Tim Loreman
Concordia University College of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Love is a necessary ingredient of effective pedagogy, yet to this point there has been
a distinct lack of serious theoretical and practical work on the topic. What does it
really mean to adopt a loving approach to pedagogy? This book provides a pragmatic
and thoughtful treatment of the topic of love as pedagogy, examining the use and
role of love in teaching and learning, and providing suggestions on how educators can
effectively recognise and use love in their work.
Love as Pedagogy
Love as Pedagogy
Love as Pedagogy
Tim Loreman
This text begins with a discussion of what love is, what pedagogy is, and how the two
are inseparable in an effective educational context. It then moves on to address ethical
considerations. Drawing on discourse on love found in psychology, philosophy, and
religion the text examines various aspects of love and their relationship to effective
teaching and learning including kindness and empathy, intimacy and bonding,
sacrifice and forgiveness, and acceptance and community. This book concludes with
a photographic case study of loving pedagogy in action and practical suggestions for
educators wishing to adopt the approach.
This text is suitable for educators at all levels, especially those in early childhood,
elementary, and secondary school settings along with students in education and related
programs at universities and colleges.
Tim Loreman, PhD., is Professor in the Faculty of Education at Concordia University
College of Alberta, Canada.
Tim Loreman
SensePublishers
DIVS
SensePublishers
Love as Pedagogy
Love as Pedagogy
Tim Loreman
Concordia University College of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
SENSE PUBLISHERS
ROTTERDAM/BOSTON/TAIPEI
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: 978-94-6091-482-9 (paperback)
ISBN: 978-94-6091-483-6 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6091-484-3 (e-book)
Published by: Sense Publishers,
P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved © 2011 Sense Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or
otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material
supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system,
for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
DEDICATION
For my family.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. ix
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
2. Kindness and Empathy in Pedagogy ................................................................. 15
3. Intimacy and Bonding in Pedagogy................................................................... 33
4. Sacrifice, Forgiveness and Pedagogy ................................................................ 49
5. Community and Acceptance.............................................................................. 67
6. Love in Action: A Case Study ........................................................................... 83
7. Infusing Love into Daily Pedagogy ................................................................... 99
References............................................................................................................ 109
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without the support of my family this book could never have been written. Thank
you for your love and encouragement.
Professor Chris Forlin at the Hong Kong Institute for Education was instrumental
in helping to bring this project to completion. Chris showed all the qualities of an
outstanding colleague, mentor, and friend as she kindly read through and offered
helpful critiques of each chapter as I completed them one by one and sent them off to
her. Her insights, encouragement, and willingness to edit my clumsy drafts on planes,
trains, and at her desk are deeply appreciated. If this book has some semblance of
quality it is largely due to her contribution.
I am grateful to the school district, school, and individual participants in the case
study that forms the majority of Chapter Six for welcoming my research team and
I. I would also like to thank my friends and collaborators in that team, especially
Judy Lupart, Donna McGhie-Richmond, Rob McGarva, Kathy Hickey, Margaret
Thompson, Jennifer Barber, Angie Irvine, and our research assistants from both
Concordia University College of Alberta and the University of Alberta. Without
this team the case study in Chapter Six could not have come to fruition.
Professor Nicola Cuomo and colleagues in the Giovanni Maria Bertin Department
of Educational Science and the Institute of Advanced Studies at the University of
Bologna in Italy are acknowledged and thanked. I am grateful for the hospitality
afforded to me and the opportunities to discuss and the ideas contained in this book
during my time there as a Senior Visiting Fellow in 2010.
In short, to a very large degree this work has been improved by the work of, and
suggestions from, my family and many friends and colleagues, however, I did not
always choose to take their advice and so accept full responsibility for any failings
this work might have.
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CONSIDERING LOVE, LEARNING AND PEDAGOGY
The positive impact love can have on learning has been succinctly described by
Cho (2005) who argues that “love has the power to inspire students to seek after
knowledge, love can unite the teacher and student in the quest for knowledge, and
the love of learning can even empower students to challenge knowledge thereby
pushing its limits” (p. 79). This book is predicated on the notion that love is a product
of, and a necessary element to, successful and meaningful teaching and learning.
Cho argues that there is a place for love in pedagogy. This book views love as
essential to meaningful positive learning experiences, and is therefore a topic of
critical importance for educators. While most educators acknowledge the need for
caring environments in which warm, personal relationships are fostered between
teacher and learner, few have taken the time to address what this actually means.
Part of the reason for this might be found in a general discomfort with talking about
love and education, and also fears that writing about love and pedagogy might provide
some with the motivation to cross professional and ethical boundaries with those
whom they teach. The result is that there is a rather large gap in the academic discourse that this text seeks to help to remedy. This book gathers together a collection
of interrelated notions under the banner of love, describing how love is essential
to teaching and learning. The aim is to provide a serious but accessible and plainlanguage treatment of the topic, along with a discussion of professionally and
ethically appropriate ways in which love can be used as the fundamental basis of
pedagogical work.
This book might challenge conventional views on teaching and learning, and
readers are encouraged to critique and reflect on not only their own practices, but
those evident in the contexts and systems in which they work. Formal education has,
by degrees, arrived at a point where the notion of keeping a professional distance
between teacher and student is encouraged and often required. This is arguably to
the detriment of both parties, and, further, to society in general as these templates for
relationships are applied in wider contexts, getting in the way of our connections to
one another. But there is hope, and a pathway towards redressing this imbalance
exists. Love as pedagogy has been more frequently preserved in informal contexts,
such as a father teaching his daughter how to fly a kite, or a family friend teaching
a child how to float on his back during a day at the beach. In these sorts of situations
the interactions are intimate, safe, caring, and warm. The comfort level both parties
feel enhances and enriches the learning experiences, making them memorable and
effective. These sorts of interactions, so vital to learning, have been for one reason
or another increasingly sanitised out of our formal educational contexts. Our systems
1
CHAPTER 1
of formal education have become impersonal and, in the view of some, ineffective
as a result (Sarason, 1998; Wise, 2008). A radical shift is required, and this text argues
that such a shift needs to be in the direction of love.
Love, however, means many things to many people, and is a term with different
connotations depending on context. It is important, then, to contemplate what love
means for the purposes of the discussion which follows. Further, other key terms such
as ‘pedagogy’ and ‘learning’ also require some examination, as the definition of
these might not be as clear and evident as one might imagine at first glance.
DEFINING TERMS
Love
Definitions and ideas about the development of love come from a variety of perspectives, including biological, evolutionary, neuroanatomical, interactional, broadly
spiritual, and even mathematical and chemical to name but a few. According to
Berscheid (2006)
…the word love is used in an astounding array of situations to describe an
enormous range of attitudes, emotions, feelings, and behaviours toward objects
and people. In this respect, love is not different from many other words, for
all human language is characterised by polysemy. (p. 172)
For the purposes of a discussion on pedagogy, however, it is necessary to narrow
the list of possible interpretations down to manageable number. This narrowing down
is subjective, but nonetheless necessary to move the discussion forward. Three broad
areas, then, have been chosen which seem to be most germane to a discussion on
pedagogy. These include psychological, religious, and philosophical frameworks.
Psychological frameworks. Probably the most well known theorist in psychology
to address the topic of love is Robert Sternberg. Sternberg’s long-term interest and
work on love (and hate) is less cited that his work on intelligence, but nevertheless has
much to offer. While exhorting us not to lose the whole of love through partitioning
some aspects of it, Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love represents love as
having three main constituent elements, namely; intimacy, passion, and decision/
commitment. Sternberg’s work on love has been most frequently employed in the
discussion of romantic love, however, each element can be readily applied to the
sort of love required between teacher and student.
Intimacy, as understood by Sternberg, “…refers to feelings of closeness,
connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships. It thus includes within its
purview those feelings that give rise, essentially, to the experience of warmth in
a loving relationship” (p. 119). This view of intimacy is germane to an effective
pedagogical relationship. Such intimacy and bondedness, as will be discussed later
in this text, allows for ease of communication and feelings of psychological comfort
and security that enhance learning. When Sternberg talks of passion he is mainly
referring to physical attraction, sexual consummation, and romance, none of which
are appropriate in the sorts of pedagogical relationships discussed in this text.
2
INTRODUCTION
However, Cho (2005) represents passion as a motivational force in the quest for
learning. This is largely in agreement with Sternberg, who also acknowledges the
strong motivational aspect of passion. To be passionate in a pedagogical sense may,
then, more akin to exuberance. Finally, following intimacy and passion, Sternberg’s
third component of decision/commitment involves deciding that one loves another,
and committing to maintaining that loving relationship in the longer term. In a pedagogical sense this evokes feelings of intentionality. A teacher and learner take a
decision to enter into a pedagogical relationship in which love is a fundamental
ingredient, and then demonstrate loyalty to one another and the process by pursuing
common learning goals together. One important aspect of love in Sternberg’s view
is for the two individuals in the relationship to be matched in terms of how their
triangles of intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment align. An ideal relationship
is one in which these three areas align perfectly in terms of the amount of each of
these components both individuals hold, with equal amounts of each component being
desirable for a balanced relationship. Sternberg (2006) later added to his work on a
triangular theory of love when he examined how love develops, viewing it as a story
in which we are more likely to love those whose love story closely matches our own.
Further work by Beall and Sternberg (1995) examined the social constructedness
of love, and argued that love resists absolute definition because it differs according
to time, place, and culture. Under this argument the idea of what love is shifts in
nature and function according to the society or sub-culture in which it occurs. This is
an interesting addition to the earlier work of Sternberg, an addition which might lead
one to the conclusion that love is an interaction between the individual experiences
of two people in a loving relationship, and the influence of culture that helps to
shape and delineate the directions that love will take. Some cultures might be more
passionate, for example, leading to an emphasis on this particular aspect. Others might
emphasise different types of decisions and commitments. These emphases come to
bear on the love experiences of individuals.
Three positions with respect to love and psychological aspects of it are described
by Cho (2005) in his exploration of the ethical boundaries and usefulness of love as
pedagogy. These include the erotic position, the caring position, and the technical
position. The erotic position employs passion, intrigue, and sexual tension (not sexual
relations) in which this tension is transferred to a desire for knowledge, as pedagogical instruments; the caring position emphasises relationship and connection, and;
the technical position involves employing a caring relationship in a mechanistic
way to motivate students, rather than to embark on a journey of mutual knowledge
seeking. Ultimately, Cho dismisses each of these positions as inadequate in and of
themselves, and advocates for a view in which love assists two people to ‘become
one’ and engage in a common pursuit of knowledge. A pedagogy of love in these
terms represents the filling of a void that exists between two people so as to allow
them to seek knowledge about the world together.
Another important psychological conceptualisation of love comes from the work of
Fehr and Russell (1991) who, through research, theorised 20 prototypes of love. These
prototypes were presented as categorisations of love that individuals demonstrating
traits found in each category, or prototype, could be grouped under. As examples,
3
CHAPTER 1
some of the categories included maternal love, friendship, sibling love, Platonic love,
patriotic love, and so on. In identifying 20 different prototypes of love Fehr and
Russell highlighted the complexity of love, and to complicate matters further demonstrated that the boundaries between each prototype are ‘fuzzy’, with the prototypes
resisting clear delineation. This has likely frustrated those looking for clear, concise
definitions of love, but in all probability points to a fact we must for the time being
accept when discussing love; it resists absolute definition and categorisation.
Berscheid (2006) presents a tidier view of love, constructing a taxonomy of loves,
with four categories. These include attachment love which is the love generally felt
between parent and child. A child attaches itself to an older, wiser, and bigger person
in order to be protected from actual or possible dangers. Compassionate love refers
to the altruistic trait of being concerned about and taking action to promote the
welfare of another. Companionate love/liking refers to the sort of love involved in
friendship. One feels attracted to the companionship of another because the traits of
that individual provide one with certain personal rewards, such as intellectual engagement, for example. The meaning of romantic love is probably self evident, referring
to the sort of love felt by those engaged in a romantic relationship, including feelings of
passion, addiction, and eroticism. Of the four taxonomies of love, the first three have
obvious links to possible pedagogical application, while the idea of romantic love does
not fit in with the scope and intent of the sort of pedagogy addressed in this text.
Perhaps asking the question ‘what is love?’ of psychology is the wrong question.
Perhaps, in the manner of Beall and Sternberg (1995), it might be more productive
to examine our individual conceptualisations and experiences of love in the time,
place, and cultural contexts in which they occur. In the area of psychology the need
for such an examination would appear to be acute. It is an odd paradox that love,
arguably the most widespread phenomenon on the planet, remains one of the least
understood areas in the fields of psychology and pedagogy.
Religious frameworks. This book is not necessarily intended to be religious in
nature, however, many of the conceptualisations of love found in religious discourse
have resonance and relevance to the topic of love as pedagogy. In stark contrast to
psychology, religious thought has behind it centuries of history of contemplating the
meaning of love, and how love is evident and enacted in daily life. It is, therefore, a
rich source of ideas about love that should not be ignored, whatever one’s religious
beliefs (or lack thereof ) might be.
The psychological frameworks discussed above view love as being created
between the psychological processes of two people on which the influence of context
comes to bear. This framework, then, is largely individualistic in nature. Religious
traditions of thought tend to come at love from a different perspective. Christianity
is one example of this, and will be used here as a brief illustrative example of a
religious viewpoint on love. This is not to dismiss or devalue evidence of love in other
religions, but rather to provide a specific description of one conceptualisation of
love found in religion.
The Christian religious tradition represents love as emanating from God, and
demonstrated in most concrete terms by the death of Christ through the crucifixion,
which is seen by Christians as a sacrifice given in love in order to free mankind
4
INTRODUCTION
from sin. To Christians, Gods love is self-sacrificing. Followers emulate the love of
God by returning love to him through faith and acts of devotion, and through loving
one another demonstrably through acts of forgiveness, self-sacrifice, generosity,
and so on. Clough (2006), in his consideration of Christian love from a psychological
and theological viewpoint, notes that love, coming from God, exists independently
of the individual and is revealed upon coming to Christ rather than created. Love,
according to Clough, is impossible to define precisely in the way attempted by
psychologists because the Judeo-Christian biblical use of terms is one that uses words
to expand meanings and encourage wider thought, rather than to reduce them to
precise quantifiable delineations in the way psychology does. Nevertheless, Clough
notes that Christian love is a unifying experience, one in which actual or potential
sacrifice for another is evident. It is unselfish, and as it comes from God is directed
at not only those we have immediate relationships with, but to society as a whole.
This fits well with the notion of love as pedagogy, in that love is extended to all
collaborators in the learning process, and the aim is a unified search for knowledge
between the learner (or learners) and the teacher (or teachers). Further, the Christian
tradition demands that followers love their fellow humans as they love themselves.
Sanctification, becoming more Christ-like, is a natural consequence of understanding
God’s love. In the Lutheran view especially, receiving Gods love is not contingent
on producing good works. God places no such prerequisites on the attainment of his
love. A similar view might be taken by one using love as pedagogy; the teacher gives
love with no strings attached in the hope that students benefit. According to Clough,
Christian love is
…the deep energy that motivates us to seek spiritual direction, therapy,
counseling, mentoring, education, advice, sermons, worship, and community.
It lives in our affection for our children; our debt to our parents; our concern for
one another; and our responsibility to the earth, to other species, and to God.
Love challenges and convicts us. It is the living reality that drives and can
ground “discourse” and “meaning-making” in existential psychotherapy and
post-modernist psychology. (p. 30).
The above discussion of Christian love has parallels with understandings of love from
the world’s other major faiths (a point made repeatedly by the Dalai Lama), which
of course cannot all be discussed here. For example, like the Christian faith, brotherhood and unity under God are emphasized in the Jewish and Muslim traditions
(Migliore, 2008).
Faith traditions elevate love to a sublime state, one that is closely associated with
God, and is even seen as the personality of God. That which occurs in the absence of
love is debased and probably unimportant. It follows that from a faith perspective,
then, love is an essential ingredient in the relationship between teacher and learner
if what is to be learned is in any way worthwhile. A religious definition of love,
therefore, is one that supports the unity of teacher and learner in a selfless, virtuous
discovery of God’s truths.
Philosophical frameworks. While the various religious views on love tend to share
some broad commonalities, and the field of psychology presents still-developing
5
CHAPTER 1
views of love broadly bound in human relationships that may be shaped by society,
in no sense could philosophical views about love be considered to be in agreement
with one another. Hamilton (2006) has recognised what he calls a “…persistent and
possibly intractable disagreement about love” (p. 239) in the field of philosophy.
To Hamilton this is more than simply recognising that love is difficult to define, but
rather it is an acknowledgement that there are deep philosophical disagreements
about love that in part at least contribute to confusion when trying to reconcile the
various viewpoints. Given this, and following the pattern already adopted in the
preceding sections on psychological and religious frames of love, a few philosophical
viewpoints are presented below which seem to have pertinence to the topic of love
as pedagogy. There is no claim that this presentation is exhaustive, but rather might
be viewed as illustrative of some views that are helpful for pedagogical purposes.
Early philosophical conceptualisations of love clearly demonstrate how ideas
about love have evolved over the centuries. In Plato’s (trans. 1956) Symposium,
love is represented as a searching for beauty. This search for beauty, however, takes
on an other-worldly sense. Plato’s (trans. 1992) view, as famously represented in his
simile of the prisoners in the cave in Book Seven of Republic, is that our experience is
a mere reflection of the true essence of things as they really are in their perfect state,
and which we are generally unable to access. We can, however, come closer to seeing
the true nature of things through contemplation and philosophical thought and
reasoning. In Plato’s view, love is the deep intellectual contemplation of beauty that
brings one closer to seeing the ‘reality’ of beauty. Plato’s ideas provide us with an
important initial frame through which to develop philosophical notions of love. In
using Plato’s approach of contemplation, reasoning, and critique through questioning
(Socratic dialogue) it is possible to develop robust, logical ideas about love and what
it means. In Plato’s view engaging in love is cerebral (spawning the term ‘Platonic
love’) and involves a striving for the ‘truth’ (knowledge) of beauty through intellectual
processes. Despite postmodern distaste for the idea of the existence of an objective
truth, Plato still has relevance. Even if one believes in the existence of multiple truths
or possibilities, Plato’s ideas of finding these through reflection can still resonate.
In a pedagogical sense Plato’s ideas could be viewed as an intellectual striving to
discover the nature of beauty and other forms of knowledge.
In his broad and useful overview of the philosophy of love, Moseley (2006) draws
on mainly classical theories to describe the nature of love. He begins with first basing
his discussion on Platonic and Aristotelian models, describing love in terms of eros,
philia, and agape. The term eros has come to have a strong sexual association,
however, it was used by Plato to suggest an intense and passionate desire for something. Pedagogically speaking, this would translate into a desire for knowledge of
beauty (and also, if extended, knowledge of other things). The term philia might best
be imagined as ‘brotherhood/sisterhood’ and involves an appreciation and fondness
for others, expressed in friendships, and a desire to participate in and be loyal to social
groupings including families, and political and other forms of societal structures.
Agape extends the elements of eros and philia even further. In it’s purest form this
refers to God’s love for man, which is reciprocated and includes a love for all of
humanity in a broad sense, rather than simply a love for one’s friends and immediate
6
INTRODUCTION
community as is involved in philia. However, agape is not without it’s difficulties.
For example, should we love those who behave in ways that are abhorrent and
damaging to individuals and societies? This debate has come down through the
centuries and has formed the basis of much social, philosophical, and religious
discussion.
More recent discussions on love and philosophy as they relate to pedagogy have
centered around Paulo Friere’s (1970) landmark work Pedagogy of the Oppressed
which has provided us with some interesting insights. Friere viewed the dichotomous
teacher-student relationship as an oppressive contradiction, and advocated for a
unified search for meaning in which both teacher and student engage in a process
where the benefits are mutual. The roles of student and teacher blend so that each
party is simultaneously a student and a teacher. This unified student-teacher and
teacher-student unit explore the world through critical thinking which leads to them
becoming more ‘human’ and defies oppression. The link between Friere’s work and
love as pedagogy has been increasingly recognised prior to, but more fully subsequent
to, his death in the late 90s. Darder (2002) provides a cogent demonstration of the
links between Friere’s work and love as pedagogy, highlighting the loving aspects
of two individuals embarking on a search for meaning together, and in doing so
freeing each other from oppression. Darder saw in Friere’s work that teaching can
be an act of love, a conclusion echoed by Carla Rinaldi (2006) and seen in practice
in the pre schools of Reggio Emilia, Italy, and in select locations around the world.
Friere’s philosophy of striving for humanness by shaking off oppression through
unity and criticism, then, offers much to the discussion of love as pedagogy.
Learning and Pedagogy
To some, what learning is may seem self-evident. Most commonly people equate
learning with acquisition; perhaps the acquisition of knowledge, attitudes, beliefs,
processes, and skills. This is certainly an adequate view of learning for many contexts,
but any discussion of love as pedagogy demands more from learning. What sort of
learning is aspired to through using love as pedagogy?
The work of behaviourists such as Thorndike, Pavlov, Watson, Skinner, and all
who have followed has shown us that one can learn through the administration of a
series of rewards and punishments through association and reinforcement. A dog
that associates the ringing of a bell with food will salivate at the ringing of that bell.
A boy who has been appropriately behaviourally reinforced to clean his room when
asked will do so. But what is the nature of this learning? Behavioural learning is
rudimentary learning that for the most part does not require significant amounts of
intellectual engagement. One can automatically salivate or clean one’s room without
thinking about it terribly much. Skinner (1977) even went so far as to claim that
cognition is irrelevant because what really matters is observable and measurable
performance, not what takes place inside the learner in a conscious cognitive sense.
If one is interested in learning a series of mundane tasks and responding automatically as a result of a history of reinforcement, then behavioural techniques will
work well. Indeed, behaviourism is a useful technique where such tasks need to
7
CHAPTER 1
be learned quickly and efficiently. However, if one wants to engage in truly meaningful learning of complex ideas, feelings, beliefs, and values, then a purely behavioural
approach will prove inadequate. As one illustration of the limitations of behaviourism,
take the idea of love itself. Is it possible to teach someone to love another, who they
currently find abhorrent, through purely behavioural means? A series of reinforcers
may well train a person to behave in ways that look like love (such as standing close
to the person and uttering loving phrases), but will actual feelings of love be invoked
in the subject? There are certain areas of learning that defy the application of a
purely scientific approach like behaviourism. In most areas concerning the human
condition such as emotions, spirituality, and even the mastery of complex tasks,
learning through purely behavioural techniques will produce only superficial results.
Using love as pedagogy is an antidote to superficial learning. While behaviourist
techniques may certainly be applied as a small element of a wider pedagogical
program based on love, they are not central to it. Behaviourism may underlie much
of what we do, but the important pedagogical experiences are the ones we come to
through love. Given this, learning can be looked at through two lenses. In one corner
sits fundamental and mundane learning, which is more akin to training. In another
corner sits learning with greater depth including appreciation, true competency,
decision making, critical capacities, attitudes, feelings, judgements, and so on, which
might be characterised as the products of true education. Love can be used to both
train and educate, but pedagogical methods such as behaviourism, where applied in
isolation and in the absence of love, are limited to the former.
Consideration of the idea of learning often leads us to the ways in which learning is
brought about through pedagogy. In some respects pedagogy has become so closely
associated with the idea of education in general that the two terms are at times used
synonymously. Hinchliffe (2001), however, draws a sharp contrast between the two,
and in doing so sheds some light on what the term pedagogy means. According to
Hinchliffe, education refers to learning broadly, involves learning for it’s own sake,
and is more open-ended in nature. Pedagogy refers to learning directed at social goals
and must produce measurable outcomes. Hinchliffe’s complex argument drawing
on philosophical models presents the idea of pedagogy in a less than positive light,
arguing that it directs learning to narrow ends and constricts true open-ended
education.
While Hinchliffe may have a point, in reality education in the 21st century
demands pedagogy. Curricula, both national and local, are present in almost every
education system in the world. Educators at all levels must direct learning at certain
specifics, and even in cases where learning occurs informally at home it is generally
directed towards some end. Open-ended education is a commendable idea, and might
even be an ideal, but in the current educational milieu the possibility for engaging
in such education rarely exists. Further, if opportunities for such open education were
to exist, it is unclear what that might look like in the absence of pedagogy. While
Hinchliffe represents true education as being the sort of open-ended learning he
is in favour of, there are others who have different views. Education can also be
viewed as a collection of varied learnings, and Kneller (1971) notes that in this sense
education amounts to experiences that have a formative effect on mind, character,
8
INTRODUCTION
or physical ability. He also notes, however, that education has a technical sense which
is the societal process, institutional in nature, of transmitting knowledge, values, and
skills from generation to generation. If viewed in this way, then education and pedagogy are different yet compatible, with the pedagogy used to achieve various ends
contributing to education in a broader sense. Education is the end, and pedagogy is
the means to that end, and perhaps also, where love is involved, an end in itself.
The pedagogy criticised by Hinchliffe is largely derived from the western
tradition, and it should be noted that not all cultures are as utilitarian in their approach
to pedagogy. The traditional pedagogy of some aboriginal societies, for example,
differs significantly from western pedagogical techniques, often resulting in tensions
where aboriginal students are educated in environments founded on the western
tradition. For example, in some North American Aboriginal cultures there is a general
preference for less verbal forms of instruction with an inclination to rely on visual
and spatial information, along with a tendency to prefer watching and doing as
opposed to experimentation through trial and error. To some extent the learner
takes on a more passive role, wanting to be shown how to do something rather than
discovering it on his or her own (Danyluk & da Costa, 1999). One is not expected
to know everything, and it is perfectly acceptable to seek help from peers or others
as required. Interdependence is encouraged, in contrast to the independence so often
encouraged in the western tradition. In this tradition, pedagogy and education
(in the sense used by Hincliffe) are intertwined; the methods used to teach, such as
reliance on others, is also part of what is to be learned (Collins, 2005). These methods,
while different, are not open-ended and are aimed at the end goal of producing
useful and functional members of the broader society.
Pedagogy, then, is the employment of methods of teaching and learning that are
directed towards an end goal as part of a broader education. When one speaks of love
as pedagogy, one is referring to the use of love in teaching and learning to attain
mutually desirable ends. Activity is purposeful, and takes place against the backdrop
of love.
Additional Terminology
At this juncture it is necessary to briefly discuss three more terms that are used
throughout this text. The purpose of this text is to discuss how love as pedagogy can
transform the education of children, and while there are doubtless many contexts that
serve educational needs, the focus of this book is on schools. This is because it is
these institutions that are formally charged with the task of educating, and further it
is these contexts in which the majority of learners receive their basic formal education. The majority of readers also have experience in schools, either as students or
teachers, and so bring this background, with all its similarities and differences, to
reading. Focusing on schools should not be interpreted as defending them, or the
practices that take place in them, but rather as recognition that schools are, in a
practical sense, key education providers. Given this, terms commonly used in schools
such as ‘classroom’, ‘teacher’, and ‘student’ are used throughout the text. While
the aim of this book is to promote the idea of a unified journey of knowledge
9
CHAPTER 1
seeking based in love, it is recognised that individuals comprise this unity. The
word ‘teacher’, then, generally denotes an adult education professional, and the term
‘student’ generally denotes a child or adolescent education participant.
ETHICAL, MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CAUTIONS
The fact that love and it’s links to pedagogy are uncomfortable topics for some might
have a basis in many of the by now well-known stories of sexually predatory
educators taking advantage of students. Cho (2005), in his examination of love as
pedagogy in relation to sexual scandals, notes that the line between love and sex can
be ill defined and vague, and using an example of documented teacher-student sex
describes the boundary as porous. It is important to state unequivocally that not only is
there no place for sexual relationships between teachers and students in educational
contexts, but also that pursuit of such relationships in these circumstances is a
betrayal of love and should be rigorously condemned. The educational contexts
considered in this text are institutional in nature (schools) and are characterised by
differentials in age and power; distorted ideas of love should not be used as leverage
by those wielding power who wish to take advantage of their students. One of the
foundational premises of this text is that love can be entirely non-sexual in nature,
and that indeed it is this non-sexual love that is pedagogically beneficial and
recommended.
Based on the ethical argument outlined above, most institutionalised education
contexts have clear rules of professional conduct relating to sexual relationships
between teachers and students, with sanctions for such transgressions ranging up to
and including criminal charges. While necessary to protect those with less power in
a relationship, such codes of conduct can also be problematic and create tensions
for those wishing to pursue love as pedagogy. A salient example of this comes from
the Cambridgeshire City Council (2002) in the UK. The ‘Code of Conduct for
Teachers and Employees Working with Young People’ seems to be less a policy on
professional conduct and more a tool for avoiding the occurrence and allegations of
sexual and physical abuse of students. While protection from such abuse is obviously
essential, practices that to many might ordinarily seem very normal in relationships
between two people, especially those in a caring teaching and learning relationship,
are prohibited. For example, staff may not touch students unless it is unavoidable,
in order to comfort them, avoid violence, or apply First Aid. Under these circumstances touch, such an important feature of many caring human relationships, is
heavily restricted. To be fair, such rules are usually not generated out of thin air and
are often responses to actual events and/or growing community concern about inappropriate interactions between children and adults. However, in providing such
stringent rules, a culture might be created whereby the natural ebb and flow of human
interaction is stifled and every instance of touch is regarded with suspicion. Teacher
and learner may learn to regard one another with fear, and interactions may become
more clinical and less familiar. Jones (2004) refers to ‘child panic’, where cultures
are created wherein teachers feel discomfort at what were previously normal forms
of intimacy between children and adults, such as occasional hugs with youngsters.
10
INTRODUCTION
Under such circumstances teachers discipline student’s affection and defer to the
societal anxiety that all affection is inappropriate, and that to behave in an appropriate
way is to be remote with students.
Such tensions are difficult to resolve. On one hand students must be protected,
but on the other hand warm, caring, and natural relationships that are free of distrust
need to be fostered if effective learning is to ensue. The question needs to be asked:
Do restrictive policies regarding adult-child interactions protect children? Evidence
in this regard is difficult to come by, and studies on the prevalence of child abuse
are complicated by problems of accurate measurement (Goldman & Padayachi,
2000). Those with a predilection for abuse might simply ignore such policies given
that they are aware that their behaviour is breaking the law anyway, with such laws
being a seemingly insufficient deterrent. The solution to this problem might lie in a
combination of educating students to recognise, report, and engage in behaviours
that help prevent abuse, along with the fostering of caring cultures of mutual staff
surveillance and supervision in contextually relevant ways. To take up the touching
example once again, students who are taught to recognize the difference between
appropriate and inappropriate touching might be better equipped to participate in
an appropriately familiar relationship with a teacher than if a blanket policy of ‘no
touch’ (which can be ignored by abusers anyway) were applied. Such prevention
programs have been found to be to some degree effective for protection in institutional contexts, especially where combined with other approaches (Baron & Topping,
2008).
Mutual, contextually relevant staff supervision is more problematic but might
represent a balance between the need to protect students and the need for studentteacher familiarity. The key words here are ‘contextually relevant’. Jones (2004)
remarks that with experience educators know how to recognise the difference between
appropriate and inappropriate student-teacher interactions, but that what they view
as inappropriate is governed by the general anxiety about touching children found
in society. In a practical sense, however, little can be done about this anxiety, and
perhaps it is worth considering an increased emphasis on mutual staff monitoring
which is responsive according to the context. For example, a six-year-old student
placing her hand on her teacher’s shoulder while she reads to him might provoke
two responses. The teacher, experiencing ‘child panic’, might interrupt the learning
situation and ask the student to remover her hand. Alternatively, the teacher might
simply allow the hand to remain on his shoulder until the activity is complete, or
the student naturally removes her hand. In this instance, few would suggest that the
student placing her hand on the teacher’s shoulder is in any way problematic, yet a
strictly enforced ‘no touch’ policy would forbid it, interrupting the learning process
and forcing the teacher to subtly discipline the student for her natural demonstration
of affection. An experienced and sensible staff member observing this event, however, would probably deem that given the context and age of the student such a
small show of affection was perfectly natural and healthy. This sort of supervision
may contribute to safety, with context and the expertise of the person doing the
monitoring being taken into account. One would assume that where touch or other
interactions are inappropriate to the context, concerns would be raised and addressed.
11
CHAPTER 1
This is, after all, how things operated prior to the development of the restrictive
policies we now see, and there is little if any evidence to suggest that abuse has
decreased as a result of ‘no touch’ policies. West (2000) reports no escalation in
instances of paedophilia despite widespread general concern that this is the case.
He argues that an “exaggerated perception of risk produces undue restrictions on
children’s freedom and on their interactions with teachers and other adults” (p. 511).
The key is ensuring that students remain safe, while not throwing the baby out with
the bathwater and restricting the means to the very reason students attend school;
to engage in effective learning which is most effective in the context of a loving
relationship. Context, however, is everything. Replace the teacher and the six-year-old
with a university professor and a 20-year–old student, and suddenly the innocent
hand on the shoulder becomes much more sinister, and would likely be viewed as
such.
Unfortunately for those who like simple solutions, blanket policies that restrict
teacher-student interactions likely do not stop those with evil intent, and result in a
more problematic learning environment for those well-meaning people wishing to
use love as pedagogy. Such policies make us feel good because they are concrete and
seemingly comprehensive, however, humans and the relationships they develop are
more complicated than that, and are always context dependent. Equipping students
with the tools to recognise and act on what is inappropriate in a relationship might
solve part of the problem, and a professional community monitoring what is reasonable in any given situation might solve another part. Protecting one another is the
highest priority, and although context dependent responses do little to satisfy our
need for tidiness, they may well be the best that we can do.
LOVE OPERATIONALISED: A WAY FORWARD
To this point the nature and conceptualisations of love as it applies to pedagogy
have been discussed and considered, along with some discussion around the moral
and ethical use of love in teaching and learning. While love is an inexhaustible
subject, and one that resists confinement and rigid descriptions, it is necessary to make
meaning and come to some conclusions about love if the pragmatic goal of describing
its use in a pedagogical sense is to be realised. According to Berscheid (2006)
Because the word love is used in an almost infinite variety of contexts, it has
an almost infinite variety of meanings. This fact is unfortunate from the point
of view of those wishing to construct a simple definition of love and a set of
algorithms representing its causes and consequences…To extract from the
muddle of meanings of love a definition of what love really is, most scholars
have grabbed their taxonomic broom and tried to tidy up the mess by sorting
the myriad meanings of love into neat piles, each believed to reflect a variety
of love. (p. 173)
This somewhat describes what has been attempted here with reference to pedagogy.
Using the above discussion as background, it is possible to theorise about some
of the salient elements of love that might be useful in pedagogy without laying
12
INTRODUCTION
claim to having constructed any sort of definitive or absolute definition of love (see
Figure 1.1).
The salient elements of love held in common by the three perspectives of psychology, philosophy, and religion shown in Figure 1.1 are without question broad and
do not fully encapsulate the perspectives on love held within each of these areas.
However, they do comprise an operational and pragmatic basis from which to move
forward. These salient elements, based on religious, psychological, and philosophical
ideas about love, are as follows:
– Love involves kindness and empathy. Kindness and empathy are derived from
the unity and the valuing of brotherhood/sisterhood found in various religious
traditions. This resonates with the philosophical notion of philia expressed in the
Platonic tradition, and with the sort of teacher-student relationship suggested
in the work of Friere. Further, kindness and empathy are central to many of the
psychological prototypes of love offered by Fehr and Russell (1995) and also
the idea of compassionate love identified by Berscheid (2006).
Figure 1.1. Relationships between perspectives on love for pedagogy.
– Love involves intimacy and bonding, producing loyalty. Sternberg’s (1986)
triarchic theory of love emphasises intimacy as being one of the axes, and in
order to achieve this intimacy bonding must occur. Further, the idea of loyalty is
represented in another axis of decision/commitment. Berscheid’s (2006) attachment love also has strong links to intimacy and bonding. Religious frames of love
emphasise unity and brotherhood/sisterhood, which is achieved through intimate
relationships with and commitment (loyalty) to God and each other. Loyalty is
13
CHAPTER 1
also a strong element of both philia and agape in Plato and Aristotle’s philosophical understandings of love, and is reflected in the need for teacher-student
unity in the work of Friere.
– Love involves sacrifice and forgiveness. Notions of love involving sacrifice
and forgiveness are evident in religious discourse. Christianity provides a clear
example of this as Christians see the traits of sacrifice and forgiveness as being
central to the work of Christ and the Christian tradition. Other religions such as
Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam share these values, although perhaps for different
reasons such as relieving the suffering of others or obeying God (Carrithers,
1996; Yahya, 2006). It is also evident in philosophy in the compromises made in
order to ensure harmonious, unified learning relationships (philia; see Moseley,
2006). Further, the benefits of forgiveness are well documented in the psychological literature viewing it as a way to overcome psychological and social
difficulties, and in some cases even to reconcile with and come closer to an
offender or victim in terms of understanding (Impett & Gordon, 2008).
– Love involves acceptance and community. Beall and Sternberg’s (1995) psychological view emphasises the social constructedness of love, and therefore acknowledges the value of society and community in shaping the way in which we
view love. Further, intimacy and passion involve an acceptance of others. Religious
frames see sanctification as providing unity with others and a seeking of God
(Clough, 2006). Christian thought particularly emphasises unity and acceptance,
with emphasis being given to Christ’s interactions with and compassion for those
from all walks of life including the poor, sick, and indigent. Friere views a community of teachers and learners seeking mutual understandings as being one means
of freeing people from oppression, and the Platonic/Aristotelian notions of philia
and agape link love strongly to the notion of community.
– Passion infuses all aspects of love. Passion is acknowledged in nearly all realms
of thought on love. Sternberg (1986) cites it as an axis in his triarchic theory
of love, and this is further supported by Cho (1995). Berscheid’s (2006) ideas
about compassionate love have pertinence here. Plato’s idea of eros evokes a sense
of passion for learning. Passion does not stand alone, rather it is evident in the
degree to which the other elements of loving pedagogy identified above are
enthusiastically pursued.
The remainder of this text will focus on each of these elements in turn before
providing a concrete example of love as pedagogy in the form of a photographic
case study. It will conclude with an overall theoretical framework of love as pedagogy
and some suggestions as to how this way of working might be advanced through a
program of teacher reflection and self-development.
14
CHAPTER 2
KINDNESS AND EMPATHY IN PEDAGOGY
THE CASE FOR KINDNESS AND EMPATHY
What are kindness and empathy, and why are they important to pedagogy? The
traits of kindness and empathy are certainly desirable in one’s personality, but what
bearing do they bring to the teaching and learning context? As discussed in Chapter
One, notions of kindness and empathy as elements of love have roots in psychological, religious, and philosophical traditions of thought, although the two notions
have different histories when it comes to pedagogy. As approaches to pedagogy
began to be studied in more modern scholarly ways through research, kindness was
recognised as being foundational to good teaching and learning (see Willard, 1929).
In contrast, empathy has a much more recent history. Arnold (2006) points out that
the idea of empathy has its roots in 19th century aesthetic philosophy, but that it was
not until the mid 1980s that its links to pedagogy began to be seriously discussed.
In that short time empathy has come to be seen by many as being of critical
importance to meaningful learning (Schertz, 2006a).
Kindness and empathy, while retaining enough of a relationship to be discussed
as part of the same chapter in this book (see also Batson, Ahmad, Lishner & Tsang,
2005, who elaborate further on the links between the two ideas), are also distinct
concepts. It is perhaps useful at this point to separate the two ideas for individual
attention, although before they can be discussed, they should be understood. Like
most aspects of love, a precise definition of kindness is elusive and so it is probably
best to come to know this idea through discussion. The philosophical roots of kindness can be traced at least as far back as Aristotle (trans. 1991) who in his Rhetoric
describes it as a form of what we might now consider to be generosity, where one
helps another in need in the absence of tangible personal rewards for doing this.
The extent to which one is kind is dependent on a number of variables, including
the level of need, the timing of the act, and so forth. The idea of kindness has been
reconsidered since Aristotle, being for many centuries conceptualised as a religious
virtue, with attention being devoted to it in most religious texts and doctrine.
Kindness, however, is seemingly also an a-religious value, with atheist philosophers
such as Nietzsche (trans. 1992), citing kindness as being a curative in the realm of
human relationships. More recently, the current Dalai Lama (2006) has associated
kindness with his religion in the strongest possible terms. The Dalai Lama asks his
followers to pursue a ‘policy of kindness’ that he connects with notions of warmheartedness and helping others. The altruistic nature of kindness, then, is one that
has been retained over thousands of years and still resonates today. It is more than
pure altruism. It has attached to it a flavour of virtue and warmth towards fellow
humans.
15
CHAPTER 2
Empathy has been described as “an ability to understand the thoughts and feelings
of self and others. It is a sophisticated ability involving attunement, decentering
and introspection: an act of thoughtful, heartfelt imagination” (Arnold, 2006, p. 7).
The various elements of this definition are worthy of consideration. The notion of
attunement is the focusing in on another. It has the sense of coming together, and
perhaps a ‘meeting of the minds’. In decentering one puts oneself outside of the
centre of one’s world and tries to look at situations from other angles. Introspection
involves thinking about oneself in relation to others and individuals and collective
circumstances. Finally, this all involves contemplation and imagining the life of
another so as to understand and identify with them as closely as is possible. Empathy
is different to sympathy in that the level of identification is greater – one feels in
oneself the plights and joys of another as opposed to the more external connotations
of sympathy where one feels sorrow or joy for another. Consistent with the above
definition, Schertz (2006b) notes that empathy is
…the mediation of emotional information between two body-consciousnesses
that involves systemic communicative processes operating between subjects
which are, by definition and structure, relational. In other words, empathy can
be seen as a form of communication by which human beings interact in an
intersubjective gestalt. (p. 8)
An interesting aspect of empathy, and a continuing debate in the literature, relates
to whether it is a cognitive or affective construct. Many have come to the conclusion
that it is both. Empathy can be seen as cognitive in that there is likely a cognitive
process that leads to the understanding of the psychology of others in terms of
discerning their thoughts, feelings, intentions, and so on. It is affective in that it is
based in feeling with another as opposed to merely engaging in the sorts of cognitive
processes outlined above (Strayer, 1987). Ridley, Vaughn, and Wittman (1982) argued
that the cognitive process comes first, as we ascertain and understand what another
is feeling. The affective dimension follows when we identify with those feelings,
considering and possibly acting on those feelings through our own emotions.
Much of the literature on empathy focuses on its use as a tool for understanding
diversity in areas such as disability, culture, and religion, and this has generally
been the context in which empathy has been most recognizable in pedagogy. For
example, Thompson (1995) presents a cogent argument for using empathy as a way
of teaching university students to care about minority groups. This use of empathy
is by no means limited to higher education contexts, and in fact is also widely used
and recommended for school contexts involving younger students where the
goal is to develop a concern for others (see for example Gordon & Green, 2008).
The development of empathy for these purposes, however, might be seen as the
transmission of content rather than the employment of a particular style of pedagogy.
Indeed, the development of empathy is a formal curriculum goal in some parts of
the world. There is another sense in which empathy is evident in many classrooms
and where it receives less attention but is perhaps equally or even more important.
Just as empathy is important for learners to develop in order to understand others they
learn about and interact within peer groups and in the community, the development
16
KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY
of empathy between teacher and learner, and vice-versa, is at the heart of the contribution of empathy to the idea of love as pedagogy. When teacher and learner develop
empathy with one another, a deeper understanding of the other is engendered making
the mutual pursuit of knowledge in ways suggested by Friere (1970) possible.
Empathic teachers understand their students to a greater degree, and are perhaps
more sensitive and able to respond to strengths and needs in affective, academic,
emotional, behavioural, and other areas. Similarly, empathetic students might be
more adept at responding to a teacher, and in drawing out learning through more
perceptive responses to learning situations.
Kindness and empathy, then, are both essential ingredients to the loving pedagogical process. This information alone is nevertheless of limited value if both
teachers and learners simply know about these ideas and do not internalize them and
generalize them to their pedagogical lives and practices. In order to do this, it is first
necessary to consider how these traits are evident in, and can be further developed
in, oneself and in others.
USING KINDNESS IN A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE
Having discussed what kindness is, and the importance of kindness in adopting a
pedagogy of love, it is now time to turn to the pragmatic questions of how one might
use kindness in a teaching and learning situation, and what this might look like in
practice. Using kindness in teaching, like other areas of love as pedagogy, does not
simply amount to the employment of a variety of ready-made teaching strategies
designed to provide a superficial appearance of love. Rather, it requires the engendering of an atmosphere where kind acts occur between people who sincerely care
about one another. In order to produce this atmosphere, one must first contemplate
kindness from a personal point of view, encourage it in others, then implement
teaching and learning structures in which kindness is infused as a matter of course.
Fostering Kindness in Oneself
Most people tend to assume that they are almost always kind in their interactions
with others, however, the falseness of this assumption is evident when we consider
how frequently others treat us in ways that are inherently unkind. For example,
someone might push into line at the supermarket, or not offer an elderly passenger
a seat on the bus. While we might argue that these are the sorts of are acts that we
would not engage in, clearly people do engage in them, even though those people
presumably also tend to think of themselves as generally kind. If we accept this
argument, then, we can see that in some cases there exists a gap between perceptions
of ourselves as kind, and the reality of daily actions. Evidence for the veracity of
this statement can be found in research. Kohlberg (1971, 1976) provided males of
all ages with a series of moral dilemmas, then categorized their responses as to what is
a morally right and wrong response given the circumstances. For some time it was
assumed that these responses would equate to action. Later research supported
the notion that in actuality there is a gap between what one says is a morally
correct course, and the action that same person might take in a real-life situation
17
CHAPTER 2
(Krebs & Denton, 2005), with Haidt (2001) claiming that we tend to respond to moral
situations based on intuition rather than reasoned moral judgements (see also
Loreman, 2009). Kindness has an association with moral virtue, meaning that this
idea of a gap between theoretical and actual responses likely exists, a contention
supported in research on kindness and Kohlberg’s stages by Comunian (1998). It is
easier to say that one should act in kind ways than to actually act in kind ways. It
is easier to say that one should always give up a seat on the bus to an elderly
passenger than to do so if the opportunity presents itself when one is exhausted
from a hard day of work. Aristotle (trans. 1991) would argue that the harder it is for
one to perform an act of kindness, the greater is the magnitude of kindness involved
in that act. Fostering kindness in oneself, then, likely involves an examination of
the gap between how kind one views oneself to be, the sorts of acts one generally
engages in, and at what point one is unwilling to act in kind ways.
Kolb and Boyatzis (1970) explored ways in which a person might bridge the gap
between ideals on the one hand and actions on the other. They suggested that goal
setting and self-directed change might be beneficial in these circumstances. Kolb and
Boyatzis outlined features of the goal setting process that their research found to be
contributors to the accomplishment of a goal. This process is outlined in Figure 2.1. It
is important to note that Kolb and Boyatzis emphasise the desirability of collaborative
Figure 2.1. The self-directed goal-setting process as outlined by Kolb and Boyatzis (1970).
18
KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY
goal setting. So, while an individual still retains control of the process, others are
brought in to collaborate in setting the goal, and possibly in providing support
throughout the process. It might be hard to discern the distance between our views
of kindness and our behaviour in practice without the assistance of a sensitive and
close colleague to help us reflect on this.
As an example of how this process might look in practice, let us examine a
dilemma where a teacher believes it is important and kind to allow some children
extra time to complete assignments, but yet on reflection sees that her behaviour does
not match that ideal as she tends to have a negative attitude when marking this work,
and assigns lower grades to those students who submit late work. In this instance
the teacher has already developed an awareness of the problem. Further consideration
might highlight that the reason for her marking in this way is that this was the
practice when she was a student, and also that her influential colleagues tend to
take a dim view of work not submitted on time. In collaboration with a colleague the
teacher might set herself a goal of not assigning lower grades to late assignments,
and will develop a contextually relevant action plan for achieving this goal, with
clear measurable indicators of what constitutes success. Success expectation would
likely be high given that the teacher set the goal and has elicited support from a
colleague. Psychological safety might be achieved through self-rationalisation that
this practice is indeed kind. Further, the sensitive collaborating colleague will be on
hand to provide support. This may all be psychologically reassuring. Finally, a selfevaluation is conducted, possibly in collaboration with the colleague. This evaluation
would relate to the previously established measurable indicators (perhaps a comparison of grades on late versus non-late assignments), and a decision would be
made as to the success otherwise of the goal attainment.
Using this method implies a deliberate and scientific approach to behaviour
change, which of course can also be applied to other areas of using love as
pedagogy. Some might feel that the use of scientific method in the pursuit of
kindness might not be an appropriate fit. This assumes that science and the realm
of kindness (and indeed love) are incompatible, which is not necessarily the case.
To assume that science has no value in the pursuit of a loving pedagogy is as risky
as closing one’s eyes to the contribution that religious, philosophical, or other
traditions make to the topic. We do not yet know enough about love to begin
dismissing certain traditions of thought, and it is likely that we can find benefit in a
combination of approaches to promoting love as pedagogy.
Teaching in a Context of Kindness
A pedagogy of love can only occur in an environment in which kindness exists.
The development of personal kindness is a pursuit everyone can follow given that
we can always be more kind. Therefore, the process can be a continuous one, with
self-monitoring of kind practices already enacted, and a searching for areas in which
greater kindness can be developed. As we foster greater kindness in ourselves, we
must also be mindful of encouraging kindness in others. In a typical classroom
context this involves not only students, but also other adults in the room.
19
CHAPTER 2
Being kind does not necessarily imply that one is a pushover or a soft touch.
While the cliché ‘one must be cruel to be kind’ might be a little extreme, being kind in
pedagogical sense sometimes requires difficult decisions to be made, especially
where adults are concerned. What might be done on the very rare occasions where
present in the classroom are people for whom unkindness has somehow become a
fundamental, persistent, and consistent aspect of their work? If we agree that that
presence of unkindness in an educational context is unacceptable, two options for
dealing with this circumstance present themselves.
The first, and preferred, option is to assist the colleague to recognise that a
problem exists (and we must first be sure that it truly does exist), then take action
to remedy the situation. In an instance where one has authority over another, it can
be made clear that a shift towards greater kindness is obligatory. In instances where
no such authority exists, we must of course be more diplomatic in encouraging the
colleague to recognise the need for change. In order for such a change to work, it is
best done in a spirit of collegiality and mutual exchange. Support and encouragement
must be provided every step of the way. A shift towards helping a colleague to attain
greater kindness can be made by engaging in the same process described above
(Kolb & Boyatzis, 1970). While in many cases change will not be instantaneous,
working towards kindness goals may keep the topic at the forefront of consciousness
in the working partnership on a daily basis, and will hopefully provide for longterm change.
The second option amounts to a last resort. The colleague in question might disagree that they are unkind or that their unkindness is problematic, and might actively
resist overtures of assistance for change in this area. In these rare circumstances, with
such a fundamental disagreement in approach, one needs to question the suitability
of that person working in a classroom using love as pedagogy. Other options for
where and how that person works might need to be explored. For example, a classroom assistant might be assigned to other duties in the school. While this might
sound overly harsh and akin to abandoning a person (and raising possible allegations
of hypocrisy in a book about love), it must be remembered that ultimately the
adults must take the lead in fostering an atmosphere of kindness in a classroom,
and if they are not prepared to do that then their presence will be, in the final
analysis, detrimental to teaching and learning through love and therefore a betrayal
of students. A good rule of thumb is to help wherever possible, and to make difficult decisions such as removing a colleague from a context only when absolutely
necessary. This, of course, assumes one has the authority to remove a colleague
from a context and this may not be the case. In times such as this, where the option
of last resort is required but authority is limited, administrators likely need to be
brought in to broker a resolution.
Fostering Kindness in Students
Once the educators are taking the lead in teaching with an attitude of kindness,
attention can then be turned to fostering this kindness in students. A number of
strategies exist for doing this, however, the literature on this topic tends to focus
20
KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY
almost exclusively on developing kindness in younger children. This can be extended
to all students regardless of age, and indeed many of the strategies suggested are
directly applicable to students of all ages. This does not imply that we should ignore
differences in the perception and use of kindness in students of different ages.
Consistent with Piagetian developmental theory, Baldwin and Baldwin (1970) found
that children’s ideas about kindness differ and become more complex and adultlike as they age and develop. If we accept this, we can expect a more sophisticated
response to and adoption of kindness the older a student gets, placing a greater
emphasis on more fundamental and concrete kind acts for younger students. There
are two main perspectives worthy of consideration when contemplating how to promote kindness in students. The first perspective is an environmental perspective,
and the second perspective is an individual-interactional perspective. The point of
the discussion below is not to provide a comprehensive overview of each and every
strategy one can employ in order to promote greater kindness, but rather to provide
a summary of some of the areas in which kindness can be developed, and one or
two examples of what this looks like.
Approaching kindness from an environmental perspective involves the manipulation of an educational environment in ways that facilitate the development of
kindness. There are many ways to do this and teachers, being generally a creative
profession, are probably best placed to develop environmental modifications relevant
to their individual contexts. There are, nevertheless, some general practices that might
have currency across contexts.
Classroom resources promoting kindness. The use of children’s literature as a
means of fostering kindness in young students has been found to be a successful
approach (Bailey, 2006). According to Zeece (2009) the use of literature “…that
highlights and supports secure attachment and positive interactions between young
children and their significant adults and highlights kindness serves to build foundations of trust whereby prosocial behaviours such as sharing, helping, comforting,
and caring are acknowledged and valued” (p. 447). Literature, of course, is only one
type of resource and contexts for younger students are typically characterised by
the availability of a wide variety of literature that is not always evident in learning
settings for older students. The point in favour of the availability of written instructional material that emphasises kindness is one that can be easily extended
to everyone, regardless of age. Of course, other classroom materials emphasising
kindness are equally important, and the literature idea discussed above is but one
example. A classroom pet is another example of a concrete (indeed animated) resource
for fostering kindness. A class hamster, for example, must be cared for, loved, and
treated with respect and dignity (Jabs, 1995). Further examples include puppets and
dress-ups that allow children to dress up and role-play acts of kindness. Teachers will
need to review their classroom resources on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure
that ideas about kindness are adequately represented in the materials used by students.
Classroom arrangements to promote kindness. The physical arrangement of classrooms can do much to promote a caring context. For example, students can be
21
CHAPTER 2
grouped in ways that promote interactions with one another and staff. Desks in
rows can inhibit communication, and a careful consideration of how students can
be seated so as to communicate with one another in healthy and productive ways
can be beneficial in the promotion of kindness. Schaps & Solomon (1990) note that
activities completed in such groupings are helpful in developing kindness because
they allow for extensive interaction amongst group members, collaboration towards
group goals, division of labour, mutual helping, use of reason and explanation, and
explicit consideration and discussion of values related to the group activity. Further,
teachers who spend their time mingling amongst the students during instructional
time are best placed to encourage kind interactions, and also to demonstrate their
kindness to students as opportunities arise. These sorts of groupings, however, may
not be ideal for all settings at all times. Individual work, which generally fills at
least some portion of the average school day, has been found to be better suited to
the more traditional model of desks in rows for the very reason that they do inhibit
communication (Hastings & Chantrey Wood, 2002). One must be careful not to
disrupt academic progress in the pursuit of kindness, but rather to work at the two
goals in tandem.
Classroom procedures promoting kindness. Teachers can implement a number
of classroom procedures that place students in situations where they can develop
kindness. One example is that of peer tutoring. Peer tutoring involves a peer with
expertise in a certain area teaching a peer without that expertise. It has been found
to be an excellent instructional method for concept attainment providing the peer
tutor is well trained and supported, but in addition to that there are many self-esteem
benefits for the tutor. As a result of the helping relationship the tutor feels valued
(see Loreman, Deppeler & Harvey, 2010). This sort of classroom instructional procedure, where students help one another, is an ideal context for students to demonstrate kindness to one another in very concrete ways. A myriad of other classroom
procedures exist that can foster kindness, including the sharing of instructional and
other materials, assignments completed with others, helping in problem-solving
contexts, and turn-taking to name but a few. Many of these procedures are already
in place in many classrooms, or would take minimal adjustments to implement into
existing routines.
As mentioned above, another perspective on kindness in the classroom aside
from the environmental one is an individual-interactional one. This amounts to
encouraging kindness in individual students, and promoting kind acts occurring in
the course of every day interactions between students. Although there is a dearth
of research in this area, some excellent ways of achieving this have been outlined
in the literature. The Child Development Project in the United States was an early
attempt at adopting a deliberate approach to promoting kindness, consideration,
concern for others, and other areas of prosocial development (Schaps & Solomon,
1990). Over 20 years later this remains a positive and tangible example of a coordinated approach. Some of the features of this project that still have relevance
for classrooms today include a reliance on both collaboration and adult guidance.
Students are expected to learn about kindness through the example and guidance of
22
KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY
the adults in the classroom. According to Schaps and Solomon, children learn cooperatively and “…because peer interaction is not always equal status, collaborative,
and benevolent, the teachers act as values advocates, pointing out the importance
and relevance of helpfulness, fairness, concern and respect for others, and responsibility” (p. 39). Another feature of this approach is what they call developmental
discipline. Developmental discipline involves students taking an active role in
classroom governance, including the devising of rules and helping one another to
follow those rules. Regular classroom meetings are held in order to help promote
ownership of the classroom functioning by the students. In doing so, it was noted that
schools who participated in this project became caring communities, with similar
traits and atmospheres as are found in supportive families.
Other more specific means of promoting individual-interactional kindness have
been outlined by Church (2000), Miller (2000), Bailey (2006), and Adams (2007).
Some of these are suggestions for parents that can also be extended to suit other
learning contexts in addition to the home context. These have been advanced with
reference to younger students, but with some thoughtful modification can be applied
to promoting a culture of kindness, and individual kindness, in students of any age.
These strategies, which I have added to and elaborated on, can be sorted into three
categories, which are; teacher led kindness activities, student led kindness activities,
and community based kindness activities.
Teacher led kindness activities. This refers to activities in which the teacher
takes the lead role. A social constructivist approach to teaching does not preclude
the teacher taking the lead in some circumstances, and indeed where kindness is
concerned adults must be positive role models to students. As a few examples,
teacher generated activities can include:
– Making a kindness list. Led by the teacher, students generate a list of altruistic
events they have noticed. This might be turned into a class bulletin board that
can be updated regularly.
– Using pictures or videos of kind actions to generate a class or individual
discussion on what it is to be kind.
– Noticing and pointing out instances where students exhibit kindness.
– Enforcing rules related to treating others with respect and kindness, but doing so
with fairness and compassion. Unkindness should not be tolerated.
– Showing leadership by treating students with respect and warmth. Being kind
and generous in dealings with and discussions about others.
– Facilitating friendships. For some students friendships are difficult, but this is
the space in which kindness can occur. Teachers can and should engineer
situations where all students can make friends.
– Maintaining high standards. Demonstrations of kindness such as helping others
should be an explicit expectation.
It should be noted that all classroom members are worthy of kindness in equal
amounts. At different times, especially during times of personal difficulty, some
students might benefit from extra kind attention from adults and peers, however, as
a general rule, the aim is to teach in a context where kindness is received and given
23
CHAPTER 2
by all in equal measure. Favouritism should not enter into the conversation, and indeed, when one is kind to all, then it is probable that all feel to some degree favoured.
Student led kindness activities. This refers to activities where students take the lead.
Many of these are facilitated by the teacher in the first instance, but ownership of the
activity is quickly taken up by the students. As a few examples, these can include:
– Cooperative group work activities where students must reach a common goal by
helping each other and each performing a role.
– Self-monitoring of kind acts conducted by themselves, and noticing the kindness
of others in concrete ways (perhaps a system of ‘thank you’ notes could be
implemented in a classroom to facilitate this).
– Generation and monitoring of classroom rules through class meetings where
fairness and compassion are emphasised.
– Using manners. This produces a basis for respectful interactions from which
kindness can develop.
– Following a policy where the hand of friendship is extended to those seen alone
in the playground through invitations to participate in group activities.
Community based kindness activities. The purpose of activities in the community
is to help students see that kindness extends beyond their immediate world and into
the wider community. As a few examples, activities can include:
– Fundraising for altruistic causes such as the local food bank, child sponsorship
in a developing country, or resources for an underprivileged school.
– Participate in activities at a local senior centre.
– Volunteer to help as a class with some appropriate community service project.
USING EMPATHY IN A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE
Empathy and kindness are linked in that acts of kindness often bring us closer to
one another, and this closeness assists in the process of mutual understanding leading
to empathy. Further, the development of empathy might well be a catalyst for the
development of kindness. When we understand and identify with another, we are
more likely to want to help them (Batson et al., 2005). As with kindness, the best
place to start with empathy is to pursue a path of self-development in the area. When
we can empathise with others, it might well be easier for us to connect with them in
order to make this empathy mutual. It is important to remember at this point that
empathy that amounts to simply understanding why another person might act or
feel a certain way is relatively superficial. Instead, what we should aim for is the
capacity to indentify with others in heightened way, to see things from their perspective as much as is possible, and experience feelings and motivations with them
in order to make pedagogical adjustments and improvements. One, however, must
be careful. To become too immersed in the problems and emotions of another can
cloud judgement and might ultimately, be unhelpful (Arnold, 2005). Empathy, then,
is probably at its best when we are able to identify closely with another, yet maintain
a strong sense of our own self and a measure of objectivity, a process labelled as
24
KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY
intelligent caring. In this way, we can respond to the needs and strengths of another
and they can respond in kind in order to support a process of mutual learning.
Fostering Empathy in Oneself and Others
Whereas kindness can be fostered through a deliberate process of identifying and
addressing gaps between an ideal situation and a current reality, empathy is perhaps
better developed through immersion in empathic contexts in combination with a
raised consciousness as to the value of listening and the impact this can have on
our understanding of, and engagement with, others. While the previous section on
kindness addressed developing this trait in oneself and in other adults separately,
this section addresses the development of empathy on oneself and others as an activity
to be done together. Empathy, the understanding and appreciation of others, is best
developed with others. Individualism limits our capacity for empathy, as while we
think we might truly know and understand the thoughts and feelings of another, the
extent to which this is accurate and possible is questionable. Despite its limitations,
as in all aspects of love as pedagogy, empathy is worth pursuing even if utopian
states of empathy are impossible to achieve. Arnold (2005) describes what she calls
‘empathic intelligence’ in the following way
Empathic intelligence is a sustained system of psychic, cognitive, affective,
social and ethical functioning derived from:
– an ability to differentiate self-states from others’ states (“who owns what”)
– an ability to engage in reflective and analogic processing to understand
and mobilise a dynamic between thinking and feeling in self and others
(self narrative)
– an ability to be enthusiastic, engaging, actively empathic, intelligently caring
and professionally expert
– a commitment to the well-being and development of self and others. (p. 7)
The first two points of this definition are less self-evident than the last two points
and are probably worthy of some elaboration. In differentiating self-states from
other’s states one is not losing oneself in another, but rather is aware that despite
the unity that comes with advanced states of empathy two people are, in the end,
different entities. This is important in preserving the mutuality of an empathic
relationship. You become one in as much as you try and share thoughts and feelings
with another, yet on another level preserve a sense of individuality and objectivity.
One simultaneously bonds with another, while also preserving the self. The second
point about engaging in reflective and analogic processing in order to understand
the dynamic between thought and feeling in self and others is based in Arnold’s idea
that an interaction between thinking and feeling is essential for learning to occur. In
her view “logic alone will not explain the most complex phenomena of life or the
concept of empathic intelligence; rationality and emotion have to cooperate in that
endeavour” (p. 7). Reflecting on how emotions influence rational thought in the
self and others, then, is an important element of empathic intelligence.
Everding and Huffaker (1998), taking a cognitive perspective on empathy, provide
some concrete strategies for promoting its development in adults that are worthy of
25
CHAPTER 2
some consideration. It is increasingly evident in the literature that the development
of empathy might be mapped and described in terms of stage development in ways
similar to how cognitive development has been by theorists such as Jean Piaget and
Robbie Case (Commons & Wolfsont, 2001; Moore, 1990). While there is as yet no
specific agreement on how these stages of empathy present, there is relatively broad
agreement that they do exist. Given the nature of developmental psychology most
of the emphasis in the literature is on child development, however, according to
Everding and Huffaker, there are four adult perspectives on empathy that have
connections to a developmental view. In perspective A, one can have empathy for
others not too different from oneself, along with sympathy for those seen as deserving
it. Stereotyping of such groups is common. In perspective B, stereotypical views of
different groups continue, but a greater range of diversity is accepted with the
underlying philosophy of everyone being permitted to do their ‘own thing’ as long
as it is not imposed on others being evident. In perspective C others are seen as
operating in the context of a wider social system, although values in social systems
that differ from that of the observer might be hard to understand. Maintaining the
existing social system is a high priority in this perspective. In perspective D greater
attention is devoted to the individual who is seen as operating in a social system
that should value diversity in complex worldviews. Those taking perspective D try to
understand others in ways that are complex and which evolve and change through
time. It is important to note that while these perspectives arise out of an investigation of a cognitive developmental model of empathy, they are in and of themselves
presented as simply differing perspectives that are not necessarily more or less developmentally advanced than others, although it may be argued that, in fact, a developmental hierarchy does exist.
The process of moving towards greater empathy suggested by Everding and
Huffaker is one of transformation involving a broadening, expanding, and enriching
of understandings about the self and others, including the communities in which
they are embedded. They suggest that one should learn to take on each of the different
perspectives in order to better understand views of others. The suggest the following
four strategies for the development of empathy in adults:
– Play. The idea of play is defined broadly to include engagement in role-play
scenarios where empathy can be developed; problem-solving simulations; cooperative activities, games, and tasks; and so forth. Through play we can imagine
how others feel in low-stakes scenarios where we can feel comfortable to take
on what normally might be seen as radically different perspectives.
– Listening. Two types of listening are suggested. The first is a compassionate,
active listening to others in all its many forms, including aurally and in writing
and reading. The second type of listening is listening to oneself in order to uncover
our own biases, misunderstandings, and subtle variations in conceptualizations
of ideas as they differ from that of others. This can be done through an examination of our own personal writing and other forms of reflection.
– Offering options. Recognizing the helpfulness of being exposed to multiple
perspectives on the same problem or topic, it is suggested that discussion of case
studies where multiple perspectives are used as resolving factors can be used as
26
KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY
a means of empathy development. Perhaps of greater impact in this area, however,
is the broadening of experience to take in a wider variety of religious, cultural, or
intergenerational activities than one has engaged in previously. This broadening
of experience can challenge views and open up greater levels of understanding
of the context in which others operate.
– Shifting paradigms. This involves a conscious and deliberate effort to shift
thinking in order to accept the point of view of another. For example, someone
with pre-conceived ideas against homosexuality might try to consciously shift their
views to being in favour of same-sex marriage. This is extremely uncomfortable
for many people, and requires a high level of self-critique and a re-evaluation of the
reasons behind one’s views. We challenge our own reality and confront ourselves,
although this need not be a solitary activity and may best be accomplished through
dialogue with others.
Everding and Huffaker suggest that these strategies all be enacted in the context
of learning environments that are amenable to frank dialogue and growth. Possibilities
for what this environment can look like in teaching are described below.
THE EMPATHIC CLASSROOM
The first step in creating an educational environment conducive to empathy is to
understand a developmental perspective on empathy. Empathy is one of the few
aspects of love in which such a perspective has been investigated, and although
more work certainly needs to be done, there is enough evidence to suggest that
children develop ever more advanced capacities for engaging in sophisticated
empathic relationships as they mature. Adopting a cognitive viewpoint on empathy,
Commons and Wolfsont (2001) succinctly outline a useful conceptualisation of developmental stages, and caution that any attempt to promote and develop empathy
should take these into account. These stages are adapted in order to be summarised
in Table 2.1, and some pedagogical implications have been added.
Although researchers are still trying to understand the developmental stages of
empathy an awareness of what we know of them to date, at least in a general way, is
important because it is through such an awareness that educators can provide appropriate levels of support to children. We can adopt a Vygotskian approach and immerse
children in activities and ask questions that encourage them to shift their thinking
towards the next stage (without suggesting that these stages can be accelerated),
while at the same time understanding in our interactions that the expression of some
types of empathy are possible or not depending on the developmental stage a student
is in.
Aside from an awareness of the links between empathy and development, there
are other things that can be done to develop empathic pedagogical relationships. The
development of empathy in students is germane to this endeavour. One strategy that
has met with some success has been to engage in a specific program aimed at empathy
development called ‘Roots of Empathy’. In this program a parent and infant visit a
classroom on a regular basis throughout the school year (nine times, generally) with a
trained instructor coaching students to take note of the development of the baby,
27
CHAPTER 2
Table 2.1. Developmental stages of empathy
Stage
Sensory
and motor
actions
Circular
sensorymotor
actions
Sensorymotor
Nominal
Sentential
Description
Beginning with basic reflex responses
in infancy such as elicited smiles and
responding to obvious distress in
others. This gradually becomes more
sophisticated by adjusting behaviour to
moods and behaviour of others.
Eventually moves to physical
comforting etc. of others in distress
(hugs, etc.).
Names feelings. Responds emotionally to
emotionality of others. Tries to comfort
others through basic problem solving.
Notes cause and effect and tries to help
(e.g. consoling a crying infant).
Preoperational
Empathises with fictional characters.
Empathy is dependent on context (e.g.
cats deserve sympathy but not bugs).
Primary
Projects own feelings about a sufferer
on to the sufferer. Can recognise
feelings of others, but often relates
these to own personal situation.
Concrete
Infers feelings directly from
expressions etc. at ‘face value’.
Links external actions to internal
feelings in others on a continuum of
intensity.
Suffering, internal feelings, actions, and
contexts are linked. Knows one can feel
and act differently in different contexts.
Categorises feelings and responses in
individuals (e.g. a certain people tend
towards types of feelings/acts).
Empathy awarded in line with sufferer
status in eyes of observer.
Acts on perceived universal principals
of caring and suffering. Looks for
consistent systems.
Understands there are no universal
‘truths’ in empathy, just a coconstructed understanding between
people.
Abstract
Formal
Systematic
Metasystematic
Paradigmatic
28
Pedagogical implications
As children in these stages are
responding to others, the
importance of continuing to do
this should be encouraged.
Recognising the emotions of
others and appropriate responses
are the two primary areas for
development. Teachers can be
explicit about pointing out
emotions and how they
present, along with offering a
menu of appropriate responses.
Attention can be drawn to
possible causes and effective
helping strategies.
Stories can be paralleled to real
life events. Multiple possible
solutions to fictional problems
can be discussed.
This natural self-identification
can be useful in recognising
when own actions hurt others,
e.g. ‘How would you feel if
that happened to you?’
Exploring the range of
different actions that can result
from similar affective states
may extend understanding of
individual difference.
Explorations of the variables
influencing emotion and
responses, and how those
variables are complex and can
confound categorisation. The
logic and possible unfairness
of a systematic view can be
challenged.
Social justice projects can be
used to explore feelings of
disadvantaged people.
Individual relationships can be
emphasised along with
importance of listening to
others.
KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY
and to try and label the baby’s feelings. Students interact with the baby and parent,
ask questions, and try to better understand the relationship and bond the baby and
parent have, thus empathising with them. Through this, students are asked to identify
and reflect on their own feelings and those of others. Research has confirmed the
efficacy of this program for school-age students, noting amongst other positive
findings a reduction in aggression and enhanced pro-social skills being demonstrated
by students (Gordon & Green, 2008). While Roots of Empathy is undertaken with
the assistance of a trained instructor, the absence of such an instructor need not
discourage teachers from embarking on a similar project of their own. One can
arrange for a parent and infant to visit regularly, and with thought and preparation
facilitate a perfectly adequate set of experiences for students. Further, empathy development experiences need not and should not stop there. Visits to local senior centres
or other similar facilities for purposeful engagement or other similar sorts of
experiences can also do much to boost empathy development (Femia, Zarit, Blair,
Jarrott, & Bruno, 2008). Importantly, however, as noted such experiences should
always have a purpose and should be mutually beneficial both to students and those
they are engaging with. It is counter productive to promote an atmosphere where
students pity others, such as the elderly. Rather, for empathy to be fostered the
interactions should be respectful. The purpose is to develop a caring understanding
of the point of view of others, and those involved in interactions with students
should be viewed as having something of value to offer, usually founded in their
current or prior experiences, talents, and knowledge.
Empathy can also be developed through an emphasis on this in the course of
regular teaching. Toranzo (1996) conducted classroom-based action research on a
structured and deliberate focus on empathy development. Toranzo primarily tackled
the issue by identifying aspects of the curriculum that lent itself to the development
of empathy, then devising and conducting activities that emphasised this over a twoyear period in a segregated class for children who were deaf. Some of these activities
included teaching about communication strategies, cooperative reading and other
types of learning, parent and child interaction days, community outreach activities,
pen pals, pet care, and social justice projects. This emphasis on empathy was indeed
successful as
… students moved from adhering to their own viewpoints to having the ability
to understand and use others’ viewpoints to expand their social and academic
competence. Social competence improved through their understanding of
roles and responsibilities in communication exchanges, their communication
skills in general, their classroom interactions and discussions, and their
ability to monitor their own behaviors. (p. 126)
Somewhat connected to this idea is Schertz’s (2007) notion of engaging in a
Community of Inquiry approach to empathy development. Under this model, students
develop empathy through dialogue in an environment that supports “…dialogicallybased inductive interactions and peer-mediated, intersubjective gestalts” (p. 191).
The Community of Inquiry, according to Schertz, not only fosters empathy, but is
itself empathic pedagogy. In a Community of Inquiry students might be seated in a
29
CHAPTER 2
circle to discuss topics proposed by the teacher and themselves. In engaging in this
dialogue they can take on different perspectives (possibly through role play), and learn
through induction. This communal pursuit of knowledge, it is argued, fosters empathy
as students cross boundaries they previously might not have otherwise crossed.
While such strategies are helpful in the development of empathy in general,
specific attention should be devoted to the relationship between teacher and learner. In
a pedagogical sense, the development of such an empathic relationship is critical. The
development of this personal relationship leading to a healthy teacher-student
rapport cannot occur if the issue of empathy development in a wider sense has not
been addressed. Simply put, it is not logical for two individuals who have an underdeveloped sense of empathy in general to be able to apply empathy in a specific
relationship. Once a more general capacity for empathy has been achieved, how
might an empathic teacher-learner relationship be developed? Many of the tools
for the development of empathy in a general sense can be employed to a more
focused, specific context. The goal of empathy is to be able to discern and understand
the feelings and emotions of another in a vicarious way, and then to engage in
introspection in order to identify with the other, and to take whatever action might
be required (Arnold, 2006). In developing a personal empathic relationship with a
student, it might be possible on occasion to separate these two aspects (vicariousness
and introspection) for individual attention.
In order to discern the feelings and emotions of another, it is important to develop
an affective and cognitive connection with that person. Albert (2003) lists the
teacher-student connection as being fundamental to a healthy and productive relationship. Connection involves an emotional attachment, recognition, and valuing of one
another. While mutual responsibility for connecting should be taken by both students
and teachers, as pedagogical leaders it is the responsibility of the teacher to initiate
the development of a connection where this has not occurred as a matter of course.
Albert suggests that in order to connect parties must first set personal biases aside
and fully accept others, regardless of their backgrounds or perceived flaws. Students
must be given attention in order to feel important and valued. This attention can
be demonstrated in small and large ways, but certainly an empathic relationship
will not result where a teacher is unwilling to give a student sufficient amounts of
attention so as that student feels he or she is important to the teacher. Teachers must
also show students appreciation for the things they do. This demonstrates that what
they do matters, as well as who they are, and that the teacher is taking notice of their
good deeds and actions. Affirmation demonstrates an enthusiasm for what students
do, and encourages them to believe in their own self-value and see themselves as a
worthwhile participant in a relationship. Finally, Albert recommends engaging in
affection with students. Can we ever truly feel for and care about someone we feel
no affection for? It is important in an empathic relationship that the two participants
like one another, and this affection needs to be explicitly demonstrated, either verbally
or through appropriate levels of touch. In developing this person-to-person connection
through what Albert has called the ‘Five As’ one is then in a better position to understand another, and to be vicarious regarding the affective experiences of another.
At this point it is worth considering what is to be done if a teacher and student
30
KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY
simply do not like one another. Rather than pull away, which might be the intuitive
response, it might be worthwhile to consider moving in the other direction with the
two parties spending more time with one another. Researchers have investigated
the ‘extended contact’ hypothesis that attitudes towards other groups of people can
be improved through spending significant amounts of time with members of those
groups. To date the results of this extended contact have been found to be positive
for children (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe & Ropp, 1997) with similar research
conducted on pre-service teachers and adults with disabilities also demonstrating
positive results (Carroll, Forlin & Jobling, 2003). If we can make the jump from this
research on groups and focus on the impact for individuals (members of groups) it
makes sense that in some instances the development of a positive attitude to another
leading to deeper personal connection takes more time and effort than in other
instances, and that extended contact may be beneficial.
The second part of this equation, introspection, involves a personal stepping
back and taking stock following vicarious engagement with another. How does the
vicarious identification with the other influence one’s own cognitive and emotional
state, and what actions might be taken? This introspection can take the form of
personal reflection. Research suggests that if we are able to reflect on stories and
events in our own lives, then greater empathic identification with others is possible
(Dimaggio, Lysaker, Carcione, Nicolò & Semerari, 2008). Introspection, then, is
likely to take this direction. One reflects on the emotions and feelings discerned in
the other, and relates these to their own experiences. In doing such one can gain a
deeper understanding of the other and arrive at greater empathy.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
This chapter has provided a rationale for the use of kindness and empathy in teaching
and learning, and has explored what each of these means with reference to pedagogy.
In order to infuse kindness and empathy into pedagogy it has been argued that
we must first foster this trait in ourselves as well as in the other educators involved.
As this is being accomplished, an atmosphere of kindness must be nurtured in the
classroom, and kindness and empathy must be developed in students. This can be
done through environmental manipulations, along with placing students in situations
where kindness and empathy are fostered and learned in an individual-interactive
way. Mutually kindness and true empathic understanding, then, become two of the
foundations of a loving pedagogical relationship.
31