Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: RE: Children (in cohousing and elsewhere)

[racheli (racheli]

Hi TR,


>I am having a hard time sorting out when noise is a problem and when it
>isn't here.

>I believe it's your view that noise is a problem, non-objectively, when
>(like other behaviors) it interferes with others' right to engage in
>their activities?  For example, if the room is so noisy that no one can
>converse?

>If so, what's to be done?  From what you've written, I'm left with the
>notion that I must stay engaged and suffer in silence, giving the
>irritating parties the option to reduce me to pointless misery.  Where do
>I get to assert my rights, and how?

Absolutely not!  Where did you get the idea that *your* needs don't count?

I think I already responded to that in the response to Roger, so I won't
repeat myself.  (If my view is still hazy, please ask and  I'll attempt to
clarify further).


>Since my wife is on the Board of Education for a major urban school
>district, I can comment with some authority: public school children are
>NOT commonly "supervised" in any restrictive ways.  School children today
>will talk, stand, consume beverages, assault one another, ignore
>reasonable commands, and curse at teachers or administrators whenever the
>mood should move them.  I would think their brutish behavior in the park
>was just a continuation of what they were habituated to at the schools.

I guess we disagree, probably very deeply, regarding the nature of 
schools.  To me, determining where a person of a certain age needs to be
many hours, many days, every year for many years - where  the choice of
what he's doing is not up to him, where he's part of a  group treated as a
group, not individual, etc. etc. - is being in a  highly
supervised/restricted environment.  Isn't this the nature of compulsory
education?  (We might argue whether it's good or bad, but to say that
children actually have significant freedom regarding what they do in
school (and regarding whether they want to be there in the first place!) -
during classes, and more and more in between-
is simply false.  It's also the case that much of kids' time outside of
school is determined from above: homework is one large curse in a child's
life (show me one who likes it!); other activities which parents
increasingly enroll their children in (not always because the kids want to
enroll) etc.  ie: The amount of time kids are left to their own devices
seem to be constantly shrinking.



>In my experience, absolute license for children is as bad as absolute
>rigidity, and there are a wider range of authors who would agree with my
>viewpoint (I've read John Holt and heard him speak, I don't recall him as
>so absolute).  Very young children are not ready for autonomy; when
>permitted broad decision-making, they flounder--as they mature, they
>become more capable of mature decisions.

I don't think I was conveying an absolute message, (and if I did, it
certainly wasn't my intention): When I talked about autonomy,  I Think I
said that it's age-related (and also that it's "meaningful" or
"significant" - by which I meant: Not absolute). I do believe that
children, *from birth* need meaningful autonomy:  this is what being
(breast)fed on demand is, for example.  Obviously, what makes autonomy
meaningful and sufficient is a complex subject all on its own.

>Note that the difference in your discourse and mine is that I write "in
>my experience" whereas your opinions are presented in universal
>language--
>> All people need autonomy, and this includes children.

Aren't you being a little unfair?  As far as I can judge, each and every
one of my posts is peppered with: IMO; in my view; I think; I feel; etc.
It's not possible (or even desirable) to put this in front of every
sentence.  Do you think, perhaps, that you're asking it of me, and not of
others, because somehow what I'm saying is making you
uncomfortable? 
 I could point out that you didn't say IMO (or some
equivalent) before you said that my opinion is presented in universal
language.  Does that mean that your interpretation is "universal", and
there is no other way to understand what you said? :) -
My feeling is that we should all strive to be more generous, and not to
assume what we don't need to assume.
You can believe me that I know full well that the belief in kids' needs
for autonomy is not universal (to my great chagrine).  Yes, it is MY
value, I only wish it was everyone else's too :(

>That may be your belief, but it's not universal.  I believe that all
>people also need stability and a sense of limits--don't they?  Not
>either-or, but a balance along the continuum appropriate to each
>individual.  In fact, for some people (in particular, those with severe
>mental disabilities), an imbalance in the direction of autonomy could be
>fatal.

We might not be as far apart as you imagine...  I do think, though, that
as far as a parent tries, it's not really possible to present life to a
child as if it has no limits, the limits all too often will present
themselves whether we want to or not, so (IMO!) people obsess too much
about this part.

Time to listen to Democracy Now (for me, that is. Not a universal demand
:))

R.
-----------------------------------------------------------
racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L