Emotional Intelligence Meets Virtue Ethics: Implications for Educators

Abstract

Preamble The notion that there is more than one kind of intelligence for human beings, and that social and emotional intelligence (EI) is just as critical as cognitive intelligence for success in the world is by now fairly well-received and well-established in North American educational contexts. The main proponents of social and EI are Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) who are noted for advancing the notion that social and emotional intelligence is important for effective leadership in any organizations, including teacher and teaching in schools. Convinced that this notion is applicable all educational contexts, Goleman with others founded the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) in 1994 with the mission to establish social and emotional learning as an essential part of education (CASEL, 2009). (1) His work been enormously influential in various and leadership contexts, ranging from business leadership classroom management. But the more we--the authors of this article--are impressed by the magnitude of salutary influence that the Goleman et al. (2002) EI work spreads in diverse educational domains, the more we see its limitations as an educational project that can actually and practically augment people's EI and ethics. We have chosen consider EI in this article not only because of its far-reaching influence in the field of as abovementioned but also because of the claim that it was inspired by Aristotle's virtue ethics (Goleman, 1995) and its association with ethical development. (2) Our own research and practice interest been fostering ethical development in people via virtue ethics, and if EI is, as Goleman et al. (2002) claimed, such a singularly important ingredient, we would like investigate their conceptualization of EI and consider the possibility of further developing and fortifying it. Given the acceptance of EI, its claimed value and roots in virtue ethics prompted us research the limitations of the EI work by Goleman et al. (2002), and search for works that would address these limitations. (3) The Goleman et al. (2002) EI project attracted a healthy debate regarding its philosophic and practical foundations. (4) This discussion suggests that there is empirical evidence that EI a positive impact on student's behaviour; however, we believe instructive philosophic concerns remain. We are particularly concerned about the educator's EI impacting students' learning and emotional intelligence, a concern also identified by others (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Our paper advances the thesis that the cultivation of educators' EI requires the practice of virtue ethics. We establish this thesis by first examining the limitations of the Golemanian EI, and then by showing how these limitations can be addressed by MacIntyre's (1984, 1988) virtue ethics, which is a contemporary version of Aristotelian ethics. In the process, we also address what we see as MacIntyre's (1984, 1988) theoretical limitations that are in the way of extending virtue ethics become the cornerstone of school teaching and learning. We also bring in Vokey's (2001) work support our thesis. We present our work on the marriage of EI and virtue ethics as a challenge the conventional and hegemonic conception and practice of that marginalizes the of the heart. (5) Educators' Emotions Are No Private Matter Goleman et al. (2002) held that the leader acts as the group's emotional guide and has maximal power sway everyone's (Goleman, et al., 2002, p. 5). The emotions of the leader are important because, for example, if people's emotions are pushed toward enthusiasm, performance can soar. He refers this effect as resonance. That is, those under the influence and guidance of the leader/educator come into emotional resonance with her or him: Whether an organization fails or flourishes depends a remarkable extent on the leaders' effectiveness in this primal emotional dimension (Goleman et al. …