“The desire to focus on minimising the effects of outside coercion is just a teeny bit suspect… I think it’s a symptom… of good people, good parents (as I really think all the people on this list most probably are) flinching away from having to look at the ways in which we have not succeeded in eradicating coercion in our own households.”
– Mary Schultz
From the archives: Posted on 10th May, 1996
I was thinking about sort of a mini-history of some of the arguments on this list [the Taking Children Seriously forum] over the last six months, and it occurred to me that this thread is part of a progression. See if you agree at all.
1. Coercion is coercion except in “certain circumstances” (e.g., those two-year-olds determined to run in front of cars).
2. Well, OK, it is coercion, but it is justifiable because “certain things” must be left to parental responsibility.
3. Well, OK, it is coercion, and it isn’t justifiable, but it’s necessary because non-coercion doesn’t always work fast enough or reliably enough and parents can act faster and more reliably in certain situations.
4. Well, OK, it is coercion, and it isn’t justifiable, and it wouldn’t be necessary if we figured out how to be perfectly non-coercive, but no one’s perfect, so it’s excusable when we do it in certain situations because no one is perfect.
5. Well, OK, it is coercion, and it isn’t justifiable, and it’s not excusable in our own non-coercive households, but, heck, coercion has always existed and probably always will exist, and the non-utopian world out there is much worse than we are, so let’s focus on minimising the effects of outside coercion on our kids instead of picking on ourselves.
I do think that we have made progress—many people on the list have changed entrenched ideas about what constitutes coercion.
I do think, however, that this desire to focus on minimising the effects of outside coercion is just a teeny bit suspect—but not just for the reasons we have been debating lately (that it is/isn’t actually condoning coercion). I also think it’s a perfectly reasonable goal to minimise the effects of outside coercion.
But I also think that it’s a bit quick. We had, after all, just arrived at accepting that coercion is coercion and not justifiable, and not necessary, and not excusable, even for parents, even in “certain situations.” I think it’s a symptom, once again, of good people, good parents (as I really think all the people on this list most probably are) flinching away from having to look at the ways in which we have not succeeded in eradicating coercion in our own households.
An analogy, hmmmm, say Country A has cut down 80% of its forests, and has accepted that this was not such a good thing to do, but then immediately says, “but Country B next door has cut down 95% of its forests, they are much worse and we should focus on getting them to quit cutting down forests.” Now Country A is presumably going to try to stop cutting down its forests at the same time its looking at its neighbor, but when focus shifts, focus shifts . . .
Do we start at home? Do we start next door? Can we do both at once? Does starting next door or doing both at once make it harder to clean up at home? Do we have to clean our acts up at home before we can effectively start next door?
See also:
- How do you handle the issue of other people coercing your child?
- Blind obedience, thoughtful obedience, ‘cooperation’
- Young children, reason and creativity
Mary Schultz, 1996, ‘How parents’ view of coercion progresses when engaging with the idea of taking children seriously’, https://takingchildrenseriously.com/how-parents-view-of-coercion-progresses-when-engaging-with-the-idea-of-taking-children-seriously