This week’s post will examine the injunctions of “don’t think”. As someone with a background in education, this is an injunction that I have seen at work many times in my professional life. It comes from an erosion of the belief that you are capable of not only having an opinion for yourself, but also that you have the ability to solve your own problems.
Problem solving is something that humans are exceptionally good at. It is one of the reasons that from an evolutionary and ecological perspective, we have become the dominant species on the planet. From a very early age, children develop the tools to think about and reason their way around the world. I often describe babies as the ultimate scientists; continually coming up with ideas about the world and then testing them out through trial and error, so that they can work out things out. This curiosity to learn and explore is an innate one, which is framed and guided by our caregivers. They have the ability to keep us safe while we explore and experiment, or show us directly how things should be done. This is the role of the nurturing parent, to deal with the mishaps, the controlling parent to warn of impending danger and protect, and the adult to patiently teach new skills of encourage the exploratory behaviour.
With the ‘don’t think’ injunction, there is often a removal of these processes. As with other injunctions, this usually comes from the caregiver’s child ego state which perhaps fears that their children will be more knowledgeable than them, or that they feel unable or too insecure in their own abilities to facilitate the learning of their child. Therefore, the messages are given that the child is not capable of solving their own problems. The caregiver goes into negative nurturing parent and does everything for the child, who then comes to believe that they are perhaps too stupid to do things for themselves. The caregiver may go into negative controlling parent and over protect the child, chastising them for trying things out, or mocking them when they make mistakes. For these parents, there is a right answer, and it is always theirs. The child will develop the belief that their opinions don’t matter, or are wrong, and that it is futile to try and work things out for themselves. These messages are being given implicitly through parental behaviour, but there are also explicit messages given, sometimes in comparison, for example, “everyone else is smarter than you”, “you are not as clever as your brother”. They might be really direct, “don’t bother trying to work it out, you’ll never get it”, “She finds this subject so difficult, she’ll never be academic” or “you’re so dumb”. Thinking, learning and intellectual pursuits may be downplayed in families which foster this injunction, perhaps with certain professions being made fun of, or resentment and picking on people that appear ‘smarter’. For example, I have heard parents saying to children, “Why do you want to be a lawyer? They have to read all those books, work hard and are usually boring”, or “That guy thinks he’s so smart. Well he might have a degree, but I bet he hasn’t got a girlfriend”.
At this point I will state that I am not saying that there is anything better or worse about following an intellectual or practical career, or that there is some kind of superiority to higher learning. The issue with this injunction is more to do with how it undermines the abilities of the person that holds it. They may have been led to believe that their well-informed opinion hold no weight (“No one cares what you think!”, “No one asked for your opinion”). There may be provisos to holding particular views or beliefs and so the child learns that if they act like they don’t know anything, then they will get the care and attention that they want (“Guy’s don’t like smart girls” is a particularly sexist message that I have actually heard in the recent past). I have also heard a story from a colleague of a mother who told her child, who wanted a cheap book in a shop, that it would be much better if he had a bag of sweets instead. Probably because the sweet would put less demand on the parent’s time. It does require a lot of patience to deal with a child’s incessant “whys?” all the time. However, this is their active curiosity and need to engage with their caregivers in a learning way. Ignoring the questions will probably lead to the lesson that asking them is a waste of time; whereas engaging with them and talking about them (even if you don’t know the answer) shows that it is ok to be curious and think about the world.
‘Don’t think’ may lead people to avoid solving their own problems as they think that they are not capable or don’t have the capacity to do it on their own. I have often met students who state as an absolute matter of fact that they cannot possibly write an essay, or prepare a report, or sit a particular exam. This is often done before they even know what is required, or have even started, simply because they had the pre-formed belief that they could not think their way through the problem. There are also the students that could not possibly consider raising their hand in class, as their ideas and answers will be seen as silly or obviously wrong. I personally would also suggest that this injunction also applies to skills, and not just knowledge and “thinking” per se. As a personal example, I thought for a long time that I did not have the required special awareness and co-ordination skills to be able to drive successfully. It took a while and quite a few failures on the way, but I was able to prove this particular block to be wrong. Having been told that my practical abilities were not up to scratch while growing up, it is understandable why I believed the task of driving to be beyond me. So maybe a better way of naming this injunction would be ‘Don’t know (how to do anything)’.
In response to this injunction, as with the others, the defeated stance might be to adopt driver behaviour as a compensation. So if being smart and thinking is not acceptable, the person might find that pleasing others, being on time and having perfect behaviour is what gets them attention. I have seen in school and have spoken about the “work hard” pupils who have discovered that they get praise from teachers for how pretty or extensive their work is, rather than any evidence of learning or intellectual content. There might be a gender issue here, in general, with boys perhaps being encouraged to ‘be strong’ (usually physically), rather than to think their way out of situations. If you have a ‘don’t think’ mentality, then consequences will not be something that perhaps crosses your mind very often. Girls on the other hand might adopt the other driver behaviours, as these might be seen as more ‘attractive’, rather than being smart. Again, I must stress that these are generalisations, and sexist ones at that.
From the defiant stance, a child might decide that they reject the notion that their caregivers are the one true source of information, and so they may reject these and adopt the opposite. The danger which this approach is that the ‘don’t think’ injunction often limits a person’s ability to engage in critical thinking. Therefore, someone rejecting one set of incorrect or fallacious ideas, might simply adopt another set, without taking the time or steps to evaluate the consequences. I have mentioned gas lighting before in this blog, and I would suggest here that this injunction can come about through a form of intellectualised gas lighting, where a person is led to believe that their ideas, thoughts and knowledge they have learnt is wrong. Someone that is subjected to this will believe that their thoughts and thinking cannot be trusted. Therefore, it becomes easier for someone else to step in and influence (or abuse them) later in life. Possibly when they have rejected or rebelled against the original set of ideas.
This is neither the time nor forum to discuss the social and political implications of a dilution of critical thinking in the population, or of the downplaying of education in some sectors. However, critical thinking is something that can be learnt and does allow people to be better prepared for the consequences of their actions, and to evaluate the authenticity of information they are presented with. Also, critical thinking is fundamentally useful in challenging negative and irrational thoughts which are probably the product of our injunctions!
As with previous posts, below I offer some suggested permissions that might be given to overcome this injunction:
- I have the right to ask questions, and have them answered
- It is Ok to think and have an opinion
- Learning and thinking are innate abilities and should be encourage and cherished
- There are multiple intelligences – I’m probably great at a range of them
- Critical thinking can be learnt and there is nothing wrong with applying it
- I have the right to have my thoughts voiced and expressed
- Making mistakes does not make me stupid, it makes me human
- I am capable of thinking of my own solutions
Comments
Post a Comment