The Emergence and Evaluation of “They”

© Howard Gardner  2024 (first published August 26, 2024)

 “They” or “Them” or “Those guys”

In the early 1950s, with his wife Carolyn and other colleagues, social psychologist Muzafer Sherif carried out an intriguing “real-life” experiment. It was an experiment, because he wanted to test a hypothesis in his area of expertise. It was “real life” because—in the days when “human subjects/studies committees” were not yet mandated—researchers were pretty much free to do what they wanted—so long as they did not violate their own ethical standards. (Stanley Milgram’s “obedience to authority” studies (1974) were the most famous—and notorious—example of the looser norms of that time.)

The Sherif team took over a summer camp for boys called “Robbers Cave” (1961). Upon their arrival, the 24 boys—all sharing similar social-economic backgrounds—drew straws. Thereafter they were placed in one of two gangs—the Eagles or the Rattlers. For several weeks, the teams competed very aggressively with one another in games and other challenges that yielded clear winners and losers. As the end of the camp season approached, most Rattlers could not abide most Eagles—and vice versa.

Since this was an experiment (and not preparation for a life in the military!), the Sherif team did not want campers to disperse while they still despised half of their peers. Accordingly, a few final “manipulations:” the group was posed challenges—or presented with superordinate goals—that could only be met if the Eagles and Rattlers were to join forces. Examples: fixing a truck that had broken down; repairing the water system; or extinguishing a fire. Even if there was lingering resistance to converting former “enemies” into “friends,” these restorative manipulations worked sufficiently well. By the time they packed their bags to return home, the campers were on reasonable terms with one another.

We live in a stressful time. Certainly, in the United States (note the name, which seems almost taunting) and likely as well in many other countries, there is an excessive focus—if not an obsession—with the “I.” Accordingly, along with many other scholars and commentators, our research group has been examining the factors—experimental manipulations or levers in “real life”—that might help to nudge the needle from “I” to “we.” Indeed, as I drafted this blog during the summer of 2024, political scientist Robert Putnam (2024) has yet again chronicled the damage to any society when so many of its citizens feel alone, isolated, and not part of a group.

To be sure, there’s a big difference between feeling lonely and isolated, on the one hand—that might yield a neutral “they”—as opposed to feeling clearly hostile to others—yielding instead an alien and despised “they.” In our investigations, it’s important to consider what it means to have or to create an “out group,” the costs attendant thereto, and the ways that the situation might be alleviated—or even dissolved.

Stepping back from the researcher’s clipboard, let me draw on my own experience. I endeavor to do so in a way that yields insight, rather than engenders discomfort. As someone raised as a reform Jew, but essentially areligious for decades, I was surprised—if not shocked—to discover that, as I reflected on this topic, the term “goy” readily popped up. As conventionally defined, “goy” simply means “not Jewish;” it can be used in a completely neutral way—like the term “visitor” might be used in contrast to the permanent residents of a town. And indeed, I think that for many, if not for most Jewish persons, “goy” or “goyim” does not contain much of an affective punch. (Note: I could well have thought of the term “gentile” instead of “goy” but I am trying to be faithful to my own thought processes.)

As described, the situation could well be different. Both within the Jewish community (however defined or delineated) and outside the Jewish community (in the contemporary United States, Jews account for fewer than 3 % of the population), the term “goy” can be considerably more loaded. For some Jews, it may mean “someone who is completely different from us and should be shunned,” or “someone who does not and will never understand our way of being.” And for some “goyim”—or, if you prefer, “gentiles,” —the concept of “not Jewish” can be used as a way of promoting one’s own (typically Christian) background and/or of disrespecting or disparaging anyone who harbors any “Jewish blood.”

No need to elaborate on this point—alas, it will be anathema to most readers. And of course, analogous conceptualization would likely exist even if there were no Jews. Whether “in group” vs “out group,” citizens vs interlopers or immigrants, or true-blooded vs aliens, the capacity of human beings to dislike, disdain, disparage, or simply “diss” others seems to be a basic–albeit not praiseworthy—trait, one easily incentivized and captured vividly by the Sherifs and their research team.

When does this begin? How does this begin? Need it begin? And if indeed it’s begun, how can it be defused, diffused, countered, or even ended? There’s significant literature on the creation and maintenance of “in groups” and “out groups.” While most of the literature deals with children of school age, the origins of such groupings can be discerned much earlier. Indeed, thanks to researchers like Yarrow Dunham, we know that within the first year or two of life, children already distinguish between members of their own racial/ethnic groups and those from visibly distinctive groups. There need not be any particular valence on this distinction—it can be difference without disdain—but there’s no question that it can be pushed (perhaps all too easily) into an in-group/out-group contrast or even clash.

Above, in introducing the notion of “we” vs “they” it was easy—and perhaps even natural— for me to think of religious groups. Dating back to Biblical times, and no doubt earlier, individuals aligned as Hebrews (Israelites) or as Philistines. And in subsequent eras, there are Christians vs Non-believers (agnostics, atheists), or—within Christianity—Catholics vs Protestants; and outside the faith, Christians vs Muslims or (within Islam) Sunnis vs Shiites.

But from a contemporary vantage point, religions are just one form of divider, one variety of “we” vs “they.” Individuals within our country divide along political lines (Democrat vs Republican), financial (wealthy vs getting-by vs poverty-stricken), and along racial lines, though there are many distinctions within and across sub-populations. A 900-page history of the Muslim World (Cook, 2024) chronicles numerous tensions and conflicts—as well as occasional cooperation— among subgroups of the followers and the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (c. 570-632 AD).

In short, while our compelling interest has been in helping individuals move the needle from “I“ to “we” we cannot simply ignore the inevitable presence and the often powerful shadow of “they.”

Where can we begin to counteract these tendencies? A few words about our current enterprises:

Our Good Starts group has recently launched two prongs of research:

1. With young children (roughly 3 to 6): we have created scenarios where these youngsters have the opportunity to show us, among other things, who they like to play with and why, and whether outgroups are distinguished (no “they”), whether outgroups are neutral (neutral “they”), or if the outgroup is to be excluded (negative “they”) and in what circumstances.

   To be schematic: No “they”; Neutral “they”; Negative “they.”

2. With adults having a stake in early childhood education—ranging from the parents of children enrolled in preschool, to the teachers and other personnel on campus, to the local administrators who set policy: We are posing analogous questions to the ones we are asking children and soliciting thoughts about the relationship between “I,” “we,” and “they” in different contexts.

At present this is clearly an academic undertaking—perhaps even an academic exercise. That said, the questions explored are important and timely. In a country, and indeed a world, where discrimination, intolerance, hatred, and even genocide are patent—and where the mediating or moderating forces are all too often feeble or evanescent—any effort to help all persons feel part of the same world, having similar stakes, and having an impetus to work together—has become absolutely crucial.

And it can’t start young enough!

The Good Starts Project is generously funded by the Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation.

REFERENCES

Cook, M. (2024). A history of the Muslim world : from its origins to the dawn of modernity. Princeton University Press.

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2008). The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(7), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.006

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority; an experimental view ([1st ed.]). Harper & Row.

Garcia-Navarro, L. (2024). Robert Putnam Knows Why You’re Lonely: The Interview. New York Times (Online).

University of Oklahoma. Institute of Group Relations, & Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.

Why Should Ethicists Care about Pre-School Classes?

by Howard Gardner (first published November 30, 2022)

An Unexpected Focus

Why should we—researchers studying moral and ethical character in adolescents and young adults—be interested in how young children are treated as early as the pre-school years? To be sure: It’s been well established that the early years of life are critical for the healthy development of the individual. Accordingly, observations and findings about various approaches to early education may well be revealing.

A remarkable set of studies, carried out over the last forty years, has illuminated three distinctive approaches to early childhood education. In the early 1980s, educational anthropologist Joseph Tobin and his colleagues examined preschool education in Japan, China, and the United States. Two decades later, members of the research team returned to the same sites; they documented both continuities and changes in the trio of settings, sometimes with the same teachers. And then, yet again, during the most recent decade, the research team, now led by Tobin’s former student Akiko Hayashi, returned to the sites that had been earlier studied—this time focusing particularly on the way that teachers and teaching had changed over the decades.

The methods employed by the researchers were original and turned out to be surprisingly revealing. In addition to ethnographic observations and semi-structured interviews, the team created short videos of classrooms in-operation in the three societies. Thereafter, they showed these videos to educators across the three cultures and gathered their observations, analyses, and critiques. This multi-faceted approach elicited reflections on pedagogical approaches in the teachers’ own society, as well as observations and critiques by observers drawn from the other two societies.

It hardly needs to be stated: with four books on the shelf, as well as numerous articles, presentations and symposia, one could create a lengthy summary—and still leave out much of importance. For present purposes, I have a single focus: how educators across the three societies handle conflict in the preschool class. The distinctive approaches reveal much about how adults—and particularly educators—conceptualize conflict; and these conceptualizations, in turn, may provide clues to, hints of, the moral and ethical landscape of the respective societies.

An Episode, Response by Teachers, and Diverse Interpretations across the Three Societies

At the Komatsudani preschool on the east side of Kyoto, four old Hiroki is misbehaving. He is hitting other children, hoarding toys, disrupting organized activities—and over the course of the day, his demeanor actually gets worse.

What happens in the Japanese classroom? Ostensibly, very little. The teachers stay largely in the background, wait for Hiroki to calm down, even ignore some attacks that might have mildly injured other children. The day finally ends at 6 PM when Hiroki’s father picks him up.

Watching the video, most Japanese educators find this an acceptable reaction. They believe that no serious injury is likely to occur. The students will learn about how to handle challenging situations as they seek to control or modulate Hiroki themselves—rather than relying on adult interventions; Hiroki will learn that little is to be gained by this anti-social behavior. Instead, he will be motivated to become an accepted member of the cohort… and this feeling of belonging is central to Japanese culture.

Not so for educators in the other societies who view a video of the episode. Most do not approve! They think that the teachers (knowledgeable and responsible authority figures) can and should intervene. The misbehaving child deserves it; he will draw an appropriate lesson from this adult intervention; the children who are being mistreated deserve to be protected and rescued. Indeed, in their passivity, the teachers may well be derelict. Moreover, the other students are absorbing the wrong message: misbehavior is to be tolerated–perhaps event tacitly encouraged–by authority figures.

To be sure: not every observer reflects this attitude. Certainly, some Japanese educators feel that the teachers are not fulfilling their educational roles appropriately; the adults in the room should directly address this anti-social behavior. And observers from the other societies also vary in the extent to which they critique teachers, though few would have permitted such disruptive and possible injurious behavior to proceed unchallenged for so long.

Follow-up

Societies are not static! China has gone through several changes—the mid-1980s and early 2000s were more permissive than earlier or more recent periods. The establishment of academic standards has become widely accepted, though the pendulum continually swings between progressive and conservative orientations. The United States has moved in the direction of greater accountability, including a focus on numeracy, literacy, and pre-literacy skills. Japan has more for-profit schools and has sought to incorporate lessons from other societies, such as the admired pre-schools of Northern Italy.

Still there seem to be some throughlines, some continuities:

In Japan, classes remain large—as many as 30 students for one teacher. (And some see advantages in classrooms of this size—students are more likely to realize that adults are not necessarily available to intervene). Teachers tend to remain in their previous niches or to take on more authority within their designated school. The “Three Rs” are not salient.

In China, the acquisition of study and work habits should start early. Individual differences in achievement are to be expected and should be acknowledged; but so is membership in the group, ranging from the class, to the school, to the wider Chinese society.

In the United States, schools are expected to engender independence, autonomy, and individuality. This characterization obtains for teachers as well—many continue to pursue their own education, typically at their own expense, and often will end up in different schools, in different roles, or even in a different occupation.

Stepping Back

What are we to make of all this? On the one hand, I’ve described but a single line of research—a few schools, for very young children. In most societies around the globe, including the three observed by the Tobin team, youngsters will have many additional years of schooling as well as decades of work and family life ahead of them. All of these experiences are likely to have an impact. Moreover, I’ve focused on only one classroom interaction—and others (for example, how teachers deal with events and encounters that occur in the school playground or in the neighborhood)—will doubtless have impact as well.

On the other hand, as scholars of education (as well as psychology and neuroscience), we have now accrued massive evidence of the importance of the early years of life. The brain develops (or fails to develop) in crucial ways. Social and emotional models are being observed, absorbed, emulated, (or, on occasion, rejected); and so have skills and attitudes toward work as well as play. To be sure, not everything is determined by the age of five,—nor (to riff off a once well-known book title) has all been learned by kindergarten (!) –but a great deal has been.

The traces laid down in early life can be overthrown if society changes radically; or if the preschools (or, for that matter, education at home) undergo a major reformulation and reconceptualization. But it’s naïve to think that moral and ethical standards can simply be flown in or imposed at the age of 10, 20, or later. A basis—what Germans term “anlage” —has been well established; —and if it remains or is reinforced in the succeeding decades, the results are powerful and enduring traits, behaviors, personalities. These cannot be easily changed! And so, as just one example, believing that one is part of a group, and should not assert one’s individuality too much, is far more characteristic of Japanese than American youth…hence the much-cited Image of Japan as a ‘shame’ rather than a ‘guilt’ culture.

Moreover, these patterns of thought and behavior in turn have an impact on the societies that struggle for dominance in our world. In 1945 the United States presumed as Number One; in 1980 Japan described as Number One (Vogel, 1979) and in our time, China asserting itself as Number One.

In future writings, my colleagues and I will focus on the ways in which schools around the world contribute to the ethical standards and mooring of the broader society.

The Good Starts Project is generously funded by the Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation.

For comments on earlier drafts, I thank researchers, Joseph Tobin and Akiko Hayashi, and also my colleagues, Lynn Barendsen and Shinri Furuzawa.

REFERENCES

Fulghum, R. (1989). Everything I ever really needed to know I learned in Kindergarten. Ballantine Books.

Hayashi, A. (2022). Teaching expertise in three countries: Japan, China, and the United States. University of Chicago Press.

Tobin, J., & Hayashi, A. (2015). Teaching Embodied: Cultural Practices in Japanese Preschools. University of Chicago Press.

Tobin, J. J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. University Of Chicago Press.

Tobin, J., Wu, D., & Davidson, D. (1989). Preschool in three Cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. Yale University Press.