Today I went to the grocery store, and I saw the most appalling site. I was walking down the pasta aisle and I heard a little voice start yelling, "Scooby! Scooby momma!! Scoooooby!" I turned to see what all the fuss was about. A little girl, no older than 4 or 5, had a box of Scooby Doo macaroni and cheese in each hand. She was holding not one, but two boxes of the cartoon endorsed all-American meal. She threw the boxes into the cart against the pleadings of her mom. The mom, apparently, wasn't enticed by Scooby... This bothered me, not so much because of Scooby, but because the boxes were placed on the 2nd to last row from the bottom. I hadn't even noticed it, because I'm not 2 feet tall. The little girl, obviously, stood at the perfect height to see Scooby. I scanned the rest of the shelves and as you go up the products have a more adult appeal. The products advertised to kids are the bottom and about at the spot where a child sitting in a cart would see it. I was outraged. How had I never noticed it before? It was a stroke of marketing genius, that I'm sure many of you have already noticed, but I had never seen it before. How dare they market to kids (this isn't new, I understand, but my outrage is newly discovered)? I asked my mom if I did that sort of thing when I was little and she answered with a resounding "yes!" She had to resort to the rule that my sister and I could only pick out 1 thing to buy because we were so obnoxious. It's a wonder I never noticed before.
I think the reasons I was so oblivious were that a) I wasn't the one being targeted and b) I have only recently started studying up on this sort of thing. Now I wonder, what are they targeting at me?? I'm fairly certain that I am a marketer's golden child, because I truly am a product of advertisements. It makes me sick. I need to just start buying things I've never heard of with uninteresting boxes. That's the only way to be safe!
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Whatever happened to the good childhood?
So I've decided to have a go at a childhood/parenting discussion. I've just finished reading Neil Postman's book, The Disappearance of Childhood, which reminded me of the Good Childhood seminar I attended a few months ago. The question I've been struggling to resolve is this: if children are no longer children (in how they act, and how they are treated), is that really a bad thing? If children are becoming more and more like adults (or as Postman would add, adults are becoming more like children), what is really at stake?
For starters we can take a look at what I mean by children no longer being "children" in it's original sense. Historically, the distinction between children and adults was less a biological fact and more a social construction (that Postman claims arises with literacy, which has since been discredited). By social construction I mean that children were treated differently than adults, they were kept from certain secrets/mysteries of the adult world, they acted differently, etc. Children were, in essence, shielded from the realities faced by adults. The realities were then, in turn, revealed to them slowly and at a time when they would be ready for them. How were they protected? Well, in part, knowledge was in print, and to access that knowledge you not only needed to be able to read, but you also needed to be functioning at a high level of analytical thinking. Today the story is quite different. Knowledge of the adult world is indiscriminately broadcast to people of all ages through the medium of television. It's one thing for a child to read an inappropriate passage in a book (the extent of harm done would depend upon the strength of the child's imagination), and another for a child to be constantly bombarded with violence, sexuality, and materialism on the television. It takes zero effort to assimilate those images, and they inevitably take their toll on the ethos of children's culture. Postman's book was written somewhere around 20 years ago, and his concern was limited mainly to television. But I think it's also safe to add the concern of the affect the internet has on young minds. Parents rarely keep taps on their children's web surfing, and everyone knows the things they can find on there far surpass anything they'd see on primetime tv... This, of course, is old news, but it's worth remembering. I distinctly remember having free reign on the internet when I was in middle/high school. Thankfully, I was a total dork and spent most of my time looking up html codes for building web pages or IMing my friends, but that's not very typical, and parents ought to be more aware of what their kids are finding online...
Now, before I'm branded as the old fashion Puritan who is just overreacting, consider what's at stake. If the realities of adult life aren't suitable for children, then children ought to be protected from them. If they're not protected, then they will ultimately suffer for it. Consider this quote that I am shamelessly stealing from the Good Childhood Seminar. It's from from Juliet Schor’s study of the marketing industry:
The saddest part is that this is entirely too familiar. I dare anyone to challenge the claim that today's youth are becoming more and more adult-like in their behavior and tastes. Mean Girls showed it most poignantly when one of the girls younger sister was dancing to Britney Spear's music video and no one seemed bothered by it in the least, as though it's expected for young girls to try and be sexy, even at the age of 7 or 8! I'm young enough to testify to this disturbing phenomenon. I distinctly remember the transition into middle school, where, for the first time, I became acutely aware of my appearance and that of the other girls around me. For the first few months I proudly wore my over sized sweaters handed down from my mom or neighbors. Slowly but surely the girls around me began to shake off their childhood clothes as they adopted the trends of the 7th and 8th graders (who in turn were mimicking the high schoolers who were themselves trying to dress like adults...). I hung in there for awhile, but then the teasing started, and eventually I too adopted the tweeny fashion that modeled itself after adult celebrities.
So children are being bombarded with the message that they ought to be more like adults: what's wrong with that? Is it liberating (as some people seriously suggest, much to my dismay) for children to be broken out of the bondage and suffocation of paternalistic restraints? Maybe it is liberating in the sense that children now have practically unrestricted access to the trials and tribulations of adulthood, but at the same time children are not necessarily ready for this reality shock. Yes, in reality, sexuality is a driving force in our society, but why should that be any concern of children? Why should children feel the need to dress/act provocatively when they aren't even physically ready for sex (let alone emotionally ready for it)? It all seems nonsensical, and that's why I'm so disturbed to see the lack of restraint in the adult sphere when it comes to the information/messages passed on to children. Of course children aren't ready to be adults, that's why they're children, so why aren't they being raised accordingly?
One answer is that adults aren't really adults anymore, not in the traditional sense. They act more and more like children, as though remaining forever immature will be the equivalent of some sacred fountain of youth. You've seen those cheesy talk shows where the children bring on their parents and grandparents in an attempt to get them to "act their age." You have grandmothers wearing miniskirts, fathers beating each other up at little league games, and parents arguing like children. Adults should act differently from children in the sense that they have learned how to hold off immediate gratification in pursuit of long term goals and have learned some self-restraint, but in today's culture that's far from accurate. I've seen enough shows where the parents seek help from someone (like the supernanny!) because they can't seem to control their kids, when the real problem is that they spend all their time trying to befriend their children (in some lackluster attempt at resolving some underlying insecurities) instead of parenting them. Children are now our friends, not our charges, not our responsibilities, so in essence, they aren't really children at all.
The dilemma of the disappearing childhood can be coupled with that of the quest for the "good" childhood. Is a good childhood one in which children are treated more like adults? For example, there are those who think that the middle class suburban childhood is the benchmark of a good childhood. But the middle class childhood is marked by it's tendency to treat children as mini-adults. Parents try to reason with their kids, they let kids make the decisions (from what they want for dinner, to whether or not they want to watch tv or do their homework), they put children in a myriad of organized activities (instead of letting them make up games or play spontaneous pickup games with neighborhood friends). Life becomes a competition, let the parent with the best (most accomplished) child win. While it's true that the middle class upbringing prepares kids quite well (overall) for the competitive marketplace, it seems like they are at the same time robbing children of the bliss of being a child. Why should a 6 year old be shuttled to a different organized sport, music lesson, or acting class every night? Why is the 5 year old deciding whether or not the family should stay in or eat out (and in the case of a girl at the preschool my roommate works at: whether or not the babysitter should have to stay for dinner too)? Children don't need to make those decisions; they don't need that many organized activities. What they need is time to let their imagination wander, to explore their own world without being thrust into the world of adults. They don't need to be maxed out, stressed out, and spoiled. They need to be treated like children, with proper restraint and proper room for growing the imagination and playfulness.
If the middle-class-ambition-driven childhood isn't "good," then what else is there? Should we aim for whatever makes children the happiest? That would certainly fit nicely with our hedonistic society that proclaims: pleasure is the goal, all is fair in the pursuit of it. But what children often want in order to be "happy" (and by happy, it usually means temporarily not a pain for the parents) is often in opposition to what will make them happy in the long run. That realization, of course, they aren't aware of (which is why they are children in the first place), but sadly parents aren't aware of it either. Of course the child wants McDonald's now, but when she's an adult does she really want to be plagued by the habit of eating unhealthily? Probably not, but as a child she didn't know that what happened to her then would affect the person she became later.
A side question to this issue is where Christian parents stand. I was asked once if being raised in a Christian household help shield me better from the materialism (etc) of our society. In many ways it didn't because I still grew up in a fairly affluent suburb where materialism reigned supreme. But at the same time, I was equipped with a pretty compelling message that taught me not to trust in worldly treasures. This varies from family to family, but, if a child is truly presented with Christ's message, then no matter what goes on in the their family they have something else to point them in the right direction. So in essence, being a Christian has shown me where I struggle with the materialism and whatnot of our culture, but that doesn't mean my childhood wasn't steeped in it. The only difference is that I'm aware of it, and I have a good shot at trying to turn that all around now... (this probably warrants it's own post, and perhaps I'll try to get one up soon)
All of that was really just a rambling way of saying that I'm worried about the situation of children in our society and where their future is headed. I'm worried as a non-parent, but I hope to be one, and I do have a sister in middle school who faces all of the aforementioned problems of today's children. Of course I didn't do much for outlining what those problems are; I just wanted to point to the problem as a whole and leave it up to you to think about it some more. I think I'll just leave the discussion here (as incomplete and unhelpful as it is, sorry), and I'll add a small confession. I write this post today as a total hypocrite because while writing it I'm also watching America's Next Top Model (my guilty pleasure) with my 13 year old sister. But hey, that just proves how society has failed me. At least I'm aware of it though ;)
Links:
Good Childhood discussion on CT
Disappearnce of Childhood book
My other parenting post
(okay, so maybe not a lot of links, sorry, but I might expand on a future post...)
For starters we can take a look at what I mean by children no longer being "children" in it's original sense. Historically, the distinction between children and adults was less a biological fact and more a social construction (that Postman claims arises with literacy, which has since been discredited). By social construction I mean that children were treated differently than adults, they were kept from certain secrets/mysteries of the adult world, they acted differently, etc. Children were, in essence, shielded from the realities faced by adults. The realities were then, in turn, revealed to them slowly and at a time when they would be ready for them. How were they protected? Well, in part, knowledge was in print, and to access that knowledge you not only needed to be able to read, but you also needed to be functioning at a high level of analytical thinking. Today the story is quite different. Knowledge of the adult world is indiscriminately broadcast to people of all ages through the medium of television. It's one thing for a child to read an inappropriate passage in a book (the extent of harm done would depend upon the strength of the child's imagination), and another for a child to be constantly bombarded with violence, sexuality, and materialism on the television. It takes zero effort to assimilate those images, and they inevitably take their toll on the ethos of children's culture. Postman's book was written somewhere around 20 years ago, and his concern was limited mainly to television. But I think it's also safe to add the concern of the affect the internet has on young minds. Parents rarely keep taps on their children's web surfing, and everyone knows the things they can find on there far surpass anything they'd see on primetime tv... This, of course, is old news, but it's worth remembering. I distinctly remember having free reign on the internet when I was in middle/high school. Thankfully, I was a total dork and spent most of my time looking up html codes for building web pages or IMing my friends, but that's not very typical, and parents ought to be more aware of what their kids are finding online...
Now, before I'm branded as the old fashion Puritan who is just overreacting, consider what's at stake. If the realities of adult life aren't suitable for children, then children ought to be protected from them. If they're not protected, then they will ultimately suffer for it. Consider this quote that I am shamelessly stealing from the Good Childhood Seminar. It's from from Juliet Schor’s study of the marketing industry:
Children are being exposed to plenty of glamour, fashion, style, irony, and popular music, that is, sex. Even the family-friendly Disney Channel is full of sexually suggestive outfits and dancing. One Radio Disney employee explained to me that the company keeps a careful watch on the lyrics, but is hands-off with the other stuff… Emma Gilding of Ogilvy and Mather recounted an experience she had during an in-home videotaping. The little girl was doing a Britney Spears imitation, with flirting and sexual grinding. Asked by Gilding what she wanted to be when she grew up, the three year old answered, “a sexy shirt girl”…. Mary Prescott [an industry professional] who is more deeply immersed [than other interviewees] in the world of tweening, confessed that “I am doing the most horrible thing in the world. We are targeting kids too young with too many inappropriate things…It’s not worth the almighty buck."
The saddest part is that this is entirely too familiar. I dare anyone to challenge the claim that today's youth are becoming more and more adult-like in their behavior and tastes. Mean Girls showed it most poignantly when one of the girls younger sister was dancing to Britney Spear's music video and no one seemed bothered by it in the least, as though it's expected for young girls to try and be sexy, even at the age of 7 or 8! I'm young enough to testify to this disturbing phenomenon. I distinctly remember the transition into middle school, where, for the first time, I became acutely aware of my appearance and that of the other girls around me. For the first few months I proudly wore my over sized sweaters handed down from my mom or neighbors. Slowly but surely the girls around me began to shake off their childhood clothes as they adopted the trends of the 7th and 8th graders (who in turn were mimicking the high schoolers who were themselves trying to dress like adults...). I hung in there for awhile, but then the teasing started, and eventually I too adopted the tweeny fashion that modeled itself after adult celebrities.
So children are being bombarded with the message that they ought to be more like adults: what's wrong with that? Is it liberating (as some people seriously suggest, much to my dismay) for children to be broken out of the bondage and suffocation of paternalistic restraints? Maybe it is liberating in the sense that children now have practically unrestricted access to the trials and tribulations of adulthood, but at the same time children are not necessarily ready for this reality shock. Yes, in reality, sexuality is a driving force in our society, but why should that be any concern of children? Why should children feel the need to dress/act provocatively when they aren't even physically ready for sex (let alone emotionally ready for it)? It all seems nonsensical, and that's why I'm so disturbed to see the lack of restraint in the adult sphere when it comes to the information/messages passed on to children. Of course children aren't ready to be adults, that's why they're children, so why aren't they being raised accordingly?
One answer is that adults aren't really adults anymore, not in the traditional sense. They act more and more like children, as though remaining forever immature will be the equivalent of some sacred fountain of youth. You've seen those cheesy talk shows where the children bring on their parents and grandparents in an attempt to get them to "act their age." You have grandmothers wearing miniskirts, fathers beating each other up at little league games, and parents arguing like children. Adults should act differently from children in the sense that they have learned how to hold off immediate gratification in pursuit of long term goals and have learned some self-restraint, but in today's culture that's far from accurate. I've seen enough shows where the parents seek help from someone (like the supernanny!) because they can't seem to control their kids, when the real problem is that they spend all their time trying to befriend their children (in some lackluster attempt at resolving some underlying insecurities) instead of parenting them. Children are now our friends, not our charges, not our responsibilities, so in essence, they aren't really children at all.
The dilemma of the disappearing childhood can be coupled with that of the quest for the "good" childhood. Is a good childhood one in which children are treated more like adults? For example, there are those who think that the middle class suburban childhood is the benchmark of a good childhood. But the middle class childhood is marked by it's tendency to treat children as mini-adults. Parents try to reason with their kids, they let kids make the decisions (from what they want for dinner, to whether or not they want to watch tv or do their homework), they put children in a myriad of organized activities (instead of letting them make up games or play spontaneous pickup games with neighborhood friends). Life becomes a competition, let the parent with the best (most accomplished) child win. While it's true that the middle class upbringing prepares kids quite well (overall) for the competitive marketplace, it seems like they are at the same time robbing children of the bliss of being a child. Why should a 6 year old be shuttled to a different organized sport, music lesson, or acting class every night? Why is the 5 year old deciding whether or not the family should stay in or eat out (and in the case of a girl at the preschool my roommate works at: whether or not the babysitter should have to stay for dinner too)? Children don't need to make those decisions; they don't need that many organized activities. What they need is time to let their imagination wander, to explore their own world without being thrust into the world of adults. They don't need to be maxed out, stressed out, and spoiled. They need to be treated like children, with proper restraint and proper room for growing the imagination and playfulness.
If the middle-class-ambition-driven childhood isn't "good," then what else is there? Should we aim for whatever makes children the happiest? That would certainly fit nicely with our hedonistic society that proclaims: pleasure is the goal, all is fair in the pursuit of it. But what children often want in order to be "happy" (and by happy, it usually means temporarily not a pain for the parents) is often in opposition to what will make them happy in the long run. That realization, of course, they aren't aware of (which is why they are children in the first place), but sadly parents aren't aware of it either. Of course the child wants McDonald's now, but when she's an adult does she really want to be plagued by the habit of eating unhealthily? Probably not, but as a child she didn't know that what happened to her then would affect the person she became later.
A side question to this issue is where Christian parents stand. I was asked once if being raised in a Christian household help shield me better from the materialism (etc) of our society. In many ways it didn't because I still grew up in a fairly affluent suburb where materialism reigned supreme. But at the same time, I was equipped with a pretty compelling message that taught me not to trust in worldly treasures. This varies from family to family, but, if a child is truly presented with Christ's message, then no matter what goes on in the their family they have something else to point them in the right direction. So in essence, being a Christian has shown me where I struggle with the materialism and whatnot of our culture, but that doesn't mean my childhood wasn't steeped in it. The only difference is that I'm aware of it, and I have a good shot at trying to turn that all around now... (this probably warrants it's own post, and perhaps I'll try to get one up soon)
All of that was really just a rambling way of saying that I'm worried about the situation of children in our society and where their future is headed. I'm worried as a non-parent, but I hope to be one, and I do have a sister in middle school who faces all of the aforementioned problems of today's children. Of course I didn't do much for outlining what those problems are; I just wanted to point to the problem as a whole and leave it up to you to think about it some more. I think I'll just leave the discussion here (as incomplete and unhelpful as it is, sorry), and I'll add a small confession. I write this post today as a total hypocrite because while writing it I'm also watching America's Next Top Model (my guilty pleasure) with my 13 year old sister. But hey, that just proves how society has failed me. At least I'm aware of it though ;)
Links:
Good Childhood discussion on CT
Disappearnce of Childhood book
My other parenting post
(okay, so maybe not a lot of links, sorry, but I might expand on a future post...)
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Christianity and parenting
Today I was in for a wonderful treat because my parents and little sister all came up to Madison to go to church with me. Their visit reminded me of how important faith is to our family. In the past few weeks, I've been thinking more about how the shared religion I have with my parents affects our relationship, and to what extent is sharing one's religion justifiable in the parent-child relationship. This is more than a flippant concern, esp for a Christian. As a Christian you accept and live by certain beliefs about the world and your role in it. To the extent that your beliefs affect your day to day life is a matter of individual choice, but on the whole many Christians believe a set of ideas that inevitably call for a certain type of behavior. And if you believe that faith in Jesus is crucial for eternal salvation, your belief will dictate how you raise your children. If it doesn't, one would question whether or not you really do believe. That being said, Christian parents will undoubtedly want to share their beliefs with their children. This is where things start getting sticky...
Some philosophers claim, correctly, that parents have certain duties when it comes to their kids. They are responsible for ensuring their emotional, cognitive, and physical well-being. This responsibility obviously entails limits as to how parents can treat their kids. Abuse and neglect are clearly ruled out... But apart from obvious harms, it is harder to determine where the threshold lies in this matter. One important question treated by philosophers is the extent to which parents can enroll children into a comprehensive doctrine of any kind. By comprehensive doctrine (CD), I mean the set of values and beliefs that affect the habits/choices/etc of the parent. Obviously, parents have a good deal of freedom to choose their own CD, but it is less certain how free they should be to enroll their children in one if those children are not old enough to choose it for themselves. For Christian parents, enrollment would include infant baptism, taking children to church, and even putting their children in private religious schools. Should parents, then, be prohibited from doing these things? Some philosophers might say yes, but I would disagree, to a point.
The argument centers around (imho, sometimes wrongly) the child's development of autonomy. The question at hand is whether the development of the child's autonomy should be an end goal (so as long as that goal is reached, many earlier breeches of the child's autonomy are allowed) or a constant limitation (no enrollment without consent). Both of these views assume that autonomy is not only valuable, but lexically trumps other competing values. I agree that autonomy is a desirable goal, but I don't think it should receive all of our attention. Our society focuses too much on individualistic and consumeristic values. We want to choose the course of our lives, but in the process we turn "living" into a trip to the CD store. We pick and choose our beliefs and values to suit our currant moods, and in return we loose touch of the importance of community, selflessness, and love. Producing a child who is capable of choosing her future CD is futile, in my opinion, if she isn't taught how to weigh considerations of other people with her own desires. It's like a person going into a grocery store filled with some food that's healthy and some food that isn't. Autonomy requires that the person can go into the store and pick out what she wants. In other words, she doesn't just go into the store a pick up what her parents used to make her pick up as a child. However, the autonomous person can still go into the store and pick out only junk food. She's making a decision based on her own interests, but she's not well equipped to effectively serve her overall interests. By overall interests I mean those interests that are not limited to her desires, but also include her overall capacity to live a flourishing life. I believe that autonomy is important as an instrumental value, but I have a hard time grasping it's intrinsic value. In my mind, autonomy is only important in so far as it contributes to flourishing. Because autonomy is often useful for flourishing, we mistakenly assume that it is a) necessary and b) sufficient for flourishing. Neither of which I agree with. Is it impossible to imagine an adult with injured autonomy who nevertheless flourishes? And it's not hard to imagine an autonomous person who doesn't flourish at all. The important goal should be the promotion of flourishing, both in childhood and as an adult. To the extent that autonomy is instrumental in achieving that goal, it should be protected. However, we should not pursue it with reckless abandon....
And that brings me back to the question of Christian parents. I believe that certain CDs (in which I include many forms of Christianity, but not all) more effectively prepare children to become adults who are capable of flourishing. If you'll recall the person in the store, these CDs would have taught that person how to choose the food that is more nutritious, while still allowing her to choose based on personal preferences (and occasionally indulge in less nutritious options). In other words, being raised in some CDs will prepare a child to make wise life decisions later, even if that leads her to reject the CD she was raised in. It's not about being able to choose, it's about being able to make good decisions, which includes the ability to make decisions that take others into consideration. Christian parents who take their kids to church (in most cases) are not hampering this goal. In fact, they are often doing a better job of it. Knowing God is the aim, and along the way children acquire many valuable bonuses (I say bonus because they are not the reason for believing but they are positive consequences of believing). For example, Jesus taught that love is the most important thing we can do, and he commanded us to love everyone. If that's the only thing a child took away from the Christian CD, then they are better off than they might have been without it.
Christian parents do need to be conscious of how they are sharing their beliefs with their children. If a parent scares/forces a child to believe, not only is the parent violating the child's prospects for flourishing, but the parent is not acting in line with the teachings of Christ. Jesus never brainwashed his disciples, and he certainly didn't make the decision for us. He taught, and let us decide. In the same way, Christian parents should introduce their kids to the scriptures, to Church, to praying, etc, but they must let the child reject these beliefs and practices if she wants to. We should seek to imitate God, which means we should seek to be fathers and mothers in the same way that He is our Father. Parents should openly teach children about their faith, but they must inevitably leave it up to the child. Also, they must let them have a good understanding of the world, including views that contradict Christianity. Faith that is unchallenged is not really faith. So Christian parents should feel obliged to make sure their children encounter these opposing viewpoints. Jesus didn’t live in seclusion, and neither should our children.
Last note... Part of flourishing for both the child and parent includes having a good relationship between them. Relationships are built on shared interests and activities. If Christian parents were to exclude their children from what is (or should be) the most important part of their life, then they are doing a disservice to both the child and themselves. As I realized very keenly today, there is something really special about sharing your faith with your family. I’ve experienced a similar feeling with my Christian friends, but it feels more special with my family. Our relationships are deeper, because we connect on a deeper level. We understand each other in a way that wouldn’t have been possible had they not introduced me to this part of their lives. I’ve seen this connection missing among my friends with non-believing parents (or vise versa), and while it’s not a deal breaker for a relationship to succeed, it can hurt when it’s not there.
Sorry for the long post, if you made it to the end, I thank you. If you agree/disagree, let me know! I realize some people may not agree with me because my view is perfectionist ...but sometimes that may be necessary... And lastly, these philosophers raise the questions I've (semi) addressed here: Clayton, Brighouse, and Swift. I realize that's not a great bibliography, and I know I don't show whose ideas are where, so my apologies.
Some philosophers claim, correctly, that parents have certain duties when it comes to their kids. They are responsible for ensuring their emotional, cognitive, and physical well-being. This responsibility obviously entails limits as to how parents can treat their kids. Abuse and neglect are clearly ruled out... But apart from obvious harms, it is harder to determine where the threshold lies in this matter. One important question treated by philosophers is the extent to which parents can enroll children into a comprehensive doctrine of any kind. By comprehensive doctrine (CD), I mean the set of values and beliefs that affect the habits/choices/etc of the parent. Obviously, parents have a good deal of freedom to choose their own CD, but it is less certain how free they should be to enroll their children in one if those children are not old enough to choose it for themselves. For Christian parents, enrollment would include infant baptism, taking children to church, and even putting their children in private religious schools. Should parents, then, be prohibited from doing these things? Some philosophers might say yes, but I would disagree, to a point.
The argument centers around (imho, sometimes wrongly) the child's development of autonomy. The question at hand is whether the development of the child's autonomy should be an end goal (so as long as that goal is reached, many earlier breeches of the child's autonomy are allowed) or a constant limitation (no enrollment without consent). Both of these views assume that autonomy is not only valuable, but lexically trumps other competing values. I agree that autonomy is a desirable goal, but I don't think it should receive all of our attention. Our society focuses too much on individualistic and consumeristic values. We want to choose the course of our lives, but in the process we turn "living" into a trip to the CD store. We pick and choose our beliefs and values to suit our currant moods, and in return we loose touch of the importance of community, selflessness, and love. Producing a child who is capable of choosing her future CD is futile, in my opinion, if she isn't taught how to weigh considerations of other people with her own desires. It's like a person going into a grocery store filled with some food that's healthy and some food that isn't. Autonomy requires that the person can go into the store and pick out what she wants. In other words, she doesn't just go into the store a pick up what her parents used to make her pick up as a child. However, the autonomous person can still go into the store and pick out only junk food. She's making a decision based on her own interests, but she's not well equipped to effectively serve her overall interests. By overall interests I mean those interests that are not limited to her desires, but also include her overall capacity to live a flourishing life. I believe that autonomy is important as an instrumental value, but I have a hard time grasping it's intrinsic value. In my mind, autonomy is only important in so far as it contributes to flourishing. Because autonomy is often useful for flourishing, we mistakenly assume that it is a) necessary and b) sufficient for flourishing. Neither of which I agree with. Is it impossible to imagine an adult with injured autonomy who nevertheless flourishes? And it's not hard to imagine an autonomous person who doesn't flourish at all. The important goal should be the promotion of flourishing, both in childhood and as an adult. To the extent that autonomy is instrumental in achieving that goal, it should be protected. However, we should not pursue it with reckless abandon....
And that brings me back to the question of Christian parents. I believe that certain CDs (in which I include many forms of Christianity, but not all) more effectively prepare children to become adults who are capable of flourishing. If you'll recall the person in the store, these CDs would have taught that person how to choose the food that is more nutritious, while still allowing her to choose based on personal preferences (and occasionally indulge in less nutritious options). In other words, being raised in some CDs will prepare a child to make wise life decisions later, even if that leads her to reject the CD she was raised in. It's not about being able to choose, it's about being able to make good decisions, which includes the ability to make decisions that take others into consideration. Christian parents who take their kids to church (in most cases) are not hampering this goal. In fact, they are often doing a better job of it. Knowing God is the aim, and along the way children acquire many valuable bonuses (I say bonus because they are not the reason for believing but they are positive consequences of believing). For example, Jesus taught that love is the most important thing we can do, and he commanded us to love everyone. If that's the only thing a child took away from the Christian CD, then they are better off than they might have been without it.
Christian parents do need to be conscious of how they are sharing their beliefs with their children. If a parent scares/forces a child to believe, not only is the parent violating the child's prospects for flourishing, but the parent is not acting in line with the teachings of Christ. Jesus never brainwashed his disciples, and he certainly didn't make the decision for us. He taught, and let us decide. In the same way, Christian parents should introduce their kids to the scriptures, to Church, to praying, etc, but they must let the child reject these beliefs and practices if she wants to. We should seek to imitate God, which means we should seek to be fathers and mothers in the same way that He is our Father. Parents should openly teach children about their faith, but they must inevitably leave it up to the child. Also, they must let them have a good understanding of the world, including views that contradict Christianity. Faith that is unchallenged is not really faith. So Christian parents should feel obliged to make sure their children encounter these opposing viewpoints. Jesus didn’t live in seclusion, and neither should our children.
Last note... Part of flourishing for both the child and parent includes having a good relationship between them. Relationships are built on shared interests and activities. If Christian parents were to exclude their children from what is (or should be) the most important part of their life, then they are doing a disservice to both the child and themselves. As I realized very keenly today, there is something really special about sharing your faith with your family. I’ve experienced a similar feeling with my Christian friends, but it feels more special with my family. Our relationships are deeper, because we connect on a deeper level. We understand each other in a way that wouldn’t have been possible had they not introduced me to this part of their lives. I’ve seen this connection missing among my friends with non-believing parents (or vise versa), and while it’s not a deal breaker for a relationship to succeed, it can hurt when it’s not there.
Sorry for the long post, if you made it to the end, I thank you. If you agree/disagree, let me know! I realize some people may not agree with me because my view is perfectionist ...but sometimes that may be necessary... And lastly, these philosophers raise the questions I've (semi) addressed here: Clayton, Brighouse, and Swift. I realize that's not a great bibliography, and I know I don't show whose ideas are where, so my apologies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)