self esteem sangina

8/7/2019 Self Esteem Sangina

1/10

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Institute of Education, University of London]

On: 1 May 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 758492394]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Moral EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713432411

Should Teachers Enhance their Pupils' Self-esteem?David W. Dewhurstaa Centre for Education, University of Tasmania,

To cite this Article Dewhurst, David W.(1991) 'Should Teachers Enhance their Pupils' Self-esteem?', Journal of MoralEducation, 20: 1, 3 11

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0305724910200101URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305724910200101

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713432411http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305724910200101http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305724910200101http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713432411


2/10

Journa l of Moral Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1991

Should Teachers Enhance theirPupils' Self-esteem?DAVID W . DEW HURSTCentre for Education, University of Tasmania

ABSTRACT It is often supposed that teachers should help their pupils to acquire self-esteem. Itis also regarded as desirable that pupils should be educated in such a w ay as to formreasonably accurate estimates of their own qualities and capabilities. These two enterprises arenot necessarily consistent, given that estimates of oneself are typically co mpara tive as well ashighly corrigible. It is suggested that a secure basis for self-esteem is more likely to be found ifone distinguishes between a com parative and a no n-comp arative concept of self-esteem, onlythe former type of self-esteem allowing for disconfirmation.

In recent years I have had occasion to participate in a series of seminars for teacherson the topic of 'Personal and Social Development'. One topic which arose quitefrequently and with a considerable amount of urgency was the topic of 'self-esteem'.Those participating in the seminars took it to be the case that one of the maladies ofthe schooling system at presen t is tha t there is a pervasive lack of self-esteem amongschool pupils, and they believed that it was their responsibility to do somethingabout it. Various strategies and techniques were recommended to this end [1].Children were to be encouraged to recognise and value their own talents andcapabilities, the timid and shy were to become confident, the withdrawn communi-cative, the overly compliant were to become assertive, the despondent hopeful andthe unsociable sociable. On the face of it this seemed to be a highly commendableenterprise. But I had misgivings about it, and my own role in these seminars was notsomething about which I felt altogether com fortable. After all, the participan ts werealready deeply committed to the enhancement of self-esteem, and any gadflies wereliable to be seen as a nuisance, and might even end up being swatted. On the otherhand, it seems to me that here, as elsewhere, philosophical assumptions underlie oureducational practices. It can therefore be illuminating for practitioners to examinetheir assumptions, and our practices and attitudes are often modified as a result.

How did the teachers know that their pupils, some of them, or many of them,lacked self-esteem? Not apparently on the basis of the students saying so. It is aninteresting fact that those to whom a low self-esteem is imputed are unlikely to say'I lack self-esteem' or 'I have low self-esteem'. Typically it is the teachers who sayof the students that they lack self-esteem; the students do not say it of themselves.One explanation is that to make the statement 'I lack self-esteem' requires a certain

3

Downloa

dedBy:[InstituteofEducation,

UniversityofLondon]At:23:061

May2011


3/10

4 D. W. Dewhurstamount of sophistication, even in an adult. It often carries the implication that one'sself-esteem is too low, that one's judgement about one's own worth is lower than itshould be. In other words, one is making the claim, an initially puzzling one, thatone is more worthy than one takes oneself to be. A second explanation is thatperhaps the very acknowledgement that one lacks self-esteem may be threatening toa pupil whose self-esteem is already precarious.

Nevertheless, what pupils say of themselves may support the teachers' diag-nosis that they lack self-esteem. Pupils do sometimes confide to teachers that theyregard themselves as no good at anything. That they are stupid, clumsy, that no-onewould want to be friends with them, that they never do anything right, and so on.And whether or not the children disclose such doubts about themselves, the teachermay note as part of a wider context that a child is generally unhappy, anxious,unwilling to participate in various activities, and unsociable. The child is thendescribed as 'having low self-esteem', and it is regarded as the task of theresponsible teacher to do something about it, to employ certain strategies which willraise the child's self-esteem.Does it follow that if a pupil's self-esteem is 'low', something should be done toraise it? A case can be made for the affirmative if we assume that self-esteem isbasically or at least partly, a type of estimate, an estimate of oneself. The increasingof self-esteem seems valid if it means bringing people to a correct estimate of theircapabilities where these capabilities have not been recognised. What one is doing insuch cases is bringing them to a recognition of the truth about themselves, that theyneed not be failures at everything, that they have potentialities that they and otherscan value. A case in point is the tendency of some girls to assume that they have nomathematical ability when in fact they do. To correct such false assumptions seemsjustifiable on cognitive and rational grounds alone.But it can be objected here that there is a difference between making a correctestimate of oneself and possessing self-esteem. The two concepts are distinct. Onemay make a correct estimate of one's own qualities and capabilities without feelingpositively towards oneself, and this positive, affective component is an essentialingredient in self-esteem. In the case we have just considered, the girls may come toa correct estimate of their mathematical ability without their self-esteem being

enhanced: the enhancement of their self-knowledge is not necessarily an enhance-ment of their self-esteem. Their self-esteem is not enhanced because they do not(possibly due to various social factors) feel positively about girls possessingmathematical skills. What is in question here is whether the girls' self-esteem can beenhanced by encouraging them to feel differently about girls being good atmathematics, to alter their scheme of values.It may also be the case that coming to a correct estimate of oneself may reduceone's self-esteem: as one's self-knowledge is augmented so one's self-esteem may bediminished. Suppose that a student while at school comes to envisage herself as very

talented, competent and insightful within her chosen subject area. She subsequentlygoes to university to further her studies in this area and is promptly failed. Her self-esteem plummets. Assuming that the examiners have assessed her correctly, it wouldseem that her arriving at a more realistic estimate of her own capabilities not only

Downloa



May2011


4/10

Teachers and their Pupils' Self-esteem 5does not correspond with an increase in self-esteem, it results in her self-esteembeing deflated. There is a very real problem here which is liable to confront alleducators: is it the duty of educators on occasion to deflate their students' self-esteem? Might it not be the case that someone's self-esteem is quite disproportion-ate to its grounds, that someone ought not to feel such high self-esteem? One canthink too little of oneself, but one can also think too much of oneself. In hisNichomachean Ethics Aristotle is equally critical of both: thinking too highly ofoneself is 'hubris', and thinking too lowly of oneself indicates a lack of proper self-respect. Both are inappropriate because they fail to conform to the facts. Recently Icame across the following passage in Henry James' The Portrait of a Lady:

Isabel was probably very liable to the sin of self-esteem; she oftensurveyed with complacency the field of her own nature; she was in thehabit of taking for granted, on scanty evidence, that she was right; shetreated herself to occasions of homage.

It may sound rather strange these days to hear of the "sin of self-esteem", but it is auseful reminder that we can ask whether one's esteem, of others or oneself, isjustified, that one can esteem oneself too highly or too lowly, and that it isappropriate to ask whether one's self-esteem has a secure basis.I said that making a correct estimate of oneself is distinct from possessing self-esteem. But this is not to say that the two concepts can be completely disengagedfrom each other since one's estimate of oneself clearly has bearings on one's sense ofself-worth and, depending on the accuracy of one's estimate, the one can form anappropriate basis for the other. And I take it that those who favour the enhancing oftheir pupils' self-esteem would want to bring the two into some sort of harmonywith each other; that is, they would like their pupils to feel self-esteem without thisbeing quite disproportionate to the facts. Indeed, it would seem quite unfair toencourage the fantasies of a s tuden t who wishes to become an airline pilot if there isno possibility that this could be so. But once we talk of self-esteem beingproportionate to the facts, the problem arises whether some pupils ca n have a securebasis for their self-esteem. This is especially so if self-esteem is thought to be

connected with doing well at something. The problem for the teacher is that in thecompetitive atmosphere of our schooling system only some children will do well,and those who do badly are likely to lose confidence. And if you consider that in acompetitive school 'doing well' means beating a considerable number of otherpupils, it seems self-contradictory to say that they can all do well.To this it is often replied that every child has the ability to do well relative toother children in some particular field. You then can arrange that th e child is praisedfor doing well in that field. The trouble with this is that some children seem to dowell at practically everything they tackle, and others do badly at everything. Those

who do not do well academically m ay also fail in sporting activities, they m ay not bepopular, they may not be good-looking, they may have few possessions, and so on.The fact is that the available sources of self-esteem are not evenly distributed.It is noteworthy that the qualities and characteristics upon which people base

Downloa



May2011


5/10

6 D. W. Dewhursttheir self-esteem seem to be of a comparative nature. Robert Nozick (1974)comments on this:

How can another's activities, or characteristics, affect one's own self-esteem? Shouldn't my self-esteem, feeling of worth, and so forth, dependonly upon facts about me? If it is me that I'm evaluating in some way, howcan facts about other persons play a role? The answer, of course, is thatwe evaluate how well we do something by comparing our performance toothers, to what others can do. (p. 240)Nozick goes on to suggest that people's self-esteem is not based on what they havein common with other people. People do not today have a sense of worth becausethey can read and write, at least not in those countries where most other people canread and write, nor do they maintain their self-esteem by considering that they aremembers of the human race or that they have the right to vote for political leaders.He says:

When everyone, or almost everyone, has some thing or attribute, it doesnot function as a basis for self-esteem. Self-esteem is based on differentiat-ing characteristics; that's why it's self-esteem, (p. 243)Self-esteem for Nozick, then, is based on comparison, and is of a highly relativenature since the reference groups against which we make our comparisons maychange. He gives the following example:

A m an living in an isolated mou ntain village can sink 15 jum p shots with abasketball out of 150 tries. Everyone else in the village can sink only 1jump shot out of 150 tries. He thinks (as do the others) that he's verygood at it. One day, along comes Jerry West. (p. 240)Nozick concludes that this person will conclude that he was not very good atbasketball after all, since there is no standard of doing something well independentof how it is or can be done by others.What exactly is Nozick saying about self-esteem? He seems to be saying, first,that self-esteem is a commodity which is not and cannot be equally distributedthroughout the population, since self-esteem is essentially of a comparative nature.True , he tries to m itigate this later in the ch apter when he says that differentindividuals in a society may have different values and different weightings placed ondifferent activities. As things are at present not everyone values being an engineeror a basketballer or a novelist, and we can further diversify the basis of self-esteemas much as possible and even have a 'metadimension' for measuring the degree towhich the potentials of those with low capacity are fulfilled. But Nozick is stillsaying that one's self-esteem will depend on doing well along some dimension orother, and 'doing well' he regards as a comparative expression. He also seems to meto be implying, at least some of the time, that the achieving of self-esteem is liketrying to catch a greased pig; as we saw in his example of the basketballer, someonebetter may come along and convince one that one was no good at the thing at all.And someone who thinks that he is good at mathematics is demolished when he is

Downloa



May2011


6/10

Teachers and their Pupils' Self-esteem 7confronted with a 'whiz kid'. Let us look in more detail at his example of thebasketballer.It makes some difference that Nozick describes the basketballer as living in an"isolated" mountain village. The suggestion is that the basketballer does not knowof the existence of Jerry West, or for that matter of the existence of basketballerswho are much better than he is. It would follow that the basketballer should take adip in self-esteem, since he is under the false impression that he ranks with the bestthat there are. His self-esteem is based on a misestimate of his own capabilities, hisself-esteem is, to refer back to our earlier discussion, disproportionate to itsgrounds. But if we change the example so that the basketballer already knows of theexistence of Jerry West, there seems no reason why he cannot acknowledge JerryWest's superior ability and still retain his own basketballing ability as a source ofself-esteem. Nozick is right in saying that the basketballer's belief that he is good atbasketball is only true relative to some reference group, and that he may not be'good' according to the standards of some national or international reference group.But it may be enough for him to be good relative to the reference group of his ownvillage. The fact that some people have the desire, perhaps an insatiable desire, to dowell relative to an ever-widening reference group is quite compatible with therebeing other people who treat their immediate reference group as a suitable terminusfor their personal standards of comparison and levels of aspiration.

There is therefore no logical compulsion for someone to find that the superiorperformances of others have impoverished his self-esteem. But very many people dothink in the way Nozick describes, and our education system may endorse ornurture this by the institutionalisation of certain forms of competitiveness. And theproblem for educators remains: if self-esteem is based on comparative differentiat-ing factors, or doing well along some continuum, it does not seem at all clear thateveryone's self-esteem can be enhanced, let alone equitably enhanced. If it cannotbe enhanced, it obviously cannot be the educator's responsibility to enhance it. Imentioned previously that teachers are apt to say that every child has some qualityor talent in which it can compare favourably with others. There is usually no reasongiven why this must be the case, and many teachers reluctantly conclude that it isnot. But even if it is true that every child has some attribute whereby it can comparefavourably with others, it does not follow that such an attribute must be a source ofself-esteem, given that such attributes, talents or qualities may not be generallyvalued by other people. According to Cooley (1922) and Mead's (1934) 'LookingGlass' theory of the self, we are, at least to a large extent dependent on others'valuations for our sense of self-worth. David Hargreaves (1975) states one versionof the theory as follows:

... since the other acts as a mirror, the person derives his self-conceptionfrom the reactions and evaluationsor what have been called the'reflected appraisals'of the other. Thus a person's identity (who he is)and his self-esteem (his feelings of worth) are socially derived, (p. 12)Mead's theory is usually thought not to entail that we cannot achieve a workingautonomy, or that we must always succumb to the evaluations of others. But

Downloa


UniversityofLondon]At:23:061May2011


7/10

8 D. W. Dewhurstchildren will be particularly vulnerable to such evaluations given the stage of theirdevelopment of a sense of self.To the extent that this is so, teachers will not only need to find in their pupilscertain valuable distinguishing characteristics, the characteristics will have to beregarded as valuable by a significant number of other people. Consider the case ofseverely intellectually disabled ch ildren. In such cases there is often no possibility ofthe children 'doing well' or putting up a relatively good performance according tocertain publicly accepted standards; what is hoped for is that the children will beable to learn such basic skills as washing, getting on buses, behaving in a conven-tionally acceptable manner, and so on. If self-esteem is basically comparative, as wehave assumed up till now, the chances of such children acquiring a reasonable levelof self-esteem seems remote. The same will apply, though to a lesser extent, to allthose children who are part of a schooling system which seems to guarantee theirfailure year after year.It is not my aim simply to raise doubts concerning the possibility of everyone'shaving a genuine basis for self-esteem. What I am primarily concerned with is thequestion whether self-esteem must be a comparative self-esteem. It is a fact thatself-esteem is often of a comparative nature, based on differentiating talents andqualities. But can there also be a non-comparative self-esteem? If there are twoconcepts of self-esteem, one comparative and the other non-comparative, then theoutlook for people possessing self-esteem may not be quite as gloomy as wesupposed. It is interesting to see that, his highly competitive account of self-esteemnotwithstanding, Nozick mentions in a footnote (p. 244) that there may bedimensions along which it is inappropriate to judge oneself comparatively. It wouldbe bizarre, he says, to want to be the holiest or wisest person alive. But it is clearthat Nozick regards such cases as of limited practical interest since they areexceptions falling within the province of gurus and saints. What I wish to consider iswhether we can arrive at a notion of non-comparative self-esteem which is of moregeneral application.

It has sometimes been suggested to me in discussion that in considering ourpupils' self-esteem we tend to place too much emphasis on achievement, com-petence and performance and that instead we should focus on their possession ofsuch human qualities as kindness and generosity. If we emphasise such qualities, itis said, this can form the basis of their self-esteem and provide a corrective to ourpresent ethos of achievement and competition. But this move, reasonable as it is inits diversification of the basis of self-esteem, does not avoid the difficulties whichhave already been raised concerning the comparative element in self-esteem. Forfirst, the possession of human virtues is no more equally distributed than anythingelse; and secondly, the belief that one has such virtues is subject to disconfirmation.We have seen that in Nozick's mountain village there is a basketballer whose beliefin his superior basketballing ability exceeds the bounds of discretion. Let us supposethat after the arrival of Jerry West the basketballer says to himself'Well, I may notbe such a good basketballer after all, but at least I know that I am a very generousperson'. That is, he finds an alternative basis for his self-esteem. Then along comesProfessor Peter Singer (1982) who gives ten per cent of his salary to overseas

Downloa



May2011


8/10

Teachers and their Pupils' Self-esteem 9famine relief, and who maintains (p. 181) that one ought to give at least this much.The villager may then conclude that he is not such a generous person after all!The question is whether it is possible to have a self-esteem which is notsubject to disconfirmation in this way; which is not based on a comparativeestimate which may subsequently turn out to be true or false, too high or too low,well-grounded or otherwise. Let us consider again the problematic case of thosesuffering from severe intellectual disabilities. Towards an intellectually disabledchild it is possible to adopt an attitude which can be called therapeutic: the child isto be regarded as an object of treatment, training, conditioning, management orcontrol. The justification for treating children in this 'objective' (cf. Strawson,1974) manner is that such a therapeutic stance is useful, perhaps necessary, if thechild is to develop certain basic skills, and the development of such skills mayenable the child to develop at least some minimal self-regard. But it is clear thaton Nozick's criteria such self-esteem will indeed be minimal since according toNozick "when everyone, or almost everyone, has some thing or attribute, it doesnot function as a basis of self-esteem". If it functions as a basis at all, ifpossession of such skills contributes to the child's self-esteem, this will only berelative to a drastically limited reference group.

Yet it is clear that the therapeutic attitude to the child is not the only type ofattitude which is relevant to the child's self-esteem. It is generally agreed that theparents' emotionally reactive attitude, their loving, valuing and caring for the childis crucial. And here it would appear that the parents' valuing of the child is notsubject to disconfirmation: it would be inappropriate to suggest that the parentsmight be making a mistake or that their attitude might have a questionable factualbasis. The reason that no mistake is possible here is that the parents ' atti tudetowards their child is not based on a belief or an opinion. Whereas parents may beof the opinion that their child is handicapped or gifted, an opinion which may betrue or false, well-grounded or otherwise, they are nevertheless not of the opinionthat their child is valuable. And where the parents' attitude is reflected in the child'sown esteem of itself, this is not grounded in opinion either.I do not wish to suggest that because the parents' attitude is not grounded inopinion, and hence not subject to disconfirmation, that such an attitude will

necessarily be maintained in all circumstances. Something could happen to modifyor dislodge their feelings for the child. One could, for example, imagine a case inwhich the parents' attitude would alter if they were confronted with reliableinformation that the child was not theirs. But this would simply show that they hadmade a mistake in thinking that the child was theirs, not that they had made amistake in valuing it. And one can equally well imagine their positive a ttitude to thechild being maintained in the face of the new revelations concerning the child'sorigin. Such basic emotional attitudes can be tested, just as Clara Schumann'sattitude to Schumann was tested when Schumann became insane (Reich, 1985). Butthey cannot be shown to be in error.It can be said here: the parents of the severely handicapped child accept theirchild. The concept of acceptance is, I believe, an important one in education. Thismay at first seem surp rising, but it is implicit in what the progressive educators were

Downloa

dedBy:[InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon]At:23:061May2011


9/10

10 D. W. Dewhurstsaying when they asserted that childhood is something to be recognised and valued,that childhood has its own ways of thinking, feeling and acting [2]. For Rousseau achild playing, dancing, collecting specimens, or looking in wonderment at its ownfootprints in the snow was the sort of thing which he found valuable, and the valuewhich Rousseau placed on such activities was not based on a comparative assess-ment of performance, nor was it subject to disconfirmation. This acceptance ofEmile corresponds with Emile's acceptance of himself. It is clear from Rousseau'sbook that Emile is to find it no expense to himself to learn that someone else iscollecting more specimens, or more exquisite specimens, or collecting them moreskilfully than he does. He is not concerned with the ratings of others and does notexperience a loss of euphoria over the gap between what he is and what others thinkhe should be. Indeed he is to develop a type of spontaneous self-confidence whichwill enable him to function independently of the opinions of others.

Rousseau is presenting us with an idealistic picture, and it has often beenpointed out that Rousseau underestimates the extent to which there is socialinteraction between Emile and his tuto r and the extent to which the tutor intervenesin E mile's life as well as commu nicating all sorts of covert value judgem ents to him.But the implicit point which Rousseau is making about acceptance is important; it isby no means the monopoly of progressivist educators, and the notion of acceptancehas application to the problems concerning self-esteem which we have considered inthis paper.The problems we considered derive much of their force from a very closeassociation of self-esteem with self-assessment rather than self-acceptance. ThusAristotle was thinking in terms of self-assessment when he said that we can thinktoo highly of ourselves, or too lowly, that our judgements concerning ourselves canbe mistaken or disproportionate to their grounds, can be more or less accurate. Theproblem then arises that teachers may feel obliged to correct their pupils' self-assessments and in so doing reduce their self-esteem. They may feel obliged to dothis for a number of reasons. They may regard it as their professional responsibilityto give accurate estimates of their pupils' performances, to call poor performancespoor and good performances good. If they do not do this, they may add prag-matically, other people, including employers, will. The teachers may also believe

that education has something to do with self-knowledge, including the assessment ofoneself and one's place in the world. But while it is true that pupils' beliefs aresusceptible to correction, the pupils will be less vulnerable to correction if they havesufficient reserves of self-acceptance. Such self-acceptance, unlike self-assessment,cannot meaningfully be described as accurate or otherwise, but self-acceptance cannevertheless take as its target those features of oneself to which the accurateassessments refer, especially when these assessments indicate one's limitations orlevels of appropriate aspiration. This means that pupils who have a positiveacceptance of themselves will be less likely to resist the honest and accurateappraisals made by teachers who have their interests at heart. I said that the pupilswill be less vulnerable if they have sufficient reserves of self-acceptance, and to saythat they will be less vulnerable is not to say that the problem can ever becompletely solved. But if pupils can be encouraged to accept themselves regardless

Downloa



May2011


10/10

Teachers and their Pupils' Self-esteem 11of how they are assessed by others or how they assess themselves, much will havebeen done to mitigate it [3].Correspondence: Dr D. W. Dewhurst, Lecturer in Education, Centre for Education,University of Tasmania, P.O. Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia.N O T E S[1] See M iller, 1976; Educa tion Dep artm ent, 1984; Borba & Borba, 1978; Canfield & W ells, 1976.[2] Cf. Rousseau, J J . in his Emile.[3] A previous draft of this paper was read to the Philosophy Dep artm ent and the Dep artm ent ofEducational Studies in the University of Tasmania. I wish to thank the participants, as well asother colleagues and friends, for their interest and their helpful comments.

R E FE R E NC E SBORBA, M . & BORBA, C. (1978) Self-esteem: a c lassroom affair. (Minneapolis, Winston Press).CANFIELD, J. & WELLS, T. (1976) 100 Ways to Enhance Self-esteem in the Classroom (NJ, Prentice

Hall) .COOLEY, C.H. (1922) Human Nature and the Social Order (New York, Scribners).EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TASMANIA, AUSTRALIA (1984) Win gs: a p ilot project to increase self-esteem in

girls (Tasmania, A. B. Caudel, Government Printer).HARGREAVES, D. (1975) Interpersonal Relations and Education (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).MEAD, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society (Chicago, IL L, U niversity of Chicago P ress).MILLER, J.P. (1976) Humanizing the Classroom (New York, Praeger).NOZICK, R. (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford, Basil Blackwell).REICH, N. (1985) Clara Schumann: the artist and the woman (London, G ollancz) .SINGER, P. (1982) Practical Ethics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).STRAWSON, P. (1974) Freedom and Resentment (London, Methuen).

Downloa



May2011

self esteem sangina

Documents