The Etiology of Student Misbehavior and the Depersonalization of Blame

Abstract

The thesis of this paper is that the history of research in the social sciences has witnessed an unrelenting depersonalization of blame. No longer do scholars seem to hold an individual responsible for his triumphs or his transgressions. Instead, what an individual does is regarded as the product of a variety of external factors. At the risk of anticipating my conclusion for a moment, I would like to question whether this proclivity for shifting responsibility for personal conduct from the individual to the environment (the process of depersonalization of blame) ultimately is in the best interests of society or the individual. Particularly where inappropriate or antisocial behavior is concerned, the depersonalization of blame appears to relieve misbehaving individuals of any responsibility for their actions. The looter is excused because of his impoverished background. The unproductive assembly-line worker draws sympathy because of the tedium of his task. The corrupt politician is simply the product of the system, a world in which no one is above unethical conduct. Everyone becomes a victim of forces outside of himself. The question arises, Can a society in which everyone is a victim survive? The following discussion does not address this perplexing question directly. It concentrates rather on the process by which the blame for school discipline problems steadily has been transferred from individual students to other factors. Although school discipline problems have not lured research interest as much as related subjects like juvenile delinquency, drug use, and dropoutism, a considerable body of literature still exists on student behavior problems and efforts to deal with them. Student conduct long has been a concern for educators and laymen alike, but I doubt if past concern equals that currently being voiced on the subject. In the 1977 Gallup Poll of Public Attitudes Toward the