This article is © Copyright 1999 Pilgrims Ltd.  The copyright owners reserve all rights to its reproduction.

Consideration of Affect does not equal Humanism

Philip Kerr, Belgium
(Philipjkerr@aol.com)

[ editorial note: a big ‘thank you’ to the author and to the IATEFL
TT  SIG Newsletter for permission to re-publish this article

Background:  1999: Jane Arnold  publishes AFFECT IN L:ANGUAGE LEARNING, CUP
2000- 	July: Scott Thornbury publishes review of the book.
2000 -July: Arnold and Rinvolucri write separate articles against his review. ]

The debate in the latest issue of this newsletter concerning the role of affect in the language classroom was nothing if not amusing.  It reminded me of a well-known moment on British television when the spoof chat-show host, Mrs Merton, asked Chris Eubank, a fighter who affects gentleness and sensitivity, if he enjoyed beating people senseless.  Not suspecting for one minute that he was being wound up, Eubank dropped his affectation in a flash of anger.  It was a classic instance of a fighter on the ropes turning ugly.

Like all debates, the spat is actually about many things.  One of the most interesting features about this debate is that the three writers involved so far all agree, very firmly, on one thing:  the importance of positive affect in the language classroom.  Well documented (even ‘scientifically’ so) in a very ample literature, both in our field and in many others, the role of affect is not the bone of contention.  What Thornbury was attacking, a la Mrs Merton, was the world of humanism, an eclectic mix of beliefs and techniques that are justified by reference to the importance of affect.  An acknowledgement of the importance of affect and encouraging students to sing ‘My Bonnie lies over the Ocean’ are not the same thing.

It is unfortunate that so many worlds are conflated under the banner of humanism.  Psychodrama, Gestalt, NLP, Brain Gym, Rogerian therapy, perhaps even aromatherapy, are often lumped together under the same banner.  It may be that some, or even all of these, have something to offer our world of language teaching, but none of these highly contentious approaches can be justified or defended by claiming they contribute to positive affect in the classroom.  For every anecdotal ‘proof’ there will be other anecdotal counter-proofs.  Imagining a ‘circle of excellence’ and ‘stepping into it’ before engaging in a classroom activity may help you feel more positively about the learning experience before you.  To say that, for me, it has the opposite effect, is something of an understatement.  However, the issues have never, to my knowledge, been seriously discussed. The jury is not out: the litigants have not yet arrived in court.

Since Moskowitz published her influential volume in 1978, the debate about humanism has simmered away. Here are some of the major points:

1.  Humanism and therapy

The starting point for many, if not all, of the approaches in the humanist canon is a consideration of the ‘whole person’.  Over ten years ago, Duff identified a nexus of key words in this literature - ‘self-awareness’, ‘self-esteem’, ‘self-reliance’, ‘self-realisation’, ‘counselling’, ‘growth’ - but one need only turn to the appendix of Moskowitz’s book, where she offers a list of useful words for the humanistic classroom.  This language, the language of early contributors to the Teacher Development SIG Newsletter such as Adrian Underhill and Rod Bolitho, is fundamentally ‘person-centred’ in a Rogerian sense.  It articulates a belief in the need for a teacher to rediscover the ‘whole person’ through congruence, prizing and empathy.  The therapeutic tradition from which the humanist approach derives has, as Brumfit observes, ‘its philosophical basis in existentialism, with its emphasis on alienation. In opposition to the expertise of the Freudian or Jungian expert figure, the therapist and the patient start from their equal need for shared  experience in the present.’  In the context of the current debate, it is not enough to assume the validity of this therapeutic tradition.  On a parochial level, this tradition may be very influential, but, worldwide, there is little agreement about the value of such approaches.  To import into the field of language teaching a series of techniques that
have by no means gained widespread acceptance in their own field seems more than a little foolhardy.

2. 	Humanism and conservatism

Since self-development is at the heart of humanistic approaches, it is important to be clear about what is understood by ‘self’.  The humanist view of ourselves as stable, unified entities who ‘have’ personalities and experiences is superficial because it fails to acknowledge that ‘self-esteem’, ‘self-awareness’ and the ‘self’ itself are hypothetical constructs.  Another, arguably more  powerful, intellectual tradition would argue that ‘experience and identity cannot be seen as the  origin of meaning, but as its outcome’ (Cameron).  Humanism is less concerned with stepping outside of oneself than with putting oneself at the centre.  By neglecting the social, political and cultural frame, it locates itself in a philosophy and view of human nature that is akin to religious thought and transcendentalism (Gramsci).  Humanistic approaches to professional development ‘overemphasize personal responsibility for change and draw attention away from controversial questions about the context in which teachers work, and the ways in which it enhances or inhibits personal or professional development.  In this sense, it is argued, humanistic approaches to teacher development can be implicitly conservative’ (Hargreaves & Fullan).

3. 	Humanism and social appropriacy

It is certainly the case that teacher education has experienced a shift in the last twenty years away from a concern with the knowledge base of teachers towards a recognition that the ‘encounter between teachers and learners is an emotional experience’ and that ‘I’ is an ‘inescapable part of education’ (Nias).  In ELT, this shift has largely been the result of those working within the humanistic tradition.  However, there is a striking paradox here.  What Holliday refers to as the BANA world of ELT may well be largely unconcerned with the knowledge base of their teaching, since it is their own language.  As such, it is understandable that some of these teachers turn their attention elsewhere - inwards. But for other teachers of English around the world, such preoccupations may seem bizarre.  ‘Person-centredness’ preaches respect for the learner (or, in the case of teacher education, the teacher).  This notion belongs to our Western, individualistic and capitalist society and its application elsewhere runs the risk of being disrespectful.  So alien are some humanistic concepts to some cultures that, laments Moskowitz, the key words don’t even exist in some languages.

4. 	Humanism and imperialism

In the light of the cultural origins of humanism, there is something disturbing about the strongly moral, almost religious tenor of much of its literature.  One contributor to the TD Newsletter in 1987 comments semi-ironically about ‘seeing the light’.  Edge & Richards talk about ‘our right and duty to speak out’, and similar appeals are not infrequent.  Whilst this may be in keeping with a profession that contains many individuals with strong political or humanitarian ideals, it also runs dangerously close to what might be classified as cultural and linguistic imperialism (Phillipson).

The argument, let it be repeated, is not about the role of affect in language learning or teacher education.  The argument is about those risible practices whose claim to respectability needs a little more consideration.

References
Brumfit, C. 1982. ‘Some humanistic doubts about humanistic language teaching,’ in ELT Documents 113 - Humanistic Approaches: An Empirical View.  London:  The British Council 
Cameron, D. 1985.  Feminism and Linguistic Theory.  Basingstoke: Macmillan
Duff, T. 1988.  Teacher Development: Symptom of a Narcissistic Educational Culture  Paper presented at ITTI Conference, San Sebastian
Edge, J. & K. Richards (eds.) 1993. Teachers Develop Teachers Research. Oxford:
Heinemann
Gramsci, A. 1957. The Modern Prince and Other Writings.  New York: International Publishers
Hargreaves, A. & M.G.Fullan (eds.) 1992. Understanding Teacher Development.
London: Cassell
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context  Cambridge: CUP
Moskowitz, G.  1978.  Caring and Sharing in the Language Class  Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House
Nias, J. 1989. ‘Teaching and the self,’ in Holly, 
M.L. & C.S.McLoughlin (eds.) Perspectives on Teacher Professional Development Lewes: The Falmer Press
Phillipson, R. 1992.  Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: OUP