I've been noting elsewhere and I'll note it here too: I think my generation, with a substantial number of kids who absorbed Mr Rogers Neighborhood and Sesame Street and much that followed, also absorbed what now are almost cliches about self-care and self-love, affirmation of love and respect for children, and imagination as an acknowledged and important distinct thing (e.g. the land of make-believe, and Mr Snuffleupagus). And as someone raised by secularists busy saying no to Jesus and trying to replace religion with (often self-serving) pop-psych, stories of magic were I think a way of finding a miraculous yes that I could live within for a moment or two. And that has definitely been essential to who and what I am at 60.
As you say. I had a college acquaintance who had been brought up as an Ayn Rand baby. It did not do good things for him. We joke about Roo that we're expecting therapy but are hoping to avoid lawsuits. Sometimes its not a joke. But I will say this: the acceptance of therapy as an OK and often necessary thing is also an encouragement to me.
On one hand, moralistic approaches to life feel brittle—shattering them is painful, but clear (but, you know, avoid the resulting sharp edges). The Trumpian it's-all-eat-or-be-eaten approach has more legs, but in the end it collapses wider community because everyone is a competitor and collaboration is for the weak. I'm coming to think that part of the problem comes simply with centering ideology vs centering function. "I gotta raise these kids and put food on the table" as a center, and using whatever social tools are at hand in equal measure... feels healthier somehow. You?
This. Maybe this is part of moralistic fragility, because those approaches outsource rather than take responsibility for modeling. Like attempts at objectivity, they try to erase or hide in some way the role of the actor advocating them. "Don't look at me, look at what I am saying." No dice. We're looking at you anyway.
Ah, yes! In fact, I have come to think that moralism is often intertwined with triumphalism and a desire not to be responsible/judged-- what I am saying I say because it is right! Therefore *I* am right, but utterly irresponsible!
I think that the desire not to be responsible is often associated with some convex combination of laziness and fragility.
And then there are the anxious moralists, who often defend yet feel beaten up by the dicta they were raised on. I have enormous difficulty interacting with them, supporting them, and treating them gently, the more as they tend to drift about in a sea of Angst moving from position to position. So I tend to keep my distance....
I tend to think that moralistic approaches are nearly always internally contradictory and thus inherently fragile.
I also constitutionally view things from a function point of view rather than identity or club membership. It's not that I don't have principles, but they're definitely *for* something, and I can explain it.
Growing up with the Chun man, I was my full self and in that way influential, but informationally I tried consistently to answer questions by explaining different points of view and how they were useful. There were of course some things I wanted him to do or not do in a pretty strenuous way: when he was *really* small I would frame that as "in our family we...". I felt a little bad about it, but there are things you can't explain to a three-year-old, and I wasn't dishonest. I tried to be honest about it when my reason was "because I'd like it," or "because that drives me nuts."
I would have been a bugger about manners, but it wasn't necessary. Treated politely, Chun Woo was a polite child and now adult.
And I don't like hierarchy despite its (some) informational and (many) command efficiencies, so I paid respectful attention to requests and directives from Chun Woo. And we learned many things together.
I had the good fortune to be at a very-seldom-worried wealth/income level, to be an old and not impatient parent, and to have a very easy match in the son we had and have. And I feel as if my parenting worked out pretty well. Certainly I think Chun Woo an admirable man, and I trust him very extensively.
I agree that managing to maintain life and help children grow is the bottom line.
And I'm generally pro-therapy, seriously undertaken. For a variety of reasons I personally depend on sanity checks and trying my best to be honest with myself.
I don't know if that answers your intended question, though!
I've been noting elsewhere and I'll note it here too: I think my generation, with a substantial number of kids who absorbed Mr Rogers Neighborhood and Sesame Street and much that followed, also absorbed what now are almost cliches about self-care and self-love, affirmation of love and respect for children, and imagination as an acknowledged and important distinct thing (e.g. the land of make-believe, and Mr Snuffleupagus). And as someone raised by secularists busy saying no to Jesus and trying to replace religion with (often self-serving) pop-psych, stories of magic were I think a way of finding a miraculous yes that I could live within for a moment or two. And that has definitely been essential to who and what I am at 60.
For years I have been deeply worried about what stories the children of MAGA are brought up on, that subconsciously trellis their minds and lives.
As you say. I had a college acquaintance who had been brought up as an Ayn Rand baby. It did not do good things for him. We joke about Roo that we're expecting therapy but are hoping to avoid lawsuits. Sometimes its not a joke. But I will say this: the acceptance of therapy as an OK and often necessary thing is also an encouragement to me.
On one hand, moralistic approaches to life feel brittle—shattering them is painful, but clear (but, you know, avoid the resulting sharp edges). The Trumpian it's-all-eat-or-be-eaten approach has more legs, but in the end it collapses wider community because everyone is a competitor and collaboration is for the weak. I'm coming to think that part of the problem comes simply with centering ideology vs centering function. "I gotta raise these kids and put food on the table" as a center, and using whatever social tools are at hand in equal measure... feels healthier somehow. You?
Oh! One thing:
Who you are will present a possible model, whether you want that or not.
So will the society you're in, and its institutions.
This. Maybe this is part of moralistic fragility, because those approaches outsource rather than take responsibility for modeling. Like attempts at objectivity, they try to erase or hide in some way the role of the actor advocating them. "Don't look at me, look at what I am saying." No dice. We're looking at you anyway.
Ah, yes! In fact, I have come to think that moralism is often intertwined with triumphalism and a desire not to be responsible/judged-- what I am saying I say because it is right! Therefore *I* am right, but utterly irresponsible!
I think that the desire not to be responsible is often associated with some convex combination of laziness and fragility.
And then there are the anxious moralists, who often defend yet feel beaten up by the dicta they were raised on. I have enormous difficulty interacting with them, supporting them, and treating them gently, the more as they tend to drift about in a sea of Angst moving from position to position. So I tend to keep my distance....
I tend to think that moralistic approaches are nearly always internally contradictory and thus inherently fragile.
I also constitutionally view things from a function point of view rather than identity or club membership. It's not that I don't have principles, but they're definitely *for* something, and I can explain it.
Growing up with the Chun man, I was my full self and in that way influential, but informationally I tried consistently to answer questions by explaining different points of view and how they were useful. There were of course some things I wanted him to do or not do in a pretty strenuous way: when he was *really* small I would frame that as "in our family we...". I felt a little bad about it, but there are things you can't explain to a three-year-old, and I wasn't dishonest. I tried to be honest about it when my reason was "because I'd like it," or "because that drives me nuts."
I would have been a bugger about manners, but it wasn't necessary. Treated politely, Chun Woo was a polite child and now adult.
And I don't like hierarchy despite its (some) informational and (many) command efficiencies, so I paid respectful attention to requests and directives from Chun Woo. And we learned many things together.
I had the good fortune to be at a very-seldom-worried wealth/income level, to be an old and not impatient parent, and to have a very easy match in the son we had and have. And I feel as if my parenting worked out pretty well. Certainly I think Chun Woo an admirable man, and I trust him very extensively.
I agree that managing to maintain life and help children grow is the bottom line.
And I'm generally pro-therapy, seriously undertaken. For a variety of reasons I personally depend on sanity checks and trying my best to be honest with myself.
I don't know if that answers your intended question, though!
Nothing to add. I think we of like mind.