At the relational level, the projection of power in parenting styles can affect the moral development and well-being of the individual. In particular, authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles differ in the amount of power possessed by the individual and the parent, subsequently affecting development. The former is characterised by firm control, high demands for maturity and willingness to negotiate, while the latter involves an absolute set of standards, the valuing of obedience and respect for authority and discouragement of reasoning or negotiation, leaving little power to the individual (Grusec, Rudy & Wolfe, 1999). Individual well-being requires choice, a voice, and a sense of control (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002); needs which are often ignored by authoritarian parents. Research shows that authoritative parenting is linked to more socially responsible behaviour and higher levels of moral internalisation, while authoritarian parenting is linked to lower levels of prosocial behaviour, lower self esteem and lower feelings of empowerment and direction (Grusec, Rudy & Wolfe, 1999). Authoritarian parents may hinder moral development as the individual does not get an opportunity to form their own personal values system to which they can remain true. Not only do parenting styles affect the individual, the home environment is also an influential aspect which has the potential to be of benefit.
The family environment is the first influence on a developing child, and therefore should be examined in order to attempt to enrich the individual’s well-being and moral development process (Matawie & White, 2004). Parents must keep in mind that they must be positive role models, as the development of social ability is obtained through imitation and modelling (Martin, 2004). The family can make a positive contribution to the individual’s morality by providing the best learning environment possible. Ideally, the family can create a sense of well-being within the individual by providing a supportive climate which allows members to feel safe enough to challenge one another’s ideas on moral issues (Matawie & White, 2004); allowing the individual to voice their opinion and encourage their involvement (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002). As the individual grows older, the major influence shifts from the family and the effect of influences at school on moral development becomes evident (Chambers & Turner, 2006).
Peer and teacher interaction at school has a considerable impact on the moral development of an individual (Chambers & Turner, 2006). In fact, research has shown that peer to peer interactions have a greater association with upward shifts in moral reasoning, as compared to interactions with adults; a view which Lawrence Kohlberg maintained (Palmer, 2005). ‘Scaffolding’ is an idea used by Vygotsky to explain how adults, teachers and more knowledgeable peers facilitate learning (Chambers & Turner, 2006). By participating in social interactions with other people, opportunities for role-taking are provided that allow for the development of social perspective-taking (Atkins, Hart, Markey & Younis, 2004). Teachers have the ability to create conditions for social interaction conducive to moral development. An individual’s sense of well-being at the relational level requires a sense of identity, self esteem, involvement, and responsibility (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002). A teacher needs to establish an accepting classroom atmosphere in which trust, respect, empathy and fairness are intentionally fostered as preconditions to stimulating moral development (Rice, 2001). Les Vygotsky agreed with Kohlberg on the effect of relational influences, but also stressed the effect of culture on the individual’s moral development.
Morality is a concept that is relative to a specific culture, since it has to do with the norms, values, attitudes and patterns of behaviour that are considered to be acceptable by a certain society (Ferns & Thom, 2001). This is where Kohlberg’s cognitive theory falls short. A cross-cultural study by Ferns and Thom (2001) involving black and white South African adolescents challenges the claim that Kohlberg’s individual moral stages are universal. It was found that the white adolescents followed Kohlberg’s five stage theory while the black adolescents did not. This could be due to their socializing within black African values and norms. Emphasis is laid on the welfare of the group, conforming to the group and interdependent behaviour as opposed to western values of independence and self actualisation. In this case, Kohlberg’s description of “a morality of individual conscience” may be moderated by a stronger adherence to a “collective conscience” (Ferns & Thom, 2001). This example shows the effect specific cultural values and norms has on the moral development of an individual; reinforcing the need for the refinement of Kohlberg’s theory.
A sense of community well-being is essential for moral development, and it is the government’s job to provide this. The Vygotskian perspective that moral development is influenced by institutional forces (Ferns & Thom, 2001) maintains the importance of the government’s role in providing a society conducive to moral development. Laws, policies and resources must be in place to provide the community with a sense of well-being by providing justice, security and structure. If a government falls short of its requirements, the community as a whole and the individuals making up the community can be negatively affected. Communities of political instability are often exposed to crime and violence, leaving an impact on the morality of individuals and their well-being (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002). Some groups may even suffer oppression, whether political or not; affecting the transfer of morals to developing individuals.
Internal and external oppression affects the values an individual is taught and could potentially affect their moral growth. Well-being at the collective level requires economic security, shelter, access to healthcare, social justice and nutrition; factors which an oppressed community may not experience. The effect of oppression on the individual can be noticed in the situation experienced by the people of Afghanistan when under the strict rule of the Taliban. Parents often secretly resisted the harsh laws imposed upon them and the children were frequently forced to lie for them; therefore the children in Afghanistan received mixed messages about social norms, laws, and moral virtues (Turiel, 2003). Oppression may become internalised, which can lead to feelings of low self esteem, humiliation and shame thereby affecting the oppressed individuals’ performance and overall behaviour (Tappan, 2006). Oppression lowers an individual’s sense of well-being and may subsequently inhibit moral growth. Change at all levels must occur to try and combat oppression and the negative impacts an individual may experience because of it.
Oppression’s effect on moral development has not been vastly researched to this date, and more research is needed so as to create awareness and hopefully combat the negative effects of oppression on the individual and their environment (Tappan, 2006). Interventions at the individual level via education, training and therapy are the current main source of change, but oppression is the result of forces far beyond the individual; any solution to the problem of oppression must focus as much on structural/systemic change as it does on personal transformation (Tappan, 2006). Firstly, awareness of the social constraints of the community must be raised. Then, if individuals begin resisting, they may collectively overthrow or combat the social constraints they face (Tappan, 2006).
It is evident that the moral development of an individual is influenced not only by their immediate associates (Kohlberg, 1984), but also by the community, their culture (Turner & Chambers, 2006), and any social constraints they may experience. Hence, in order to holistically examine moral development, Kohlberg’s cognitive theory and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory must be combined as individually, they are insufficient (Jeong, 2005). Although changing morality at all levels is unrealistic, morality of the individual can be improved during development through the influence of parents, peers, teachers and the government. Improving the sense of well-being at each level can assist the well-being of the individual and subsequently their moral development. If we are to improve the morality of society, we must examine the influences on an individual’s developing morality and how they can better facilitate growth.
References
Alexander, C., Nidich, S., Nidisch, R. (2000). Moral Development and Higher States of
Consciousness. Journal of Adult Development, 7(4), 217-225. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from database.
Atkins, R., Hart, D., Markey, P., & Younis, J. (2004). Youth Bulges in Communities: The
Effects of Age Structure on Adolescent Civic Knowledge and Civic Participation. Psychological Science, 15(1), 591-597. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from database.
Carlo, G., & Hart, D. (2005). Moral Development in Adolescence. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 15(3), 223-233. Retrieved October 2, 2008, from database.
Chambers, E., & Turner, V. (2006). The Social Mediation of a Moral Dilemma:
Appropriating the Moral Tools of Others. Journal of Moral Education, 35(3), 353-368. Retrieved August 2, 2008, from database.
Ferns, I., & Thom, D. (2001). Moral Development of Black and White South African
Adolescents. South African Journal of Psychology, 31(4), 38-48. Retrieved August 2, 2008, from database.
Garcia, A., & Ostrosky-Solis, F. (2006). From Morality to Moral Emotions. International
Journal of Psychology, 41(5), 348-354. Retrieved September 13, 2008, from database.
Grusec, J., Rudy, D., & Wolfe, J. (1999). Implications of Cross-Cultural Findings for a
Theory of Family Socialisation. Journal of Moral Education, 28(3), 299-310. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from database.
Jeong, C. (2005). Formulating a Developmentally Appropriate and Culturally Sensitive
Program of Moral Education- a Korean Example. Social Studies, 96(2), 79-85. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from database.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: the nature and validity of moral
stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Martin, J. (2004). Self-Regulated Learning, Social Cognitive Theory, and Agency.
Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 135-145. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Matawie, K., & White, F. (2004). Parental Morality and Family Processes as Predictors of
Adolescent Morality. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 13(2), 219-233. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from database.
Palmer, E. (2005). The Relationship Between Moral Reasoning and Aggression, and the
Implications for Practice. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(5), 353-361. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from database.
Prilleltensky, I., & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing Psychology Critically: Making a Difference in Diverse Settings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Rice, C. (2001). Teacher’s Level of Care. Education, 122(1), 102-107. Retrieved October 8,
2008, from database.
Tappan, M. (2006). Reframing Internalized Oppression and Internalized Domination: From
the Psychological to the Sociocultural. Teachers College Record, 108(10), 2115-2144. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from database.
Turiel, E. (2003). Resistance and Subversion in Everyday Life. Journal of Moral Education,
32(2), 115-131. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from database.
