We rely on rules to prevent chaos, but do rules
ever get in the way of what’s natural? Is chaos ever a good thing?
We resist and or fear both unnatural chaos (for
good reason) and natural chaos (because we’ve been conditioned to), so we rely
on policies and rules to ease individual and collective fears and, we usually
hope, to smooth life’s path. How’s that really working so far? Can we go too
far with this? Can chaos ever be a good thing? What if natural chaos actually
contributes to desired improvement? Let’s see.
I read an article posted on a social site: “School
ditches rules and loses bullies.” It was a fascinating and revealing account of
an Auckland, New Zealand, school that, as part of a university experiment, got
rid of the playground rulebook (and all rules, which was beyond what the
experiment required) that had been created to do what you might expect such
rules to do: protect children and property, and maintain order. The astonishing
results of the no-rules experiment were there were fewer injuries, less
vandalism, and a significant drop in bullying. Also, concentration levels in
the classroom increased. Could this remarkable result also apply outside that
school’s environment, for all of us?
Principal Bruce McLachlan said,
"We want kids to be safe and to look after them, but we end up wrapping
them in cotton wool when in fact they should be able to fall over." This
return to what it was like before health and safety policies began to rule at
the school led to the re-realization that the activities and fun children
create when allowed to, without numerous restrictions, kept them so occupied
and creative that the time-out area was no longer needed, nor were as many
teachers required to keep watch. "The kids were motivated, busy and
engaged. In my experience, the time children get into trouble is when they are
not busy, motivated and engaged. It's during that time they bully other kids,
graffiti or wreck things around the school." The children were happy, and
parents were happy because their children were happy.
The article went on to comment
that a certain amount of risk-taking develops parts of the brain and develops
the ability to work out consequences of actions. "You can't teach them that.
They have to learn risk on their own terms. It doesn't develop by watching TV;
they have to get out there."
Interestingly, the comments that
resulted on the social site posting were equally revealing. One person was
insistent (despite the proven results) that without rules, bullying would
increase. The poster (both a mother and in the educational field) replied that
children would learn consequences of actions and to defend themselves; and that
in adulthood there is no teacher to run to. A replier to the poster’s comment
stated that because he’d always had an adult to take care of everything for him
when he was growing up, as an adult he doesn’t know what to do in certain
circumstances. Another replier feared that children would be punished for standing
up for or defending themselves, as had been her experience (which mimics what
does happen in society at large: for example, a resident can be sued by a thief
injured while breaking into the resident’s house).
The replier concerned about a
potential (or, in his opinion, inevitable) increase in bullying wrote: “I get
all that, but I think that no matter what, there would still be bullies. I know
I, for one, would see this as an opportunity to be an even bigger bully. No
rules? Then there would be more punishment for disobeying me. I’m not trying to
say it’s a good thing, but I think it could lead to some not-so-good things.”
The poster replied, “That’s the society we’ve become. You’re right. It’s kind
of scary, not to mention that kids allowed to explore and make their own
mistakes are often the ones that are inventors and the great thinkers. It would
be a different world if we were allowed to just experience life, rather than
just doing what we’re told.”
At this point, I added my
two-cents-worth: Bullies happen—in the schoolyard and in the bigger world. They
can legislate behavior all they want in both venues, but there will always be
those with either the primary psychosis (from birth) or secondary psychosis
(from conditioning), who act out as bullies. The only thing legislating
behavior does is oppress those who don’t need the rules in the first place,
those who know how to behave or who figure it out as they go—who figure out
that they have a choice: find a way to co-exist as peacefully as possible or get
into trouble. They can legislate behavior out the yin-yang, and it’ll still be
the bullies who come out to “play” while all the others are following the
rules—the unnecessary rules. It’s a matter of how much freedom will we give up
because there are bullies in the schoolyard (or the global environment) who
don’t play by anyone’s rules.
Natural chaos and unnatural chaos
spawn different experiences and outcomes because of the energy and motivation
inherent in each. In the matter of Prohibition, a law put into effect in the
U.S. in the 1920s and pushed for by those who wanted to control others’
personal choices, specifically alcohol consumption, the unnatural chaos created by the imposed rule resulted in an
escalation in organized crime and other crime, violence, and imprisonment. In
the matter of the school and playground experiment, the natural chaos created by removing the rules so children worked
things out for themselves (within reason, as they were children) resulted in enhanced self-learning, self-modifying,
creativity, harmony, productivity, conflict resolution, self-governing
behavior, and focus and attention. Although the article didn’t mention this,
it’s difficult to imagine that a boost in self-confidence and self-reliance was
not also a result.
How much of the chaos happening in
the world now is actually caused by more or certain rules or policies being
added or remaining rather than going to the true root of the matter and
addressing the individuals causing the real problems? It’s become the “norm” in
society to treat symptoms rather than target the true cause, be it alcoholism
or health or whatever. It’s also become the “norm” to make rules everyone must
follow, not just those who actually need proper and effective attention. It’s
like what sometimes happened when I was in school: one student misbehaved and
the entire class was punished.
We’re in a society that rewards
people who follow the rules, even the nonsensical or infringing ones. The
“rewards” are that they don’t get penalized; they get proverbial pats on the
head; they get to feel superior to rule-breakers (or be envious, depending on
the rules not followed). We have a profusion and confusion of rules, and the
letter of the law tends to be followed rather than the spirit of the law. At a lower
point on the gradient, specific utensils are to be arranged in a particular
order and used as appropriate when you dine or you’re thought to be
unsophisticated, low, less. At a middle point, stop signs at intersections are
to encourage safety and avoid confusion; but if it’s three in the morning, no
traffic anywhere, with clear visibility in all directions, and you slow or
pause rather than stop, you could get a ticket because you broke a rule. At a
more extreme point, something is legal in one county or state, but illegal in
another; legal in one country, but illegal in another; immoral for individuals,
but moral (or deemed acceptable) for those in positions of power. There are
personal-choice decisions made for us that we should be responsible to make on
our own.
If everyone everywhere learned and
followed the moral compass to never steal or violate in any way the life,
property, and security of anyone, and taught this to their children, what need
of rules would there be? Who would need to create rules, and for what reason?
The replier to the post about bullying believes the world would be an even more
unsafe place without lots of rules and perhaps even more of them, then went on
to explain why: because without them, he would be abusive or more abusive.
During the experiment, I venture to say that any bullies who did attempt their
behaviors with the children in the schoolyard were dealt with by the children.
For those who ignore moral right
anyway, there is usually only one way to deal with or stop them: deterrents
regarding their own well-being, to give them pause before they choose to
exhibit such behaviors or to help them correct behaviors. This may sound harsh
to some, but it’s akin to preventive healthcare. In the school experiment, it’s
possible that several children stood together to oppose a bully who then backed
down, or perhaps they refused to include any bully in activities and play,
until the bully chose to behave better and did, and perhaps demonstrated a
sincere desire to contribute in a productive way.
If some people never broke or
ignored certain and, particularly, unnecessary rules, including academic; never
thought outside of the creativity box; or colored outside the lines, we’d have
a poverty of inventions, innovations, improvements, and cultural arts. We
could, indeed, become better problem solvers than we currently are,
individually and collectively. Natural chaos brings our attention to where
problems or issues exist so we can resolve them in a beneficial way—or is
supposed to. But so many, as with the replier, hold the belief that mankind in
general, as individuals and as a collective, are incapable of controlling their
behaviors and actions or of truly knowing and honoring the difference between
moral right and wrong, so must have rules imposed on them/us. All we have to do
is look around and realize this is not wholly true or accurate. Yes, there are
those who seem not to possess a moral compass or would act against their moral
compass, but they could be addressed individually, as needed. Their unnatural
chaos tendencies could be managed. And if you think about it, those who do not
follow a moral compass are outnumbered by those who do.
Natural chaos causes inventions
and innovations to flourish, as has happened throughout history: We have no
cause to fear it, but every reason to embrace it. As Plato said, “Necessity …
the mother of invention.” Chaos is a teacher, including teaching us what not to do. Fear of chaos can lead to the
death of imagination, and to the end of freedom, on a school playground or in
daily life. Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither, and will lose both.”
The school experiment demonstrated
the positive results of natural chaos and the freedom to address it that leads
to better self-governing, personal responsibility, and improved creativity,
productivity, and cooperation required for quality problem solving and
as-peaceful-as-possible co-existence. The rules had, previously, created
something of a mental, imaginational, and socially restrictive enclosure for
the children. The absence of the rules opened “doors and windows and skylights”
to let freshness into their minds. It opened a beneficial level of freedom for
the students, teachers, and, yes, even most of the bullies.
Imagination and freedom of
thought, word, and action—guided by moral right and Natural Laws of the One
Creator and a mutual understanding and agreement about these—are needed to
create, including to create a better state of existence if the one experienced
isn’t working as well as it could. We, as individuals and a collective, have an
obligation to ourselves and others to work on and increase our consciousness
and awareness so that rules are not required for peaceful co-existence and
quality of life. The school children in the experiment proved—or rather, reminded us—that this is possible. It’s a
good practice, one you’ll appreciate.
Practice makes progress.
© Joyce Shafer
No comments:
Post a Comment