Back to reading the Basic Writings of Bertrand Russel - this excerpt is from his essay My Mental Development
As a rule, children or adults who are happy are likely to have fewer destructive passions, and therefore to need less restraint, than those who are unhappy. But I do not think that children can be made happy by being deprived of guidance, nor do I think that a sense of social obligation can be fostered if complete idleness is permitted. The question of discipline in childhood, like all other practical questions, is one of degree. Profound unhappiness and instinctive frustration is apt to produce a deep grudge against the world, issuing, sometimes by a very roundabout road, in cruelty and violence
It was interesting to connect the dots here. Starting from a child who is is naturally more unhappy and restive than the rest. Per Russel, they cannot be made happy by letting them run wild and do what they want or think they want. Yet the matter of discipline as he says is a one of degree.
There is a line past which it is too much. Reading this made me think that the line is probably not where it stops to produce results because the concept of "results" could be subjective. What results were expected versus what is acceptable or good enough - and also from whose perspective.
The parent may have a vision for their child that is far away from what the kid wants for themselves. There are situations when it is prudent to override the wishes of the kid and others when it is not. So perhaps the line is better drawn at the point where there could be consequences like "profound unhappiness" or "instinctive frustration". Perhaps the aims of childhood discipline should be to counter that.
As a rule, children or adults who are happy are likely to have fewer destructive passions, and therefore to need less restraint, than those who are unhappy. But I do not think that children can be made happy by being deprived of guidance, nor do I think that a sense of social obligation can be fostered if complete idleness is permitted. The question of discipline in childhood, like all other practical questions, is one of degree. Profound unhappiness and instinctive frustration is apt to produce a deep grudge against the world, issuing, sometimes by a very roundabout road, in cruelty and violence
It was interesting to connect the dots here. Starting from a child who is is naturally more unhappy and restive than the rest. Per Russel, they cannot be made happy by letting them run wild and do what they want or think they want. Yet the matter of discipline as he says is a one of degree.
There is a line past which it is too much. Reading this made me think that the line is probably not where it stops to produce results because the concept of "results" could be subjective. What results were expected versus what is acceptable or good enough - and also from whose perspective.
The parent may have a vision for their child that is far away from what the kid wants for themselves. There are situations when it is prudent to override the wishes of the kid and others when it is not. So perhaps the line is better drawn at the point where there could be consequences like "profound unhappiness" or "instinctive frustration". Perhaps the aims of childhood discipline should be to counter that.
Comments