A lesson in values |
When I was a young teacher, “values
education” became something of a catch phrase in school circles.
Although we knew in broad strokes what the phrase meant, I, at least,
was not confident that if we were to begin listing those “values,”
were to set out to rank their importance and actually to attempt to
incorporate them routinely into our lessons, that we could ever
actually agree on a values curriculum.
“Values” like fairness, respect,
tolerance, cooperation were probably already implicit in what
most of us were bringing to our classrooms, but conversation in the staff room indicated clearly that we teachers were not made with
cookie cutters: some of us put reverence high on our list
while others ridiculed it, for instance. One colleague played the
stock market; his aim in life was to be independently wealthy. The
high value he placed on such unassailable self-sufficiency
appalled me.
Sometimes people add an adjective to
imply that there are values a group holds in common, and so this
election campaign has begun to throw out the term “Canadian
values.” The inference is that
there is a stock set of values that Canadians share and if you were
to poll Canadians on the subject, their ranking of values would be
more or less the same.
Another such phrase—Christian
values—may sound very much like being a Christian guarantees basic
agreement on the relative importance to be placed on items in a list
of values, but experience tells us that some believers value
authority and
tradition over
fairness and
equality—and the
other way 'round, of course.
Stephen
Harper used the phrase “Old-Stock Canadians” in the first debate
and that raised a lot of eyebrows. He defined it later as "Canadians
who have been the descendants of immigrants for one or more
generations." Some of us joked that by this definition, we
could take comfort in the fact that we qualified; others reminded us
that by this definition, Indigenous people did not. It ends up being
divisive by inferring that newcomers—refugees, immigrants—remain
a separate classification until the children to whom they give birth
in Canada reach maturity and become “old-stock,” real
Canadians.
Now
there's obviously one value
Stephen Harper and I don't share, and we're both “old-stock
Canadians.” But then, it's electioneering time and whatever value
Canadians might agree on as regards honesty and
integrity, we don't
seem to insist on them during campaigns.
But
thinking about values we share and don't share equally suggests a
good exercise. Sit down in a group with a list of items that are used
when values are in
discussion: honesty, loyalty, self-sufficiency, hard work, respect,
cooperation, punctuality, generosity, patriotism, tradition, power,
health, fame, reverence for life, earth-care, fairness, kindness,
etc. Have each participant choose only three that they consider to be
most essential to the world as they see it. Compare lists and spend
some time sharing views on why we each chose the items we did.
In
fact, there are no such things as Canadian values,
Christian values, at least
insofar as they could be listed and ranked with confidence. For a
political party to say that they are protecting my values (because I
am, after all, a Canadian) feels like a pandering to my baser
instincts. What they are seeking to defend is their
values while hoping I will assume that they match mine.
How is
this different from using female beauty to sell cars and beer,
couples laughing and cavorting on beaches to sell insurance?
It
assaults a few of my deeply-felt, basic values. Apparently they are
not—after all—Canadian
values.
No comments:
Post a Comment