Ethical Leadership and Employees’ Accountability: A Way of Moving Organization Forward

Fr. Damianus Abun, SVD, Ph.D

Introduction

Many people have discussed leadership and its role in the life of an organization. The position of leadership is essential to the management and the direction of an organization. Organization cannot move forwards without its leadership. Thus, we talk about leadership, we talk about the direction. The direction of the organization is primary responsibility of a leader. His/her role is not just leading but leading must have a direction, a long-term vision to be achieved.  

In order to achieve long-term vision, a leader may apply different kind of leadership styles, leadership skills and values. Why do I include values? It is because of the very reason that if a leader has no moral or ethical values, then there is a tendency to ignore human aspect of the organization. These three areas are essential component of leadership if leadership is to be successful. In this case, a leader should know an appropriate style to be applied when he/she manages or leads people. However, such styles cannot work well without skills. A leader-manager should possess skills to execute his duties as a leader. Skills may include planning skills, communication skills, human relationship skills, etc. Many experts have claimed that leadership styles and skills do not guarantee the success of a leader if the leader has no moral values. These leadership styles and skills have to be exercised in an ethical manner. Therefore leader should be a moral leader to be effective.

There has been much work attempting to develop a general theory of leadership. Trait, transactional, transformational, path-goal, contingency and situational theories, all abound. These theoretical constructs seek to both define and explain leadership. There is no generally accepted or even widely disseminated theory of ethical leadership. There have very little research has been published on theoretical foundation of leadership ethics.  Without a theoretical foundation of support, the concept of ethical leadership is impotent to guide human behavior.

Many studies have been conducted along leadership styles, skills and still we have few studies related to ethical leadership and employee’s accountability. Thus, we need to support ethical leadership with theoretical foundation on ethics and leadership. The exercise of leadership has an effect on other people or employee’s behavior. Thus we try to examine using available literatures and studies to support the argument or our hypothesis that there is a relationship between ethical leadership and employees’ accountability.

Ethics

Ethics is derived from the Greek word: “ethos” which means “characteristic way of acting”, “habit”, “custom”. The Latin word is mos, mores which mean moral and morality. Thus, ethics studies the characteristics behaviour of man as endowed reason and free will. In other words, ethics is the science of the morality of human acts. It is the study of the behaviour of man as moral being, who is able to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad.

Ethics and morality is sometimes overlapping. In ordinary conversation, the tendency is to separate the two with different meaning. But actually the two terms are for the same thing.  Morality is originated from Latin word: “moralitas” which means “manner, character, and proper behaviour. Thus morality refers to a code of conduct, by which human beings regulate their lives. Thus, when we talk of ethic, we actually talk about morality.

There are three different theories of morality: descriptive morality, normative morality and meta-ethics. Descriptive morality is a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by society, group and individuals. Moral codes in this sense differ from society to society, within society, and among individuals. So, in its descriptive sense, morality is whatever a society, group or individual say it is. It is not consistent in their application (relativism (Articulo, 2004).  Thus, in its descriptive sense, morality refers to the codes of conduct regulating how people behave and without inquiring as to whether they ought to adhere to these codes because that is the primary concern of anthropologists, historians and sociologist but not philosophers.

While normative morality is a code of conduct that would be put forward by society and accepted by all rational people under certain idealized conditions. In other words, morality is the set of correct moral principles which ought to be adopted by all rational agents and applied to all rational agents beyond the borders. Precisely, this is the concern of moral philosophy which seeks, firstly, to formulate a set of principles with which all rational agents ought to comply. Secondly, to explain the reason why the system is ought to be adopted. It involves the question of validity of the code of conducts by which people adhere to.      

Under normative morality, there are three different ethics: virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism ethics (Wikipedia free encyclopedia). Virtue ethics is actually a way of being; it is desirable moral characteristics that a moral or a virtuous   person embodies. Possessing those virtues is what makes a person moral, not his actions. An action is only an expression of his/her inner morality. While deontological ethics is referred to as duty ethics. It places an emphasis on adhering to ethical principles or duties. In this case, a moral agent ought to do his/her moral duty which is established by some kind of moral imperative (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It is imperative that you ought to help the sick people who are nearly dead on other corner of the road. If deontological ethics emphasizes on doing one’s moral duty, consequentialism bases the morality of an action upon the consequence of the outcome. Instead of saying that one has a moral duty to help the sick people, the consequentialist would say we should help the sick people because it causes undesirable effect, the person will die. Thus, consequentialism determines what desirable outcome is. The greatest happiness of John Stuart Mill is one of the most common adopted criteria. The determinant of the desirable action is the net amount of happiness it brings, the number of people it brings to happiness, and the duration of the happiness.   

Unlike the normative ethics, meta-ethics does not propound any moral principles or code of conducts but it involves entirely in philosophical analysis. It is concerned with the nature of judgment of right and wrong and defining ethical terms such as “good” and “bad”. In other words, meta-ethics attempt to answer epistemological, logical and semantic questions relating to ethics. 

Leadership

Leadership is a process of how a person leads and influences people under his leadership move forward in achieving common objectives/goals. This definition is similar to Northouse's (2007, ) definition — Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Such definition is related to traditional definition of leadership. A traditional definition of leadership is an interpersonal influence directed toward the achievement of a goal or goals. Three important parts of this definition are the terms interpersonal, influence, and goal.
· Interpersonal means between persons. Thus, a leader has more than one person (group) to lead. Then, Influence is the power to affect others. While Goal is the end one strives to attain.  Basically, this traditional definition of leadership says that a leader influences more than one person toward a goal.

The above definition refers to different styles of leadership by which a person influence others to follow him/her to achieve a common goal. Different styles of leadership are described under behavioral theory of leadership. In the behavioral theory of leadership, leadership is determined by the action or what they are doing, not by “who they are” or their trait.

Consistent with such definition, thus leadership styles refers to styles that are being used by different leader on how to lead and influence their followers to attain the common objectives/goals. Looking into different styles, the new mid-century researchers sought more observable, measurable aspects of effective leadership rather than the metaphysical "qualities" of earlier trait theory (Yukl, 2006).  Thus the thrust of behavior theorists ignored inner traits (what leaders are) and focused upon the actual behavior of leaders, what they did, how they operated. Behavior theory's main form of research became typology, classifying leader behaviors into convenient "types" or "styles." As early as the 1920s when trait theory research was dominant, a dozen researchers identified behavior "types" such as

• Autocratic Style (authoritative, power-oriented)

• Persuasive Style (explains, sells, inspires)

• Democratic Style (consults, invites group participation)

• Intellectual Style (the expert, leads by superior knowledge)

• Executive Style (administrator, activist, systems).

Another influential project advancing behavior theory was the work of Rensis Likert's group at the University of Michigan. Likert's two major works in the 1960s provide full details about the Institute's work.   Summarizing it here, Likert fine-tuned by degrees the measurement of leadership styles using scales (such as his now common "l-to-9" scale); and also used four new style definitions instead of the LBDQ's two. He called them "Systems of Management 1, 2, 3 & 4," as follows:

• (1) Authoritative Exploitive

• (2) Authoritative Benevolent

• (3) Consultative

• (4) Participative.

Likert was convinced that future research would prove that his System 4 (the participative leader) was the one best leadership style. His influence was so great that in the 1960s, 1970s and even later, huge segments of the management training industry built massive training programs urging System 4 upon all managers.

The "participative" manager was "in," the "autocratic, authoritative" manager was "out." Despite clear cautions by Likert himself about past research voided by the possible situation factors ("contingency"), enthusiastic management trainers over-simplified System 4 as the new magic solution to painfully poor leadership in their organizations, "sold" the concept to top management and got the funds to teach and promote it.

This "one best leadership style" dominated many training departments and entire organizations for decades.There are many more leadership styles that can be presented all here; however, our purpose is not to present all leadership styles but to see what leadership is and how it relates to people. Leadership does not exist in vacuum but it relates to people and situation. Since leaders are exercising influence that emanates from their position, then ethical aspect of leadership must be the concern. In this case how leaders exercise their influence over their people is the ethical leadership concern.

Ethical Leadership

Given prominent ethical scandals in virtually every type of organization, the importance of an ethical dimension of leadership seems obvious. However, in order to understand this leadership phenomenon and its relationships with antecedents and outcomes, we must first know what “it” is. Philosophers have answered the question “what is ethical leadership” from a normative perspective, specifying how ethical leaders “ought” to behave (Ciulla, 2004). By contrast, our social scientific approach to the topic is focused more on describing ethical leadership as well as identifying its antecedents and consequences. Observers have long believed that personal traits such as integrity would be important to perceptions of leadership effectiveness and research has borne that out. For example, survey research has linked perceived leader effectiveness with perceptions of the leader's honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness (Den Hartog, et.al, 1999, Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991, Kouzes & Posner, 1993, Posner & Schmidt, 1991)  And, cognitive trust (the exercise of care in work, being professional, dependable; MCAllister, 1995) has been associated with effective styles of leadership as well (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). Building on this work, Trevino, et.al (2000, 2003) conducted exploratory research designed to understand what the term ethical leadership means to proximate observers of executives. Through structured interviews with twenty senior executives and twenty ethics/compliance officers in a variety of industries, the researchers asked informants to think about an ethical leader with whom they were familiar, and to answer broad questions about the characteristics, behaviors, and motives of that leader.

In line with ethical leadership, Heifetz(1994)  argued that ethical leadership has something to do with what leaders do and who they are.  In such a case, ethical leadership is concerned with leader behavior and their virtuousness. Their virtuousness will be reflected in the way they decide certain issues affecting people and organization. What choices leaders make and how they respond in a particular circumstance are informed and directed by their ethics.

His approach emphasizes how leaders help followers confront conflict and effect changes from conflict. It is about helping followers deal with conflicting values that emerge in rapidly changing work environments and social cultures. He understands leadership not as position power but it is an authority to mobilize people to face tough issues facing organization. Along that line, leader provides conducive environment in which there is a trust, nurturance and empathy. His duty is help followers in coping up with the change and their personal growth.   

In line with idea of Heifetz is the idea of  McGregor Burns (1978). His idea on ethical leadership is contained in his view on transformational leadership. Transformational leadership places a strong emphasis on followers' needs, values, and morals. Raising followers’ value and moral is not by teaching but by example. Thus, one of the characteristics of transformational leadership is idealized influence. Idealized influence means influences followers not by authority but by example. A leader leads his follower by his moral values. The followers emulate their leader because of his values.  And It is  also the responsibility of the leader to help followers assess their own values and needs in order to raise them to a higher level of functioning, to a level that will stress values such a liberty, justice, and equality.

Along with the concerns for followers, Robert K. Greenleef (1904–1990) developed a paradoxical approach to leadership called "Servant leadership" in 1970s. It has a strong altruistic ethical overtone and emphasizes that leaders should be attentive to concerns or their followers. He argued that leadership was bestowed on a person who is by nature a servant. The way an individual becomes a leader is by first being a servant. A servant leader focuses on the needs of the followers and helps them become more knowledgeable, freer, and more autonomous and more like servants themselves. As a servant leader, she/he has a social responsibility, to be concerned with the have-nots and to recognize them as equal stakeholders in the organization. In the exercise of leadership he places a great deal of emphasis on listening, empathy, and unconditional acceptance of others (Wikipedia free encyclopedia). Many of these ethical theories emphasize that the relationship between leader-follower is an "ethical" one and it s related to the "caring principle.

Principles of Ethical Leadership

Northouse (2007) has listed five principles of ethical leadership. Actually the origins of these can be traced back to Aristotle.    These principles provide a foundation for the development of sound ethical leadership. According to these principles, ethical leaders respect others, serve others, are just, are honest and build community. To be an ethical leader, one must be sensitive to the needs of others, treats others in ways that are just, care for others, treat others fairly, no cheating and lying and building a harmonious working relationship.

Accountability

Based on dictionary, accountability is the obligation of an individual or organization to account   for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner. It also includes the responsibility for money other entrusted property (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/accountability.html#ixzz22uudXrgX). Or accountability is taking or being assigned responsibility for something that you have done or something you are supposed to do.  An example of accountability is when an employee admits an error she made on a project. When an employee is given the task of making sure a project goes right and knows she will be blamed if it doesn't, she can also be said to have accountability for the project. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/accountability)

The concept of accountability has been discussed and expanded to many aspect of society. It includes political accountability, administrative accountability, financial accountability, ethical accountability, individual accountability and many more kinds of accountabilities.  However, for our purpose, we define aaccountability as a concept in Ethics and governance with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving (Dystra (1939). As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in the public sector, nonprofit and private (corporate) worlds. In leadership roles, accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences (William, 2006).

Sinclair (1995) define accountability as a term related to governance, accountability has been difficult to define. It is frequently described as an account-giving relationship between individuals, e.g. "A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A’s (past or future) actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct". Accountability cannot exist without proper accounting practices; in other words, an absence of accounting means an absence of accountability.

Accountability is not just for the sake of reporting but it has an ethical aspect. Within an organization, the principles and practices of ethical accountability aim to improve both the internal standard of individual and group conduct as well as external factors, such as sustainable economic and ecologic strategies. Also, ethical accountability plays a progressively important role in academic fields, such as laboratory experiments and field research (Dykstra (1939).

Studies on Ethical Leadership and Accountability

After searching studies on ethical leadership and its relationship with employees’ accountability, the writer found that not many studies have been done along this line. However, several related studies have been found. Lenny Van den Akker, Leonie heres, Karin Lasthuizen & Frederique Six (2005) have conducted the study on the effect of different ethical leadership behaviors as perceived by the followers on the trust that those followers have in their leader. They explore ethical leadership along role modeling, demonstrating morally, securing ethical behavior, contextualizing success, transmitting organizational values and encouraging transparency and accountability. Using web based survey with nearly 500 respondents from the European business corporations; they found that most ethical behaviors of leaders are positively related to trust. Employees trust their leaders when they observe their leaders are exercising ethical leadership. In this case, they argue that the more leaders act in a way that followers feel is the appropriate ethical leaders’ behavior, the more leaders will be trusted. 

Flora Richards –Gustafson (2013), in her study on accountability and leadership integrity, found that leadership integrity is to be related to accountability. Accountability is being responsible or answerable for an action. Integrity leadership is a leadership behavior that makes a choice to commit to honesty before she/he is faced with choosing between right and wrong. According to her without value of integrity in the workplace, the culture within the company is at risk for poor organizational development. Employee’s accountability is affected by leadership behavior. If employees are not seeing leadership integrity exercised by their leaders, it could affect the accountability of employees toward their work.

In terms of commitment, the same study emphasizes that when employees and leaders active practice accountability and integrity in the workplace, they tend to feel more pride and ownership in the company. Managers, however, must set the stage for this to happen by treating all employees as valued members of a team who each have an integral role in helping the company achieve its goals. According to the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Research, when employees feel pride in their place of employment because of the accountability and integrity practiced, they are more likely to work more efficiently, reduce risks and have better loss control.

In relations to organizational stability, the study revealed that mangers acting with integrity and practicing accountability are more likely to project a sense of stability to employees, which is important for employee retention. Along with a sense of stability, employees with bosses who have integrity and are accountable to those who work for them know that their managers will share company information regarding goals. When a company does not provide its employees with stability through accountability and integrity, there is a higher chance the culture will be one of fear and that every employee must fend for herself. Additionally, an unstable work environment may give employees the impression that their boss plays favorites, does not encourage professional growth and creates an environment that does not promote high performance and productivity.

Flora Richard explains that one of the best ways to lead is by example. If management allows its leaders to act without accountability and integrity, other employees will follow suit. The leaders of a company serve as the foundation of a company, so it is vital that this foundation is built on accountability and integrity. This is because a manager with weak values is more likely to produce employees who emulate his unwanted values. Conversely, a company supported with strong values will produce a culture that has an environment that performs well.

Conclusion

We have presented the ideas on leadership, accountability and ethical leadership and how it affects the accountability of employees toward their work. We can say that leadership is the exercise of influence over the followers but these influences must be good influence and exercised in ethical manner. Studies have proven the relationship between ethical leadership and accountability of employees. It shows that the more the leader is exercising ethical leadership,   the more the employee will be accountable to their works and results. If the manager/leader is honest, the more the employee will be honest in their work. Leading by example is a key to influence employees over their accountability. Indirectly such exercise bring the organization forward toward the attainment of its vision-mission and objective.

References

Articulo, C. Arcimedes. 2004. Moral Philosophy. Great Books Publishing: Manila.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics, the heart of leadership (2nd Ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger

Flora Richard-Gustafson . 2013. Importance of Accountability and Integrity in the Workplace. http://www.ehow.com/info_7854666_importance-accountability-integrity-workplace.html#ixzz2snyJfu28.

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., et al. (1999). Culturally specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219−256

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5, 48−60.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Lenny Van den Akker, Leonie heres, Karin Lasthuizen & Frederique Six. 2005. Ethical Leadership and Trust: It is All About Meeting Expectations. IJLS: International Journals of Leadership Studies, downloaded, Feb 9, 2014)
Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (1992). Values and the American manager: An update updated. California Management Review, 34, 80−94.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24−59.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-Analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611−628.

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 55, 5−37.

Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 439–452.

Ronald A. Heifetz. 1994. Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard Press.

Northouse, G. (2007 Leadership Theory and Practice (3rd ed.) Thousand Oak, London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Heifetz, Ronald A. 1994. Leadership without Easy Answers. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Burn, McGregor. 1978.  LEADERSHIP. New York:  Harper & Row,  

Dykstra, Clarence A. 1939. "The Quest for Responsibility". American Political Science Review (The American Political Science Review, Vol. 33, No. 1) 33 (1): 1

Yukl, Gary. 2006. Leadership in Organizations. Sixth Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall: New York.

Williams, Reyes(2006) Leadership accountability in a globalizing world. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sinclair, Amanda (1995). "The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and Discourses". Accounting, Organizations and Society 20.

Understanding the Eastern and Western Ways of Living Freedom and Teaching Children to Live the Freedom within Social Context and Values

   Jeanna Albano, MBA

 

A Doctoral student in Developmental Management of the Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, Philippines

Abstract.

Understanding and applying the concept of freedom is contextual. Living life freely within the social context. Thus, since it is within the social context, freedom is not a license to do whatever you want to do, it is not an absolute. Your freedom ends when you cross the boundaries of the freedom of others and cultural, social and moral values. Western society and eastern society may understand and apply freedom in different way, not necessarily the same.  The purpose of education is to teach children to live their freedom within the context where they are.    

   Key Words:  Freedom, social context, values.

Introduction

Freedom is one of the most frequently used words in our time and often it is misused. Thus it is necessary to be defined and well understood. Proper understanding of freedom will help us to conduct ourselves properly.

Different societies often time emphasizes different meaning of freedom. Western and eastern societies may emphasize different freedom. One might emphasize outer freedom and the other inner freedom. Outer freedom is freedom of action, political or social freedom. Inner freedom is freedom of the mind, freedom from the bondage of ignorance of human nature and its potentialities. Ignorance breeds fear, suspicion, hatred, and confusion.  

However, in order to function in the society, one must give up his identity, conform to anonymous authorities and adopt successful roles (Monte Mayor, 1999). Thus he escapes from inner freedom. The more he escapes from his inner freedom to act according to his will, the more powerless he feels and the more meaningless his life seems to be. If life loses its meaning because it is not lived, man becomes desperate. The ideas of freedom and democracy deteriorate into nothing but irrational faith once they are not based upon the productive experience of each individual but are presented to him by parties and states which force him to believe in these ideas.

This article would like to discuss further the meaning of freedom and how we are going to live this freedom within context and teach the children to live freely within context. In this article, the context that the researcher wants to emphasize is eastern context.

Freedom Defined.

           What is freedom? Freedom is not license to do whatever we want. The word freedom has many different meanings depending on the context. Each person's construction of meaning for their own life depends on freedom. There are two kinds of freedom: The first is freedom of thought, freedom of mind or freedom of conscience.  This is what we call inner freedom, a function of maturate growth or maturity or self-actualization. The second is freedom of choice or freedom of action. This is called outer freedom. The two are interrelated. True freedom emerges when true inner freedom translates into authentic outer freedom. 

       The definition of freedom varies with the cultural context. The principles of freedom and democracy are based on responsible freedom which is freedom of thinking and feeling derived from the activity of the human conscience. Inner freedom is a function of morality; it means maturation of personality integration of conscience. Conscience is the biological mechanism for maintenance of integration of the human personality in a complex social environment. The human conscience is a free conscience and development of the human conscience depends on fulfillment of human needs for unconditional love, work etc. Morality is a function of moral development. Moral development is a function of the development of the human conscience. The human conscience is the human spirit. It is the guardian of the integration of the human personality. It is the core of human values which have evolved through natural selection as a result of its survival value to the human organism's need to adapt to a complex social environment. It is a biologically based intrinsic valuing system which is developed as a protection for the integrated human organism. It is the result of evolutionary processes. The human organism depends on the conscience and the spirit; it is for survival of the individual organism and survival of the species.  Development of the human conscience results in humanistic morality or free morality as opposed to authoritarian morality. Free morality is morality based on inner freedom. Development of free morality is a result of development with inner freedom. And it is the biological basis of the so-called higher values.

       Still in line with the meaning of freedom, according to Mortimer Adler (1963), there are three distinct meanings of freedom: 1) an individual is said to be free when external circumstances permit him/her to act as he wishes for his own good; 2) an individual is said to be free when he/she has acquired enough virtue or wisdom to be able willingly to do as he ought, to comply with the moral law, or to live in accordance with an ideal befitting human nature. This kind of freedom resides in an individual’s state of mind or character; and it is quite independent of all external circumstances; 3) all men are said to be free because they are endowed by nature with the power of free choice, the power to decide for themselves what they shall do or become.

The Western Concept of Freedom

       The Western concept of freedom is a freedom of choice. In the Western world, freedom is perceived in terms of the ability to satisfy personal desires and impulses for self-expression in the absence of obstructions and restraining influences of authoritarianism.  The emphasis is on external factors of freedom as they relate to the outer aspects of life or politics - freedom of expression, autonomy, self-determination, self-dependence, self-regulation and democracy.

       Such concept of freedom has influenced economy and political concepts. The freedom and capitalism denigrate the value of true freedom in American capitalist society. In American culture, the ideals of political freedom are used by the propaganda machine in the interests of capitalism to divert people's attention to the choice of products which they as consumers can buy. In the consumer society people are kept ignorant of the real meaning of freedom and conditioned to think that they enjoy the freedom to choose.  Freedom of choice as outer freedom is not the translation of freedom of thought. The inner freedom is to act from conviction and internal harmony according to one's own will or conscience.

Freedom of conscience is not encouraged or even allowed. Freedom of capitalist society is the outer freedom which emphasizes the outer aspect of life and is often confused with political and social freedom. As a result of suppression of inner freedom, the individual does not know what he wants, what he thinks or what he feels. He is not free according to his own will, acting from inner harmony and conviction. In order to function in the society, he must give up his identity, conform to anonymous authorities and adopt successful roles. The more he escapes from his inner freedom to act according to his own will and conscience, the more powerless he feels and the more meaningless his life seems to be. Freedom as inner freedom emphasizes the inner aspect of life and can be likened to the German word for freedom - 'freiheit' in which the root 'heit' refers to the inner condition or state of mind or consciousness state. The closest English equivalent would be 'freedom hood' meaning 'freedom of one's consciousness state, the conscious inner struggle for inner freedom for which all human beings striving for understanding and knowledge of one's connectedness with the world and other beings in the world (Maguigad, 2005). 

 The Eastern Concept of Freedom

The Eastern concept of freedom is a freedom of the mind. In the Eastern world freedom is perceived in terms of the ability to act according to those convictions which result from internal harmony and freedom of conscience or free will. Emphasis is on internal factors of freedom as they relate to the inner aspects of life or the inner life - freedom from conditioning, freedom from fear, freedom from desire, and freedom from sorrow. Inner freedom is not a question of will but of observation and contemplation. Inner freedom is based on the ability to see reality as it is, with a sense of responsibility or caring i.e. love in the sense of loving-kindness, wisdom of compassion and creative intelligence. Creative intelligence is functional in normal growth and development of social. Social intelligence is a function of optimal mental health. Social intelligence is also a capability to sense social reality and taking social reality into consideration when making decision or action.  Education for social intelligence is education for cultivation of the total human being; example is the holistic education. Holistic education is responsible education which allows for freedom to learn from experience or experiential learning.

Teaching the Children to Live Freedom within the Eastern Context and Values

To teach the right meaning and practice of freedom can be done through holistic perception and holistic education.   It should be reminded that freedom is the most important condition necessary to ensure the cultivation of natural development - not freedom as license but freedom with control and responsibility. Although freedom in the eastern context is the freedom of the mind, the ability to act according to the conviction which results from internal harmony and freedom of conscience, however, the application of such freedom is not absolute, in the sense that someone cannot just act based on his conviction alone but social realities and moral values are factors to tame freedom. In the eastern context, freedom is not regarded as free ticket to do whatever you want to do but freedom that is placed within the social context.   Such concept should be inculcated in the beginning of childhood. Since childhood, a child is oriented what it means to be free within the context.

Learning is a natural function of the brain and the healthy mind. There is no such thing as a neutral educational process. Education functions either as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world. The development of an educational methodology that facilitates this process will inevitably lead to tension and conflict within our society. But it could also contribute to the formation of a new man and mark the beginning of a new era in Western history.

Real freedom is a consequence of development and education; it is the consequence of latent guides, aided by education. It is the construction of the personality, reached by effort and one's own experiences; it is the long road which every child must take to reach maturity. Development cannot be taught. Freedom does not consist in keeping up an uninterrupted and unimpeded external activity, but is something achieved through conquering, by personal reflection, the difficulties that prevent immediate overflow into action and spontaneous success and genuine freedom is intellectual. It rests on the power of thought. To cultivate unhindered, unreflective, external activity is to foster enslavement, for it leaves the person at the mercy of appetite, sense and circumstance (Kesson, 2010).

The result of good education must be to produce a mature person. A mature person would be a person who knows how to use his freedom in the proper context. Though the concept of freedom is universal but the application of such freedom is contextual. Contexts are always different depending where you are in this world. When you are in western culture, the application of freedom should be adjusted to western context and when you are in the eastern world, the application of freedom should be adjusted within eastern context. Western culture may emphasize individuality and independence, while eastern culture would emphasizes social harmony, interdependence. As a consequence, the application of freedom for the eastern would be limited by the concept of harmony. Your freedom ends when you destroy the harmony and the social relationship. It is not like ‘mind your own business’ and don’t mind my business as in the western culture. Thus children must know where they are and learn how to exercise freedom within the context where they. It is like a Filipino behaves like American and American behave like a Filipino. It is what is happening. Besides there can be no freedom independent of social, moral and cultural context. For the human individual in a cultural context, the nature of reality is determined by the nature of the cultural environment. The nature of the cultural environment is determined by the cultural values, moral values and belief systems.

Teaching Methodology

Teaching children about such freedom is not an easy job; given the fact the world has no boundary because of technology. Internet has communicated directly to the children or students what is happening around the globe. However, such situation is not an excuse for educator to teach children about the meaning of freedom within their cultural values and social values. Human are product of its environment.   

In line with that idea, educators must analyze the cultural context in which they are doing their work of educating. There can be no educational policy or practice independent of a social and cultural context and therefore there is no such theory as objective educational theory. For the human individual in a cultural context, the nature of reality is determined by the nature of the cultural environment. The nature of the cultural environment is determined by the cultural values and belief systems. Stimuli from the cultural environment are directly related to the basic assumptions underlying the values of the culture. They are peripheral to the stimuli in the field of focused attention. As peripheral stimuli, they are processed by the brain at the subconscious level. The cultural values are a product of the cultural belief systems which make up the cultural consciousness. The cultural belief systems are a product of the history of the culture. The cultural history forms the basis of the cultural consciousness, source of the peripheral stimuli processed subconsciously by the individual in a cultural context. The individual's thought and behavior patterns are influenced by the subconsciously processed peripheral stimuli from the cultural environment. Unconsciously perceived and processed by the brain, peripheral stimuli from the cultural environment are inherent in the so-called cultural consciousness. The educational process for the individual within a cultural context involves conscious thought patterns in the framework of unconsciously processed environmental stimuli of the cultural consciousness. The learning process combines the processing of environmental peripheral stimuli with conscious thought processes involved in cognition. Educational policies are formulated in the context of a prevailing cultural worldview which is inherent in the prevailing cultural belief systems and values. Cultural belief systems are created in the framework of the basic assumptions underlying the cultural view of the world - the reality which is perceived from the point of view of the people living in their own time. The individuals within a given culture perceive their own world from their own point of view, with the technology, the resources and the education accessible to them. They identify with the belief systems of their culture and perceive the world from the point of view of the cultural belief systems. An individual educated within the context of given cultural belief systems internalize the cultural values. The cultural values are derived from the cultural beliefs (Miller, 2005)

Conclusion

From the concept of freedom alone shows a difference between the west and the east. Thus human conduct must be different too. Human are product of its environment or society. Eastern world emphasizes social relationship and harmony and while western culture emphasizes on individuality. Such concepts naturally influence how human from two different context live life differently. Thus, the application of the concept of freedom is then contextual. For the western, freedom is absolute but for the eastern, freedom is not absolute. In that case, social context, values, cultures defines the boundary of freedom.   

References

Maguigad, R. B..2005. Philosophy of Man. Libro Filipino 90-D N. Ramirez Street, Galas, Quezon City

Montemayor, Felix M. 1999. Introduction to Philosophy Through the Philosophy of Man revised Edition. Navotas Press, Navotas, Metro Manila

Kesson, Kathleen. 2010. Critical Theory and Holistic Education: Carrying on the Conversation. http://wwwholisticeducation.com

Schaull, Richard. 2008. Introduction of Pedagogy of the Oppressed. http://www.paulofreire.com.

Miller, John. 2005. Holistic Education in a Prophetic Voice in Worldviews, Educational Orientations and Holistic Education. http://www.holisticeduactor.com

http://www.holisticeducator.com/freedom.htm

http://www.holisticeducator.com/culturalcontext.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Challenge to Educate Children to Understand Human Freedom and his/her Society

Marjorie P. Garcia

 

Instructor, MMSU-College of Arts and Sciences

PhD Development Management Student

Divine Word College of Laoag

 

 

 

 

Abstract:       

           The need to educate children about the right concept of human freedom is very essential for them to better understand the meaning of freedom. Freedom is not absolute.

Human freedom is based on a person’s free will and rationality. It can also be equated or differentiated from what we call animal freedom. From this freedom, man has the capacity to control of their actions which is now his ability to direct his actions based on his wants which is intended for human improvement/development. Freedom is not exercised in the vacuum but in the social context.

 Keywords: human freedom, free wills, absolute freedom, animal freedom.

 

Introduction

In social and political ethics, we can speak of the following as elements of genuine progress: sound state of physical and mental health in society as a whole; sufficient degree of education and schooling of its members; opportunities of work for all; favorable conditions of religious, moral, and cultural life; the good of social justice; real freedom; and equality among men.  It is very evident that our country, the Philippines, falls very short for these qualifications, and, hence, cannot be considered as progressive in these lines.  This has been a very disturbing fact in many generations already so much so that its reality has been unconsciously—perhaps—accepted by the people that very few really pursue change.  The deterioration has been a common place situation that it has been considered the standard for normal Filipino everydayness.  This Filipino existential hopelessness is reflected in the proliferation of human labor as commodity to foreign services—“brain” and “brawn” drain.   

More disturbing, therefore, is the fact that people don’t bother to change at all.  The standard for Filipino living has been degraded down to the youth of the nation that we breed future citizens who don’t bother just the same.  This shows that our next generations has adulterated understandings of freedom and society and, therefore, we have less hopes for a better Filipino society in the future.  The education, therefore, of the young in proper understanding of freedom and society is very important.  Hence, this paper will present the right concept of freedom in relation to society.

 

Human Freedom

We have been using the term “person” most of the time specially to refer to ourselves or to other human beings which may be without understanding pretty well what it really means.  The term “person” is Etruscan which means “mask”.  The equivalent Greek translation for “person” is “hypostasis”.  But what is a “hypostasis”?  A “hypostasis” is a “supposit”; an intellective-volitive being—a being that is both free and intelligent.  The meaning of the term “person” therefore is a being that is both intelligent and free.  But what is intelligence (rationality) and free will (freedom)?

Free will Freedom has a wider concept than what it has been predicated to in human affairs may it be behavioral, societal, or political.  Freedom, in its strictest sense, is the ability to direct one’s actions.  The free agent—human person—can direct his/her actions to do this and to shun that in a manner that can even go beyond the dictates of normal biological processes.  We are not totally slaves to our physical attributes since we have the ability to suspend biological gratification if we want to.  If the body dictates that the bladder is full, the normal biological response is to urinate and relieve the body of a present tension.  The animal does so without thinking and without will.  They obey the dictates of their body as stated in the concept of “instinct”.  We do have the same system of instincts but we are capable of doing otherwise because of free will.  In the event that a student is in the middle of a very important lecture, the student can willfully suspend the release of tension which the wisdom of the body dictates as in the above example.  The body is governed by pain-pleasure morality where what is pleasurable is good while painful means bad.  Because of free will, human beings can choose what is mediately painful for an anticipated pleasure. 

 Rationality But human freedom cannot be without rationality since both are indispensable.  A being can’t be rational and not free for what good is there in a being who can learn and understand things if he/she can’t direct himself/herself to do these?  Nor is it possible for a being to be free and irrational since what is there to direct oneself into if one cannot even understand reality?  Such is the indispensability of both reason and will. Free will is based on rationality. In ancient and medieval philosophy, such human capacity has been relegated to the human soul for no biological aspect can be said to be the cause of the same.  Science, at present, is limited to a “behavioral” understanding of human reason and will, at least in so far as it can explain both empirically (i.e., in the process of evolution, the human species reached the period of development referred to as a quantum leap to the emergence of consciousness). 

Animal freedom  The young mind’s concept of freedom is animal base and very limited and wrong.  When asked if animals are free, the youth will most likely say yes for the reason that animals appear to be doing anything they want.  But do animals really know that what they are doing is their wants?  Is it even proper to use the term wants to animal behavior and activity?  First, they may not know what they are doing for they are acting out of their own nature or instinct (a certain degree of biological programming if I may say).  And second, what is natural can’t be said to be a want.  Only needs can be said to be biological; wants are biologically unnecessary.  If they are not even conscious of what they do since they act out of nature, and they cannot direct their actions which are merely biological dictations, then they are not rational and free.  This is, however, speaking of animals in human terms.  That means, any future research that can prove otherwise can negate the above argument.  The main point here, nevertheless, is that the idea that free will is doing anything one wants is wrong.  Why is that?  Because free will allows man to direct himself to many things that can be categorized only into two concepts: progression and regression.

Human development. Development is transcendence—a going beyond what one is just now.  Animals are at the mercy of their organism’s ability to adapt to the changing environment—subject to the slow evolutionary change.  The human species is comparatively young to other animals but for a very little time compared to animals, our species have changed the world—no longer a natural world but a cultural world; a world now defined in human terms.  Among the ranks of the animals, there is no such thing as development more than what biological evolution dictates.  Man’s development is a rebellion against what is given to the development of the given into the produced by human ingenuity (reason) and ability to direct actions (free will).  Responsible use of free will leads to progression while abuse of it—by directing oneself to things and activities that do not contribute to development—leads to regression.  Since the human species acquired development by proper use of free will, free will is not just doing anything one wants but the proper direction of actions that contributes to progression or development (Navarro, 2001).

           Human Society and Absolute Freedom

Granted that the evolutionary paradigm is the most probable cause to our origins, the concept of a human society is problematic in a sense that whence does it come?  If man is not naturally in a society, is not our concept of freedom above is also problematic in that it is very anthropological?  There are three social philosophies that I would like to discuss as an insight to what society is and how it must have started.

Thomas Hobbes.  Man leaves the state of nature and enters civil society into an agreement:

“I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner”  (Hobbes, 1839).

Hobbes stated that in civil society each man gives their right to govern themselves to a man (monarch) or to an assembly of men (democracy).  Further, the monarch has an absolute power for power is indivisible.  The monarch/assembly of men no longer acts in behalf of the citizens who yielded their rights but embodies the will of all citizens.  Acting in one’s own behalf on the part of the monarch is against the virtue of civil society; resisting authority on the part of the governed is tantamount to resisting one’s will or reverting to the state of nature which is anarchy.

Jean Jacques Rousseau.  Rousseau did not inquire into the change of man from state of nature to members of civil society.  His inquiry starts from his statement: “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains”(Curtis, 1981).

In the state of nature man was happy for he possesses absolute independence.  Rousseau called this a natural sentiment (amour de soi) where each is inclined to watch over his own preservation and guided by reason develops humanity and virtue.  So in the beginning man was good rejecting original sin.  The beginning of sin and evil is in early social contacts when men desire to be better than others and develop instead an artificial sentiment (amour propre).  Here comes the conflict as population grew in number.  How can man reconcile his independence with the inevitable fact that they have to live together?  The solution is a form of association that protects the goods of each person and while uniting himself with all, he may still obey himself alone  (Smith, 1994.)

In some point in the past, a living contract was made between individuals as a solution to their dilemma—the Social contract.  Every political assembly starts with this living contract.  The people lose individual liberty and unlimited right to everything but what they gain is civil liberty and property right to what they possess. 

“Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of a whole.”  Whoever refuses to obey the general will must be compelled to do so by the whole body—he will be forced to be free!(Curtis, 1981).

The general will is everybody’s will.  It is the recognition of the common good which they all seek to achieve.  Laws therefore are products of the general will.  Hence, a person who disobeys must be forced to be free.  However, the general will is different from will of all in the sense that it speaks of factions and different assemblies of men.  In a society, there must never be factions for it to have the general will  (Rousseau, 1947).

Since co-existence with other persons is inevitable and it is that which negates the exercise of individual liberty, the next best thing for us is civil liberty.  We may not have unlimited rights to everything in this sense but we acquired property rights to what we possess.  We can therefore speak of absolute freedom in two ways after the above discussion.  The first sense is no accountability or responsibility to anybody but to oneself which is the state of nature.  This state of nature is negated by the indispensability of co-existence.  In the context of human co-existence, we come up with a new sense of freedom—civil liberty.  But can we still speak of absolute freedom in this sense?  Rousseau offers that the only solution is while uniting ourselves to all we still obey ourselves alone as it is in the social contract.  Hence, we still have absolute independence in society only that it has a different sense compared to the state of nature. 

Justice as Fairness.John Rawls maintains that when we think of the social contract, we are trying to discern…  “… the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association” (Rawls, 1971).

These principles are those which will promote “Justice as Fairness”.  However, people don’t agree on what fairness means since we all have individual differences as regards present economic status, physical talents, abilities, and prowess, level of education, and the like.  Pause for some moments and think is our present legislators really write laws for the benefit of all… What do you think?

Rawls, therefore, suggests that we can only think of these principles if and only when we do so in a “hypothetical situation of equal liberty”.  The point is, in establishing principles for justice as fairness, our present status comes in the way and makes us decide on justice favorable only or insofar as our present status is concerned, making it therefore a relative view on fairness.  Rawls’ hypothetical situation of equal liberty means that in establishing principles of justice as fairness, we must do so as if we are of the same and equal specific situation.  This is what he called the Veil of Ignorance.  There is fairness where everyone is at the same position when the deliberations begin.  This is the Original Position where one can think of one’s self-interest without conflict.  In the original position, one’s desire to advance oneself will be tantamount to advancing others since everyone is in the same position.

This brings us to the connection between the theory of justice and rational choice.  While rational people will normally think of their self-interests, they will also accept the limits and constraints of existence and work for a middle ground in what he calls the reflective equilibrium.

Priority Points

• Equal liberty is paramount for human dignity and human respect and should be sacrificed only when life itself is at stake.
• The Difference Principle—since liberty will inevitably breed inequalities, these must ensure fairness in a way that unequal opportunity will enhance opportunity; one’s advantage will uplift the disadvantaged.  Therefore:

They must be to everyone’s advantage.

They must be attached to positions open to all.

• On the Savings Principle, while it is important to save for future human generations, it should not take precedence over fair treatment for those who are living right now.
• If the inequality is too great, the state should interfere to lessen the inequality by enforcing laws that will lessen the burden of the underprivileged.

“All social primary goods—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these good is to the advantage of the least favored” (Rawls, 1971).

           Conclusion

It is natural for a child to conceive freedom as in the state of nature.  But as one grows, one experiences the human society where, initially from the home, a child gets to learn painful lessons of civil liberty reinforced in another human institution we call the School.  The education of the young to be responsible members of human society therefore is one of the paramount responsibilities of the school. 

There is a big need to educate the young to a better understanding of freedom and society to make them more sensitive to the obvious misrule of our present Filipino society.  We have been silent for a long time for reasons that are too many to collate and understand empirically.  We need a new breed of voters who can decide well for themselves and for the future of the nation.  For it is not in the form of society where our development rests but in the kind of people.  It is in this sense that I may be said to agree with Adolf Hitler when he wrote:

"No matter how much the soil, for instance, is able to influence the people, the result will always be a different one, according to the races under consideration. The scanty fertility of a living space may instigate one race towards the highest achievements, while with another race this may only become the cause for the most dire poverty and ultimate malnutrition with all its consequences." (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1939).

 

References:

Curtis, Michael, The Great Political Theories, Vol 1: The New expanded Edition.Avon Books, New York, 1981.

_____________, The Great Political Theories, Vol 2: The New expanded Edition.Avon Books, New York, 1981.

Hitler, Adolf.  Mein Kampf.  New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1939.

Hobbes, Thomas, The Leviathan, Vol. 3.  Sir William Molesworth, ed.  London: John Bohn, 1839.

Navarro, Rosita L., Ph.D., Lucido, Jose R., M.A., An Introduction to the Study of Social Philosophy.  Katha Publishing Co., Inc., 2001.

Rawls, John.  A Theory of Justice.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.The Social Contract, Charles Frankel, trans.  New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1947.

 

Smith, Elizabeth, Blocker, H. Gene.  Applied Social and Political Philosophy.  Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1994.