R4: William James

Quote: “The interesting thing to note is the extreme delicacy of the inhibitive machinery.  A strong and urgent motor idea in the focus may be neutralized and made inoperative by the presence of the very faintest contradictory idea in the margin” (p. 86).

Question: My question this week stems from James’ chapter on The Will and his assertion that, “Voluntary action, then, is at all times a resultant of the compounding of our impulsions with our inhibitions” (p. 87).  Is this what free will/voluntary action is?  I can see where both impulsions and inhibitions come into play with regard to voluntary action after reading this chapter which is different than what I thought about free will just a few days ago.  I believe a few days ago I would not have even thought about inhibitions when thinking about free will; I would have thought solely about impulsions.  However James’ makes a strong case as to why inhibitions play an important role in free will/voluntary action.

Direct experience: In reading William James’ chapter on Will, I couldn’t help but think of when I quit smoking cigarettes.  I started smoking in high school (please remember I was born and raised in Kentucky) and smoked throughout college.  I had about a pack-a-day habit with Camel Lights but knew it was something I did not want to continue my entire life.  By the spring of 2001 I was ready to quit and enrolled in the Cooper-Clayton Smoking Cessation program at our local health department.  This program focuses on using choice in stopping smoking.  The participants of the program learned to ask ourselves when we had a craving for a cigarette “do I really want this cigarette?” and if the answer was no, we learned to tell ourselves “I am choosing to not smoke a cigarette right now.”  We learned that just allowing ourselves this choice and making this decision could help a moment of cravings pass without lighting up again.  I was reminded of the power of this choice, and the free will it took, while I was reading the passage at the end of page 91 where he discusses the drunkard.  The passage ends with James’ declaring, “He saves himself by thinking rightly” (p. 91).  I know that thinking rightly helped me choose to no longer smoke cigarettes.  In addition, this type of learning goes along with James' assertion to choose the good, instead of not choosing the bad.

Other experience:  James’ begins a passage at the end of page 88 which discusses the ‘balky will’ of some students and then offers suggestions on how teachers can address this in the classroom on page 89.  His suggestion is for the teacher to divert the child’s attention away from the issue and then redirect it at a later time.  This suggestion seemed intriguing but I wondered how possible it would be in today’s classrooms.  It seems as though “disruptive” students often times command quite a bit of attention and therefore would this tactic be another way for these students to garner more attention?  Is this suggestion really possible in a room of 30 students when perhaps only one or two students are struggling?