From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 21:20:22 BST
Walter, Platt, Steve and all:
Platt said:
"Don't let your kids suffer. Wack the unruly ones."
Steve agreed:
I also think that physical punishment can be effectively used. If one
applies the MOQ levels... A young child who is not very socially developed
will respond to biological value, i.e, physical pleasure and pain. Later
the child may best be influenced through social value, i.e, celebrity and
shame, and only much later can they respond to the intellectual value of a
reasoned argument...
dmb says:
We don't disagree about the levels here, but we draw different conclusions
from them. As I said the first time, "Pirsig is NOT saying we ought to beat
our children. There are many forms of discipline, including physical
restraint, that are effective but do not resort to violence." The levels
work like a compass, they orient us as to the general direction of things,
but we have to add our particular experiences and culture to that equation.
This is why I mentioned "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social
Cognition", which was published not too long ago in the journal of the
American Psychology Association, "Psychological Bulletin". Its not just a
new study. Its a survey and a synthesis of 50 years worth of studies. I
think that's hard to dismiss such a huge pile of data insofar as it
represents a huge pile of experience AND links that with specific political
figures and movements. Obviously, I don't share Walter's distrust of the
"experts".
Anyway, one of the first and best studies on this topic (THE AUTHORITARIAN
PERSONALITY, Adorno et al., 1950.) sought to explain the rise of Fascism
throughout Europe in the '30s and '40s. The authors of that early work
"proposed that harsh PARENTING styles...led entire generations to repress
hostility toward authority figures and to replace it with an exaggerated
deference and idealization of authority and tendencies to blame societal
scapegoats and punish deviants. The theory of authoritarianism holds that
fear and agressiveness resulting from PARENTAL punitiveness motivate
individuals to seek predictability and control in their enviroments." The
studies since then are many. The paper includes five and a half pages of
source references. If you want to dismiss 50 years of pyschological
investigation into the matter or just don't have the time to read the paper,
we can just talk about it in Pirsigian terms. But I think the paper contains
info that only helps us use the levels better.
One of the interesting points made in Lila on this topic is how parenting
styles of the intellectuals of the 20's and 30's differed from that of the
Victorians. They seemed to take opposite sides, but Pirsig was careful to
point out that what he thought was really going on was a shift from European
social values to Indian social values. Not that every native was kind to
children or that every white parent was harsh or cruel, but as a general
rule that was true. I mean, how long has Europe honored that old
spare-the-rod style of parenting? And to take it a bit further. I think we
can see that both methods are aimed at socializing the child. They both work
to transmit the culture and thereby mollify and modify the biological level.
The differences in parenting sytles are effectively a reflection of those
two different cultures. The European culture putting the emphasis on order
and hierarchy and the Native American culture putting the emphais on freedom
and individuality. My head is swimming with all the inter-related points,
not to mention that movies Cowboys were basically Indians in disguise and
hardly demonstrated European values and that Cowboy attitudes don't work
very well in dense urban areas or in U.S. foreign policy, but I think you
can probably see what I'm saying already.
I'm saying that its not so simple. We ought view the relationship between
the biological and social levels in a way that includes what we know from
experience and history. I mean, its just not appropriate to treat children
as if they were criminals or enemy soldiers. Cops and armies are essential
to hold society together, but they don't raise our children. And if my three
and a half year old son is anything like your kids, then you know that one
of the major tasks as a parent is to teach those little creatures to stop
hitting and biting each other. (My boy has come home with teeth marks on his
arm more than once.) If we "wack" kids for hitting aren't we just teaching
them to be hypocritical and violent? Yes, we're transmitting certain
cultural values when we do that. When this practice is extreme and
widespread, the result has been fascism. Its no accident that Stalin, Hitler
and Mao all had brutal fathers. As the paper's fourth footnote says...
"The clearest example seems to be Stalin, who secrectly admired Hilter and
identified with severl right-wing causes (including anti-Semitism). In the
Soviet context, Stalin was almost certainly to the right of his political
rivals, most notably Trotsky. In terms of his psychological make up as well,
Stalin appears to have had much in common with right-wing extremists. (see
e.g. Bert, 1993; Bullock, 1993; Robbins and Post, 1997)"
Spanks for your time,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 27 2003 - 21:19:43 BST