increasing inequality (The Economist, May 27 2000, p82).

A recent paper by David Dollar and Aart Kraay for the World Bank comes to different conclusions. Their findings show that while growth is slower for the poor in the early stages of development, and faster in the later stages. Additionally, they found that “growth spurred by open trade or other macro policies…benefits the poor as much as it does the typical household” (27). Among the macroeconomic policies often recommended for growth are political stability, openness to trade, deregulation, good rule of law, and fiscal discipline (Dollar 5).

Convergence Revisited

There is much to say in favor of development and foreign aid when one looks at the general picture of growth today. Given the right set of standards, which include the macroeconomic policies suggested by Dollar and Kraay, we would expect later starting countries growing at fast initial growth. In convergence theory, “the late entrants have much higher initial growth rates than the early entrants but do not surpass their income levels” (Lucas Jr. 161). This argument builds on the idea that knowledge is cumulative, and makes use of the shaky assumption discussed earlier that knowledge is a public good. There may be a need for a revision, however. “Digital technology allows the dream to become a reality: quite simply, it provides a way of capturing information and transmitting it at a fraction of the cost previously” (Beynon 111). Many more people around the world are gaining access to information more easily and less expensively than before. Thus, the monopolization of ideas is likely to be weaken, lowering one of the major barriers to entry, and allowing us to see whether convergence will indeed occur.

The convergence theory also expects high levels of inequality, and according to Robert Lucas Jr.’s model, it expects a long phase of increasing inequality. According to his model, this phase has already occurred, with the constant phase of inequality (a time when inequality is neither growing nor shrinking) were the years 1960 to 1990. The proximity of his data to the current time, however, makes it difficult to determine conclusively whether the recent convergence that he observes in his model will continue (165).

Conclusion

In this paper I have presented only a very small portion of what sustainable development involves (I didn’t even begin to talk about population pressures!). I have also refrained from getting into particular issues about how one should promote the goal of sustainable development. This is because there is no straightforward prescription of policies that can be made. One of the complications is that certain countries are more prepared for growth than others. They may have a culture that encourages education, or they may have a stable government dedicated towards helping its constituents improve the value of their life. Countries at different stages of development will have different needs. Spending money under the name of aid will do little to assist development if the institutions necessary to make use of the aid are not in place.

Simply put, decisions regarding development should be made on a case by case basis. At the same time, a global awareness of the goal of sustainability needs to be encouraged. This starts at the local level. For example, as advanced as the United States is, there is still considerable room for, and more importantly, need for improvements. This can be in the form of improved energy efficiency, or in the form of improved education. It can come from improving the level of trust within our society (ask an American about their politicians for a feel of this). Finally, one should not make the mistake of expecting progress to immediately follow change. The process of growth has been a slow, relatively steady one. We should try to ensure that it can maintain this stability.

The global play is still being written. The major characters are still in development. The ending has yet to be determined.

Works Cited

• Alvarez-Rivero, and Theresa Olvida eds. Business and the United Nations: Partners in Sustainable Development. New York, United Nations Publications, 1999.
• Beynon, Robert Ed. The Routledge Critical Dictionary of Global Economics. New York, Routledge, 1999.
• Blanchard, Olivier. Macroeconomics. New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1997.
• Breecher, Jeremy and Tim Costello. Global Village or Global Pillage: Economic Reconstruction from the Bottom Up. Boston, South End Press, 1994.
• Brown, Lester R., et al. State of the World 2000. New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 2000.
• DeCanio, Stephen. “International Cooperation to Avert Global Warming: Economic Growth, Carbon Pricing, and Energy Efficiency,” The Journal of Environment and Development, vol. 1, no. 1, Summer 1992.
• Dollar, David, and Aart Kraay. Growth is Good for the Poor. Washington, DC, The World Bank, March 2000.
• Easterlin, Richard A. “The Worldwide Standard of Living Since 1800,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 2000.
• El Feki, Shereen. “A Survey of Agriculture and Technology,” The Economist, March 25^th 2000.
• Greider, William. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1997.
• Howarth, Richard B. and Richard B. Norgaard. “Environmental Valuation under Sustainable Development,” The American Economic Review, vol. 82, no. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, May 1992.
• Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye Jr. “Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?),” Foreign Policy, Spring 2000.
• Lucas Jr., Robert E. “Some Macroeconomics for the 21^st Century,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 2000.
• Romer, Paul M. “The Origins of Endogenous Growth,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 8, no. 1, Winter 1994.
• Rosenberg, Nathan, and L. E. Birdzell, Jr. How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World. New York, Basic Books, 1986.
• Ross, Andrew. No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and the Rights of Garment Workers. New York, Verso, 1997.
• Sagasti, Francisco, and Gonzalo Alcalde. Development Cooperation in a Fractured Global Order: An Arduous Transition. Ottawa, Canada, International Development Research Center, June 1999.
• Schultz, Jennifer. “The GATT/WTO Committee on Trade and the Environment—Toward Environmental Reform,” American Journal of International Law, vol. 89, no. 2, April 1995.
• The Economist. “A Century of Progress.” April 15^th 2000.
• The Economist. “Growth is Good.” May 27^th 2000.
• The Economist. “The Road to Riches.” December 12^th 1999.
• The Economist. “The World’s View of Multinationals.” January 29^th 2000.
• The Economist. “Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?” April 8^th 2000.
• Valery, Nicholas. “A Survey of Innovation in Industry,” The Economist, February 20^th 1999.
• Weatherford, Jack. Savages and Civilization: Who will Survive? New York, Random House, 1994.

The primary issue at stake in The Octopus is one of land ownership. Along the lines of the Pacific and South West Railroad, alternate sections of land had been granted to the P. and S. W. Trust by the government. The P. and S. W. invited farmers to settle the land and cultivate wheat, and ultimately to offer the land for sale, at first to the first occupants. Furthermore, the price was promised to be between $2.50 and $5.00 per acre. Improvements to the land would not affect the price, thus, for the initial settlers, the land would prove to be very valuable. They could settle, work with the land to a profitable point, work on improving the land through things like improved irrigation, and, when the Trust decided to sell the land, the farmers would acquire it at a low price. The profitability of resale would thus be great, for, as one of the major characters Annixter notes, “The land has more than quadrupled in value. I’ll bet I could sell it tomorrow for fifteen dollars an acre.” To the P. and S. W., this essentially amounts to an effective way to provide incentives to improve land. With the forces of capitalism in mind, the promise of private ownership gives the farmers an incentive to keep the land in good form and make the most of its potential.

However, considering the forces of capitalism, one would be inclined to question the interpretation of the agreement made by the railroad trust to the farmers. Genslinger, an editor to the local newspaper, points out that not only do the farmers add value, but the presence of the railroad also increases the value of the ranches, and that “fairness” would involve sharing the benefits of the rise in value between the farmers and the railroad. He further adds, “I don’t believe the P. and S. W. intends to sell for two-fifty an acre at all. The managers of the road want the best price they can get.” This proves to be the case. The railroad has taken its time in putting the land up for sale, and upon decision to sell, issues letters to the current occupants of the ranches which state the selling price to be in the range between $20.00 and $30.00 per acre. Thus begins the war between the farmers and railroad trust.

Assuming the farmers to be correct in their interpretation of the contract issued to them by the railroad, their ensuing call for violence or revolution can be seen as justified. Upon hearing of the “merciless” prices demanded by the P. and S. W., the ranchers decide to form a league against the railroad. The rapid formation of the league is accompanied with such phrases as, “This is a family affair,”  “Organization, that must be our watchword,” “Now we must stand together, now, now,” and “Every one of us here to join it, to form the beginnings of a vast organization, banded together to death, if needs be, for the protection of our rights and homes.”

At a crucial point in the novel, however, it is found that the ranchers cannot organize well enough to act as a group—and falls apart at the first experience with confrontation:

“Why, where’s all the men?” Annixter demanded of Magnus.

“Broderson is here and Cutter,” replied the Governor, “no one else, I thought you would bring more men with you.”

“There are only nine of us.”

“And the six hundred leaguers who were going to rise when this happened!” exclaimed Garnett bitterly.

“Rot the league,” cried Annixter. “It’s gone to pot—went to pieces at the first touch.”

The strength of the railroad trust was such that the farmers and families involved did not feel that collective action would so much as budge the decisions made by the railroad trust. The effectiveness of collective action, or promised collective action is hard to predict. Success depends partially in the willingness to commit to the cause at hand—the ability to overcome, or at least lessen, the free-rider problem. Everyone in the league would have wished the success of Annixter and the other men present at the above scene, but few rose to the call, or, as noted later, were made aware of the call at the appropriate time.

One can’t help but wonder what the relationship between the farmers and the railroad would have been if the outcome of the previous scene had ended differently, for example with the intended result of no bloodshed, but rather a hopefully productive encounter. One also can’t help but wonder if success or change was at all possible. The question of choice arises here—the question of an individual’s ability, or even that of a group, to actively take part in change.

Indeed, from the descriptions of the mechanisms at work in The Octopus, one would be inclined to think that choices play an incredibly small part. There is a scene where Lyman Derrick receives a railroad map. “The map was white, and it seemed as if all the color which should have gone to vivify the various counties, towns, and cities marked upon it had been absorbed by that huge, sprawling organism… a gigantic parasite flattening upon the lifeblood of an entire commonwealth.” The farmers may fight the men involved in the railroad business, but business, but that would mean little if anything. The real enemy was the railroad. It had taken on a life of its own. When Presley meets Shelgrim, the President of the P. and S. W., he says to him, “You are the head, you control the road.” Shelgrim is amused by this and replies, “I can not control it. It is a force born out of certain conditions, and I—no man—can stop it or control it.”

Following this experience, Presley first comes to the depressing conclusion that “Men were nothings,” they “fluttered and fell and were forgotten…. Men were naught, death was naught, life was naught; FORCE only existed.” Norris tries to take us away from such a pessimistic outlook, however, and to do so, he has a hermit-like character, Vanamee, talk to Presley. Presley ultimately comes to the conclusion that, “Falseness dies; injustice and oppression in the end of everything fade and vanish away. Greed, cruelty, selfishness and inhumanity are short-lived; the individual suffers, but the race goes on…. All things surely, inevitably, resistlessly work together for good.”

Norris also shows this view in the change in the character of Annixter. Annixter used to be the type content with only a few friends who mattered. He was impatient, rough, and more than content to make enemies with any act. In a transforming conversation between himself and Hilma Tree, his wife-to-be, he says, “Remember, once I said I was proud of being a hard man, a driver, of being glad that people hated me and were afraid of me? Well, since I’ve loved you I’m ashamed of it all. I don’t want to be hard anymore, and nobody is going to hate me if I can’t help it.” In Vanamee’s words, “it is not evil, but good, that in the end remains.”

While both these ends are more reassuring in their optimism concerning the “big picture,” it does not quite fully satisfy the reality of our daily concerns. I think it is fitting that Norris had Presley saying he was going to India. The Hindu and Buddhist religions make such views as Vanamee’s easier to accept. Hinduism calls for humans to separate their “ego-selves” from the true Self. To do so, they manage to break the cycle of karma—they realize the insignificance of their ego-selves, or what we can think of in Western terms as our personal identity. Buddhism calls for a separation from desires to end suffering. It also calls for a detachment from self. There is no such thing as the “identical I”—”The identical I never was, never is, never will be” (Sri Aurobindo). We are nothing more than forces of karma constantly flowing and changing through time.

This is not a conclusion that entirely satisfies me. I like to think that I have a will, and that the power to change things is within us all. Hopefully, those who can recognize this power do not abuse it, and use it, instead, for the betterment of as much of humanity as is rationally possible.

I have always been taught that the Civil War was a war fought over slavery and the North imposing its ways on the South. From what I have gained from high school history courses, I feel that slavery was what got the war started, but the divisions between the North and South were stronger. Those divisions, although political intervention could have probably helped ironed them out, are what allowed the Civil War to continue. These differences can be noted in the very first few paragraphs of Shaara’s foreword to his novel. The Confederate army, for example, is shown to be “an army of remarkable unity,” who “share common customs and a common faith.” By contrast, the Union army is “a strange new kind of army” made up of “vastly dissimilar men” with “strange accents and strange religions and many who do not speak English at all.”

The history of slavery was not unique to the Southern states. Slavery accompanied the founding of the United States, but it was always accompanied with hopes that it would gradually decline in use. The slave trade with Africa was abolished in the early part of the 1800s, and slavery in the North dissipated while the region began to undergo many changes, especially the increase in immigrant workers to work in the factories. The Southern states, however, were mostly dependent on a plantation economy based on crops like tobacco and cotton, and continued their use of slave labor in the fields. The North was changing rapidly, with many immigrant workers and an industrializing society built up around the city structures, compared to the relative stability of the South, where life had not changed much over the years.

And yet, though growing apart as they were, the North was, as Shaara put it, a group of “dissimilar men fighting for union,” fighting against the rebel volunteers, “an army of remarkable unity, fighting for disunion.”

This conflict between the North and South arises a couple of times in Shaara’s novel. Take, for example, Fremantle, then Englishman who accompanies Longstreet. In a passage where he is trying to work out to himself what this war is about and where it fits in with the history of the United States’ experiment in democracy, sees a similar image to the one presented above. He says, “The North has those bloody cities and a thousand religions and the only aristocracy is the aristocracy of wealth. The Northerner doesn’t give a damn for tradition, or breeding, or the Old Country. He hates the Old Country…. In the South…by and large, they were all the same nationality, same religion, same customs.” At one point, he says that the war is basically about these differences, about the “sameness” of the South to the Europe that Americans had tried to leave, contrasting with the forces of change in the North.

In addition to these forces of change and disunity, the young United States was also very economically different by geographic regions. The North (Union) was over twice as large as the South (Confederacy), both in terms of population and number of states (not land area). The North had a diverse economy and was home to many more factories and manufacturing bases than did the South, which settled with their prosperous “one crop” cotton agriculture. Most of the arms supply for the war was manufactured in the North, a fact touched on at various times throughout Shaara’s novel. For example, it is noted that many of the Confederate soldiers (volunteers) were “unpaid and self armed.”

This said, however, I think that it is unquestionable that slavery was the big issue behind the Civil War. To the Confederates, the persistence of the Union pushing their views on them was something they were quite resentful of. One of the Confederate soldiers offered the following analogy about what the war was about: “I think my analogy of the club was the best. I mean, it’s as if we all joined a gentleman’s club, and then the members of the club started sticking their noses into our private lives, and then we up and resigned, and then they tell us we don’t have the right to resign.” That they did not hold slaves in the North was supposed to make the Northerners morally better. These Northerners were people who were fighting for the ideal of freedom. The Southerners were people fighting to have their Constitutional rights upheld—not fighting a war about slavery.

At the same time there was much resentment in the North of the Southerners’ “arrogant” use of the Bible to justify their acts—trying thus to make their acts seem morally acceptable. A very interesting part of The Killer Angels which looks at this issue is the scene where the wounded black man is taken up by the Union Army. A discussion takes place between Chamberlain (sort of an idealist) and Kilrain (more of a realist). Discussing issues of racial differences between blacks and whites, Chamberlain says, “To me there was never any difference.” Chamberlain remembers a time when a Southern minister and a university professor visited him in the North. The discussion ended on slavery and morality. Chamberlain argued that men should not be used like animals, to which the minister replied, “A Negro is not a man.”

Kilrain, a man who considers himself “not a clever man,” comments on Chamberlain’s story. “No two things on earth are equal or have an equal chance…. There’s many a man worse than me, and some better, but I don’t think race or country matters a damn. What matters is justice.” Kilrain believes that things must change—not just in the South though, for he sees discrimination by the aristocracy that he is fighting against. “They used to have signs on tavern doors,” he tells Chamberlain, speaking of taverns in the North, “Dogs and Irishmen keep out.” The situation in the North was far from flawless. Chamberlain’s “oddness, a crawly hesitation, not wanting to touch him [the black man],” is an example of the unstable grounds that the Civil War was being fought on.

The Killer Angels ends without any real resolution, which seems strange for a novel with 100 years hindsight, until one manages to place themselves in the situation at that time. Even today, it seems like the war was unavoidable—and it was a war in which the soldiers were all a bit unclear about what they were fighting for. Even at the end, a Union soldier notes that, “When you ask them prisoners, they never talk about slavery…. If it weren’t for the slaves, there’d never have been no war, now would there?” That final question is perhaps one of the biggest ones concerning the Civil War.