Philippe Aries, in Centuries of Childhood, showed that "childhood" is a modern phenomenon, that children used to be thought of as little adults. From an early age they participated in the work of the family, and the life of the society. (Some related ideas are discussed by Jerome Bruner in The New York Review of Books, Oct. 27, 1983.)
If children are isolated from any intelligent work that the parents may perform, the world that they learn is one of functionless entertainment. Any tradition passed down by their parents is one of attitude, rather than of ability. If the child is allowed to be present when the parents work, the child wants to participate, to help, and to the extent that the children can participate, they are apprentices, and they learn effectiveness, personal power. If they are not apprentices, they still adopt the world of their parents as it is present in their speech, and they may receive a sense of power, but in this case their experience is that to belong is enough to be effective, that they "deserve" status. And if they don't receive this inherited sense of status, they may inherit helplessness.
If work is removed from the presence of children, how is the enabling truth which is in our culture to be distinguished from the useless aspects of the culture? If we lack a tradition of skilled work, then the point William Morris made becomes essential--we have to learn to reject the bad which is present in all the products of our culture--literature, painting, science, and so on.
Generative Energy page 136-137.
What do people think about this ? It seems radical in a way because in the western world we are taught that children should play. And even though I think play is important, the "deserve" status seems to provide certain characteristics as describe by Peat to understand truth. For those who didn't grow up with that tradition I think we will have to learn to reject the bad, which means going against the status quo in just about everything.
If children are isolated from any intelligent work that the parents may perform, the world that they learn is one of functionless entertainment. Any tradition passed down by their parents is one of attitude, rather than of ability. If the child is allowed to be present when the parents work, the child wants to participate, to help, and to the extent that the children can participate, they are apprentices, and they learn effectiveness, personal power. If they are not apprentices, they still adopt the world of their parents as it is present in their speech, and they may receive a sense of power, but in this case their experience is that to belong is enough to be effective, that they "deserve" status. And if they don't receive this inherited sense of status, they may inherit helplessness.
If work is removed from the presence of children, how is the enabling truth which is in our culture to be distinguished from the useless aspects of the culture? If we lack a tradition of skilled work, then the point William Morris made becomes essential--we have to learn to reject the bad which is present in all the products of our culture--literature, painting, science, and so on.
Generative Energy page 136-137.
What do people think about this ? It seems radical in a way because in the western world we are taught that children should play. And even though I think play is important, the "deserve" status seems to provide certain characteristics as describe by Peat to understand truth. For those who didn't grow up with that tradition I think we will have to learn to reject the bad, which means going against the status quo in just about everything.