• Opinion
  • 23 de May de 2024
  • No Comment
  • 6 minutes read

The psycho-affective approach

The psycho-affective approach

The psycho-affective approach: From the search for truth to the search for happiness

We must remember what enabled the birth of philosophy in the West: the quest for rational understanding of all things

Tumisu. / Pixabay

License Creative Commons



The current curriculum, under the LOMLOE, places absolute priority on the competence and psycho-affective approach over any other method. Here, we focus on the latter.

As soon as a teacher delves into the depths of this new curriculum and attempts to decipher it, the priority given to the psycho-affective approach becomes immediately apparent.

This emphasis on emotional aspects turns classrooms into improvised pseudo-psychology offices, where desks may soon be replaced by couches. The immediate consequence of this educational shift is that teachers cease to fulfil their primary role as educators, instead taking on counselling and even therapeutic duties.

In an interview, Noam Chomsky argues that constantly appealing to emotions weakens our ability to think critically, challenge ideas, and invent. This, he contends, is exactly the opposite of what education should be.

According to him, there are two radically opposed ways of understanding education. The first, rooted in the Enlightenment, aims to acquire knowledge and develop the mind. In the second one, schools must function as institutions that avoid an excess of democracy. A youth that is too free and independent becomes critical, thinks for itself, investigates, creates, challenges, and questions authority. This is contrary to the apparent goal, which is to ensure that students conform, resign themselves, and overcome adversity through acceptance, avoiding confrontation at all costs. Today, this is termed resilience.

Through visceral emotion, obedient subjects are guided along a predetermined path.

If we continually appeal to emotion, we shift from asking “What is this?” to “How does this affect me?” or, in the worst case, to not asking at all. In other words, we have shifted from an objective, analytical reality to an exclusive focus on subjectivity, which opens the door to the realm of opinion and ignorance. We are making progress. So, we are now a little closer to happiness.

Students are “invited” to express their feelings constantly, but under the premise that not all feelings are equally valid. This creates a dictatorship of emotions where if you are not happy and joyful, it is because you are not understanding something. Paradoxically, the way to achieve this absolute happiness is ignorance. Let’s not forget that the aim of education is no longer for students to learn, but “to believe” they are happy.

This modus operandi particularly punishes students whose social skills do not conform to the norm, i.e., those who do not fit the pre-established profile. It is not the same for an extrovert to talk about feelings as it is for an introvert. It is easy to imagine how difficult it is for one to talk about one’s feelings compared to the other. The introvert must overcome their introversion, which is not seen as a positive trait, while the extrovert has already won before the game has even started. Exposing your feelings when you have no problems is easy, but forcing someone to expose them when they have some, without the person being a psychology professional, is risky to say the least. The management of feelings and emotions is not the responsibility of teachers; it is a forced intrusion aimed at making our young people ever more intellectually weak.

If content, a term that has become almost taboo today, is deemed unimportant, how can students learn to manage their emotions? It is precisely the knowledge we acquire throughout our lives that serves as the best tool for overcoming the adversities we face daily.

Human beings are a blend of emotion and reason, and the ideal is to maintain a balance between these two aspects. By prioritising psycho-affective development, we disrupt this equilibrium, tipping the scales towards the more animalistic and therefore, more controllable side of our nature.

It’s not a question of being purely rational and transforming into machines, nor of being creatures of pure instinct. As Chomsky cautions, such an imbalance would result in the loss of our intellectual capacities.

We must remember what enabled the birth of philosophy in the West: the quest for rational understanding of all things.


(6) It is time to teach children to understand the world. Noam Chomsky, linguist and teacher – YouTube

Noam Chomsky and Lawrence Krauss discuss education (youtube.com)

THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION – By Noam Chomsky (youtube.com)

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *