what is it about an academic environment

what is it about an academic environment that makes us (well, some of us, anyhow) able to convey information to people about what they're doing wrong, that is taken as feedback by them that they're willing to work on, and that in other contexts creates defensiveness and an unwillingness to budge?  what is that?  aside from just the nuanced and sensitive teaching style some have, there's also something about the environment and expectations.  why couldn't a workplace create that?  what would that look like?

if you have a place where what you want is for people to stop judging children, and treat them with kindness and respect, and treat them with gentleness and compassion, and you have people working with children who are not doing that, who are, over and over again, conveying to children something much more negative, like, "you are unacceptable as you are and you better change if you want me to accept you" with not only their words but their tone and their facial expressions and their body language, then how do you make them aware of this without also shaming them?  when it's school, it's not shame at all, it's instruction.  it's learning, it's growth.

but why are they afraid of it in a workplace, afraid that the only way it can be conveyed is by being so subtle that the loudness of the anxiety and judgment that's causing the behavior makes them unable to even hear the soft messages of what else could be happening?  and if you need a place with a certain attitude to prevail, why can't you teach it, instill it?  why did emmi pikler choose only brand new, inexperienced individuals to work at Loczy?  because she knew that people who were experienced in this field would bring bad habits to the table.  instead she wanted people who would be a bit more open to how things would be done.

but if/when you are working with people who've been at it a long time, if they're interested in the message and willing to change, why aren't we willing to be direct and insistent with them, like, hey, try this, okay, no, try it like this, no, this, okay, yeah, try that out for a while, see how it feels, and report back.  and then later they feel it out, and discuss what works and what doesn't, and if there are any misconceptions on the part of the one trying it out about why it seems to not be working, then the supervisor explains what they see and why they think it's not working, and they work on making it even better.  why can't we do that?  and if our primary responsibility is to the children, and we believe this way is the right way, then why do we hesitate?

my conclusion is that there is still a fundamental misunderstanding about what it takes to create the kind of environment we want, full of people who understand what we want them to understand, and feel what we want them to feel in order to get it in their bones.  it's one thing to understand the philosophy and to desire that you will surround yourself with others who share your philosophy and to hope to inspire others to share your philosophy, but these things are not the same as knowing how to actually accomplish it.  i think that people don't understand how to accomplish it.  and i think it's not that distantly connected to what's happening in our schools these days, where you can't just insist that people really learn before you move them along to the next phase.

will rejection always be the thing

so, i get a job working at a place where these people are supposed to be following all these conscientious principles, being caring, communicative, etc, and then they reject me.  they try to give me some really vague feedback and then pretend later that i should somehow have grasped it, regardless of how vague it was.  and then when i tell them i need them to be direct and clear, they try to claim i should already have understood.  despite the vagueness.  i say, i can appreciate someone being gracious and kind and subtle on the one hand, but on the other, really need specific feedback if i'm supposed to learn and grow in the ways that will lead to my becoming a successful part of this team.  they are not forthcoming with this information.  the spouse says to me, the think you might just need to accept is that, well, probably what really happened is just that your direct coworkers didn't like you.  and they threw you under the bus.  and that's just really unlucky.  but the disorienting thing is, like, how could that happen in a workplace like this?  can i conclude, only, that i was rejected?  or is there a lesson to learn?  if there's a lesson to learn, then what exactly is it?  and how come when i ask for clarification on this point, the information is absent?  if there are real reasons, why can't they provide them?  what am i supposed to be learning???  this is bullshit.  if my goal is to change the world, and the way the world functions, and to question everything, and to bring things up to snuff in the realm of being kind, compassionate, empathetic, nonjudgmental, and communicative, and there are only a few places that i even know of where the supposed philosophy is such that this kind of utopian ideal could possibly be striven for, then i try to become a part of this world, and they tell me i can't be one of them, then (a) what place on earth is left for me, (b) who are my people if not these people, and (c) if this place isn't capable of embodying what really matters on all levels, then how can i hope for that kind of idealism out of anyone, anywhere, if not even this place can do it or even try?