Perhaps my interest in the intersection of parenting and politics comes from the fact that I was trained as a family therapist combined with my lifelong interest in politics. But it also might be the result of being raised in a family of fundamentalist right-wing christians and the years I devoted to healing from the wounds to myself and my soul that were a result of that upbringing. But regardless of the roots of that interest, I can’t help but feel that the parenting practices with which we are raised have an impact on the political ideologies to which we attach. I know that when it comes to human beings, the confluence of factors that lead us to who we become are complex and not reducable to simplistic answers. But I do think that there is a lot that we know about all of this, and yet often don’t recognize.
I thought about titling this diary “On Making Human Beings Human,” which is a take-off on the title of a book by developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner. I was immediately attracted to this title because we DO know that without relationships and attachment to caring adults, children do not grow into being the compassionate, self-directed, and moral beings that we know is our destiny. And yet we see in our culture, too many children are growing up without these qualities and are therefore sold a bill of goods that the aquisition of more things and money are our ultimate destiny. We also see a culture of people so vulnerable to fear that manipulation of that emotion has become the bedrock of our politics. How is that happening?
Well, imagine my surprise this week when I learned that none other than George Lakoff – guru of the infamous “framing” debate – has written about this in his book “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think” in a chapter “Raising Real Children.”
He starts with a rather alarming summary of the way christian fundamentalists have framed the issue of morality and their approach to parenting which he labels the “Strict Father Model.” He sees this model promoted primarily by Dobson, but others as well. The primary focus of parenting in this model is obedience. Anytime a child challenges a parent’s authority, punishment must be swift and focused on breaking the willful disobedience completely. Here are quotes Lakoff uses to demonstrate:
When youngsters display stiff-necked rebellion, you must be willing to respond to the challenge immediately. When nose-to-nose confrontation occurs between you and your child, it is not the time to discuss the virtues of obedience. It is not the occasion to send him to his room to pout. Nor is it the time to postpone disciplinary measures till your tired spouse plods home from work.
You have drawn a line in the dirt, and the child has deliberately flopped his bony little toe across it. Who is going to win? Who has the most courage? (Dobson)The only issue in rebellion is will; in other words, who is going to rule, the parent or the child. The major objective of chastisement [that is, physical punishment] is forcing the child’s obedience to the will of his parents. (Fugate)
The spanking should be administered firmly. It should be painful and it should last until the child’s will is broken. It should last until the child is crying, not tears of anger, but tears of a broken will. As long as he is stiff, grits his teeth, holds on to his own will, the spanking should continue. (Hyles)
But it gets worse. Boys and girls are to be treated differently in the Strick Father Model:
Obedience is the most necessary ingredient to be required from the child. This is especially true for a girl, for she must be obedient all her life. The boy who is obedient to his mother and father will some day become the head of the home; not so for the girl. Whereas the boy is being trained to be a leader, the girl is being trained to be a follower. Hence, obedience is far more important to her, for she must some day transfer it from her parents to her husband. This means that she should never be allowed to argue at all. She should become submissive and obedient. She must obey immediately, without question, and without argument. The parents who require this have done a big favor for their future son-in-law. (Hyles)
So, you want to understand right-wing christian fundamentalists? This is a big part of what you need to know. This is how they raise their children. Talking to them rationally about politics does not get to the heart of how they have been broken as human beings. In order for them to be able to hear your rational message, the sunshine of healing from this kind of abuse needs to shine on their broken souls.
Lakoff then goes on to describe 3 other models of parening. His contrast to the Strict Father model is the Nurturing Parent model which he summarizes this way:
Expectation for mature behavior from child and clear standard setting.
Firm enforcement of rules and standards using commands and sanctions when necessary.
Encouragement of the child’s independence and individuality.
Open communication between parents and children, with parents listening to children’s point of view, as well as expressing their own; encouragement of verbal give-and-take.
Recognition of rights of both parents and children. “Firm enforcement” and “sanctions” do not include painful corporal punishment.
While our friends on the right might not care, this is the model of parenting that research has shown to produce mature and moral adults. Those with the self-esteem and self-control to be able to balance their own needs with compassion for others.
Finally, he describes two other destructive parenting models on the opposite side. They are:
The Indulgent-Permissive Model
Taking a tolerant, accepting attitude toward the child’s impulses, including sexual and aggressive impulses.
Using little punishment and avoiding, whenever possible, asserting authority or imposing controls or restrictions.
Making few demands for mature behavior (e.g., having manners or carrying out tasks).
Allowing children to regulate their own behavior and make their own decisions when at all possible.
Having few rules governing the child’s time-schedule (bedtime, mealtime, TV watching).
The Indifferent-Uninvolved Model
Tending to orient one’s behavior primarily toward the avoidance of inconvenience.
Responding to immediate demands from children in such a way as to terminate the demands.
Being psychologically unavailable.
While Lakoff does not say this, in my practice, I see many children whose parents are either so wealthy and uninvolved that they tend towards these models of parenting, or those who have been raised in families experiencing the third and fourth generation of poverty, criminality, drug abuse and mental illness. Those in the former, when caught (I’d suspect Duke lacrosse players and Enron executives here) exhibit a callousness to others and an entitlement mentality while those in the latter are filling up our prisons at alarming rates.
Where I wanted to go with all of this is to say that, while working on behalf of issues and elections is critical to our process of trying to promote progressive policies in this country, so is helping people know how to parent their children so that we can raise them to be caring, compassionate adults.
