Moral Development and Kohlberg

Kohlberg

When it comes to socialization, circles of friends, peer groups and so forth, it is clear that there is what is considered healthy and what is considered less than optimal. Beyond there, there will always tend to be subgroups and subcultures that emerge from within and from under a more dominant culture. This brief report shall describe the importance of peer groups, how subcultures can emerge and the significance of those subgroups emerging. Further, the way in which friendship circles are created and changed throughout the school years, how problems are associated with children that are rejected, bullying and their victims and beyond will be mentioned. Finally, there shall be the specific bits of advice offered by Kohlberg when it comes to moral development, growth of vocabulary and the seasoning of reasoning ability with kids will be part of what is discussed. While not all children and peer groups develop in the same way, there are good signs and bad signs and the former is always better than the latter.

Analysis

Far and away the most important reason that peer groups are a good thing to have, not to mention circles of friends in general, is that human are social creatures and forced (or self-imposed) isolation is almost never healthy or good for a person. Even with that tendency and fact, there is always going to be the more prevalent and dominant cultures that exist and there will be people within the area of that dominant culture that will not sign on to or assimilate into the bigger culture, at least not fully. This is what leads to subcultures forming and blossoming within the broader context of the dominant culture. For example, Muslims are a very stark minority within the United States. Despite this, they find it important to assemble with and otherwise socialize with people such as themselves, whether that be in a religious setting or outside of it. Some people decry this as Muslims separating themselves from society and not becoming a working part of the whole. Others say that Muslims have every right to keep with their prior norms and values while at the same time doing what society reasonably expects of them. Something else to consider is that Muslims themselves, even within the United States, can further separate into smaller groups. For example, Arab Muslims will tend to follow similar circles while black Muslims will be in their own circles (MV Media, 2016)

Subcultures are significant in that they are smaller groups that people can feel "at home" within but they can also be a bad thing, on the whole. For example, gangs and other delinquent subcultures work and move against the larger culture and this often manifests in the form of deviancy and crime. This concept is by no means new and has been heavily studied and assessed as far back as the 1970's and beyond. What has been found in the years since is that there are some strong correlations and divergences when it comes to dominant cultures and subcultures and they are quite often along racial, gender and/or socioeconomic lines. Beyond that, the socioeconomic and racial lines are often one and the same given that minorities are much more likely to be economically deprived than white people, just as one example. Even with all of that, there are plenty of subcultures that are not violent and that are not, in and of itself, a sign of bad socialization or a bad part of society in general. Even so, the reasons that people peel off of and/or separate themselves from a broader and more dominant culture is always something that should be studied and assessed. Some degree of specialization and separation is normal while other forms are borne of things that are not the least bit positive such as xenophobia, religious tensions, racism or other negative things (Kreager & Moody, 2011).

As far as friendship circles change and evolve as a child ages, the big thing to look at and keep track of is complexity. While there are basic norms and trends that emerge as a child ages, the scope, depth and breadth of what a child does and clings to gets more advanced and expansive as they age. As such, who they hang out with as a child will obviously be different than who they associate with as teenagers. Some of this is normal and expected while other manifestations are less than positive. Indeed, there are some nasty events and trends that can emerge such as people running in "cliques" or otherwise bullying or excluding others. The common historical examples of this are the jocks, the "pretty girls" and so forth. People that are socially inept or that are stigmatized for one reason or another are often excluded from the social groups that they might seek to join and this can have a devastating effect (NIH, 2016).

As for what can be done to deal with this, it has to be two-fold. First, the children that are engaging in that behavior need to be shut down and stopped. The problem with that is that parents must be involved in any solutions and they may or may not do the right thing or do it completely. Beyond that, schools and other things that dominate a child's day can only go so far. The bigger thing to focus on is to teach bullied children coping skills. They need to understand that the behavior is not acceptable and the children engaging that behavior are wrong on all levels. As such, those children that are bullied and excluded can be guided to associate with children and adults that will not treat them poorly like that and that will value their companionship and friendship. One of the major complicating factors when it comes to bullying is that the emergence of the internet and social media as it is known today has made it much easier to victimize people and to be victimized. As such, there needs to be a full court press on behavior that is bullying and pernicious and helping those that are targeted (NIH, 2016).

As for Lawrence Kohlberg and his theory of moral development, he was a very big proponent and believer in the work of Piaget and his theory regarding the same. Kohlberg's manifestation of the idea came in 1958 and was in large part based on Piaget's work in 1932. Kohlberg's revised structure had a total of three levels with there being a total of two stages in each level. Level one was known as pre-conventional morality and had the stages of obedience and punishment orientation and individualism/exchange. The first stage is about the child being good so that they are not punished. The individualism state is about the idea that there is often more than one "right" view when it comes to a single situation. Level two in the Kohlberg framework is conventional morality. The two stages in that group are having good interpersonal relationships and the maintaining of social order. Both of those are fairly self-explanatory (Mcleod, 2016).