Sacrificing Sacrifice
The following is an essay I wrote in June of 2007. It is not up-to-date with my current perspectives, but like other posts it can help to shed light on my intellectual development. I also believe that parts of it are still interesting contributions despite my progress since then.
___________________________________________________________________________
We are taught by our scriptures and holy men the virtue of sacrifice. They say the gods require it as a tribute, test of faith, and act of obedience, or that it must be done to appease them and bring rain to ensure a harvest. Our priests tell us that we should sacrifice for our fellow man, if he is “in need,” because that is what God wants us to do. Whatever the reason, “holy men” have always agreed that sacrifice is a virtue.
But the virtue of sacrifice is not confined to religious doctrine. Secular versions are common, and have proliferated in recent centuries with the relative decline of the church. Kings and other tyrants always demanded their tribute, and it was considered a form of sacrifice. But such tribute was not necessarily seen as a virtue because it was not voluntary. The stipulation of sacrificing to one’s “neighbor” was eventually taken to mean that one should sacrifice not only for specific individual neighbors, but for some “collective.” The most devastating secular versions of the sacrifice doctrine were embodied in such 20th century dictatorships as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, with their demands for collective sacrifice. Living in either country at the time, one would regularly hear appeals to sacrifice “for the good of the Aryan Race” or “for the good of the proletariat.”
In its most consistent form, the doctrine of sacrifice, both sectarian and secular, came to mean that giving up something for someone else was a virtue in itself. This was so regardless of the beneficiary, and in defiance of personal injury. In fact, it came to be considered more “virtuous” to practice self-destructive sacrificial activities for the benefit of complete strangers, or for one’s enemies, or for no one in particular, or for the environment. It did not matter what injustice was committed, as long as the action was taken for others, not for self. In all its forms, the virtue of sacrifice has brought about the perpetration of all manner of crimes—from infanticide, ritual rape, and cannibalism, to death camps, secret police, and genocide. But we are told not to question the virtue of sacrifice.
Novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand saw through the justifications, and identified the true meaning of the virtue of sacrifice as it has been practiced through time. She showed that the traditional meaning of sacrifice was essentially a destructive force that turned people’s sense of virtue against their lives, and caused nothing but pain and misery everywhere it was practiced consistently. “ ‘Sacrifice,’ ” she wrote, “ is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value” (“The Ethics of Emergencies,” VOS, 48; pb 44). In her novel, Atlas Shrugged, the hero John Galt says:
“Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious…“Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t…
“If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice….
“If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.
“You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching the ideal zero which is death…” (Galt’s Speech, FNI, 172; pb 139)
Rand goes on to write, “If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes not difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies” (VOS, 49; pb 45). Rand also showed that sacrifice to or for others, as an ideal, is propagated by those with a vested interest in a system of organized sacrifice. “It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters. And he intends to be the master” (“The Soul of a Collectivist,” FNI, 84, pb 73).
The survival of any organism requires that it pursue the values necessary for its life. The survival and happiness of man is no different—they require that he pursue values necessary to sustain them. If an organism acts against its nature or in defiance of the facts of reality, by ignoring values essential to life or by pursuing its own destruction, it will not survive. The same is true of man. If he pursues “goals” that are contrary to life-supporting values, he will suffer. A supposed virtue that has as its goal death and misery cannot be a virtue.
Some may argue that such is not what they mean by sacrifice. People see visions of daring rescues and heroic stands for justice, and call those things sacrifice. They object to what they consider an improper and unjustified characterization of sacrifice. But such fancies as that are the results of conceptual ambiguity. Giving up something one values less to gain or protect that which one values more, is not consistent with the traditional meaning of sacrifice. When one acts to preserve that which one values, one is acting in one’s own self-interest. To consider standing up for justice, or risking one’s life for those one loves, to be a sacrifice, is to declare that one’s values are worthless. These are not sacrifices. The concept of sacrifice gains prestige it does not deserve by such intellectual confusion.
The traditional view of sacrifice as an end in itself is thus exposed to be a fraud. Sacrificing for a “Higher Power” simply means giving up something for someone—anyone or anything—as long as it is not you. Such a conception of virtue turns morality from the service of life, into its destroyer. It does not allow the perpetration of evil to merely slip by, but throughout history has openly encouraged it. Parasitical priests, Nazi death squads, and power-hungry bureaucrats only cashed in on the ideal that already existed.
What then, of the concept of “sacrifice.” Is anything at all to be salvaged? Can anything be learned from it? I believe the answer is yes. But first we must recognize that everything I have said about sacrifice so far is flawed.
The above description is a pervasive and universal misinterpretation that makes sacrifice out to be a virtue in itself. Rand’s refutation is valuable, as it shatters the false traditional view. But it follows the lead of the traditional misunderstanding, and takes into account only the literal meaning, entirely ignoring the possibility of a symbolic meaning. Mystical-religious concepts have two primary facets: literal and figurative. To understand the first, one must understand the second. It is possible for both the figurative and literal meanings of a concept to be true at the same time, and this is often the case. But without the figurative, symbolic perspective, one will miss the entire point.
The greatest source of human misery is man’s persistent desire to interpret his symbols literally.
A religious idea is a metaphor. It is a figurative representation of an idea, often in the form of a story, meant to convey meaning through time. There are two broad categories of knowledge about existence. The first is metaphorical knowledge; it is the larger of the two categories and is comprised of observations and postulations of what something is like. Metaphors allow our knowledge to grow by linking new or unknown concepts to those we already know, or with which we are already familiar. The second and smaller category of knowledge, technical knowledge, is a description of what something actually is. All mystical-religious concepts belong to the metaphorical category. They describe, in communicable terms, what some aspect of human existence is like. For example, Prometheus steals fire from the gods and gives it to mankind, but the gods punish men and men hate Prometheus for the curse his gift has brought them. Obviously this story is not literally true, but like other mythological stories, what it represents is open to debate.
The seemingly endless capacity for broader meaning is perhaps the greatest strength of symbols. The meaning of the symbol radiates outward, and as additional interpretations of it are grasped with a fuller understanding of its meaning, our knowledge is stretched. Not only is our knowledge about a particular subject broadened, but we learn the practice of expanding all categories of knowledge through the power of metaphorical representation. If we learn the lesson, we will apply this active-minded approach to every area of knowledge. We will understand that current knowledge is uncertain, but will not despair in search of truth. Every theory, even our dearest beliefs about existence, will be open to challenge and revision in the face of new evidence, and we will be able to entertain a new and unfamiliar perspective.
This is the meaning of sacrifice. One must be willing to, metaphorically, allow one’s “old self,” which means one’s old perspectives and beliefs, to die and be reborn. The ritual of sacrifice covertly plants this idea in the minds of its practitioners. The action of giving up something important to oneself is the physical embodiment of the symbolic concept that one must be willing to give up even one’s most valued ideas in the pursuit of truth. No belief can be important enough to stop one from searching further. The old, incomplete perspective must be “sacrificed” and die to the new, broader perspective, in a continuous cycle of “death” and “rebirth.”
Some will miss the point of the metaphor. They will affirm that sacrifice is good, and will go about their lives making and demanding sacrifices. Instead of allowing the symbol to be a vehicle for growth, they cling desperately to a literal view and make it to be an end in itself, which is to make it a dead end. Others will settle for superficial insight. They will believe that they understand when they insist that sacrifice is “symbolic” of what a god or gods supposedly did or do. But that is to mix symbols, and to make one symbol stand for another. Such an attempt is futile because it does not ground the symbol in reality, which is where all valid symbols must be grounded. The symbol is internal. “Sacrifice” is symbolic of a frame of mind.
One of the most obvious benefits to seeing the concept of “sacrifice” metaphorically, besides making it useful at all, is that the action to be taken and the reward to be received are internal. The traditional misunderstanding of sacrifice required someone else to sacrifice to or to be sacrificed, but the metaphorical understanding requires neither. No one is primarily dependent on others for moral worth. We are each our own moral agent, and are responsible for our own well-being. Because there is no need to actually make any physical sacrifices (in the sense of giving up a greater value for a lesser one), no one can usurp the ritual and claim the right to receive or distribute sacrifices. Thus our creative energy is channeled into the service of our own needs, rather than being directed against us by those who wish to rule.
The conclusion is clear: if one physically performs a ritual sacrifice, or makes or demands a sacrifice to or from others, that action is immoral. However, “sacrifice” can be a useful symbol if we apply it to our ideas in the service of personal growth and the pursuit of truth.
2007
Keep Your Leaves
Well it’s finally gotten cold, and that means a bunch of trees have been taking turns dumping their leaves in your yard. Now that you’ve gotten them raked into neat little piles, the question arises: “What should I do with all these leaves?” This year, instead of bagging them up and sending them off to the landfill, how about pushing them into some of the less-manicured flower beds or into an unused corner of the backyard?
This accomplishes a number of good things:
(1) You don’t have to go to the trouble of putting them into bags, and you don’t have to worry about buying those extra thick ones that are more expensive.
(2) If you live in a municipality that charges extra to collect yard debris, you won’t have to pay for that service.
(3) Energy will not be wasted transporting your leaves to the landfill (or even to a municipal composting center), nor will precious landfill space be taken up with a perfectly good resource.
(4) Yard waste causes landfills to release large quantities of methane. Fewer leaves in the landfill means fewer greenhouse gases.
(5) Your leaf mulch will protect the soil, locking in moisture and preventing erosion. This means you don’t have to buy mulch from a store or use nearly as much water on your landscaping.
(6) Leaf mulch also keeps most weeds from growing, which means you’ll have a lot less pulling and spraying to do next summer.
(6) Within a year or so, most leaves will decompose into high-quality compost/soil, providing you with a resource that you would otherwise have had to pay for.
(7) You can use your new compost as fertilizer rather than buying expensive chemicals that pollute nearby streams and destroy the microbial life upon which soil fertility depends.
If your neighbors haven’t yet figured out the benefits of keeping their own leaves, you may even be able to collect some extra ones from them!
The Socio-Political Effects of Childhood
Sam Lee, Elisabeth Warren, Katherine Wright, Nash Yielding
North Carolina State University
ABSTRACT
In the following pages this paper will explore the connection between childhood trauma and adult dysfunction, and how it is played out at the societal level—that is, the sociopolitical effects of parenting. After walking through a brief history of parenting, the focus will shift to how changes in parenting styles have led to changes in societal organization. This framework will be augmented with modern research in attachment styles and the effects of childhood experiences on the physiological development of the brain. The difficulties of research in this area will be explored, and we will attempt to explain how the horrors of the past have remained hidden for so long. With a foundational understanding of the relationship between parenting and sociopolitical outcomes in place, recommendations will be made for how parents can interact with their children in a more positive forward and productive way; and we will outline potential programs for increasing awareness on this topic. Finally, directions for future research and the expected outcomes will be discussed.
KEY WORDS
Abuse, Adolescent behavior, Attachment styles, Brain development, Child development, Childhood, Community program, Conflict resolution, Counseling, Crime, Depression, Education, Empathic negotiation, Government, Infant care, Insurance, Mental Health, Parent-child relationships, Parenting, Political views, Politics, Psychohistory, Psychology, Public media, Social environment, Therapy, Traditional child rearing, Values transmission, Violence
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
“The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only just begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused” (DeMause 1982).
Since the beginning of recorded history, humans have struggled for every inch of progress. Only recently has progress become something to be expected, something “normal.” As individuals we face the personal quest of throwing off the shackles of our own historical limitations, the struggle of outgrowing the forces that would keep us small. Those forces are compounded at the societal level, but the quest is much the same. We have come a long way in the past 3000 years—and particularly in the past 300—but many of the habits forged in the infancy of our species are still with us: war, genocide, poverty, environmental degradation, violence against women, violence against children. It is time to outgrow these habits.
Research has shown that an inclination toward violence is the result of insecure attachments of children to their parents (Hay et al, 2003). Many of the greatest dysfunctions in society are themselves forms of violence or have been shown to be the result of violence. During the 20th century alone as many as 260 million people were murdered by their own governments outside of war (Rummell). But “governments” are abstract concepts, and abstractions alone do not kill people. Each of these 260 million murders were carried out by individuals, many—if not all—of whom must have suffered from insecure attachments to their parents (if not much worse). Collective violence–in the form of war or genocide–is thus a composite of individual violence, which is rooted in childhood trauma. It stands to reason that if we could somehow solve the problem of bad parenting, we might solve the problem of violence—and have at least a chance of overcoming our greatest personal and societal problems.
SECTION 2: THEORETICAL and HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Classical works and contemporary studies (Benedict, 1934; Markus, and Kitayama, 1997) argue that parenting styles are responsible for the transmission of cultural values and practices. It is suggested that effective value transmission is measured by whether the behavior of children deviates from or corresponds to their cultural and sociopolitical environment. Studies reveal that the different parenting styles of authoritative, authoritarian, and passive-avoidant approaches appear across both individualistic and collective cultures (Sorkhabi, 2005). Adult competency within one’s culture is the outcome of parenting styles and the transmission of cultural values and practices from one generation to the next. Research indicates that authoritative parenting leads to more competent children (Sorkhabi, 2005) with better fulfillment of goals.
Social dysfunction seems to be an outcome of infant-parent relationships, and the ongoing relationship between the developing child and parents. The theory of attachment styles come into play here. Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Van Ijzendoorn, (2005) observed that frightening parental behavior may serve as a catalyst for disorganized attachment approaches in children, and this adaptive approach to the child’s home environment may develop later child psychopathologies (Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, J., and Van Ijzendoorn, M.H., 2005). This attachment style is also associated with stress management problems, and later externalizing problematic behavior (Lyons-Ruth, Easterbrooks, & Cibelli, 1997). The model shown below, provides a descriptive look at the parenting styles of mothers in relation to stress and child behavioral outcomes (Assel, Landry, Swank, et al, 2002).
Authoritarian parenting styles are present in households with aversive atmospheres, family conflict (Rosenthal et al., 1996), and adolescent maladjustment (Stewart et al., 2000). It is informative to note the types of parenting styles prevalent in the families of individuals who have taken leadership roles within their community. Poor parenting is related to both child misconduct and adult problem behavior that have been seen in many leaders throughout history. The authoritarian nature of the parenting they received is reflected in their own application of and approach to punishment: aggression, retaliation, apathy, abuse, substance abuse, cheating, lying, and imitation of the perpetrator. Adolf Hitler, Dr. Mengele, and Martin Luther, all of whose parents were abusive, encouraged the strict militant discipline of children that quickly fell into child abuse (Miller, A., 1998). Historical documents show that these practices and parenting beliefs grew into abuse of the leadership role, violent behavior towards out-groups (anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing), and a community-wide systematic upbringing of children that was harsh, cold, and emotionally distant (Miller, 1998). Harsh parental practices contributed to brain lesions, and slower cognitive development (Miller, 1998). These effects on child outcomes and development will be further discussed below.
Parallel research in both developmental psychology and neurobiology has concluded that there are strong links between the mind and brain. Childhood experiences with parents or caretakers have a significant influence on early brain development, even affecting whether entire parts of the brain grow properly. In the same way that damage to the language centers can lead to communication problems, damage to the empathy centers can inhibit the child’s ability to form attachments and negotiate appropriately. The impact of neglect and abuse on early brain development physiologically show how parenting styles directly affect child development psychologically. The following picture (Bruce, 2002) shows the significant differences in brain development between a child raised normally and a child raised with extreme neglect.
Early childhood is a sensitive period during which experiences, good or bad, have especially significant effects on brain development. Interactions with primary caregivers are particularly important. Neglect occurs when there is a lack of touch, responsive gazing, talking and interacting with infants. An absence of all these experiences is a lack of appropriate stimulation for the brain, resulting in damage to the brain and incomplete development. Researchers have demonstrated a more direct approach of visualizing this process. By blocking one eye of a cat during its early months, changes occurred in the brain’s visual cortex that led ultimately to permanent damage to the eye. Because of the lack of stimulation in the brain’s visual center, it became impaired (Weisel, 1982). Similarly, when a child is deprived of care, positive human interaction, and love, the parts of the brain responsible for how a child interacts with people later in life are negatively impacted. In children, the frontal lobes of the brain are responsible for expression and self-regulation of emotions. When children are deprived of affection and positive emotional experiences, the frontal lobe develops improperly; the lack of stimulation causes neurons in specific areas of the brain to die off (Glaser, 1997). In another case, nine month old infants who were left with friendly and playful babysitters displayed no elevated levels of cortisol (a stress hormone which can damage the developing brain at high levels). However, the cortisol level in infants left with cold and distant babysitters tended to rise. This suggests that stress is dependent on the amount of affection displayed by caregivers. Neglect and abuse from parents causes damage to brain development and limits the proper growth of social and emotional competence.
Child abuse creates a lot of stress for children, and stress in turn damages brain development. Stress response causes the brain to release cortisol, which is secreted by the HPA axis, a neurological pathway that connects the brain to the adrenal cortex and is responsible for controlling cortisol (Glaser). It’s been found that a more reactive HPA axis is linked with greater emotional and social competence. Research has shown that human and animal infants who were subject to neglect and emotional deprivation have continually elevated levels of cortisol. Their HPA axis was more often activated to create “serum cortisol,” which combats the effects of cortisol (Glaser). A 1995 study of a group of maltreated children revealed that mistreatment causes a dulling of the HPA axis, resulting in the lack of social competence. They were placed in socially stressful situations and received cortisol reading tests. The tests showed that these children experienced no elevation in cortisol, meaning their HPA axis was not creating the stress hormone. Although this may appear to be positive, it actually shows that the HPA axis has become dull to the point where the children became physiologically habituated to stress. Additionally, constant exposure to cortisol causes death of neurological cells in the temporal lobe of the hippocampus region. The hippocampus is responsible for memory, so constant stress in early childhood endangers one’s ability to retain memories. This suggests that psychological dysfunction in adulthood is based in the physiological mal-development of the brain which results from childhood stress.
SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
In addition to considering the theoretical framework and historical background, it is also beneficial to consider the implications of the current social and political setting and how they affect child welfare, as well as the implications they may have on the validity of the research and implementation of suggested programs. In attempting to explain or modify parenting, it is imperative to look at a broader context. In every sociocultural niche, parenting is a continuously evolving process guided by both past and current conditions that dictate which child behaviors are most desirable and which child-rearing practices are most effective at promoting these outcomes (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002).
There are many factors outside the family, such as community risks and resources, neighborhood quality, poverty, and cultural or ethnic background that may shape parenting beliefs and behavior (Kotchick & Forehand). For example, parents may be much stricter and cautious if they live in an unsafe neighborhood but may act differently if given the opportunity and resources to change the situation. Politics and government may play a role in the environmental setting that affects parenting as well; a democratic government will have a different impact on parenting than a more authoritarian government. There are also more specific environmental contexts to consider. Certain stressors such as work, marital relationship, daily hassles, or other life events play a role in the behavior of a parent (Abidin 1992). These are particularly relevant in a modern society where women are entering the workforce and divorce rates have dramatically increased. Parenting styles and behaviors have changed as many families now include two working parents, step-parents, or single parents.
The relationship between parenting and child adjustment has been established in research. However, there have been few efforts to determine and understand the broader environmental and psychosocial processes and factors that affect the development of parenting. Existing research includes the discussion of these types of environmental factors on parenting styles and child socialization, but fails to delve further into the issue to explain how they may directly and/or indirectly affect parenting beliefs and behaviors. More specifically, most of these studies focus on differences in parenting beliefs and behaviors by contrasting social groups, or by identifying cultural, ethnic, or social ‘norms’ rather than further investigating differences among members of the same group. Further research is needed in this area.
Politics may play a role in limiting data collection and program implementation; in countries which encourage free speech and active social participation, gathering data and implementing programs may be less difficult than in countries that are still heavily censored and dominated by the government. With an increasingly interconnected world, it will be difficult to obtain accurate data, as research projects span the globe and attempt to transcend language and cultural barriers. Another factor that contributes to the limitation of further research is that historians have often been biased–or perhaps not biased enough–in their analysis of parenting in the past. Some have justified actions that we now see as immoral or inappropriate but which were common practice in the past. They excuse the behavior rather than investigating further to identify explanations. Also, as with much psychological or sociological research, there is the problem of obtaining accurate responses. Respondents may try to anticipate researchers’ expectations or give responses that will put them in a favorable light. They may also emphasize events differently than the researcher expects, making it difficult to quantify and compare responses. Researchers should try to make questions exact, avoiding embedded value judgments like ‘good’ or ‘bad’ that might bias responses.
SECTION 4-a: RECOMMENDATIONS for PARENTS
Information on proper parenting styles and techniques could fill an entire book. But in light of the importance of the topic and its relationship to broader sociopolitical trends, it is important to put forward some recommendations for how parents can go about creating more secure and loving attachments with their children. Following the recommendations, potential programmatic approaches to educating parents and training them in these skills will be explored.
First and foremost, adults are encouraged to seek counseling in order to deal with their own histories, to ensure that dysfunctional family patterns are amended, while positive family patterns are enhanced. Such counseling will be most productive and useful if carried out prior to having children, but should be pursued in any case. Research has shown that patterns of interaction are passed down in families from one generation to the next (Bakan, 1971), often without full awareness of the parties involved. Most people are familiar with the stereotype of the woman who was abused by her father as a child, who then grows up to marry an abusive man much like her father, who ends up abusing her children in much the same way she herself was abused. Sadly, there are many patterns which run in families this way, including anger management problems, low self-esteem, and physical abuse. An exploration of personal and family history, combined with parenting classes, will greatly decrease the chances of re-creating such dysfunction, eliminating a host of problems for the children before they even begin.
Infants need (1) nourishment, (2) safety, (3) cleanliness, (4) wellness, and (5) emotional attachment. In the modern West, most middle and upper-class children receive the first four (although this has not been the case throughout most of history, and remains a problem in the developing world today (DeMause 2008)). However, between busy schedules, a lack of parenting training, and failure to process their own histories, all too many parents do not provide infants and young children with sufficient emotional care. Infants and young children need unconditional love. If infants and young children experience their needs, cries, creativity, and enthusiasm as threats to their parents’ love then secure attachment will be almost impossible. Parents are encouraged to respond to their children with comfort and curiosity from the beginning.
As children grow older and begin the process of individuation from their parents, some degree of conflict is inevitable. By contrast, the way in which parents choose to solve these conflicts is not inevitable. Rather than (1) spanking, (2) raising voices, or (3) giving timeout, it is recommended that parents seek alternative methods of conflict resolution. In the event of conflict between themselves and their children for any reason, parents are encouraged to negotiate with their children by (1) asking questions in attempt to understand what the child was thinking and feeling before, after, and during the action that led to the conflict, and (2) explaining to the child what the parents’ expectations were, being sure to discuss their own thoughts and feelings. For more information on the destructive nature of spanking children, see Guthrow (2002), Blacklock (1997), or Hyman (1997); of raising one’s voice at a child, see Sigsgaard & Silver (2005); of subjecting children to timeout or other punishments, see Hyman (1990), Morgan (1940).
In the event of conflict between adults, parents are encouraged to model positive dispute resolution behaviors in front of their children. Conflicts that the child or parent observes in the family, at school, at work, or in the community at large, can become teachable moments in which the parents and child discuss the pros and cons of a variety of conflict resolution strategies. If parents find themselves unable to engage in productive dispute resolution, particularly between each other or with their children, they are strongly encouraged to seek couples’ therapy as soon as possible.
Finally, questions are a natural part of childhood and growing up. Parents are encouraged to respond to a child’s questions to the best of their ability, and to invite and encourage curiosity on the part of the child. If the parent does not know the answer to a question, they are encouraged to respond honestly and say “I don’t know.” They can then attempt to direct the child toward an alternative source, such as a teacher, the library, or a respected website. Age-appropriate responses are best, but keep in mind that it is easy for adults to underestimate the capacity of children to understand difficult concepts.
SECTION 4-b: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
There are a variety of ways to encourage adults to seek counseling and deal with their histories before having children; counseling can be provided either via private consultation or via community support programs. In private counseling, adults can get personal, in-depth help from a trained psychologist. This approach may be better for adults with complex and difficult personal issues or for those who are unsure of the source of their issues. To encourage people to take advantage of therapy, insurance companies could cover the cost of counseling, based on the fact that children who grow up in a more secure environment are less likely to engage in dangerous behavior and are therefore cheaper to insure. The government could also offer tax incentives. In community support programs, adults can gather in small groups to embark on the path to self-discovery with the help of other non-professionals. In addition to the individual benefits, this would allow for bonds to be formed between group members that could bring about a stronger sense of community. Research supports this approach to public health by revealing the tremendous importance of community development–and the relative insignificance of high-tech solutions–to the health of the population (Donaldson, 2006).
It is important that parents respond to cries of infants with comfort and curiosity rather than frustration or resentment. One way to do this would be to develop educational classes for parents-to-be; a psychologist or child development specialist could train parents to understand the source of their infants’ cries, what they can do in response, and how their responses affect the infants’ development. These courses may be provided through health clinics or private business ventures. This program could also be targeted to adolescents so that they are aware of the full responsibility of taking care of children even before having them. The lesson could be incorporated in educational lectures for middle- and high-school students, most likely as part of psychology or human development classes.
Parents and parents-to-be could be trained to focus more on negotiation rather than spanking, yelling, or a related form of punishment. Like the previously mentioned program, courses could be offered through health clinics, covered by insurance, and promoted by the media. Children’s programming and public service announcements could promote the message of “negotiation versus confrontation.” These media efforts could also promote the idea of creative self-discovery to obtain knowledge.
SECTION 5: DESIGN and METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
The effectiveness of the above recommendations is testable. Young parents and school-aged children are the ideal target population for a cross-cultural, longitudinal study of parenting approaches and child behavioral outcomes. The study may be extended to include infants (to assess attachment styles within the parent-child relationship), school-aged children (to assess environmental variables along with the short-term result of childrearing as it is displayed in child behavior), adults (to assess adult dysfunction), and parents (to assess parenting beliefs and practices). According to past research (Yarrow, 1963), such topics as child achievement striving, dependency, independence, and parent-child relations of warmth-coldness and acceptance-rejection are often addressed as part of the standard approach to assessing parenting practices. The purpose of this research is to review the relationship between parenting approaches and the child’s development of self and treatment of others; this includes the development of a child’s worldview. Overall, key variables include parents’ beliefs and practices, the immediate effects of those practices on children, and the resulting adult behavior.
Finding subjects within the target population may begin by building community awareness of the importance of the research, possibly through the media. Invitations can be sent to the parents of school-aged children to request that their families take part in the study. The process might also begin by contacting parents through mail and sending out surveys. (See Appendix B for an example of such a survey.) Of course, surveys have a host of limitations, but they might yield sufficient preliminary information. For other assessments of parent-child attachments, see the (US) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth’s (NLSY) Mother and Child Supplement, through which the attitudes, practices, and family values are revealed by the viewpoints and perceptions of the parent (Dooley, M.; and Stewart, J., 2007). As suggested, reports tend to be obtained from the mother-child relationship (Yarrow, 1963). Dooley and Steward (2007) have conducted a study assessing family income, parenting styles, and child behavioral-emotional outcomes using the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Child and Youth (NLSCY). The complete Construction of Parenting and Behavioral-Emotional Scores (Wiley & Sons, 2007) includes questions pertaining to positive parenting, consistency in punishment and reinforcements, hyperactivity of children, and emotional disorders.
Due to the multi-dimensional nature of the research, a number of different assessments may be delivered in order to better gather as much and as in-depth of information as possible. The results of parenting practices can be measured by indications of child conduct and mental health as diagnosed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV). The effects of intervention may be evaluated by comparing program participants to a control group. One group will consist of the children of parents with effective parenting styles and the other will consist of children and parents who were not a part of the intervention and did not receive counseling on effective parenting styles. Positive outcomes in the children include the display of: competence, independence, cooperation, assertiveness, and initiative, along with the ability to understand others.
SECTION 6: ETHICS and CONFIDENTIALITY
Throughout the program’s implementation, the confidentiality of families will always be held to the utmost respect and privacy. Anyone in the position of counseling will be held responsible for maintaining privacy with every family participating in the program. Surveys and questionnaires may be taken anonymously. Aspects of the program that is conducted where personal information is disclosed will be private; all information disclosed to the program’s psychologists or consultants will be kept private, as in any doctor-patient confidentiality system. However, if there are immediate dangers seen to the welfare of children, appropriate responses will be taken for the sake of the child’s safety.
SECTION 7: CONCLUSION and OUTLOOK
Research into the effects of childhood trauma is becoming increasingly common, and literature on parenting will take more of this research into consideration in coming years. As parenting practices become more rooted in what is objectively best for the child instead of parents’ inherited prejudices, child-parent bonds will continue to improve. Secure attachment to parents will lay the groundwork for improved adult relationships, resulting in less violence and depression, and greater independence and creativity. The historical relationship discussed above between improvements in parenting and leaps forward in society, reasonably leads to the expectation that the emergence of “actively empathetic” parenting will have major impacts.
If children are shown love and respect instead of rage and annoyance, they will learn the power of negotiation rather than brute violence. As adults, children who learn how to negotiate and who are not emotionally disposed to violence will neither participate in nor condone acts of violence. At the level of the individual, this translates into healthier relationships and a happier life. At the societal level, it means significant declines in the rate of violent crime and perhaps the end of war. Governments will either become more peaceful in the way they operate, or they will lose their moral legitimacy completely, and be replaced by voluntary institutions. Children who are shown empathy will have more empathy for others. As adults they will seek and discover real solutions to problems ranging from poverty, hunger, and homelessness, to dispute resolution, economic instability, and environmental degradation.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: The relationship between improvements in parenting and the decline in violence
From: DeMause, Lloyd. (2008). The Origins of war in child abuse. Retrieved from http://psychohistory.com/
Chapter 3: The Psychology and Neurobiology of Violence
The emergence of new parenting styles leads to declining human violence.
APPENDIX B: Sample Survey
CONSTRUCTION OF PARENTING AND BEHAVIOURAL-EMOTIONAL SCORES
CHILD BEHAVIOURAL–EMOTIONAL OUTCOMES 159
Adapted from: Dooley, M.; and Stewart, J., 2007. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. 16: 145–162 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/hec
Positive Parenting (Score Range: 0-20, Higher score indicates more positive interactions)
1. How often does parent praise child?
2. How often does parent focus on child for more than 5 minutes?
3. How often do they laugh together?
4. How often does parent do something special with child?
Ineffective Parenting (Score Range: 0-25, Higher score indicates more ineffective parenting)
1. How often does parent get annoyed with child?
2. What proportion of talk is praise? (reversed)
3. What proportion of talk is disapproval?
4. How often does parent get angry when punishing child?
5. Does punishment depend on parent’s mood?
6. Having problems with child in general?
7. How often repeatedly punish for same thing?
Consistency (Score Range: 0-20, Higher score indicates more consistency)
1. What proportion of tasks does parent ensure are completed?
2. Does parent follow through with threatened punishment?
3. How often does child get away with behaviour that should be
punished? (reversed)
4. How often does child avoid punishment? (reversed)
5. How often does child ignore punishment? (reversed)
Conduct Disorder (Score Range: 0-12)
1. Gets into many fights
2. When another child accidentally hurts him/her reacts with anger
3. Physically attacks people
4. Threatens people
5. Is cruel, bullies or is mean to others
6. Kicks, bites, hits other children
Emotional Disorder (Score Range: 0-16)
1. Seems to be unhappy, sad or depressed
2. Is not as happy as other children
3. Is too fearful or anxious
4. Is worried
5. Cries a lot
6. Appears miserable, unhappy, tearful or distressed
7. Is nervous, high-strung or tense
8. Has trouble enjoying him/herself
REFERENCES
Abidin, R. (1992). “The Determinants of Parenting Behavior.” Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(4), 407.
Assel, M. A., Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Steelman, L., Miller-Loncar, C., Smith, K. E. (2002). How do mothers’ childrearing histories, stress and parenting affect children’s behavioural outcomes? Child Care, Health, and Development, Vol 28 (5), Sep, 2002. pp. 359-268.
Bakan, David (1971). Slaughter of the innocents: a study of the battered child phenomenon. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 115-117 Retrieved from http://www.nospank.net/bakan2.htm
Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Blacklock, Neil (1997, August 18). Facts and arguments. Globe and Mail, Retrieved from http://www.nospank.net/blklock.htm
Bruce, Perry (2002). “Childhood Experience and Expression of Genetic Potential.” Brain and Mind. pp. 79
DeMause, Lloyd (1974). “The Evolution of Childhood.” In Lloyd DeMause, Editor, The History of Childhood. New York: Psychohistory Press.
DeMause, Lloyd (1982). Foundations of Psychohistory. New York: Creative Roots.
DeMause, Lloyd (2008). The Origins of war in child abuse. Retrieved from http://psychohistory.com/
Donaldson, S. I., Berger, D. E., & Pezdek, K. (2006). Applied psychology: New frontiers and rewarding careers. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Dooley, M., & Steward, J. (2007). Family income, parenting styles, and child behavioral-emotional outcomes. Health Econ. 16: 145–162. (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hec.1142
Glaser, D. & Prior, V. (1997). Child Abuse Review. 6
Guthrow, John (2002, December). Correlation between high rates of corporal punishment in public schools and social pathologies. Retrieved from http://www.nospank.net/correlationstudy.htm
Hay, Dale F. et al (2003). “Pathways to Violence in the Children of Mothers Who Were Depressed Postpartum.” Developmental Psychology, 39.
Hyman, Irwin A. (1990). Reading, writing, and the hickory stick: the appalling story of physical and psychological abuse in american schools. pp. 12-13, 139-140 Retrieved from http://www.nospank.net/timeout.htm
Hyman, Irwin A. (1997). The Case against spanking: how to discipline your child without hitting. pp. 58-62
Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & Van IJzendoorn, M.H. (2005). The importance of parenting in the development of disorganized attachment: Evidence from a preventive intervention study in adoptive families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 263-274.
Kotchick, B., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting Parenting in Perspective: A Discussion of the Contextual Factors That Shape Parenting Practices. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 11(3), 255-269.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Easterbrooks, M.A., & Cibelli, C.D. (1997). Infant attachment strategies, infant mental lag, and maternal depressive symptoms: Predictors of internalizing and externalizing problems at age 7. Developmental Psychology, 33, 681–692.
Markus, H. R., Mullally, P. R., & Kitayama, S. (1997). Self-ways: Diversity in modes of cultural participation. In U. Neisser & D. A. Jopling (Eds.), The conceptual self in context: Culture, experience, self-understanding (pp. 13–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, Alice (1998). The political consequences of child abuse. The Journal of Psychohistory. 26 (2) Fall. Information taken from: http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06_politic.html
Morgan, John J. B. (1940). Child psychology. Revised. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc. p. 178 Retrieved from http://www.nospank.net/morgan.htm
Rosenthal, D. A., Ranieri, N., & Klimidis, S. (1996). Vietnamese adolescents in Australia: Relationships between perceptions of self and parental values, intergenerational conflict, and gender dissatisfaction. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 81–91.
Rummell, Rudolph J. (1998). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900. Munster: Lit.
Sigsgaard, Erik & Silver, Dorte Herholdt (Translator) (2005). Scolding: why it hurts more than it helps.
Sorkhabi, N. (2005). Applicability of Baumrind’s parent typology to collective cultures: Analysis of cultural explanations of parent socialization effects. International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol 29(6), Nov. pp. 552-563.
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Ho, L. M., Zaman, R. M., Dar, R., & Anwar, M. (2000). Perceptions of parents’ and adolescents’ outcomes in Pakistan. British Journal of Developmental Pshcology, 18, 335–352.
Gold Breaks Out
Why is no one talking about the breakout in gold today?
After months of range-bound price action and diminishing trading volume, gold traded to a 3-month high, with the SPDR Gold Trust trading its highest volume since March. The breakout completes a classic cup-with-handle pattern, at both 3-year and 6-month scales. For the past few months, the price of gold has also been tracing a roughly symmetrical tightening triangle pattern, culminating in today’s bullish breakout.
On what is probably the most important trading day for gold over the past year and a half, today’s financial headlines are completely oblivious. The big news stories either ignore or gold and focus on the rather bland trading in the stock market, or if they mention gold at all it is in the context of the weaker dollar or “momentum buying.”
Of all days, Fitch even released a research report this afternoon suggesting that the short-term future of gold will be range-bound with a bias toward falling. Did they even check the price today?
Note the symmetrical triangle and breakout.
I imagine that some trading desks and enthusiasts are very excited about today’s move. If you examine a six-month chart or even a two-year chart, today’s breakout appears particularly bullish—and in some ways it is—but it pays to not get too carried away. Everybody knows that gold has posted significant returns over the past decade, and gold enthusiasts will tell you that there’s plenty more to come. And the fundamentals for gold support their case: the dollar is weak, the government is growing, markets are volatile, there is continued geopolitical stress around the world, and swine flu is just the most recent looming threat to our health. One source even reported yesterday on the accelerating accumulation of gold by the world’s central banks.
All of this—combined with today’s bullish breakout—points to a new massive bull run in the price of gold. The only weakness in the case is the long-term technical analysis. Since 2001, gold has experienced three major upward thrusts. In so doing it completed a classical Elliott Wave pattern. In a sufficiently liquid investment instrument, Elliott Wave theory suggests that three consecutive bullish waves are almost inevitably followed by a major correction (which gold experience last year, falling from almost $1000 per ounce to just above $700).
Note the 3 bullish waves (2001-04, 2005-06, 2007-08).
Since it is occurring at the top of the Elliott Wave cycle without a sufficiently linked the intervening correction period, the cup-with-handle pattern traced by gold’s correction and quick recovery over the past year is a “late stage base.” Late stage bases, as Bill O’Neil points out, are prone to a high rate of failure. Failure in this case would mean that the bullish breakout is short-lived and smaller than expected.
Based on these and other considerations, including comparison to similar patterns elsewhere, I believe it is reasonable to predict that, from today’s close of $978.50, gold will reach $1250 or perhaps $1300 before the end of the year (and silver may climb to $23). My analysis indicates that this price will be a long-term top to the bull market in gold, after which (one model indicates) the price may decline as much as 50% by the end of 2010.
Religion and Racism: Anecdote Proves Nothing
If you have spent much time trying to talk to religious people about philosophy, you have no doubt had someone tell you that they believe in God because of a “personal experience.” It doesn’t seem to matter what rational arguments you bring to bear on the conversation, or what evidence you present. At some point they will tell you that they just believe in God because they have had an “experience” and that since you cannot disprove their experience, you cannot disprove their belief.
I have spent countless hours and conversations running in circles around this question. I have tried asking religious people how, if they expect me to believe them based on their self-reported personal experience, they don’t believe people from other religions who claim to have entirely different personal experiences. I have asked why, if their entire belief system is based on personal experience and has nothing to do with what other people told them, they bother talking to other people about their beliefs; why not just let God reveal himself? I have tried pointing out that it is not valid for them to make generalizations about the universe based only on anecdotal personal experience, especially if that personal experience contradicts all other experiences and all other evidence. I have tried to ask how a vague and mysterious “experience” that they often have difficulty even putting into words somehow translates into a validation of the very concrete and specific stories and dogma found in the Bible.
But the conversation never works; it’s all too abstract. I can never connect with them at an emotional level. In order to do that, we need a metaphor.
I am not the first to draw a connection between religion and racism, but I hope to put forward something you can use proactively in a debate.
When a religious person tells you that her “personal experience” is proof that God created the world and sent Jesus Christ to be your personal savior, that is fundamentally no different from a racist who tells you that his “personal experience” is proof that all black people are criminals or that all Jews are cheats.
When it comes to race, we accept that generalizations about a group based merely on reports about individuals within that group are not valid. We also understand that because such generalizations are so obviously unreasonable, the anecdotes upon which they are based cannot truly be the reason for the beliefs. Instead such anecdotes are merely justification masquerading as evidence. When a racist tells you about the lazy Hispanic man he used to know and proceeds to use that acquaintance as “proof” that all Hispanic men are lazy, it is obvious that he began with the racist belief and that his story about his lazy acquaintance is merely an attempt to justify that belief to himself and to you.
In the same way, generalizations about the universe, society, or human nature that are based only on individual self-reports and personal anecdotes are equally invalid. Your religious friend would have you believe that she started with a blank slate and worked from the ground up, that the power of her experience made her particular conclusions about the existence of God inescapable. But, just as with racism, the belief comes first. Once the bigotry has been firmly established in her mind, she begins to look for “proof” to justify it.
You can apply this analogy to debates in multiple ways. If a religious person starts to tell you how their belief in God is based on “personal experience,” then you can start by asking them whether the principle is universal. Do they accept all beliefs that are supported by individual personal experiences? If it is valid for them to assert a belief about God based on their self-reported personal experiences, then they must accept all forms of religion, racism, or political beliefs that are “supported” by personal experience. (They must also, by the way, accept your assertion that they are wrong based on your personal experiences.)
You might also try changing the subject a little by asking them how they would confront a racist. What tactics would they use to persuade the racist that his personal experiences did not validate his conclusions? Will the religious person accept that the racist’s use of “personal experience” to back up his racism is invalid?
A note of caution: making such a clear and undeniable analogy between religion and racism is going to make the conversation extremely volatile. I suspect that even the best-case scenario for this interaction will be that the conversation comes to an immediate end, and that the person you were talking to experiences a personal crisis over the coming days and weeks. It’s okay to bring the conversation to a close at that point so they can think; if you pressure them for an immediate response they will probably become too defensive for any productive resolution to be achieved. If in the end their integrity outweighs their bigotry, then they may come around. But if they cling more tightly to their bigotry even after you have exposed it as such, then I doubt they will ever talk to you again.
If you use this analogy in conversations with people, please let me know how it works for you. Also let me know if you think of any other ways to deal with the problem of “proof by personal experience.”
“Fire Dancing”"
The dancers rise to smear the sky
With light and color of fire bright.
A pit is dug at the scene of the ritual,
And a fire is kindled within its sphere.
The tiny flame thirsts for the fuel that it needs
From the pieces of driftwood and splinters of boards.
Slowly the flame fingers reach out and upward,
As they consume the fuel so tenderly added
By the five dancers whose faces are hidden.
A handful of dust and the fire leaps
With a thirst unmatched by the ravenous wolf;
A flare of light fills the midnight sky,
Then dies away as silence fills the air.
A dancer tiptoes toward the tongues
As eight dust-filled fists fan the flames to engulf
His legs—his chest—his arms—his head.
The fire lingers on him for a moment;
Then all is dark once more and quiet.
The one in the mask stands behind the others,
And chants the song of triumph and glory.
2006
Not the End, but the Beginning
There are some big problems in our world today, and people are looking for answers. Given the difficulty of our task, and it would be convenient if we could rely on some existing institutions to help us figure out what to do, or at least where to start. Unfortunately the answers we are given are often not just wrong answers, but non-answers.
For example, ethics is an important problem, surrounded by difficult questions. But the answers people give us are not very useful.
Why should I be good?—“Because God will punish you if you aren’t!”
What is the definition of ‘good’?—“Whatever your parents or teachers tell you!”
How do I know what is good?—“You cannot know anything!”
We have all heard these and other non-answers. When we don’t know the answer to important questions about how to live our lives, we experience great anxiety. Because almost no one can answer these questions, almost everyone just makes up answers to avoid that anxiety.
Social organization is another complex subject.
How should I resolve disputes?—“Have the government shoot people if they disagree with you!”
How can I protect my property?—“Have the government seize half of it in taxes first!”
What is the best way to protect myself?—“Have the government threaten your life and create international instability!”
Two institutions in particular are responsible for perpetuating these non-answers: the church, and the state.
When we clear away the illusion of answers and realize the truth that we do not know the best way to answer these questions, then we can finally start to solve them.
The end of religion is not the end of ethics, but the beginning.
The end of the state is not the end of social order, but the beginning.
Honesty and voluntarism are not the end of virtue, but the beginning.
Investing in Violence
A lot of people these days are interested in socially conscious investing. I think it’s wonderful that investors are starting to look for investment opportunities that don’t support ills such as worker exploitation or environmental degradation. But there is one area of socially conscious investing that I haven’t heard much discussion about: government violence.
When you invest in government bonds, you are investing in present and future violence. In the present, you are loaning the government money that it will use to engage in a number of violent activities (like waging war, operating prisons, and financing international terrorism). Over the course of the loan, both principal and interest will be paid for by coercive taxation.
To the extent that you (or your mutual funds) buy government bonds, you are driving down the rate of interest at which the government can borrow to finance its evil deeds, making violence that much more profitable.
It is not enough that we avoid investing in companies that engage in unethical behavior. We must also be aware that in our attempt to “balance” our portfolios and find “safety” in turbulent markets by investing in government, we are investing in—and benefitting from—violence.
The Best of Freedomain Radio
The following is a list of my favorite podcasts from Stefan Molyneux’s Freedomain Radio, for those in search of his best material or a condensed stream:
Note: “The Best of Freedomain Radio” has been changed from a POST to a PAGE. The new page can be accessed by clicking the link above, or by clicking here.
RSS Feed
Proud Supporter
-
Licensed Material
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. Material in this blog may be reproduced in whole and in part, provided that attribution is made to the original author.
Nash Yielding
