Too Strong a Statement?

It says a lot about parents that are willing to hand responsibility for their children to such institutions. Mostly the parents are products of those same institutions, so it is "natural" for them to continue the pattern ...

I don’t know if it happens any more, but it used to be that working mothers reported all kinds of unhappiness—ongoing unhappiness, not just first-day-back-to-work tears—at leaving their children. That suggests to me that somewhere down deep, those women knew what they were doing wasn’t right or natural ... but I’m at a total loss to explain why they did it anyway. From the moment I first learned I was pregnant, something within me changed: where I had previously thought I could (and would) put my child in daycare in order to continue working, that idea became ghastly to me. My child was my responsibility—and of course, after Snolf the First was born many other things entered into the mix. Love was a big factor, of course, but he was also an interesting person; I enjoyed interacting with him. I don’t know how other parents quash or ignore those messages.

Where is the quote from?

The Underground History of American Education, page 50. This is the first book of Gatto’s I’ve picked up; and I’m kicking myself for not giving him my attention sooner.

I have other Gatto books, but Underground qualifies as one of the best books I've read. I think Julie just recently finished reading it. It packs a whole lot of information into its pages.

Unlike some people I like having "dead tree versions" of many books -- this one definitely qualifies -- but for those who would rather get a taste online before using your link to buy a dead tree version, find Gatto's Underground History of American Education here.

UPDATE: Oops. I started this entry before starting to fix breakfast. Now after eating breakfast and finishing the comment, I see you have posted a different link (a better one) which goes to the same stuff.

That suggests to me that somewhere down deep, those women knew what they were doing wasn’t right or natural ... but I’m at a total loss to explain why they did it anyway.

You underestimate the power of peer pressure, and the external reality of the world. If you are a female lawyer with 100K - 200K in student loan debt, plus, oh lets say another 75K in other random debts (car, CC, house, etc) it is next to impossible to stop working. If you are a blue collar type then one salary is not enough to pay the rent, the car loan and buy food in the USSA today.

Of course, if you sit and rethink a lot (almost all??) of society's assumptions you may find that you do not need to work a standard job. But that requires more work than most people will/can do. More importantly, it requires an alien way of thinking. It requires a way of thinking that has not been the norm for several generations.

That is why they do what they often know is wrong. Because everyone else does it. Because they do not realize that they have a choice. Because the few times they are presented with an alternative taking it is far too hard.

Yes, even a "cynic" like Charlie gets the same sort of pressure to go to Candy Mountain and caves (pun intended) in a similar way.

Few enjoy Shuuuuuuunnnnning....

However, a burgeoning growth of subcultures presents an interesting prospect for change that probably few expect as yet. More people rejecting the mainstream -- even though they do not present a "viable replacement mainstream" -- give sign of more changes coming.

We live in interesting times.

You underestimate the power of peer pressure, and the external reality of the world.

Quite possibly. That said, I hope that Tom’s right about the crumbling of USSA monoculture ... which seems real primarily on tv and in movies. The corporacracy tries to portray Amerikan life in a certain way, and some Amerikans probably do aspire to achieve that portrayal, but I suspect the truth is that the melting pot never really was a melding pot. New England subculture is still distinct from deep Southern subculture; and the increasing influence of the internet enables non-geographically based subcultures to form and thrive.

Interesting times, indeed.

Then you probably already know that he has a web site, which I will be adding to the sidebar anon.

Lewlew, you offer many good points—especially reminding us that at some point, a parent does need to allow the child to make his or her own decisions. And you’re right that to the degree parents abdicate their responsibilities, other institutions will eagerly step in to replace them.

Still, I lean toward the view that the more of the mentioned institutions one brings into a home, the more difficult it is to counter their influence. As just a small example, tv of course is indispensable at promoting the corporate consumerist culture; and I understand that it now also pushes state control/interference a lot, via “public service announcements”.

Tom, thanks for reminding me of Charlie! You introduced me to that vid quite some time ago.

Still, I lean toward the view that the more of the mentioned institutions one brings into a home, the more difficult it is to counter their influence. It can be difficult to counter such influences, but I don't think that by choosing to disengage from all said institutions necessarily guarantees your homelife will dodge the mainstream meddling.

Product placement happens all over, not just on television. If you watch a movie, product placement laces the entire production. It's in books, and it probably is also in video games. It's rampant on the internet.

I understand that it now also pushes state control/interference a lot, via “public service announcements” This is nothing new. Public service announcements have had a spot on television as far back as I can remember.

I'm not an advocate for a tv in every home. I rarely watch tv. We signed up for cable so Lew could watch baseball on one of the sports channels, and since doing so we've found that, as a family, out of all the channels available the only ones we watch with any sense of regularity are Discovery Channel, Comedy Central and the Food Network. Would any of us curl up and turn to dust if it went away? No. It's been interesting discussing with the kids what's the best use of our monetary resources and hearing their revelations about how uninteresting most television programming is.

Consumerism is everywhere, in the grocery store line, print media, on t-shirts, city buses, in home driveways and living rooms. I think the only way to counter it is to discuss it and live by example. Your choice of schooling method doesn't necessarily insulate your child from the gnarled fingers of more.

Gatto is a brilliant man and makes excellent points in his writing, but I still maintain that the quote this post highlights is not a black and white issue.

Great debate! Thank you Sunni.

Product placement happens all over, not just on television. If you watch a movie, product placement laces the entire production. It's in books, and it probably is also in video games. It's rampant on the internet.

I guess I am mostly immune to it, because it wasn’t until reading that from you that I remembered on our recent adventurings west, I noticed an ad for shoes in the TSA’s plastic baskets. Talk about placement!

I think the only way to counter it is to discuss it and live by example.

I agree. Same for the other stuff Gatto mentions.

Gatto is a brilliant man and makes excellent points in his writing, but I still maintain that the quote this post highlights is not a black and white issue.

I hope it doesn’t stifle the discussion to agree with you on this, lewlew. But I stand by my contention that if a household freely allows all four of those institutions in, it is much less likely to be a “home” in the full sense of the word. The more of those ideas that get in, and the younger the children when they are first exposed, the harder the parents’ job of countering them becomes. At least that’s been my experience thus far.

(P.S. The subject title thing is mildly annoying to me, too; but it’s a nice feature for the “recent comments” list in the sidebar so I tolerate it.)

I hope it doesn’t stifle the discussion to agree with you on this, lewlew.

I don't think it will. It's very interesting to compare experience with others because each of us have a unique background that helps formulate our opinions.

But I stand by my contention that if a household freely allows all four of those institutions in, it is much less likely to be a “home” in the full sense of the word. The more of those ideas that get in, and the younger the children when they are first exposed, the harder the parents’ job of countering them becomes. At least that’s been my experience thus far.

I do understand what you bring up here. It's similar to the nature versus nurture debate.

For example, it's been interesting to watch our children grow up and develop into the people they're becoming. My stepsons are inclined to eat out most meals, even when they have little money to spare. My daughter, who also has some disposable income, eats out occasionally. She regards it more as a special treat. They were all predominately raised watching us cook most of our meals at home, going out as a special treat and witnessed our joy in cooking. My stepsons, however, ate out a lot when they stayed with their mother during their younger years. Could that influence their habit of restaurant over home cooked? It just might. I'm interested to see how my son handles having some disposable income.

Another example is the way our family reads. I've always enjoyed reading and gravitate to books over magazines. Lew, on the other hand, gravitates toward magazines and has read only one book for pleasure over the past ten years. I've bought books for the kids, we've both read to them, trips to the library, etc. My children are predominantly book readers, Lew's children have been predominantly magazine readers.

If a child grows up in a home where outside influence continually rules the roost, then it would be difficult to stem that tide as the child ages. However, I contend that such a mind set isn't necessarily insulated from the home when a parent decides to homeschool, reject consumerism, tv or political participation. Just living exposes us to such entities. Also, the nature of parental control infusing the home has a huge bearing on a child's development, I believe, so if a parent is overbearing, rude, mean spirited or the like, even if all those other outside influences are sheltered from the child it doesn't necessarily mean she is in a better space of mind.

Also, the nature of parental control infusing the home has a huge bearing on a child's development, I believe, so if a parent is overbearing, rude, mean spirited or the like, even if all those other outside influences are sheltered from the child it doesn't necessarily mean she is in a better space of mind.

Absolutely. This is one reason why I think it is crucially important for adults—especially parents—to respect children and their property. That does not mean “give them everything they want” or “always be pleasant to them”—such a parent would be a poor role model in several respects. So many parents say they love their children, and in some ways act as if they indeed do; but in terms of basic human respect and honesty they treat their children much worse than they would an acquaintance or co-worker. It mortified me when I recognized leanings like that in my own behavior. And it still happens from time to time, as one’s children seem to be especially adept at bringing out the worst in one ...

If a child grows up in a home where outside influence continually rules the roost, then it would be difficult to stem that tide as the child ages. However, I contend that such a mind set isn't necessarily insulated from the home when a parent decides to homeschool, reject consumerism, tv or political participation. Just living exposes us to such entities.

Right. And besides, trying to insulate a child completely from them is folly. Without some exposure, how will a person learn to separate wheat from chaff on her own, or to develop and exercise self control over “indulgences”? Both snolfs were born into environments where TV existed, but was used for video rather than watching programs. All the same, when we moved into a town and got reception (when Darlin’ Daughter was still a toddler), it was amazing how easy it was for us to turn to it as an educational resource for them (Ha!)—and how quickly they seemingly internalized some of the unsavory messages in PBS’s so-called children’s programming. It was an enormous relief for me when we moved into a rural area and lost reception. It took a while for the influence to die down, with our active encouragement of course; and it was a valuable lesson for Lobo and me.