I am an unabashed political junkie, and I have been for most of my life, including childhood. I remember being fascinated by the political process in grade school, excited to learn about the candidates and take part in "mock elections" in school. In high school, I volunteered for the Michael Dukakis campaign, even though I wasn't old enough to vote. When I was finally able to vote in a presidential election, I was away at college, so I voted via absentee ballot. When I say I take this stuff seriously, I'm not joking. And I guess it's pretty obvious that I've always had liberal leanings.
Psychologists (as well as sociologists) are often accused of being liberal, and there is truth in this accusation. In 2015, Behavioral and Brain Sciences published an article on the extreme left leanings of social psychologists, and in this article the authors explored why this lack of diversity harms the field. Duarte et al. posited that this lack of political diversity undermines the field of social psychology because (a) Liberal values and assumptions can become embedded into theory and method; (b) Researchers may concentrate on topics that validate the liberal progress narrative and avoid topics that contest that narrative; and (c) Negative attitudes regarding conservatives can produce a psychological science that mischaracterizes their traits and attributes. I don't disagree with with any of these factors, but I think it is just as important to ask WHY social psychology, and psychology in general for that matter, has become such a bastion of liberality. Are we attracting liberals to our field because that's the only ideology we present, or does studying the human condition make you liberal?
In a fabulous blog piece last year, Elliot Berkman, Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon, wrote of his own "conversion" from libertarian to liberal. He wrote:
"Learning about social psychology, about how people actually make important choices, made me aware of the critical role that society plays, through laws and other means, in enabling us to fulfill our values and ideals. This realization pushed me to be decidedly more liberal than I was before. It’s not that studying psychology made me a bleeding heart, but that studying psychology gave me a better understanding of why people do what they do."
Exactly.
In addition to Introductory Psychology, I teach Educational Psychology and Lifespan Developmental Psychology, two disciplines that require, by default, the examination of the contexts in which an individual's full potential is either nurtured, impeded, or outright destroyed. For example, in Lifespan Development, one of the very first things we discuss is the role of high quality prenatal care in healthy pregnancies, deliveries, and infants. I've used many different textbooks over the years and they've all, in one way or another, had to address the lack of universal care in the U.S. and the impact it has on our infant/mother morbidity and mortality rates. There is simply no way to address this without it having a seeming "liberal" slant. But reality is reality. Countries with access to care for everyone, regardless of income, have healthier pregnancies, healthier deliveries, and healthier infants.
In 2009, more than one in four children under the age of six in the U.S. was living in a family under the poverty line; it rises to one in two if we also include "low income" families (Miller, Sadegh-Nmobari, & Lillie-Blanton, 2011). Poverty in the first four years of life has an especially negative impact, as these kids are less likely to graduate from high school, and chronic, untreated illnesses in childhood (as is common among those with low income and no access to healthcare) may contribute to a future of adult illnesses and even premature death (Miller, Chen, & Parker, 2011). Even the smallest increase in income--a mere $3,000 for each of a baby's first five years--can mean an income jump up to 19% once that child is an adult (Duncan, Ziol-Guest, & Kalil, 2010). We can't discuss these topics in class without the issue of healthcare and income inequality being a part of the conversation.
This need to acknowledge inequality in access to resources continues throughout the semester. When we reach the point in the semester where we are covering adolescent development, my students learn that countries with widespread, comprehensive sex education for adolescents have less teen pregnancy and lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases. Next, they learn that midlife career satisfaction is higher in places where individuals can change careers should the interest strike them, without having to fear losing their health insurance. In places where higher education is low cost, or even free, poverty rates are significantly lower than ours, with higher life satisfaction and lower overall rates of mental illness. Are textbook authors supposed to present American rates of these things without cross-cultural comparisons in order to remain impartial, in order to appear as if no "side" is being taken? I suppose they could, but what would that be doing other than to be presenting information without a larger context in which a comparison of what works and what doesn't can be be made? By the time we've reached the end of the semester and are discussing end of life issues, the healthcare issue rears its ugly head once again, as the students learn that a lifetime of low quality, or no, healthcare increases the risks for dementia. Even elderly care is impacted by the lack of universal care--families with the means are able to place their elderly family members in facilities with a wider range of services.
In Educational Psychology, we discuss the role that early childhood experiences plays in academic achievement, highlighting the role of family SES and its impact on school readiness and subsequent performance. One of the readings I assign is about "The Early Catastrophe," which summarizes the groundbreaking study conducted by Hart & Risley that found an undeniable link between family income and children's language abilities, so much so that children from higher income families were found to have heard 30 million MORE words within the first four years of life than children living in poverty. Furthermore, children from families living in poverty were more likely to hear negative directives and punishment-oriented words than their middle to upper income counterparts.
It goes on. As has been so heartbreakingly exemplified in Flint, children living in poverty are more likely to be exposed to lead, which is unequivocally linked with learning disabilities, developmental disabilities, and even significant brain damage. Children without access to regular healthcare are more likely to have untreated ear infections, which can lead to subtle, often undetected hearing loss, increasing their risk for disorders of phonological processing, such as dyslexia, as well as a myriad of other academic struggles. Children without access to regular healthcare and dental care miss more school, causing them to get further behind and increasing the likelihood that they will fail and/or drop out. These are truths, not liberal conspiracies. And yet, teaching about this opens me to the criticism that I am attempting to indoctrinate my students toward a liberal agenda--one that promotes universal healthcare for all, a greater distribution of resources/income, etc. But, am I indoctrinating them, or providing them with a set of facts that they can examine for themselves and contemplate the implications?
I struggle with this, I truly do. I have a sign on my office door that says, "You don't have to think like me, you just have to think." But...if I'm honest, I do want them to see the impact that not having access to healthcare has on a family. I want them to think about why saying that "everyone has the same opportunities to succeed" is simply NOT TRUE. I want them to recognize that there is an inherent unfairness that guarantees greater success for one person merely by the circumstance of her birth, not just by the strength of her character. Does that mean I want them to think like me? Does that make me part of the liberal elite, trying to brainwash generations of people? I certainly don't discourage my students from expressing their own opinions and ideas about this; in fact, one assignment they have requires them to imagine ways in which the lack of access to healthcare can be addressed, and they don't have to just say, "We should have free healthcare." As long as they provide sound, critical thought for their ideas, I'm thrilled, no matter what the idea(s) presented.
I think that from an outside perspective, psychologists and sociologists appear to spend an awful lot of time excusing people's behavior, when in reality what we're doing is trying to explain it. And it turns out that the explanations require a discussion of the systems in which the behavior occurred, which by default, include economic and political ideology. There's just no escaping it.
Liberal professor? I guess I'm guilty as charged. But maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment