Conflict
resolution practices can be more or less “formal” challenging social groups’
communication skills as well as problem-solving “alarms”. Criminology gives us
the opportunity to look at “conflict resolution” practices in a rather
“(informal-) social-control-operating” view. In this scope social groups’
“instinct” regarding comprehension of “real” problems is crucial
for “conflict prevention” by invoking efficient practices. What is more every
social group’s main object to be stable and protect its own principles and values
mobilize members’ unity and coordination "resources" too.
This
ability of course presupposes a certain degree of “harmonic function” within
these groups which means that only the introduction of “peaceful” practices (as
“(more) liberal” or “innovative” alternatives to “conflict”) is not sufficient for
restoring a problematic “social control” function. Moreover these informal or sometimes
“instinctual” (collective) skills and accumulated knowledge of social groups
undoubtedly need to be more conscious and boosted through scientific
documentation and systematic implementation of relevant structured (formal) procedures.
As regards children’s basic social groups we usually stress "peaceful" resolution practices as more suitable for keeping both integration and
control standards. In this effort there are probably two limits towards well-operating
“conflict resolution” practices' settlement: first of all it is the presupposition of
social groups’ “harmonic function” and secondly they are children’s ages’ different
needs and “moral maturity”…
Expressing some “incomplete”
thoughts instead of a preface…
There has been conflict resolution practices
generally introduced almost as “panaceas”. In my opinion, we should be “square”
every time we use the term “it works” referring to “innovative” or “more
liberal” practices especially oriented to children’s educational contexts. This
is because there are probably specific preconditions which make any “innovative”
practice work.
As regards specifically “conflict resolution
programs” then preexisting social groups’ “harmonic function” is also important
so as to put them efficiently into practice and supervise their results and
follow-up processes too. “Commitment” and “responsibility” towards “innovative”
or “(more) liberal” practices might be unreachable objects supposing “low
unity” conditions that is in case of groups’ members “walk-out” of mutual
problem-solving actions. A certain degree of “unity” is obviously essential
before “(more) liberal” practices setting while these practices have also the
ability to enforce this primitive condition.
First of all training on “conflict resolution”
skills (placed in the wide framework of education processes) takes for granted
that learning is promoted through group processes and that the content of such efforts
aims to change individuals’ attitudes and “moral qualities” too. Relevant
contemporary education practices are often described as “liberal” in terms of
children’s more active involvement in training practices and content as well as
children’s ability to set priorities in programs’ agendas. Conflict resolution training tends
to be a “collaborative affair” for basic social groups (based on internal
“unity” of each group as well as efficient cooperation among basic groups) by
stressing the triptych “responsibility- integration- restoration” also concerning
socialization groups’ “self-regulation” skills. In fact these “self-regulation”
processes should not be “adult-centric” nor conserve a “culture of complaint”
among children. It is then obvious that such skills should be practiced more
intensively in “children’s world” with the view of enhancing solidarity among
children.
In this presentation we try to connect ideas
about social groups’ “(more) liberal” objects regarding certain “control
priorities” about children’s different age groups and the way they both affect the
introduction of “conflict resolution” and “restoration” practices. In this
scope conflicts might be (as “conflict resolution” practitioners generally
suggest) ideal “opportunities” for more dialogue and innovative/ creative
practices but they might even represent serious “threats” for social groups of
“low unity”. I was also wondering to what extent social groups can take advantage of
conflicts in a more conscious way in order to serve children’s external “control
priorities” together with “self-control” objects considering different ages’
needs. In fact this situation challenges a “double role” for adults as
“discipline-keepers” and “independence-promoters” too.
“(More) Liberal” education
practices VS “Control Priorities” regarding various children age-groups’ needs
Contemporary education practices put the stress
on the “more liberal” characteristics of children’s active participation in the
“discovery of knowledge”. “Cooperation”, significant role of “experiences” and
“positive context” are basic parts in such processes. “Interest” of learning
content itself should be also a crucial part of “connected-to-everyday-life’s-challenges”
education. So in children’s basic social groups of family and school “security” obviously
refers to “free self-expression” bringing in “diversity” as well as
“specialization”.
But what is the role of “discipline” in these “(more)
liberal” contexts? There is a considerable set of doubts in practice referring to a
“discipline-looseness” impression in the context of “(more) liberal” conflict
resolution practices. This criticism in other words means that “discipline’s”
decline in “more-liberal-education-practices’-discourse” might be considered as
“coaxing” towards children indicating adult’s “unease” as regards children’s (serious)
problem’s management. But in what extent this “looseness” of discipline and
control may be nothing but a misimpression?
Above doubts are beside the question in my
opinion. In fact systematic promotion of conflict resolution practices should
not have been confused with “fragmentary testing” cases of alternative
practices implied only when “common” methods fail. Far from it, the conscious
implementation of “(more) liberal practices” at school presupposes that
“discipline” regulations and “limits” settlement objects are more seriously
integrated in preschool ages so that children could later be “mature” and
“ready” enough to learn about (structured) dialogue procedures rather than continue
on practices involving behavioristic rules and “punishments”. This remark
is not like a “separation” of objects but more like an instance of a “golden
mean” concerning different responsibility “faces” or “degrees” among “control/
discipline priorities” and “(more) liberal practices” provided that this “mean”
has the ability to be “flexible” in order to meet different needs of two broad
age groups. This approach also supposes that in all the above “regulations” (either
“behavioristic” or “more liberal”) adults should certainly be empathetic and
supportive towards children.
I suppose that there are basic differences
between preschool and school “control priorities” and relevant practices for
children. This distance constitutes a seemingly “paradox” which generally confuses
theory and practice as regards school settings because theory often gives
premium to “(more) liberal methods” while everyday practice for the most part demands
“behavioristic rules” of limits.
- Obviously
theory and practice could be “reconciled” in “behavioristic-rules-occasion” which refers to children’s ages
among 3 and 6 years according to their “moral maturity”. “Behavioristic
practices” of limits are efficient as younger children suppose that equal
treatment is nothing but “ultimate rules” set by adults. So rules are
mostly “external” for younger children. In this scope conflict resolution
or negotiation practices in these ages are for the most part motivated by
children’s want for “(personal) satisfaction”.
- On
the other hand there is probably a “distance” between theory and practice
regarding ages among 7 and 12 years old. “Behavioristic rules” are not any
more “ample” since children of
preadolescence are capable of understanding the “point” of interpersonal
relationships’ rules. In this case negotiation could be primarily rather
a “give-and-take” procedure however step-by-step children are able to
consider others’ “needs’ weight” in order to make more just decisions. So “win-win solutions”
replace “compromise” as older children become morally developed.
This means that “(more) liberal” practices are
in fact convenient for older children of certain “moral stages” though limits’-setting
and control “face” of responsibility still remains as a priority for younger
ages. In practice this is more like a “mixture” of “liberal” and “control”
measures which changes as children get older by gradually adding the “more-liberal-ingredients”
of “dialogue” and “negotiation” according to different needs.
Putting the above into practice also raises the
need for “more-conscious-informal-social-control” procedures to be studied and discussed
by social groups. “Diversification” of conflict resolution practices is indeed
a different object for social groups than being just “more liberal” or just “more
tolerant”. This is actually because “diversificated” conflict resolution practices
should be affected by children’s various degrees of “readiness” or “(moral)
maturity” than being based for the most part on “adult-centric” styles of
conflict management. What is more children’s diverse “needs”,
“previous knowledge” and “skills” are the reason why “dialogue” and
“negotiation” should be better introduced gradually in “children’s world” so
that every general conflict management style could be “colored” with “tangible”
moral concepts instead of recommending entirely changes for all introduced as
“panaceas”.
Social groups’ “standards’
keeping” skills considering children’s needs for justice and self-regulation
Unambiguously “social groups” are basic units
as regards education practices. Moreover children learn about “justice” and
“rules” not only through adults’ advice but also by practicing them with peers
within interpersonal relationships.
There are some things that we know very well
about socialization groups’ functions and others that are rather “underestimated”.
Social groups are organized; there is “division of labor” within them and it is
this “division” that adds to each member a “special” role. There are also
mutual bonds, values, meanings, customs even vocabulary among their members. All
the above are central components of being a “social group”. Therefore social groups
themselves are more than "members aggregations" as they have the ability to be “self-regulated” based on general values and principles.
Operating in such “communities of practice*” their members exchange knowledge and form mutual “alarms” in order to handle certain “problems” efficiently as well as keep their groups' standards safe. In fact these “alarms” then mobilize not only “reflective”
but also “creative” resolution and restoration practices according to the size
of each time’ s problem. This “standards’ keeping” function is indeed very
crucial as a self-regulation object because it underlies social networks’ “informal
social control” practices and processes. The above objects of social groups in case
they are operating well they constitute “unity” and “harmonic function”
evidence too.
But how could we sensitively consider
peer-group’s special interests in order to settle similar skills and abilities
within “children’s world”? It seems to me that certain characteristics of “children’s world” might
serve as ideal foundations of fair procedures and self-regulation training too.
We have already talked about children’s needs for “active participation” as
well as clear “discipline” rules. Farther self-esteem and interpersonal bonds are
raised in cases that children can solve their own problems. In fact there is evidence
about children’s tendencies to fair procedures. First of all friendship
accomplishes preadolescence and adolescence needs for “company”, “belonging”
and “identity”. Secondly, children can easily say “sorry”. And thirdly I could
describe preadolescence and adolescence as “It’s-not-fair”-or-“I-deserve”-ages.
The above are some initial foundations for the
settlement of justice dialogues and processes. Though we often make practice of
changing behaviors by having changed attitudes first conflict resolution
processes are vivid paradigms of changing attitudes via “provoking” the appropriate
behaviors. Children learn such behaviors as “roles” and then they experience
that conflict resolution and negotiation are alternatives that really “work”.
Some conclusions
(Efficient) Social control networks have the
ability to be aware about probable “problems” as well as manage them
cooperatively. But there is also a “ceiling” as regards the number of problems that a social control network could manage in a rather “creative way” and this
limit is not only related to the “extent” of each problem but also to the
unity and coordination “resources” of each group. In other words “problems” should be perceived, weighed up and managed before they become
“enormous”. Avoid of same problems’ reappearance should also be an object of such
processes.
But these “limits” are not pessimistic “forecasts”
about social groups’ coordination abilities. On the contrary they are reasons to imply conflict
resolution skills and practices straightaway on children’s basic social groups
(family, school and peers) because these practices highlight self-regulation as well as
standards’ keeping objects.
Author Profile:
Christina Kalavri is a Psychologist-
Criminologist Msc.
Postscript/ PS:
The above creative
text is a summary of ideas for the most part based on observation during
several school activities. In fact theoretical knowledge has inspired me on certain
observation questions about two issues: first it is about children’s moral
development and the way it affects comprehension of conflict resolution objects
and values and secondly about the limits of “conflicts as opportunities” for
different social groups… These ideas for the first time had been discussed during
my participation as an expert in a school meeting between parents and teachers,
Chalkida, 3/23/2016 and afterwards in the Annual School 4/12/2016 .
Most terms in “quotes”
used in this text are “creative” and “informal”. Sometimes I need to express my
ideas in a rather “free” (even “naive”) way and this is very helpful when I have
to speak in school meetings!
_______
*For “communities of
practice” you may wish to see Lave & Wenger (1998).
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου