 |
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 find a tranquil happiness in conditions which to children
mean unspeakable boredom. And since our system is nevertheless to pack them all into the
same house and pretend that they are happy, and that this particular sort of happiness is
the foundation of virtue, it is found that in discussing family life we never speak of
actual adults or actual children, or of realities of any sort, but always of ideals such
as The Home, a Mother's Influence, a Father's Care, Filial Piety, Duty, Affection, Family
Life, etc. etc., which are no doubt very comforting phrases, but which beg the question of
what a home and a mother's influence and a father's care and so forth really come to in
practice. How many hours a week of the time when his children are out of bed does the
ordinary bread-winning father spend in the company of his children or even in the same
building with them? The home may be a thieves' kitchen, the mother a procuress, the father
a violent drunkard; or the mother and father may be fashionable people who see their
children three or four times a year during the holidays, and then not oftener than they
can help, living meanwhile in daily and intimate contact with their valets and
lady's-maids, whose influence and care are often dominant in the household. Affection, as
distinguished from simple kindliness, may or may not exist: when it does it either depends
on qualities in the parties that would produce it equally if they were of no kin to one
another, or it is a more or less morbid survival of the nursing passion; for affection
between adults (if they are really adult in mind and not merely grown-up children) and
creatures so relatively selfish and cruel as children necessarily are without knowing it
or meaning it, cannot be called natural: in fact the evidence shews that it is easier to
love the company of a dog than of a commonplace child between the ages of six and the
beginnings of controlled maturity; for women who cannot bear to be separated from their
pet dogs send their children to boarding schools cheerfully. They may say and even believe
that in allowing their children to leave home they are sacrificing themselves for their
children's good; but there are very few pet dogs who would not be the better for a month
or two spent elsewhere than in a lady's lap or roasting on a drawingroom hearthrug.
Besides, to allege that children are better continually away from home is to give up the
whole popular sentimental theory of the family; yet the dogs are kept and the children are
banished. |
 |