lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (08/02/84)
I think it's a mistake to base admonitions to children on any sort of abstract precepts, theistic or otherwise. In fact, admonishment is a fruitless form of interaction whatever its basis. Consider stealing. If your child ends up with somebody else's toy, it's only necessary to suggest that it be returned. The reason being that so and so will miss it, or even that it BELONGS to so and so. The later is an abstract reason, but one that children readily comprehend. It is emphatically not necessary to even mention "stealing". The idea that the child has commited a proscribed act, or that this act proceeded from some trait of the child which must be squelched or eliminated, is an adult invention and has little to do with the actual facts. Nietzsche, not usually considered a child care expert, actually makes a lot of relevant points. He emphasizes that "honesty" is a fiction invented as a cuase of "honest" behavior. He generally looks at human behavior with a fresh perspective, just as a title such as "Beyond Good and Evil" would imply. Nietzsche also comments that the principle advantage confered by knowledge is the power to decieve. This brings us to lying. Children have very little power, and many of them discover this ace in the hole. Here again, it is not necessary to admonish a child for "lying". It is not even necessary to point out the disadvantage of "crying wolf", though I have to admit I've resorted to this. Let the kid work it out on his or her own. I think that our anxiety as parents when faced with such behavior is largely generated by our irrational desire to conform, rather than any real concern for the child's development. This is most obvious in the case of swearing. What is that all about anyway? I never could figure it, and I took my stand here. Our children are allowed total freedom of expression. They even swear at us when they are mad enough. Please don't take this to mean that we tolerate arbitrary abuse! The point is, it's the abuse, and not the choice of words that counts. I have found David Bowie's song, "Kooks" to be an inspiration. To me, it reveals that I am not a caretaker appointed by society, but a large person living with some small ones. I think we share sort of a conspiratorial spirit with our kids, a feeling that we know what we are doing better than most. G. K. Chesterton expressed a simmilar idea in one of his quotes about home being a place of freedom, rather than confinement. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/21/84)
> [Lew Mammel, Jr., on disagreements between parent and child] > I think that our anxiety as parents when faced with such behavior is > largely generated by our irrational desire to conform, rather than any > real concern for the child's development. This is most obvious in the > case of swearing. What is that all about anyway? I never could figure it, > and I took my stand here. Our children are allowed total freedom of > expression. They even swear at us when they are mad enough. Please don't > take this to mean that we tolerate arbitrary abuse! The point is, it's > the abuse, and not the choice of words that counts. Leaving aside the observation that if arbitrary abuse is not tolerated, the children do not have total freedom of expression, this is an interesting idea, that children should be allowed to swear at their parents. I assume that the idea is carried to its logical conclusion and that your children are taught that they may also swear at each other, their friends, your friends, their grandparents and their teachers. Also, when they grow up, they should expect to be allowed to swear at their employer without expectation of reprimand or release. This idea promotes an overdeveloped sense of the importance of one's own opinion and an underdevelopment of the sense of the importance of speaking to others in a civil manner. Not all limitations on children are wrong, and this particular freedom, I would argue, is one which is ultimately destructive of the welfare of your children because it will develop in them an attitude of incivility - they will be helped to become unpleasant individuals. Keep in mind as well that if you send your children over to play with my daughter that their "right" to free expression will be abridged. If they start swearing at my daughter, my wife, or even the cat, they will be asked to observe the picture on the wall that says "Christ is the head of this house" and that the principles of the Bible apply. Since those principles include moderation of speech, they will be requested to desist from their violation of that principle. If they do not, you may expect a telephone call explaining that they will once more be welcome in our household when they become willing to speak in a more civilized manner. It was mentioned above that excessive freedom of expression is not in the interest of children's welfare. To elaborate: Your children will quickly find that many people do not share the view that "the words don't count, only the ideas." Abuse is conveyed through the vechicle of the spoken word, and the choice of word is extremely important. Recall several of the debate/flame debacles of recent vintage, e.g., the "Trish" episode. A number of postings indicated that choice of words could have avoided much unnecessary vitriol. Will anyone really argue, given the wrath and hurt feelings which resulted, that this is a necessary or productive practice? I realize that my position may be rejected on the grounds that it is a member of the class of explanation "God says it's wrong, so it's wrong". If you feel that way, I think you will find that non-theistic reasons for my position are also advanced. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17