Posted at 10.01.2018
"Flexibility" has been an thing of review and conversation since antiquity. The definition, extent and implications of the thought of human independence have been mentioned in disciplines which range from the arts, humanities and even the sciences.
Freedom has been variously identified by many people. These definitions can be broadly categorized into 2 categories for straightforwardness.
These include Legal and real human protection under the law that are conferred on humans from the exterior. These are circumstantial in characteristics. Their absence, misuse or drawback can be clearly seen and is usually protested against.
These include independence of speech and expression, liberty of religion, Freedom from want, Independence from fear, flexibility of association, flexibility of thought, etc.
These tend to be more Metaphysical in characteristics. Internal freedoms matter our inner mechanisms, thought- operations and the flexibility to self-determination. These are less obviously visible, more complex and still have far reaching repercussions for our powers of decision making, judging accountability and responsibility.
It is these inside freedoms that are the subject of interest for students of mindset and then for those considering understanding human action.
The most contentious concern has been whether human beings can be free by any means. Is Unbridled Individuals freedom a myth? Are we always constrained by internal and external forces that shape our ideas and beliefs or does each individual involve some autonomy to make his/her own decisions? Generally speaking, the disparate views on this issue belong to three main categories
The Deterministic View
The Libertarian View
The Compatibilist Approach
The first two strategies agree that both freedom and natural causality cannot are present concurrently. However, they derive two contrary conclusions from this incompatibility. The deterministic methodology asserts that there surely is no opportunity of freedom. Thought, action, incidents are already chosen and human choices are significantly constrained by incidents beyond our control. The idea of flexibility is hence an illusion.
The libertarian strategy says the exact opposite. Inspired by modern, rationalist school of thought, it concludes that humans have unlimited alternatives and are absolutely free to pick and choose, to think and to respond, keeping in mind physical constraints. . These selections may be affected by certain factors, but these decisions have the energy to improve the route of natural occurrences.
The third way is therefore called the compatibilist position. Some actions are free, while others are reflexive. Flexibility and free will is realized as a part of the workings of the mind. One is accountable for an action when this step results from a conscious intention. To get accountable for an action is not to be ultimately accountable for it, in the sense of also being in charge of all the occasions in the causal chains that resulted in the lifetime of the mindful intention that established the action.
In this task, we are taking the third position. We will attempt to show, by taking some examples relevant to our lives, that unbridled liberty is indeed a misconception. Further, we suggest that unbridled freedom is not an excellent to be appreciated either. There are certain boundaries to the flexibility that one individual can enjoy, without trespassing on the freedoms of others or spreading chaos and disruption in society. It really is desirable to involve some restrictions that enable us to live in contemporary society and differentiate us from animals.
The first restriction that human beings face in the exercise of unlimited flexibility is the constraints put upon us by culture. Human beings are social family pets that have agreed to quit certain privileges and freedoms in order to get the great things about living in world. This has been discussed by various cultural theorists under the idea of the "Social Contract".
Living within world, humans are inspired by three types of factors.
The genetic factors
The way they are activated
Interaction between interior potential and exterior surroundings
The first factor talks in our inheritance from world and parents. Both in terms of genetic materials passed down to the next generation, as well as the collective public conscience, which is "a determinate system of ideas and beliefs which creates cultural likeness among all customers of contemporary society".
The second factor contains inner characteristics inherited from our parents because they are portrayed in us. Some are recessive, some are dominant, but both types are likely involved in deciding who we are.
The third factor earns the importance of the relationship with population from birth, that moulds and patterns our personality in millions of imperceptible ways.
The third factor is considered to be the most relevant and effective since its affect begins the moment we are created and acts to shape and mould the ideas made through the first and second factors.
Society is always present, both outside and inside us. It books our behaviours, determines the range of our choices and influences our decision making process. More often than not, we don't realize this situation. Often, we do not head this intrusion.
". . . because almost all of enough time we ourselves desire just that which society needs of us. We want to obey the rules. We want the parts that population has allocated to us"
This is apparent in the manner that advertisements, for example condition our choices. Individuals are often drawn to products that they might not usually buy, need or use, solely on the basis of the way it is presented on the tv screen, in the print out marketing etc. The marketing and advertising industries make an effort to appeal to this tendency- to seek the judgment of others, to do what everyone else is doing, to comply with public norms and standards- with their own benefit.
Another example of purely exterior factors influencing personal decisions sometimes appears in the concept of opinion and exit polls. The Indian authorities has prohibited the airing of leave polls on television set, until all stages of voting is over, because of the dread that expected results in one region may hamper the affect the voting patterns in other parts. Similarly, view polls could become opinion-generating mechanisms.
Another factor that has been extremely effective in influencing thoughts, activities and behaviour has been faith. All over the world, various religions have inspired people to think within preset frameworks. There are however, two sides to this coin.
The unifying potential of religious beliefs has been well explored by thinkers such as Emile Durkheim that has said that- "A religion is a unified system of values and practices relative to sacred things, i. e. , things establish aside and forbidden--beliefs and procedures which unite in one sole moral community all those who abide by them. "
This positive view of religion is countered by Karl Marx who refers to religious beliefs as "opium for the masses" i. e. something that distracts them from alienation and hardship in this life, by encouraging leisure and comfort within the next, thereby portion the pursuits of the bourgeoisie.
As an intrinsic part of the society we reside in, religious beliefs- whether we allow it or not- can be an essential aspect that influences the early development of our personalities. Its morals, values and teachings are instilled in us, and even if later in life we choose to carefully turn away, these collective ideals remain around.
Another crucial establishment that patterns us is the training system. The problem of independence within the classroom and its importance in the learning process has been the topic matter of many debates. It is noticeable that unbridled flexibility in a classroom, especially when the students are young or immature is only going to lead to chaos and distress. The target will be diffused because the expert of the professor- who enforces self-control and focus in the class will be lost. Also, the students, who are unaware of future benefits associated with learning certain difficult or sophisticated subjects, will have a tendency to avoid them altogether. As just about everyone has experienced ourselves, unbridled flexibility by means of no attendance constraints usually brings about high levels of absenteeism.
However, it is also important to think about what would be the circumstance in a course with zero freedom whatsoever. Where the educator is the absolute dictator and students have no rights, and only one duty- to listen to the authoritarian tutor. Such a circumstance cannot be good to the overall expansion of the students. Their imagination will be stifled. Prohibited to ask questions or think individually, their inquisitive and questioning natures will be subsumed under the weight of conformity, mediocrity and conformity. Education then divorces itself from understanding and development of the personality. It reduces to merely rote learning and superficial information gathering. This can have consequences for his or her future where they'll be struggling to take any 3rd party decisions, never having confronted that prospect earlier.
As earlier, the very best approach is based on the center of these two extremes. Children must be given liberty within the school room and within the education system. But how much power should the educator retain and how much he/she should leave the kids to make their own decisions is a difficult question to answer.
A number of theories have been put forward by various creators in this regard. Pioneers in child developmental theory- Jean Piaget (1896-1980), and Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934), have powerfully inspired beliefs about interacting with children, how to create learning surroundings, and expectations for children's development.
There are some similarities and distinctions between Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories and these dissimilarities influence how instructors struggle and negotiate the location of the control and the children's liberty in child-centred classrooms. The key difference between Piaget's cognitive- constructivist theory and Vygotsky's public constructivist theory lies in the role each theory assigns to the individual child and the interpersonal framework of play in a Child's development. Although both solutions support the idea that individuals create knowledge, Piaget and Vygotsky looked at nature (individual) and nurture (social framework) as taking different tasks in this technique.
From the Piagetian point of view, individuals construct a personal reality based on earlier knowledge and new activities. Knowing is therefore, an interaction between the environment and the individual. For Vygotsky, learning is an interactive and constructive activity, and both modern culture and individuals play essential tasks in learning.
Both approaches point out the importance of social adaptation and social connections in children's learning, the difference will come in determining the course of influence, that is, whether knowledge is made consequently of social connections and then internalized (the Vygotskian view), or whether knowledge is constructed by the individual as a result of experience and then enhanced through tests in sociable situations (the Piagetian view) Moreover, both approaches identify learning in a social framework, but each attributes different functions to that context. For Piaget, the importance of the social context is the fact it provides children with a way of testing the knowledge they had built. For Vygotsky, the public context is both source and the ethnical repository of the training.
The classrooms guided by Piaget's theory give children the greatest degree of independence. Teachers create a rich environment for children to explore by themselves. Teachers are observers. Alternatively the classroom applying Vygotsky's theory looks for to find a balance between teacher-directed and child-initiated activities. Teachers assist children and present them challenges to ensure that children may attain the top level of their zone of proximal development.
Two other freelance writers who've provided valuable insights about the tension between children's autonomy and the teacher's specialist in classroom coaching are John Dewey (1859- 1952) and Maria Montessori (1870-1952). Both, Dewey's Experience and Education (1998) and Montessori's Absorbent Mind (1995) discuss many things about the partnership between children's freedom and teachers' assignments in education. Although their ideas about education are extensively regarded as child-centred, they keep divergent views about children's liberty and the role of the tutor.
In Dewey's Intensifying Theory, democracy is the aim of schooling. The curriculum is child-centred and it is rooted in the ideas of continuity and relationship in a interpersonal framework. Learning is experiencing.
"Professors and children make a decision together what experience is meaningful to each individual student's current learning needs and later development. In addition, the experience is definitely a transaction occurring between the person and the surroundings. "
Therefore, as children develop in just a school that functions such as a democratic world, they learn and develop the ability to function well in the larger democratic world. Dewey (1998) thought that children's freedom should be created, that it's not simply a product of the free will. He made a variation between freedom established totally on free will (doing whatever one wants to do) and independence of intelligence, which is made of purposes that are intrinsically rewarding, through observation and exercise of judgment in real-life situations.
Further, he assumed that,
''Guidance distributed by the tutor to the exercise of the pupils' brains is an aid to freedom, not really a restriction after it''
Therefore, teachers should act as the representative and agent of the pursuits of the group all together, and should be responsible for every Child's on-going expansion with the city.
Moreover, Dewey suggested that the perfect aim of education is the creation of self-control. The mere removal of limitation or external control is no warranty that children have self-control.
Maria Montessori believed that children and their proper education is the main element to creating a " new world ". Education must develop the actual abilities of children, who (she presumed) are endowed with unknown capabilities. The role of education is therefore, to offer an orderly environment and materials which children can explore, by themselves, in order to promote their development. Montessori's educational idea is centred on the connection between items and the average person. The teacher serves as an observer to find a child's inner spirit and will be offering an orderly environment in which children can develop and increase.
Montessori presumed that the kid has the capacity to show herself. Children can modify and have the capability to develop freely, which may become directly noticeable if their thoughts aren't oppressed by parents who may limit the child's ''internal work and think about down his spirit''
She mentioned that child herself must end up being the centre of education and should be guided by her inward brain. Therefore, the teacher's activity is not to talk, but to prepare and arrange some motives that motivate children to build up without the need of direct instruction
However, Montessori didn't ask teachers to totally abdicate power. She thought that authority does not come from the ''adult's dignity'', but from the help that parents or educators are able to give to their children. Therefore, expert consists of teachers' aim to help children construct their work, without posing a danger to the children's imagination or reconstructing the children's work.
Although Montessori suggested that professors should refrain from either interfering with children because they are assimilated in their work or protecting against children's free expansion, she still believed that teachers should interrupt children if the children persistently annoy the others, because it means the children's spirits or disciplines of development would unfold adversely. Therefore, the instructors should interrupt to break this negative development and guide children toward the ''right track''
These theories lead to 2 types of classrooms, with differing degrees of instructor control and children's independence. It would be generally expected these ruminations on students' independence would lead to a minimal instructor control and high university student freedom circumstance. However, this isn't the truth.
Low Teacher's control, High Student's Freedom
Some people may expect that the intensifying way of teaching should be situated in this quadrant because they consider high professor control (the use of teacher authority) may oppress children and cause unjust vitality relationships between teachers and children.
However, it has been seen that is impossible to help children attain educational goals with no teachers' advice.
Those who advocate this view must critically study the next questions:
Does tutor control need to be contradictory to children's freedom?
Does educator control automatically oppress children's freedom?
Does teacher control prohibit children's learning initiatives?
High Teacher's control, High Student's Freedom
Reflected by both Piaget's and Vygotsky's ideas. A educator may respect and value children's unfolding development, but he/she must also setup the objectives and goals for learning and present some advice to children. In this kind of interaction, professor control and Children's liberty are not thought of as opposite to one to another; they coexist and both are highly appreciated in the ''complete'' procedure for teaching
This procedure for education, that provides great degree of liberty to the pupil, yet locates a certain amount of assistance and control with the professor has implications for the professional site as well. When these students expand up and type in organizations, the degree of independence they are being used to doing exercises and the decision-making skills that have been instilled in them through the process acquire great significance. The amount of freedom that an organization offers to its employees is also an important factor.
The interaction between freedom directed at employees in a organization and the amount of flexibility the employees are used to function under is very complex and gives climb to different kinds of behaviours.
For example, those who find themselves brought up through an activity which involves high degree of control by parents, instructors etc. may, on finding a low control environment within the business, be unable to function and take impartial decisions, or they could wrap up mis-using those freedoms.
Freedom in a group has many meanings, and always will involve the complex dynamics between individual freedom and the value of getting together with organizational/ professional focuses on. Some of these include:
Freedom to obtain flexible work time to support family and lifestyle, while still interacting with organizational goals.
Freedom to come quickly to leadership with new ideas and opposing viewpoints, while learning to trust people and letting go of complete control.
Freedom to do things in different ways by leveraging personal talents to accomplish goals, while still maintaining a professional, formal attitude.
Freedom to leverage communal media to converse professionally and also to help build brand understanding for your company, while not devoting a lot of time to personal issues.
Freedom to commemorate great accomplishments and milestones, while at the same time, having the freedom to say (without wisdom, ), "I have no idea" or "I cannot handle any longer" or "I made a blunder. "
Freedom to be paid out quite, equitably, and even sometimes generously
There is no debate these, and many more such freedoms within the work environment will unleash ingenuity, encourage an environment of innovation, lead to relaxed and more successful employees, increase worker retention, make jobs more interesting and inspire employees to execute better. But, like regarding implementing freedom within the training system, here too, there has to be a delicate balance between worker flexibility and organizational support and guidance. To make this possible, one of the major factors is the top command and their management style.
Many people contend that is precisely what makes companies like Yahoo India, MakeMyTrip, Intel Technology, Marriott Hotels, NetApp India the most notable 5 places to work in (in India). Flexibility can be designed. It is the consequence of a making triad comprising the planning brokers' assumptions, the look system's conditions and the opportunities and/or obstacles which enhance or prevent the exercise of freedom.
Depending upon the amount of freedom and flexibility that organizations share with employees, and the qualities and skills they expect in their workers, they could be categorized under 3 wide-ranging categories :
The industrial organization
The Industrial Economy required the mass scaling of development and circulation. It met certain requirements for the design of systems for size, and was successful in plugging staff in to execute their specialized jobs.
This kind of organization is dependant on physical capital. Intellect, conformity and diligence are essential staff characteristics. Employees have little if any decision-making freedom.
The information Organization
The information business Information is employed to uncover patterns, reduce the costs of creation and consumption and find new solutions to vexing issues. Staff make use of their intellect to solve problems relating to data.
This type of organization is based on similar employee characteristics as the industrial, but gives a greater amount of independence to its employees.
The creative/learning group
The creative firm is based on ideas and beliefs qualities like initiative, creativity and love. These characteristics are intrinsic to employees, and when given liberty, bloom to provide a competitive benefits to the company. These assets aren't physical in characteristics like goods; hence the organization needs to focus on retaining its highly skilled employees.
Gary Hamel has given some great types of companies that are innovating in conditions of management to encourage these qualities in their employees. W. L. Gore is one such example. They have made the list of Best Places to benefit the past 25 years. THE FANTASTIC Place to Work organization known these four aspects of W. L. Gore's culture:
"People experience incredible liberty at Gore: the liberty to talk to whomever they want or want to, the flexibility to make feedback and provide input, the freedom to bring who they are to work, and the independence to make commitments. "
To conclude, this newspaper tries to dispute that there surely is no such thing as "unbridled independence". Humans are essentially public animals and they're born within society. Society patterns and moulds human being behaviour, which might also be inspired by certain intrinsic hereditary predispositions of individuals.
However, Corporations like Faith, Education, the state, family, friends, etc. have an enormous role to play in the way we develop into individuals. These may be conducive to the introduction of a balanced personality. However, they may sometimes be oppressive and could deter us from achieving our full probable in conditions of faculties like creativity, innovation, lateral thinking etc.
Further, unbridled independence, even if it existed, is undesirable since it disconnects us from the interpersonal nature of the lives. Unbridled liberty can be destructive, chaotic and may in reality hamper the most effective developmental process, as was explained in the dialogue on liberty within education previously. The problem with high tutor control and high learner independence was found to be the best method of bringing independence within the classroom.
Finally, the degree of independence we are used to training and working under has a significant impact in the professional circumstance- both for the employee as well as the organization. Employees must learn to handle freedom with responsibility and accountability while organizations must work on loosening bureaucratic hierarchical control buttons and present more freedom to make decisions to their employees.