Student Development Theory

ARG! I love theory and I hate it at the same time.

I see where the authors (Chickering, Erikson, Marcia, Josselson...) of the theories we've been studying are coming from (the 1950s) but at the same time it is so intensely annoying reading a book that claims these theories were drawn from "students" or "people" as a whole when they really mean "white, upper-middle class, heterosexual, able-bodied males."

Yes, the theories can help those outside of that "norm," it's just difficult to hear it as if it were all encompassing, thorough reseach when only a select group was studied.

Or when the book I'm reading (which, albeit is very old and out of touch) says something along the lines of "some women have glorified childhood aspirations such as finding the cure to cancer or becoming an ambassador to Russia, but these women soon resign themselves to more realistic goals." Excuse me but... WTF?! Nay, to that I say excuse you.

It really gets to me that I've been spoonfed these paradigms that consistantly leave out the under-privileged. Look at our school textbooks from childhood. World history is called just that yet it only includes the Western world. And what happens if a student actually has a question about the non-Western world? Sure, go read the little section about Asia at the end of the book that no classroom ever gets to. Sorry.

Whoa, don't be so sensitive! It's totally not racist in at all. Take a course focused on non-Western history, this is "regular" world history. Really, you should be greatful we even have a course on Asians, it's not like we have a course on white people. Wait...

Can you tell I'm fired up?

But then I take a step back and I start thinking, will the work I do today be seen as out of touch, sexist, racist, heterosexist, etc. by the following generations? Can I really label others as discriminatory and discount them if I want those who come after me to show me patience and guidence when I lag behind the times? It's already starting.