CHILDHOOD
SUMMARY
Acceptance of the Axioms and choice of the Dogma has implications for the views
of the Society on child rearing and development. This Essay shows how the
Principles of the Society lead to a two-pronged and prioritised programme of
child rearing. It concludes that it is the duty of the Society to teach all
its children that variety in humanity without unity is purposeless, while unity
without variety is valueless.
One effect of the Axioms, set out in the Principle of Unity, is to do away with
the concept of an original model of either man or woman, or a perfect example
of humanity, as a guide to the process of preparing a child for its life as an
adult. Such idealistic ideas have had a powerful influence on our
child-rearing in the past, but they must now be dismissed by the Society of
HumanKind. The whole subject of child-rearing will have to be rebuilt on the
new basis of the Axioms, Dogma and Principles.
At the same time it would be the height of folly to ignore the accumulated
experience of our predecessors in these matters. They seem to have managed to
solve these problems well enough to preserve our species through the many
thousands of years of our presence on this planet. What is needed in the era
of the Society therefore, is not a root and branch rejection of all past
child-rearing practice. It is a review and reassessment of the subject that
applies the insight provided by the Axioms.
That perspective first reveals that, while the ideal-model approach is common,
there is a wide variety in child rearing practice across the range of human
communities. That diversity cannot be attributed to differences in any of the
fundamental characteristics or attributes of our species, nor can it be
explained by fluctuations in our need to live in stable communities. The
variety in child-rearing seems to result from a combination of differences in
culture and shifts in thinking on the subject. There is, for instance, a wide
range of definitions of the ideal-model of humankind, and numerous theories
about the nature of children and their needs. There is also considerable
divergence in views of the nature of the responsibilities of adults toward
children, both within and between differing human communities.
The approach of the Society to child-rearing practice will begin with a
recognition that it will need to comply with two very different Principles.
The requirement of the Principle of Peace is that every quality and
characteristic of each individual must be equally valued. Its consequent
conclusion, reached in the Treatises on the Individual and on Relationships, is
that we should foster the widest possible degree of variety in the human
species. On the other hand, the Principle of Progress requires us arrange our
affairs in ways conducive to the preservation of our social order.
Both those Principles will have to be accommodated in our child-rearing if the
achievement of the Objective of the Dogma and the discharge of the
Responsibility of the Society are to be progressed. As in so many aspects of
our social life, the difference between the Society and its predecessors is
that, in the era of the Society, there is no external or independent authority
to which we can appeal, or on which we can base our judgements in those
difficult matters.
A good start can be made to the process of resolving these problems as they
face the Society of HumanKind by applying the precept of the uncertainty of all
human knowledge to the problem. The Society will conclude from its
understanding of our uncertainty that it should base its view of any
child-rearing method on the outcome rather than on arguments about the
theoretical appropriateness, cohesion, consistency, necessity, or whatever of
the approach. The Society will thus focus on the effect of childhood training
on the survival and progress of human society, rather than any over
consideration, including, it should be particularly noted, the developmental
needs of the individual.
A second simplifying step in dealing with child-rearing in the era of the
Society is to apply the priority between our survival and our progress set out
in
the Treatise on Knowledge. There it was noted that the growth of our
knowledge presupposes the survival of our species, while the reverse is not
necessarily true. It will therefore be primarily the Principle of Progress
that will need to be borne in mind by the Society in its attention to
child-rearing. The Society must require that the overriding consideration in
the development of any child is that its presence in the world should present
no substantial threat to that stable state of co-operative social order that is
a fundamental prerequisite for the maintenance of the primary of the two
Conditions of the Dogma. In sum, the Society must demand that the paramount
objective in child-rearing should be the creation of an individual who poses no
substantial threat to the peace and stability of the community that supports
them.
This Essay has, so far, stressed the importance of the application of the
Principle of Progress to child-rearing, and the need to preserve our social
order. It may seem therefore, to create an in-built tendency toward
repression in the era of the Society, in order to create a safe uniformity and
conformity in its children. That bias will however, always be balanced by the
Principle of Peace with its emphasis on the importance of ensuring that every
child should reach its full potential. That element of individualism in child
rearing practice is also necessary to the achievement of the Aim of the
Society. Regrettably therefore, this is yet another example of the many
complex social and moral questions facing the Society which cannot finally be
resolved before they arise. As with other, similar, problems it must be left
to future generations to solve the constant changing problem of reconciling the
differing requirements of the Principles of Peace and Progress in the matter of
child-rearing.
However, that conclusion does not end the discussion of this Essay. Broad
guidance to those future generations can be given. Put simply, the rule must
always be that the Society should aim to ensure that any constraints which may
be put upon the full and free development of any child in order to protect our
social stability are justified strictly on that ground alone, and are, in any
event, confined to the absolute minimum necessary for that purpose. By that
approach our social order may be properly protected without contravening the
general intent of the Principle of Peace.
Any careful consideration of the seemingly differing purposes of the Principles
of Peace and Progress is bound to find room for both an honest divergence of
opinion on, and for diversity in, child-rearing practice. But, as has already
been noted, the priorities which follow from the Axioms, Dogma and Principles
are crystal clear. In the era of the Society of HumanKind it will at all
times and in all circumstances be preferable to suppress even the most
exceptional genius rather than to leave any real risk to our survival and
social stability unchecked. We can always hope that an outstanding individual
may be replicated if our society survives. If however, we threaten our social
order by negligence or indulgence in child-rearing, we not only threaten the
extinction of our species, but we also remove the opportunity for even the
greatest genius to exploit his or her talents.
These conclusions may not be easily accepted by those who are accustomed to a
view of the world which sees the problem of child-rearing as being to reconcile
the imperfect child with a set of vague, competing and often conflicting models
of the attributes of the perfect adult, which was the common framework of many
earlier systems of thought on this subject. But one of the greatest benefits
of an acceptance of the Axioms is to simplify and bring to unity ideas which
were formerly often considered to be only loosely connected if not regarded as
actually diametrically opposed.
In the field of child-rearing that means to understand that the maintenance of
the Conditions of the Dogma in order to further the achievement of its
Objective, and thus create the opportunity for the Society of HumanKind to
realise its Aim, serves both the long- and the short-term best interests of the
whole of humanity as well as every individual member of our species. That
purpose requires both co-operation with, and subservience to, the needs of the
wider community by every member of humanity. The Aim of the Society and all
its benefits for humankind also rest on a commitment by each individual to the
full development of their own unique set of attributes as the only correct and
effective way of making that contribution. It is the need to strike a balance
between these parallel responsibilities that is the principal theme of this
Essay. The proper form of that careful equilibrium is summarised in the
proposition that it is for each individual to pursue excellence by
self-development, but it is for the Society to constrain and suppress the
expression of that ambition where there is any danger that the emergent
attributes and characteristics of any individual may threaten our social order.
The primary requirement of child-rearing after the establishment of the Society
of HumanKind will be to permeate all aspects of the development of children
with the Principle of Progress, and thus with the idea of putting duty to
others before concern with self. The Society can then overlay that base with
an understanding of the importance of the Principle of Peace with its emphasis
on personal and individual development as the proper means to serve others.
Child-rearing in the Axiomatic age will thus reflect the truth of the message
of unity, peace and progress which encapsulates the philosophy of the Society
of HumanKind. The Society will understand that the value of the unity of the
human species arises only from our variety and diversity. If an epigram can
embody so complex and important an aspect of our lives, it is that the duty of
the Society is to teach all its children that variety in humanity without unity
is purposeless, while unity without variety is valueless.
|