Three lessons from Anishinaabe principles to inform a contextualized approach to character education
In socially diverse contexts, character educators often struggle to articulate what “good character” means. They want to avoid both moral dogmatism and relativism. At the latest Educating Character Initiative webinar, three distinguished presenters draw on Anishinaabe principles of relationality, process, and reciprocity to offer a third way, showing character educators how they can help students to develop a contextualized understanding of what good character is and to foster its development.
In this webinar, Jenae Nelson, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Brigham Young University — who is of Anishinaabe heritage and is a member of the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa — and two faculty members from Baylor University: Anne Jeffrey, Associate Professor of Philosophy, and Sarah Schnitker, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, presented from their collaborative research. The International Journal for Applied Positive Psychology recently published their findings. Another peer-reviewed article related to this work is forthcoming in Personality and Social Psychology Review.
In their research, Nelson, Jeffrey, and Schnitker recommend a contextualized approach to confront the current loneliness crisis, a prevalent issue among college students. “One thing that’s apparent is that college students are, in general, struggling right now,“ Schnitker said. The team’s method challenges existing assumptions to improve outcomes for students and avoid the pitfalls of cultural relativist and universalist approaches. Using Anishinaabe philosophy, their paper demonstrates how relationality, process, and reciprocity, aligned with Mino-bimaadiziwin (the good life), can guide positive psychology in addressing loneliness more effectively. As Schnitker noted during the presentation:
“Instead of trying to ask, ‘What are good habits all people should be cultivating?,’ a contextual approach says, “In this particular context, what habits lead to flourishing for individuals here in this time and place?’ And, ‘What moral habits should we be cultivating, specifically in our universities for our students?’”
The researchers do not recommend that educators apply each of the following principles as the Anishinaabeg would; instead, faculty and administrators should consider each principle and how it would be applied in their specific academic context.
How can educators contextually incorporate relationality, process, and reciprocity into their work?
1. Relationality
“One way we might be thinking about human selves and our character,” Anne Jeffrey reflected, “is as isolated individuals with personality traits separable from their contexts and their relationships. We ask about people, ‘Who are they really?’ That question sort of presumes that things are defined by some essence that is non-relational.”
Jeffrey came to this realization after learning more about the Anishinaabe people and how they describe objects, people, and places always in relation to others. The common phrase “I am all my relations” unsettles the assumptions about the self and character that are individualistic. It impacted her teaching practice; she implemented engaged learning in her courses, incorporating lessons that were high in context, so her students could learn about character in relation to specific individuals within particular situations in distinct environments.
2. Process
Anishinaabemowin, the Anishinaabe language, is a verb-based language. When people are speaking, everything is action-oriented. Sarah Schnitker adapted this concept to her character education classroom in this way:
“It’s about the doing, rather than the having or possessing of a quality or trait. And I know in my lab, we say, ‘Let’s not just talk about well-being, but well-doing…’ In Higher Education, I think it’s important for us not to think about fixed traits or, ‘Is this person a person of character or not?’ But instead, we should view this as a lived developmental process that we enter into with our students — and we ourselves are on this growth trajectory as well.”
3. Reciprocity
Jenae Nelson differentiates between transactional reciprocity and transcendent reciprocity.
“How do we cultivate gratitude in young people? I believe it starts with the principle of reciprocity. In the research I’ve done on indebtedness, we find that grateful people want to repay after receiving a benefit — this is the principle of reciprocity. This responsibility to give back when you receive a gift is one of the Anishinaabe principles. But there are two types of reciprocity — transactional and transcendent. Transcendent reciprocity says, ‘I want to give back, because I was given so much, and this keeps me in relationship with others,’ versus a feeling of, ‘I am giving back because I have to, and I no longer want to be indebted.’ That transactional reciprocity is a burden. The reason it’s a burden is that you’re thinking of life as a closed system, like a sealed jar; if you take something out, there’s nothing more that goes in, creating a state of scarcity — versus an open system where giving and receiving just adds abundance to the system.
So, when we focus on cultivating the positive emotion of gratitude in our youth — instead of their responsibility to give back — that’s when they are more likely to have that transactional approach, and we may inadvertently encourage a ‘what’s-in-it-for-me’ mentality. With this mentality, you’re scanning the world for all your blessings…instead of asking ‘what good can I do in the world for others?’ With a transactional perspective, there’s an end to relationships. You want to end the debt quickly by expressing gratitude and moving on. An ongoing relationship is not necessary. In this case, gratitude is really low or non-existent… That erodes gratitude.”
Educators can watch the whole webinar below for stories and examples that illustrate each of these principles: