Having two boys of my own, and with many friends who have children in the same age group (6 to 12 years), I am regularly faced with learning issues - especially as they relate to children.Whether they are formal learning exercises like homework and assignments, or informal ones like developing a sporting skill (see sport), learning almost always appears to be problematic. Consequently, I want to start arranging some of my reflections on the theme of learning.
First, because learning is usually associated with teaching (despite the fact that a large amount of learning is adventitous and implicitly self-directed), the vast majority of formal attention is paid to teaching and teaching methodology - to the neglect of learning as a discrete activity or process.
Much pedagogical focus is given to what children learn (subject matter), how they are taught (instruction techniques), and why it is important for them to learn it (curriculum rationale), but not much attention is directed to how children learn. This constitutes my initial point de départ - dealing with learning and primarily with aspects of how we learn.
Second, because most learning also occurs in groups, most reflection on teaching and learning is usually skewed by assumptions of "one to many", and consequently, consideration of individual differences are glossed over - or worse still, ignored. This represents a secondary point de départ - focusing on individuals not groups.
Jung deals quite extensively with the potential and deleterious influence that groups can have on the individual; effects which undeniably can inhibit genuine learning and growth. More on this another time.
The admission of the personal equation or individual human factors necessarily presumes that different people learn differently, because we each perceive different things, process in different ways and are oriented toward the world differently. In Jungian parlance, this mix encapsulates their psychological type and associated cognitive style. Without much effort, it is also easy to see that different teachers would teach differently because of different elements in their own personal equation.
Consequently, it is self-evident that teaching and learning, apart from any other curricula based matters, are mediated by the interaction of psychological types. Despite the fact that incorporating individuality into teaching and learning pedagogy is a logistical nightmare (rather than treating the class as one group or even a few groups it must be viewed as 28 individuals), it is an incontrovertible fact - and one that exerts a mediating and determining influence on learning.
Additionally, in many ways, psychological type could be classified as an unconscious element in learning. Quite apart from complexes and archetypes, which are also key unconscious elements which would affect teaching and learning, psychological type constitutes a critical learning factor which deserves our attention. More on this at another time.
The admission of unconscious factors into the discussion of learning is an important (albeit neglected) one. Jung recognises this when he states that 'the uneducatedness and unconsciousness of the adult works far more powerfully than any amount of good advice, commands, punishments, and good intentions' (Jung 1954, pp. 131-132).
Specifically, with regards to children, the influence of unconscious factors is reflected in his statement that 'children are educated by what the grown-up is [italics mine] and not by what he says' (Jung 1969c, p. 175), and reinforced by his statement about education that 'even the best methods of conscious education can sometimes be completely nullified by bad example' (Jung 1954, p. 150). Consequently, unconscious elements must be admitted as critical factors in any reflection on learning.
Irrespective of whether the object of learning is a physical skill or a cognitive task, learning presupposes that we move from a state of not knowing it to knowing it. In other words, it involves an initial state between object and subject, movement, direction and a change of state (between object and subject). Psychologically, the thing to be learned is simply a psychic object, in relation to which we are positioned. Accordingly, our relationship to the object must be of predictive importance to our thinking on learning.
Psychodynamically, it may even be worth considering that the object of learning might even be best understood as a psychic object which has a given energic value, and learning represents the increase in psychic value over a given threshold. If we assume for the moment that every phenomenal thing has an animating and noumenal idea (archetype) behind it, then, like invention (Latin invenire = "to stumble across"), then learning is very much a discovery which occurs when a given object's energic value reaches an intensity threshold to become conscious. As Jung says 'it is an undeniable psychological fact that the more one concentrates on one's unconscious contents the more they become charged with energy; they become vitalised, as if illuminated from within' (Jung 1970b, p. 496). Perhaps discovery, invention and learning are analogous and maieutic processes.
Complexes are unconscious contents that are peculiar and specific to each individual, as opposed to archetypes which are universal and common to all. They are psychic images derived from things or situations to which accentuated emotionality is attached, and which have fallen below the threshold of consciousness. Jung stated that they consist of 'a nuclear element and a large number of secondarily constellated associations. The nuclear element consists of two components: first, a factor determined by experience and causally related to the environment; second, a factor innate in the individual’s character and determined by his disposition' (Jung 1969e, pp. 10-11). Consequently, complexes in many ways amplify the intrinsic dispositions and tendencies associated with our innate psychological type - by adding energic value and behaving like the attractors of chaos theory.
Moreover, complexes 'interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance; they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of associations; they appear and disappear according to their own laws; they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings' (Jung 1969e, p. 121).
One of the most interesting complexes I have observed recently is what cold be called the "I can do it" complex. It even has its mirror opposite - the "I can't do it" complex. More than simply an aspect of conation (motivation), this complex seems to exert a remarkable effect on children, and especially their attitude toward learning. Those with the positive version, can't seem to wait for instruction and those with the negative version, can't benefit from instruction. In both cases the complex obstructs instruction.
If we assume that conscious learning is developmentally determined, or that the extent of our conscious awareness and control of learning is determined by how developed our consciousness is, then children are at a disadvantage - they are simply very young. Therefore, because learning needs to to be tailored to their stage of development, the existence or otherwise of complexes is critical.
As parents (and teachers) we should do everything we can do to manage the development of complexes in our children, and as Jung asserts, this starts with looking at our own psychic development. This calls for honesty, humility and a willingness to grow -all the essential prerequisite for learning. At this point, we can even see that the unconscious factors that influence our children's learning are really those that characterise our own.
Source:
Jung, C. G. 1954, The Development of Personality, Bollingen Series, vol. 17, trans. Baynes, H. G., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Jung, C. G. 1969c, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, vol. 9(i), trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Jung, C. G. 1969e, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Bollingen Series XX, vol. 8, trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Jung, C. G. 1970a, Mysterium Coniuntionis, Collected Works, vol. 14, trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Jung, C. G. 1970b, Psychology and Religion : West and East, Bollingen Series XX, vol. 11, trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.