Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HAB:] re: Getting ethical by getting highly self-identical



--- Sue McPherson <sue-AT-mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

> I don't think very much of mothering is all that
natural. 

G: OK. But what I claimed was that the *desire* to be
a good mother, given that the children are wanted, is
natural. My emphasis, I believe, was that this leads
to a generally good learning process in mothering, not
that "much of mothering is all that natural." I agree
with all you say (while taking what you say about
mothering in Canada, education in England as points of
information).

-------------------

> Most reently - a couple of weeks ago, the state
decided that underage girls who got pregnant would no
longer have to have their parents' permission to have
an abortion. Doctors would be able to give twelve year
olds abortions, not only without their parents'
consent, but without their knowledge. Whatever was
natural about mothering - and indeed fathering - is
being undermined by the state.

G: Not at all. The girl has an unwanted pregnancy.
What's "natural about mothering" presumes, as I
mentioned, that the child is wanted. I regard as quite
natural that a girl would decide that she's not ready
to be a mother. Also, it's medically ill-advised for a
12 year-old to carry a pregnancy to term. Your "state"
is recognizing that a pregnant girl is competent to
concur with medical advice without parental consent.
Such a policy, which is common in the U.S., is merely
an extension of a person's right to privacy to a girl
physically mature enough to be just as pregnant as an
adult. 


------------

> Children have to learn first about our society,...

G: No, they *will* learn first about
themselves-in-family, in which they form a sense of
"me" distinct from other family members. Much identity
formation has already happened by the time they meet
"society" in child care centers or preschool. 

>...and also learn how to think for themselves - and
how to think in an ethical manner whether they
actually continue with it or not. 

G: Quite so! Cognitive development begins in infancy.
A sense of fairness in play shapes itself very early,
given decent parenting. 

S> Parents are problably the worse to try and teach
their children about ethics. 

G: They're as good as the sense of caring they bring
to the baby, to the child. Readiness for parenting is
a separate issue from what ethical sensibility likely
results from decent parenting. 

> All parents make mistakes while parenting,...

G: And healthy children are very resiliant, while
being quite clear about when mistakes have been made.
It's the general pattern of parenting that "decent
parenting" (commonly called "good enough" parenting)
pertains to, given that new parents are conscientious
about recognizing mistakes. Parenting can be far from
perfect (*will* be so anyway) and still be very good,
far beyond merely good enough for the child to turn
out with a decent ethical sense. Of course, chronic
ignoring of signs of child stress, discomfort, etc.,
not to mention abuse, is contrary to decent parenting.
Need for intervention presumes good sense about good
enough parenting in the first place, which
grandparents traditionally bring to the family or
healthcare professionals and social services
professionals bring to their services, along with
media culture (where parenting literature is an
industry unto itself). 

>... and so the personal aspects of the child/parent
relationship could actually hinder personal
development of the child. 

G: Quite true. Extended family and healthcare
professionals are important for the overstressed
parent. Public health services may be necessary to
instill or restore good processes of parenting.  

> In my view the child needs to get away from such
close relationships in order to develop.

G: Yes and no. Yes, in the symbolic "No" spells of
those "terrible twos" (burgeoning formation of the
embodied concept of self), yes in learning how to be
"me" in developing interests, learning how to play
well, learning how to learn, etc. Yet, "No", too, in
the terrible twos that test the reliability of parent
stances about what's good; and in displaying the new
interests that call for parent praise; and in playing
"independently" with the parent, and in learning how
to learn through parental coaching. "Yes" and "no"
throughout childhood; and, most of all, "yes" and "no"
in being the normal teen that needs to be---often like
a two-year-old---"left alone" very proactively, i.e.,
with clear appreciation *that* s/he is being left
alone to work things out herself/himself with the
parent *reliably nearby* for *whenever* needed (such
that when the teen *does* need the parent, that parent
had better be there! Or else weather the teen's sense
of betrayal). 

It can seem always "yes" *and* "no" with parenting:
fostering identity with distinction, identity with a
difference (of her / his own), identity-in-difference.


---------------------------

> I see it more in terms of life cycle development -

G: Me, too. 


Gary






     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---