[lit-ideas] Back to parenting and politics
- From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:17:36 EST
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:
