Critical lessons on behaviour for teachers

When William Wordsworth wrote the line “The Child is father of the Man” in ‘My heart leaps up when I behold’, he presaged later psychological theories that would dominate the early part of the twentieth Century, including Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory.

Freud argued that a person’s behaviour is influenced by several factors including one’s psychological make-up, but also importantly one’s early experiences in life.

A person’s behaviour and attitudes can therefore be attributed to conscious and subconscious motivations accumulated over time through a process of the environment acting on pre-existing character traits.

An understanding of this idea is necessary for anyone involved in influencing the character and behaviour of human beings at any stage of life.

It was therefore interesting for many in this field to read early in the week about a school principal who banned mothers from visiting their children in his school dressed in ‘mini-skirts’ and short dresses.

His argument, which appeared to have broad support from the school administration, was that such mothers embarrass the boys in the institution.

“Parents should not embarrass their sons when they visit this school. There is no ‘my dress, my choice’ here, he was quoted as saying. Presumably, this argument was based on the fact that the school was founded on Christian values, which, in his opinion, forbid women from wearing mini-skirts and short dresses.

INTERROGATE VIEWS

Many Kenyans will probably agree with the head of the school, and accept his argument at face value. But it is important to interrogate these views in the context of prevailing psychological theory, including learning theory and the theories of personality development.

It is the responsibility of schools and teachers to mould the character of their wards in a manner that helps them fit and excel in society.

This must take into consideration the fact that society is constantly evolving, and very few values and opinions are universally accepted as true or immutable.

We must therefore ask ourselves what the principal was teaching the boys in the school with his purported ban of miniskirt or short-dress-wearing mothers.

Firstly, he was telling the boys that they have no control over their behaviour once they are aroused by a woman wearing a short dress.

He was therefore purporting too protect them from the temptations brought by their mothers, because once aroused, there was no telling what mischief they may get up to.

In other words, the teacher was telling his charges that they remained just as primitive and out of control as their wild animal cousins, and their now fossilised ancient ancestors.

Secondly, he was teaching the boys that they (boys and men) were the key decision-makers on the ‘acceptable’ mode of dress for the women in their lives, including their own mothers.

Whatever female mode of dress ‘embarrassed’ them or caused discomfort in them was to be banned, and the women ordered to dress more ‘appropriately’.

Stretched to its logical conclusion, this lesson would excuse a boy who is so ‘embarrassed’ by the dressing of a random woman in the street that he ‘is left with no option but to undress or otherwise bully her’.

This, in my view, is the frame in which we must examine this teacher’s utterances, and gauge our own moral values based on whether we agree or disagree with him.

Prof Lukoye Atwoli is Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Dean, Moi University School of Medicine [email protected]