Oliver Twist & mom: literature, “eugenics,” abortion and parenting
I sent my mom my theater review and, as usual, it prompted a truly fascinating discussion. I’ve asked and received permission to post the first of her reply e-mails. My mother is one of the smartest and most interesting people I know and the ability to have conversations like this is probably part of why we’re so close. Not to mention, she’s just the best.
So, ruminations on genetic engineering, literature, “eugenics,” abortion and parenting: (VERY worth reading):
I loved your theatre review . . . I waver a bit on Dickens. For most of my life, I`ve essentially detested his work and profoundly disliked reading him. But I have to admit that, for his time, he managed to draw attention to some social problems and to attract some concern for them on the part of at least some of his readers. . . I`m not sure that`s enough to make his work literature, of course.
Like you, I dislike the implicit assumption that Oliver`s goodness is a result of his birth [since] we discover he`s actually descended from "good stock." . . . that`s far more offensive, to my mind, than the idea that someone may be born "less good" than someone else.
Actually, SH and I got into a rather interesting discussion about the root of evil. There`s starting to be some pretty compelling research that suggests that, in fact, there may actually be hereditary links to the presence of "evil." No one is suggesting that "nurture"
doesn`t play its part, but sociopathic and psychopathic behaviors may have a distinct genetic link (not entirely surprising), as well as other less profound negative behaviors.
In fact, I`ve long believed, from the time you and Bu were born, and T. Berry Brazelton, at Harvard, was completing ground-breaking research on innate personality in infants, that much about an individual is innate. Brazelton`s study didn`t investigate "evil," but he did postulate innate personality types that infants were born with, and counseled parents that they would be vastly better parents if they would adapt to their child`s personality rather than try to modify it. With regard to you and Arthur, for example, I`ve always said that I take little credit for how well you`ve "turned out." I`ve always commented that I couldn`t put in what God left out, so to speak, and merely tried, to the best of my ability, to nurture who you were when you arrived in this world, helping both of you to reach your fullest potential. I also believe that there are probably many cases where children grow up to be less than positive members of society through no real fault of the parenting they received.
Not that I`m suggesting we should just throw up our hands and say "what will be, will be!" And there`s no denying that there is a lot of really bad parenting which contributes vastly and negatively to the outcome of a child`s life. Studies of the profoundly negative impact of not having bonded with nurturing adults in infancy, and the seeming impossibility of overcoming this lack later in life, are enough to bring balance back to the "nature vs. nurture" discussion.
Now I`m wondering why I began pontificating on this subject. Probably because your review struck a nerve, and it`s a subject I`ve thought a great deal throughout my life, both before and since becoming a parent. For instance, you know that for a long time I didn`t want to be a mother because I was convinced I`d be such a bad mother that my
children would never be able to overcome the damage I`d do them.
Brazelton was very reassuring to me at the time, and may even have contributed to my changing my mind and ardently wanting children in my life. You and Bu have been, and continue to be, my greatest joy in life, and I`m so grateful that I took the leap of faith and became your mother!
So back to the conversation I had with SH. I confessed that I find the recent trend in genetic research extremely troubling. While I`m perfectly ready, and even reassured, to believe that much in human behavior and personality may be innate, I hope we never find conclusive proof of a specific genetic link to many of these "negative" aspects of human behavior and personality. For me, this offers the possibility of a degree of genetic engineering that makes me exceedingly uncomfortable.
If, for instance, as I/we strongly believe, homosexuality is innate, someone may discover the "queer" gene, opening the door to genetic testing of unborn children and to the elimination of potentially "defective" gay children through therapeutic abortion.
I have great difficulty deciding where I draw the ethical line on this type of therapeutic abortion (as opposed to abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, for example). I certainly don`t think fetuses should be aborted because they are not of the desired sex, and in our culture, I suspect that most would agree with me. (Not so true in much of China, of course.) And, of course, for me it goes without saying that future sexual orientation is just as indefensible a reason for aborting a child, though sadly it wouldn`t be for all.
I see some genetic disorders as more ethically problematic, though.
Down syndrome is a good example, since a child born with Down syndrome is almost always happy, relatively healthy, and considerably, though not entirely, self-sufficient. Other genetically-based disorders cause significant, and sometimes prolonged, suffering in the child, leading inevitably to early and even agonizing death. This type of situation poses a greater ethical dilemma for me. Tay-Sachs disorder is one of them, I believe.
Regardless, as things stand today, I strongly support the right of the woman to make the decision, and do not want the government to interfere with that right. I`m not so sure where I would stand, however, if we progress to the possibility of extinguishing potential children to restrict the "criminal element" in our society, or the number of gays, etc.
So, it seems consideration of Oliver Twist has provoked, for me at least, some ruminating. Back to the question: does that make it literature? Maybe.
By the way, I personally like "Great Expectations" better than most of Dickens` other work, and I`ve also always had a soft spot for "A Christmas Carol" as well. I also like "Tale of Two Cities." And I agree with your comment about "Moll Flanders," another book on my high school required reading list that I especially enjoyed.
I also agree with your reflections on the "Jewishness" of Fagin. I don`t really remember much in the way of anti-Semitism in "Oliver Twist," but I probably just missed it in my adolescent oblivion. I grew up not knowing any Jews at all, and not knowing anyone who was critical of Jews. The Bible-belt version of Christianity, compared to the conservative Roman Catholic version of Christianity, doesn’t particularly blame Jews for the crucifixion. And you know how Grandma Jeanne`s two best friends throughout her childhood were a Catholic and a Jew.
Despite your mostly negative review of the play, I would have loved to have gone to see it with you, just for the pleasure of discussing it afterward! Thanks for thinking of me! I love you so very, very much. I`m so looking forward to your visit.
So, ruminations on genetic engineering, literature, “eugenics,” abortion and parenting: (VERY worth reading):
I loved your theatre review . . . I waver a bit on Dickens. For most of my life, I`ve essentially detested his work and profoundly disliked reading him. But I have to admit that, for his time, he managed to draw attention to some social problems and to attract some concern for them on the part of at least some of his readers. . . I`m not sure that`s enough to make his work literature, of course.
Like you, I dislike the implicit assumption that Oliver`s goodness is a result of his birth [since] we discover he`s actually descended from "good stock." . . . that`s far more offensive, to my mind, than the idea that someone may be born "less good" than someone else.
Actually, SH and I got into a rather interesting discussion about the root of evil. There`s starting to be some pretty compelling research that suggests that, in fact, there may actually be hereditary links to the presence of "evil." No one is suggesting that "nurture"
doesn`t play its part, but sociopathic and psychopathic behaviors may have a distinct genetic link (not entirely surprising), as well as other less profound negative behaviors.
In fact, I`ve long believed, from the time you and Bu were born, and T. Berry Brazelton, at Harvard, was completing ground-breaking research on innate personality in infants, that much about an individual is innate. Brazelton`s study didn`t investigate "evil," but he did postulate innate personality types that infants were born with, and counseled parents that they would be vastly better parents if they would adapt to their child`s personality rather than try to modify it. With regard to you and Arthur, for example, I`ve always said that I take little credit for how well you`ve "turned out." I`ve always commented that I couldn`t put in what God left out, so to speak, and merely tried, to the best of my ability, to nurture who you were when you arrived in this world, helping both of you to reach your fullest potential. I also believe that there are probably many cases where children grow up to be less than positive members of society through no real fault of the parenting they received.
Not that I`m suggesting we should just throw up our hands and say "what will be, will be!" And there`s no denying that there is a lot of really bad parenting which contributes vastly and negatively to the outcome of a child`s life. Studies of the profoundly negative impact of not having bonded with nurturing adults in infancy, and the seeming impossibility of overcoming this lack later in life, are enough to bring balance back to the "nature vs. nurture" discussion.
Now I`m wondering why I began pontificating on this subject. Probably because your review struck a nerve, and it`s a subject I`ve thought a great deal throughout my life, both before and since becoming a parent. For instance, you know that for a long time I didn`t want to be a mother because I was convinced I`d be such a bad mother that my
children would never be able to overcome the damage I`d do them.
Brazelton was very reassuring to me at the time, and may even have contributed to my changing my mind and ardently wanting children in my life. You and Bu have been, and continue to be, my greatest joy in life, and I`m so grateful that I took the leap of faith and became your mother!
So back to the conversation I had with SH. I confessed that I find the recent trend in genetic research extremely troubling. While I`m perfectly ready, and even reassured, to believe that much in human behavior and personality may be innate, I hope we never find conclusive proof of a specific genetic link to many of these "negative" aspects of human behavior and personality. For me, this offers the possibility of a degree of genetic engineering that makes me exceedingly uncomfortable.
If, for instance, as I/we strongly believe, homosexuality is innate, someone may discover the "queer" gene, opening the door to genetic testing of unborn children and to the elimination of potentially "defective" gay children through therapeutic abortion.
I have great difficulty deciding where I draw the ethical line on this type of therapeutic abortion (as opposed to abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, for example). I certainly don`t think fetuses should be aborted because they are not of the desired sex, and in our culture, I suspect that most would agree with me. (Not so true in much of China, of course.) And, of course, for me it goes without saying that future sexual orientation is just as indefensible a reason for aborting a child, though sadly it wouldn`t be for all.
I see some genetic disorders as more ethically problematic, though.
Down syndrome is a good example, since a child born with Down syndrome is almost always happy, relatively healthy, and considerably, though not entirely, self-sufficient. Other genetically-based disorders cause significant, and sometimes prolonged, suffering in the child, leading inevitably to early and even agonizing death. This type of situation poses a greater ethical dilemma for me. Tay-Sachs disorder is one of them, I believe.
Regardless, as things stand today, I strongly support the right of the woman to make the decision, and do not want the government to interfere with that right. I`m not so sure where I would stand, however, if we progress to the possibility of extinguishing potential children to restrict the "criminal element" in our society, or the number of gays, etc.
So, it seems consideration of Oliver Twist has provoked, for me at least, some ruminating. Back to the question: does that make it literature? Maybe.
By the way, I personally like "Great Expectations" better than most of Dickens` other work, and I`ve also always had a soft spot for "A Christmas Carol" as well. I also like "Tale of Two Cities." And I agree with your comment about "Moll Flanders," another book on my high school required reading list that I especially enjoyed.
I also agree with your reflections on the "Jewishness" of Fagin. I don`t really remember much in the way of anti-Semitism in "Oliver Twist," but I probably just missed it in my adolescent oblivion. I grew up not knowing any Jews at all, and not knowing anyone who was critical of Jews. The Bible-belt version of Christianity, compared to the conservative Roman Catholic version of Christianity, doesn’t particularly blame Jews for the crucifixion. And you know how Grandma Jeanne`s two best friends throughout her childhood were a Catholic and a Jew.
Despite your mostly negative review of the play, I would have loved to have gone to see it with you, just for the pleasure of discussing it afterward! Thanks for thinking of me! I love you so very, very much. I`m so looking forward to your visit.