[lit-ideas] Back to parenting and politics

Hi,
I'm kind of thinking that maybe when we were asked about the nurturing  
family versus the authoritarian family models (from John M) that perhaps he was 
 
discussing Lakoff's book?  When I attended, for the very first time, my  local 
Democratic Party's meeting (can you tell how upset I still am at how  things 
are going?  I've been tipped over the edge and have decided that  instead of 
falling off the cliff I better learn to fly or  climb...<g>)   Anyway, the 
speaker they had mentioned Lakoff's  book and let us order them for only $5 
each...
 
Anyway, I was scolded tonight for my speculating (it takes a while for me  to 
mull over what to do, if I am ready for this, if it would be of value, etc  
etc) on my creating a Democracy for Kids club--I ordered info on a curriculum  
from the Bill of Rights Institute, have one set of lesson plans from an  
organization which wants kids to learn about 'heroes' (have you read the 
studies  
of what kids think are their 'heroes'?), and other ideas...throw in pizza and  
music and you have a party and an environment for learning. When I learned 
that  the Republicans are doing the same, it was kind of interesting.  They, of 
 
course, are using 'religion' as part of the focus--and are pretty frank about  
it.  There really is no alternative for parents (other than the inhome  
teaching--and it is hard to do that, to be honest.  I think that is why it  is 
so 
much easier for us Scout parents, even, to have our kids do a few [if  any] 
pre-requisites for scout merit badges and then finish [or completely  do] the 
whole thing at these merit badge academies...(which I am now setting up  a 
session for the World Citizenship Badge at one of the library branches--so  
many of 
the kids here don't really ever meet someone from another country  [exchange 
student or one of the Consulates [they have a few in KC] or interact  with 
someone who even has a remotely positive view of the UN.  You can earn  the 
badge 
by just visiting a federal institution of some sort and the rest,  basically, 
by reading.  Kind of defeats the purpose, too.  So, we are  going to partner 
with an organization (semi-affiliated with UMKC and the UN  Association) and I 
am hoping, too, to see who is thinking of going, in 2007, to  the World 
Jamboree in the UK...I need to find out more about it, but think it  would be 
so 
great for these kids to meet other scouts from other  places...)
 
So...since I had been scolded because I always talk about things to my  
child...and he (often) has very interesting thoughts on all of it...when I saw  
this article, I had to smile.  It did, in fact, fit...
 
How do you parent?  Do you think his ideas of political affiliation  has 
anything to do with parenting styles?  I am very curious about this,  
actually...  
 
Parenting,
Marlena in Missouri
 
_http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article.jsp?id=5&articleId=2350_ 
(http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article.jsp?id=5&articleId=2350) 
>_http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article.jsp?id=5&articleId=2350_ 
(http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article.jsp?id=5&articleId=2350) 
 
Raising childrenâ?¦and Republicans
<_http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/_ 
(http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/) >Dave  Belden
23 - 2 - 2005

A family difference over childrearing makes Dave  Belden rethink
Americaâ??s political future.



When I first met my  future mother-in-law I saw a well-dressed
conservative American  navy-and-oil-business matron. She saw an
ill-dressed, long-haired,  over-educated, novel-writing leftist
carpenter.

I was prepared. She  wasnâ??t.

Lacy had unlearned her small-town southern accent and married a  naval
officer so her daughter could sleep with this?

But we came to  love and appreciate each other deeply, and it happened
fast. She said our  wedding which was presided over by a woman
minister in mufti under redwood  trees, to our own non-theistic
script, with gifts of roses and love spoons I  had carved for us and
our parents â?? was more inspiring than any she had  attended, including
her own. I learned where my love, Debi, had acquired much  of her
heart and depth.

Then we had this little difference over  childrearing. Lacy was
alarmed that we explained everything to our baby,  Rowan, even before
he was verbal. As soon as he could speak, he was allowed  to question:
what to do today, why pre-school, why thereâ??s no money for this.  If
our explanations went ridiculously over his head we laughed  at
ourselves. Sometimes we just had to say, â??Trust me on this one,
youâ??ll  understand later.â?? By then even our â??Gotta do itâ?? implied
there was a good  reason. We never spanked or slapped him. He got it:
the legitimation was not  our authority, but the reasoning behind our
requirements.

Often the  only good reason was our frailties: â??Please leave off the
drumming while I  have this headache.â?? Our parenting style was normal
for our friends, but a  few did miss out on this mutual respect side
of it.

At 10 we made him  write us an essay explaining why he deserved to
spend his money on something  we loathed: a video-game console. His
arguments persuaded us. But we insisted  on limited hours of play,
renegotiable. At 16 he is so used to arguing his  point, so
reasonable, so sure that we are too, that the mutual  respect
(usually) trumps the hormones (his and ours).

Maybe we are  just lucky. Or maybe the consensus among mainstream
childrearing manuals,  like T. Berry Brazeltonâ??s
<_http://www.safebeginnings.com/WebComponents/Catalog/Public/showproduct.asp?i
d=3_ 
(http://www.safebeginnings.com/WebComponents/Catalog/Public/showproduct.asp?id=3)
 >Touchpoints
is  right: nurturant-and-empathetic as opposed to strict
reward-and-punishment  childrearing works best.

My parents were religious people, who had  treated me in much the same
way Debi and I treated Rowan: with explanations  and choices, not
spanking. They believed there was an overriding authority â??  God. But
they thought we should all listen to God in silence to learn â??what  is
right, not who is rightâ??. In practice, this was not so different  from
our appeal to reason and mutual respect. It implied the parents  might
be wrong.

Still, Lacy feared that we were spoiling her  grandchild. She was a
lovely, warm woman. But she had a different view of  human â?? and child
â?? nature. She believed we had to train unquestioning  obedience into
our child. Her own daughters had been told they were to be  leaders in
the world, but they were discouraged from challenging their  fatherâ??s
decisions at home.

When Lacy looked after Rowan, then aged 2,  while we hunted for a new
hometown, she told us on the phone: â??Heâ??s so  reasonable! If you
explain, he understands!â?? He came on the phone. â??Little  pool? Little
pool?â?? he asked plaintively. He loved his grandparentsâ??  inflatable
paddling pool. We didnâ??t understand his distress. Later we  learned
that Lacy had thought he should move to the big swimming pool, so  she
had taken â??little poolâ?? away without explanation.

We were furious!  Mainly because of the arbitrary way she did it. And
right after admitting he  was such a reasonable child. She loved
Rowan, she sang songs with him and  danced with him, she kissed and
hugged him, she was a superb grandmother, but  she felt that a primary
thing was to learn obedience.

And she voted  Republican.

Now hold on! How did politics get into this?

Because a  current liberal guru says that the deepest differences
between conservatives  and liberals arise from our incompatible views
of human nature. George  Lakoff, in Moral Politics: how Liberals and
Conservatives think
(<_http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/bookstore/moralpolitics_ 
(http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/bookstore/moralpolitics) >2002),
argues  that these differences show up nowhere so strongly as in the
way we raise our  children. The way we do that then forms the basic
set of metaphors by which  we decide what is politically moral or
immoral.

Lakoff says the  â??strict fatherâ?? family system leads to the
unforgiving reward-and-punishment  politics of conservatism. The goal
is independence and strength, but the  result is a pathology: a
constituency that doesnâ??t want to empathise with the  poor and
oppressed, invest in social capital and nurturance, teach  rational
questioning, or see the successful man as embedded in nature  and
interdependent with others. To create an inclusive society of
rational  thinkers that is sustainable in nature, you need the
â??nurturant parentâ??  system.

Lakoff <_http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7747_ 
(http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7747) >argues  that
modern American politics arises from these parenting models. It is  an
idea that, my better-read friends tell me, interestingly parallels
the  argument of the French demographer
<_http://www.ined.fr/bdd/projrech/saisie/m_chercheur.php?idchercheur=131_ 
(http://www.ined.fr/bdd/projrech/saisie/m_chercheur.php?idchercheur=131) 
>Emmanuel
Todd  (in his book The Explanation of Ideology) about the relationship
between  family structure and political allegiance across Europe.

Raising a child  in America, I can believe that Lakoff is on to
something. My parents-in-law  came to appreciate that their daughter
was not out of her mind, their  grandson was turning into a fine young
man. Gutsy, loving, vital Lacy fell  prey to a neurological disease
that slowly weakened and killed her. Before  that took hold, she had
seemed to be acquiring new ideas from her two liberal  daughters.
Given more time, I think she would have understood how it could  be
that her offspring were OK, despite their following the wrong  rules,
and questioning what she held to be true.

Given enough time, I  think a good part of middle America will
discover which parenting style works  best to create independent,
thoughtful, loving, respectful adults. And that  will change American
politics. I think Lakoff may be
<_http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml_ 
(http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml) >right.
I  donâ??t know that thereâ??s a quicker way.

Sure, a charismatic candidate, a  rising liberal religious
<_http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15988_1.html_ 
(http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15988_1.html) >movement,  and
reaction at Republican excesses could swing an election or two to  the
Democrats. But a government truly based on respect,  inclusion,
nurturance, hearing the point of view of the poor and  marginalised:
that will take much, much more.


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: