Childhood

     Should we consider childhood a distinct phase of life, separated by some level of maturity and knowledge from adulthood, or should we understand it as a synchronic moment in a larger dynamic process of life which cannot be divided so neatly into phases?

     I ask this question because it is arising in my current writing, and also because of a review in today's NYT of the book, Children at Play, by Howard P. Chudacoff.  The review states:

“Kids should have their own world, and parents are nuisances,” said Mr. Chudacoff, a professor of history at Brown University.

His critique is increasingly echoed today by parents, educators and children’s advocates who warn that organized activities, overscheduling and excessive amounts of homework are crowding out free time and constricting children’s imaginations and social skills.

     The programmed childhood that Chudacoff is pushing against is built on a Confucian premise: that children are adults-in-process, still acquiring the mental and physical and moral capacities necessary for responsible adult life.  The prime issue for childhood, then, is education: teaching children how to become adults.  These days we obsess over this by packing our children's lives full of Important and Useful Activities, hoping to stimulate their intellects and hone their skills for successful adulthood.  Confucius himself would probably reject much of what is taught to kids these days.  What is important for him is not "success" in material terms - getting into a good school in order to get a good job in order to consume at a high level, etc. - but, rather, success in moral terms.  His education is all about coming to appreciate Duty and attuning oneself to Ritual so that Humanity can be enacted.  Not much room for business or law school there.

      But Confucius shares with modern materialists the notion that childhood is a time for the adult-manque to learn and grow into meaningful maturity.  The Analects does not have much in it about childhood.  We know that at 15 Confucius turned his mind to learning, which I take to mean moral learning, and that might mark a transition to adulthood (which is perhaps not fully attained until he is 30 and able to "take a stand").  Before 15, presumably, a child might be forgiven ethical faux pas for reasons of ignorance or innocence.  After 15, there is more of an adult-like responsibility to recognize and do the right thing.

      Taoists have a very different notion.  An infant, in all of its purity and innocence, is actually closer to Way than the average adult.  When we are young, we have not yet stuffed our minds full of humanly created knowledge that can lead us away from Way.  We are still open to the natural unfolding of Way.  In this sense, Taoism would value childhood more highly than adulthood.   And this would push further than the idea the Chudacoff gives us: not only do kids have their own world, but it is a better world than the adult version; and not only are adults nuisances, they can be regressive forces leading children away from Way.

      But I would push this a bit further.  I think Taoism would resist the categorization of "childhood" v. "adulthood."  How can such a distinction be meaningfully asserted?  Is 18 or 21 a magical year where all "children" suddenly transform into "adults"?  Of course not.  How many adults do we know who act in childish ways?  Or children who are wise beyond their years?   Clearly maturity is an individual thing, not easily demarcated in larger populations.

      Moreover, the whole point of the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu is to encourage adults to "return" to the openness and innocence of childhood.    Children become adults who, in turn, should become children again.  And we can never absolutely mark where in this continual transformation any particular individual stands.

      So, what I am saying is: where Confucians would accept a clear distinction, drawn in terms of moral education, between "child" and "adult," Taoists would simultaneously deny and celebrate childhood.

UPDATE:  Here is another angle from Slate: When Do Kids Get Tried As Adults?  Long story short, I think Confucians would hold firm and say "kids" (and perhaps that would mean 15 or younger) should not be tried as adults, while Taoists (as hard as it is to conceive of a Taoist legal system) would continue to resist the "child" v. "adult" distinction.

UPDATE:  Here are two previous posts on Taoist parenting: here and here.

Comments

[The Cloudwalking Owl]

I think you misunderstand why most people push their children. It isn't to help them become wealthy (i.e. "to consume at a high level"), but rather because of fear. Most people in our society are not driven to be wealthy, per ce, but rather because they are profoundly insecure and the only hedge that our society has against insecurity is to be a "winner" in the rat race. Greed is really quite rare in our society, but insecurity is rampant.

[JustSomeGuy]

I agree with your take on the situation, but I think Tu Weiming offers an interesting potential to wiggle out of this state into something that is a good deal more enjoyable:

"Nevertheless, the self is not reducible to its social roles. The dramatic image of the modern person who assumes a variety of social roles is definitely un-Confucian. The idea of my assuming the role of son in reference to my father and simultaneously assuming the distinct and separate role of father in reference to my son is unnatural, if not distasteful. From my own experience, as far as I can remember, I have always been learning to be a son. Since my own son's birth, I have also been learning to be a father, and my learning to be a son has taken on new significance as a result of becoming a father myself. Furthermore, my being a son and a father is also informed and enriched by being a student, a teacher, a husband, a colleague, a friend, and an acquaintance. These are ways for me to learn to be human."
Tu Wei-ming, “A Confucian Perspective on Learning to be Human”
from Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation (Albany: 1985), 51-66

If we accept that there is this separate world of the child, I do not see why we can't continue to "learn to be a child" throughout our entire life and allow that to enrich and enhance our "learning to be an adult" and vice-versa.

[Metta]

This is a subject that's been strongly on my mind as the twins start to be more apparently sharing my clothes with me :)

There are things I know beyond doubt: No shuttling from "play date" to "playmate networking" (No joke, I actually heard that term used recently - it scares the excrement out of me and sounds like something women who pose naked do.) to soccer, to this, to that.

I went outside and played when I was a kid. I rode bikes, played in the snow, made forts, climbed an occasional tree...and what I mostly recall is being a happy kid. I never had a junior stress reaction because my soccer conflicted with my play date. I got dirty, I explored, I skinned my knees about 8 million times.

I know which seems like the sane and healthy choice, skinned knees and all. They still sell Bactine, after all.

[Sam]

Thanks for the great comments.
You make a good point about insecurity, Owl. And, Guy, the dynamic process you point to is helpful. We do learn from our children; we learn much about ourselves from them. But, I think that is still something different from the Taoist notion of becoming the child, which makes sense only in a limited manner to a Confucian (i.e. become the child in order to better perform the moral duties of adulthood; not to let go of those duties...). And Metta, have you seen my ealier post on "Taoist parenting"? While it may seem a non sequitir, I am thinking more about this idea these days...

[Metta]

Link me? I can't find a search box to hunt it up my lazy self. :)