A lesson in humanities
Thursday, 10th June 2021
As I plan my lessons on identifying and exploring the values that guide us through our lives - thinking about ways to open up discussions with my students about what our values are and why they matter, how they influence our decision making, how shared values create cohesive communities and help us to meet life’s challenges – I reflect on the Australian government’s recent plan to increase budget spending on defence, to protect us against an increasingly “poorer and dangerous world” and "countering the rise of China".
While I plan a lesson on exploring communication styles and which of these are best suited for effective conflict resolution, I puzzle over the revelation that my government will spend 270 billion dollars on military tools, machines, weapons, might – and I find not even a loose thread to connect the two.
I struggle, and fail, to find any parallels for comparison between my lesson on how to disagree respectfully, how to find common ground, how to compromise, the necessity to balance talking with listening – and my government's plan to buy an 800 million dollar arsenal of American made missiles, capable of destruction from a firing distance of more than 370km.
In class, we have spent some time talking about bullying, what it looks like, what motivates this behaviour and how best to both manage and mitigate it. My students’ solutions are, for the most part, not punitive, but they do insist on naming bad behaviour. They focus in on the ideas of positive witnessing, where passive onlookers to unjust acts are replaced by active bystanders and, vitally, they insist there must always be a willingness to talk and a focus on solving conflict, before things escalate. We must, they say, not look away.
I introduce the concept of restorative justice and while some, at first, are resistant to the idea, struggling with whether this is enough, whether the perpetrator is getting off too lightly – the conversation and debate circles around to an understanding that there are all sorts of reasons why people behave badly and that perhaps we are all guilty of this at some point. We consider the harms or oppressions lived by the bully and acknowledge that they themselves may be suffering, victims themselves of harm and in need of support. This leads to discussions that maybe the wrongdoer can be encouraged into both changing and making amends for their unwanted behaviour. The students agree that a vital ingredient in successfully holding the bully to account is that the voice of the person who has been wronged, is heard. That this person, or group, gets to tell their story, to the wrongdoer, articulating the harm, distress and suffering caused by another.
The class concludes that to successfully resolve conflict we must be willing to call out bad behaviour, own up to our own bad behaviours and listen, really listen, to the voices of those affected by these damaging deeds. The revelation is that conversation and the building of relationship through shared understanding of each other’s challenges is essential if we are to avoid more conflict.
Later, as students complete tasks and surveys to help them identify their strengths and their values, it is fascinating to witness this little group, this tiny representation of Australian young people, as they share their discoveries and realise that it is the very diversity of the strengths and characteristics held by each individual in the group that makes them strong.
I wonder how, after witnessing this exploration of their own values, I could possibly justify to my students my government’s plan to spend 270 billion dollars on military might. I wonder if they would consider this money well spent in the face of the apparent threat of a “less stable world”. I wonder if they would consider that this approach decries their own acknowledgment, that as Australians we should be building a shared national conscience with a focus on looking out for and caring for each other.
And that other, includes our neighbours and not just our friends.
The Australian government's refusal to act with meaning and integrity on climate change mitigation, going against a rising international tide, together with the continuing decline in our support for the needs of the nations and peoples of the Pacific Islands is already coming back to haunt us, as we wonder why, when they are forced to choose where their allegiances lie, they choose China.
Again, I reflect on the opinions, values and beliefs of my students, as I consider that if we don’t do the hard work as a nation to define and assert a national identity that is inclusive, respectful, good humoured and diplomatic, the biggest threat to our country becomes not those from outside, but those from within, the extremes from the far right and left.
Imagine if our biggest export, alongside wheat and solar panels, was diplomacy, a capacity to support others to come to agreements without resorting to the pointing of fingers or guns. Imagine if we were no longer willing to believe that the good guys having the weapons pointed at the bad guys was the best way to keep the peace. Imagine what social harm we could solve if we were willing to believe that spending 270 billion dollars or more on addressing the inequities caused by long term poverty, neglect, poor health and the privatisation of systems that were meant to support those in need.
I imagine, based on their values, strengths and characteristics, that my students would opt for spending our shared resources on creating social good, on nurturing and encouraging civil society, and on looking after our neighbours, even the ones whose names we don't know.
Dani Burbrook ©
While I plan a lesson on exploring communication styles and which of these are best suited for effective conflict resolution, I puzzle over the revelation that my government will spend 270 billion dollars on military tools, machines, weapons, might – and I find not even a loose thread to connect the two.
I struggle, and fail, to find any parallels for comparison between my lesson on how to disagree respectfully, how to find common ground, how to compromise, the necessity to balance talking with listening – and my government's plan to buy an 800 million dollar arsenal of American made missiles, capable of destruction from a firing distance of more than 370km.
In class, we have spent some time talking about bullying, what it looks like, what motivates this behaviour and how best to both manage and mitigate it. My students’ solutions are, for the most part, not punitive, but they do insist on naming bad behaviour. They focus in on the ideas of positive witnessing, where passive onlookers to unjust acts are replaced by active bystanders and, vitally, they insist there must always be a willingness to talk and a focus on solving conflict, before things escalate. We must, they say, not look away.
I introduce the concept of restorative justice and while some, at first, are resistant to the idea, struggling with whether this is enough, whether the perpetrator is getting off too lightly – the conversation and debate circles around to an understanding that there are all sorts of reasons why people behave badly and that perhaps we are all guilty of this at some point. We consider the harms or oppressions lived by the bully and acknowledge that they themselves may be suffering, victims themselves of harm and in need of support. This leads to discussions that maybe the wrongdoer can be encouraged into both changing and making amends for their unwanted behaviour. The students agree that a vital ingredient in successfully holding the bully to account is that the voice of the person who has been wronged, is heard. That this person, or group, gets to tell their story, to the wrongdoer, articulating the harm, distress and suffering caused by another.
The class concludes that to successfully resolve conflict we must be willing to call out bad behaviour, own up to our own bad behaviours and listen, really listen, to the voices of those affected by these damaging deeds. The revelation is that conversation and the building of relationship through shared understanding of each other’s challenges is essential if we are to avoid more conflict.
Later, as students complete tasks and surveys to help them identify their strengths and their values, it is fascinating to witness this little group, this tiny representation of Australian young people, as they share their discoveries and realise that it is the very diversity of the strengths and characteristics held by each individual in the group that makes them strong.
I wonder how, after witnessing this exploration of their own values, I could possibly justify to my students my government’s plan to spend 270 billion dollars on military might. I wonder if they would consider this money well spent in the face of the apparent threat of a “less stable world”. I wonder if they would consider that this approach decries their own acknowledgment, that as Australians we should be building a shared national conscience with a focus on looking out for and caring for each other.
And that other, includes our neighbours and not just our friends.
The Australian government's refusal to act with meaning and integrity on climate change mitigation, going against a rising international tide, together with the continuing decline in our support for the needs of the nations and peoples of the Pacific Islands is already coming back to haunt us, as we wonder why, when they are forced to choose where their allegiances lie, they choose China.
Again, I reflect on the opinions, values and beliefs of my students, as I consider that if we don’t do the hard work as a nation to define and assert a national identity that is inclusive, respectful, good humoured and diplomatic, the biggest threat to our country becomes not those from outside, but those from within, the extremes from the far right and left.
Imagine if our biggest export, alongside wheat and solar panels, was diplomacy, a capacity to support others to come to agreements without resorting to the pointing of fingers or guns. Imagine if we were no longer willing to believe that the good guys having the weapons pointed at the bad guys was the best way to keep the peace. Imagine what social harm we could solve if we were willing to believe that spending 270 billion dollars or more on addressing the inequities caused by long term poverty, neglect, poor health and the privatisation of systems that were meant to support those in need.
I imagine, based on their values, strengths and characteristics, that my students would opt for spending our shared resources on creating social good, on nurturing and encouraging civil society, and on looking after our neighbours, even the ones whose names we don't know.
Dani Burbrook ©