Here is an interesting quote from Neil Postman's book Building a Bridge to the 18th Century:
Moreover, and possibly as a result of the enlarged sovereignty of the media, many parents have lost confidence in their ability to raise children, because they believe that the information and instincts they have about child rearing are unreliable. As a consequence, they not only do not resist media influence, they turn to experts who are presumed to know what is best for children. Thus, psychologists, social workers, guidance counselors, teachers, and others representing an institutional point of view invade large areas of personal authority, mostly be invitation. What this means is that there is a loss in the intimacy, dependence, and loyalty that traditionally characterize the parent-child relationship. Indeed, it is now believed by some that the parent-child relationship is essentially neurotic, and that children are better served by institutions than by their families.
An effective response to all of this poses difficulties and is not without a price to pay. If parents wish to preserve childhood for their own children, they must conceive of parenting as an act of rebellion against culture. This is especially the case in America. For example, for parents merely to remain married is itself an act of disobedience and an insult to the spirit of a throwaway culture in which community has little value. It is also almost un-American to remain in close proximity to one's extended family so that children can experience, daily, the meaning of kinship and the value of deference and responsibility to elders. Similarly, to insist that one's children learn the discipline of delayed gratification, or modesty in their sexuality, or self-restraint in manners, language, and style is to place oneself in opposition to almost every social trend. But most rebellious of all is the attempt to control the media's access to one's children. There are, in fact, two ways to do this. The first is to limit the amount of exposure children have to media. The second is to monitor carefully what they are exposed to, and to provide them with a continuously running critique of the themes and values of the media's content. Both are very difficult to do and require a level of attention that most parents are not prepared to give to child-rearing.
Nonetheless, there are parents who are committed to doing all of these things, who are in effect, defying the directives of their culture. Such parents are not only helping their children to have a childhood, but are, at the same time, creating a sort of intellectual elite. Certainly in the short run, the children who grow up in such homes will, as adults, be much favored by business, the professions, and the media themselves. What can we say of the long run? Only this: Those parents who resist the spirit of the age will contribute to what might be called the Monastery Effect, for they will help to keep alive a humane tradition. It is not conceivable that our culture will forget that it has children. But it is halfway toward forgetting that children need childhood. Those who insist on remembering shall perform a noble service for themselves and their children.
Thoughts?
3 comments:
This is a very interesting quotation. I agree with it, except for the last part, which I question. Anything that has to do with traditional morality is counter-cultural--at least in the places of power in this country.
What I question seriously is whether the children who grow up in these homes will be "much favored by business, the professions, and the media themselves." I think it is just as likely that people who stick up for traditional morality (or tradition in general)will be treated like bigots, and possibly through social pressure (or legal pressure) hounded out of jobs and polite society.
For a preview of how this might look you can simply read about how Proposition 8 (in CA) supporters were treated when their contributions were made public.
I question why the elites would welcome someone so contrary to the means of their control. Business and sales are driven by the media. Politics would be significantly different without the media.
I may just not have the context here, and Hafsa and I will still raise our children this way regardless of how it effects their future in business or wherever.
I think the reason why these children might be prized by business, etc, is because of their creative capacity. A child who is raised as a critical thinker is a more capable busines man than one raised to simply watch sitcoms. I'm going to mail the book to you, as I finally just finished it, and there are several interesting chapters that I think are particularly important to a future homeschooler.
But, but, but....."it takes village" ;).
Post a Comment