We may one day get our wish, and see a society where our public spaces are divided up between the adults and the children. If it comes to that, it will be done to shield kids against all those society believes capable of potentially harming them. We already see prohibited access to adults without children at certain public exhibitions (such as children's museums), and even prohibited access to all adults (parents included) at certain school functions (such as sporting events). Anyone who may say that increasing paranoia only affects children neglects to see the bi-directionality of the freedoms it places limits on--in this case, the freedom to move across generations.
To meet this paranoia over pedophiles being in arm's reach of children with further paranoia about the social wedge being formed between adults and children is like fighting fire with fire, but one can't help but feel this "cure" is worse or just as bad as the disease. If we were to come at this issue from a reasonable perspective, we'd see that for every child harmed by a co-existence with adults in the world as we know it, potentially millions of children would be deprived of adult interaction if we were to become a society that parsed out its adults from its children. If this can be determined wrong at this extreme, why can it be permitted in the routine of reality?
In our effort to create for children some kind of wholesome, fuzzy, cushioned existence, are we seeing the beginnings of a society where we have sealed them off from reality and the adults that inhabit it for some ill-conceived desire to protect children and preserve their ignorance? In denying an adult from participating in certain public events out of the fear that all those who are not parents are pedophiles, we have to be mindful of what message is really being imparted in that "wholesome, fuzzy, cushioned existence." How "wholesome" can it be when we've let the few perverts in our imaginations turn all ordinary people into pedophiles?
To tell you the truth, I'm all for promoting child safety under those terms. If schools (for instance) have a right to ban all adults (including parents) from certain events, then parents have a right to not let their children go to the event. They can all sit home and watch the vacant stadium on TV where the event would have been taking place, and know that "safety" has been maintained for the school's sake. One could even argue that it could promote safety by not even having the events at all. I declare that mission accomplished.
There's this fetishism over the harm that can potentially come upon our children, and an expectation that children are not going to be witness to, much less be harmed by our paranoia. Can one imagine a narrative where the child and adult are bravely holding hands against an onslaught of rigid security trying to pry them apart? Can one imagine a world where adults have their own approved walkways and stairwells and bathrooms, and children have their own respective rooms, walkways, tables in restaurants...etc.--where parents and children are tagged and separated as they are shoved along to their secluded spaces only to be reunited at the close of services? Can one imagine a future where children's only interaction with adults is via screen? If it is unthinkable in the extreme, then why is it permitted in the routine of reality?
How free can a society be where everywhere children are expected to gather, adults are to keep a five-hundred foot distance? How safe can children be in that society? When does trying to protect children from potential harm become mixed up with such ill-gotten ways of attaining personal alleviation for the anxiety of potential harm? Adults and children are residents of the same society, the same Earth, and we are not doing them or us any justice by dividing the "fuzzy reality" from the "grim reality." If adults weren't so obsessed with creating a dreamworld for children, they could spend some time fixing the grim reality, and if they allowed children to exist in that reality with them, they'd see the reason for fixing it.
Showing posts with label Inclusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inclusion. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Devil's Advocate (Choices)
Artificial age restrictions hold that a child is incapable of making certain choices. They are a non-refutable "no" plastered across every entryway to maturity. They are oppressive, but then again, as the argument goes, wouldn't letting kids step across into that other world before they are ready be just as oppressive? After all, there's a difference between a child having the right to make an informed choice (which they are not allowed to do no matter how well informed), and a child not having enough information yet in order to properly make the choice and being 'allowed' to choose anyways.
If a child can't make an informed choice due to some arbitrary restriction, that's one thing, but the issue also boils down to the fact that a limited amount of information could infringe on the child's ability to make a choice to the same extent as they would had they that information. This is crucial too, because immaturity itself does not bar someone from being "able" to make an uninformed choice, and through their actions, the chooser could unwittingly incur consequences they hadn't foreseen! The fact that this routinely happens to adults too is of no consequence to the devil's advocate position.
Just as well, for the government to try to figure out when kids have "information enough" (or maturity enough) to legislate when they can naturally make informed choices about every little thing they are prohibited from doing, would just be too much legislating over human developmental milestones. It is also entirely true that children and young people are capable of making perfectly rational arguments as to why certain rights ought to be reserved for adults. And parents rightfully only want their children to have rights that they have decreed for them themselves.
So yes, all this does pose a problem for the liberationist. But I think any system is going to have its drawbacks. If we can agree with that assertion, then the question becomes, are these drawbacks equal to or greater than the drawbacks in the system we already have? If they are relatively equal, then there is no argument for keeping the status quo as a declarative necessity.
We have to come to a conclusion and decide what side we are on, and live with and acknowledge the consequences that stem from our beliefs and choices (as a society). We are either "liberationists," and want to see all rights be put on the table for children and youth to dispose with as they see fit, or we are "ageists" and want the status quo--where youth attain rights at certain artificial benchmarks. To these ends, we'd either be complacent about the damage imposed on youths who would make improper use of their rights, or we are already complacent about the damage imposed on youths by those who make improper use of their rights for them.
Choose your side.
If a child can't make an informed choice due to some arbitrary restriction, that's one thing, but the issue also boils down to the fact that a limited amount of information could infringe on the child's ability to make a choice to the same extent as they would had they that information. This is crucial too, because immaturity itself does not bar someone from being "able" to make an uninformed choice, and through their actions, the chooser could unwittingly incur consequences they hadn't foreseen! The fact that this routinely happens to adults too is of no consequence to the devil's advocate position.
Just as well, for the government to try to figure out when kids have "information enough" (or maturity enough) to legislate when they can naturally make informed choices about every little thing they are prohibited from doing, would just be too much legislating over human developmental milestones. It is also entirely true that children and young people are capable of making perfectly rational arguments as to why certain rights ought to be reserved for adults. And parents rightfully only want their children to have rights that they have decreed for them themselves.
So yes, all this does pose a problem for the liberationist. But I think any system is going to have its drawbacks. If we can agree with that assertion, then the question becomes, are these drawbacks equal to or greater than the drawbacks in the system we already have? If they are relatively equal, then there is no argument for keeping the status quo as a declarative necessity.
We have to come to a conclusion and decide what side we are on, and live with and acknowledge the consequences that stem from our beliefs and choices (as a society). We are either "liberationists," and want to see all rights be put on the table for children and youth to dispose with as they see fit, or we are "ageists" and want the status quo--where youth attain rights at certain artificial benchmarks. To these ends, we'd either be complacent about the damage imposed on youths who would make improper use of their rights, or we are already complacent about the damage imposed on youths by those who make improper use of their rights for them.
Choose your side.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Include the Kids
Society believes the best interaction between an adult and child ought to render the adult a designated mentor, care-taker, teacher, parent, doctor, or social worker of some sort, and the child a receptacle for their services. If the child is maintained, repaired, upgraded, or serviced appropriately by the designated individual, then society deems the partnership successful and they part ways. Children are not expected to do anything but absorb or allow rendered whatever service on them is being given, accept the upgrade for their sake, and carry on. In some instances, such as between a teacher and child, some dialogue or input from the child is necessary to complete the transaction, but that is in the context of their compulsory education. Society expects nothing from children for their own sake, even it also regards them to super-human heights of holiness for its sake.
I don't want to see the system crumble, I just want alternative (as in, non-bureaucratic) practices in child guidance become more socially acceptable and less of a target of scorn. This is to say, an ideal society would be one where so-called traditional, social, "cradle to grave" methods for bringing children up in the world coexist peacefully with individuals doing good works for others on their own volition. The only difference between the two is that the traditional structures treat children like potted plants who are just expected to sit there and receive their water and sunlight, and these Childlove "good works" practices I describe accept that a child, while being "protected" and "saved" and "taught" and "mentored," may also want to be the one giving, protecting, teaching, and mentoring sometimes, for a change.
Childlove does not expect a child to want to reciprocate the love that goes into them, because it expects nothing from children that one wouldn't expect from any other personal friend, but it won't stop them from reaching out if they desire it. Childlove is not out to "protect" or to "mentor" or to render a specific service in exchange for payment or some other motivation--the motivation for the Childlover is the protecting, is the mentoring, in and of itself. Children are not a means to an ends, they are an ends in and of themselves, and it takes a non-market based, non-bureaucratic, free individual in order to allow them to be. In this case, Childlove is about adults being there for children, but it's also about children being there for adults, or other children. It just requires the adult to be more honest and personal than they would be if they were fulfilling a professional service on behalf of the child--where their presence would just be a physical extension of their all-important title and nothing more.
Because kids know the difference. They know when you're there for them and when you're there because it's your job to be there. It doesn't necessarily have to affect their judgement of you, and certainly you can reach a child on a personal level even if it is your job to be there for them, but the quality of the interaction necessarily suffers from the compulsory, mandatory, or the "on behalf of X" context of the meeting. Officialdom always cuts the heart out of human interaction. If the child chooses their mentor and the mentor is not a fit with the child, or if the mentor chooses the child and the child isn't a fit, then the quality of the interaction suffers somewhat. If the child and the adult choose each other, or the child and the child choose each other, then the interaction is blessed for as long as it lasts. Kids don't want everything done for their sake, on their behalf, for their own good--nobody does--and will almost always see this kind of treatment as just another form of authority regardless of how friendly and "happy" it comes off. Some people will kill you with happiness, after all.
No. Kids don't want happy smiling faces telling them to sit still and receive the service against their will "for their own good," "on their behalf," or "for their sake." Kids are human beings too, and no human who hasn't been tampered with in some way will tacitly accept such condescension without either a flare of protest or silent withdrawal. Children shouldn't be expected to be any different. They want real people who are open and honest about their agendas. They want a person who can honestly answer the question, "Why the hell do you like working with kids?" If you answer with something along the lines of the "joy and wonder," then you've already lost all hope of connection, because the small ones won't get it and the older ones won't buy it.
A child is anything but "joy and wonder." A child is human--all that, the good, bad, and ugly.
There are times when a child has to be a receptacle for services, just like anyone, but there should also be times when a child can be the one reaching out and reciprocating. In a relationship, human beings can say no if they are being infringed on by another. In a top-down interaction between "mentor" and "protege," there is no consent or dissent. If the kids can't be included, it is just another doctor's visit, it's just another timed test--it's not a relationship. Child-centrism is just as vile as adult-centrism, because tossing children into darkness is just as disgusting as blinding them in the spotlight.
I don't want to see the system crumble, I just want alternative (as in, non-bureaucratic) practices in child guidance become more socially acceptable and less of a target of scorn. This is to say, an ideal society would be one where so-called traditional, social, "cradle to grave" methods for bringing children up in the world coexist peacefully with individuals doing good works for others on their own volition. The only difference between the two is that the traditional structures treat children like potted plants who are just expected to sit there and receive their water and sunlight, and these Childlove "good works" practices I describe accept that a child, while being "protected" and "saved" and "taught" and "mentored," may also want to be the one giving, protecting, teaching, and mentoring sometimes, for a change.
Childlove does not expect a child to want to reciprocate the love that goes into them, because it expects nothing from children that one wouldn't expect from any other personal friend, but it won't stop them from reaching out if they desire it. Childlove is not out to "protect" or to "mentor" or to render a specific service in exchange for payment or some other motivation--the motivation for the Childlover is the protecting, is the mentoring, in and of itself. Children are not a means to an ends, they are an ends in and of themselves, and it takes a non-market based, non-bureaucratic, free individual in order to allow them to be. In this case, Childlove is about adults being there for children, but it's also about children being there for adults, or other children. It just requires the adult to be more honest and personal than they would be if they were fulfilling a professional service on behalf of the child--where their presence would just be a physical extension of their all-important title and nothing more.
Because kids know the difference. They know when you're there for them and when you're there because it's your job to be there. It doesn't necessarily have to affect their judgement of you, and certainly you can reach a child on a personal level even if it is your job to be there for them, but the quality of the interaction necessarily suffers from the compulsory, mandatory, or the "on behalf of X" context of the meeting. Officialdom always cuts the heart out of human interaction. If the child chooses their mentor and the mentor is not a fit with the child, or if the mentor chooses the child and the child isn't a fit, then the quality of the interaction suffers somewhat. If the child and the adult choose each other, or the child and the child choose each other, then the interaction is blessed for as long as it lasts. Kids don't want everything done for their sake, on their behalf, for their own good--nobody does--and will almost always see this kind of treatment as just another form of authority regardless of how friendly and "happy" it comes off. Some people will kill you with happiness, after all.
No. Kids don't want happy smiling faces telling them to sit still and receive the service against their will "for their own good," "on their behalf," or "for their sake." Kids are human beings too, and no human who hasn't been tampered with in some way will tacitly accept such condescension without either a flare of protest or silent withdrawal. Children shouldn't be expected to be any different. They want real people who are open and honest about their agendas. They want a person who can honestly answer the question, "Why the hell do you like working with kids?" If you answer with something along the lines of the "joy and wonder," then you've already lost all hope of connection, because the small ones won't get it and the older ones won't buy it.
A child is anything but "joy and wonder." A child is human--all that, the good, bad, and ugly.
There are times when a child has to be a receptacle for services, just like anyone, but there should also be times when a child can be the one reaching out and reciprocating. In a relationship, human beings can say no if they are being infringed on by another. In a top-down interaction between "mentor" and "protege," there is no consent or dissent. If the kids can't be included, it is just another doctor's visit, it's just another timed test--it's not a relationship. Child-centrism is just as vile as adult-centrism, because tossing children into darkness is just as disgusting as blinding them in the spotlight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)