Subject: Re: [HAB:] re: Getting ethical by getting highly self-identical
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:43:06 +0100



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary E. Davis" <coherings-AT-yahoo.com>

> 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).
> 

Actually no, the desire to be a good mother is not natural 
either.

So what do you think of Habermas's theory of communicative
action?  If you talk off the top of your head, without actually
having any knowledge of the subject, which you are here, and 
if you  keep changing the direction of the discussion, which 
you are doing, where does this lead?  (From other sources,
I understand this is a sign of intelligence.  Do you think so?)

How can people achieve communication when some do
not want to communicate in a real way. And does it matter?

Would you prefer I just hand you back the list, so you can 
continue to ramble on about theory in a disorganized manner
which suggests you don't know what you're talking about, and
you don't really care to have it be an influence in your life.  
It's just about theory, and this list is a place for you to pretend 
to know something, while demonstrating an inability to connect
theory with life.

As far as I'm concerned, I believe it would be better if people
like yourself were kept from being in positions where you  
might have an influence on young people.  Underage teenage
girls are already in a heap of trouble from people who use
their knowledge in ways that are detrimental, and if you don't
have the desire to do what's right, you don't deserve to be in a 
place of influence. 

Sue McPherson




> -------------------
> 
> > 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 ---


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