不！反對成人至上（第9卷）
本人外語能力實(shí)在有限，機(jī)翻為主校準(zhǔn)為輔，有不通順或翻譯錯(cuò)誤地方感謝指正
年齡歧視：殘疾歧視的支柱?? 作者：Kathleen Nicole O’Neal
? 幾年前，我開始閱讀和學(xué)習(xí)有關(guān)殘疾人權(quán)利的問題。正如我對LGBT、女性、有色人種、社會正義、青年和其他問題的興趣一樣，我特別被許多殘疾權(quán)利活動(dòng)家自二十世紀(jì)末以來所做的高度理論批判性的工作所吸引。我在這部工作中發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)反復(fù)出現(xiàn)的觀點(diǎn)（我也多次聽到我的殘疾朋友表達(dá)了這一觀點(diǎn)），對殘疾人歧視性壓迫之一就是無論殘疾人的年齡大小，他們都被視為永久的孩子。我的青年朋友以及殘疾人權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者同事馬特·斯塔福德（Matt Stafford）寫了一些關(guān)于父母和其他人利用監(jiān)護(hù)制度對已過成年的殘疾人的生活施加不當(dāng)影響的文章。另一位年輕人的殘疾人權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者朋友告訴我，盡管我的朋友沒有認(rèn)知障礙，甚至最近剛從法學(xué)院畢業(yè)，但他們的同事如何拒絕恭敬和直接地與他們談?wù)撍麄兊尼t(yī)學(xué)問題。
? 殘疾人權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者長期以來一直在為所有殘疾人尋求更大的權(quán)利和自主權(quán)，包括那些有認(rèn)知和交流障礙的個(gè)人。他們與我們整個(gè)社會做挑戰(zhàn)，特別是非殘疾人為管理殘疾人而建立的機(jī)構(gòu)，他們認(rèn)為殘疾人與其他人一樣，無論他們可能有什么樣的身心限制或差異，都應(yīng)該享有自主權(quán)和尊嚴(yán)。通過這樣做，不僅大大改善了殘疾人的生活，還可以有力為捍衛(wèi)青年解放奠定了理論基礎(chǔ)。
? 殘疾是一個(gè)復(fù)雜的問題。有各種類型的殘疾，同樣也有各種框架來理解殘疾人的權(quán)利，甚至殘疾本身。然而，每一位認(rèn)真倡導(dǎo)殘疾人權(quán)利的人都會同意，以殘疾人的自主權(quán)為中心是很重要的，殘疾人不能按照非殘疾人的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)發(fā)揮作用，以此證明他們終身處于嬰兒期是正當(dāng)?shù)?。?dāng)然，許多人對基于這些理由而剝奪殘疾人的權(quán)利和自主權(quán)感到滿意的原因是，我們社會已經(jīng)有了一個(gè)廣泛的先例，即以此為借口剝奪兒童的權(quán)利和自主權(quán)。
? 每一位法官的行為和看法體系背后都隱含著這樣的假設(shè)，即把一個(gè)認(rèn)知障礙者的監(jiān)護(hù)權(quán)移交給另一位成年人，每一位家長都認(rèn)為自己有權(quán)為一個(gè)成年殘疾的兒子或女兒做出醫(yī)學(xué)決定而每一個(gè)為把殘疾人關(guān)進(jìn)壓迫甚至虐待的制度環(huán)境而辯護(hù)的立法者，他們不僅是殘疾歧視者(盡管他們確實(shí)是)。他們還有深刻的年齡歧視。
? 我們的社會對待未成年人的方式為我們所認(rèn)為的與那些我們認(rèn)為(正確或錯(cuò)誤地)缺乏一般成年人能力的人建立關(guān)系的理想方式樹立了先例。我們拒絕他們對身體的自主權(quán)。我們忽視了他們在教育中的需求和愛好。我們將他們隔離在不同的機(jī)構(gòu)（institutions，可以解釋為大學(xué)或者風(fēng)俗傳統(tǒng)）中，在那里他們很少被允許以有意義的方式與世界其他地區(qū)互動(dòng)。我們也剝奪了他們的性權(quán)力，包括單獨(dú)的或者合作的（。。。）。我們將他們的決策權(quán)移交給各個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)和家庭成員，而不詢問他們在對他們影響最大的事務(wù)中喜歡什么。我們將他們的決策權(quán)移交給各個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)和家庭成員，而不去詢問他們在對他們影響的大事中喜歡什么。我們拒絕給他們有意義的工作機(jī)會。最后，我們希望他們對他們所生活中的幾乎無休止的壓迫感到感激，因?yàn)槭紫炔⑶壹捌渲匾氖撬麄儜?yīng)當(dāng)感到幸運(yùn)，我們視他們?yōu)閼?yīng)該負(fù)責(zé)的負(fù)擔(dān)而任何人想要愚弄他們。難怪這么多人認(rèn)為以這種方式與殘疾人聯(lián)系是對他們最好的辦法。這是我們社會認(rèn)為我們能夠與未成年人建立關(guān)系的唯一方式。因此，幾乎普遍接受對青年的壓迫，打開了寬容甚至欽佩對所有年齡段殘疾人的壓迫的大門。當(dāng)然，沒有人把它稱為壓迫，即使用任何合理的定義來定義它。
? 殘疾權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者必須認(rèn)識到未成年人與殘疾人壓迫之間的聯(lián)系。年齡歧視在很大程度上加重了殘疾人的負(fù)擔(dān)，必須認(rèn)識到，為了消除殘疾人生活中的殘疾人歧視所帶來的有害影響。青年權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者也必須認(rèn)識到，支持青年解放從邏輯上講必須支持殘疾人權(quán)利運(yùn)動(dòng)。允許我們社會中任何被剝奪自由、正義和平等的人，開創(chuàng)一個(gè)先例，這樣對待任何其他群體的個(gè)人就會被更好地接受。當(dāng)我們保護(hù)青年和殘疾人的權(quán)利時(shí)，我們最好保護(hù)他們而不是當(dāng)我們假裝保護(hù)他們不受到他們自身傷害時(shí)。
兒童及其敵人 作者：Emma Goldman
? 孩子們應(yīng)該是被視為一個(gè)個(gè)體，還是一個(gè)可以被周圍人心血來潮的想象和幻想而隨意捏造的對象？在我看來，這是父母和教育工作者要回答的最重要的問題。這個(gè)孩子是否會心靈成長，是否所渴望表達(dá)的東西都會被允許在陽光下表達(dá)出來;或者它是否會像面團(tuán)一樣被外力揉捏，取決于對這個(gè)關(guān)鍵問題的正確答案。
? 我們這個(gè)時(shí)代對最優(yōu)秀、最高尚事物的渴望造就了最堅(jiān)強(qiáng)的個(gè)性。每一個(gè)靈敏的人都討厭被當(dāng)作純粹的機(jī)器或被當(dāng)作傳統(tǒng)和名勝的學(xué)舌人，人們渴望得到其他人的認(rèn)可。
? 必須記住，正是通過兒童的教育方式，成熟的人的發(fā)展才得以實(shí)現(xiàn)，而目前在學(xué)校和家庭中對兒童進(jìn)行教育或培訓(xùn)的觀念，甚至是自由派或激進(jìn)派的家庭，都會扼殺兒童的自然成長。
??? 我們時(shí)代的每一個(gè)制度、家庭、國家、道德準(zhǔn)則，都把每一個(gè)堅(jiān)強(qiáng)、美麗、毫不妥協(xié)的人格視為致命的敵人；因此，人們正盡一切努力將人類的情感和個(gè)人思想的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性從嬰兒時(shí)期就束縛在一件筆直的夾克里；或者根據(jù)單一模式塑造每個(gè)人；不是成為一個(gè)全面的個(gè)人，而是成為一個(gè)耐心的工作奴隸、職業(yè)機(jī)器人、納稅公民或正直的道德家。然而，如果一個(gè)人遇到了真正的自發(fā)性（順便說一句，這是一種罕見的待遇），那并不是因?yàn)槲覀凁B(yǎng)育或教育孩子的方法：不管官方和家庭的障礙，個(gè)性往往會自我彰顯。這樣一個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)應(yīng)該被視為一個(gè)不尋常的事件，因?yàn)樽璧K性格成長和發(fā)展的障礙是如此之多，如果它能保持它的力量和美麗，并能經(jīng)受住各種破壞它最重要的東西的嘗試，它一定會被視為奇跡。
? 事實(shí)上，他已經(jīng)擺脫了愚蠢的平凡和無知的束縛；弗里德里?！つ岵桑‵riedrich Nietzsche）稱，如果沒有道德依賴，沒有公眾輿論的認(rèn)可，個(gè)人懶惰，那么他很可能會唱出一首關(guān)于獨(dú)立和自由的高亢而宏大的歌；他通過激烈而激烈的戰(zhàn)斗獲得了這一權(quán)利。這些戰(zhàn)斗已經(jīng)在最幼小的年齡開始了。
? 孩子在游戲中，在提問中，在與人和事物的交往中，表現(xiàn)出了自己個(gè)人性情。但它必須與思想和情感世界中永恒的外部干擾作斗爭，不能與它的本性和不斷增長的個(gè)性和諧地表達(dá)自己。它必須成為一個(gè)東西，一個(gè)物體（thing和object實(shí)在不知道怎么翻譯）。它的問題得到了狹隘的、傳統(tǒng)的、荒謬的回答，并且大多是基于謊言；當(dāng)它用一雙充滿好奇和天真的大眼睛想要看到世界的奇跡時(shí)，周圍的人迅速鎖上門窗，把這株嬌嫩的人類植物放在溫室里，在那里它既不能呼吸也不能自由生長。
? 佐拉在他的小說《繁殖》中堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，大部分人已經(jīng)宣布孩子死亡，密謀反對孩子的出生，這確實(shí)是一幅非?？膳碌漠嬅?，但在我看來，文明對性格成長和塑造的陰謀似乎更可怕和災(zāi)難性，因?yàn)樗臐撛谄焚|(zhì)和特征被緩慢而逐漸地破壞，對它的社會幸福產(chǎn)生了令人震驚和破壞般的影響。
? 由于我們教育生活中的每一項(xiàng)努力似乎都是為了使孩子成為一個(gè)與自己本身格格不入的人，因此它必然會產(chǎn)生個(gè)人間彼此的格格不入，并使他們彼此永遠(yuǎn)對立。
? 普通教師（pedagogist ）的理想并不是去塑造一個(gè)完美，豐滿，原創(chuàng)的存在；相反，他尋求的是的教育藝術(shù)的結(jié)果是塑造一個(gè)血肉之軀的機(jī)器人，以此來最好適應(yīng)我們單調(diào)無趣的世界和空洞乏味的生活。每個(gè)家庭、學(xué)校、學(xué)院和大學(xué)都代表著枯燥、冷酷的功利主義，大量祖祖輩輩傳下來的思想充斥著學(xué)生的大腦。所謂的“事實(shí)和數(shù)據(jù)”構(gòu)成了大量信息可能足以維持各種形式的權(quán)威，并對個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)的重要性產(chǎn)生極大的敬畏。但這實(shí)際上對真正理解人類的靈魂及其在世界上的地位形成了一個(gè)極大的障礙。
? 早已死去和被遺忘的真理，甚至在我們祖母時(shí)代就已蒙塵的關(guān)于世界和人民的觀念，正在硬塞進(jìn)我們年輕一代的頭腦里。永恒的變化，千變?nèi)f化，不斷的創(chuàng)新是生命的本質(zhì)。專業(yè)的教育學(xué)對此一無所知，教育系統(tǒng)被整理成文件，分類和編號。他們?nèi)狈?qiáng)壯肥沃的種子，這種種子落在肥沃的土地上，可以使他們長到很高的高度，他們疲憊不堪，不能喚醒自發(fā)性的性格。教師和教師的靈魂是死的，他們的價(jià)值觀是死的。數(shù)量被迫取代了質(zhì)量。其后果是不可避免的。
? 無論你轉(zhuǎn)向哪個(gè)方向，急切地尋找那些不以權(quán)宜之計(jì)的尺度來衡量思想和情感的人，你所面對的都是產(chǎn)物，是羊群般的操練，而不是自發(fā)的和天生的特性在自由中發(fā)揮出來的結(jié)果。
“我所見的只有空無，無論靈魂有起什么作用（agency），這里只有不斷的訓(xùn)練，僅此而已”
? 浮士德的這些話完全符合我們的教學(xué)方法。例如，以我們學(xué)校教授歷史的方式為例。看看世界上的大事是如何變得像一場場廉價(jià)的木偶戲，在那里，人類歷史的發(fā)展僅僅是由幾個(gè)拉鋼絲的操縱者所引導(dǎo)的。
? 還有我們國家的歷史！難道不是上帝選擇我們國家去領(lǐng)導(dǎo)其他國家嗎？難道我們的國家不比其他國家更加高大？難道它不是大洋中的寶石，兼具著善良，勇敢與理想嗎？這種荒謬的教育結(jié)果就是膚淺的，令人生厭的愛國主義。無視自身的局限性，固執(zhí)如牛，完全無法判斷其他國家的能力。這就是當(dāng)今年輕人精神被閹割的方式，過度高估一個(gè)人的價(jià)值而麻木。難怪輿論會如此容易的被捏造。
? 每一個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)的殿堂上都被刻上了“簡陋的食物”，以警告所有不想失去自己的個(gè)性和獨(dú)有判斷力的人，像反的，他們會滿足于大量虛偽空洞的外殼（奶頭樂）。這可以讓人認(rèn)識到那些會對孩子們獨(dú)立心理發(fā)展的障礙。
? 同樣重要的是，孩子們的內(nèi)心健康也面臨困難。難道沒人認(rèn)為父母應(yīng)當(dāng)用溫柔細(xì)膩的聲音去團(tuán)結(jié)教導(dǎo)孩子嗎？人們應(yīng)當(dāng)那么想；但可悲的是，事實(shí)上父母是第一個(gè)破壞孩子們內(nèi)心財(cái)富的人。
? 圣經(jīng)告訴我們，上帝用自己的形象創(chuàng)造了人類，但結(jié)果卻十分失敗。而現(xiàn)在家長們卻用上帝最失敗的例子：竭盡全力用他們自己的形象來塑造教育孩子。他們固執(zhí)的認(rèn)為孩子是屬于自己的——這種錯(cuò)誤又有害的想法，只會增加孩子們靈魂上的誤解，對奴役與服從必要的誤解。
? 當(dāng)意識的第一縷曙光照進(jìn)了孩子們的心靈與腦海時(shí)，他們便本能地開始將自己的個(gè)性與周圍人的個(gè)性進(jìn)行比較。有多少堅(jiān)硬冰冷的石崖會遇到他們好奇的目光呢？很快，他們就不得不面對一個(gè)殘酷的事實(shí)，即他們作為父母與監(jiān)護(hù)人的附屬物品，在他們權(quán)威下塑造了孩子們的形式和形態(tài)。
? 有思維的人們在政治，社會與道德上的艱難斗爭都源自于家庭。在家庭中，孩子總是被迫對內(nèi)部和外部進(jìn)行暴力對抗。絕對的命令：你應(yīng)該！你必須！這是對的！這是錯(cuò)的！這是真的！那是假的！這些話語像暴雨一樣傾瀉在青年人純潔的腦海里，并在他們情感上留下深刻的印記，確保他們向長期確立且頑固的思想與情感觀念低頭。然而在孩子們潛在的品質(zhì)和本能作用下他們堅(jiān)持用自我的方式去來尋找事物的基礎(chǔ)，區(qū)分通常所說的錯(cuò)誤、正確或虛假。他們決心走自己的路，因?yàn)樗瑯邮怯缮窠?jīng)、肌肉和血液組成的，正如那些認(rèn)為要主宰自己命運(yùn)的人。我不明白家長們是如何期望他們的孩子成長為擁有獨(dú)立且自立的精神的，當(dāng)他們竭盡全力去減少或限制孩子們的各項(xiàng)活動(dòng)。品質(zhì)和性格上的優(yōu)勢，使他們的后代與自己不同，憑借這一優(yōu)勢，他們成為新的、令人振奮的思想的杰出載體。一棵幼嫩的樹，如果被園丁去人為的修剪和切割，賦予它人為的樣子，那么它永遠(yuǎn)也達(dá)不到在自然與自由手中塑造的雄偉高度和美麗。
? 當(dāng)孩子們步入青春期時(shí)，他們不僅僅要家庭與學(xué)校的限制，還要承受大量社會道德傳統(tǒng)的捏造。大多數(shù)的父母對愛與性的渴望是無知的，他們認(rèn)為這些渴望應(yīng)當(dāng)像疾病一樣去壓抑與斗爭，它們是下流且不道德的，甚至是不光彩的，如同犯了罪一樣。幼小植物所蘊(yùn)含的愛與溫柔的情感因?yàn)橹車说挠薮雷兊么植谇矣顾?，因此一切美好的要么被完全粉碎，要么被隱藏在深處，成為一種見不得光的大罪。
? 更令人驚訝的是，父母們同樣會剝奪自己的一切，會犧牲一切來保障孩子們的身體健康，會在他們所愛的人得病之前，在夜里被恐懼與痛苦所包裹。但同時(shí)他們在靈魂和孩子的渴望面前會冷漠并且對他們沒有絲毫理解。既聽不到也不希望聽到任何能直擊青年人心靈的認(rèn)可聲。相反，它們會扼殺春天里美麗的聲音，扼殺愛的美麗和燦爛的新生活；他們會將威權(quán)這細(xì)長的大手放在溫柔的喉嚨上，將個(gè)性的成長、性格的美、愛的力量和人際關(guān)系這些真正讓生活有價(jià)值的悅耳之歌掐滅。
? 而且這些家長認(rèn)為他們對孩子最好（為了你好）；據(jù)我所知，有些人真的這么認(rèn)為。但他們的好對于萌芽狀態(tài)（的孩子們）意味著絕對的死亡和腐爛。畢竟，他們只是在模仿自己在州、商業(yè)、社會和道德事務(wù)中的主人，強(qiáng)行壓制每一次分析社會弊病的獨(dú)立嘗試，以及那些為消除這些弊病所作的每一次真誠努力；他們永遠(yuǎn)無法把握的一個(gè)永恒的真理，即他們使用的每一種方法都是激發(fā)對自由的更大渴望和為自由而戰(zhàn)的更深熱情的巨大動(dòng)力。
? 每一位家長和老師都應(yīng)該知道，這種強(qiáng)迫必然會激起反抗。但令人驚訝的是，激進(jìn)父母的大多數(shù)孩子要么完全反對后者的想法，其中許多人走上了陳舊的道路，要么對社會新生的思想和學(xué)說漠不關(guān)心。但這其實(shí)并不意外。激進(jìn)的父母，雖然從人類靈魂的所有權(quán)信仰中解放出來，但他們?nèi)匀还虉?zhí)的堅(jiān)持孩子屬于自己的觀念，他們有權(quán)對孩子行使權(quán)力。所以他們用自身的是非觀念來塑造孩子，將自己的想法來強(qiáng)加于孩子，就像普通天主教家長一樣激烈。對于后者，他們在青年人面前提出了“聽我說的做而不是照著我做”，但即使是孩子們易受影響的思想也能很快意識到他們父母的生活和他們所代表的思想背道而馳。就像一個(gè)善良的基督徒在周日熱切祈禱，但在本周剩下的時(shí)間里繼續(xù)違背上帝的命令一樣，這些激進(jìn)的父母會控訴上帝、牧師、教會、政府和國內(nèi)權(quán)威，但依然在自己所厭惡的現(xiàn)狀里調(diào)整自己去適應(yīng)。正因?yàn)槿绱?，這些思想自由的父母可以自豪地吹噓，他四個(gè)孩子的兒子會認(rèn)出托馬斯·潘恩或英格索爾的照片，或者他知道上帝的想法是愚蠢的。或者社會民主黨的父親可以指著他六歲的小女兒說:“誰寫的《資本論》，親愛的?”“卡爾·馬克思，爸爸!”或者，無政府主義的母親可以讓別人知道她的女兒叫路易絲·米歇爾，索菲亞·佩洛夫斯卡婭，或者她可以背誦赫維、弗雷里格拉斯或雪萊的革命詩歌，她可以在幾乎任何地方指出斯賓塞、巴枯寧或摩西·哈蒙的面孔。
? 這并非夸大其詞，而且我與這些激進(jìn)的父母相處中發(fā)現(xiàn)的可悲事實(shí)。這種偏見思想會造成什么結(jié)果呢？以下便是結(jié)果，孩子被片面的、固定的和固定的想法所飼養(yǎng)，很快孩子們厭倦了對父母的信仰并進(jìn)行重新思考，尋求新的感覺，無論新的體驗(yàn)多么自卑和膚淺，人類的頭腦都無法忍受千篇一律和單調(diào)，這種結(jié)果并不少見。因此，當(dāng)孩子們碰巧受到了托馬斯.佩恩的深刻影響會落入教會的懷抱，或者他們會投票支持帝國主義，只是為了擺脫經(jīng)濟(jì)決定論和科學(xué)社會主義的拖累，或者他們開了一家襯衫腰工廠，堅(jiān)持自己積累財(cái)產(chǎn)的權(quán)利，只是為了從父親的老式共產(chǎn)主義中解脫出來?；蛘哌@個(gè)女孩會嫁給下一個(gè)伴郎，只要他能謀生，僅僅是為了逃離那些多樣且持續(xù)不斷的話題。
? 這種情況可能會讓那些希望孩子走自己道路的父母感到非常痛苦，但我認(rèn)為他們是非常令人耳目一新和鼓舞的心理力量。它們是最大的保證，至少獨(dú)立的頭腦將永遠(yuǎn)抵抗人類內(nèi)心和頭腦中的每一股外部和外來力量。
? 有人會問，軟弱的本性怎么辦？難道他們不應(yīng)該受到保護(hù)嗎？是的，但要做到這一點(diǎn)，就必須認(rèn)識到，對孩子的教育不是像羊群一樣去訓(xùn)練或者培訓(xùn)。如果教育真的有意義的話，它必須確保兒童內(nèi)在力量與傾向的自由成長和發(fā)展。只有這樣，我們才能希望有自由的個(gè)人，并最終希望有一個(gè)自由的社會，這將使對人類成長的干涉和強(qiáng)制成為不可能。
? 剝削與道德管理 Jeremy Weiland
? 對孩子們的剝削一直是在歷史上困擾人類的罪惡，社會對兒童福利的認(rèn)識和對其定義的共識相對較新，但依然在上升。遵循這一趨勢，國會中的許多人不斷努力解決這一問題，為國家創(chuàng)造了新的立法特權(quán)，以阻止剝削者和保護(hù)兒童。
? 那么，我們?nèi)绾螌⑦@些目標(biāo)與最近被抓到與未成年人進(jìn)行露骨的性對話的國會議員馬克·福利的案件情況相一致呢？也許那些試圖保護(hù)我們不受無名罪犯傷害的人完全誤解了這個(gè)問題。這個(gè)被授權(quán)頒布全國性法律、制定懲罰標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和指導(dǎo)國家充分行使權(quán)力的機(jī)構(gòu)被它所嘗試根除的腐敗包含著。
? 這讓人懷疑：我們能信任誰？
? 作為一個(gè)推動(dòng)廢除國家機(jī)構(gòu)的安主義者，在我看來，國會和我們?nèi)魏稳艘粯尤菀资艿叫皭呵也蛔愕慕?jīng)驗(yàn)主義錯(cuò)誤所影響。這正是他們不值得統(tǒng)治我和這個(gè)國家的任何人的原因。我們都容易犯錯(cuò)，同樣會被欺騙或者腐化，但也具有高尚和謹(jǐn)慎的能力。我們不是通過高層的命令，而是通過建立關(guān)系來學(xué)習(xí)信任誰，避免誰。
? 社會是我們問題的答案：在自愿原則的基礎(chǔ)上形成市場、社區(qū)、網(wǎng)絡(luò)和組織，讓人們可以自由地根據(jù)自己的興趣和判斷進(jìn)行實(shí)驗(yàn)、創(chuàng)新、團(tuán)結(jié)和分道揚(yáng)鑣。我們通過與鄰居結(jié)盟來保護(hù)我們的家庭，在經(jīng)過驗(yàn)證的公開競爭對手中雇傭代理人，分享信息和建議。保護(hù)兒童的最佳方式是由了解其中利害關(guān)系的人來完成:父母和社區(qū)。這就引出了一個(gè)無政府主義者經(jīng)常被問到的問題：如果沒有國家，我們?nèi)绾畏乐箈、y或z的發(fā)生？有哪些方法可以保證所有人都能接受的結(jié)果？在沒有授權(quán)和管理機(jī)構(gòu)的情況下，我們?nèi)绾巍捌胶狻笔澜缟舷嗷ジ偁幍睦?？在剝削兒童的情況下：我們?nèi)绾未_保我們的孩子免受墮落者的傷害？
? 這些都是好問題，普通人都在尋求答案。但不幸的是，相比于他們在政治上被誠實(shí)地問到，這些問題常常被當(dāng)作對社會施加某種新控制的修辭前奏。相對于把這個(gè)問題看作是一個(gè)復(fù)雜的人際和社區(qū)動(dòng)態(tài)，有很多原因和可能的解決方案，他們更多鼓勵(lì)我們把這個(gè)問題看成是一個(gè)一維的、簡單的遺漏：邪惡源于缺乏充分的治理。
? 政府的答案總是讓我們?yōu)榱俗约旱睦娑魅跷覀冏约?。通過降低社會的復(fù)雜性、適應(yīng)性和權(quán)力，我們更容易自上而下的進(jìn)行管理，因此也更容易預(yù)測和同質(zhì)化。通過國會頒布的更嚴(yán)格的監(jiān)督和禁令，我們可以開始重新挖掘我們的美德，至少正如國會所定義的那樣。
? 但諷刺的是，國會也沒有找到美德。
? 福利丑聞表明，當(dāng)局無力對社會進(jìn)行道德管理。那些代表我們制定法律的人和我們一樣有缺陷。他們的官僚機(jī)構(gòu)沒有賦予他們對人性的特殊見解。他們的權(quán)力并沒有表現(xiàn)出約束社會或他們自己的能力。當(dāng)我們要求上級領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，要求安全和秩序的保障時(shí)，我們會把良心交給不值得托付的人。政府永遠(yuǎn)試圖通過對我們實(shí)施更多的控制來實(shí)現(xiàn)無法實(shí)現(xiàn)的安全和道德健康保障。
? 事實(shí)上，據(jù)報(bào)告所言，兩黨的政客們都知道問題的存在卻沒有一人采取措施去制止它。想想看：這個(gè)國家最強(qiáng)大的機(jī)構(gòu)，無視了自己能夠立即解決的案件，而無需訴諸政治策略或商議。然后讓我們問問自己：這些都是關(guān)于孩子的嗎？
? 當(dāng)下一項(xiàng)“為了我們自己的利益”或者“保護(hù)我們的孩子”的法案出現(xiàn)時(shí)，想一想馬克·福利的案子吧。他證明了政治的真理：美德不是靠強(qiáng)制性法律和開明治理。我們必須對自己抱有信心和信任，合作制定我們尋求的解決方案，而不是渴求他人強(qiáng)加給我們。
? 職場母親與娛樂之戰(zhàn) Aya de Leon
? 最近，我讀到了些非小說類文集關(guān)于過度勞累的母親。的確，當(dāng)我在做勞累母親的事-例如家務(wù)并且接送孩子們上下學(xué)的時(shí)候，我會聽電子版。首先，我讀了卡特里娜·阿爾庫恩（?Katrina Alcorn）的《Maxed Out: American Moms on the Brink》并且現(xiàn)在正在讀布里吉德·舒爾特（Brigid Schulte）的《Overwhelmed: Work, Love and Play When No One Has the Time 》他們列舉了媽媽們是如何淹沒在我們對完美工作者和完美母親的要求中的。
? 在《Overwhelmed...》中我對關(guān)于不堪重負(fù)（overwhelm ）和不平等（inequality）的章節(jié)深有認(rèn)同。我感覺文章與我對于在業(yè)余科研人員中性別歧視的條例的觀點(diǎn)相同。她的信息很明確：作為職場媽媽，我們正受到美國社會的擠壓，這個(gè)社會要求職工和母親都做到完美。職業(yè)母親處于社會中各種壓迫結(jié)構(gòu)的交叉點(diǎn)。幾十年來，反女權(quán)主義的反彈造就了這樣一個(gè)謊言:如果我們外出工作，我們的孩子會受到影響。從有缺陷的研究到商業(yè)廣告，再到來自“直升機(jī)媽媽”（指一直圍著孩子轉(zhuǎn)的母親，氰化歡樂秀有一集就諷刺了這樣的母親）的同伴壓力，無數(shù)的日常信息強(qiáng)化了母親們的焦慮，即只有我們?nèi)旌虻耐昝琅惆椴拍艽_保孩子的健康。但同時(shí)生活成本的上漲讓家庭的經(jīng)濟(jì)必須靠兩個(gè)人共同努力才能維持。經(jīng)濟(jì)上的不安全感和對職工的虐待讓每個(gè)人都感到焦慮，并決心成為一名完美的工人，以保住自己的工作，確保自己的經(jīng)濟(jì)生存。這種基于恐懼的壓力在經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退時(shí)期加劇了父母的壓力。而且（與許多歐洲社會不同）美國拒絕組織機(jī)構(gòu)來支持一般家庭，尤其是工薪家庭。因此，我們這些職業(yè)母親生活在這種雙重壓力的中心，利用我們的意志和過度工作來確保我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)生存和孩子的福祉。
? 我喜歡這些書！但當(dāng)講到劇本的那一章時(shí)，很難繼續(xù)聽下去。在劇本的一章中，她敦促讀者關(guān)注那些地方，作為職場媽媽，我們經(jīng)常與壓迫合作，并在其他兩個(gè)領(lǐng)域否認(rèn)自己追求完美的快樂。
? 我并不喜歡關(guān)注那些。我降低了快樂的門檻來滿足成就所帶來的快樂和從待辦事項(xiàng)列表中劃掉的滿足。我已經(jīng)決定在女兒的眼睛里制造一點(diǎn)喜悅的火花。這些天來，我自己的火花只是一些（女兒喜悅的）反射。在這種情況下，想想我自己的快樂、玩耍和高興，真是太痛苦了。因?yàn)檫@感覺就像是又一件事要做。我無法想象我是如何做到的。
? 但對我來說幸運(yùn)的是，當(dāng)我在紅木森林露營時(shí)，我明白了書的核心章節(jié)。不知怎的，周圍都是幾百英尺高的樹，一切似乎都有可能。一些最大的樹有嚴(yán)重的燒傷疤痕，但它們?nèi)匀辉诶^續(xù)生長和茁壯成長，它們的頂部在遠(yuǎn)處郁郁蔥蔥。燒傷是一場大火留下的疤痕，它們幸存下來并不斷生長。
? 所以我說，在我孩子早期的養(yǎng)育過程中，我經(jīng)歷了一段火熱（暴躁-fiery）的時(shí)期，但現(xiàn)在我準(zhǔn)備好了茁壯成長。為此，我今年夏天最大的項(xiàng)目是康復(fù)游戲。迷你高爾夫。水滑道。卡拉ok。我有一個(gè)完整的清單。這并不容易。我回家五天了，只完成了清單上的一件事:從網(wǎng)上訂購厚底鞋。
? 優(yōu)先考慮娛樂是困難的。當(dāng)母親們?nèi)ド习?，我們年幼的孩子會哭著不想讓我們離開時(shí)，我們中的許多人都安慰自己，讓孩子們看到母親參與這個(gè)世界很重要。許多研究證明了這一點(diǎn)，即有工作媽媽是有好處的。尤其是如果我們有女兒，職場媽媽可以成為女性在更大世界中的參與度和影響力的典范。
?作為一名教師、演員和作家，我很容易為我的女兒樹立了榜樣。游戲區(qū)是我生活中最大的不足。這是我想為我女兒做模特的地方，成年女性也可以在這里玩得開心。尤其是作為一名黑人女性，這一目標(biāo)與我們作為這個(gè)國家的主力軍的歷史遺產(chǎn)是一個(gè)關(guān)鍵的矛盾。前幾代黑人婦女竭盡全力，確保我們的孩子過上更好的生活。他們不得不這樣做。當(dāng)時(shí)的條件很艱苦。但我有機(jī)會以不同的方式做這件事，所以我計(jì)劃這樣做。我的目標(biāo)不僅是像瘋子一樣到處亂跑，確保我的女兒過上美好的生活，而且是讓我的生活成為我為她塑造美好生活的榜樣。這需要包括娛樂。
12個(gè)對護(hù)理人員有用的想法 Benjamin Fife
? 加州大學(xué)舊金山分校兒童創(chuàng)傷研究項(xiàng)目的Alicia Lieberman和Patricia Van Horn撰寫了大量關(guān)于心理治療的文章，以支持受早期創(chuàng)傷和損失影響的幼兒的發(fā)展。他們?yōu)?009年第三版《嬰兒心理健康手冊》貢獻(xiàn)了一個(gè)非常深思熟慮的章節(jié)，在該手冊中，他們描述了一種與幼兒及其父母合作的模式，他們稱之為兒童-父母心理治療。CPP是一種基于關(guān)系的模式，結(jié)合了一系列其他與幼兒及其父母合作的方法。與20世紀(jì)80年代以后開發(fā)的早期模型一樣，CPP使用兒童-父母聯(lián)合治療來促進(jìn)兒童的健康發(fā)展。Lieberman和Van Horn組織他們的治療模式的前提是，當(dāng)依戀關(guān)系能夠滿足嬰兒、幼兒和學(xué)齡前兒童對“關(guān)懷、保護(hù)和文化認(rèn)可的情感調(diào)節(jié)模式、人際關(guān)系和學(xué)習(xí)”的基本需求時(shí)，長期的心理健康和恢復(fù)力就會得到支持?！拔蚁矚g這個(gè)模型的一點(diǎn)是，它為理解和解釋幼兒在依戀關(guān)系中的行為提供了12個(gè)易于理解的有用指南。
? 雖然作者在描述這些指導(dǎo)方針時(shí)使用了“父母”一詞，但我在這里轉(zhuǎn)述了他們的指導(dǎo)方針，并使用了“照顧者”一詞。我之所以在語言上做出這樣的改變，是因?yàn)槲艺J(rèn)為照顧者更準(zhǔn)確地反映了兒童通常與非親生父母或合法父母的人有著重要的依戀關(guān)系，這些關(guān)系可以產(chǎn)生痛苦和適應(yīng)。我希望這里的照顧者是一個(gè)包括父母的術(shù)語，同時(shí)也包括幼兒與家庭內(nèi)外非父母成年人的依戀關(guān)系，這對這個(gè)發(fā)展至關(guān)重要。
幼兒的哭泣和依戀是為了傳達(dá)他們的照顧者迫切需要親近和關(guān)心
幼兒在分離時(shí)的痛苦是對失去照顧他們的人的恐懼的一種表達(dá)。
小孩子害怕看護(hù)者的反對，常常想要取悅他們的看護(hù)者。
小孩子害怕受傷，害怕失去身體的某些部位。
幼兒模仿照顧者的行為是因?yàn)樗麄僡)想要像照顧者一樣，b)認(rèn)為照顧者的行為是一個(gè)可以模仿的榜樣。
當(dāng)照顧者不高興時(shí)，年幼的孩子會感到有責(zé)任，并責(zé)怪自己，不管他們不高興的“真正”原因是什么。
年幼的孩子相信他們的照顧者無所不知，永遠(yuǎn)是對的。
為了讓幼兒感到安全和對他們的保護(hù)，需要對危險(xiǎn)或文化上不恰當(dāng)?shù)男袨檫M(jìn)行明確一致的限制。
幼兒用“不”這個(gè)詞來建立他們的自主性，并練習(xí)自己的存在和感覺自主。
記憶從嬰兒出生時(shí)就開始了。嬰兒和幼兒在會說之前就會記住經(jīng)歷。
孩子們需要照顧者的支持和幫助，以便學(xué)會表達(dá)強(qiáng)烈的情緒而不傷害自己或他人。
兒童和照顧者之間的沖突是不可避免的，因?yàn)閮和驼疹櫿呖梢远覒?yīng)該有不同的發(fā)展需求。兒童與其照料者之間的沖突可以通過促進(jìn)信任和支持發(fā)展的方式加以解決。
Ageism: A Pillar of AbleismKathleen Nicole O’Neal
Several years back I began reading and learning about disability rights issues. As is the case with my interest in LGBT, women’s, people of color, social justice, youth, and other issues, I was particularly drawn to the highly theoretical critical work that many disability rights theorists have been producing since the late twentieth century. One viewpoint I found repeatedly represented in this body of work (and which I have also heard expressed multiple times by my friends with disabilities) is that one of the primary pillars of disability oppression is the way in which people with disabilities, regardless of age, are treated as if they were forever children. My friend and fellow youth and disability rights advocate Matt Stafford has written about the ways in which parents and others use the institution of guardianship in order to exert undue influence in the lives of people with disabilities who have passed the age of majority. Another friend who is a youth and disability rights advocate has spoken with me about how the doctors they work with will refuse to talk respectfully and directly to them about their medical issues despite the fact that my friend has no cognitive impairments and even recently graduated from law school.
Disability rights advocates have long sought greater rights and autonomy for all people with disabilities, including individuals with cognitive and communication impairments. They have challenged our entire society, especially the institutions set up by the non-disabled to manage people with disabilities, to view disabled persons as being as deserving of autonomy and dignity as everyone else no matter what mental or physical limitations or differences they may possess. In doing so they have not only greatly improved the lives of disabled people, they have also laid the theoretical groundwork for a compelling defense of youth liberation.
Disability is a complicated issue. There are various types of disabilities and there are various frameworks for understanding the rights of disabled people and even disability itself. However, every serious advocate of disability rights will agree that centering the autonomy of disabled people is important and that all too many people believe that an inability on the part of disabled people to function according to the standards of non-disabled individuals justifies their lifelong infantilization. Of course, the reason that many people feel comfortable with denying rights and autonomy to persons with disabilities on these grounds is that we already have a widespread precedent within our society of using this as a pretense to deny rights and autonomy to children.
The implicit assumption behind the actions and belief system of every judge that casually turns over guardianship of a person with cognitive disabilities to another adult, of every parent who believes they have an undisputed right to make medical decisions for a disabled adult son or daughter, and of every legislator who defends the corralling of disabled individuals into oppressive and even abusive institutional settings are not only ableist (although they are that). They are also profoundly ageist.
The way our society treats minors has set the precedent for what we believe is the ideal way to relate to those whom we perceive (rightly or wrongly) as lacking the capacities of the average adult human being. We deny them bodily autonomy. We ignore their needs and preferences in the realm of education. We segregate them in various institutions where they are rarely permitted to interact in a meaningful way with the rest of the world. We deny them the right to their sexuality, either alone or partnered. We turn their decision-making authority over to various institutions and family members without asking them what they prefer in the matters which affect them most. We deny them opportunities for meaningful work. Finally, we expect them to react with gratitude for the nearly endless oppression they live under because first and foremost we view them as a burden who should feel fortunate that anyone wishes to fool with them at all. No wonder so many people believe that relating to disabled individuals this way is the best that can be done for them. It is the only way our society believes that we can relate to minors. Thus nearly universal acceptance of the oppression of youth opens the door to tolerance and even admiration of the oppression of disabled people of all ages. Of course, no one calls it oppression even though by any reasonable definition it is.
It is important for disability rights advocates to recognize the link between youth and disability oppression. Ageism does much of ableism’s heavy lifting and it is important to recognize that in order to combat the pernicious influence that ableism plays in the lives of disabled individuals. It is also important for youth rights advocates to recognize that support for youth liberation logically necessitates support for the disability rights movement. Allowing anyone in our society to be denied liberty, justice, and equality sets a precedent whereby doing this to any other group of individuals becomes much more widely accepted. We best protect youth and people with disabilities when we protect their rights and not when we pretend to protect them from themselves.
The Child and Its EnemiesEmma Goldman
Is the child to be considered as an individuality, or as an object to be moulded according to the whims and fancies of those about it? This seems to me to be the most important question to be answered by parents and educators. And whether the child is to grow from within, whether all that craves expression will be permitted to come forth toward the light of day; or whether it is to be kneaded like dough through external forces, depends upon the proper answer to this vital question.
The longing of the best and noblest of our times makes for the strongest individualities. Every sensitive being abhors the idea of being treated as a mere machine or as a mere parrot of conventionality and respectability, the human being craves recognition of his kind.
It must be borne in mind that it is through the channel of the child that the development of the mature man must go, and that the present ideas of the educating or training of the latter in the school and the family—even the family of the liberal or radical—are such as to stifle the natural growth of the child.
Every institution of our day, the family, the State, our moral codes, sees in every strong, beautiful, uncompromising personality a deadly enemy; therefore every effort is being made to cramp human emotion and originality of thought in the individual into a straight-jacket from its earliest infancy; or to shape every human being according to one pattern; not into a well-rounded individuality, but into a patient work slave, professional automaton, tax-paying citizen, or righteous moralist. If one, nevertheless, meets with real spontaneity (which, by the way, is a rare treat,) it is not due to our method of rearing or educating the child: the personality often asserts itself, regardless of official and family barriers. Such a discovery should be celebrated as an unusual event, since the obstacles placed in the way of growth and development of character are so numerous that it must be considered a miracle if it retains its strength and beauty and survives the various attempts at crippling that which is most essential to it.
Indeed, he who has freed himself from the fetters of the thoughtlessness and stupidity of the commonplace; he who can stand without moral crutches, without the approval of public opinion—private laziness, Friedrich Nietzsche called it—may well intone a high and voluminous song of independence and freedom; he has gained the right to it through fierce and fiery battles. These battles already begin at the most delicate age.
The child shows its individual tendencies in its plays, in its questions, in its association with people and things. But it has to struggle with everlasting external interference in its world of thought and emotion. It must not express itself in harmony with its nature, with its growing personality. It must become a thing, an object. Its questions are met with narrow, conventional, ridiculous replies, mostly based on falsehoods; and, when, with large, wondering, innocent eyes, it wishes to behold the wonders of the world, those about it quickly lock the windows and doors, and keep the delicate human plant in a hothouse atmosphere, where it can neither breathe nor grow freely.
Zola, in his novel “Fecundity,” maintains that large sections of people have declared death to the child, have conspired against the birth of the child,—a very horrible picture indeed, yet the conspiracy entered into by civilization against the growth and making of character seems to me far more terrible and disastrous, because of the slow and gradual destruction of its latent qualities and traits and the stupefying and crippling effect thereof upon its social well-being.
Since every effort in our educational life seems to be directed toward making of the child a being foreign to itself, it must of necessity produce individuals foreign to one another, and in everlasting antagonism with each other.
The ideal of the average pedagogist is not a complete, well-rounded, original being; rather does he seek that the result of his art of pedagogy shall be automatons of flesh and blood, to best fit into the treadmill of society and the emptiness and dulness of our lives. Every home, school, college and university stands for dry, cold utilitarianism, overflooding the brain of the pupil with a tremendous amount of ideas, handed down from generations past. “Facts and data,” as they are called, constitute a lot of information, well enough perhaps to maintain every form of authority and to create much awe for the importance of possession, but only a great handicap to a true understanding of the human soul and its place in the world.
Truths dead and forgotten long ago, conceptions of the world and its people, covered with mould, even during the times of our grandmothers, are being hammered into the heads of our young generation. Eternal change, thousandfold variations, continual innovation are the essence of life. Professional pedagogy knows nothing of it, the systems of education are being arranged into files, classified and numbered. They lack the strong fertile seed which, falling on rich soil, enables them to grow to great heights, they are worn and incapable of awakening spontaneity of character. Instructors and teachers, with dead souls, operate with dead values. Quantity is forced to take the place of quality. The consequences thereof are inevitable.
In whatever direction one turns, eagerly searching for human beings who
do not measure ideas and emotions with the yardstick of expediency, one
is confronted with the products, the herdlike drilling instead of the
result of spontaneous and innate characteristics working themselves out
in freedom.
“No traces now I see
Whatever of a spirit’s agency.
‘Tis drilling, nothing more.”
These words of Faust fit our methods of pedagogy perfectly. Take, for instance, the way history is being taught in our schools. See how the events of the world become like a cheap puppet show, where a few wire-pullers are supposed to have directed the course of development of the entire human race.
And the history of our own nation! Was it not chosen by Providence to become the leading nation on earth? And does it not tower mountain high over other nations? Is it not the gem of the ocean? Is it not incomparably virtuous, ideal and brave? The result of such ridiculous teaching is a dull, shallow patriotism, blind to its own limitations, with bull-like stubbornness, utterly incapable of judging of the capacities of other nations. This is the way the spirit of youth is emasculated, deadened through an over-estimation of one’s own value. No wonder public opinion can be so easily manufactured.
“Predigested food” should be inscribed over every hall of learning as a warning to all who do not wish to lose their own personalities and their original sense of judgment, who, instead, would be content with a large amount of empty and shallow shells. This may suffice as a recognition of the manifold hindrances placed in the way of an independent mental development of the child.
Equally numerous, and not less important, are the difficulties that confront the emotional life of the young. Must not one suppose that parents should be united to children by the most tender and delicate chords? One should suppose it; yet, sad as it may be, it is, nevertheless, true, that parents are the first to destroy the inner riches of their children.
The Scriptures tell us that God created Man in His own image, which has by no means proven a success. Parents follow the bad example of their heavenly master; they use every effort to shape and mould the child according to their image. They tenaciously cling to the idea that the child is merely part of themselves—an idea as false as it is injurious, and which only increases the misunderstanding of the soul of the child, of the necessary consequences of enslavement and subordination thereof.
As soon as the first rays of consciousness illuminate the mind and heart of the child, it instinctively begins to compare its own personality with the personality of those about it. How many hard and cold stone cliffs meet its large wondering gaze? Soon enough it is confronted with the painful reality that it is here only to serve as inanimate matter for parents and guardians, whose authority alone gives it shape and form.
The terrible struggle of the thinking man and woman against political, social and moral conventions owes its origin to the family, where the child is ever compelled to battle against the internal and external use of force. The categorical imperatives: You shall! you must! this is right! that is wrong! this is true! that is false! shower like a violent rain upon the unsophisticated head of the young being and impress upon its sensibilities that it has to bow before the long established and hard notions of thoughts and emotions. Yet the latent qualities and instincts seek to assert their own peculiar methods of seeking the foundation of things, of distinguishing between what is commonly called wrong, true or false. It is bent upon going its own way, since it is composed of the same nerves, muscles and blood, even as those who assume to direct its destiny. I fail to understand how parents hope that their children will ever grow up into independent, self-reliant spirits, when they strain every effort to abridge and curtail the various activities of their children, the plus in quality and character, which differentiates their offspring from themselves, and by the virtue of which they are eminently equipped carriers of new, invigorating ideas. A young delicate tree, that is being clipped and cut by the gardener in order to give it an artificial form, will never reach the majestic height and the beauty as when allowed to grow in nature and freedom.
When the child reaches adolescence, it meets, added to the home and school restrictions, with a vast amount of hard traditions of social morality. The cravings of love and sex are met with absolute ignorance by the majority of parents, who consider it as something indecent and improper, something disgraceful, almost criminal, to be suppressed and fought like some terrible disease. The love and tender feelings in the young plant are turned into vulgarity and coarseness through the stupidity of those surrounding it, so that everything fine and beautiful is either crushed altogether or hidden in the innermost depths, as a great sin, that dares not face the light.
What is more astonishing is the fact that parents will strip themselves of everything, will sacrifice everything for the physical well-being of their child, will wake nights and stand in fear and agony before some physical ailment of their beloved one; but will remain cold and indifferent, without the slightest understanding before the soul cravings and the yearnings of their child, neither hearing nor wishing to hear the loud knocking of the young spirit that demands recognition. On the contrary, they will stifle the beautiful voice of spring, of a new life of beauty and splendor of love; they will put the long lean finger of authority upon the tender throat and not allow vent to the silvery song of the individual growth, of the beauty of character, of the strength of love and human relation, which alone make life worth living.
And yet these parents imagine that they mean best for the child, and for aught I know, some really do; but their best means absolute death and decay to the bud in the making. After all, they are but imitating their own masters in State, commercial, social and moral affairs, by forcibly suppressing every independent attempt to analyze the ills of society and every sincere effort toward the abolition of these ills; never able to grasp the eternal truth that every method they employ serves as the greatest impetus to bring forth a greater longing for freedom and a deeper zeal to fight for it.
That compulsion is bound to awaken resistance, every parent and teacher ought to know. Great surprise is being expressed over the fact that the majority of children of radical parents are either altogether opposed to the ideas of the latter, many of them moving along the old antiquated paths, or that they are indifferent to the new thoughts and teachings of social regeneration. And yet there is nothing unusual in that. Radical parents, though emancipated from the belief of ownership in the human soul, still cling tenaciously to the notion that they own the child, and that they have the right to exercise their authority over it. So they set out to mould and form the child according to their own conception of what is right and wrong, forcing their ideas upon it with the same vehemence that the average Catholic parent uses. And, with the latter, they hold out the necessity before the young “to do as I tell you and not as I do.” But the impressionable mind of the child realizes early enough that the lives of their parents are in contradiction to the ideas they represent; that, like the good Christian who fervently prays on Sunday, yet continues to break the Lord’s commands the rest of the week, the radical parent arraigns God, priesthood, church, government, domestic authority, yet continues to adjust himself to the condition he abhors. Just so, the Freethought parent can proudly boast that his son of four will recognize the picture of Thomas Paine or Ingersoll, or that he knows that the idea of God is stupid. Or that the Social Democratic father can point to his little girl of six and say, “Who wrote the Capital, dearie?” “Karl Marx, pa!” Or that the Anarchistic mother can make it known that her daughter’s name is Louise Michel, Sophia Perovskaya, or that she can recite the revolutionary poems of Herwegh, Freiligrath, or Shelley, and that she will point out the faces of Spencer, Bakunin or Moses Harmon almost anywhere.
These are by no means exaggerations; they are sad facts that I have met with in my experience with radical parents. What are the results of such methods of biasing the mind? The following is the consequence, and not very infrequent, either. The child, being fed on one-sided, set and fixed ideas, soon grows weary of re-hashing the beliefs of its parents, and it sets out in quest of new sensations, no matter how inferior and shallow the new experience may be, the human mind cannot endure sameness and monotony. So it happens that that boy or girl, over-fed on Thomas Paine, will land in the arms of the Church, or they will vote for imperialism only to escape the drag of economic determinism and scientific socialism, or that they open a shirt-waist factory and cling to their right of accumulating property, only to find relief from the old-fashioned communism of their father. Or that the girl will marry the next best man, provided he can make a living, only to run away from the everlasting talk on variety.
Such a condition of affairs may be very painful to the parents who wish their children to follow in their path, yet I look upon them as very refreshing and encouraging psychological forces. They are the greatest guarantee that the independent mind, at least, will always resist every external and foreign force exercised over the human heart and head.
Some will ask, what about weak natures, must they not be protected? Yes, but to be able to do that, it will be necessary to realize that education of children is not synonymous with herdlike drilling and training. If education should really mean anything at all, it must insist upon the free growth and development of the innate forces and tendencies of the child. In this way alone can we hope for the free individual and eventually also for a free community, which shall make interference and coercion of human growth impossible.
Exploitation and Moral ManagementJeremy Weiland
Child exploitation is an evil that has plagued humanity throughout its history. Social awareness of child welfare and consensus on its definition is relatively recent but on the rise. Following this trend, many in Congress work continuously to address this issue, creating new legislative prerogatives for the State to interdict predators and protect children.
How, then, do we reconcile these goals with the case of Mark Foley, a Congressman recently caught engaging in sexually explicit conversations with a minor? Perhaps those who seek to protect us from the nameless, faceless criminals out there have completely misunderstood the problem. The body empowered with enacting nationwide laws, creating criteria for punishing people, and directing the full power of the State contains the very corruption it seeks to root out among us.
It makes one wonder: whom can we trust?
As an anarchist promoting the abolition of this governmental body, it seems reasonable to me that Congress would be as prone to the evils and weaknesses of human experience as any of us. That is precisely the reason they are worthy of ruling neither me nor anybody in this country. We are all fallible, equally capable of deceit and depravity — but also nobility and prudence. We learn whom to trust and whom to avoid not by decrees from on high but by building relationships.
Society is the answer to our problems: the fashioning of markets, communities, networks, and organizations on a voluntary basis, allowing people the freedom to experiment, innovate, band together, and part ways based on their own interests and judgment. We defend our families by allying ourselves with our neighbors, hiring agents among a proven pool of open competitors, and sharing information and advice. Protecting children is best accomplished by the people who understand the stakes: parents and communities.
Of course, bad things happen — whether or not you have the power to pass laws. This brings us to a question anarchists are often asked: how would we prevent x, y, or z from happening without the state? What mechanisms exist to guarantee outcomes acceptable to all? How do we “balance” the sheer volume of competing interests in the world without some empowered and managing body? And in the case of child exploitation: how do we ensure our children’s safety from depraved individuals?
These are all good questions whose answers normal people seek. Unfortunately, they’re rarely asked honestly in politics. Rather, they are posed as rhetorical preludes to some new control placed on society. Instead of looking at the problem as one of complex interpersonal and community dynamics, with a host of causes and possible solutions, we are encouraged to see the problem as a one-dimensional, simple omission: evil originates from a lack of sufficient governance.
The answer from government is always to cripple ourselves for our own good. By making society less complex, less adaptive, and less empowered, we are easier to manage in a top-down fashion and, therefore, more predictable and homogeneous. Through stricter oversight and prohibitions handed down by Congress we can start to rediscover our virtue, at least as Congress defines it.
But the irony is that Congress doesn’t have virtue figured out, either.
The Foley scandal demonstrates the impotence of authority to effect moral management of society. Those who make laws on our behalf are just as flawed as we are. Their officialdom grants them no special insight into human nature. Their power doesn’t convey the ability to discipline society — or themselves. When we ask for leadership from above, a guarantee of safety and order, we surrender our consciences to the unworthy. Government will forever attempt to deliver on unreachable guarantees of safety and moral health by instituting more controls on us.
Indeed, reports indicate that politicians from both parties may have known of the problem and yet did nothing to stop it. Think about it: the most powerful body in the Nation, ignoring a case of exploitation they can address immediately without resorting to political maneuvering or deliberation. Then ask yourself: is any of this about the children?
Think about Foley the next time a law is passed that takes away more of our liberty and freedom “for our own good” or to “protect the children”. He demonstrates the truth of politics: virtue is not a matter of coercive laws and enlightened governance. We must place our faith and trust in ourselves, cooperatively building the solutions we seek rather than hoping they will be forced upon us.
Working Moms & the Battle for PlayAya de Leon
Lately, I’ve been reading non-fiction books about overworked moms. Really, I listen to them in audio format as I do overworked mom things like housework and schlepping my kid to and from preschool. First I read Maxed Out: American Moms on the Brink by Katrina Alcorn and now it’s Overwhelmed: Work, Love and Play When No One Has the Time by Brigid Schulte. They catalog how moms are drowning in the demands that we be perfect workers and perfect mothers.
In Overwhelmed, I felt validated by the chapters on overwhelm and inequality. I felt vindicated by the section where she reveals the gender bias in the leisure researchers’ methods. Her message is clear: we, as working moms, are being squeezed by a US society that demands perfection from both workers and mothers. Working motherhood sits at the intersection of various oppressive structures in the society. Decades of anti-feminist backlash have engineered the myth that our children will suffer if we work outside the home. From flawed studies to commercials to peer pressure from “helicopter moms,” countless daily messages reinforce mothers’ anxiety that only our perfectly attentive presence 24/7 will ensure our children’s well-being. Yet meanwhile the economy demands two incomes for families to keep up with rising cost of living. Economic insecurity and mistreatment of workers keeps everyone anxious and determined to be the perfect worker in order to keep their jobs and ensure their economic survival. This fear-based pressure intensifies for parents and in times of economic recession. And (unlike many European societies) the US refuses to organize structures to support families in general and working families in particular. So we working mothers live in the center of this dual pressure, using our sheer will and overwork to ensure our economic survival and our children’s well-being.
I loved these books! But when Schulte got to the chapter on play, it got hard to keep listening. In the play chapter, she pushed her readers to look at the places where we, as working moms, routinely collaborate with the oppression and deny ourselves joy in the pursuit of perfection in these other two areas.
I didn’t want to look at that. I have lowered the joy bar to be satisfied the joy of accomplishment and the satisfaction of crossing something off the to-do list. I have settled for creating a spark of delight in my daughter’s eyes. My own spark is only reflected light these days. In this context, it was downright painful to think about my own joy and play and delight. Because it feels like one more thing to do. And I couldn’t imagine how I can make it happen.
But fortunately for me, I hit the heart of the play chapter while I was camping in the redwood forest. Somehow, surrounded by trees that are a few hundred feet high, anything seems possible. Some of the biggest trees have serious burn scars, but they have continued to grow and thrive anyway, their tops are lush and green in the far above distance. The burns are scars from a fire they survived and kept growing.
So I claim parenting through my kid’s early years has been a fiery time I survived but now I’m ready to thrive. To that end, my biggest project this summer is reclaiming play. Miniature golf. Waterslides. Karaoke. I have a whole list. And it’s not gonna be easy. I’ve been home five days and have only managed to do one thing on my list: order the platform shoes off the internet.
It’s hard to prioritize play. As mothers go to work, and our small children cry and don’t want us to leave, many of us comfort ourselves with the notion that it’s important for kids to see their moms engaged in the world. And many studies bear this out, that there are advantages to having working moms. Particularly if we have daughters, working moms can model women’s engagement and influence in the larger world.
As a teacher and performer and writer, I have modeled this easily for my daughter. The area of play is the biggest place where my life is lacking. This is the place where I want to model for my daughter that adult women get to have fun, too. Particularly as a black woman, this goal is a crucial contradiction to the historical legacy that we are workhorses in this country. Previous generations of black women have worked ourselves ragged to ensure our children could have a better life. They had to. The conditions were that hard. But I have a chance to do it differently, so I plan to. My goal is not only to run around like a crazy person to make sure my daughter has a good life, but to set up my life that I’m modeling a good life for her. And that needs to include play.
12 Helpful Ideas for CaregiversBenjamin Fife
Alicia Lieberman and Patricia Van Horn of the UCSF Child Trauma Research program have written extensively on the topic of psychotherapeutic treatments that support development in young children impacted by early trauma and loss. They contributed a very thoughtful chapter to the 2009 third edition of the Handbook of Infant Mental Health, where they described a model of working with young children and their parents which they called Child Parent Psychotherapy. CPP is a relationship based model that combines an array of other approaches to work with young children and their parents. Like earlier models developed from the 1980s onward CPP uses joint child-parent therapy sessions to promote healthy child development. Lieberman and Van Horn organize their treatment model on the premise that long term mental health and resilience is supported when attachment relationships can meet infants’, toddlers’ and preschoolers’ basic needs for “care, protection, and culturally sanctioned patterns of affect modulation, interpersonal relatedness and learning.” One thing I love about this model is that it provides 12 easy to understand, and useful guidelines for understanding and interpreting young children’s behaviors in the context of their attachment relationship.
While the authors use the term parents when describing these guidelines, I’ve paraphrased their guidelines here and use the term caregivers instead. I make this change in language this because I think that caregivers more accurately reflects that children often have significant attachment relationships with people who are not their biological or legal parents and that both distress and resilience can be born of these relationships. I intend caregivers here to be a term that includes parents while also including the attachment relationships young children have with non-parental adults in and outside of the family that can be so key to development.
Young children’s crying and clinging are attempts to communicate an immediate need for their caregivers to be close and to be caring.
Young children’s distress at separations is an expression of the fear of losing their caregiver or caregivers.
Young children fear their caregiver’s disapproval and want to please their caregivers.
Young children fear being hurt and fear losing parts of their bodies.
Young children imitate their caregiver’s behaviors because they a) want to be like their caregivers and b) assume that their caregiver’s behavior is a model to emulate.
Young children feel responsible and blame themselves when their caregivers are upset, whatever the ‘real’ reason is for the upset.
Young children are convinced that their caregivers know everything and are always right.
Young children need clear consistent limits put on dangerous or culturally inappropriate behaviors in order to feel safe and protected.
Young children use the word “no” to establish their autonomy and to practice being and feeling autonomous.
Memory starts when babies are born. Babies and young children remember experiences before they can speak about them.
Children need their caregiver’s support and help in order to learn to express strong emotions without harming themselves or others.
Conflicts between children and their caregivers are inevitable because children and caregivers can and should have different developmental needs. Conflicts between children and their caregivers can be resolved in ways that promote trust and support development.
關(guān)于文章中出現(xiàn)的人
