I’ve clashed several times with regular commenter Brian Scurfield over his views on parenting, which he characterises as Taking Children Seriously, and which I’ve tended to characterise as a combination of “existential anarchism” and pretending children are adults when they’re not.
He’s written one guest post before to resolve just what exactly his views are – Reason, freedom, and raising fine children – without finding any of our subsequent comments persuasive and none of us getting any further ahead, so in the interests of both free debate and freer comments threads I’ve challenged him once more to produce a guest post that convinced us of his points, and allowed us to thrash out once and for all the issues he raises in his comments. So here it is. Feel free to weigh in.
The post is presented as a dialogue . . .
Amy (aged 9): What's a libertarian?
Lucy (much older): Someone who values freedom.
Amy: But isn't that bad, people can't just do anything they like?
Lucy: Libertarian freedom is not "freedom-to" but rather "freedom-from". So not freedom to initiate force but rather freedom from force.
Amy: Oh. I don't like being pushed around and forced to do things, so "freedom-from" sounds good to me. But wait - how do people know what they should do?
Lucy: Good question. Knowing what we should do requires theories in addition to libertarianism. Take parenting: I think good parenting not only involves "freedom-from" ideas like not forcing children but also positive stuff like helping and supporting your children and knowing how knowledge is created.
Amy: I don't think a lot of people see it that way; they think forcing children can be helping them. Lucy: Why do they think that?
Amy: Well, they say we don't know any better.
Lucy: That argument can be employed to deprive anyone of liberty and it's a sad argument to use in the 21st century. As for children not knowing better, well everyone has vast swathes of ignorance because there's much more to know in this universe than can be known by one mind. The way to overcome ignorance is not through forced learning because, typically, knowledge gained that way is fragile. Learning and doing things because you want to, now that's how you get deep and lasting knowledge. Also, I think children are actually better at picking up knowledge than adults.
Amy: Hmm...but what if I wanted to do something that was bad?
Lucy: Well, you wouldn't want to do something that was actually bad would you?
Amy: No. But suppose I did.
Lucy: But why would you? You see, this is where the positive stuff I mentioned comes into play. If you have been brought up in an environment where not only "freedom-from" is respected but also where help, support, advice, and explanations are given and sought, where making a mistake is not a reason for embarrassment or anger, and where everybody owns up to their own fallibility then why would you want to do bad things?
Amy: Well, I guess I wouldn't.
Lucy: There is a view of childhood that many people have. It goes like this: It is human nature to do want to do bad things and this is inborn in us and has to be stamped out of children through discipline. My view is simply that humans are born not knowing right from wrong, our genes have no knowledge of human morality, nor could they. So whatever makes children turn out bad, it's not in the genes.
Amy: So what makes children go bad?
Lucy: A few things I could mention are neglect and wanting to rebel against authority without really knowing why authoritarianism is bad. Most people don't turn out bad, but they do end up with lots of hang-ups caused by authoritarianism.
Amy: Are there are no authorities?
Lucy: Correct. No-one has a lock on truth and anyone, no matter how learned or qualified they seem, can be profoundly wrong. This is another reason why ideas shouldn't be forced on people.
Amy: Wow. That's a lot to think about. What if I wanted to be a libertarian?
Lucy: I would say it's just as well I'm your Mum!
- Brian Scurfield
32 comments:
Define your term PC: What is "existential anarchism"?
I think it is quite a good post, Brian; inclined to agree with this part...
But why would you? You see, this is where the positive stuff I mentioned comes into play. If you have been brought up in an environment where not only "freedom-from" is respected but also where help, support, advice, and explanations are given and sought, where making a mistake is not a reason for embarrassment or anger, and where everybody owns up to their own fallibility then why would you want to do bad things?
Thanks Elijah.
What I find fascinating and sad is that far too many libertarians do not see how libertarian principles apply to children. They become common or garden authoritarians in this area. I get the same reaction discussing the importance of freedom from force and coercion in child-rearing as libertarians usually do trying to convince a statist of the value of libertarianism. If we do not practice our principles with our children is it any wonder when we end up raising a statist or a socialist?
It is a great post Brian, and certainly has given me a lot of food for thought. Kudos to PC for having you as a guest poster. That's what I love about this blog. Sure you get Red and LGM eternally abusing each other and resorting to the nastiest sort of ad hominem attacks which usually obscure their otherwise interesting views. The upside is that you get enlightened and considered debate on a variety of issues. Libertarian values are at the core, but are not dogma, and it is posts like the above which seek to expand the bounds of what we think of as libertarianism.
I have a couple of questions though. I'm really not a kid person, so am arguing from profound ignorance on this issue, so please forgive that - I'm just inquisitive. :)
You assert that children don't want to do "bad things", but I would suggest that they often want to do playful things, and are not necessarily advanced enough in thought to consider the consequences of their actions. Some of these things might be objectively considered "bad", but the child mind may not be developed enough to consider them thus. The law also states that their parents/guardians are responsible for their actions. What then happens when some playful fun goes bad, and (to be extreme) someone dies? It's certainly in the interests of the parent or guardian to limit this behaviour. Sometimes that will require coercion.
The second question is that if you accept the science which tells us when a mind is fully developed (and my limited research suggests theories range from about 13-23), then are you saying we should ignore that information and make children fully responsible for their actions? In the first scenario above, if a 9 year old caused a death through thoughtless play, should they then go to jail?
If we do not practice our principles with our children is it any wonder when we end up raising a statist or a socialist?
That't the thing Brian - most don't raise their children in a libertarian manner, which is why the libertarian movement never seems to gain traction.
Libertarians are reluctant to recognise power structures when they don't come attached to government -- but we should always remember that power and tyranny are much much older than the state.
Brian, you ask: What is "existential anarchism"?
Essentially, the notion that anything can be whatever you want it to be simply because you say so.
But it's just not so, and wishing won't make it so. A is A. A leaf is not a stone, any more than a child is an adult -- and that won't change no matter how many times you insist it is so.
At birth a child knows nothing about the nature of the reality he is born into -- not because he is bad (that's just your basic Christian original sin nonsense) but because he hasn't yet seen enough of reality, nor have a brain able (yet) to process all he's seen.
A child is not an adult, and he needs to undergo a process of development until he is. Until he is, and until he does, it's the adult's responsibility to be his guide to reality and his director of development - and in some cases that means being his judge, his jury and even his jailer.
The child doesn't need another child in the house - he needs an adult.
His adult guardian must often be his "virtual reality," reflecting reality back to him -- until such times as he can understand reality for himself, and make his own decisions.
As Kenneth Livingston puts it, "The parent’s job is to bring the future into the present for the child, to make it palpable, and to do so in a way that accurately represents the world as it is—but at a level that is accessible to the child." And as Livingston shows, that's not always easy. But it's necessary.
The first step in making it happen is to realise the child is not an adult.
(Incidentally, Livingston -- professor of psychology and director of the cognitive science program at Vassar College -- has an excellent lecture on 'Raising Good Kids' that I would thoroughly recommend.)
Amy: ... But wait - how do people know what they should do?
I would tell Amy that without an rational adult that already has that knowledge to guide her (supervised learning manner), then the other options left for her are reinforcement and unsupervised (self-discovery) learning manner.
The latter two (reinforcement & unsupervised) are very dangerous for children since some knowledge of external world facts could only be acquired (or being successfully learned provided that the learner is still alive as a consequence) after the learner has experienced a fatal encounter. Eg, a child trying to insert a metallic pin into a wall plug, etc... In this case the learner may die as a result without ever learning or acquiring the knowledge that such action is fatal. If the learner manages to survive after the incident, then he/she definitely learns that such action is not to be attempted ever again. Now that external world fact is being acquired (ie, the knowledge that no metallic pin is to be inserted into an electrical plug).
So, why can't children be allowed to do reinforcement & self-discovery on their own? Well, this can be pointed directly to the undeniable fact that their rationality is bounded to a huge degree in comparison with adults.
Children must be guided (supervised) because of their limited bounded rationality until they reach a stage where the parents are confident that their kids can reason well, then they're allowed to adopt re-inforecement & self-discovery (un-spervised) learning.
Anyway, good post Brian.
Very good and reasoned discussion from Brian and PC - thank you both very much - both take a bow.
I have raised 2 adults, and currently am raising 2 children.
Parenthood has been bloody hard work, and I have not completed it with the success I would have hoped, although the 2 adults are still alive, and good people, I was not able to bring them up with libertarian ideals because I had not discovered them myself, therefore they have grown up with the rest of the sheeple, and are good statists.
I am ashamed to say that I have smacked my 6 year old son far more frequently than any of the others, and I struggle to find a way to alter his bad behaviour.
My bad behaviour has not worked in correcting his bad behaviour, but my wifes (who tells me not to smack him) approach doesnt work either.
I am trying very hard to alter my behaviour, and find alternative methods, but it is proving very difficult to find something effective. I am presently trying a chart where every time he does what he is asked he gets a tick. When he gets 10 ticks he gets a STAR, when he gets 5 STARS he gets to go to the $2 shop and buy something.
This is working quite well for situations requiring him to listen and do what hes told, but there are so many other occasions that this does not cover.
I desperately want to be a good father, but I dont want to be a wishy washy new age guy role model OR a nasty BULLY. This is the hardest job I have ever had !
Toma, what about deleting a tick when he does something naughty?
"Hmm...but what if I wanted to do something that was bad?
Lucy: Well, you wouldn't want to do something that was actually bad would you?
Amy: No. But suppose I did.
Lucy: But why would you? You see, this is where the positive stuff I mentioned comes into play. If you have been brought up in an environment where not only "freedom-from" is respected but also where help, support, advice, and explanations are given and sought, where making a mistake is not a reason for embarrassment or anger, and where everybody owns up to their own fallibility then why would you want to do bad things?
Amy: Well, I guess I wouldn't."
Nice theory. What if it doesn't work in practise?
PC - I don't claim or insist that a child is an adult.
But this claim of yours that I am shows you are trying to make the argument other than it is. What's more, where children are concerned, you think force, coercion, and authoritarianism are other than what they are. If wishing things to be other than they are is existentialism, it is you that is the existentialist here.
Let's look at what we agree on. As my post indicates, I agree that a child comes into the world not knowing or understanding reality and that he must undergoe a development process. I agree also that parents have obligations to their children,
moral obligations resulting from their choice to have them and that it is the parents that carry these obligations, not the child. We agree, also, that their are differences between adults and children and that the biggest obstacle a child faces is a lack of knowledge. We differ in how the latter problem should be resolved.
Tellingly, you see child-rearing as directing, as though the child were an actor in a movie who says the lines but who is underneath not that person. That approach, which is at heart authoritarian, will, sooner or later, cause problems, particularly when the child decides he doesn't like your movie and would rather star in a production of his own. The approach I advocate recognizes that parental authoritarianism - like all authoritarianism - is the cause of bad problems and so seeks not to be authoritarian at all. The approach I advocate is about treating people as people in free-will enhancing ways.
Brian - any chance of addressing some of the questions I and others have raised here?
Hi Greig - Thanks for the positive comments and also to the other commenters here for theirs. Ruth, I think, sees what I am getting at clearly when she says:
"Libertarians are reluctant to recognise power structures when they don't come attached to government -- but we should always remember that power and tyranny are much much older than the state."
To answer your questions:
Libertarians do not preclude the use of force in self-defense and readily acknowledge that such force will sometimes be required. Similarly, in child-rearing, force is sometimes necessary if a child is about to do harm. I don't hold that children should be legally responsible for their actions and I don't know how that could be inferred from the explanations I have given.
Sus - Saying "nice theory, but what if it doesn't work in practise?" is a lot like saying "libertarianism: nice theory, but what if it doesn't work in practise?".
FF - My post definitely does not say we should just ignore children and let them get on with it. I don't subscribe at all to the nonsense of permissive parenting. BTW, if you look through the TCS website PC linked to you might see a name you know ;)
Toma - It's good to see that you acknowledge that you have made mistakes and that you are interested in trying to correct them. As a piece of general advice, I would say try to put a lot of effort into figuring out what your six year old wants. Children don't act up for no reason - it can be difficult figuring out the reason, but there are reasons.
Seconded, Greig.
Brian, I fully appreciate that individuals are *individual*. The odd 12 year-old displays more maturity than some of the men I've known ... ;)
And, in turn, some are less mature than their peers.
I posed a scenario (to you) on a similar thread last week .. can't remember which & can't be arsed to look back .. which I shall repeat in similar words:
"I'm coming around to your house to have sex with your 12 year old son. We want you and his mother to leave us alone whenever I feel like popping around. I like sex, so I might tootle over a lot.
Or if you have a well-developed 12 year-old daughter; most of them are these days .. growth-hormones in chooks, etc .. and they've been force(whoops!)fed wall-to-wall sex on TV forever so have a pretty good idea of what to do AND lots of younger girls dress like older teens to boot, I'll arrange for an older bloke to screw her all weekend if she wants. Or same-sex partners should they be wired that way."
You won't mind, eh, because to stop them would be 'authoritarian'.
What was that about theory and practise?
Thanks Brian. Makes sense. I don't think I can add more to this debate, given that neither my wife or I particularly like or want to have children. :) I now think I see what you've been getting at, but will await your reply to Sus' scenario with interest.
Sus - It seems to me that there's a touch of "original sin" in the way you posed your question. Do teenagers simply become zombies controlled by their hormones unable to think for themselves about whether what is on the TV is good or bad? Is it even *possible* to be controlled by hormones? What do you think a teenager armed with really good explanations about the world might do? Maybe she would just laugh at your silly attempt to get her hooked up.
Original sin? Ha ha! Not guilty!
But again, you evade the question, Brian. You have a theory and I have posed a scenario asking for your response to that specifically.
Come on, you're Dad -- what do you do?
'Sus - Saying "nice theory, but what if it doesn't work in practise?" is a lot like saying "libertarianism: nice theory, but what if it doesn't work in practise?".'
Non-argument, Brian. Libertarianism is freedom. Freedom is moral as opposed to its opposite - control - being immoral.
It doesn't mean to say that it will solve all problems (although it would certainly solve many); it's just means freedom. You'll have to do better than that.
You believe in a one-size-fits-all theory with regard to child-rearing & discipline. I recognise that children are all *individual*, thereby requiring different methods/guidance.
I'm not saying that you're wrong to do what you do; it's your business. (My own parents raised me in a similar fashion .. lots of questions & getting me to think for myself, etc .. and I never felt the need to 'rebel' in that there was nothing to rebel against).
I'm saying that you're wrong to stop other parents from doing what they do (within the bounds of the law as it stood prior to Bradford).
Sus your scenario is silly. Are you a parent? I doubt it.
If a child is brought up in an environment where reason and 'the benevolent universe' premise is valued your situation would never happen.
If a child is brought up with a healthy attitude to their sexuality your situation would never happen.
If you do some research you will see that youth in the Red States in the US have the highest teen pregnancy rate and STD rate in the country.
Why? Because they have had an authoritarian upbringing. By using force as a parent you are laying the future groundwork for moral relativism in your children. By sparing the rod and sparing authoritarianism a parent is allowing the child to reason.
It's quite simple if you think about it.
Am I a parent, Ruth? No, I chose differently. Which also doesn't make me altogether stupid, thanks.
But since you asked, I was, however, a nanny in several countries and helped raise 12 children from 3 months to 12 years of age; in stark contrast to most people, men especially, who have little if anything to do with children until they have their own. On many occasions I was effectively a single 'parent'.
FWIW I also have an extremely close extended family, spending a great deal of time with my sister's children and those of my cousins.
In any case, simply being a parent doesn't necessarily provide moral superiority in this debate: Sue Bradford's a parent and look at her.
Secondly, the posed scenario was extreme to demonstrate the limitations of Brian's theory. (I also notice that nobody has commented on the *actual* scenario posed by PP in the first update to my column from yesterday). But neither can you categorically say that (a situation) "would not happen".
No argument with the importance of healthy attitudes twd sex and sexuality and none with the idiosyncrasies of the US Bible Belt, having lived over there.
But neither is the USBB psyche prevalent here, even amongst more conservative NZers. They are a unique beast and it is quite incorrect to suggest otherwise.
I do believe there is a difference between authoritarianism and parental discipline. I don't believe there's a difference between authoritarianism and the Bradford Act. We must continue to agree to disagree.
The title of this post asks a question, to which my answer is categorically 'no'. Why rob a nine-year-old of her childhood?
Being a parent may not provide moral superiority, but it does mean that those of us who ARE parents can choose to ignore the opinions of those who have had no experience as a mother/father, and who therefore have no dog in the fight.
I can categorically say that any child raised in an Objectivist household will not be sexually promiscuous and will have high self-esteem. Promiscuity is a sign of low self-esteem in a teenager - and in anyone else for that matter.
Brian has never said a 9 year old is an adult. Every parent wants their child to be a child - not to be forced into reciting the times tables when they are 2 or whatever.
As parents we know teens will be sexually active but work to delay that for as long as possible.
Peter has put words into his mouth.
Anyway Brian can take it from here if he wants to.
What would you do in that situation Sus?
"Promiscuity is a sign of low self-esteem in a teenager - and in anyone else for that matter."
Jees: I thought I simply liked orgasim a lot...
"The title of this post asks a question, to which my answer is categorically 'no'. Why rob a nine-year-old of her childhood?"
Sus - The title of the post came from Peter, not me, and I had no idea what the title would be. I offered some suggestions such as "Can a 9 year old be a libertarian?" and, clearly, PC put his own spin on that. As Ruth said, he has put words in my mouth.
Yes this is an excellent discussion. I believe children can be raised on the assumption that they CAN reason, because they can. They may not be able to do so as complete as an adult, and still need guidance and rules around behaviour - but treating them as reasoning entities is positive.
I could reason as a child. I had emotional responses to all sorts of behaviour by others, but as long as self esteem is intact (and it gets sorely challenged by the prevailing culture, particular during puberty) then that reasoning behaviour can be developed.
Objectivist methodologies for raising children is something I have seen little about, but it surely is one of the best ways to encourage more freedom, more reason and the promotion of individual achievement.
One point being that a child is different at ages 5, 10 and 15. One can't say at 18 or 16 or whatever, children have gained the reasoning powers of an adult. They gain it over many many years. However for the purposes of politics and law, lines get drawn on age.
LS - In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand is as scathing about school as is Karl Popper in the comment I put up on the Plato thread. So Rand clearly did have opinions on how children should be raised. Atlas Shrugged quickly passes over children, however, so I'm wondering if she fleshed her opinions out in more detail elsewhere?
Brian you can try here : http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6151&news_iv_ctrl=1069
You need to read her essay "The Comprachios". I don't know if it is available in full online.
"You need to read her essay "The Comprachicos". I don't know if it is available in full online."
No, I don't think it is. I quoted briefly from its introduction in this post.
The article is the crowning essay of her book 'The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution,' since republished as 'Return of the Primitive.' I don't know if the article appears in the republished work or not.
Wilko is 6
I was called in to see the headmaster and his teacher because they are having trouble doing anything with him.
They are the first to say he is very intelligent but he is not learning because he is FIERCELY INDIVIDUAL! (there is no secret where that comes from!)
Everything must be done on HIS terms. Everything he does must be done HIS way. He is happy to do it - only something about it must have his interpretation of it
When the teacher is telling the kids 1+1=2, he is trying to convince the teacher that it =3!
They are worried he is not learning, part of it is I think they are worried for themselves because if a child does not achieve certain goals, the teachers have to answer WHY! The TEACHER gets assessed!
Wilko is very bright, but hes not meeting their targets, and they get judged.
They are getting in a behaviour specialist or something to help them. He is so lovely but man is he hard work.
I've had 2 kids like Wilko (though they didn't start as early!) and I'd like to say it gets better at school, but it doesn't.
I'd be very wary of any 'expert' they bring in - it will be a self-important psychologist type person from MOE. Because he doesn't fit into the school mold they are likely to suggest he is some kind of retard and whats more it's your fault.
If I were you I would take him out of school and either homeschool if you can, or put him somewhere where his learning style will be catered for. Otherwise you are in for a long and unpleasant ride, and the child's self-esteem will suffer -- if my experience is anything to go by.
Ruth - Thanks for pointing me at Rand's essay "The Comprachicos".
Elliot Temple has posted a review of it on his blog:
http://curi.us/1448-the-comprachicos
Post a Comment