RECENTLY in class I was reminded of the importance of balance in teaching. I have always tried to give a fair representation of diverse perspectives on an issue under class discussion and one of the ways I had justified this practice myself was by reminding myself that giving a balanced view to students is part of my job. It is closely related to the ethics of my profession.
However, I have often asked myself if I truly grasped what I meant when I thought of teaching a balanced view and if it is always the correct way to approach a subject or problem.
In reflecting upon this, I was reminded of a simple and provocative essay titled The Well-Balanced View — in The Southern Speech Journal, XXIV (3) — by the philosopher Maurice Natanson.
He points out in regards to helping students achieve a well-balanced view that: “I must admit to a sense of uneasiness about the phrase ‘well-balanced view’.”
Synonyms are no less disquieting: the well-rounded view, the overall view and the mature outlook are shorthand for a familiar yet fundamentally unexamined appraisal of experience.
As a philosopher, I am professionally suspicious of root-cliches; should I not, as a teacher, be equally inquisitive and on guard? What exactly is a well-balanced view? And is it necessarily the case that such a view is desirable?
Natanson’s doubts and concerns are something that I have shared. What exactly is a well-balanced view? Is it always a good view? Natanson defines a well-balanced view as “a way of looking at some problem which takes into account, as nearly as possible, all the relevant particulars — what are commonly called the facts — and examines them with objectivity within a framework of broad cultural dimensions. The well-balanced view really implies a well-balanced viewer, an observer who makes truth his ideal and pursues it with calmness, perspective and intelligence”.
He draws our attention to the “well-balanced teacher, one who successfully realises the spirit of the ideal of tempered, objective and insightful judgment in the classroom”.
Natanson points out: “As a teacher, I surely strive toward balance in presentation and judgment, but the very concept of balance implies an attitude of compromise and reservation.
“When I present the views of a philosopher in class, for example, I surely wish to do justice to his positive achievements yet not fail to point out his weaknesses.
“It is my professional task to give the student a full account of the sources, systematic structure, implications and historical impact of a thinker’s ideas, but at the same time it is no less my concern to show his limitations, inadequacies and blind spots.
“Since all thinkers, presumably, have weaknesses as well as strengths and since all theoretical positions have their relative advantages and disadvantages, it would seem that before I even enter the classroom, I am committed to a contract of moderation.”
There is much that is perhaps ironic in having a well-balanced view, not least the fact that taking into account diverse views and perspectives may require us to take seriously those insights which on first blush we find immoderate
or unreasonable.
This does not mean agreeing with or simply accepting but it does mean having the discipline, calmness and intellectual curiosity to seek to understand and engage opinions that are different from our own.
Natanson points out that it is not necessarily true that the “truth lies midway between conflicting positions or that compromise is the key to understanding”. Truth does not always lie in the middle between two extremes.
So then why is moderation and balance so important? What use is it to us as teachers? Natanson argues that there is a strong case to be made for moderation from a negative point of view, not so much because moderation necessarily leads to truth in all cases but rather because moderation is important in ensuring that teachers do “an honest job” and try to “consider the issues responsibly”.
He argues that “the principle of moderation is of considerable use, since it warns the impulsive thinker that his quick commitment to an extreme may be foolish, that he had better pause and reconsider and that his choice may reflect a failure to evaluate properly the arguments he is rejecting even if they are wrong”.
Moderation is an important commitment for teachers because it ensures freedom of inquiry and debate with the responsibility to ensure that both teachers and students entertain and seek to understand the breadth of arguments relevant to an issue and do not simply exclude everything that they are unfamiliar with or simply spout the most extreme of positions without due consideration of the relevant range of ideas on a topic.
Natanson points out “the principle of moderation permits the instructor and the student as well to realise the negative values of the well-balanced view: the teacher is able to concentrate on the total range of ideas and relationships and the student is given the advantage of being able to entertain the arguments advanced without having to either embrace them or barricade himself against them at the outset”.
Understood from this perspective, moderation in teaching and taking seriously the issue of balance are of central concern to teachers. That the implications of this perspective go far beyond the classroom and school gate ought also not to be ignored.