Jun 16 2009
The erosion of the parent-child relationship
Charlotte Mason Musings: Vol. 1 pp4-8
Parents do well to love their children, realising that they are “a complete human being like themselves, with affections, desires, powers,” and when they grow and shape their own course, “the parents’ chief care is, that that which they supply shall be wholesome and nourishing, whether in the way of picture books, lessons, playmates, bread and milk, or mother’s love.”
This letting children alone, to develop according to their own nature, can be good and certainly not harmful, but does not cover “the serious part of the parents’ calling; does not touch the strenuous incessant efforts upon lines of law which go to the producing of a human being at his best.”
It is necessary for parents to concern themselves with the question of a child’s education. Not just ‘getting them into a good school’, but – is this RIGHT? What exactly are they being taught? Who decides? What are their aims or end goals? Do I agree – is this what I consider important for my children? They are your children. Do NOT hand them over unless you are certain that their educational establishment 1) has the same goals for your children that you do; 2) is capable of seeing these goals achieved; and 3) you are positive that you could not do a better job yourself.
Charlotte Mason lists some of the changes in child-raising that she has seen in her own time. Corporal punishment (“whether rightly or wrongly”) is “pretty generally disallowed”. The food offered to children has improved, as has concern for their general wellbeing. These are perhaps welcome and beneficial changes, which goes towards seeing children as ‘people’, but Miss Mason then goes on to describe what, still today, might be considered the problem of “child worship”:
“That children should do as they are bid, mind their books, and take pleasure as it offers when nothing stands in the way, sums up the old theory; now, the pleasures of children are apt to be made more account than their duties.Formerly, they were brought up in subjection; now, the elders give place, and the world is made for the children.
English people rarely go so far as the parents of that story in French Home Life, who arrived an hour late at a dinner party, because they had been desired by their girl of three to undress and go to bed when she did, and were able to steal away only when the child was asleep. We do not go so far, but that is the direction in which we are now moving; and how far the new theories of education are wise and humane, the outcome of more widely spread physiological and psychological knowledge, and how far they just pander to child worship to which we are all succumbing, is not a question to be decided off hand.”
How far does our state educational system these days pander to child worship? Or at least, how far is it responsible for, or upholding, the disintegration of the relationship between parents and children that we see in society today?
In September 2008 a new secondary curriculum was introduced. A cursory glance tells me that two subjects have been included since I was at school: citizenship, and personal, social and health education. Pupils should be taught in these subjects (among other things): what is right and wrong; what is fair and unfair; personal hygiene; road safety; to respect others; that bullying is wrong.
What changes have taken place in our country that mean that it is now necessary that these subjects be taught in schools? Are parents no longer inclined, able, or trusted to teach their children personal hygiene and road safety, let alone right from wrong?
I think we have succumbed to ‘child worship’ (not to be confused with children’s rights) in the constant erosion of the parent’s position of authority over the child. Words like authority, obedience and discipline are not a huge part of our society’s repertoire when it comes to the Parent-Child relationship. But they are absolutely key, as Charlotte points out in principle no.3:
“The principles of authority on the one hand and obedience on the other, are natural, necessary and fundamental…”
She also adds a ‘but’ onto the end of that sentence, to make sure that it is not read in isolation from her next principle:
“These principles are limited by the respect due to the personality of children, which must not be encroached upon, whether by fear or love, suggestion or influence, or undue play upon any one natural desire.”
Authority with respect… and then maybe parents would be have the tools to be able to teach their own children right from wrong.
