From: "Andy" <as-AT-spelthorne.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:37:09 +0000
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: baby food]



 
> Firstly, I think that in many of the
> forms that an anarchist society could
> take,
> there would be less specific reliance on
> biological parents for care-giving, and
> more reliance on the community as a
> whole (not to mention that there
> probably
> wouldn't be a mall to go off to). 

That's what I always thought originally but I was reading quite a 
while ago about a 1970s[?] study of the kibbutz system and how it had 
evolved - it was interesting that the day care is  still communal but 
that the nuclear family seem s to have re-asserted itself in terms of 
living accommodation.

 However the study [Bettelheim, B. 1969, The 
Children of the Dream - found the reference - I seem to remember he 
was/is an American psychologist] found no battered babies, bullying, 
serious mental illness or sex crimes. Also little jealousy or 
possessiveness, few educational failures and little parental 
pressure.

Possibly more interesting was that the Kibbutzniks were hard workers 
renowned for their loyalty and bravery in the 6 day war. However, 
because of consensual decision making, they tended not to make fast 
decisions. These 2 facts probably account for the fact that they were 
25% of Israeli casualties while only being 4% of the pop.

Bettelheim also said because they were deprived of close emotional 
contact, they tended to be undemonstrative, and suppressed anger and 
their sexuality.

The citation for what it's worth was in a mainstream soc. science 
text book, but as to its validity, I haven't a clue.




The
> potential for neglect is a lot lower
> when
> there are multiple care-givers
> available.


Yup


> However, that's not going to completely
> alleviate the problem of abuse and
> neglect. 

Seemed to go a long way towards it.

The community is going to have
> to apply the same standards of behavior
> for interactions between adults and
> children as it holds its members to for
> interaction amongst adults--the child's
> right to be healthy, well-fed, and happy
> is the same as that of everyone else in
> the community. At the same time, as the
> child gets older, he or she is expected
> to act responsibly within the community
> as well.

This would be his point about communality vs loss of initiative.

> That said, I think that the community
> should only intervene in the
> relationship
> between a parent and a child when it
> becomes clear that there is either
> intentional harm being caused, or if the
> parent is going to cause harm through a
> pattern of neglect (intentional or not).
> The community is as responsible for the
> care of a child as the parent is in the
> long run, and while we shouldn't be our
> neighbors' keepers, we have a
> responsibility to keep the community
> healthy.
> 
> At least that's my call. Anyone want to
> tear that apart ?  :).


As far as I can see, nothing to tear; back to the thread on 
chewing gazelles I suppose.

Andy
>AS