From reading Bettelheim's take on how to raise a child, I better understand why the world is in the shape it is in. His argument is that everyone is born inherently bad, that our id strives to do wrong by others by only concerning ourselves with our own selfish desires. Also, that it would be wrong to bring out and become better aquanted with that part of us. He seems to argue that it would be damaging for children (and therefore the adults that they become) if we don't assure them that they are the only one's with evil desires in society. We should promote that to children - it's normal. Besides, life isn't a Disney version of a fairy tale, it's more like a French peasant's version. I could not disagree with his methods more.
I fully believe the world is not a happy go lucky place; unfortunately, I am sure that we could all easily name hundreds of counter examples of that even in our own life experiences. But since children will one day realize this fact, should we take away the time of peaceful bliss they can enjoy before being knocked down in life. Should the child never be taught to hope and strive to do good for the world and improve it's situation instead of succumb to the evils, accept them as normal and just have to live in fear of pain and disappointment. I think we can all recall the joys of recess (and wish we still had nap time too). Well, since that doesn't happen out in the working world, should children not be allowed to experience those joys ever. It may seem that I am going off on a tangent and focusing on extremes, but that is kind of my point.
At what point should we throw up our hands and totally stop trying as a society? "Well, we are never going to achieve perfection, bad things have happened in the past and we won't be able to stop them in the future, why not participate to fulfill my own desires without consequence..." I wasn't born afraid of monsters. I acquired a fear of monsters after learning about them, and honestly that fear has increased over the years due to further exposure to movies, tv shows, and even news articles about the monsters and twisted imaginations in our own society. I'm glad there was a time I didn't have to be sad or afraid of the evils of society. Children learn from what is around them, what they see, hear and experience. I don't think society as a whole, or individual children would be worse off for not getting to see the dark side winning out.
When I see a horror movie I think, "wow, that is what came out of one person's mind and it was gruesome and ugly and not beneficial for society to see because while that may have come to one person or several scattered, unconnected people as an original idea, now that it is public knowledge it is the starting point for the next gruesome murder scene, etc. It has placed that idea in someone's head and they are going to continue it, expand on it, and carry it out. The horror's of their actions may have never taken place had they not experienced the sensationalism of murder." I agree with an earlier post, if the bad guys win, more people want to be bad guys; and if the good guys win, more people want to be good guys.
I think we should raise our children to want to be one of the good guys in society, protect them, but allow them to grow with time. As Vandy scholars I think we may take this study too seriously and get lost in the details. We are discussing these horrible urges children have and their conclusions about their own self worth in society, etc. Realistically I think it is important to remember that at a young age, children still see the world in terms of good guys and bad guys, not complex characters with various background experiences and motives, etc. I think Bettelheim needs to lighten up and not dismiss the real the problems children deal with (abuse, neglect, depression, etc.), but also not to fuel those thoughts. Try cheering them up and giving them hope of a better world instead of reenforcing the idea that the world is and will always be bad.
As for Darnton, I believe he is on the right track to understanding (in all of his adult wisdom) that societies are complex and that their forms of entertainment may be able to reveal a good bit about them and should be considered a tool for understanding them on a more complete and complex level. I also agree with him that the psychiatrists of today are picking and choosing what to consider relavant and what the symbolism may reveal. I feel that a lot of symbolism is intentional very broad to allow for wide interpretation - which means that there may not be a correct answer, which may be because it was never originally intended to mean anything that they wanted it to mean. I generally agreed with him, so this is about it. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In response to your argument you provide persuasive reasoning for the promotion of happy fairytales where the good guys win and therefore become the primary role models for children. From a philosophical point of view you adequately argue for a society in which the members are raised to achieve their full moral potential. The censorship of material available to children shapes a population. I believe that your argument follows the belief that by allowing children to know only good will lead them to more likely become doers of good and with this I agree. Nevertheless, the potential for evil still exists but to a lesser extent because the models for evil are less prevalent, at least in the literature available to children. I support your argument for the censorship of tales that teach evil to children although I am conscious of my own bias because these are the very kinds of tale, which I was raised upon myself.
ReplyDeleteComplete support of happily ending fairytale over realistic ones provides a problem from an anthropological point of view. There is no way that anyone can prove that one type of tale is better suited than the other in raising children. Especially if the basic elements of a fairytale are in place within both version and are able to strike children in the particular way that fairytales do then there really cannot be an answer to whether one is better than the other. A fairytale where the hero dies may be sad for the child but nonetheless turns the hero into a martyr. Whether the hero of a fairytale lives or dies at the end does not detract from the fact the he (intentional generalization) was a hero. What I am saying is that what is important is that the basic elements of a fairytale are in place, not whether or not there is a happy or sad ending. We do not have adequate evidence to show that telling happy ending necessarily benefit children more than other types of fairytales. The censorship of stores seems to be a product of an adult fear of exposing children to the evils that they have already taken part in.