That’s probably my favorite quote from this absolutely brilliant commentary by Tony Woodlief on “reality based parenting“.
Of course, everyone likes to read things that they agree with… so of course I love this!
There is MUCH WISDOM in this article and I’d recommend it to ANYONE.
- If your kids are grown and out of the house, you’ll read this and nod your head… because it was how you were raised.
- If your kids are crawling all over your house, you’ll be inspired and find that reality based parenting not only WORKS, but also maintains your sanity.
- If you don’t have kids yet… you should read this article, print it out, and refer to it often when your kids are born. I know you think you know how to raise kids… but trust me… you’ll be much better off if you just go “reality based” right from the start.
(I started to cut/paste some of my favorite parts from the commentary… but after cutting and pasting the first 4 paragraphs… I just decided to paste it all here and I’ll highlight some of my favorite parts.)
I love it more each time I read it.
Don’t Suffer the Little Children
A father of four explains the realist approach to parenting.
BY TONY WOODLIEF
Friday, September 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDTAnother school year has sprung itself upon us, which is always an occasion for my wife, a former Detroit public-school teacher, and me to remind ourselves why we home-school. Part of the reason, in addition to my wife’s expertise in this area, can be found in Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions,” published 20 years ago. Mr. Sowell contrasted the “unconstrained vision” of utopians, who want to radically improve humankind, with the “constrained vision” of realists, who begin with the proposition that man is inherently self-interested, and not moldable into whatever form the high-minded types have in store for us once they get their itchy fingers on the levers of power. Mr. Sowell’s book has been influential among conservatives for its compelling explanation of the divide between people who want to reshape us–often via large intrusions on liberty–and those who believe that the purpose of government is to protect institutions (like markets and families) that channel our inherent selfishness into productive behavior. It is also a handy guide for parenting.
While some mothers and fathers stubbornly cling to the utopian beliefs of their childless years, the vision of humans as inherently sinful and selfish resonates with many of us who are parents. Nobody who’s stood between a toddler and the last cookie should still harbor a belief in the inherent virtue of mankind. An afternoon at the playground is apt to make one toss out the idealist Rousseau (”man is a compassionate and sensible being”) in favor of the more realistic Hobbes (”all mankind [is in] a perpetual and restless desire for power”). As a father of four sons, I’ve signed on to Mr. Sowell’s summation of a parent’s duty: “Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.”
The constrained vision indicates that world harmony and universal satisfaction are mirages. People are innately selfish, and they’ll always desire more goodies. This means that tradeoffs between competing wants are inevitable. My wife and I therefore forbid our children to use the word “fair.” Parents still in the thrall of the unconstrained worldview are prone to manipulation by their kids, who like little human-rights lawyers insist on fairness as an imperative. And don’t get me started on the damage that an exaggerated sense of fairness and entitlement has done to public schools. In our house things are much simpler: That last piece of cake had to be divided somehow, and in this imperfect world your brother got the extra frosting. Deal with it.
While the unconstrained worldview teaches that traditions and customs are to be distrusted as holdovers from benighted generations, those of us with the constrained view believe it’s good to make our children address their elders properly, refrain from belching at the table and wear clothes that actually cover them. Mr. Sowell noted that some benefits from evolved societal rules can’t be articulated, because they’ve developed through trial and error over centuries. This reveals the sublime wisdom in that time-honored parental rejoinder: “Because I said so.”
It’s not surprising, then, to see Mr. Sowell approvingly cite Edmund Burke’s observation that traditions provide “wisdom without reflection.” This is lived out in our house by the dictum that parents are to be obeyed first, and politely questioned later. That seems oppressive to parents with the unconstrained worldview, who want to nurture Junior’s sense of autonomy and broad-minded reasoning. It’s awfully useful, however, when Junior is about to ride his bike into the path of an oncoming car. Obedience may be a dirty word in progressive schools and enlightened parenting circles, but it saves lives.
Mr. Sowell also notes that among those espousing the unconstrained view, intentions are pre-eminent; utopians are cooking up a better tomorrow, after all, and should be excused for breaking a few million eggs while making the human omelet. In our house, however, you are in big trouble if you push your brother into the pool, regardless of the sincerity behind your desire that he learn to swim without his floaties. Hiding an animal trap directly on the path Dad takes to get his morning paper is likewise unacceptable, no matter how badly you want to catch a critter. And while other parents cherish whatever art their little Monets create, we punish activities that incorporate Mom’s jewelry and Superglue, no matter how glittery the final product.
Many parents in the unconstrained camp adhere to Rousseau’s sentiment: “Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains.” They not only fail to punish bad behavior but snarl at anyone who rebukes their precious darlings. In our house we have reversed Rousseau’s theory: You are born in bondage and should be darn grateful for the free room and board. Besides, if you want to talk about restrictions on liberty you can take it up with your mother, who hasn’t had an uninterrupted trip to the bathroom since 2001.
I sometimes speak to groups of high-school and college students, and I have taken to disabusing them of the feel-good notion that they can do anything they want so long as they are passionate about it. Intentions, as Mr. Sowell observes, mean very little in the constrained worldview–and, besides, individuals are neither equal nor perfectible. This means that some of us will dig ditches for a living, especially if those certain someones, who know full well who I’m talking about, don’t stop shooting spitballs at their brothers and get back to their math workbooks. Firmly in the constrained camp, I’m less concerned that my children self-actualize at an early age than that they learn a trade and get out of the house.
As it turns out, this tension between realists and utopians has existed for at least as long as people have been making a buck dispensing wisdom about how other folks should raise their kids. Ann Hulbert’s “Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice about America” reveals successive generations of disciplinarians pitted against “gentler Rousseauian” proponents of the inherent goodness of a child’s nature. Ms. Hulbert quotes the president of the National Congress of Mothers proclaiming in 1897 that science-based parenting innovations would so change civilization that “those of us who live to see the year 1925 will behold a new world and a new people.” Fast forward past two world wars and the global ravages of utopian totalitarianism to 2006, when education expert Stephanie Marshall writes exuberantly that “the fundamental purpose of schooling is to liberate the goodness and genius of children.”
Perhaps the fundamental purpose of schooling should be to liberate parents from the necessity of supporting our kids well past our retirement years. But regardless, this notion that humans are inherently angelic, and that it is society that corrupts them, is at the heart of much bad parenting, as well as inept schooling. Rather than help our children develop internal constraints that channel their energy and passion into productive enterprises, we end up teaching them that limits and discipline are for chumps. Ms. Hulbert notes that even Dr. Benjamin Spock, whose advice in his book “Baby and Child Care” was so often blamed for parental permissiveness, had seen enough of the consequences: “I can hardly bear to be around rude children,” he wrote. “I have the impulse to spank them, and to give a lecture to their parents.”
And if you haven’t read Sowell… go to the library now and get started.
My parenting test cases… guitar, singing, drums, piano At Taroko in June 2007.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Michael Turton // Oct 10, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Neither the realist nor the utopian vision is correct (the latter is a fantasy construction of advocates of the former, while the former is simply a political mask for authoritarian domination of adults). The reality is that humans are natural cooperators (does anyone know of a human society where humans all live entirely alone and never interact with each other) and neither entirely angelic nor entirely self-interested.
There’s a good concise summary of the initial stages of research into what humans are in this excellent chapter in a handbook:
Neurocognitive adaptations designed for social exchange. Geoffery Miller’s The Mating Mind has an excellent discussion of how altruism and kindness arose in humans, while The Scientists in the Cradle offers an account of the cognitive changes in young children.
And BTW, that three year old demanding a cookie is not only engaging in a very complex social exchange, but is learning what cooperation means in his culture, which is what he is supposed to be doing. Assuming that because children are self-centered, adults must be self-centered, is like assuming that because children are short with proportionally bigger heads, adults must be short with proportionally bigger head. No one would make the latter assumption, so why would they make the former? The answer is, of course, because that position appeals to the underlying authoritarianism driven by clueless folk psychological positions like Sowell’s. It’s fascinating how people who like to write on what human nature is never both to consult the work of those scientists who focus on just that issue….
Michael
2 Michael Turton // Oct 10, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I should add that Sowell’s crowd does a nasty little rhetorical trick: they get their readers to accept “selfish” as a synonym for “self-interested,” a dirty trick that is entirely wrong.
Michael
3 SQJTaipei // Oct 11, 2007 at 2:06 am
I’m surprised that this is the first comment on this post… I don’t have many readers… but most of the readers have kids and I figured this would bring out some comments. Fortunately… the quality of Michael’s comment makes up for any lack of quantity.
I’m going with BOTH/AND on the “selfish” and “self-interested” issue… if it is even an issue. Are you really saying that kids aren’t usually/generally selfish? If so… wow!
And if the realist vision is “a political mask for authoritarian domination of adults” then I’m going to say “fine” and just keep pulling that mask on every single day because it is EXTREMELY important to me that my kids realize that they have ZERO authority over me. Until they learn that my actions regarding their training have their best interests at heart, they’ll find very little success in any test of wills against me. Fortunately, humans are ridiculously intelligent and kids learn quickly in most cases… and especially fast if they learn to remain in what has been called, “The Circle of Safety”… the area over which a loving parent has the authority to protect them from harmful influences. Authority without love can be very dangerous for the child… certainly.
Is my approach “authoritarian”? Whatever…
I think the proper word is “responsible” or possibly “successful”… maybe “time tested” or “effective”… but if you think it is “authoritarian” I say… cool. There is no person or entity or government, etc that has more authority over my kids than me. Time passes so quickly and our kids live with us only a short time… we are their #1 best chance for learning how to realize their potential.
This particular article I posted addresses one aspect of the training of children… the issue of fairness. While the realist vision of parenting has proven valuable to my wife and I and also to my children on countless occasions and in many settings… its application to fairness is especially good, IMO. I teach my kids of the nearly unlimited potential in themselves and in humanity, but to also teach them that life often isn’t fair is an equally priceless gift.
About the link Michael gave… I’m not yet sure I see the relevancy to a parental approach to fairness. I haven’t read all the way through it yet, but what I’ve read so far hasn’t been anything new to me nor would it be to most parents. I laughed out loud about the part where they mention that kids as early as 3 or 4 years of age have a sophisticated “BS detector” [my label]. The actual quote on page 587 is:
Any parent that doesn’t realize that their 2 year old is not TOTALLY on to them is in for a LONG ROAD. I can’t believe that there are studies for things like that which are so obvious… but it is always fun to have research that agrees with reality (and me). Although research that disagrees with reality is often more fun…
I’ll certainly keep reading as I’m always on the lookout for ways that will give my wife and I an edge now that the kids have numbers on us and are learning how to better use that advantage!
Plus… anthropological study is almost always worthwhile IMO.
And finally… I’ll gladly count myself as one in “Sowell’s crowd”. Whether it be his books or opinion columns… he is full of scholarly wisdom at every turn. An American treasure IMO.
4 Michael Turton // Oct 11, 2007 at 6:54 am
The point of view that people are depraved and selfish and in need of controlling discipline that underlies views like Sowell’s is inherently one of control, Scott. That’s why it is a recipe for authoritarian politics.
The paper link I gave you goes into some length discussing the adaptations humans have for social exchange. If humans are inherently selfish, why do they engage in social exchange? Humans are self-interested, certainly, but that is not the same as “selfish.”
++++Any parent that doesn’t realize that their 2 year old is not TOTALLY on to them is in for a LONG ROAD.
++++
LOL, for sure.
++++
I can’t believe that there are studies for things like that which are so obvious
++++
Unfortunately it’s non-obvious. Hence points of view like Sowell’s.
Michael
5 Michael Turton // Oct 11, 2007 at 6:56 am
PS, it’s not a BS detector but a cheat detector that kids have. It detects cheating in social exchanges.
Michael
6 sqjtaipei // Oct 11, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I don’t see anything from Sowell that contradicts the article that Michael linked to. Maybe I haven’t read enough yet. Just that children are born selfish doesn’t mean that they don’t change. The article I posted which mentioned Sowell’s book as well as my own experience would also agree that children can change, and that they will adjust most quickly by learning as soon as possible that the world isn’t fair. Learning that the world isn’t fair also includes helping make children aware that they’ve been born into an EXTREMELY advantageous situation compared to the rest of the world. It goes both ways when trying to help kids understand this concept of fairness.
Kids are resilient and will most likely learn this at some point in life even if the parents are of the “utopian” persuasion. This particular article is excellent advice for parents who have more than one child and find themselves spending time trying to make everything “fair”. My kids are learning that our answers to their requests and the other things we decide for them (allowance, bedtimes, chores, etc) come from our interest in doing what is best for them and our wisdom exceeds theirs by multiple factors. Are we faultless? Nah… never said that and never would or could. Sometimes we even have to go and apologize to one of our kids because we screwed up. Its all part of good parenting… not sure what politics has to do with it. And in fact, Sowell’s political views (I think) and mine (I know) are the opposite of “authoritarian”. The quicker my kids can learn how the world works, the more I trust them and the more freedom they are given. Just because I am responsible for them and have authority over them doesn’t mean that I would support any sort of “authoritarian politics”.
Humans engage in social exchange because it is mutually beneficial in most cases. Even selfish people benefit from social exchange because it is easy to find people to manipulate and they come out ahead. On the other end… even completely unselfish people will still engage in social exchange for altruistic reasons although they usually won’t allow themselves to be walked on. But most people are in the middle of that spectrum and social exchange works because humans are social by nature and it is mutually beneficial.
7 Youth Mission Trips // May 13, 2008 at 9:42 pm
[...] Woodlief has a blog (Sand in the Gears) and he writes at World on the Web. I linked him before in this post and I always find his opinions thought [...]
Leave a Comment