a treatise on parents and children-第3部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



blinding　of　the　child's　soul；　which　can　bring　nothing　but　horror　to

anyone。







The　Manufacture　of　Monsters



This　industry　is　by　no　means　peculiar　to　China。　　The　Chinese　（they

say）　make　physical　monsters。　　We　revile　them　for　it　and　proceed　to

make　moral　monsters　of　our　own　children。　　The　most　excusable　parents

are　those　who　try　to　correct　their　own　faults　in　their　offspring。　　The

parent　who　says　to　his　child：　　〃I　am　one　of　the　successes　of　the

Almighty：　　therefore　imitate　me　in　every　particular　or　I　will　have　the

skin　off　your　back〃　（a　quite　common　attitude）　is　a　much　more　absurd

figure　than　the　man　who；　with　a　pipe　in　his　mouth；　thrashes　his　boy

for　smoking。　　If　you　must　hold　yourself　up　to　your　children　as　an

object　lesson　（which　is　not　at　all　necessary）；　hold　yourself　up　as　a

warning　and　not　as　an　example。　　But　you　had　much　better　let　the

child's　character　alone。　　If　you　once　allow　yourself　to　regard　a　child

as　so　much　material　for　you　to　manufacture　into　any　shape　that　happens

to　suit　your　fancy　you　are　defeating　the　experiment　of　the　Life　Force。

You　are　assuming　that　the　child　does　not　know　its　own　business；　and

that　you　do。　　In　this　you　are　sure　to　be　wrong：　　the　child　feels　the

drive　of　the　Life　Force　（often　called　the　Will　of　God）；　and　you　cannot

feel　it　for　him。　　Handel's　parents　no　doubt　thought　they　knew　better

than　their　child　when　they　tried　to　prevent　his　becoming　a　musician。

They　would　have　been　equally　wrong　and　equally　unsuccessful　if　they

had　tried　to　prevent　the　child　becoming　a　great　rascal　had　its　genius

lain　in　that　direction。　　Handel　would　have　been　Handel；　and　Napoleon

and　Peter　of　Russia　_them_selves　in　spite　of　all　the　parents　in

creation；　because；　as　often　happens；　they　were　stronger　than　their

parents。　　But　this　does　not　happen　always。　　Most　children　can　be；　and

many　are；　hopelessly　warped　and　wasted　by　parents　who　are　ignorant　and

silly　enough　to　suppose　that　they　know　what　a　human　being　ought　to　be；

and　who　stick　at　nothing　in　their　determination　to　force　their

children　into　their　moulds。　　Every　child　has　a　right　to　its　own　bent。

It　has　a　right　to　be　a　Plymouth　Brother　though　its　parents　be

convinced　atheists。　　It　has　a　right　to　dislike　its　mother　or　father　or

sister　or　brother　or　uncle　or　aunt　if　they　are　antipathetic　to　it。　　It

has　a　right　to　find　its　own　way　and　go　its　own　way；　whether　that　way

seems　wise　or　foolish　to　others；　exactly　as　an　adult　has。　　It　has　a

right　to　privacy　as　to　its　own　doings　and　its　own　affairs　as　much　as

if　it　were　its　own　father。







Small　and　Large　Families



These　rights　have　now　become　more　important　than　they　used　to　be；

because　the　modern　practice　of　limiting　families　enables　them　to　be

more　effectually　violated。　　In　a　family　of　ten；　eight；　six；　or　even

four　children；　the　rights　of　the　younger　ones　to　a　great　extent　take

care　of　themselves　and　of　the　rights　of　the　elder　ones　too。　　Two　adult

parents；　in　spite　of　a　house　to　keep　and　an　income　to　earn；　can　still

interfere　to　a　disastrous　extent　with　the　rights　and　liberties　of　one

child。　　But　by　the　time　a　fourth　child　has　arrived；　they　are　not　only

outnumbered　two　to　one；　but　are　getting　tired　of　the　thankless　and

mischievous　job　of　bringing　up　their　children　in　the　way　they　think

they　should　go。　　The　old　observation　that　members　of　large　families

get　on　in　the　world　holds　good　because　in　large　families　it　is

impossible　for　each　child　to　receive　what　schoolmasters　call

〃individual　attention。〃　　The　children　may　receive　a　good　deal　of

individual　attention　from　one　another　in　the　shape　of　outspoken

reproach；　ruthless　ridicule；　and　violent　resistance　to　their　attempts

at　aggression；　but　the　parental　despots　are　compelled　by　the　multitude

of　their　subjects　to　resort　to　political　rather　than　personal　rule；

and　to　spread　their　attempts　at　moral　monster…making　over　so　many

children；　that　each　child　has　enough　freedom；　and　enough　sport　in　the

prophylactic　process　of　laughing　at　its　elders　behind　their　backs；　to

escape　with　much　less　damage　than　the　single　child。　　In　a　large　school

the　system　may　be　bad；　but　the　personal　influence　of　the　head　master

has　to　be　exerted；　when　it　is　exerted　at　all；　in　a　public　way；　because

he　has　little　more　power　of　working　on　the　affections　of　the

individual　scholar　in　the　intimate　way　that；　for　example；　the　mother

of　a　single　child　can；　than　the　prime　minister　has　of　working　on　the

affections　of　any　individual　voter。







Children　as　Nuisances



Experienced　parents；　when　children's　rights　are　preached　to　them；　very

naturally　ask　whether　children　are　to　be　allowed　to　do　what　they　like。

The　best　reply　is　to　ask　whether　adults　are　to　be　allowed　to　do　what

they　like。　　The　two　cases　are　the　same。　　The　adult　who　is　nasty　is　not

allowed　to　do　what　he　likes：　　neither　can　the　child　who　likes　to　be

nasty。　　There　is　no　difference　in　principle　between　the　rights　of　a

child　and　those　of　an　adult：　　the　difference　in　their　cases　is　one　of

circumstance。　　An　adult　is　not　supposed　to　be　punished　except　by

process　of　law；　nor；　when　he　is　so　punished；　is　the　person　whom　he　has

injured　allowed　to　act　as　judge；　jury；　and　executioner。　　It　is　true

that　employers　do　act　in　this　way　every　day　to　their　workpeople；　but

this　is　not　a　justified　and　intended　part　of　the　situation：　　it　is　an

abuse　of　Capitalism　which　nobody　defends　in　principle。　　As　between

child　and　parent　or　nurse　it　is　not　argued　about　because　it　is

inevitable。　　You　cannot　hold　an　impartial　judicial　inquiry　every　time

a　child　misbehaves　itself。　　To　allow　the　child　to　misbehave　without

instantly　making　it　unpleasantly　conscious　of　the　fact　would　be　to

spoil　it。　　The　adult　has　therefore　to　take　action　of　some　sort　with

nothing　but　his　conscience　to　shield　the　child　from　injustice　or

unkindness。　　The　action　may　be　a　torrent　of　scolding　culminating　in　a

furious　smack　causing　terror　and　pain；　or　it　may　be　a　remonstrance

causing　remorse；　or　it　may　be　a　sarcasm　causing　shame　and　humiliation；

or　it　may　be　a　sermon　causing　the　child　to　believe　that　it　is　a　little

reprobate　on　the　road　to　hell。　　The　child　has　no　defence　in　any　case

except　the　kindness　and　conscience　of　the　adult；　and　the　adult　had

better　not　forget　this；　for　it　involves　a　heavy　responsibility。



And　now　comes　our　difficulty。　　The　responsibility；　being　so　heavy；

cannot　be　discharged　by　persons　of　feeble　character　or　intelligence。

And　yet　people　of　high　character　and　intelligence　cannot　be　plagued

with　the　care　of　children。　　A　child　is　a　restless；　noisy　little

animal；　with　an　insatiable　appetite　for　knowledge；　and　consequently　a

maddening　persistence　in　asking　questions。　　If　the　child　is　to　remain

in　the　room　with　a　highly　intelligent　and　sensitive　adult；　it　must　be

told；　and　if　necessary　forced；　to　sit　still　and　not　speak；　which　is

injurious　to　its　health；　unnatural；　unjust；　and　therefore　cruel　and

selfish　beyond　toleration。　　Consequently　the　highly　intelligent　and

sensitive　adult　hands　the　child　over　to　a　nurserymaid　who　has　no

nerves　and　can　therefore　stand　more　noise；　but　who　has　also　no

scruples；　and　may　therefore　be　very　bad　company　for　the　child。



Here　we　have　come　to　the　central　fact　of　the　question：　　a　fact　nobody

avows；　which　is　yet　the　true　explanation　of　the　monstrous　system　of

child　imprisonment　and　torture　which　we　disguise　under　such

hypocrisies　as　education；　training；　formation　of　character　and　the

rest　of　it。　　This　fact　is　simply　that　a　child　is　a　nuisance　to　a

grown…up　person。　　What　is　more；　the　nuisance　becomes　more　and　more

intolerable　as　the　grown…up　person　becomes　more　cultivated；　more

sensitive；　and　more　deeply　engaged　in　the　highest　methods　of　adult

work。　　The　child　at　play　is　noisy　and　ought　to　be　noisy：　　Sir　Isaac

Newton　at　work　is　quiet　and　ought　to　be　quiet。　　And　the　child　should

spend　most　of　its　time　at　play；　whilst　the　adult　should　spend　most　of

his　time　at　work。　　I　am　not　now　writing　on　behalf　of　persons　who

coddle　themselves　into　a　ridiculous　condition　of　nervous　feebleness；

and　at　last　imagine　themselves　unable　to　work　under　conditions　of

bustle　which　to　healthy　people　are　cheerful　and　stimulating。　　I　am

sure　that　if　people　had　to　choose　between　living　where　the　noise　of

children　never　stopped　and　where　it　was　never　heard；　all　the

goodnatured　and　sound　people　would　prefer　the　incessant　noise　to　the

incessant　silence。　　But　that　choice　is　not　thrust　upon　us　by　the

nature　of　things。　　There　is　no　reason　why　children　and　adults　should

not　see　just　as　much　of　one　another　as　is　good　for　them；　no　more　and

no　less。　　Even　at　present　you　are　not　compelled　to　choose　between

sending　your　child　to　a　boarding　school　（which　means　getting　rid　of　it

altogether　on　more　or　less　hypocritical　pretences）　and　keeping　it

continually　at　home。　　Most　working　folk　today　either　send　their

children　to　day　schools　or　turn　them　out　of　doors。　　This　solves　the

problem　for　the　parents。　　It　does　not　solve　it　for　the　children；　any

more　than　the　tethering　of　a　goat　in　a　field　or　the　chasing　of　an

unlicensed　dog　into　the　streets　solves　it　for　the　goat　or　the　dog；　but

it　shews　that　in　no　class　are　people　willing　to　endure　the　society　of

their　children；　and　consequently　that　it　is　an　error　to　believe　that

the　family　provides　children　with　edifying　adult　society；　or　that　the

family　is　a　social　unit。　　The　family　is　in　that；　as　in　so　many　other

respects；　a　humbug。　　Old　people　and　young　people　cannot　walk　at　the

same　pace　without　distress　and　final　loss　of　health　to　one　of　the

parties。　　When　they　are　sitting　indoors　they　cannot　endure　the　same

degrees　of　temperature　and　the　same　supplies　of　fresh　air。　　Even　if

the　main　factors　of　noise；　restlessness；　and　inquisitiveness　are　left

out　of　account；　children　can　stand　with　indifference　sights；　sounds；

smells；　and　disorders　that　would　make　an　adult　of　fifty　utterly

miserable；　whilst　on　the　other　hand　such　adults