![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
...on this article, and various reactions to it.
One possible definition of civilisation, used by Brian Aldiss in his The Dark Light Years (which I haven't read for a long time because I didn't like it much) is the amount of distance people manage to put between themselves and their own shit. For "shit," in this case, read "uncomfortable realities." I don't think much of this definition myself, but like anyone who grew up in Britain in the post-Victorian century, I am to some extent and in my own way a product of an attempt to put it into practice.
There is a lot more information about uncomfortable realities around these days than there was when I were a nipper, and some of it is even accurate. Accurate information is good, as long as one knows how to detect it, and how to deal with it when one's got it.
Kids, on the whole, look for limits. It's an important part of exploring their world. They want to know which walls they can break through, or tunnel under, or hop over when they've grown a bit, and also which ones they can lean on, build on, bounce off if they're going too fast. It's important, I think, that there are both kinds. To be told that there are no limits does not help them to build a coherent picture of the world, and in any case is not true. On the other hand, parents should only set limits that they can realistically keep, or their credibility will be destroyed.
If there is no information readily available to children on things that seem forbidden and therefore attractive, they will find whatever sources they can, whether they are accurate or not. If internet access is restricted in your house, you will (unless you're a pantywaist like I was) go to a friend's house, or a friend's friend's older brother's house, and look for whatever it was you couldn't find at home. The days when children could be kept under total control are gone; that ship has already encountered its iceberg.
I don't actually know where I'm going with this, if anywhere. I understand the anger that's been voiced in response to this article, which I think is ill-conceived, but on the other hand I don't know how I would have turned out if the deluge of information available to kids these days had been around when I was young and impressionable. It certainly doesn't sound, from the quotes and such mentioned, as if self-harm and other such things are being "promoted" or made to sound desirable, though that might not put off a sufficiently determined adolescent. I suppose one of the things I'm groping towards is that if it's easier for children these days to find information that helps them to discover who they are, even if that isn't who their parents think they are, that's a good thing; conversely, if it's harder for them to navigate through an increasingly confusing world where there seem to be fewer limits of any kind, it's all the more credit to them, and to their parents, when they do make it through safely.
As for the gender-specific lists, hm. I wonder how many of those books would have been deemed acceptable for any child back in 1963, when even "the odd" expletive was anathema? I can't imagine the teachers of my day being overly thrilled to discover one of their charges reading "Angelmonster," or even "True Grit." Perhaps Ms Gurdon isn't aware of how much "coarseness" and "misery" had already found its way into kids' lives when her own moral standards were set.
Please be aware when commenting that none of this is any more than one exceptionally uninformed old idiot's opinion.
One possible definition of civilisation, used by Brian Aldiss in his The Dark Light Years (which I haven't read for a long time because I didn't like it much) is the amount of distance people manage to put between themselves and their own shit. For "shit," in this case, read "uncomfortable realities." I don't think much of this definition myself, but like anyone who grew up in Britain in the post-Victorian century, I am to some extent and in my own way a product of an attempt to put it into practice.
There is a lot more information about uncomfortable realities around these days than there was when I were a nipper, and some of it is even accurate. Accurate information is good, as long as one knows how to detect it, and how to deal with it when one's got it.
Kids, on the whole, look for limits. It's an important part of exploring their world. They want to know which walls they can break through, or tunnel under, or hop over when they've grown a bit, and also which ones they can lean on, build on, bounce off if they're going too fast. It's important, I think, that there are both kinds. To be told that there are no limits does not help them to build a coherent picture of the world, and in any case is not true. On the other hand, parents should only set limits that they can realistically keep, or their credibility will be destroyed.
If there is no information readily available to children on things that seem forbidden and therefore attractive, they will find whatever sources they can, whether they are accurate or not. If internet access is restricted in your house, you will (unless you're a pantywaist like I was) go to a friend's house, or a friend's friend's older brother's house, and look for whatever it was you couldn't find at home. The days when children could be kept under total control are gone; that ship has already encountered its iceberg.
I don't actually know where I'm going with this, if anywhere. I understand the anger that's been voiced in response to this article, which I think is ill-conceived, but on the other hand I don't know how I would have turned out if the deluge of information available to kids these days had been around when I was young and impressionable. It certainly doesn't sound, from the quotes and such mentioned, as if self-harm and other such things are being "promoted" or made to sound desirable, though that might not put off a sufficiently determined adolescent. I suppose one of the things I'm groping towards is that if it's easier for children these days to find information that helps them to discover who they are, even if that isn't who their parents think they are, that's a good thing; conversely, if it's harder for them to navigate through an increasingly confusing world where there seem to be fewer limits of any kind, it's all the more credit to them, and to their parents, when they do make it through safely.
As for the gender-specific lists, hm. I wonder how many of those books would have been deemed acceptable for any child back in 1963, when even "the odd" expletive was anathema? I can't imagine the teachers of my day being overly thrilled to discover one of their charges reading "Angelmonster," or even "True Grit." Perhaps Ms Gurdon isn't aware of how much "coarseness" and "misery" had already found its way into kids' lives when her own moral standards were set.
Please be aware when commenting that none of this is any more than one exceptionally uninformed old idiot's opinion.