< Wspomóż Petroskowo
>
When European settler colonists first encountered the indigenous communities of northeastern North America, many things surprised them about the indigenous communities.
Among these, the Europeans were surprised to discover how restrained and personally responsible the people in these communities were. They very, very rarely engaged in interpersonal violence. They didn’t insult each other; they didn’t lose their tempers around each other.
The Europeans were also surprised to discover that the people in these communities rarely, if ever, disciplined their children. They were, the Europeans believed, impossibly indulgent with their children, allowing them immense personal freedom.
I think it would surprise many contemporary readers that those two things don’t conflict with each other. People living in contemporary state-capitalist modernity tend to assume that children require quite rigid discipline, the routinized order of mass schooling, and fairly constant coercion to keep them out of trouble and turn them into civilized, responsible adults.
It turns out that lots of things we assume to be self-evidently true are not actually true at all.
8Petros [Atlas Unshrugged]_ reshared this.
HeavenlyPossum
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •It’s a baked-in, unquestioned assumption in hegemonic contemporary society that there’s this whole class of people who intrinsically can’t make decisions for themselves and self-evidently must be coercively managed as a result, and meanwhile there are entire societies in which adults don’t even *raise their voices* at children because why would it be ok to shout at people in anger?
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/03/13/685533353/a-playful-way-to-teach-kids-to-control-their-anger
HeavenlyPossum
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •“But children don’t know better and have to be forced to do things for their own good”
This logic has also been used to control and abuse women, the disabled, and members of minority communities *in our own contemporary society.* It has been employed to justify the enslavement of Black people and genocidal assimilationist policies for indigenous peoples. Whose good is it really for?
HeavenlyPossum
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •I suspect that the vast majority of behaviors parents feel compelled to impose on their children—“I don’t believe in domination but I can’t have my kid doing xyz”—are not at all about the well-being of their child but rather about conforming to the constraints that capitalist modernity imposes on us.
I have to be at work by a certain time set autocratically by my employer, so I have to get my kid to bed at a certain time so *I* can get enough sleep to get to work, or risk losing access to the revenue I need to keep me and my kid alive. The school will impose fines on me and potentially deploy armed truancy police if my kids arrive at school after a time set by bureaucrats who are only superficially responsive to public preferences.
This is one trivial example. It’s worth reflecting on other ways you behave towards children, which believe yourself compelled by responsibility but are actually compelled by authoritarian structures imposed on us from above.
Licho
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •HeavenlyPossum
in reply to Licho • • •@licho
It’s not really coercive to take action to protect someone who has no control over themselves. If an adult were to sleepwalk towards a cliff, I wouldn’t consider it authoritarian to interpose myself between them and the cliff to stop them from dying.
Licho
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •HeliosPi
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •I agree, but if there wasn't a screen time limit then they'd watch youtube all day. A rule to clean up after themselves generally. To clean for 15 minutes and read for 20 minutes most days. They can stay up late on Fridays, but not on school days. etc. etc.
I understand some of these rules involve coercion by restricting privileges and by giving rewards, and involves a power imbalance between parent and kid. But without these rules they wouldn't contribute to household cleanliness , they'd rarely read, they'd mess up others' spaces, they wouldn't go outside to play with neighbors because they'd be watching minecraft videos on yt instead, and they'd be late for school and interfere with others morning routines.
I don't see a way around these rules, since for example the screen time limit rule occurred because of excess before there was a limit. The general clean rule occurred because they would dirty the computer area and tangle cords and leave it that way and leave color pencils all over the floor, etc. So if they didn't clean up afterwards then they wouldn't be able t
... pokaż więcejI agree, but if there wasn't a screen time limit then they'd watch youtube all day. A rule to clean up after themselves generally. To clean for 15 minutes and read for 20 minutes most days. They can stay up late on Fridays, but not on school days. etc. etc.
I understand some of these rules involve coercion by restricting privileges and by giving rewards, and involves a power imbalance between parent and kid. But without these rules they wouldn't contribute to household cleanliness , they'd rarely read, they'd mess up others' spaces, they wouldn't go outside to play with neighbors because they'd be watching minecraft videos on yt instead, and they'd be late for school and interfere with others morning routines.
I don't see a way around these rules, since for example the screen time limit rule occurred because of excess before there was a limit. The general clean rule occurred because they would dirty the computer area and tangle cords and leave it that way and leave color pencils all over the floor, etc. So if they didn't clean up afterwards then they wouldn't be able to use that for a bit.
HeavenlyPossum
in reply to HeliosPi • • •@HeliosPi
And yet there were and are societies that didn’t use rules like these and those children did do things like contribute and mature into responsible adults.
HeliosPi
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •Sure, but realizing this doesn't point to how to do this. For me growing up there was no tv so naturally i read books and played outside. Is the absence of a choice better than choices with limits (or choices without limits -- and just hope they make the correct choices)?
People set reasonable boundaries involving their space and body. Similarly plenty of libertarian spaces set conditions for being in that space. Other societies have restricted spaces based off of identity or what-have-you.
For some where the chief leads by personal charisma, by talking, and people are free to disobey, if someone acts out of line of social acceptability instead of people intervening they say "the gods will deal with them". At the same time many of these societies include outliers because during times of crisis they may rely on them to come up with unorthodox solutions.
HeliosPi
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •If someone borrows something then when they return it and its all messed up, and that keeps occurring, there's no obligation to continue to lend it. Obviously a parent to kid relationship is different for most things, especially since the kid probably doesn't have as much access to things as the adult does. But I'm regards to using my space and not respecting that space i can restrict their access to it. But to be fair they should have agency over their own space too. They share a room so at least they have a corner that's their own.
I wonder how something like a library economy would alter these kinds of dynamics involving the possession and sharing of things?
Concerning fair upkeep of the home, besides a reward system for contributing (is that coercion -- a la the carrot?), if the kid refuses to help with chores that's not fair for everyone else there. Not sure how that conflict would be resolved. In another society maybe there'd be other viable places they could go to, or maybe people wouldn't mind picking up their slack?
For me if they choose not to do a bar
... pokaż więcejIf someone borrows something then when they return it and its all messed up, and that keeps occurring, there's no obligation to continue to lend it. Obviously a parent to kid relationship is different for most things, especially since the kid probably doesn't have as much access to things as the adult does. But I'm regards to using my space and not respecting that space i can restrict their access to it. But to be fair they should have agency over their own space too. They share a room so at least they have a corner that's their own.
I wonder how something like a library economy would alter these kinds of dynamics involving the possession and sharing of things?
Concerning fair upkeep of the home, besides a reward system for contributing (is that coercion -- a la the carrot?), if the kid refuses to help with chores that's not fair for everyone else there. Not sure how that conflict would be resolved. In another society maybe there'd be other viable places they could go to, or maybe people wouldn't mind picking up their slack?
For me if they choose not to do a bare minimum of cleaning up then they can't sit around and watch tv. Obviously that involves me having power over them to be able to take away that privilege... But just sitting around while others in the house clean up (& clean up the person's mess who is just sitting around staring at a screen) is pretty messed up from my perspective.
I certainly wouldn't want that dynamic with a roommate if i had to keep cleaning up their mess if i wanted to live in a decently clean home. With a roommate consistently negligent like that for a long time and unresponsive to dialogue, if i had a choice i wouldn't live with them anymore. Its different with a kid because i care and love them unconditionally and have their well-being at heart even before my own well-being. Making that comparison puts that dynamic in an interesting perspective, but doesn't justify punishment, since with an adult roommate i wouldn't punish them for their negligence, why would that be okay for a child instead. Its an unresolved contradiction seemingly.
Thanks for the attention and no worries if not.
HeavenlyPossum
in reply to HeliosPi • • •@HeliosPi
What would you do if you had an adult roommate who told you that you weren’t doing enough around the house and took your stuff (say, your wallet, keys, and phone), withholding it until you complied with their demands?
Also your roommate is an MMA fighter and you couldn’t possibly hope to physically retrieve your stuff.
HeliosPi
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •This context is distressing. A similar comparison would be a parent taking their child's piggybank away and restricting their movement and access to their home. Their necessities aren't being withheld like this hypothetical with wallet, keys.
I guess i would engage in this order:
1. dialogue / conflict resolution
2. sneak it
3. call for help
4. change the locks / replace the wallet & disengage maybe forever
HeavenlyPossum
in reply to HeliosPi • • •@HeliosPi
The context is “what it’s like for a child to have a parent seize the child’s belongings and be physically able to overpower the child at will.”
Corvid Crone
in reply to HeliosPi • • •@HeliosPi
You might find this article interesting:
https://anarchism.pageabode.com/book/j-6-what-methods-of-child-rearing-do-anarchists-advocate/
J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate? – Anarchist Writers
anarchism.pageabode.comHeliosPi
in reply to Corvid Crone • • •@CorvidCrone Thanks for the link to the anarchist parenting lit.
I understand the point, such as how would you like it if the same (or similar) was done to you? Just the insinuation is disturbing since there's a weighing of whether the child can overpower violently the parent or not. But really i don't think that's as clear cut, depending on the parent.
HeavenlyPossum
in reply to HeliosPi • • •@HeliosPi @CorvidCrone
“Just the insinuation is disturbing since there's a weighing of whether the child can overpower violently the parent or not.”
This is how you can take things away from your child against their will.
HeliosPi
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •Another reason they continue to participate may be because of caring for them. (Graeber's Bullshit Jobs.) People doing care work and in lower positions of a hierarchy have to expect their superiors' motives, and so therefore care for them by trying to see things from their perspective. No doubt that dynamic is way significantly more pronounced between a parent and child.
Really i don't think it's the possibility of violence at root of many parents' authority, instead its the kids' dependance. I know some parents punish their kids with spankings and worse causing great trauma. I would never harm my child purposefully so i dislike the incinuation that i would.
HeavenlyPossum
in reply to HeliosPi • • •@HeliosPi
Withholding care from a dependent child is a form of violence that those children cannot escape because, again, you’re vastly stronger than them and your authority over them is endorsed and supported by other adults who are also vastly stronger than them.
This is implicit in every relationship of such disproportionate power. It takes active work to *deny* any space for violence. “I’ll take this away from you if you don’t do as I say” is no less violent when a parent does it than when your hypothetical MMA roommate does it.
HeliosPi
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •Negligence is harmful for sure. Just the MMA fighter example would be more apt if they withheld a laptop or the controller to the tv or something like that because necessities aren't being withheld to coerce a behavior change or punish for an action.
A kids dependency on their parent is definitely material means, but also more such as need for comfort, guidance, belonging, validation, care work like that which is important for their general well-being. Because of caring for their parent they're more inclined to participate despite whether there's a power imbalance or not, y'know?
From your point that highlights why kids should have better support networks and options to escape to another safe place if need be. Everyone should develop an emergency plan with family, friends, and neighbors if they haven't already. Expanding the plan to include alternatives for kids is even better.
Earlier i was also trying to make the point that in some cases the parent isn't more capable physically so that's not the reason why their child listens to their authority. Irregardless it
... pokaż więcejNegligence is harmful for sure. Just the MMA fighter example would be more apt if they withheld a laptop or the controller to the tv or something like that because necessities aren't being withheld to coerce a behavior change or punish for an action.
A kids dependency on their parent is definitely material means, but also more such as need for comfort, guidance, belonging, validation, care work like that which is important for their general well-being. Because of caring for their parent they're more inclined to participate despite whether there's a power imbalance or not, y'know?
From your point that highlights why kids should have better support networks and options to escape to another safe place if need be. Everyone should develop an emergency plan with family, friends, and neighbors if they haven't already. Expanding the plan to include alternatives for kids is even better.
Earlier i was also trying to make the point that in some cases the parent isn't more capable physically so that's not the reason why their child listens to their authority. Irregardless it would never get to that point of conflict in a somewhat healthy relationship because of not wanting to ever cause any harm.
It's not "do as I say", its "this is the reason why you shouldn't do this". The difference between arbitrary authority and authority with more basis. Much like how a chief leads by charisma and reason rather than any authoritarian means of enforcement.
Corvid Crone
in reply to HeliosPi • • •I am a little confused. Why are we assuming violence is necessary?
Lena 🝖
in reply to HeavenlyPossum • • •Ostrzeżenie o treści: renote: politics, settler colonialism, disciplining children
Renote with added content warnings, see above or https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/112342445468099534.
HeavenlyPossum
2024-04-27 09:21:18