The pre-eminent psychologist, Mihaly Csikszenthihalyi’s, famous inquiries into the psychology of ‘optimal experience’ have reshaped the way in which many disciplines – from sport to business management – look at concentration. His theory has explored a deeply satisfying state of consciousness, which he calls flow. I believe that this theory has much to offer to our understanding of Montessori’s developmental theory and classroom practice. I will not attempt a comprehensive comparison of these two wide-ranging theories here (those interested in other research comparing these two theories are directed to the work of Rathunde listed in the bibliography of this article), but will rather concentrate on four central ideas in Csikszentmihalyi’s thought, namely, (1) attention as psychic energy, (2) disorder in consciousness (psychic entropy), (3) order in consciousness (flow), and (4) the autotelic experience. With each of these ideas I will begin by explaining Csikszentmihalyi’s concept as succinctly as possible, I will then go on to draw comparisons to similar ideas in Dr. Montessori’s work, and then finally share some ideas around the applications of these ideas in the prepared environment.
Attention as psychic energy
Csikszentmihalyi begins by pointing out that there are limits to our consciousness (i.e. there is a finite amount of information which our consciousness can hold at one time) (1990: 28ff). He argues that we often under-utilize this capacity and that is often dispersed among many different tasks. By way of example he says, that if following a conversation requires that we process 40 bits of information per second and we are – for instance – able to process 126 bits of information per second we should be able to cover 3 conversations simultaneously, but only if we were to have all of our psychic energy concentrated on that task (1990: 29).
He proposes that we can understand the concentration of attention as the focusing of psychic energy. We are able to describe others by representing them in terms of a sort of psychic energy profile[1], e.g. focused energy, dispersed energy, imposing energy, stretched energy, a deep well of energy (cf. 1990: 32). This in turns leads us to further judgments (such as paranoid, achiever, etc.) (1990:33).
I would liken this to normalization. Normalization is a state of highly focused attention (psychic energy). Dr. Montessori taught that normalization’s “…principle feature never changes. It is “application to work”. An interesting piece of work, freely chosen, which has the virtue of inducing concentration rather than fatigue, adds to the child’s energies and mental capacities, and leads him to self-mastery” (Montessori 1988: 188). When we observe the traits of normalization – or deviation – in a child’s behavior we are seeing the way in which they concentrate on a piece of work. We are – through making concrete observations – creating a sort of psychic energy profile. This realization creates – at least for me – an entirely different level of clarity with regards to the role of the directress. I like the idea of thinking of different ways that we might represent this in terms of our record keeping and understanding, for instance by representing a child’s energy as it registers in our own bodies, or through artistic expressions.
Disorder in consciousness: Psychic entropy
Csikszentmihalyi writes (1990: 36), “One of the main forces that affects consciousness adversely is psychic disorder – that is, information that conflicts with existing intention, or distracts us from carrying them out. We give this condition many names depending on how we experience it: pain, fear, rage, anxiety, or jealously. All these varieties of disorder force attention to be diverted to undesirable objects, leaving us no longer free to use it according to our preferences. Psychic energy becomes unwieldy and ineffective”. This is the phenomenon that Csikszentmihalyi refers to as psychic entropy.
Likewise Dr. Montessori recognized that the child’s concentration can become dispersed with dire behavioral consequences. This is what Montessori refers to as deviation. On the contrary when a child enters the phase which Montessori calls normalization, through a focus of psychic energy, we can observe these behaviors disappearing almost miraculously. Montessori observed that when normalization took place, “The disorderly became orderly, the passive became active, and the troublesome disturbing child became a help in the classroom. This result made us understand that their former defects had been acquired and were not innate” (Montessori 1988: 182).
Csikszentmihalyi also notes that this disorder may result from external stresses, and that it may have a cumulative (or even permanent) effect on our psychic profile (1990: 37ff). I think that we should bear this in mind as we attempt to observe the psychic development of the child.
Order in consciousness: Flow
Csikszentmihalyi also identifies the opposite state to psychic entropy. He calls this state “optimal experience” or “flow”. This is a high state of order in which psychic energy flows freely. In this state the flow of psychic energy is in harmony with the goals of what we are doing, this is pleasurable to us and is thus repeated resulting in a cycle or flow of such optimal experience (1990: 39ff).
In my opinion this harmonizes with Montessori’s concept of normalization. She taught that, “Normalization is achieved through purposeful activities carried out with exactness giving rise to interest. This leads to repetition resulting into concentration. A sort of transformation takes place within the child and what you witness is an individual who is respectful not only to others but also to everything else in the environment. There is the individual who is at peace within and without. A phenomenon yet to be comprehended and put into practice even by the Montessorians let alone the rest of the educators” (Kripilani 2002: chapter 28). This is the way to happiness, growth, and effective work.
On another occasion she taught, ““When we took the personality of the child into account in and of itself and offered it full scope to develop in our schools – where we constructed an environment that answered the needs of his spiritual development – he revealed to us a personality entirely different from the one we had previously taken into consideration … With his passionate love of order and work, the child gave evidence of intellectual powers vastly superior to what they were presumed to be. It is obvious that in traditional systems of education the child instinctively resorts to dissembling in order to conceal his capabilities and conform to the expectations of the adults who suppress him” (Montessori in Epstein).
Our role is basically to identify this state and to protect it, and to avoid doing much else. Or, as Montessori said, “The work of the teacher is to guide the children to normalization, to concentration. She is like the sheepdog who goes after the sheep when they stray, who conducts all the sheep inside. The teacher has two tasks: to lead the children to concentration and to help them in their development afterwards. The fundamental help in development, especially with little children of three years of age, is not to interfere. Interference stops activity and stops concentration” (1998: 12).
The autotelic experience
Csikszentmihalyi (1990: 67) describes an experience which he calls autotelic. This word comes from the Greek roots: autos (meaning ‘self’) and telos (meaning ‘goal’). This is an experience in which an activity is its own goal, i.e. in which motivation is the reward which the experience itself provides.
This is in harmony with the characteristics of normalization, for instance the joy which comes from acting in accordance with nature and spontaneous repetition (Standing 1984: 178). In short it appears to me that the autotelic level of experience is far more important than the nature of the activity itself.
Clearly Prof. Csikszentmihalyi’s thought has much to offer to us in developing a clearer understanding of Montessori’s developmental theory and our classroom practice. I hope that you, the reader, will be inspired to explore this relationship further, and continue to allow our appreciation of Montessori’s theory to grow through understanding recent theoretical contributions.
Selected Bibliography
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, (Harper & Row, New York, NY) 1990.
Epstein, Paul “Montessori’s Education Vision”, http://www.highdesertmontessori.org/HTM/General%20Info%20Pages/montessori-vision.htm accessed March 2005
Kripalani, Lakshmi, Maria Montessori, 1946 Lectures – Karachi, India, Mammolina Press, 2002. www.mammolina.org
Montessori, Maria, The Absorbent Mind (Clio Press, Oxford) 1988.
Montessori, Maria, The Child Society And The World: Unpublished speeches and writings, (CLIO Press, Oxford, England) 1998.
Rathunde, Kevin, “A Comparison Of Montessori And Traditional Middle Schools: Motivation, Quality Of Experience, And Social Context” in The NAMTA Journal . Volume 28, No. 3, Summer 2003.
Standing, Edwin Mortimer, Maria Montessori, Her Life and Work (Penguin, Harmondsworth) 1984.
