2 years ago
Last edited at 8:29PM on 9/23/2011
When I taught law, I intentionally did not post rules or seating charts. By the second day, I started having seating disputes; "He is in MY seat" and so forth, I settled it by telling those who needed to sit in a certain place that they had to be there early, but that I did not intend to initiate assigned seating. By day 3 or 4, I didn't need to create a seating chart, the class did it themselves.
I had given them no rules. No rules leads to sufficient insecurity that rules evolve naturally. Not so much to restrict individual rights, but to protect an individual's perceived rights from violation by others.
I told the class that I refused to write or enforce rules, but their survival (academic survival) depended upon them working together. The students themselves always developed a workable and reasonable set of rules that they enforced by peer pressure to ensure that I would give them the grades they felt they wanted or needed. Leaders emerged, hierarchies were set up, my classes became un-threatening and I am led to believe were enjoyable. Mock trials, peer mediations of disputes, "What happens in this class, stays in this class". I was never disappointed.
I'll answer your question by introducing you to a great game. It's called freeball. It's a great game. Everyone I know loves it. Have fun playing it!
What? You don't know the rules? There are no rules. Just have fun. Enjoy!
Life without rules would be senseless and void of joy. Rules are not meant to restrict freedom but rather to give freedom. Prior to the Mosaic Law in pre-Israel, it was "you hurt me, I'll kill you." The law set up rules to regulate (and grant) freedom. Then it was "an eye for an eye." No longer was there a fear of death for mistakenly poking someone's eye out.