PARENTAL WAYS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 40, 15 August 1930, Page 3

PARENTAL WAYS

CHANGE OF MIND

THE TASK OF CHILDREN

CAUSES OP FAILURE

By Bertrand Russell (Copyright.) Few things in the modern world arc more surprising than the change which has come over parents in tlie present generation. Ever since the dawn of history parents had taken the view that children owed them gratitude for bringing them into the world and for maintaining them during infancy. It was tho duty of children to: love their parents, ana if they did not, their parents were justified,in whipping them until they did. It was thought that mothers, unless they were exceptional .moristers of iniquity, loved'their- children, better than anything else in the world, and knew by instinct exactly how to handle them. If children behaved badly, that was due to natural depravity, not to bad handling. So long as this view prevailed, people enjoyed having children, and large families were the 'established order of the day. ; The outlook of the modern parent is, in almost all ways, the antithesis of this. Many-moderns consider existence a .doubtful boon, and are'inclined to apologise to their children' for having inflicted upon therb. the-miseries which life, they think, necessarily entails. They are aware that to have the company of their children all- day and every day is by no means unmitigated bliss. As soon as their children show any natural affection for them, they suspect an Oedipus complex. So far from imagining themselves equipped by instinct to deal with their children, they read; great books about all the mistakes they are likely to make until they become jso terrified that they dare hardly breathe in their children's presence, and are tempted to leave the job to what are called "experts"—-i,e., to people who have read.more of the great books in question. Consequently children have ecased to be-a pleasure to their parents, with the result that the number of children per marriage as. proved by statistics is continually' diminishing. NEW DOUBTINOS. Freud who it was who first terrified parents with the idea that. there is something sinful, dark, and disastrous in the affection of children for their parents. Watson, who disagrees with Freud about almost everything, nevertheless agrees • with him, about this; he apparently considers it a very unwise decree of Nature that children must have mothers, but he hopes that the State will soon improve on Nature's plan in this respect. A child might, of course, grow fond of his nurse, which would be almost equally terrible, so the nurse must be frequently changed. The child is to sleep in a room by himself and to live in an aseptic environment; it is thought that in the end he will acquire the skilful jruthle.ssness which is needed to make him a captain of industry. . . ■■- My own belief is 'that this point of view is profoundly and radically mistaken. The empirical evidence for it is of the slightest; its real basis is a priori. There is a psychological thesis to the effect that all affection is sexual. I do not accept this 'thesis. Of course, the affectioit of- parents for children, and of children for parents is, in part physical. Indeed J __an containing no physical element'is nothing but the idle dream of a Manichaean. Affectionate parents like to hug and kiss their children, and childTen,- especially when they are very young, like the warmth of their mothers' bodies and the feeling of safety that they derive from closo proximity. But to call these feelings, on either side, sexual,-is,-to my mrrid> Ib obliterate important distinctions. . WARMTH ANIVSAFETY. The satisfaction which very young infants derive from their mothers is a combination of those that we derive. ia adult life from hot water bottles and policemen. Tho feelings of parents towards children are, of course, more complex. >■'.'' Where any foreign element obtrudes, it interferes with parental feeling and sido-traeks parental activities. I am willing to admit, further, that where it exists strongly in the parent, it is apt in time to produce a corresponding response in tho child. Such cases, however, are not to be regarded as the normal development of the spontaneous emotions of ordinary human beings, but as the warped and diseased reactions of people maimed by unfortunate circumstances. A eat likes to lick her kittens. The human mother, ■if.'her instincts are unspoiled and her life is satisfactory, is just as innocent as tho cat in her dealings with her children, and if her own feelings are right the responses of. her children will " also ■be : right. - The Oedipus complex, whero it occurs, is always caused by a wrong attitude in the mother. A physical affection between, mother and child, when it is of the right sort, is not merely harmless, but actually necessary to the child's proper development. It is good for the child that someone loves him specially; tllis makes him feel safe and therefore adventurous. Unloved children are timid and apt to be thin; they tend to be fijod with, a kind of anger against the world, making them prone to. irrational rages and rebellions; they may take to kleptomania, or seek to secure notice b}' sleep-walking. Watson's theory of education concerns itself with habit formation, but he thinks only of habits of doing, whereas habits of feeling are equally important. Perhaps it would be unjust to say that he ignores habits of feeling altogether;, ho •• has, for example, said many good things about habits of fear; lie even knows how to toach a child to love a woolly rabbit, but for some reason he draws the line at loving persons. Yet the habit of affectionate and friendly reactions to persons is one of 'the most valuable of habits, and it is not easily learned if all physical contacts arc viewed with suspicion. Not only so, but the mother who has taught herself never to hug her children will find--her affection for them inhibited; it. will become awkward, angular, and shy, so that the children themselves will no longer be instinctively aware of it. When they see other children whose mothers treat them more naturally, they will be filled with envy, and this, may go so deep as to make them grow up enemies of society. For all these reasons, I deprecates the onslaught of modern theorists on parental affection. STILL IGNORANT. The- fact is, that, not enough is known about this whole matter to justify our removing it from the sphere of common sense to that of science For the writers of books it is no doubt a fortunate circumstance that any man who will say a thing emphatically and tit length is sure to be believed •by many people. But to the world at largo, a certain measure of scepticism is much to be desired. The power of reading books, without believing all they say is one which education ought to confer, but too often .(Toes not. Psy-rho-iiiirtlrsis contains ,a groat deal that I regard ns true ami important, but has, in my opinion, a. bad effect in

practice, when it is accepted as an JsA controvertible gospel. Although I do not accept the viem^ that parents are bad for thejr children.' necessarily, I do think that dt is easjs for children to have too much of thei)? parents. Children "need the compan* ionship of other children, not perhaps during the first two years of life, but after that more and more as the years go by. They ought,, therefore; to be part of the day at school. Mcreovejy parents have their own adult life t» live and must unduly restrain their children's activities if their children aro always about the house. In thfl;. modern small family it is very diffi-, cult for parents not to give too .much,' attention to their children. Constant attention over-stimulates a child .anil makes him . too much dependent upon praise. And unless, parents are exceptionally placid, their anxieties are: apt.- to make the' children timid in' play,.or exasperated owing to constant .interference. CAUSES 6F TAXLVJXE. ; To be a wise parent is undoubtedly difficult. I can think of five principal causes of parental- failure. Firsts lack of love for the child: this is fa* commoner than is thought and produce* the kind of bad effects that we hay« already considered. Second, possessiv* love, which is really due to the intrusion of sexual elements; this is the kind that leaps to the Oedipus complex and to all the troubles dealt with by 4 psycho-analysts. Third, over-stimula» tion: this is a very common moderai fault in dealing with children; it majl arise through. the .wish to give thenS' too many pleasures, especially pleasures of a passive kind, such as ,tlrif: theatre and the cinema, or again it may rise through giving them too many.' opportunities to show., off,' or.- .allowing them to be present too frequently af grown-up conversation whichthey hay» difficulty in understanding. Fourth,too much repression: this was almost" universal in former days, but is no\f much less, common; it. Btill occurs, .h.owr ever, where either- parent is nervout or delicate and where good maniierj are too much insisted upon. Fif thl domestic discord between father and .mother: this.produces all,kinds.of. bad nervous effects in children, and.wher» parents have not enough, self-control to avoid displaying it before their child,* ren it is best that the children shouht be as little at home as is possible. X think perhaps one ought to add asixti' cause of parental failure, Which-is indeed the one that at the moment.l.am trying to prevent, and that is diffidence as to one's capacities. Parent* should inspire children with confr> dences as to their competence. Often it is better to do the wrong thing confidently than the right thing diffidently. ■•-■'■ ■ ■*. •■■: If your feeling towards your children, has the right quality, your psychological handling of them, is not likely to b« amiss, and any knowledge that you acquire will be all to the good, provided that it is knowledge • and not merely rash 'theorising;; But .if ypuTjV feeling has.not the right quality-^noI'amount of knowledge will enable you to handl? the child rightly. If you have tt misfortune to have a child whom you can-! not love physically and instinctively, you will do well to hand him over as, far as you can to others who will love him. But if you love your children, parentally, not possessively—that is i* say, not for what they give you in the way, of .responses, -but for-, what yew' hope they may beeome-T-do not .mistrust your affection or; let .the, tlie©risti fill "you with donbt' aricT fear." ,"~~' ;,