Race Rests on Children

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 388, 23 June 1928, Page 23

Race Rests on Children

Benefit of

Psychologist Urges Keener Study of Juvenile Mind DISCIPLINE—OLD AND NEW

Much discussion has recently taken place on the behaviour of the modern child. He has been accused of bad manners, and of tyrannising over his elders. Ibsen found the younger generation knocking at the door: they are now accused of bouncing into the room. At a recent church congress, a certain distinguished lady put forward the view that it is no longer the father who is the despot of the family, but the child, says Dr. I’. B. Dallard, one of the leading psychologists of Great Britain. It is true that adults of all periods have boen wont to fc.iment the fact that children are uot

now what they were when they themselves were young. Even if we are to take this seriously, we must believe that children are getting worse and worse as the years roll by. Still, there does seem to be some ground for the general opinion that the child of to-day does not keep his proper place iu the social order. Our Assertive Youngsters It is certain that his attitude to his elders is very different from what it w as in Victorian days. Whereas a hoy used to address his father as “Sir!” he may now call him anything from "old bean” to “old egg.” Nor are our girls the meek bread-and-butter misses of former days. They assert themselves in a variety of ways, Pleasant and unpleasant. The vital question at issue is: How are we to bring up our children? How are we to bring them up so that the final result is the highest and noblest l>’pe of manhood and womanhood? It is not a question of getting them t° behave prettily as children, nor is it a question of getting them so to r ouduct themselves that they give the possible trouble to their elders. These are ends quite easy to attain, ‘t is only ncessary to subject the childr?n to discipline that is sufficiently Bte m and sufficiently prolonged. He""ards and punishments strictly administered will produce the most impecCOl ®Pany manners. . This policy, however, evades the l88Ue ; it takes the short view instead the long view; it judges by appearnces; it assumes that good conduct under pressure of external

authority will continue when that pressure is removed; it assumes that when we talk about a "good boy” and a "good man” we mean the same sort of “goodness”; most fatal mistake of all, it assumes that the suppression of a child’s natural impulses makes for the healthy growth of mind and morals. I do not propose to discuss here the relative merits of the old discipline and the new, but to maintain the thesis that before we can rule children wisely we must study them. Before we can do them any lasting good we must know what sort, of creatures they really are. The older theologians have assured us that a child is wholly bad—is an embodiment of original sin; that he is made wrong and has to be remade all over again. He should be checked at all points and be trained to do not the things he wants to do, but the things I he does not want to do. ; There are schoolmasters who still j cling to his view, in practice, if uot lin theory. The opposing view that the child is wholly good was first clearly formulated by Rousseau. Wordsworth re-echoed Rousseau when he told us that the child comes into this world trailing clouds of glory from heaven, which is his home. On one theory the child is an angel of darkness, on the other an angel of light. Those of us who have had close dealings with the creature can accept neither view; we know that he is neither a white angel nor a black j angel; but a white angel -with black spots, and sometimes, indeed, a black angel with white spots. “Why," it may plausibly be asked, “need we study children at all? We have all been children ourselves and know quite well how they feel and how they think.” But. do we? As a matter of fact, we have forgotten the bulk of the experiences of childhood; and we ascribe to an early period of our lives thoughts and feelings which really belong to a later period. So we have to examine these little creatures afresh. We have to examine them with as much attention and care as an entomologist examines an insect, and a botanist examines a flower. And, indeed. the assumption that we know ourselves is without foundation. Self-knowledge is not the beginning of wisdom, but the end of wisdom. The springs of our own conduct are as hidden from us are are sources of our thoughts, and our hidden life is our larger life. Instead of our meagre knowledge of ourselves throwing light upon the moods and motives of children, the reverse is more strictly true. Our knowledge of children's wiles and children's ways helps us to understand ourselves. Their minds are more transparent than ours, and their motives less concealed. There, more readily than anywhere else can we read the secrets of the human heart. This is child study for our own benefit. But the main purpose of child study is the benefit of the child; and through him. the benefit of the race. His more physical health is of vital concern to the nation. And we are steadily gaining fresh knowledge of the factors that make for his physical health. The discovery of vitamins has revolutionised our notions of feeding; the discovery of the influence of sunlight upon health has profoundly changed our views, not only on the open-air treatment of disease, but on clothing, shelter, and the aspect of school buildings.