What if early education (/child abuse) could explain wars and crime... Or, the moral case for radical unschooling

[Tuur Demeester]

Hello everyone! 

Here is a challenging thought: what if the occurrence of wars (which hinges upon the willingness of men in their early twenties to take up a gun and kill people) could be traced back to violence experienced during childhood? What if dictators and obedient followers were simply grown ups who have never processed and confronted themselves with the abuse that was inflicted upon them in their childhood? What if criminals were without exception people who, as a child, grew up in an environment where good and bad were whimsical toys in the hands of their  abusive educators?

The above position is the one taken by a number of psychologist-historians, in a field called psychohistory.
Here is an interview with Lloyd deMause, one of the main figures in psychohistory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgtRAYfroTQ

Here is the institute for psychohistory: www.psychohistory.com

Now if wars, criminality and violence are a direct product of the early education of children, the starling conclusion must be that the use of force and the psychological manipulation of children (for example through "kindness") are not simply part of the parental repertoire of child rearing methods, but on the contrary, that these methods must be most strongly condemned as being immoral, wrong, and with devastating consequences. This would leave open only radical unschooling and sudbury education as options for responsible parents.

What do you think?

Tuur 

[Andrey Fedorov]

That's quite a leap to "only radical unschooling and sudbury education are options". I don't think it's at all justified.

- Andrey

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Discuss Sudbury Model" group.
Discuss-sudbury-model is a publicly archived mailing list with many subscribers; be careful about what you choose to send!
The rules for the list are available at http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model/web/basic-rules-for-the-list
To post to this group, send email to
discuss-su...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
discuss-sudbury-...@googlegroups.com
Others can subscribe at http://www.sudval.org/07_othe_02.html
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model?hl=en

[Karen Hyams]

Tuur, that is a very big "What if?". It seems to me that there are plenty of good arguments to be made for avoiding manipulating children while raising them, without dragging psychohistory into the mix. I can just hear the laughter of people now, as they stop listening to me entirely. (Specific, particular people.) It is a very squishy 'science'. If you are talking to people who are willing to accept psychohistory as a basis for making parenting choices, they probably already know about all sorts of alternative schooling.

Karen Hyams

[Chelsea Gowen-Grossman]

I dont think most soldiers enroll in the army because they are eager to shoot someone. and I think it's in pretty poor taste to assume that almost everyone in the world is an abuse victim.  As it trivializes the trauma that real child abuse victims must endure.  

"Psychohistory" appears to be very low quality science.  (It's questionable to even it call it science)   If you're interested in a higher quality field of research to read, there are many anthropologic studies that look upon humans tendency towards violence.

[Mike South]

There are certain things that can be observed, though--a school classroom, usually, is a dictatorship.  (You ask permission TO PEE.  How much more control can you have over someone than that?)  And just because you lived though one doesn't mean you recognize(d) it then and/or now for what it was/is.  

So I think merely pointing the fact out, and asking the question of whether spending most of your waking hours from 5-18 in a dictatorship might affect people.  

Would it condition them to accept what "the authorities" tell you?  Would it make you, the jury member, more likely to follow the instructions of a judge, instead of making your own decision when nullification of a bad law is clearly called for?  Would it make you, the consumer of media, more likely to accept what the authoritative sounding voice on the TV news tells you instead of questioning it for yourself?  Might it increase the pool of people that would follow any order whatsoever?  Might it make us more accepting of the idea of using force to get our way, having been subjected to force so regularly for so long?

mike

[Mike South]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Chelsea Gowen-Grossman <morning...@gmail.com> wrote:

I dont think most soldiers enroll in the army because they are eager to shoot someone. and I think it's in pretty poor taste to assume that almost everyone in the world is an abuse victim.  As it trivializes the trauma that real child abuse victims must endure.  

Although I can see your point, I think we need to be careful not to set up a sort of "victim reverence code" that causes us to fail to recognize abuse as abuse.  If it's abuse it should be called that.  I think people will understand from the context that you don't mean that it's at the same level. 

There are compelling (albeit unpleasantly so) similarities between the results of forced education and the results of physical/emotional abuse.  I have an essay on that from a couple years back here:

http://www.leftoverpi.com/blog/2007/06/math_rape.html 

(and it does, by the way, address the fact that rape per se is horrific by comparison).  If the comparison has a chance of giving people pause before blindly perpetuating the status quo, it's worth making, uncomfortable though it might be to do so.

mike

[Chelsea Gowen-Grossman]

I am not trying to create guidelines for what is and what isn't child abuse.  I am trying to defend the trivialization of victims experiences. 

[Karen Hyams]

I agree that most children attend schools that are very authoritarian and do not promote independent thought, and that this has a large, negative impact on our society as a whole. But that is a far cry from the assertions made in Tuur's post, and in the psychohistory web sites' texts that I read.

I want to support Chelsea's statement that most soldiers do not enlist because they want to shoot and kill people. You may not understand their reasons for joining the military, but it is disrespectful (at best) to be so disparaging of their motives. On a personal level I don't understand it, either, but I would not want to completely dismiss a person's choices because someone who has never met them has "put them on the couch" and declared them to be a victim of their cultural history. (The phrase comes straight from a web site.)

Karen

[Tuur Demeester]

That's quite a leap to "only radical unschooling and sudbury education are options". I don't think it's at all justified.

- Andrey

Could you elaborate on that? 

Tuur 

--
+32 472 28 06 63
www.rothbard.be

--

BTW-BE-0887.182.586
Rek.Nr. 651-1394868-14
IBAN: BE94 6511 3948 6814
BIC: KEYTBEB1

[Tuur Demeester]

Hi Karen,

It is a very big "What if?" indeed. It seems obvious to everyone that a very well-raised kid will become an honest, fair, and generally respectful adult, with a healthy aversion towards aggressive, criminal and destructive behavior. But to argue the other side, that raising children badly creates criminals, is very controversial. I think that is so because it imposes a great and confronting responsibility on the parents.

Now I'm not at all claiming that this argument is the best "sales argument" out there for promoting the sudbury ideas, but I'm just genuinely curious if it is at all valid. I mean, is it really that simple?

Sometimes I hear talking about sudbury schools as being a force of cultural change. Maybe they have been thinking too little of themselves? Maybe they are, in a very real way, bringing peace in the world?

Tuur

[Sarah Raske]

I doubt it very much considering there were wars long before modern schooling.  Perhaps not dictators but definitely wars and violence.  I hope someone more knowledgeable on that subject than me could perhaps explain it better.

-Sarah

[Brainiac 5]

This might shed some light on the subject:

 

http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm

[Mike South]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Tuur Demeester <tuurde...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Karen,

It is a very big "What if?" indeed. It seems obvious to everyone that a very well-raised kid will become an honest, fair, and generally respectful adult, with a healthy aversion towards aggressive, criminal and destructive behavior.

Obvious to everyone that does not accept that humans have free will, maybe.  And since we all hope we are raising our own kids well, it might just seem "obvious" to us that that is what happens because we desperately hope that it is true.

 

But to argue the other side, that raising children badly creates criminals, is very controversial.

I think that is also a matter of degree--I think it is pretty widely believed that there is some expectation that abuse produces abusers, for example.  There is little to no controversy about that, at least in the US.  The question that _is_ controversial is what constitutes abuse, if you want to consider things like forcing a kid to attend school who doesn't want to, and this is one reason why:

 

I think that is so because it imposes a great and confronting responsibility on the parents.

And many of us did go through school, so even if we don't have our kids in a traditional high-force school, in order to make the mental leap that says "forced schooling is abusive", we have to make the MUCH more difficult leap of "and therefore, I was abused", or even worse "therefore I have participated in the abuse of my own children".  Also, "my friends/family who teach are the guards of the concentration camp"--not a pleasant thought (also hyperbole-laden, since a concentration camp is too much to compare school to--but if there are parallels, they ought to be thought out.  I'm sure there is more than one person on this list who used to be "in" and got "out" because they couldn't agree with the morality of what they were doing).

 

Now I'm not at all claiming that this argument is the best "sales argument" out there for promoting the sudbury ideas, but I'm just genuinely curious if it is at all valid. I mean, is it really that simple?

I think it's a bit hopeless to think it's that simple--humans are incredibly complex.  But I think the general question of how much the evil that is done at schools translates into evil in society is important to ask precisely because of the gigantic societal blind spot to the question itself.  The questions that people are aware of are like this: Are schools doing a good or bad job of preparing people academically?  Do they treat students of different gender/ethnicity/ability equally?  Does implementing reform X have a statistically demonstrable outcome?  etc, etc.  They never, or almost never, ask the question of whether school's almost universally unquestioned highly authoritarian nature is causing harm.

 

Sometimes I hear talking about sudbury schools as being a force of cultural change. Maybe they have been thinking too little of themselves? Maybe they are, in a very real way, bringing peace in the world?

My belief in their potential to change the world is the second biggest reason to be involved in them--the primary reason being that it is an attempt at doing the best thing we can for individual kids.  (Although I primarily think in terms of bringing the world liberty--I think peace follows liberty when you have good people, and if you don't have good people, you're screwed no matter what.)

mike

[Woty]

On Dec 4, 2009, at 1:19, Tuur Demeester wrote:

> Hi Karen,
>
> It is a very big "What if?" indeed. It seems obvious to everyone
> that a very well-raised kid will become an honest, fair, and
> generally respectful adult, with a healthy aversion towards
> aggressive, criminal and destructive behavior. But to argue the
> other side, that raising children badly creates criminals, is very
> controversial. I think that is so because it imposes a great and
> confronting responsibility on the parents.
>
> Now I'm not at all claiming that this argument is the best "sales
> argument" out there for promoting the sudbury ideas, but I'm just
> genuinely curious if it is at all valid. I mean, is it really that
> simple?
>
> Sometimes I hear talking about sudbury schools as being a force of
> cultural change. Maybe they have been thinking too little of
> themselves? Maybe they are, in a very real way, bringing peace in
> the world?
>
> Tuur

Can't treating kids well be an end in itself without being connected
to a larger political agenda?

~Woty

[Tuur Demeester]

Hi Karen,
 

I want to support Chelsea's statement that most soldiers do not enlist because they want to shoot and kill people. You may not understand their reasons for joining the military, but it is disrespectful (at best) to be so disparaging of their motives. On a personal level I don't understand it, either, but I would not want to completely dismiss a person's choices because someone who has never met them has "put them on the couch" and declared them to be a victim of their cultural history. (The phrase comes straight from a web site.)

Perhaps I should be more nuanced, I think you have a point there. However I *do* dismiss the  choice of a soldier to go to war (in another country he barely knows) and shoot people. I think this is immoral, whether you are wearing a suit or not. Of course there are many circumstances that could plead in defense of the soldier's poor decision: he may be not too bright a person, he may have grown up in a culture that excessively honors veterans, etc. But still, I would argue, there is a kind of moral compass lacking when a young man decides to go out and kill people without having been directly aggressed against himself.  And I think it is fair to try and find the answer to why he does this in the period were his moral compass has been shaped: his childhood.

Tuur

 

Karen

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Mike South <mso...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are certain things that can be observed, though--a school classroom, usually, is a dictatorship.  (You ask permission TO PEE.  How much more control can you have over someone than that?)  And just because you lived though one doesn't mean you recognize(d) it then and/or now for what it was/is.  

So I think merely pointing the fact out, and asking the question of whether spending most of your waking hours from 5-18 in a dictatorship might affect people.  

Would it condition them to accept what "the authorities" tell you?  Would it make you, the jury member, more likely to follow the instructions of a judge, instead of making your own decision when nullification of a bad law is clearly called for?  Would it make you, the consumer of media, more likely to accept what the authoritative sounding voice on the TV news tells you instead of questioning it for yourself?  Might it increase the pool of people that would follow any order whatsoever?  Might it make us more accepting of the idea of using force to get our way, having been subjected to force so regularly for so long?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Discuss Sudbury Model" group.
Discuss-sudbury-model is a publicly archived mailing list with many subscribers; be careful about what you choose to send!
The rules for the list are available at http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model/web/basic-rules-for-the-list
To post to this group, send email to
discuss-su...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
discuss-sudbury-...@googlegroups.com
Others can subscribe at http://www.sudval.org/07_othe_02.html
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model?hl=en

--

[Tuur Demeester]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Chelsea Gowen-Grossman <morning...@gmail.com> wrote:

I dont think most soldiers enroll in the army because they are eager to shoot someone. and I think it's in pretty poor taste to assume that almost everyone in the world is an abuse victim.  As it trivializes the trauma that real child abuse victims must endure.  

Although I can see your point, I think we need to be careful not to set up a sort of "victim reverence code" that causes us to fail to recognize abuse as abuse.  If it's abuse it should be called that.  I think people will understand from the context that you don't mean that it's at the same level. 

I side with Mike here.

I think it is good to remember that for small children, their parents or educators are giants that are about five times as tall as they are, and whose physical strength exceeds theirs many times also. Also, a child is completely helpless in the sense that it is reliant on the benevolence of his primary caregivers to be fed, to be given shelter, to learn about the world. For a child, the only source of morality is its parents. Now if these parents have issues themselves and somehow decide to use the child to project these on by saying it is a "bad" child, by scorning it, treating it disrespectfully. Or if parents (as many do) use a double standard of morality, one that applies to their child and "in general", versus one, a very different one, that is obvious from their own actions. What will happen next is this: the child, completely dependent and not able to reject his parents, will do the only logical thing to do: reject itself and reject the idea that is any universality in the terms "good" and "bad".  And so I don't think is is an exaggeration to call verbal aggression and hypocrisy to also be subsumed under the term "child abuse". 

There are compelling (albeit unpleasantly so) similarities between the results of forced education and the results of physical/emotional abuse.  I have an essay on that from a couple years back here:

http://www.leftoverpi.com/blog/2007/06/math_rape.html 

(and it does, by the way, address the fact that rape per se is horrific by comparison).  If the comparison has a chance of giving people pause before blindly perpetuating the status quo, it's worth making, uncomfortable though it might be to do so.

Very interesting article Mike, thank you!

Tuur 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Discuss Sudbury Model" group.
Discuss-sudbury-model is a publicly archived mailing list with many subscribers; be careful about what you choose to send!
The rules for the list are available at http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model/web/basic-rules-for-the-list
To post to this group, send email to
discuss-su...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
discuss-sudbury-...@googlegroups.com
Others can subscribe at http://www.sudval.org/07_othe_02.html
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model?hl=en

--

[Tuur Demeester]

Hi Mike (again :-)),

It is a very big "What if?" indeed. It seems obvious to everyone that a very well-raised kid will become an honest, fair, and generally respectful adult, with a healthy aversion towards aggressive, criminal and destructive behavior.

Obvious to everyone that does not accept that humans have free will, maybe.  And since we all hope we are raising our own kids well, it might just seem "obvious" to us that that is what happens because we desperately hope that it is true.

Sure, this is not an absolute. Two remarks.

First, the environment that raises the child is broader than the parents themselves. The "bad" influence can come from somewhere else, also.

Second, could you point me a case where this has not been so? Where a child that has been brought up by honest, loving, respectful, principled parents, in an honest, loving, respectful environment, has as an adult become a criminal (in the wide sense of the word)? And more in general, why would one who thoroughly knows what is right, good and virtuous, and who has during the whole of his childhood experienced the fruits of those principles (happiness), suddenly become "evil"?

(...)

Sometimes I hear talking about sudbury schools as being a force of cultural change. Maybe they have been thinking too little of themselves? Maybe they are, in a very real way, bringing peace in the world?

My belief in their potential to change the world is the second biggest reason to be involved in them--the primary reason being that it is an attempt at doing the best thing we can for individual kids.  (Although I primarily think in terms of bringing the world liberty--I think peace follows liberty when you have good people, and if you don't have good people, you're screwed no matter what.)

I couldn't agree more :-) Liberty is freedom from aggression; peace, cooperation, personal happiness, is what happens when you have liberty.

Tuur



 

mike

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Discuss Sudbury Model" group.
Discuss-sudbury-model is a publicly archived mailing list with many subscribers; be careful about what you choose to send!
The rules for the list are available at http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model/web/basic-rules-for-the-list
To post to this group, send email to
discuss-su...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
discuss-sudbury-...@googlegroups.com
Others can subscribe at http://www.sudval.org/07_othe_02.html
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model?hl=en

[Tuur Demeester]

Can't treating kids well be an end in itself without being connected
to a larger political agenda?

~Woty

I think so. I hope so :-)

But it's always good to understand and keep in mind what the larger impact of one's actions are, no?

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Discuss Sudbury Model" group.
   Discuss-sudbury-model is a publicly archived mailing list with many subscribers; be careful about what you choose to send!
   The rules for the list are available at http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model/web/basic-rules-for-the-list
   To post to this group, send email to
discuss-su...@googlegroups.com
   To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
discuss-sudbury-...@googlegroups.com
   Others can subscribe at http://www.sudval.org/07_othe_02.html
   For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model?hl=en

[Tuur Demeester]

Hi Sarah,

That is a very good point. And that is why I think the psychohistorian argument (as far as I understood it) is so challenging: it looks primarily at the institution of *parenting*. Today, schooling has to some extent replaced parenting, but that does not mean that parenting is in itself an institution that has been immutable, and thus equally "innocent", over the course of history.

Tuur

[Tuur Demeester]

Hi Chelsea,

I dont think most soldiers enroll in the army because they are eager to shoot someone. and I think it's in pretty poor taste to assume that almost everyone in the world is an abuse victim.  As it trivializes the trauma that real child abuse victims must endure. 

I don't either think that soldiers enroll in the army enroll because they are eager to shoot someone. However I do think that in general they are people who don't object to shooting people if that is something "higher command" thinks is desirable or necessary. Also, it seems to me that they must be people whose moral compass is not very developed, in the sense that they somehow believe that putting on a uniform and acting "in the name of their country" (which happens on both sides of a military conflict) absolves one from the personal responsibility not to initiate violence against other people. Things may be different when the community one lives in is under assault, such as for example Athens was by Persia in Ancient Greece.

"Psychohistory" appears to be very low quality science.  (It's questionable to even it call it science)   If you're interested in a higher quality field of research to read, there are many anthropologic studies that look upon humans tendency towards violence.

Could you back up that claim? Why does it seem low quality to you? Could you pass me some of the studies you mention (or point me at a good source to start reading)?

Best,

Tuur

 

--

[Scott David Gray]

As an alumnus from Sudbury Valley School, I will say that the
*primary* reason that I was able to trust the school and the adults in
it was *precisely* because they didn't have these sorts of "big ideas"
about how letting me be myself would "change the world."

The dangers of your position, from the point of view of a student, are:
1: That as soon as these adults get spooked that I am not following
*their* hidden curriculum (in this case "never grow up to be a
soldier"), they will try to rethink their programme, or they will
consider me a failure *however* much thought and care I have put into
my decision.
2: I am not being respected to figure out the world and what it
needs for myself.
3: Almost no adult, ever, treats children with respect. If these
people haven't got the heart and decency to respect the good soldier
-- a person who goes through *great* hardship and danger, because of a
dedication to cause, and often a dedication to protecting my personal
freedoms -- then I would have no cause to expect them to treat me with
respect on those occasions that we disagree. And that, of course, is
when democracy and pluralism is put to the test -- when the more
powerful population (adults) disagree with a less powerful member of
the community (one loan child).

Alumni from Sudbury Valley tend to treat others with an abiding
respect. It's how they grew up. For *precisely* this reason, we have
had several alumni who have made us proud, in every walk of life.
Including in the armed forces, thank you very much.

I am sickened from hearing people speak with such disrespect to
their fellow human being, as to claim that a professional soldier is
in the business in *order* to commit violence. If I were a student in
a school where the adults felt like that, where they refused to
consider the many and varied reasons why one might enter the armed
forces out of *respect* for other people, I would feel like I was
being used as a pawn in a game of control.

I challenge you. Take a little time and *talk* with some
professional soldiers, who serve in the armed services of democratic
countries. You may disagree with their reasons or separate
philosophies.
If you can't see that their reasons usually show a dedication and
commitment to human dignity, then you are incapable of ever
understanding another's' reasons for what s/he does, or of showing
respect to a child at school whose understanding of the world is
different than yours.

This is *not* the forum to discuss whether/how soldiering often
demands a *greater* sense of purpose, or a *greater* commitment to
peace. But before you start condemning a life decision, just because
you don't like the idea, you could at least show the respect of trying
to *understand* the soldiers' arguments. Again, this is not the forum
for it -- but there are millions of books, movies, blogs where these
questions are discussed deeply. Show some respect for your fellow man,
and consider that these different ideas/understandings may be valid,
even if they don't match your ideas/understandings.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Tuur Demeester <tuurde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> Here is a challenging thought: what if the occurrence of wars (which hinges
> upon the willingness of men in their early twenties to take up a gun and
> kill people) could be traced back to violence experienced during childhood?
> What if dictators and obedient followers were simply grown ups who have
> never processed and confronted themselves with the abuse that was inflicted
> upon them in their childhood? What if criminals were without exception
> people who, as a child, grew up in an environment where good and bad were
> whimsical toys in the hands of their  abusive educators?

--
-- Scott David Gray
http://www.sudval.org/

[loco...@gmail.com]

I've been contemplating a similar idea-but backwards. I think there isn't enough "violence" in young boys lives. I think some boys are hardwired from the hunter/warrior times to need to play out group violence/aggression. That is they need to play war with other boys.  And be boys. 

The restrictions of daycare/school and the overwhelming female energy in those places and at home prevents that subgroup of boys from working through that need. I would opine that the failure to work through it leads to later aggression, inability to attend, excess energy.

Elaine  

Sent from my iPhone

[loco...@gmail.com]

I'm with Scott on this. We shouldn't group people and then judge as a
group. Respect for the individual is what our schools are all about.
But in a democracy there must be respect for rights - and sometimes
extreme measures are needed to maintain access to those rights. We
start/maintain/support Sudbury schools so our kids will have those
rights which would be denied to them otherwise. Perhaps valuing those
rights might actually make some Alumni MORE likely to engage in
intense activity to uphold them (and this might include soldiering).

Sent from my iPhone

[Woty]

On Dec 4, 2009, at 15:07, loco...@gmail.com wrote:

> I've been contemplating a similar idea-but backwards. I think there
> isn't enough "violence" in young boys lives. I think some boys are
> hardwired from the hunter/warrior times to need to play out group
> violence/aggression. That is they need to play war with other boys.
> And be boys.
>
> The restrictions of daycare/school and the overwhelming female
> energy in those places and at home prevents that subgroup of boys
> from working through that need. I would opine that the failure to
> work through it leads to later aggression, inability to attend,
> excess energy.
>
> Elaine

It's also a place where boys can play like that because they want to,
and not because someone else thinks boys should.

And where girls who want to also can, without it being part of a
feminist agenda imposed by the adults.

~Woty

[evf...@aol.com]

One thing I have loved about being a parent who daughters are in a Sudbury model school is seeing assumptions about exposure blown out of the water. There is a tech room at the school and if my daughters chose to they could play video games all day long. They don't.  One daughter plays video games some of the time but it is small in comparison with hanging out with friends.  Some of the students that have spent a lot of video games have also gotten very into computer programming, one of these students now has his own business building web sites.

There are two assumptions that seem to be held by people who believe that what children find fun has no value. That any child that has free access to media will be robbed of the ability to take pleasure in reading. I have two daughters who both enjoy reading.  Since they don't have to spend time doing academic work they haven't chosen. They have time for all of it, friends, facebook, making videos, playing games, talking, singing, choreographing dances, writing plays, watching and discussing favorite television shows and reading books. 

Evelyn

Diablo Valley School Parent

 wrote:

> I've been contemplating a similar idea-but backwards. I think there  
> isn't enough "violence" in young boys lives. I think some boys are  
> hardwired from the hunter/warrior times to need to play out group  
> violence/aggression. That is they need to play war with other boys.   
> And be boys.
>
> The restrictions of daycare/school and the overwhelming female  
> energy in those places and at home prevents that subgroup of boys  
> from working through that need. I would opine that the failure to  
> work through it leads to later aggression, inability to attend,  
> excess energy.
>
> Elaine

It's also a place where boys can play like that because they want to,  
and not because someone else thinks boys should.

And where girls who want to also can, without it being part of a  
feminist agenda imposed by the adults.

~Woty

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Discuss Sudbury Model" group.
    Discuss-sudbury-model is a publicly archived mailing list with many 
subscribers; be careful about what you choose to send!
    The rules for the list are available at http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model/web/basic-rules-for-the-list

[Tuur Demeester]

Hi Scott, 

My sincere apologies to you and others likely offended, for not weighing my words more carefully on such a sensitive topic. I should have been more prudent. I will address the poorly written sentence that provoked such a strong reaction with you and perhaps others at the end of this email, but let me first try to paint what I think is the bigger picture here, and why this discussion seems to me relevant in terms of defining and clarifying what sudbury schools are really all about. 

The central issue seems to revolve around the question what the purpose of a sudbury school is or should be. Is it its primary purpose to uncover and support virtue and justice (i.e., personal and interpersonal freedom), or is its primary purpose rather to install and maintain a political democracy? In other words, is the democracy in a sudbury school a means to achieve freedom, or is freedom a pleasant but unnecessary byproduct of democracy? 

 

I am in the former camp: I think that human beings, including children, have "natural rights", and that respecting these natural rights (respecting individual freedom) leads to prevention of conflict (peace, prosperity, interpersonal freedom), and that this practice is what eventually makes happiness possible — though that always remains a personal responsibility to take on and give shape.*

In my mind, democracy is a fantastic way of organising a community, but I sense that this is not the essence of a sudbury school. I agree with the opinion that the heart of the school is the Judicial Committee, not the Schoolmeeting; JC is where the individual-rights-rubber hits  the road, so to speak, and where the members of the community translate their conviction to mutual respect and non-agression into concrete judgments about concrete actions. It is where lack of freedom is recognized and where freedom is restored.  

And so if we assume that sudbury schools are really primarily about respecting the natural rights of children, an important and practical question is then whether a community member (staff or student) should condemn plans or actions that are not congruent with these natural rights. If these plans or actions occur within the parameters of the school, the answer is quite obvious in my mind; "stealing is impermissible", "you can't hit Sally", "be honest" — all these affirmations of natural rights are normal and expected of community members is a sudbury school. 

It seems to become more controversial and less clear-cut when these plans and actions are not located within the school. What to do with a couple of students talking about having set fire to a car a couple of miles from the school, for example? Even this is quite clear: it can reflect very badly on the school, so it is school business to sort it out and for JC or individual community members to pass judgment on (i.e., condemn) what has happened there. But what if the car is located very far from the school, say, in another country? And suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is no way that anyone could trace the damage back to being caused by a sudbury school member. What then? Should I, as a community member of a school dedicated to respecting natural rights, condemn this action? It would seem to me rather hypocritical and irresponsible not to do so. I wouldn't want my fellow students/staff members to believe that the respect for other people (and for that matter, their property) is just a random kind of thing, that happened to be agreed upon by the community members of this particular school, but that is further totally inconsequential for what concerns the rest of the world. 

Why? Well, suppose we did put that into practice in school. Suppose we said that this "rights" thing, this "mutual respect" thing, is just something the founders of the school happened to be quite fond of as an idea; that it "sorta worked" as a way to maintain order in the school or so. And that, if they had wanted to, they could have picked a totally different set of principles to work from. Wel now, if that were the case, wouldn't we have to call this a hidden curriculum? I would think so. 

And this would lead to a great contradiction and dislodge the entire working of the school. The JC's task would then not be to find the most reasonable solution to restore freedom, but rather to try and content the founder's intentions — or something of such sorts. 

Thus on the contrary, I contend that the natural rights-principles on which a sudbury school is based are universal. It is simply absurd to call a respect for natural rights a "hidden curriculum" or a "hidden agenda". The most important characteristic about natural rights is namely that it is *public*; natural rights are those principles of conduct that do not lead to inner contradictions, that do not conflict with human nature, and that ensure peaceful interaction and conviviality. That is why the discussions in JC are so important: what exactly happened? Have someone's rights been broken in this case? Etc, etc.  

So yes, I do think it is important to think further than the school itself, when talking to other community members in a sudbury school. And, likewise, for parents to think further than the family when talking with their children. The principles of justice and rights are universal, and when brought in to practice in the world, will bring about the same results as they do in a small community of a school or family. 

While it is absolutely true that one cannot teach something to another (only explain/show it in such a way that he *can* come to understand it), I do believe that when a child grows up in an environment where personal and interpersonal freedoms are consistently investigated and practiced, as what ideally happens in a sudbury school or in a radical unschooling familiy, it will cause him/her to deeply understand these principles, and enable him to apply them in a variety of situations.  

 

Reversely, when a child grows up in an environment where these rights are misunderstood or not investigated, not respected or even talked about; or worse even, were its personal rights are regularly violated (being lied to, being treated hypocritically, being beaten, etc.) then it is much more likely that the child will grow up without a proper understanding of these rights and their consequences, and that as an adult he/she will act accordingly, doing things that are fundamentally unrespectful for the autonomy and integrity of other people. 

This leads us, finally, to the point of the soldier. My point was: if one thoroughly understands the reasonable principle of the inadmissability of aggressive violence, then one does not become a soldier who shoots or bombs people without proper cause and/or due process. I believe it must have been this line I wrote that provoked such a strong reaction with you, Scott: 

"[w]hat if the occurrence of wars (which hinges upon the willingness of men in their early twenties to take up a gun and kill people) could be traced back to violence experienced during childhood?"

Against which I take your reaction to be: 

"I am sickened from hearing people speak with such disrespect to their fellow human being, as to claim that a professional soldier is in the business in *order* to commit violence. If I were a student in a school where the adults felt like that, where they refused to consider the many and varied reasons why one might enter the armed forces out of *respect* for other people, I would feel like I was being used as a pawn in a game of control."

I admit my wording was vague to say the least, because what does "willingness" mean? Karen objected as well, along the lines of yourself, that "most soldiers to not enlist because they want to shoot and kill people." Now I don't dispute this; I don't dispute that it is not the primary goal of soldiers to go out and kill people. I remember having a conversation with a husband and wife both working at Lockheed Martin, the factory that produces the U.S. missiles used for warfare. They told me that they were involved because the missiles helped to protect their country. I've heard soldiers say similar things. So once again: I do not dispute the fact that the motives for engaging in warfare are often noble. And yes, the hardship these people go through are often enormous. A youth friend of mine is currently fighting in Afghanistan, and I know, as he does, he risks death or severe mutilation, and that psychological trauma's will be practically inevitable.  

But, despite the noble motives and the horrible circumstances, what I do think is fair to say is that soldiers in general are people who do not fundamentally object to killing human beings as a means to some other good. And yes, I do think this is a grave flaw and a misunderstanding of human nature and human rights. It is not that I refuse to *consider* any other motives, it's that I think it is unjust to place *whatever motive* above the concrete respect for individual rights of individual persons (and to claim to defend the respect for or protection of individual rights by performing acts that are fundamentally not respectful for and frankly an assault on individual rights, as many do, is a contradiction, and thus not valid). I would be happy to discuss this further, but I'm afraid, as you already suggested, that this would be a topic outside the scope of the discuss-sudbury list. 

So, to conclude, I have thus far not been convinced that the psychohistory school is wrong. I still believe that it is the growing up in an environment where fundamental individual rights are not properly understood, not talked about, not investigated, or not practiced, is what causes adults to misunderstand their own autonomy and that of others, and the laws of conviviality, which leads them to act in ways that are unjust or downright criminal. And I still believe, on the other hand, that peace and happiness are the products of environments (mostly family and school) wherein children grow up to profoundly understand and respect these rights of themselves and others.  

Best wishes, 

Tuur 

* When I read SVS's preamble, I recognize in it a fundamental esteem for these natural rights: 

"All School Meeting members are responsible for the general welfare of the school, through actions that contribute to preserving the atmosphere of freedom, respect, fairness, trust, and order that is the essence of the school's existence." 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Discuss Sudbury Model" group.
   Discuss-sudbury-model is a publicly archived mailing list with many subscribers; be careful about what you choose to send!
   The rules for the list are available at http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model/web/basic-rules-for-the-list
   To post to this group, send email to
discuss-su...@googlegroups.com
   To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
discuss-sudbury-...@googlegroups.com
   Others can subscribe at http://www.sudval.org/07_othe_02.html
   For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model?hl=en

[Scott David Gray]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Tuur Demeester <tuurde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The central issue seems to revolve around the question what the purpose of a
> sudbury school is or should be. Is it its primary purpose to uncover and
> support virtue and justice (i.e., personal and interpersonal freedom), or is
> its primary purpose rather to install and maintain a political democracy? In
> other words, is the democracy in a sudbury school a means to achieve
> freedom, or is freedom a pleasant but unnecessary byproduct of democracy?

These ends are not at odds. Societies have always had to struggle
with the question of which freedoms need to be protected from other
people, and how to protect those freedoms while impacting others'
freedoms as little as possible.
In fact, the end that most schools work for, is for the students
enrolled to responsible members of the wider community. As democracy
and freedom tend to produce responsible behavior, and as our wider
community is a liberal democracy, Sudbury Valley has relied on liberal
democratic principals.

> And so if we assume that sudbury schools are really primarily about
> respecting the natural rights of children, an important and practical
> question is then whether a community member (staff or student) should
> condemn plans or actions that are not congruent with these natural rights.
> If these plans or actions occur within the parameters of the school, the
> answer is quite obvious in my mind; "stealing is impermissible", "you can't
> hit Sally", "be honest" — all these affirmations of natural rights are
> normal and expected of community members is a sudbury school.

In our school, it is wholly unacceptable to grapple or restrain
another person without cause. On the other hand, if one were doing so
in good faith, not in anger, to stop one person from being hurt, that
would be *cause*.
If the only way to diffuse a violent situation were to lie
*you*bet* that someone would lie in our school, and the JC would
understand. If the only way to prevent worse violence were to
intervene and physically stop it, *you*bet* that someone would
intervene. If the best way to keep someone from having a deadly
reaction to a bee sting, while waiting for the ambulance to come, were
to take someone else's benadryl without explicit permission, you *bet*
that it would happen.

This becomes *less* gray, when society grants certain people
specific authority, under certain conditions, to use force. We have no
need for a police force in Sudbury Vally, but in the wider town there
*is* a need for one. And if the police must use necessary force to
stop an innocent from being hurt, then so be it. Likewise, if an army
must be deployed to stop one group from committing crimes against us
or against another group, then so be it.

> believe that when a child grows up in an environment where personal and
> interpersonal freedoms are consistently investigated and practiced, as what
> ideally happens in a sudbury school or in a radical unschooling familiy, it
> will cause him/her to deeply understand these principles, and enable him to
> apply them in a variety of situations.

While I wouldn't disagree with this statement, I think that your
notion that in the "real world" such people would always apply these
ideals by refusing to participate in the armed services, is simply
false.

Violence is traditionally defended by (some/most) ethical and
moral people under certain circumstances:
As necessary force to serve justice, when there is no higher
authority to appeal to, because the opposing parties do not have
access to courts which both parties respect and trust, or because
force is necessary to bring a person or group to justice.
Or as necessary force to establish or re-establish law, when
opposing parties each hold to conflicting higher ideals that transcend
either's respect for or understanding of prevailing law (perhaps
conflicting notions of *which* rights are inalienable).
To put it in blatant terms, my respect for your right to liberty
ends, when you use that right to attempt to enslave or hurt me or
others.

I certainly do not expect you to accept or agree with the stance
that I have laid out. It is very tempting for some people to imagine
themselves as martyrs who would rather be
injured/violated/enslaved/killed than to take another's life.
But you do need to understand that this is a *valid* ethic. And
that it is, in fact, *very* common among the alumni and students of
Sudbury schools (at least three of whom have defended that ideology in
this forum).
If you think that Sudbury schools would prevent people from ever
going to war, the response of these alumni/students shows that you are
mistaken -- if anything, their Sudbury School experiences clarify for
them *when* and *how* to go to war.

[Mike South]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Tuur Demeester <tuurde...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

[...]

 

The central issue seems to revolve around the question what the purpose of a sudbury school is or should be. Is it its primary purpose to uncover and support virtue and justice (i.e., personal and interpersonal freedom), or is its primary purpose rather to install and maintain a political democracy? In other words, is the democracy in a sudbury school a means to achieve freedom, or is freedom a pleasant but unnecessary byproduct of democracy? 

My memory of reading about the history of the school says that the original intent was to give children a place to be free.  The governance structure evolved as a means to preserve this end.  There was no intent to start something with a School Meeting and a Judiciary Committee.  It might have even been surprising (speculation on my part) that these things developed.  IIRC there was first nothing, then an all-present meeting where everyone brought up and discussed issues that had come up.

These meetings sometimes went on for hours and it became clear that people needed more than just discussion, but a way to have their grievances addressed.  The present-day structure of School Meeting and Judicial Committee grew out of that realization.  (My recollection may be fuzzy or outright wrong, please correct if you know different.)

Leaving the question of whether I have the details right aside, my point is that every structure that was instituted was instituted to make life at school run smoothly.  The definition of "run smoothly" is roughly "let students do what they want to do"

While what evolved is largely consistent with the non-aggression principle it was not the initial goal.  I think if someone wishes to create a school where the goal is to--how do you say this?--"instill in the members respect for the non-aggression principle" or, as I think you might be suggesting below, "live by the non-aggression principle at the school and in all aspects of our lives", you would be making a different thing.  This would have aspects more like a religion, where you would be attempting to guide peoples' lives outside the meetinghouse as well as in it.

While I would be supportive of such an effort, I think it would be a different beast from a Sudbury School.  I think your example of students setting a car on fire in another country with no possible "reflection trail" back to the school is a perfect test case.  In an entity that was designed to encourage the non-aggression principle in all aspects of the students' lives this is clearly something that the enforcement body would have a duty to address.  In a Sudbury School I would think it would be none of the school's business, as it has nothing to do with letting people at the school do what they want to do.

While setting a car on fire in another country is not something likely to come up, there are a lot of other things that could, which would change the character of the school.  Suppose you had a student at a Sudbury school who was campaigning (outside the school) on one side or the other of a political fight, say a gay marriage law.  Depending on how the law was written, there would be different interpretations of which side was more in line with the non-aggression principle.  Stopping people (who have not initiated force against you) from marrying is unjustified aggression.  Forcing churches to perform these marriages or stopping them from speaking out against them is also unjustified aggression.  What about forcing businesses to suddenly provide benefits that they did not have to provide when they went into business, and which might have structured their business differently had they known?  Do they have a non-aggression claim?

All of those questions would now become appropriate to be considered by the law-making and judicial bodies of the school, if the school's mission expands beyond its walls.  I am not saying that this would be a bad thing, but it would be a different thing.  In other words, I do not think the purpose of a Sudbury school is to encourage its students to live by the non-aggression principle, and I think it would be a different beast if it was.

If your personal belief is that people should live by the non-aggression principle, a Sudbury school would be an excellent place for your children to go, and a good thing for you to support whether you have children in it or not.  That might be why _you_ are involved in the school, but it is not why the school exists, and it would, or at least could, radically change the character of the school (is driving a carbon-emitting vehicle aggressive because it attacks the entire planet?  Should people be required to only use hybrids or bicycles?  Is burning biofuel aggressive because it attacks food sources? Etc.  All of your life outside the school becomes fair game.)

mike  

 

I am in the former camp: I think that human beings, including children, have "natural rights", and that respecting these natural rights (respecting individual freedom) leads to prevention of conflict (peace, prosperity, interpersonal freedom), and that this practice is what eventually makes happiness possible — though that always remains a personal responsibility to take on and give shape.*

In my mind, democracy is a fantastic way of organising a community, but I sense that this is not the essence of a sudbury school. I agree with the opinion that the heart of the school is the Judicial Committee, not the Schoolmeeting; JC is where the individual-rights-rubber hits  the road, so to speak, and where the members of the community translate their conviction to mutual respect and non-agression into concrete judgments about concrete actions. It is where lack of freedom is recognized and where freedom is restored.  

And so if we assume that sudbury schools are really primarily about respecting the natural rights of children, an important and practical question is then whether a community member (staff or student) should condemn plans or actions that are not congruent with these natural rights. If these plans or actions occur within the parameters of the school, the answer is quite obvious in my mind; "stealing is impermissible", "you can't hit Sally", "be honest" — all these affirmations of natural rights are normal and expected of community members is a sudbury school. 

It seems to become more controversial and less clear-cut when these plans and actions are not located within the school. What to do with a couple of students talking about having set fire to a car a couple of miles from the school, for example? Even this is quite clear: it can reflect very badly on the school, so it is school business to sort it out and for JC or individual community members to pass judgment on (i.e., condemn) what has happened there. But what if the car is located very far from the school, say, in another country? And suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is no way that anyone could trace the damage back to being caused by a sudbury school member. What then? Should I, as a community member of a school dedicated to respecting natural rights, condemn this action? It would seem to me rather hypocritical and irresponsible not to do so. I wouldn't want my fellow students/staff members to believe that the respect for other people (and for that matter, their property) is just a random kind of thing, that happened to be agreed upon by the community members of this particular school, but that is further totally inconsequential for what concerns the rest of the world. 

Why? Well, suppose we did put that into practice in school. Suppose we said that this "rights" thing, this "mutual respect" thing, is just something the founders of the school happened to be quite fond of as an idea; that it "sorta worked" as a way to maintain order in the school or so. And that, if they had wanted to, they could have picked a totally different set of principles to work from. Wel now, if that were the case, wouldn't we have to call this a hidden curriculum? I would think so. 

And this would lead to a great contradiction and dislodge the entire working of the school. The JC's task would then not be to find the most reasonable solution to restore freedom, but rather to try and content the founder's intentions — or something of such sorts. 

Thus on the contrary, I contend that the natural rights-principles on which a sudbury school is based are universal. It is simply absurd to call a respect for natural rights a "hidden curriculum" or a "hidden agenda". The most important characteristic about natural rights is namely that it is *public*; natural rights are those principles of conduct that do not lead to inner contradictions, that do not conflict with human nature, and that ensure peaceful interaction and conviviality. That is why the discussions in JC are so important: what exactly happened? Have someone's rights been broken in this case? Etc, etc.  

So yes, I do think it is important to think further than the school itself, when talking to other community members in a sudbury school. And, likewise, for parents to think further than the family when talking with their children. The principles of justice and rights are universal, and when brought in to practice in the world, will bring about the same results as they do in a small community of a school or family. 

While it is absolutely true that one cannot teach something to another (only explain/show it in such a way that he *can* come to understand it), I do believe that when a child grows up in an environment where personal and interpersonal freedoms are consistently investigated and practiced, as what ideally happens in a sudbury school or in a radical unschooling familiy, it will cause him/her to deeply understand these principles, and enable him to apply them in a variety of situations.  

 

Reversely, when a child grows up in an environment where these rights are misunderstood or not investigated, not respected or even talked about; or worse even, were its personal rights are regularly violated (being lied to, being treated hypocritically, being beaten, etc.) then it is much more likely that the child will grow up without a proper understanding of these rights and their consequences, and that as an adult he/she will act accordingly, doing things that are fundamentally unrespectful for the autonomy and integrity of other people. 

[...] 

[Karen Hyams]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Tuur Demeester <tuurde...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Scott, 

My sincere apologies to you and others likely offended, for not weighing my words more carefully on such a sensitive topic. I should have been more prudent. I will address the poorly written sentence that provoked such a strong reaction....

Tuur,

I don't think this is a matter of semantics. After you have had the chance to clarify your thoughts, you are still essentially saying that any reasonable, thinking person would reach the same conclusion you have if raised properly, which is to be a pacifist. But you said it in way more words.

Don't assume you know what position I take on this issue - that is not what this is about. It is about the ability for anyone to really listen to another fellow human as they work their way through life and respect who they are, whether they are 5 or 60. Sitting through countless JCs and school meetings and trying to get to the heart of things, and working every day to be fair, and in turn being treated fairly every day, helps us grow. We learn to turn our hearts and minds towards others without discrimination, at least on our better days. If we start practicing it when we are 6 we have a better shot at being good at it, but there is hope for all of us. And that is one of the most essential tools for a person who is able to be at peace with the people around her.

Karen