Cacogenesis: Education, Child Sexuality, and Original Sin
“Freud’s picture of the child was remarkably similar to that which St. Augustine has given. One of the main proofs that Augustine gives for the inherent sinfulness of man is to point out the viciousness of the little child. His reasoning is that man must be inherently evil since the child is evil before it has a chance to learn evilness from others and to be corrupted by bad examples. Freud, like Augustine, does not emphasize those qualities in the child that would at least balance this picture: the child’s spontaneity, its ability to respond, its delicate judgement of people, its ability to recognize the attitudes of others regardless of what they say, its unceasing effort to grasp the world; in short, all those qualities that make us admire and love children and which have given rise to the idea that the childlike qualities of the adult are among his most precious possessions. There are numerous reasons why Freud puts all the emphasis on the evil aspects of the child. One reason is that the Victorian age had created the illusion or the fiction of the ‘innocent’ child. It was supposed to have no sexual strivings or other ‘bad’ impulses. When Freud attacked this convenient fiction, he was accused of besmirching the innocence of the child and of attacking one of the supreme values the Victorian family believed in.”
-Erich Fromm, The Forgotten Language p. 55-56
There’s a lot to consider here. This post looks at three points raised by the above quote: The shift in notions of evil which came about with new technology, the inherent evil in children according to Freud and its relationship to the sexual nature of the child with reference to Postman’s critique previously discussed, and the humanist cover-up perpetrated by Erich Fromm in the above quotation, in which he attempts to “balance” this notion of naturally occurring evil with evidence of a coexisting naturally occurring good.
Crowley, on the other hand, posits the human soul as absolute, only appearing good or evil with respect to its conditions and standard of measurement. This quantum morality sees good and evil in themselves as relative to the direction intended by True Will in the individual sense, and relative to the essential characteristics of the subject in the sense that we apply this judgement to others. Let us bear this in mind as we proceed with our analysis.
St. Augustine was writing at a time in which childhood as we know it did not exist. Neil Postman observes that the invention of the printing press, which made literacy a necessary prerequisite for middle-class life and even many menial jobs, was a key factor in the creation of the concept of childhood as it exists today. In Augustine’s time, education was not structured according to age. Children and adults studied the same subjects in the same classes, learning mostly by lecture. Children and adults went to the same places to eat and drink, wore the same style of clothing, and generally were not segregated in terms of what knowledge they had access to.
“...in a world of book learning such exuberance [typical of youth] needed to be sharply modified. Quietness, immobility, contemplation, precise regulation of bodily functions, became highly valued. That is why, beginning in the sixteenth century, schoolmasters and parents began to impose rather stringent discipline on children. The natural inclinations of children began to be perceived not only as an impediment to book learning, but as an expression of an evil character. Thus “nature” had to be overcome in the interest of achieving both a satisfactory education and a purified soul. The capacity to control and overcome one’s nature became one of the defining characteristics of adulthood and therefore one of the central purposes of education; for some, the essential purpose of education.”
-Postman, p. 46
‘Evil,’ in this sense, begins to take on a new meaning, one created by the social impact of technological development. It is not difficult to grasp Augustine’s point, even if we disagree. Children can certainly do terrible things without a second thought, being generally unaware of the consequences for another, the value of particular objects, or of what adults consider appropriate conduct regarding the exposure of the body or of sexual gestures of behaviours. Once the element of literacy is introduced, the picture becomes more clear. “Goodness” is connected to patience and rationality, so it is the irrational element of the child which gives it its evil nature. This is where Freud’s argument begins, and where we of gentle dispossession may find the word “evil” to seem a tad harsh.
The ‘evil’ in the child, as Freud puts it, comes from its irrationality. This quality develops due to a combination of the desire to be obeyed, and the need to be protected and cared for. The child’s essential Will to Power is necessarily threatened by the physiological conditions of its existence in the first decade of its life. During that time, the Will to Power must become sublimated to some degree in order to participate in civilization. Children must learn, in other words, that they cannot always have their way.
This sublimation would have been less profound in the era which predated the printing press. By the age of majority, a child had reasonable command over its destiny, to the extent that its diminished size and the social conditions of its birth would allow. However, with the creation of a distinct culture of children, in which children read literature specific to them, dress differently from adults, and are socialized and educated with others more or less their own age, the need for repression becomes more distinct and pronounced. They do not live in society as such, but in child-society. The demands of civilization, in terms of conformity with certain standards of behaviour and conduct, increase significantly. Although some aspects of this barrier are breaking down, and the increasingly kindgergaarten-esque corporate world continues to lower its requisite level of functional maturity, the public education system itself helps to maintain this child-society status quo. Even the internet helps this to a great degree. Younger people tend to associate with others in more or less their age group online, and communication tools like MSN and Facebook allow cliques of friends, of the type that quickly develop in the public school system, to increase solidarity.
The pressure of academic study is unbearable to some, for whom true literacy is not a realistic or meaningful goal. But literacy, clothing, and socialization are not the only differences. As Fromm points out, children are inherently sexual, and that the adult world was, for a long time, more or less in denial of that sexuality. The type of restriction placed upon a child who undergoes a formal education will (if it is well done) encourage discipline and self-motivation, but when this is combined with an environment innately hostile to the expression of one’s most basic urges, feelings, and desires, the results are bound to be neurotic.
Postman fails to see this in the Disappearance of Childhood. I really think that he makes some excellent points regarding the use of sexual images in the media, but at the same time, isolating children from sexuality is simply impossible. At the same time, legitimate expressions of child sexuality, because they are necessarily, as Freud observes, undeveloped, irrational, and lacking in self-awareness, would be difficult to come by. Freud’s general premise that the original lust object is a parent could be questioned, but at the very least, it would have to be some individual fantastically out of the child’s reach, requiring repression of one kind or another to cope with the pangs of desire. It would seem that repression and sexual desire are necessarily entwined from their earliest manifestation.
So wouldn’t this problem be solved by making sexuality a frank and public affair in which the child will be more quick to recognize the reflections of its own yearnings? It depends how. If a child sees its own yearnings reflected in a television commercial, a bad sitcom, or a cheesy movie, they will come to associate their feelings with the values and scenarios being depicted, namely, consumerism, sarcasm, and nihilism. These images do not accurately reflect adult romance and sexuality, and because children will see sexually charged scenes in television commercials, sitcoms, and movies, long before they ever go on a date or have sex for themselves, these ideas will be formative in their developing understanding of sexuality. It isn’t as if children are allowed to observe genuine adult romances. If they were, they might develop the capacity to judge what they see in the media as false.
Of course, this isn’t an immanent problem. This is an ongoing problem, one that has been adversely affection developing notions of sexuality for the last forty years or so, accelerating exponentially in the last fifteen as increasingly graphic depiction of sexual encounters, as well as increasingly hyperbolic portrayals of romance, have become commonplace on afternoon television.
“So that readers will not think these observations are merely the outpourings of a prudish sensibility, I should like to make my point as clearly as I can: The problem being discussed here is the difference between public knowledge and private knowledge ... It is one thing to say that human sexuality is base and ugly, which, in my opinion, is another dangerous idea. It is altogether different to say that its public display deprives it of its mystery and awe and changes the character and meaning of both sexuality and child development.”
-Postman, p. 92
Postman has, in my opinion, missed the boat here. His concerns in 1984 could never have foreseen Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire (forgive the dated reference- perhaps one of my readers who actually watches television could fill me in on the latest travesty). Sexuality has invaded the media to the extent at which even presuming that sex HAS mystery and awe is likely to inspire mocking laughter from those who suppose that rutting is equal to making love, who would equate “sex is mysterious” with shameful virginity and infantile naiveté. The way to re-imbue sexuality with mystery and awe is not to hide it, but to discover its complexity. Commercials and television do not develop romantic themes in any meaningful way that reflects reality, and sex seems so banal that we actually have jaded virgins. The point is that sex has not been demystified by modern mass media but rather it has, like religion, been trivialised. After all, as we are repeatedly assured by secular culture, there are no mysteries in life: only biology and psychobabble.
“From infancy children should face facts, unadulterated by explanations.
Let them think and act for themselves; let their innate integrity initiate itself!
Make them explore all life’s mysteries, overcome all its dangers.
Falsity and fear are their only foe-men.
Let them witness birth, marriage, death; let them hear poetry, philosophy, history; compel apprehension but not its articulate expression.”
-Aleister Crowley, On the Education of Children
If Postman is right, and childhood is predicated upon secrecy, what does this mean for “let them explore all of life’s mysteries?” Does Crowley contradict Postman here? I don’t think so If we make nothing mysterious, there are no mysteries to explore!
And what’s this “innate integrity!” Is our prophet gullible? Or could it be that his mission is distinctly a “drawing out” rather than a “putting in.” To “compel apprehension but not its articulate expression” indicates that we are merely stimulating the nature of the child, rather than feeding it explanations and judgements that have come ready made for it to consume. What kind of education is this?
Crowley is essentially describing a means of cultivating the Will to Power, a drive which is bound to place the child in conflict with civilization in general and its family in particular. To Augustine, the idea of trusting the innate qualities of a child to determine its direction in life is pure nemesis. Although Freud identified the sexuality of children, their inherent “irrationality” prevented him from advocating such a severe treatment. In The Forgotten Language, Fromm makes the apt observation that Freud was able to hold such a critical and objective view of sexuality because he was, essentially, of a puritan strain himself. One could object to my characterizing Freud in this way, and I do not assert this unreservedly, but I am of the cautious opinion that Freudian thought has less to do with addressing the causes of psychological repression than it does with finding “healthy” (i.e. non-neurotic) ways to be repressed. Crowley’s method takes this a great deal farther, and actually attacks the system of civilized repression itself in its methods of social organization, education, and general morality.
Fromm, interestingly enough, rests somewhere in between. A pronounced humanitarian, Fromm would LIKE to say that children should not be repressed, but I sense he is not willing to face the essential “evil,” or at least, essential immorality, which is a vital part of the unconditioned human nature, and later in life, the human nature that is appropriately conditioned to its essence. To me, one of the most fascinating points about the opening quote is Fromm’s attempt to defend the goodness of the child by listing its virtuous qualities. Let us examine these in sequence...
1. the child’s spontaneity - that is, independence of action from thought. Not usually a characteristic associated with goodness, but undoubtedly a charming quality at times.
2. its ability to respond - we do appreciate this, yes, but not all of an average child’s “responses” to stimuli are wholesome. I’m not sure that mere ability to “respond” qualifies as goodness, either. Once, when sorely provoked, I struck a man full in the testicles with a brass award-statue shaped like a dolphin. While this was, strictly speaking, a response, I doubt that it would be viewed by the discerning reader as an act of unmixed benevolence.
3. its delicate judgement of people - wait... children are DELICATE in their judgement of people? We must have had very different experiences with children, Mr. Fromm! I have found them to be obscenely candid, and hardly reserved in critical evaluation of another’s characteristics, appearance, or manner of speaking, to name a few examples.
4. its ability to recognize the attitudes of others regardless of what they say - this is pure hogwash. A romantic fantasy. Some children are perceptive, some are oblivious. Just like everybody else.
5. its unceasing effort to grasp the world - THIS must be the true goodness of children. However, if we scratch the child’s effort to grasp the world, we find the Will to Power, which is the cause of all that “irrational/evil” stuff in the first place.
I suspect I will be continuing to return to this theme. I’ve been trying to find more material relevant to the education of Children at Cefalu to assist these studies. If anyone has an unlikely lead for me, I would be terribly grateful for a link or a shove in the right direction...