Some social folkways should die quickly.

Last week, I briefly discussed the role that social folkways play in our lives. These generally unspoken rules of conduct permeate everything we do. In many instances, social folkways facilitate human interaction by dictating acceptable behavior. However, sometimes these folkways create more problems than they solve.

For instance, take the social folkway that a young child must keep eye contact with a teacher. This rule often serves the teacher more than it does the student. When a child obeys the rule, the teacher feels validated. He or she thinks the child is paying attention. The folkway includes the expectations that (1) a child learns by paying attention via maintaining eye contact, so (2) paying attention in this manner is the best way to learn.

Therefore, the child is not learning if the child is not keeping his eyes on the teacher, right?

Not necessarily.

The folkway fails to consider the learning style of the child, his level of anxiety or depression (which impact learning processes), or his neurological uniqueness. Some children learn better auditorially. Chalkboard lectures are just one way to teach them. Some learn better visually. They need to read and to see pictures. Some learn better kinetically. They need hands-on work, or some sort of physical movement.

Perhaps the classic example of kinetic learning is the girl who, many years ago, could not learn to read until her teacher assigned specific body positions for each letter. The teacher let her “sound out” her words in this manner until she had progressed from phonemes to syllables to words. In this case, the paying-attention social folkway had worked to prevent learning. Thank goodness for a teacher who was not personally threatened by the implications of breaking the folkway!

The paying-attention social folkway also does not consider that the environment in which the child is taught may be too stimulating for him. He may under-respond (turn away or withdraw in some manner) or over-respond (move around). Or perhaps the child's neurology needs an even more stimulating environment to get his brain working at a higher level. We often diagnose attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in these cases.

But if we only follow the folkway, we decide that the child is at fault for not being able to comply. Our adherence to social folkway, in order to reduce the sense of threat we feel, encourages us to label such a child as “uncooperative,” “manipulative” or “deliberately disobedient.” This sad and destructive verdict creates more problems than it serves. I cannot help but wonder how many cases of conduct disorder, or even its precursor condition called oppositional defiant disorder, have roots in shortsighted social folkways.

Our society has changed several social folkways over the years. Perhaps the most visible change came when we mandated handicapped parking spaces. Not only did we thus show more respect to those with transportation challenges, we also acknowledged their right to openly pursue happiness. We elevated those with disabilities into acceptance, whereas before we banished them as undesirable.

Some of my readers may think that I endorse the idea that we drop the use of all social folkways. That extremist stand is, of course, impossible and ludicrous, and would endorse societal decay. But there are times when adherence to social folkways keeps us from treating each other with patience, respect and dignity, such as is often the case for individuals with disabilities. Such situations are contradictory at best, deleterious at worst. Should we not re-evaluate, adjust, and follow a better course?

Grace MacDowell, M.A., of Auburn, is completing her doctorate in clinical psychology; Grace can be reached at drmac2be@yahoo.com