Today’s brain and learning concept: the brain is social. Bowen systems theory and developmental psychologists stress that individuals must always be seen as integral parts of larger social systems. Part of our identity depends on establishing community and finding ways to belong. We begin to be shaped as the immensely receptive brain interacts with our early environment and interpersonal relationships.
There are spiritual and Spiritual implications to the concept of a social brain:
- There is no self apart from community (relationship systems)
- If you want to understand “spiritual formation” you need to understand “brain formation” as a product of social networks and relationships
- Family of origin relationships “pattern” the brain—emotionally and cognitively
- The brain changes in response to its engagement with others. Therefore, our relationship systems matter a great deal (dysfunctional relationship systems form a dysfunctional brain; healthy relationship systems foster healthy brains).
Implication for teaching and learning: Learning is always social. Lean toward collaborative modes and methods of learning over individual, isolating activities.
Thank you for giving concrete language to what I’ve suspected among some of the younger groups within our church. They definitely articulate “community” and “social systems” more and more in cyber/technological terms. While this is in many ways helpful (online learning, encouragement/support from afar, greater knowledge of world and other cultures, etc.), do I assume correctly that brain changes based on “engagement with others” differ depending upon the virtual vs. “in the flesh” context?
A few months back, I was at a social event with our church youth (Super Bowl party). Instead of speaking with one another, they were texting/emailing on blackberries the whole time. I’m no technophobe, but I am wondering how these social brain concepts apply (or don’t) in this new world where relationship has been redefined.
I’m not necessarily fishing for an answer (don’t know if there is one), just seeking to process my questioning.
Thanks for the food for thought, Dr. G. Hope you’re doing well.
Clarification:
The youth were emailing/texting one another (mere inches from each other!).
DEG
[… do I assume correctly that brain changes based on “engagement with others” differ depending upon the virtual vs. “in the flesh” context?…]
Daniel, that remains an important question. While I’ve found no definitive answer on that, one brain fact to factor in is the notion that the brain cannot distinguish between and internal reality and an external reality. For the brain there may be no strict distinction between “virtual” and “real” (it’s all “real” to the brain). We do have mediating mechanism that protect us from that phenomenon. Our mind disconnects the brain from the body when we’re sleeping so we don’t hurt ourselves, for example.
When those mechanism break down we get in trouble, like sleepwalking, or experiencing what we’d call hallucinations (where the case is not that the brain “thinks” it sees or hears something that’s not there—the brain actually perceives, SEES or HEARS it!).
In terms of learning, in a world market of ideas and concepts, time and space may not be always key to learning.