Insights from I/O Psych and Social Psych: The Psychological Bases Why Soc Sci 3 Should Be Abolished
I believe that Soc Sci 3, the course on Exploring
Gender and Sexuality, should be abolished by comparing
it to an area in Industrial-Organizational Psychology
and tying it up with certain concepts in Social
Psychology.
One of the interesting fields in I/O Psychology is
Organizational Development. In a nutshell, it can be
described as developing or improving a particular
organization or company by implementing some programs
such as aligning an individual's personal values with
that of the company's. As Gary Dessler (2003. Human
Resource Management, 9th ed. Prentice Hall: Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey) defined it, it is ?changing
the employees' attitudes, values, and beliefs so that
they can improve the organization?. For example, in
the past, a number of companies in the West found
better organizational efficiency by implementing the
Sensitivity Training Program wherein the employees are
taught how to be in touch or be sensitive with their
emotions as well as with the emotions of their
colleagues and superiors, so that they can relate and
work with them better. It also fosters camaraderie and
team building and hence, leads to better productivity.
However, although it was not mentioned in the books,
it was heavily emphasized in class that particular
programs are not to be implemented with all companies,
even though some research claim of its effectiveness.
As an example used in our Psych 195 class, a
particular Human Resource Executive attended a
conference wherein he encountered this Sensitivity
Training Program and was convinced that it was a very
good opportunity to enhance the interpersonal skills
of his employees. Confident that it was backed up with
research, he decided to implement it right away,
without further scrutiny and study as to how it might
impact his organization. After the implementation and
processing of the activity, the employees' immediate
reaction and feedback to the program was that it was
enjoyable, masaya. Unfortunately, to the HR's horror,
the results were not what he expected. Instead, some
six months after, office gossip became rampant. ?Ah,
alam mo ba si Paolo, matapobre yan?, ?Yung boss pala
natin nakiki-apid kay Abby.? among other such things.
Instead of achieving the goal of efficiency as
promised by the research he had come across, the
program proved to be detrimental towards the whole
organization. What the HR overlooked was that
Filipinos, because of how they are brought up, are
already disposed to be sensitive compared to the
Westerners who are taught and socialized to be
individualistic starting from their childhood. Also,
instituting even small changes results to certain
long-term effects, sometimes organization-wide.
This example is not to downplay the role of
Organizational Development (OD) in increasing a
company's performance. In fact, OD is a key area, an
essential field nowadays that companies spend millions
on to improve their efficiency. What I am trying to
point out is that 1) not all programs, even published
or backed by research, would be effective at all
instances or with all kinds of people, 2) the
researcher must have enough credentials and expertise
to be able to discern which programs would most likely
be successful given a particular situation or a set of
people, and 3) OD in itself is not the problem, it is
the content of the program and manner of implementing
it which should be guarded.
While I believe that we Filipinos should be educated
with regard to sexuality, the content and manner of
implementing it should be guarded. Although Soc Sci 3
has lofty ideals of imbibing university students of a
?healthy? outlook on sexuality, I argue that this
would not be achieved. While proponents of Soc Sci 3
push us to assert our ?academic freedom? and name it
as one of Soc Sci 3's greatest strengths, I argue that
?academic freedom? is its greatest weakness.
At least in OD, the company can screen the people who
would be in charge as well as the content of the
program, furthermore, the upper management can
immediately terminate a program once they discover
that the results do not conform or lead to the desired
goals or company objectives. In Soc Sci 3, however, we
do not have any standards to guard ourselves with.
Because of our ?academic freedom? which characterizes
our University, an instructor has the liberty of what
materials are to be included, or excluded for that
matter, in the curriculum since we trust the
?expertise? and discretion of the instructor regarding
the topics which would be discussed in class. If this
is the case, (and it is), then what could be our
internal and external validity of Soc Sci 3's success?
What is our criterion of a student who has a "healthy"
outlook on sexuality, by the way? Who determines the
criteria or characteristics? How could we then
accurately say that the students have developed a
?healthy? outlook on sexuality by taking this course
which directly impacts students? attitudes, beliefs,
values and behavior regarding sexuality? What if the
instructor includes topics which hint, suggest?or
worse?encourage students to engage in pre-marital sex,
or whatever forms of sex, to ?explore their
sexuality??
At this point I want to emphasize that the nature of
Soc Sci 3 is not about encouraging students to engage
in pre-marital sex. In fact, I have been to one of Dr.
Batangan's conferences about sexuality and I would
attest that she dealt the matter with utmost
sensitivity and tact (in contrast to Mr. Agunod?s
claims that Soc Sci 3 teachers do not deal with this
matter with sensitivity and tact), and more
importantly, she regarded sex as something intimate
and something which is to be treasured and reserved
for marriage. I would say that she could excellently
handle a Soc Sci 3 class. However, because of the
?academic freedom? that we so pride ourselves with,
theoretically, it is possible that, depending on their
values, other instructors might include topics,
lectures, readings, films, guest speakers, limit the
exposure of students to certain conferences, research
and perspectives, and imbibe ideas which would
directly impact a student's attitudes, beliefs, values
and views on sexuality in a manner that could do more
harm than good.
In fact, David Myers already admitted in his social
psychology book (1999. Social Psychology 6th ed.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.) that there are very obvious ways
that values enter the scientific enterprise, one of
which is the choice of research topics that the
researcher presents. In Soc Sci 3, this can be very
apparent. For example, even from the choice of
readings which an instructor would include, or
exclude, it would reflect the values of the
instructor, and how he/ she would organize the course.
?And so what??, one might ask. Well, to go a step
further, Myers also admitted that there are
Not-So-Obvious ways that values enter the scientific
enterprise, which in our case with Soc Sci 3 could
prove to be very damaging to our country. He
enumerates that 1) psychological concepts contain
hidden values, 2) psychological advice also reflects
the advice giver?s personal values, and 3) hidden
values seep into psychology?s research based concepts.
I argue that these not-so-obvious ways that values
enter programs is what makes Soc Sci 3 such a
dangerous program. To illustrate, allow me to quote
from Myers:
?Few readers notice that Maslow himself, guided by his
own values, selected the sample of self-actualized
people he described. The resulting description of
self-actualized personalities?as spontaneous,
autonomous, mystical, and so forth?reflected Maslow?s
personal values. Had he begun with someone else?s
heroes?maybe Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and John
D. Rockefeller?the resulting description of
self-actualized people would have been different
(p.10).?
In the same manner, since the class on Social
Psychology is usually taken only on the last semester
of their stay in the undergraduate program, too few
Psych majors realize this fact?that, advertently or
inadvertently, instructors inject their own values in
what they present in class or in the advices that they
give. Even then, in some classes such as mine, this
point is not even emphasized. I would surmise that it
is reasonable to conclude that with students from
other courses, including the ones taking Soc Sci 3,
even fewer realize this fact. They are just like the
people seeking psychological advice that Myers
described:
?Many people, unaware of this, defer to the
?professionals?? But science does not and cannot
answer questions of ultimate moral obligation, or
purpose and direction, and of life?s meaning. (p.10).?
Not-so-obvious ways that values enter the scientific
enterprise can affect how a psychologist specify the
good life, how to live our lives. The labels we
ascribe certain actions depends on our values as well.
For example as Myers illustrate, a person engaging in
guerilla warfare can be considered a ?terrorist? or a
?freedom fighter? depending on the person?s value
system; extra-marital affairs can be viewed as ?open
marriage? or ?adultery?. Similarly, in Soc Sci 3,
depending on the values of the instructor, a sexual
act outside of marriage can be considered acceptable
or not; immoral or just a part of life, of growing up,
of attaining self-actualization; also depending on the
values of the instructor, satellite relationships
which lead to sex can even be branded as necessary,
?because one person cannot possibly satisfy all of
another person?s needs?.
I argue that whatever one wants to call a sexual act
outside of marriage?whether it be moral/immoral,
acceptable/not acceptable, right/wrong or
what-have-you?a kind of thinking that tolerates this
leads to the mentioned social ills. Since Soc Sci 3,
which tackles a very sensitive subject, under the
framework of our ?academic feedom?, is very
susceptible to instructors? values, and it could be
used (and is actually currently being used) as a venue
to justify sexual acts outside of marriage instead of
correcting it, I believe that Soc Sci 3 is not the
best way to educate the Filipino youth about
sexuality.
Again, to make things clear, I am not saying that our
courses ought to be value-free, because this is
impossibility. Nor am I prescribing my own set of
values?no, as even some of my friends do not subscribe
to the things I believe in, and I would not want to
force my beliefs on them. Furthermore, I am not saying
that we should do away with our academic freedom, as
even a priest that I look up to, Fr. Jim Achacoso,
wrote an article entitled ?In Defense of Academic
Freedom? which, as the name already says, supports and
clarifies the concept of academic freedom. Just as I
am not saying that we should do away with
Organizational Development, what I am trying to point
out is that certain ways of teaching and presenting a
sensitive topic such as sexuality?stemming from
certain values?leads to certain, long-term,
devastating results.
Akin to a multiple choice item, one can approximate
and arrive at the correct answer, however, by
eliminating the wrong alternatives. Although in this
paper I would not state what ought to be the content
of a course on Sexuality, I would definitely assert to
voice my opinion as to what should not be the content
of a course on Sexuality. Since we do not want the
mentioned social ills (broken marriages, divorce,
affairs, infidelities) to prevail in this country,
then we should eliminate its roots?or at least one of
its roots. Therefore, we should eliminate (one of) its
roots; we must abolish Soc Sci 3.
A separate paper can further elaborate and cite the
proper research work on the list of topics and ideas
which could negatively impact a person's viewpoint on
sexuality. Nonetheless, to give support on my claim, I
would want to draw on the observation that that
countries in the West, well, are generally educated
and socialized in such a way that it is acceptable for
them to engage in sexual intercourse outside of
marriage. This kind of thinking, I believe,
correlates?and I would be bold enough to even assert
that it causes?social ills such as broken marriages,
divorce, affairs, infidelities, and so on. I
hypothesize that if one were to do tedious research
about this topic, the correlation coefficient, the r
value, would be have a positive magnitude and would be
sufficiently high: Meaning the mentioned social ills
can be explained and attributed due to this kind of
thinking that it is acceptable to engage in sex
outside the grounds of matrimony.
A lot of factors?such as the media, the kind of
friends one hangs out with, the unfortunate example of
their relatives, friends or acquaintances, the kind of
education they received in school, and so on?can
influence this kind of thinking. I believe that each
area in society, and most especially the education
sector, should tell people to reserve sex for marriage
and practice continence, otherwise it would lead to
social ills among other things. In Soc Sci 3 (at least
with some classes), however, this is not the case; in
fact, instead of correcting this kind of thinking,
some instructors justify certain sexual behaviors
(e.g. Sex outside of marriage), by exposing and
limiting students only to certain kinds of research
and perspectives. As a result, it reinforces students
to modify their attitudes, beliefs, values and
behavior with regards to sex in a manner that would be
detrimental to themselves as well as to our country
and lead to the mentioned social ills. Although the
decision ultimately rests on the individual, the
probability of its occurrence increases because it is
tolerated; sadly, tolerated even by parts of the
Academe.
Furthermore, allow me to emulate the philosophy of my
professor in Child Psychology: even though at present,
there is no hard and concrete evidence that cell phone
radiation nor microwave radiation would cause birth
defects to the pregnant women?s baby?pero hindi mo
naman itatapat yung tiyan mo sa cellphone o sa
microwave oven para malaman. Take precautions!
Although at this moment I yet to have the proper
researches and studies supporting my claim, ?It is
better to be safe than sorry?.
Theoretically instructors suggesting that it is
permissible or acceptable to engage in sex outside of
marriage can happen; this semester, this did happen
(as reported by Mr. Andrew P. Agunod among others); in
the future, this most probably will happen again. If a
program can result in more harm than good, if it would
cause social ills, then I believe that its
implementation should be stopped as soon as possible.
Furthermore, after saying all these, I believe it is
not enough that ?those who cannot handle what the
instructors present in class should just stay away
from Soc Sci 3?. Remember in OD, the whole
organization is affected. To illustrate, say I am part
of this hypothetical company, and our Human Resource
Director decides to implement the Sensitivity Training
Program, which he found to be effective in countries
in the West. Observing that it had detrimental effects
to the company that my friend belongs, I would not
want the company which I so value and love to undergo
a similar fate. In fact, even if I simply opt not to
join the program because I do not believe in the
program?s effectiveness, it would be my colleagues who
are likely to spread gossip around the office and are
likely to negatively affect productivity, not to
mention the working relationships. The course of
action then, is not to simply stay silent and boycott
it, but rather, to halt its implementation. Ang sakit
ng kalingkingan, sakit ng buong katawan, one adage
goes. Also: A wise man learns from his mistakes; a
wiser man, from the mistakes of others.
Similarly, this course in Soc Sci 3 impacts the social
environment which I so value and love in manner that,
I believe, is detrimental in the long run, since we
are all connected with each other, one way or another.
For example, I do not want my sister to have a
boyfriend who got his ideas about sex under certain
Soc Sci 3 professors, I do not want my (future)
girlfriend to have ideas which she picked up from her
friends who took Soc Sci 3 handled by this particular
instructor. I do not want you, dear reader, nor your
relatives, friends, and loved ones, to experience
difficulties in your relationships, directly or
indirectly brought about this program. I do not want
our country to be characterized by broken marriages,
divorce, affairs, infidelities; hence, I would assert
my right to voice my opinion that since this
program?Soc Sci 3?potentially (and actually) leads to
social ills in the long run, it should be abolished.
In this paper I would refuse to name names, as my
purpose is not to incriminate certain people; rather,
my intention is to expose and eliminate the danger
that this course presents. It is not people that I
want to get rid of; rather it is what they teach?such
as sex outside of marriage should be tolerated, and
emphasizing on university students (and not married
couples) that sexual satisfaction is necessary for
one?s well being while overlooking the importance of
continence?that I want to permanently eliminate.
Just to reiterate and emphasize, Soc Sci 3 is not
about encouraging people to engage in sex outside
marriage; rather, our ?academic freedom? makes Soc Sci
3 very susceptible to the dangerous reality that it
can be (and it actually is being) used to promulgate
certain values that would lead to social ills,
unnecessary consequences that we do not want in our
country. Again, if a program can result in more harm
than good (since we cannot change the ?academic
freedom? which characterizes the University of the
Philippines, and we cannot screen instructors based on
their values or sexual preferences?that would be
?discrimination?), if it has a high potential of
causing social ills, then I believe that its
implementation should be terminated as soon as
possible; I assert that Soc Sci 3 is not the best
means of educating the Filipino youth with regards to
sexuality. I appeal to the higher authorities that
this program should be abolished immediately.
Michael Joseph B. Luistro
4th Year, BA Psychology
University of the Philippines-Diliman
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
tytartz's journal
crazy