when nice ain't so nice

When Nice Ain’t So Nice

By Elouise Bell

The problem with Nice isn’t that it’s sometimes wimpy; the problem is that Nice can be dangerous. More crimes have been committed behind the mask of niceness than behind all the ski masks worn to all the convenience store stickups ever perpetrated.

I don’t actually intend to talk about literal crimes here, but as long as the subject came up, it’s worth mentioning that until the roof caved in, everybody said Utah corporate conman Grant Affleck was a really nice guy. (Nice cuts both ways in giving Utah its title as Fraud Capital of the nation: we produce cone men so nice they can’t be doubted, and victims so nice they “can’t say no.”) Documents forger and bomb killer Mark Hoffman, they said, was nice. Likewise convicted child sex abuser Alan Hadfield- so nice that an entire community rose up to vilify the victims and slander the messenger rather than accept the verdict on their nice-guy neighbor. And, apparently, Ted Bundy was as nice as they come.

I first identified niceness as a culprit with the help of a colleague, Karen Lynn. I told Karen that some of today’s college students seem pleasant enough, but somehow unpleasantly resistant at the same time, in a way that was unclear but very real.

“Oh, I know what you mean,” Karen said. “The students smile very politely, and the unspoken message goes like this: ‘I am a very nice person. I’m sure you are a very nice person too. Therefore I am sure you will give me a nice grade. And if you don’t- what’s wrong with you?” Niceness in some student’s minds fulfills all obligations that one might otherwise expect to see paid in the coin of effort, intelligence, and results. (Incidentally, John Ciardi spotted the problem in the same setting. He wrote a fine poem called “On Flunking a Nice Boy Out of School.” I read it to students from time to time. Some laugh. Some sulk, suggesting tacitly that even reading the poem is not very nice of me.) But I look beyond the classroom to find the arena where niceness is most harmful.

C.S. Lewis praises courage as the virtue that protects all other virtues. That is, it is courage which enables us to be truthful when speaking the truth may be risky; it is courage that backs up loyalty when loyalty is unpopular; it is certainly courage which makes patriotism meaningful in times of danger. By the same logic, I believe it is niceness which can corrupt all the other virtues. Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, short-circuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion and Love.

Nice is, among other things, a logic-proof argument (chronically nice students seem puzzled when I try to explain the rational of penalties for late work; my reasons are all so irrelevant to their niceness), an undiscerning critique (Wayne Booth’s mother used to chide him: “Why must you be so critical in your reviews?”), and a silken shackle on the legs of millions of women.

(The list of things nice women don’t do includes, but is not limited to, thinking, speaking, moving- in the romantic context- arguing, competing, winning, and laughing out loud. I had a very nice woman tell me once, after I had given some foolish presentation or another to her women’s group: “That was hilarious! Really hilarious! I almost laughed out loud!” Heaven forfend!)

Niceness begins in the home; it is taught as a prime doctrine of the “poisonous pedagogy” Alice Miller exposes. Miller, a brilliant Swiss psychologist whose work is assuming major proportions in the field, has traced much neurosis to the philosophy, dominant throughout most of this century, that the role of the child is to be docile, obedient, and subservient to the parent, whose word is law. The “poisonous pedagogy” teaches children, in other words, to be “nice.” It demands that children not resist the status quo, not take any direct action against whatever injustices are going down. Thus it indirectly but inevitably encourages covert action, manipulation, passive-aggression, duplicity and denial. (My mother used to say in so many words: “Be nice. Don’t argue with your father. Agree with him, then slip out the back door and do what you like, like your brother’s do.” She also said to me with a simper: “Your father is the head of the home, remember that. And I’m the neck that moves the head!” My response to such advice was often a single, very unnice word.)

As I look around the neighborhood, the campus, the community, and the church, I see one result of these teachings in the way nice people act when they disagree: sentimentally or deviously towards those we encounter face to face, and hostility towards those we don’t know. For thirty years I have been upset and puzzled by the fiercely hostile tone of many Letters to the Editor of BYU’s student newspaper. These letters are not merely impassioned, not just full of youthful vigor and sass, not purely angry. They are hostile and mean-spirited. Whether discussing red tape in the Administration Building, parking on campus, or pricing in the Bookstore, the letters drip with innuendo, invective and scripture-laden scourging. All this from neatly dressed, smiling youths who hold doors open for each other and walk clear across campus to turn in stray Number Two pencils to the Lost- and Found depository.

This same pattern shows up even more dangerously on our highways. The heavy artillery has so far blasted away only on the California freeways, but the nice, friendly, zucchini-sharing people of the Utah culture are not immune to the hostility that spurts out at strangers once we are behind the wheel. Afoot and at home in our own neighborhoods, we silently and smilingly put up with each others dogs that howl all night, kids that trample our flower gardens, teens that sun-bathe and wash their cars to ear-shattering heavy metal music. But when we drive out of those neighborhoods, any stranger becomes fair game for our angry honking, cutting in, heading off, not-so-muted swearing, and flipping the bird. I am suggesting that there is a connection. If niceness did not forbid our direct assertion on dog howls and childish vandalism, perhaps there wouldn’t be quite so much hostility stored up waiting to slosh out on Interstate-15.

Nice takes other tolls. According to an article in the Deseret News, 11 October 1989, pharmaceutical houses have hard data showing that Utahns (with a national reputation as your generic nice people) use huge quantities of tranquilizers and anti-depressants, far more per capita than the populations of other states. Depression of course has many causes, but repressed anger is among the foremost. Anger is punished and prohibited from childhood in cultures that teach the poisonous pedagogy and preach the creed of niceness. I fantasize about what life in Happy Valley might be like if the lid of niceness were eased off the pressure cooker of emotions.

I worry about hostility on the highways and depression in the home. I worry about battering and abuse, both physical and sexual, that seem to be on the rise in places where you wouldn’t expect it. For instance, I learned (without seeking the information) that in my very nice young-executive neighborhood of about fifteen homes, at least five wives are beaten regularly by their husbands. One of the nicest men in the ward has been convicted of sexual molestation. Absolutely the nicest elder I knew in the mission field afterward had to uproot his wife and family and give up his profession because he had been found guilty of molesting preschoolers. I seriously wonder: if these men had been under less pressure to be “nice,” would they have been more in touch with their dark sides-the dark that we all have- and thus more able to deal directly with violent impulses before they became actions?

If the cultural mandate to be Nice has driven men’s darker side into hiding, what can we say about women, who aren’t even supposed to have dark sides? Passive aggression is one of the milder manifestations of Niceness, seen in the woman who wouldn’t say no to anyone, but who will repeatedly keep you waiting an hour, or “accidentally” smash the fender on your borrowed car, or “forget” an important responsibility she promised to manage. More deadly is the Nice Lady who never raises her voice, never utters the slightest profanity, but whose devastating words and emotional abuse leave permanent scars as disfiguring to the soul as any physical battering is to the body. (Shakespeare’s comment on the matter: “Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.”)

And thus we come to the quick of this terrible ulcer. The creed of niceness does damage to the Self, to the soul. The struggle for personal authenticity is a lifelong one, the true Hero Journey we all must take if life is to have meaning. And the demons with which we grapple in the underworld have many shapes. Some have names long memorialized in literature: Pride, Sloth, Envy, Avarice. Others are more pastel despots: Conformity, Busyness. And Niceness.

How does Niceness threaten the hero on the journey? The quest is for the authentic Self to discover as many of the particulars as possible from an infinite number of particulars, and especially certain crucial particulars about that totally unique, eternally individual, unceasingly changing Self. And as if this labor we not Herculean enough, the Hero, even as she seeks the True Self, must somehow nurture-that I, foster the growth of-the avasive, elusive Self. Niceness threatens by saying there is no True Self, or that the True Self is synonymous with the Natural Man (and thus an enemy to God), or that the False Self is what we ought to seek.

Permit me a metaphor. Imagine a mother, a Queen, if you like, who awakens from the sleep that follows childbirth to discover that her child has been abducted, carried away. At first there are some signs of the child-a cry down a long corridor, a blanket woven for the baby and discovered on the lawn, perhaps a scent of baby’s breath on the night air. These eventually stop. Time passes. The mother searches night and day. And every now and then she hears from the child-a lisping voice over a telephone line, garbled with static; torn parts of a hand-written note; sometimes even a little gift, sent with love. And the mother continues to hunt for her child to follow clues, and to send the child, by whatever means-on the phone in the fleeting moments permitted, by thought transference, by prayer-all the love and support she can muster, as the search continues.

Now imagine that, in the midst of these labors, the mother is repeatedly beset by concerned people-most prominently the Queen Mother and her consort-who urge her to break off her search, who try to press a different child on her, insisting that this one is much “nicer” than her own, scolding her, saying she is selfish, willful, possibly even crazy to go on with her search. If the opposition is persistent, the Queen may eventually come to believe she is crazy,

Source:http://mfarnworth.com/470Readings/WhenNiceAin'tSoNice.htm

rise to your potential

My dear young and not so young Brothers and Sisters: Sister Tobler and I have come to this remarkable school with much joy and anticipation. We were here a number of years ago, but much has changed with respect to the campus, the size of the student body and the expansion of the faculty and administration for what has become a full-fledged university. We have watched as each step has unfolded and felt a sense of admiration and deep respect for those who have guided the many academic and campus changes over the past several years.

It is always a joy to be with President and Sister Bednar who have been deeply involved in all that has taken place here over the past number of years. We would also like to mention the joy we have had in working with two wonderful couples who have been associated with BYU–Idaho for many years. President and Sister Kinghorn of the Albania Tirana Mission and President and Sister Strong of the Croatia Zagreb Mission are dear to our hearts as we saw their great faith and commitment in presiding over those missions and the Church in the Europe Central Area. Now we are all awaiting the start of a new House of the Lord with all of its blessings to the student body, faculty and surrounding members in this area. Having been involved in the groundbreaking, construction and dedication or rededication of four temples in Europe over the past several years, we know the great joy this brings to all who prepare to walk through those sacred doors.

As we look into your wonderful faces today, we can't help but be reminded of the great heritage and transcendent prospects we individually have. Most of you today are on the very front end of both understanding and preparing for the potential to become what most of you, and I

would say, most of us, do not yet fully comprehend. Hopefully today we can receive impressions through the power of the Holy Ghost of the unusual potential, both temporally and eternally, in each of us, and be committed to leave no stones unturned in achieving that potential in an acceptable and moral way.

Many years ago when I was a very young teenager, I thought often about what would ever become of me. I felt academically capable, but realized that socially I was a slow developer as many of my school mates will remember and readily confirm. I was born into a wonderful family, the second of four children. Our parents were good people and excellent teachers- both had taught school for a number of years. They had a keen sense of what was right and what was wrong and reinforced those values constantly as we were growing up. Sometimes we would, in a tongue in cheek sense, think of their strong views as the Gospel of Mother Louise and of Father Don. Both were committed to the Gospel and the Church, and we were without any doubts about their commitments. We were coached well, and sometimes firmly when needed, and we knew they expected us to develop our individual capabilities and potential. I remember on several occasions, Mother would remind us about the importance of self-confidence and believing in our potential by saying, “if you don't think you are somebody, no one else will either.” This was not a commission to have an ego trip or to develop a superiority complex.

Even with all of this good teaching and example, there remained for me a deep wonder of what should or could I do with my life. How would I earn a living for a family in the coming years and how could I gain a higher level of confidence in myself and be able to develop trust in others who could play significant roles in my life? While I had many thoughts about how I would cope in world, I would also wonder when older people would talk in sacrament meeting about reaching, in the end, the blessing of eternal life not just for me but for as yet a family that was not yet in the process of formation. Perhaps you have also faced similar questions about your futures.

Now, almost sixty years later I can look back and see and understand some things I didn't understand too well at the time. I'd like to share a few thoughts about these important matters with you today. There may be nothing particularly profound, but maybe they might be helpful in some small way.

First, I have learned how important it really is to develop a healthy belief in ourselves. Some seem to be born with it. Others may have to work much harder at this important task. It is not just to believe in ourselves, but also to believe and see ourselves as capable of achieving good and lofty goals. This is not an encouragement to develop an arrogant pride or ego with all of the unfortunate implications, but it is an encouragement to have a healthy, even inspiring, regard for who we are and what we can do. For many years, I have found encouragement from the Lord's statement of His reliance on humble but confident people. In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 1, we have all read many times these choice verses speaking about the unfolding Restoration preparatory to the Second Coming of the Lord:

Therefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant

Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets-

The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones (Doctrine and Covenants 1:17-19, emphasis added).

We must believe in ourselves and realize that even in our weakness, the Lord is able and will make us strong and effective people.

I have also learned that a very high cost is associated with depreciating ourselves, or as some say, beating up on ourselves often unjustly. Now it is easier for me to understand and believe that when we become so negative and injurious to ourselves, our Father in Heaven must wonder, how can a spirit son or daughter, carrying my genetics in their spirit, think of themselves in such a way? He knows, and we know, we have flaws which must be dealt with. But He knows, and we should know, that we are valuable and capable children of a loving Father in Heaven.

In developing a healthy belief in ourselves, there is a helpful gospel parallel with respect to the process of how we come to believe in the Savior, our Redeemer. Just as a wanting to believe in the Savior precedes the establishment of a faith in Christ and His Gospel, a desire to believe in oneself must become kindling to the larger fire of truly having an active, deep faith in ourselves. To assist us in the quest for having a deep faith in ourselves, Heavenly Father, knowing our strengths and our weaknesses, often places people in our lives to stimulate our belief in ourselves. That stimulation may come from a number of sources or people. It may come from a Primary or Sunday School teacher. It may come from a Bishop. It may be a Stake Patriarch. It may be your Priesthood Advisor or a Young Women's leader. It may be a Mission President. It may be your Mom and Dad. From whatever credible source it may come, please do not take lightly the impressions or counsel which come of the Holy Ghost to you through their outreaching love and concerns. You might be tempted to be a bit cynical or give little worth to some of the things that they might say to you. Be accepting and appreciate of their outreach. Be believing and not cynical.

I am reminded of the wonderful teaching of Alma about the progression as we move from believing to having strong and active faith. He pleads with us to be positive and even to experiment:

But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words (Alma 32:27).

Excerpt from Rise to Your Potential by: Elder D. Lee Tobler

love and self esteem

It is the nature of language that several concepts can share one word, and that is certainly true with the word love. It has many meanings. When Paul told us that "God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7), for instance, he was talking about love that is a reaction to something. that use of the word indicates that one is extremely please with whatever it is that one is responding to. It is human to want to evoke a response. Our experience is, therefore , that someone;s pleasurable reaction to us may be a motivator. It is not, however, an energizer, because with a desire for response as motivation, the risk of not pleasing is what looms largest. That is anxiety producing. We are only truly, righteously energized by being freed of self-consciousness.

The love that we talk of when we are hearing for peace, the love that energizes and empowers another human being by giving a base of security, is the kind of love John was talking about when he said, "For God so loved the world, that he have his only begotten Son" (John 3:16). That gift of love is a gift given freely to all--unconditional physical redemption from the Fall coupled with the opportunity to seek spiritual redemption as well. No matter to what unloveable depths we allow ourselves to sink, God's loving hand is still extended to us, with the invitation to repent and come unto him. This loving incitation is withheld only in the most extreme circumstances. And even those extreme circumstances we know in advance to avoid. His love is completely reliable. Because his love is constant and dependable--because we can rely upon its always being there--we can forget ourselves and get to work. Our efforts can be directed to showing him we return his love instead of trying to get him to love us. He already loves us. It comes out of his divine heart--not out of our lovability.

The kind of love, however tender, that is a response, that is based on another's lovability, may be only admiration. Admiration brings with it the stress of self-consciousness. When we get our security from being admired, we learn that we must continue to be seen as admirable in order to feel secure. we have no control over the caprice of another's perception, so our foundation feels shaky. Our whole attention has to be directed to our self's survival. It's a barrier to peace.

I was tending my grandson recently, a favorite activity of mine, and I picked him up from preschool. He was wearing a yellow crown emblazoned with big blue letters: "I AM SPECIAL." I thought at once about the badges I had put on the coats of my youth conference attendees. I thought about our missionary who reached the point of not trying to be "special" anymore. I thought about how I would love to have relieved my precious grandson of the pressure to be special. How much better it would have been if the crown had said, "I AM SPECIAL TO MY TEACHER." He would then have known that he was valued without condition, without burden. It is such a small difference in semantics, but such a large difference in comfort. It changes how we receive the expressions of love from others, and it changes how we give expressions of love as well.

Energizing, empowering, security-giving love come out of the lover. We love not because someone is lovable but because we are able to love.

Sometimes, not separating the meanings of the word love, we work at finding people's lovable qualities and try to concentrate on them so that we can, as we believe, learn to love them in a security-giving way. When we do that, however, we are not really working at loving in the way that we have been commanded, but as admiring. The commandment is to love one another, "as I have loved you." I am confidant that we it means the way the Lord has loved all of us--not just the cheerful givers, though he wants us all to be that; not just those who obey, though he wants us all to do that. He is not commanding us to admire one another, but to be there for one another, as he is there for us--love always at the ready. The love must come out of our hearts, not out of our reaction. If we could not love on command, the Lord would not have commanded us to love.

When we love without the necessity for others to be lovable, we will see their virtues, not look for them. What's more, the list of virtues will grow, because we will be giving them the security from which they can risk proving the Lord's promise: "Be he that doeth truth cometh to the light" (John 3:21)

Or in other words, he that does obey or he that is a cheerful giver gains access to the love that has always been there--available and constant.

...If I am "loved" because I have great musical talent, for instance, how do I feel if I make a mistake in my performance? Might it lessen my desire to risk performing again, or perhaps pressure me to perform well again to feed my insatiable need for recognition?

That's what nonreactive, unconditional love does. It energizes. It empowers. It eliminates the fear of risk, the fear of doing, as when Isaiah by the Lord's mercy, was given strength to say "Here am I; send me" (Isa. 6:8) Unconditional love eliminates the insatiable need for recognition. It makes it possible to get one's strength from the Lord and to keep the commandments: "Perfect love casteth out fear:because fear hath torment"

We must not talk in terms of our own status. We must resist the temptation to mingle the wordily philosophies of men with the doctrines of the Kingdom. It will not bring us the peace for which we yearn. It will leave us either with an insatiable desire to be wonderful or nice or it will leave us exhausted from measuring what we do. We need to think instead, I am a child of God. I am love and grateful--even in my fallen state.

Status is unnecessary. The peace of the atonement of Christ can take the place of both measurement and paralyzing guilt in our lives. Striving to become fully complete children of Christ as well as children of our Father in Heaven is an easy yoke and a light burden. We have eternity; there are not clocks in the garden of eternal life. And we are so very greatly loved. Alma expressed it so beautifully: "yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things: (Alma 26:12)

We live in a society that is saturated with the wordly view. The search for self-esteem is widely used a substitute for the Savior's atonement. Teachers, programs, and friends will engage in well-intentioned flattery and its resulting encouragement of self-focus (pg 125.)

Taken from The Myth of Self-Esteem by: Ester Rasband

a quote on self reliance

We seem to be developing an epidemic of "counselitis" which drains spiritual strength from the Church much like the common cold drains more strength out of humanity than any other disease.

That, some may assume, is not serious. It is very serious!

On one hand, we counsel bishops to avoid abuses in welfare help. On the other hand, some bishops dole out counsel and advise without considering that the member should dove the problem himself....

It is easier then to show them how to help themselves, and more than that, how to help others. That is the greatest therapy...

We have become very anxious over the amount of counseling that we seem to need in the Church. Our members becoming dependent...

We must not set up a network of counseling services without at the same time emphasizing the principle of emotional self reliance and individual independence.

If we lose our emotional and spiritual independence, our self-reliance, we can be weakened quite as much, perhaps even more, than when we become dependent materially.

Boyd K. Packer, "Solving Emotional Problems," Ensign, May 1978

potty training

The intrinsic approach to potty training: things to remember

When a child is showing signs of being uncomfortable when they have a dirty diaper it is time to potty train. This stage is different from child to child. If they do not care if they are dirty and are running around with no care of being stinky they are not ready to be potty trained.

It will be ineffective to sit the child on the potty and keep them there until they go. Adults can fell the urge to go potty around a half hour before they actually need to go. Children are very different. They can only feel that urge at the most, 5 MINUTES before they need to go. Their bladder is still developing.

When you are starting to potty train you lead by example. Here is how it would go:

Parent: (in a exaggerated, happy voice) "Ooooo, I need to go potty! I better hurry and get to the bathroom"

Now gallup to the bathroom quickly and sit on the toilet.

Parent: (in the same voice) "Oooooo that feels so good. I am so glad I made it to the toilet! Are my panties dry? Yes! My panties are dry! Yay! I feel so happy! Now I am going to wash my hands and get all the potty of my hands!"

The child will see it as a positive experience and want to be enthusiastic about going potty.

When you threaten or give treats, it does not allow the child receive personal gratification. It is a way to manipulate the child in doing something and does not allow them to enjoy the learning process.

You can include the father and siblings in this exercise also.

peer pressure

The Misnomer of Positive Peer Pressure.

From the time he was young, he dressed the way you told him to dress; he acted the way you told him to act; he said the things you told him to say. He’s been listening to somebody else tell him what to do. . . . He hasn’t changed. He is still listening to somebody else tell him what to do. The problem is, it isn’t you anymore; it’s his peers. (Barbara Coloroso)

The words, “peer pressure,” immediately bring to the parental or mentoring mind a horrific fear of young people buckling to the negative influences of their less-than-stellar contemporaries. These age-level associates come in the guise of friends or even mere acquaintances. Our hope and prayer, of course, is that our children act with integrity. In essence, the same way they have been taught to act no matter who is watching. The problem, however, is not so obvious; it is far more insidious. The problem is our own misguided belief that 1) there is such a thing as a “positive peer pressure” which somehow counteracts, subverts, or supersedes negative pressure; and 2) peers are the only participants in its use. Positive peer pressure, at its very essence, is a misnomer.

Positive Pressure

It is true that the opposition to nearly every negative is a positive, but the emphasis on this descriptor minimizes the emphasis on the real culprit of peer pressure. It is the act of pressuring, in spite of the negative or positive connotation, which creates the disruptive influence. To assume that the mere change from a negative to a positive will cause an enlightened influence is a misconception with significant and unfortunate impact.

What we commonly call negative peer pressure often results in acts that have immoral, destructive, and/or unethical consequences. Positive peer pressure is contrarily considered an act that results in moral, worthwhile, and/or ethical consequences. However, both types of pressure employ similar goals and tactics; and therefore, despite the immediate or short-term outcome, the long-term effect of such actions is rarely positive. Whether negatively or positively motivated, the attempt to coerce or inappropriately influence another person’s actions minimizes and disrespects another’s agency. Pressure, therefore, is never moral, worthwhile, and/or ethical despite the positive facing. Actions often employed with its use include emotional and physical enticements, bribery, fear, or threat. If the results of such actions are perceived as positive, the negative inducements are either ignored or superficially considered moral. Should the result, however, have negative impact, the actions are then ironically considered immoral. Thus, the means justify the ends. Satan would agree. After all, isn’t force appropriate if all do right in the end? Should we care if the means rob individual agency if the result is positive? In fact the price of such “positive” pressure is just too high.

Closer analysis of this misguided but well-intentioned coercion brings greater clarity to its abuse. For example: when the inactive young woman does not come to church activities, the young women’s leader may instruct her classmates to “never accept ‘no’ for an answer” and to place positive pressure on the inactive girl to attend. The class period or presidency meeting is spent in brainstorming ideas on how to pressure the young woman into attendance. (Indeed, the leader may pressure the classmates to pressure!) This instruction conflicts with gospel principles. Although intent may be good-hearted, the instruction encourages a lessening of the agency of another. Through coercion, the enforcer of the pressure actually causes harm to the recipient in that: 1) The recipient of the pressure is now in a precarious position. If she caves to the pressure, she becomes more susceptible to pressure in the future—positive or negative. The lack of ability to make a decision makes her dependent on others. This lack of agency thwarts self-judgment and autonomy. Susceptibility to coercion is increased. 2) If the recipient of the pressure does not cave to such influences, the natural tendency is to avoid the awkwardness or discomfort of such situations and those initiating them. The supposed beneficial influences are removed and the opportunity to consider further participation has lessened. 3) Those pressuring may feel ignored, upset, or rejected and may withdraw attention and affection, which may only increase the inactive member’s relationship with less than desirable peers (Scoresby, 1989). Thus, pressure may be initially less abrasive than actual force, but ultimately the two are siblings.

In Moses 4:3-4 we understand that “Satan became the devil by seeking glory, power, and dominion by force.” Elder James E. Faust (1987) declares, “Satan was persuasive enough to entice one-third of the hosts of heaven to follow him (see D & C 29:36; Rev. 12:4). He practiced a great deception by saying, ‘I am also a son of God’ (Moses 5:13).” This abuse of power was not thwarted by a God who believed in the greater power and need for individual agency. Indeed, “a third of the hosts of heaven turned he [Satan] away from me because of their agency” (D & C 29:36). To lose one-third of his children to this divine principle must have been a tremendous heartache for our Father in Heaven. And yet, this great and perfect understanding of agency surely leads us to consider our own tendencies to pressure or force under a great deception of being the adult.

When discussing positive or negative pressure, the modifiers are irrelevant and are merely two sides to the same coin. In 2^nd Nephi we learn, “It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things” (2 Ne. 2:11). The counter or opposition to pressure is example and invitation. Where positive or negative pressure attempts to negate agency, invitation recognizes and honors agency. Our Savior did not pressure those he taught. His influence was felt through modeling and example. He provided unconditional invitation. If invitation was not accepted, he was simply unwavering in its continued extension. Elder Russell M. Nelson (1990) explains, “To fully understand this gift of agency and its inestimable worth, it is imperative that we understand that God’s chief way of acting is by persuasion and patience and long-suffering, not by coercion and stark confrontation. He acts by gentle solicitation and by sweet enticement. He always acts with unfailing respect for the freedom and independence that we possess. He wants to help us and pleads for the chance to assist us, but he will not do so in violation of our agency. He loves us too much to do that, and doing so would run counter to his divine character.”

In Doctrine in Covenants 121:41, we read of the commandment to the priesthood where “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained” other than “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by loved unfeigned.” This compassionate persuasion, combined with unfeigned love, kindly helps another to consider advantages and disadvantages and allows for individual reflection and consideration rather than an attempt to pressure by the hint of conditional acceptance or the actual denial of association. The withdrawal of attention and affection only increases the susceptibility to the influence of others (Scoresby, 1989). Elder Faust (1987) continues, “In contrast, using sarcasm, intimidation, force, impatience, irritability or anger, harshness, and pride will neither teach children proper values nor help them change their behavior. In fact, we know that it is Satan, not Heavenly Father, who wants us to use force and hostility.”

Our young men and women should be encouraged to show love and friendship and model correct behaviors. An invitation to attend activities should be extended, and whether the invitation is accepted or not, members honor the inactive individual’s decision. Classmates continue with their unconditional love and association. When another activity is eminent, another sincere invitation is extended. This simple pattern magnifies a member’s actions and extends the courtesy and appropriate message to the recipient. The inactive peer continues to be provided appropriate association, continues to be surrounded by example, and continues to be valued for their own decisions. If the inactive member accepts the invitation, it is with a willing heart and an uncompromised spirit.

“Peer” Pressure

The term “peer” in reference to peer pressure is misleading. A peer is defined by Miriam-Webster as "one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status.” Peers are often considered the guilty party for exerting less than desirable influences on their friends. Psychologist Barbara Colorosa (1994) declares, “In contemporary society, peers and colleagues assume importance. From an early age young persons hang out with those who are roughly their own age. They are strongly influenced by the behaviors and beliefs of these individuals, and especially those who are seen as somewhat more knowledgeable, prestigious, and/or powerful.”

Peers, however, peers are not the only influence, and they are not the only culprits in dispensing and even instigating peer pressure. A parent, teacher, coach, religious leader, or other adult of influence—can cause even greater damage when instigating or endorsing the use of peer pressure to achieve an outcome. Adults play a critical role in influence and example. An influential educational leader and psychologist, Howard Gardner, has studied moral and ethical behaviors. His research finds that “except for friends and families, young persons place most trust in their own teachers,” (2007, pg. 142). It is, therefore, imperative that adults guide, instruct, encourage, model, and act in ethical ways. They should never be a party to instigating the use of peer pressure. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

While teaching and purporting such gospel standards as “standing for truth and righteousness” or having “courage in conviction,” adult messages are often muted by opposing actions. One day I observed a school teacher lecturing a young man about his use of an inappropriate word on the playground. When the youth attempted to excuse his behavior by saying other kids used similar language, the teacher explained that this young man had been taught better, he had higher principles, and he should be standing for the right. When the sermon ended, the young man sheepishly walked into his classroom. Within the next few minutes, the teacher began her classroom lesson by asking which students had completed homework assignments. When two students failed to show completion, the teacher warned the entire class that unless all homework was completed, the entire class would not be participating in a party later in the week. I watched this endorsement of peer pressure in amazement. Permission had just been granted to the students by the teacher to use whatever means necessary to gain the desired conclusion. Not a few minutes prior, the teacher was chastising a young man for buckling to peer pressure, she then proceeded to instigate such tactics for her own cause. “Do as I say and not as I do” was the message sent. (Ironically had her first lecture been effective—although lectures rarely are—the young man, who had been previously chastised for buckling to pressure, might have respectfully and courageously reminded the teacher that those not turning in homework should be helped and encouraged to do so for the sake of the learning rather than pressured by peers for the sake of a party.) From the P.E. teacher to the Sunday school teacher, nothing is more insidious than an adult instigating peer pressure. Bitterness, blame, mean-spirited actions, and jealousy often rupture relationships between students while under an adult’s misguided attempt at peer motivation. Further, students’ lack of failure to complete assignments is far more complex than the perceived and often mistaken belief that motivation is all that is required for success.

To help an adolescent weather the storms of peer pressure, it is critical to model ethical stances. Elder James E. Faust (2000) declares, “Parental hypocrisy can make children cynical and unbelieving of what they are taught in the home. . . . If children are expected to be virtuous, parents must be virtuous.” Otherwise, “parental credibility is diminished.” Gardner finds that ethical stances of adolescents are highly influenced by parents as well as adults who also exert influence (relatives, visitors, and workers), and mentors or role models” (2007, pg.132). It is therefore, especially critical that such role models employ appropriate examples. The classroom teacher invites others to help the two unsuccessful students become successful. No reward or punishment is delivered to the group based on individual performance. All students participate in class activities; that is what makes them “class” activities. A culture of support and encouragement differ greatly from an atmosphere of threat and intimidation. How to deal with the individual’s lack of assignment completion is another topic that deserves lengthy response, but suffice it to say that it is never the class’ role to discipline.

Conclusion

Peer pressure is always damaging. Positive pressure leads only to desired outcomes with no thought process to ill-desired means. The out-come is composed of irreparable sacrifices of the individual, which leads to a greater propensity for participating in undesired outcomes. Peers are not the only instigators of pressure. Adults having significant importance and impact to the child can abuse such influence when endorsing, encouraging, or giving license to peers in the use such pressure. The counterinfluence to peer pressure is example and invitation. Such modeling provides for the value, dignity, and respect of the individual. It helps in the creation of an individual who has strong self-concept and ultimately understands and exemplifies their own infinite worth.

Marcia McManus, Ed.D.

Teacher Education

Brigham Young University-Idaho

References

Coloroso, Barbara. Kids Are Worth It. New York: Avon, 1994: 77

Doctrine and Covenants: 29:36

Doctrine and Covenants: 121:41

Gardner, Howard. Five Minds for the Future. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Faust, James, E. “Helping Family Members Live the Gospel,” Family Home Evening Resource Book, 1997: 236

Faust, James, E. “The Great Intimidator,” Ensign, Nov. 1987.

Faust, James, E. “The Greatest Challenge in the World—Good Parenting,” Lesson 12: “Teaching Children through Example and Instruction,” Marriage and Family Relations Participant’s Study Guide, 2000: 48.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer), 29 May 2008.

Moses 5:13

Revelations 12:4

Scoresby, A. Lynn. Bringing Up Moral Children. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989: 135.

A diamond before it is a diamond is a coal that has lots of pressure exerted on it. If the coal gave into that pressure, it would be crushed. Instead it withstands and is transformed into something of great worth. We need to teach our kids to withstand “pressure” no matter what kind it is.

Peer Pressure

Scoresby, A. Lynn (1989). Raising Up Moral Children.

Pgs. 134-135

“Children in America form groups in order to gain confidence, confidence that serves them as they enter new situations at school, as they deal with members of the other sex, and as they go through the process of becoming independent from parents. As these groups form, however, they exert pressure on each individual to follow certain ‘rules’ or practices in order to belong. Children may feel pressured to use new words as an indication that they ‘belong,’ or to wear certain types of clothing based on aspects of the fashion of the day. In some cases, the clothing must be very specific to the group; preppies, punkers, surfers, cowboys, and jocks each have a particular and very identifiable style. Each group also demands certain attitudes from its members, such as toughness for the athletes, cynicism for the intellectuals, anti-authoritarianism for the deviant, status consciousness for the reach (or would-be rich), or aloofness and indifference for the ones who feel rejected.”

“Compliance to the ‘rules’ of these groups is maintained by the possibility of exclusion and ridicule. It is easy to see how children might sense pressure to conform. In most cases the pressure is real. And it is often intense. Consequently, when it becomes a group ‘rule’ to drink, or to drink excessively, to smoke, or to use drugs, some children who would not do it on their own will do it with the group. If they have the thoughts and feelings that contribute to their being vulnerable to such influence, then they will be even more likely to engage in immoral behavior. We need to be alert to the likelihood of chemical abuse by our children when they (1) are involved with friends who use drugs and alcohol—even if our children claim they themselves are not, (2) have feelings of social inadequacy, (3) do not belong to a group and feel lonely, (4) are exposed to excessive peer pressure and are controlled by others, (5) have conflict with us that produces strain and frustration.”

“Our challenge is to help our children develop the ability to maintain their standard of morality concerning alcohol and other drugs, even when they are feeling pressure from others. We can do several things to help them.”

“One is to avoid withdrawing our emotional support from our children. When children do not follow family rules, or when they treat us unkindly or disrespectfully, it would be easy to withdraw our attention and affection. That withdrawal only increases their susceptibility to the influence of others. Emotional support does not mean that we give our children whatever they want. It is, rather, communication filled with affection, interest, concern, and warmth. Teenagers who are feeling great pressure to violate their moral standards need our emotional support in order to know they are safe and secure at home.”

“A second way to help our teenagers is simply to teach them to understand peer pressure and to notice its effects on them. High school health classes or social science classes are often useful in helping teach about peer pressure.”

“A third way to help is to review our family rules to see if adjustments can be made that would give our children more time for good activities they may want to participate in. Even small adjustments are noticed and usually appreciate.”

“The effects of peer pressure are moderated when children feel more secure with their family relationships. When communication is good and family members are close, children are less threatened by the effects of pressure they feel from others.”

Page 25

“Children have low esteem are more susceptible to distractions and pressure when they compare themselves unfavorably with other people or feel nervous about performing some task. Children who have previously been neglected or rejected report more often than other children that they are worried their friends will leave them. These children more often do what their friends want than do children who have known more emotional support (Shannon and Kafer, 1984).

Page 22 and 23

Autonomy. Autonomous people have a sense of responsibility for self. They have the ability to pursue a course of action they believe to be correct and to withstand pressure to oblige.

Susceptibility. The opposite of autonomy. In a moral sense, susceptible people are extremely reactive to external pressure.

Autonomy enhances moral behavior; susceptibility undermines it (pg. 26).

Empathy. Empathetic people have a vicarious understanding of the feelings of another person, leading to compassion and a sense of caring. Empathy produces guilt, which can help prevent hurtful acts.

Defensiveness. The opposite of empathy. Defensive people shift responsibility for their actions to someone else. This allows them to justify immorality by avoiding guilt. They hide their feelings and alienate themselves.

Activity. Active people have initiative, responsiveness, and an orientation toward achievement. The quality of activity leads them to perform acts of helpfulness and to find alternatives when judgment says that someone can be hurt.

Passivity. The opposite of activity. Passivity prevents people from doing acts of helpfulness. Combined with susceptibility, passivity increases the likelihood of hurtful acts of omission.

Acceptance. Acceptant people have the ability to receive or accept what exists or is given. Acceptance is the ability and the willingness to understand instead of judging in a nonmoral context.

Prejudice. The opposite of acceptance. Prejudiced people excessively judge others in nonmoral contexts, failing to distinguish between what should and what should not be judged. Prejudice can lead to insensitivity and hurtful acts.

Emotional competence. Emotionally competent people regulate their moods to maintain positive emotional states. Their positive emotional style increases their alertness to their surroundings and aids them in resisting temptations.

Emotional incompetence. Emotionally incompetent people have a negative emotional style, a tendency toward extremely negative or changeable moods, which reduces their awareness and weakens their ability to resist temptation.