(Off topic?) Power over oneself, unschooling and "politics"
Robert Alcock
This post is something of a follow up to last week's discussion under the title "I'll tell this here, but not on my blog". It might be off topic; I would say it is an attempt to put the topic of unschooling in a wider context.
My awareness of and interest in unschooling goes back to, I think, 1987, when I first read "Deschooling Society" by Ivan Illich and "Summerhill" by A.S.Neill. From there, I embarked on a journey of discovery, de- / un-schooling myself and, later, my family.
I've been a member of various Unschooling discussion groups for 2 1/2 years now, which is just about the same length of time that my partner and I have been unschooling our two daughters Sofia (now 5 1/2) and Nora (3). We live in Bilbao, in the Basque country of northern Spain, where there is very little culture of unschooling.
However, my life is bigger than just me, my partner and our daughters. I do lots of other things which I won't go into here, because you won't be interested. The point I wish to make is that the principles which inspired my unschooling also inspire the rest of my life. I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would apply their principles to only PART of their life.
One way of putting into words the principle that inspires my involvement in unschooling is "power over oneself" (combined, and I hope this goes without saying, with "respect for others".)
For me, the difference between unschooling and conventional schooling/parenting is that in conventional schooling or parenting the child is expected to submit to the authority of the parent or teacher, whereas in unschooling we seek above all to give the child _power over herself_ - the power to decide what to learn, how to learn, and when to learn it, but also (in a more radical form of unschooling) what to eat and when, when to sleep and how much, and so on. I hope everyone is with me so far.
This much is already very challenging and incomprehensible to people who are not unschoolers. But there is nothing actually subversive about it. As parents in a Western culture, we basically have complete power over our children, as long as we stick within the law. So we can choose to yield that power to the children themselves - just as other parents (e.g. fundamentalist homeschoolers) may choose to subjugate their children totally, and as long as they remain within the law, we can do nothing about it.
But if we try to apply the same principle to other parts of life, outside the nuclear family, then it does become subversive (and, probably, off topic for this group.) The example which was discussed last week is a case in point.
A teenager is "stopped" by the police and asked whether she has been drinking. If we are to live by the principle of "power over oneself" then this is a most impertinent question. It makes no difference in principle whether the stranger who asks the question is a nosy neighbour or an agent of the state; nor whether the question is posed in a rude or a friendly way. The proper answer is "none of your business", although it may not be the most tactful one. Other more tactful answers which might satisfy the neighbour would be, for instance, "Yes, plenty, this heat makes me very thirsty!" (playing with the definition of drinking). However, the policeman is not likely to be fobbed off with such a response. If the teenager says "yes", she resigns power over herself to the state, and is punished. If she says "no," she is being dishonest, but I would certainly not criticise her for it. (Last week I posted that I would "advise a teenager in this situation to lie." I now think I was wrong to say that, and instead I would advise her to follow her own conscience, and that I would not judge her for either lying or telling the truth.)
In my view, the most honest and brave response would be "None of your business". Neither lying nor acquiescing to an impertinent request. This is the path of civil disobedience, but not many people take that path. We choose our battles.
This may seem a trivial situation - but I think it was a good one to discuss because it falls just on the boundary between unschooling and adult life. If we try and live adult life by the principles that inspire unschooling (which I've tried to summarise as "power over oneself"), we are continuously going to run up against people who want to have power over us - whether they are our neighbours or those in positions of authority.
Which brings me to "politics". If you understand politics as being about power, and unschooling to be about giving children power over themselves, then unschooling is political, by definition.
When people talk about "politics" they typically mean party politics and government - which is really a matter of who has power over whom, and what they make them do. But the everyday matter of how we live our lives according to our principles is also political, in the sense that it is about having power over ourselves. When people say "let's not talk about politics," what they usually mean is "let's not question our obedience to those in positions of authority." I can't live with a rule like that, and I find it hard to understand how anyone can.
So, with regard to this group, I would suggest that we don't limit ourselves to applying our unschooling principles purely within the nuclear family, nor our discussions to that context, either.
Robert
My awareness of and interest in unschooling goes back to, I think, 1987, when I first read "Deschooling Society" by Ivan Illich and "Summerhill" by A.S.Neill. From there, I embarked on a journey of discovery, de- / un-schooling myself and, later, my family.
I've been a member of various Unschooling discussion groups for 2 1/2 years now, which is just about the same length of time that my partner and I have been unschooling our two daughters Sofia (now 5 1/2) and Nora (3). We live in Bilbao, in the Basque country of northern Spain, where there is very little culture of unschooling.
However, my life is bigger than just me, my partner and our daughters. I do lots of other things which I won't go into here, because you won't be interested. The point I wish to make is that the principles which inspired my unschooling also inspire the rest of my life. I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would apply their principles to only PART of their life.
One way of putting into words the principle that inspires my involvement in unschooling is "power over oneself" (combined, and I hope this goes without saying, with "respect for others".)
For me, the difference between unschooling and conventional schooling/parenting is that in conventional schooling or parenting the child is expected to submit to the authority of the parent or teacher, whereas in unschooling we seek above all to give the child _power over herself_ - the power to decide what to learn, how to learn, and when to learn it, but also (in a more radical form of unschooling) what to eat and when, when to sleep and how much, and so on. I hope everyone is with me so far.
This much is already very challenging and incomprehensible to people who are not unschoolers. But there is nothing actually subversive about it. As parents in a Western culture, we basically have complete power over our children, as long as we stick within the law. So we can choose to yield that power to the children themselves - just as other parents (e.g. fundamentalist homeschoolers) may choose to subjugate their children totally, and as long as they remain within the law, we can do nothing about it.
But if we try to apply the same principle to other parts of life, outside the nuclear family, then it does become subversive (and, probably, off topic for this group.) The example which was discussed last week is a case in point.
A teenager is "stopped" by the police and asked whether she has been drinking. If we are to live by the principle of "power over oneself" then this is a most impertinent question. It makes no difference in principle whether the stranger who asks the question is a nosy neighbour or an agent of the state; nor whether the question is posed in a rude or a friendly way. The proper answer is "none of your business", although it may not be the most tactful one. Other more tactful answers which might satisfy the neighbour would be, for instance, "Yes, plenty, this heat makes me very thirsty!" (playing with the definition of drinking). However, the policeman is not likely to be fobbed off with such a response. If the teenager says "yes", she resigns power over herself to the state, and is punished. If she says "no," she is being dishonest, but I would certainly not criticise her for it. (Last week I posted that I would "advise a teenager in this situation to lie." I now think I was wrong to say that, and instead I would advise her to follow her own conscience, and that I would not judge her for either lying or telling the truth.)
In my view, the most honest and brave response would be "None of your business". Neither lying nor acquiescing to an impertinent request. This is the path of civil disobedience, but not many people take that path. We choose our battles.
This may seem a trivial situation - but I think it was a good one to discuss because it falls just on the boundary between unschooling and adult life. If we try and live adult life by the principles that inspire unschooling (which I've tried to summarise as "power over oneself"), we are continuously going to run up against people who want to have power over us - whether they are our neighbours or those in positions of authority.
Which brings me to "politics". If you understand politics as being about power, and unschooling to be about giving children power over themselves, then unschooling is political, by definition.
When people talk about "politics" they typically mean party politics and government - which is really a matter of who has power over whom, and what they make them do. But the everyday matter of how we live our lives according to our principles is also political, in the sense that it is about having power over ourselves. When people say "let's not talk about politics," what they usually mean is "let's not question our obedience to those in positions of authority." I can't live with a rule like that, and I find it hard to understand how anyone can.
So, with regard to this group, I would suggest that we don't limit ourselves to applying our unschooling principles purely within the nuclear family, nor our discussions to that context, either.
Robert
[email protected]
>>>> A teenager is "stopped" by the police and asked whether she hasbeen drinking. If we are to live by the principle of "power over
oneself" then this is a most impertinent question. It makes no
difference in principle whether the stranger who asks the question is a
nosy neighbour or an agent of the state; nor whether the question is
posed in a rude or a friendly way. The proper answer is "none of your
business", although it may not be the most tactful one. Other more
tactful answers which might satisfy the neighbour would be, for
instance, "Yes, plenty, this heat makes me very thirsty!" (playing with
the definition of drinking). However, the policeman is not likely to be
fobbed off with such a response. If the teenager says "yes", she
resigns power over herself to the state, and is punished. If she says
"no," she is being dishonest, but I would certainly not criticise her
for it. (Last week I posted that I would "advise a teenager in this
situation to lie." I now think I was wrong to say that, and instead I
would advise her to follow her own conscience, and that I would not
judge her for either lying or telling the truth.) <<<<
I think the piece of the puzzle you may be missing is that much of the
US is heavily dependent on cars for travel. This includes teens.
Point in case, Holly drove to that party. The police deal with a lot
of drinking related risk behaviors, including driving under the
influence. Here in the US, driving under the influence (DUI) is an
offense simply because of the loss of lives it incurs. I don't know
the latest statistics. Here in the US, drinking and driving results in
a lot of death and serious injury. That's why the police officer asks
questions about drinking. The point being: does this person need a
ride, are they a repeat offender who might put their own and other's
lives in danger?
~Katherine
Sandra Dodd
-=-However, my life is bigger than just me, my partner and our
daughters.-=-
This is true of everyone, but unless unschoolers have their children
as a high priority, they will neglect them in favor of a bigger life,
and that won't be good unschooling.
-=-I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would apply their
principles to only PART of their life.-=-
If you would read more, I don't think you would find an example of
anyone here applying their principles to only part of their life.
Maybe you don't understand why anyone would not apply YOUR principles
to their lives.
-=-One way of putting into words the principle that inspires my
involvement in unschooling is "power over oneself" (combined, and I
hope this goes without saying, with "respect for others".) -=-
We don't talk about power here much, but we have given our children a
life of choices. It's not "power," it's rational thinking,
considering all sorts of factors and preferences. They don't need
power over themselves. They need to BE themselves.
http://sandradodd.com/being
-=-For me, the difference between unschooling and conventional
schooling/parenting is that in conventional schooling or parenting the
child is expected to submit to the authority of the parent or teacher,
whereas in unschooling we seek above all to give the child _power over
herself_ - the power to decide what to learn, how to learn, and when
to learn it, but also (in a more radical form of unschooling) what to
eat and when, when to sleep and how much, and so on. I hope everyone
is with me so far.-=-
If by "with you" you mean "understood English," no problem.
If by "with you" you mean agree with it all, perhaps some will and
surely some won't.
"The power to decide what to learn" makes a pretzel of the straight
line between experience and knowing.
My children don't "decide what to learn, how to learn, and when to
learn it." They learn all the time. They learn from dreams, from
eating, from walking, from singing, from conversations, from watching
plants grow and storms roll. They learn from movies, books,
websites, and asking questions. They eat when they're hungry (when
possible or convenient; I'm making a lunch for Holly to take to work
today as she's working in the flowershop for eight or nine hours, as
Mother's Day is Sunday here. They sleep when they're tired, unless
there's something they'd rather do that's worth staying awake for.
They don't always "decide" when to wake up. They wake up when they're
through sleeping, or when the alarm goes off if they've chosen to get
up early, or when I come and wake them up if they've left me a note.
-=-If we are to live by the principle of "power over oneself" then
this is a most impertinent question. It makes no difference in
principle whether the stranger who asks the question is a nosy
neighbour or an agent of the state; nor whether the question is posed
in a rude or a friendly way. The proper answer is "none of your
business", although it may not be the most tactful one. -=-
"Proper" is not a good word to use there. It might be your preferred
answer. When you say "If we are to live by..." I don't know whether
you mean to co-opt the flighty will of any who read your words, or
whether you mean your family. As the idea of "power over oneself"
isn't one I use at my house, the paragraph wasn't of value to me. My
children ARE tactful, and they're friendly, and they are not
impertinent. So far this has served them very well. If they decide
it's not, they can change course.
-=-(Last week I posted that I would "advise a teenager in this
situation to lie." I now think I was wrong to say that, and instead I
would advise her to follow her own conscience, and that I would not
judge her for either lying or telling the truth.)-=-
Thanks for reconsidering that. Your revised position is probably
true of most parents of unschooling teens, for whom it isn't a
theoretical future "probably" but is what they've already been living,
with examples to share, for years.
-=-If the teenager says "yes", she resigns power over herself to the
state, and is punished. -=-
This is quite overstated.
-=-Which brings me to "politics". If you understand politics as being
about power, and unschooling to be about giving children power over
themselves, then unschooling is political, by definition. -=-
I understand politics to be about interpersonal relationships.
-=-When people talk about "politics" they typically mean party
politics and government - which is really a matter of who has power
over whom, and what they make them do-=-
This isn't a very good definition of politics. It might be common, but
it's not very philosophical or practical.
-=-When people say "let's not talk about politics," what they usually
mean is "let's not question our obedience to those in positions of
authority."-=-
This is rhetoric and nonsense. And what is usually meant (or rather
what you wish us to accept that you believe is usually meant) has
nothing to do with this list nor with unschooling.
As to this list when I say, as list owner, "let's not talk about
politics," I mean I don't want to mix the principles of natural
learning up with discussions of local homeschooling laws or who is or
should be in charge of any governmental agency in any nation
represented on the list, nor discuss the push and shove of HSLDA and
their increasingly international activities, nor argue about
reproductive choices, nor ask people to declare their religious
beliefs, nor twist the discussion toward ecology or divide people into
pro-wolves-run-wild unschoolers and let-ranchers-protect-cattle
unschoolers.
-=- I can't live with a rule like that, and I find it hard to
understand how anyone can.-=-
Luckily, you don't live on this list. You're welcome to stay, but
you're not welcome to change my intentions.
-=-So, with regard to this group, I would suggest that we don't limit
ourselves to applying our unschooling principles purely within the
nuclear family, nor our discussions to that context, either.-=-
Thanks for the suggestion. The list has had a focus and purpose for
nearly eight years, and has over two thousand addresses on the list,
probably half of which are reading and learning from it. I assume
and expect that EVERYone on this list has other sources and outlets
for ideas and beliefs. Some read other lists about dogs, or mental
health, or history, or humor. Many read current events extensively.
Some don't. This list isn't intended to be everything to everyone,
but a good source of the discussion of unschooling practice and
experience.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
daughters.-=-
This is true of everyone, but unless unschoolers have their children
as a high priority, they will neglect them in favor of a bigger life,
and that won't be good unschooling.
-=-I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would apply their
principles to only PART of their life.-=-
If you would read more, I don't think you would find an example of
anyone here applying their principles to only part of their life.
Maybe you don't understand why anyone would not apply YOUR principles
to their lives.
-=-One way of putting into words the principle that inspires my
involvement in unschooling is "power over oneself" (combined, and I
hope this goes without saying, with "respect for others".) -=-
We don't talk about power here much, but we have given our children a
life of choices. It's not "power," it's rational thinking,
considering all sorts of factors and preferences. They don't need
power over themselves. They need to BE themselves.
http://sandradodd.com/being
-=-For me, the difference between unschooling and conventional
schooling/parenting is that in conventional schooling or parenting the
child is expected to submit to the authority of the parent or teacher,
whereas in unschooling we seek above all to give the child _power over
herself_ - the power to decide what to learn, how to learn, and when
to learn it, but also (in a more radical form of unschooling) what to
eat and when, when to sleep and how much, and so on. I hope everyone
is with me so far.-=-
If by "with you" you mean "understood English," no problem.
If by "with you" you mean agree with it all, perhaps some will and
surely some won't.
"The power to decide what to learn" makes a pretzel of the straight
line between experience and knowing.
My children don't "decide what to learn, how to learn, and when to
learn it." They learn all the time. They learn from dreams, from
eating, from walking, from singing, from conversations, from watching
plants grow and storms roll. They learn from movies, books,
websites, and asking questions. They eat when they're hungry (when
possible or convenient; I'm making a lunch for Holly to take to work
today as she's working in the flowershop for eight or nine hours, as
Mother's Day is Sunday here. They sleep when they're tired, unless
there's something they'd rather do that's worth staying awake for.
They don't always "decide" when to wake up. They wake up when they're
through sleeping, or when the alarm goes off if they've chosen to get
up early, or when I come and wake them up if they've left me a note.
-=-If we are to live by the principle of "power over oneself" then
this is a most impertinent question. It makes no difference in
principle whether the stranger who asks the question is a nosy
neighbour or an agent of the state; nor whether the question is posed
in a rude or a friendly way. The proper answer is "none of your
business", although it may not be the most tactful one. -=-
"Proper" is not a good word to use there. It might be your preferred
answer. When you say "If we are to live by..." I don't know whether
you mean to co-opt the flighty will of any who read your words, or
whether you mean your family. As the idea of "power over oneself"
isn't one I use at my house, the paragraph wasn't of value to me. My
children ARE tactful, and they're friendly, and they are not
impertinent. So far this has served them very well. If they decide
it's not, they can change course.
-=-(Last week I posted that I would "advise a teenager in this
situation to lie." I now think I was wrong to say that, and instead I
would advise her to follow her own conscience, and that I would not
judge her for either lying or telling the truth.)-=-
Thanks for reconsidering that. Your revised position is probably
true of most parents of unschooling teens, for whom it isn't a
theoretical future "probably" but is what they've already been living,
with examples to share, for years.
-=-If the teenager says "yes", she resigns power over herself to the
state, and is punished. -=-
This is quite overstated.
-=-Which brings me to "politics". If you understand politics as being
about power, and unschooling to be about giving children power over
themselves, then unschooling is political, by definition. -=-
I understand politics to be about interpersonal relationships.
-=-When people talk about "politics" they typically mean party
politics and government - which is really a matter of who has power
over whom, and what they make them do-=-
This isn't a very good definition of politics. It might be common, but
it's not very philosophical or practical.
-=-When people say "let's not talk about politics," what they usually
mean is "let's not question our obedience to those in positions of
authority."-=-
This is rhetoric and nonsense. And what is usually meant (or rather
what you wish us to accept that you believe is usually meant) has
nothing to do with this list nor with unschooling.
As to this list when I say, as list owner, "let's not talk about
politics," I mean I don't want to mix the principles of natural
learning up with discussions of local homeschooling laws or who is or
should be in charge of any governmental agency in any nation
represented on the list, nor discuss the push and shove of HSLDA and
their increasingly international activities, nor argue about
reproductive choices, nor ask people to declare their religious
beliefs, nor twist the discussion toward ecology or divide people into
pro-wolves-run-wild unschoolers and let-ranchers-protect-cattle
unschoolers.
-=- I can't live with a rule like that, and I find it hard to
understand how anyone can.-=-
Luckily, you don't live on this list. You're welcome to stay, but
you're not welcome to change my intentions.
-=-So, with regard to this group, I would suggest that we don't limit
ourselves to applying our unschooling principles purely within the
nuclear family, nor our discussions to that context, either.-=-
Thanks for the suggestion. The list has had a focus and purpose for
nearly eight years, and has over two thousand addresses on the list,
probably half of which are reading and learning from it. I assume
and expect that EVERYone on this list has other sources and outlets
for ideas and beliefs. Some read other lists about dogs, or mental
health, or history, or humor. Many read current events extensively.
Some don't. This list isn't intended to be everything to everyone,
but a good source of the discussion of unschooling practice and
experience.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On May 8, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Robert Alcock wrote:
and potentially damaging, even without the "above all" (which I think
would be a recipe for very anti-social kids).
Clearer is to see our goal as helping them find safe and respectful
ways to meet their needs. It not only grows our relationship with
them: they see us as someone who wants to help them. But they're
immersed in the process of finding ways to meet needs while also
being respectful of others.
has kids up making noise at 2 AM when others are trying to sleep and
parents who can't figure out what they did wrong or how to correct it.
There's too much focus in your ideas on power. It's more helpful for
people trying to get unschooling to focus on partnerships, not power.
It's very helpful in the process of thinking about unschooling to be
aware of power. A parent who is worried that unschooling doesn't look
like school but is putting on a happy face trying to promote
unschooling because it sounds good, is wielding a great deal of power
without realizing it just because the child inherently trusts the
parent. And if the parent is worried, that has enormous power over
the child's choices.
There are other aspects of power it's useful to be aware of.
But for the purposes of getting and practicing unschooling, it's far
more useful to focus on relationships, not power.
Unschooling is about helping our kids learn and explore what
interests them. Creating a peaceful home will make that a lot easier.
It's not easy helping our kids learn when we're fretting over chores
and family rules and so forth.
Unschoolers aren't working toward autonomy or power over self. Those
might be useful ideas in some situations, but as overarching
principles for unschooling, they'll lead parents down paths that take
them away from unschooling.
That's vague, I know. (Real examples are more helpful.) But if "power
over oneself" is written large as a principle for unschoolers, they
won't see what they've done wrong when a child is persuing their
needs but trampling all over other people to get them done. There
isn't any guidance in that principle to help the kids exist
peacefully in society with others.
It's about helping them learn and be and meet their needs -- live --
in ways that are respectful of others.
I'm not seeing how a discussion of whether a child should or should
not admit to drinking to a police officer as helping a new unschooler
let go of worry over math and what to do about the markers being used
on the wall.
While that may seem mundane, it's the foundation of creating an
unschooling environment where kids can explore what interests them
which is what unschooling is.
Joyce
> whereas in unschooling we seek above all to give the child _powerI think it can look like that, but making that the goal is confusing
> over herself_ - the power to decide what to learn, how to learn,
> and when to learn it, but also (in a more radical form of
> unschooling) what to eat and when, when to sleep and how much, and
> so on.
and potentially damaging, even without the "above all" (which I think
would be a recipe for very anti-social kids).
Clearer is to see our goal as helping them find safe and respectful
ways to meet their needs. It not only grows our relationship with
them: they see us as someone who wants to help them. But they're
immersed in the process of finding ways to meet needs while also
being respectful of others.
> So we can choose to yield that power to the children themselvesWe could choose that but I wouldn't advise it. That's an idea that
>
has kids up making noise at 2 AM when others are trying to sleep and
parents who can't figure out what they did wrong or how to correct it.
There's too much focus in your ideas on power. It's more helpful for
people trying to get unschooling to focus on partnerships, not power.
It's very helpful in the process of thinking about unschooling to be
aware of power. A parent who is worried that unschooling doesn't look
like school but is putting on a happy face trying to promote
unschooling because it sounds good, is wielding a great deal of power
without realizing it just because the child inherently trusts the
parent. And if the parent is worried, that has enormous power over
the child's choices.
There are other aspects of power it's useful to be aware of.
But for the purposes of getting and practicing unschooling, it's far
more useful to focus on relationships, not power.
> This may seem a trivial situation - but I think it was a good oneAnd the focus on power is leading down that thought path.
> to discuss because it falls just on the boundary between
> unschooling and adult life. If we try and live adult life by the
> principles that inspire unschooling (which I've tried to summarise
> as "power over oneself"), we are continuously going to run up
> against people who want to have power over us - whether they are
> our neighbours or those in positions of authority.
>
Unschooling is about helping our kids learn and explore what
interests them. Creating a peaceful home will make that a lot easier.
It's not easy helping our kids learn when we're fretting over chores
and family rules and so forth.
Unschoolers aren't working toward autonomy or power over self. Those
might be useful ideas in some situations, but as overarching
principles for unschooling, they'll lead parents down paths that take
them away from unschooling.
That's vague, I know. (Real examples are more helpful.) But if "power
over oneself" is written large as a principle for unschoolers, they
won't see what they've done wrong when a child is persuing their
needs but trampling all over other people to get them done. There
isn't any guidance in that principle to help the kids exist
peacefully in society with others.
> If you understand politics as being about power, and unschooling toAnd if you don't, then it's not! ;-)
> be about giving children power over themselves, then unschooling is
> political, by definition.
>
It's about helping them learn and be and meet their needs -- live --
in ways that are respectful of others.
> So, with regard to this group, I would suggest that we don't limitWe? There is no we. It's Sandra's list!
> ourselves to applying our unschooling principles purely within the
> nuclear family, nor our discussions to that context, either.
>
I'm not seeing how a discussion of whether a child should or should
not admit to drinking to a police officer as helping a new unschooler
let go of worry over math and what to do about the markers being used
on the wall.
While that may seem mundane, it's the foundation of creating an
unschooling environment where kids can explore what interests them
which is what unschooling is.
Joyce
Schuyler
>For me, the difference between unschooling and conventionalschooling/parenting is that in conventional schooling or parenting the
child is expected to submit >to the authority of the parent or teacher,
whereas in unschooling we seek above all to give the child _power over
herself_ - the power to decide what to learn, >how to learn, and when to
learn it, but also (in a more radical form of unschooling) what to eat
and when, when to sleep and how much, and so on. I hope >everyone is
with me so far.
I think some of the difference for me between what you are writing and what I understand about unschooling is the issue of power. I don't believe I have ever sought above all to give Simon or Linnaea power over themselves. Much of the power that they do have over their lives is because I protect them and because I give it to them, but that power has been more of a secondary effect of working to have a peaceful relationship with them. Unschooling is about trust for me. I trust that learning happens all the time, I trust that Simon's and Linnaea's interests are valuable and so I help to facilitate for those interests. The fact that I chose not to put them in school was about not thinking Simon was ready for school and not about power. It was about not wanting to be separated from him when he was 4 and then again when he was 5. It was mutual. It wasn't power, it was Simon, it wasn't bigger than us, it was us.
Unschooling is a very personal thing to me. It isn't about bigger things, it isn't about making the world a better place, it isn't about bigger things than Simon and Linnaea and David and me. That's it. And that's a lot. And it becomes bigger in that ripple effect way, but it begins with us, here and now.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robert Alcock
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
"Power over oneself" is only one way of putting this principle into words. Not the only way, not necessarily the best way - just the best that occurs to me at the moment. You say tomato...
What I'm intending by saying "if we follow the principle..." is that the reader will go along with my train of thought far enough to think about whether they agree with what I'm saying. Of course, a reader who rejects out of hand the principle of having power over themselves (rather than, for instance, considering it provisionally as an admittedly imperfect way of saying something that they might or might not agree with) is not going to go along with me at all.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "the proper answer." It is certainly the one that springs to my mind when a person asks me an impertinent question. But I'm not usually very tactful.
My
Overstated how?
But discussing the principles underlying unschooling, and how to apply those principles both inside and outside our families? Is that irrelevant?
I hope nobody is offended by my arguments. The fact that I am still here arguing (despite a frankly hostile reception to some of the things I have said) is sincerely meant as a compliment to the list and some of the people on it. You have influenced me quite dramatically over the past 2 1/2 years, and my family and I have a lot to thank you for.
Robert
>Agreed. But I think that a life totally centred on the relationship between children and parent/s within a nuclear family is not that good, either. I want to have a bigger life (I guess I wasn't born just to have children!), but I also want to share my life with my daughters, to the extent that they want to share it. It's a question of balance, depending on each family's situation, I guess.
> -=-However, my life is bigger than just me, my partner and our
> daughters.-=-
>
> This is true of everyone, but unless unschoolers have their children
> as a high priority, they will neglect them in favor of a bigger life,
> and that won't be good unschooling.
>I'm not suggesting that anyone is doing that - the point is that I wouldn't know, since people only talk about unschooling here. But from what I read here and in other places, it seems like we are following similar principles, at least in our practice of unschooling. Surely we can also discuss how those principles apply to the rest of our lives? Isn't "Always Learning" as applicable to adults learning how to live, as it is to children?
> -=-I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would apply their
> principles to only PART of their life.-=-
>
> If you would read more, I don't think you would find an example of
> anyone here applying their principles to only part of their life.
>No, I realise that "power" is not a commonly used word here. But "choice" and "power" have a great deal in common.
> -=-One way of putting into words the principle that inspires my
> involvement in unschooling is "power over oneself" (combined, and I
> hope this goes without saying, with "respect for others".) -=-
>
> We don't talk about power here much, but we have given our children a
> life of choices.
"Power over oneself" is only one way of putting this principle into words. Not the only way, not necessarily the best way - just the best that occurs to me at the moment. You say tomato...
> They don't needBut they can't do that when someone else (teacher, parent) has power over them and wants them to become what THEY want them to be (a doctor, a lawyer...). That's what I'm getting at. Perhaps someone can put it in a better way.
> power over themselves. They need to BE themselves.
> http://sandradodd.com/being
>That is what I am interested in finding out!
> -=-For me, the difference between unschooling and conventional
> schooling/parenting is that in conventional schooling or parenting the
> child is expected to submit to the authority of the parent or teacher,
> whereas in unschooling we seek above all to give the child _power over
> herself_ - the power to decide what to learn, how to learn, and when
> to learn it, but also (in a more radical form of unschooling) what to
> eat and when, when to sleep and how much, and so on. I hope everyone
> is with me so far.-=-
>
> If by "with you" you mean "understood English," no problem.
> If by "with you" you mean agree with it all, perhaps some will and
> surely some won't.
>OK, good point. People may decide what to do, what to investigate, but they can't decide what they will learn - that just comes.
> "The power to decide what to learn" makes a pretzel of the straight
> line between experience and knowing.
> My children don't "decide what to learn, how to learn, and when toYes. Whereas children who have to get up and go to school, and whose parents make them go to bed the night before, do not have the power to make that sort of choices, or decisions, or whatever you prefer to call them. Children who are forced to sit in class do not have the power to choose to sing, walk, watch a movie or have a conversation.
> learn it." They learn all the time. They learn from dreams, from
> eating, from walking, from singing, from conversations, from watching
> plants grow and storms roll. They learn from movies, books,
> websites, and asking questions. They eat when they're hungry (when
> possible or convenient; I'm making a lunch for Holly to take to work
> today as she's working in the flowershop for eight or nine hours, as
> Mother's Day is Sunday here. They sleep when they're tired, unless
> there's something they'd rather do that's worth staying awake for.
> They don't always "decide" when to wake up. They wake up when they're
> through sleeping, or when the alarm goes off if they've chosen to get
> up early, or when I come and wake them up if they've left me a note.
>I wouldn't expect it to be an idea that you use at your house, since I only just came up with that particular phrase, as a way of expressing ideas that I've been thinking about for a long time. (Incidentally, do you use different ideas at your house than you use elsewhere?) And the suggestion that I want to co-opt someone else's will is quite absurd, since I'm clearly talking about exactly the opposite of having your will co-opted. I don't mean my family, either, since they each have their own conscience and I have mine.
> -=-If we are to live by the principle of "power over oneself" then
> this is a most impertinent question. It makes no difference in
> principle whether the stranger who asks the question is a nosy
> neighbour or an agent of the state; nor whether the question is posed
> in a rude or a friendly way. The proper answer is "none of your
> business", although it may not be the most tactful one. -=-
>
> "Proper" is not a good word to use there. It might be your preferred
> answer. When you say "If we are to live by..." I don't know whether
> you mean to co-opt the flighty will of any who read your words, or
> whether you mean your family. As the idea of "power over oneself"
> isn't one I use at my house, the paragraph wasn't of value to me.
What I'm intending by saying "if we follow the principle..." is that the reader will go along with my train of thought far enough to think about whether they agree with what I'm saying. Of course, a reader who rejects out of hand the principle of having power over themselves (rather than, for instance, considering it provisionally as an admittedly imperfect way of saying something that they might or might not agree with) is not going to go along with me at all.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "the proper answer." It is certainly the one that springs to my mind when a person asks me an impertinent question. But I'm not usually very tactful.
My
> children ARE tactful, and they're friendly, and they are notI'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.
> impertinent. So far this has served them very well. If they decide
> it's not, they can change course.
>I'm glad you think so. So how does that square with saying that it is wrong to lie, even in a situation like this (which numerous people on this list have said, unless I read them wrong)? Isn't that judging the teen for lying, to protect themselves from punishment for having done something that affected nobody but themselves?
> -=-(Last week I posted that I would "advise a teenager in this
> situation to lie." I now think I was wrong to say that, and instead I
> would advise her to follow her own conscience, and that I would not
> judge her for either lying or telling the truth.)-=-
>
> Thanks for reconsidering that. Your revised position is probably
> true of most parents of unschooling teens, for whom it isn't a
> theoretical future "probably" but is what they've already been living,
> with examples to share, for years.
>In what way? I am talking about a teenager being punished for imbibing an alcoholic beverage... not for endangering anyone else by drunk driving (as another poster suggested), or for anything else. I'm not talking about the specific case of what happened to Holly, but about what might happen to any person facing punishment for a "crime" that affects nobody but themselves. It seems irrelevant whether the punishment is a couple of days' probation or five years in jail. Punishment is punishment.
> -=-If the teenager says "yes", she resigns power over herself to the
> state, and is punished. -=-
>
> This is quite overstated.
Overstated how?
> -=-Which brings me to "politics". If you understand politics as beingIn that case, of course unschooling is political.
> about power, and unschooling to be about giving children power over
> themselves, then unschooling is political, by definition. -=-
>
> I understand politics to be about interpersonal relationships.
>Did it seem as if I was putting it forward as a good definition?
> -=-When people talk about "politics" they typically mean party
> politics and government - which is really a matter of who has power
> over whom, and what they make them do-=-
>
> This isn't a very good definition of politics. It might be common, but
> it's not very philosophical or practical.
>It's certainly rhetoric, but I would disagree that it is nonsense.
> -=-When people say "let's not talk about politics," what they usually
> mean is "let's not question our obedience to those in positions of
> authority."-=-
>
> This is rhetoric and nonsense.
> And what is usually meant (or ratherI do actually think that is what is usually meant. Or maybe better, "If we don't talk about politics then perhaps it will go away." However, it won't. As Marcus Aurelius (I think) said, "Those who don't take an interest in politics often find that politics takes an interest in them." We live in interesting times, that is certain.
> what you wish us to accept that you believe is usually meant) has
> nothing to do with this list nor with unschooling.
>Indeed. There are certainly many things in politics which are entirely irrelevant to unschooling, and many others that are not relevant to most people on the list. For that matter, a great many things on this and other unschooling lists are irrelevant to certain subgroups of unschoolers, such as those living outside North America, or unschooling fathers, or parents with young children only (all categories I fall into).
> As to this list when I say, as list owner, "let's not talk about
> politics," I mean I don't want to mix the principles of natural
> learning up with discussions of local homeschooling laws or who is or
> should be in charge of any governmental agency in any nation
> represented on the list, nor discuss the push and shove of HSLDA and
> their increasingly international activities, nor argue about
> reproductive choices, nor ask people to declare their religious
> beliefs, nor twist the discussion toward ecology or divide people into
> pro-wolves-run-wild unschoolers and let-ranchers-protect-cattle
> unschoolers.
But discussing the principles underlying unschooling, and how to apply those principles both inside and outside our families? Is that irrelevant?
>Only you can do that, of course, but I hope I am allowed to make reasonable suggestions. Thanks for the welcome, anyway. (Does that mean I'm off moderation again?)
> You're welcome to stay, but
> you're not welcome to change my intentions.
I hope nobody is offended by my arguments. The fact that I am still here arguing (despite a frankly hostile reception to some of the things I have said) is sincerely meant as a compliment to the list and some of the people on it. You have influenced me quite dramatically over the past 2 1/2 years, and my family and I have a lot to thank you for.
Robert
Pam Sorooshian
Some people, like Robert, unschool their kids as a political
position/statement/act.
A word of warning. What I've seen, over the years, is that parents who
come at this as a political act, as an issue of "freedom" and "power,"
often end up putting their political philosophy above the interests and
needs of their own children.
The "lie to cops who ask impertinent questions" position is a good
example.
Our focus on this list is on the child. Why didn't she lie? What would
it mean to her to lie? How would it feel to her? How would she feel to
be a person who lies? How would it change how friends and coworkers and
family members feel about her? How would it impact her sense of self?
How did the whole incident play out that night and in the aftermath, and
how did a lifetime of unschooling impact that? What was the relationship
like between parents and between parents and the child during this time
of stress and a time when conventional parents would probably have been
throwing blame around, feeling ashamed and angry and punitive? How was
this different? Why?
We're not interested in debating whether or not the police should have
the right to ask the question. We're not interested in debating drinking
age laws, much less whether there should be governments at all and what
kind of government.
Robert - you are thinking about things like police power and citizen
freedoms, but we're here to talk about living an unschooling life within
our existing (and quite varied) societal constraints, whatever they may
be, and in families with widely divergent political, religious, and
other belief systems. Some of us may live in communes and some in
socialist countries and some in near-police states. The principles of
learning that we talk about here are universal, even though our
particular circumstances might make them more or less difficult to live by.
There are other lists where people talk about politics as they see it
related to unschooling. Why try to make this list into that? I think it
is because that is what unschooling is, to you, a political stance, and
you want to talk us into the "believing in" your political positions.
Evangelism. We're not interested, so that's frustrating, but also a
challenge. You think you're doing "good" by trying to persuade us. We
think that it would do your children good if you'd stop thinking you
already know so much about what's good for us and, instead, read and
ponder the much more mundane real-life day-to-day kinds of issues we
generally talk about here.
-pam
position/statement/act.
A word of warning. What I've seen, over the years, is that parents who
come at this as a political act, as an issue of "freedom" and "power,"
often end up putting their political philosophy above the interests and
needs of their own children.
The "lie to cops who ask impertinent questions" position is a good
example.
Our focus on this list is on the child. Why didn't she lie? What would
it mean to her to lie? How would it feel to her? How would she feel to
be a person who lies? How would it change how friends and coworkers and
family members feel about her? How would it impact her sense of self?
How did the whole incident play out that night and in the aftermath, and
how did a lifetime of unschooling impact that? What was the relationship
like between parents and between parents and the child during this time
of stress and a time when conventional parents would probably have been
throwing blame around, feeling ashamed and angry and punitive? How was
this different? Why?
We're not interested in debating whether or not the police should have
the right to ask the question. We're not interested in debating drinking
age laws, much less whether there should be governments at all and what
kind of government.
Robert - you are thinking about things like police power and citizen
freedoms, but we're here to talk about living an unschooling life within
our existing (and quite varied) societal constraints, whatever they may
be, and in families with widely divergent political, religious, and
other belief systems. Some of us may live in communes and some in
socialist countries and some in near-police states. The principles of
learning that we talk about here are universal, even though our
particular circumstances might make them more or less difficult to live by.
There are other lists where people talk about politics as they see it
related to unschooling. Why try to make this list into that? I think it
is because that is what unschooling is, to you, a political stance, and
you want to talk us into the "believing in" your political positions.
Evangelism. We're not interested, so that's frustrating, but also a
challenge. You think you're doing "good" by trying to persuade us. We
think that it would do your children good if you'd stop thinking you
already know so much about what's good for us and, instead, read and
ponder the much more mundane real-life day-to-day kinds of issues we
generally talk about here.
-pam
Robert Alcock
--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
Actually, I started unschooling my kids (rather than just thinking about doing it, and trying to unschool myself, as I had for years) for what I gather to be very typical reasons: because of the confidence I felt in reading about other people's experiences on lists like this, and because I became only too aware of the damage I had done them by not starting it earlier; and because other things that were happening in my life at the time gave me the confidence to do so.
It happens that I have learned a fair bit about politics by unschooling, because nothing stirs people up like when someone who goes against the flow on principle. But I certainly didn't start because I felt like going against the system for the sake of it. I don't need more hassle in my life, and I don't need to go looking for it.
No, and I'm not proposing that we do. But are you interested in living with principles in general, or only within your family?
Robert
>Sorry, but you're jumping to conclusions and this one is dead wrong, which says a fair bit about your prejudices about me.
>
> Some people, like Robert, unschool their kids as a political
> position/statement/act.
Actually, I started unschooling my kids (rather than just thinking about doing it, and trying to unschool myself, as I had for years) for what I gather to be very typical reasons: because of the confidence I felt in reading about other people's experiences on lists like this, and because I became only too aware of the damage I had done them by not starting it earlier; and because other things that were happening in my life at the time gave me the confidence to do so.
It happens that I have learned a fair bit about politics by unschooling, because nothing stirs people up like when someone who goes against the flow on principle. But I certainly didn't start because I felt like going against the system for the sake of it. I don't need more hassle in my life, and I don't need to go looking for it.
>I suppose that any activity that takes us away from our children could be construed as putting our own philosophy above the interests of our children. Like spending our time getting into arguments on the internet, for instance... and I am wondering whether this discussion is worth continuing, if people are this prejudiced about what I'm saying.
> A word of warning. What I've seen, over the years, is that parents who
> come at this as a political act, as an issue of "freedom" and "power,"
> often end up putting their political philosophy above the interests and
> needs of their own children.
>In the original post on this thread, I corrected myself on that, actually. I said "Let the teen do what her own conscience tells her, and not judge her for either lying or telling the truth."
> The "lie to cops who ask impertinent questions" position is a good
> example.
>Pretty badly I'd imagine, if her family had told her "it's wrong to lie - full stop," but she was forced to do it in self defense. Suppose instead of a drink and a couple of days probation, it was some illegal drug and possibly jail time? It's only a difference of degree.
> Our focus on this list is on the child. Why didn't she lie? What would
> it mean to her to lie? How would it feel to her? How would she feel to
> be a person who lies? How would it change how friends and coworkers and
> family members feel about her? How would it impact her sense of self?
> How did the whole incident play out that night and in the aftermath, andNo, but you can't ignore that there is a world out there that your kids will be in when they grow up
> how did a lifetime of unschooling impact that? What was the relationship
> like between parents and between parents and the child during this time
> of stress and a time when conventional parents would probably have been
> throwing blame around, feeling ashamed and angry and punitive? How was
> this different? Why?
>
> We're not interested in debating whether or not the police should have
> the right to ask the question. We're not interested in debating drinking
> age laws, much less whether there should be governments at all and what
> kind of government.
No, and I'm not proposing that we do. But are you interested in living with principles in general, or only within your family?
>Well, actually I would be interested to hear about the other lists you mention. It's certainly not that I want to convert other people to being anything other than they are. I'm here and talking about what I am because I actually do unschooling, and try to do it in my life as a whole, not only in my family.
> Robert - you are thinking about things like police power and citizen
> freedoms, but we're here to talk about living an unschooling life within
> our existing (and quite varied) societal constraints, whatever they may
> be, and in families with widely divergent political, religious, and
> other belief systems. Some of us may live in communes and some in
> socialist countries and some in near-police states. The principles of
> learning that we talk about here are universal, even though our
> particular circumstances might make them more or less difficult to live by.
>
> There are other lists where people talk about politics as they see it
> related to unschooling. Why try to make this list into that?
Robert
Sandra Dodd
-=-Thanks for the welcome, anyway. (Does that mean I'm off moderation
again?)-=-
You'll be on moderation until you leave or you're out the trapdoor or
your posts start to be courteous and about unschooling. The one in
which you tell Pam Sorooshian she's dead wrong is in the queue. I'm
going to let her decide whether to let that one through or not.
-=-But I think that a life totally centred on the relationship between
children and parent/s within a nuclear family is not that good,
either. I want to have a bigger life (I guess I wasn't born just to
have children!)-=-
You seem to be suggesting that there are people here who were born to
do nothing but have children and they have no bigger life than their
own families. Either you intended to be that insulting, in which
case you probably shouldn't be here, or you're totally clumsy with
words and ideas, in which you should read much more and post much less.
Reading more would have kept you from writing "you can't ignore that
there is a world out there that your kids will be in when they grow
up." That's in the post that might be voted off the island.
You were either addressing Pam Sorooshian or the list. Either way,
the idea that our kids will be in the world when they grow up seems to
indicate you have missed the basics of unschooling as many of us have
been discussing it since before you had children. They have never
been removed from the world. They ARE in the world.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
again?)-=-
You'll be on moderation until you leave or you're out the trapdoor or
your posts start to be courteous and about unschooling. The one in
which you tell Pam Sorooshian she's dead wrong is in the queue. I'm
going to let her decide whether to let that one through or not.
-=-But I think that a life totally centred on the relationship between
children and parent/s within a nuclear family is not that good,
either. I want to have a bigger life (I guess I wasn't born just to
have children!)-=-
You seem to be suggesting that there are people here who were born to
do nothing but have children and they have no bigger life than their
own families. Either you intended to be that insulting, in which
case you probably shouldn't be here, or you're totally clumsy with
words and ideas, in which you should read much more and post much less.
Reading more would have kept you from writing "you can't ignore that
there is a world out there that your kids will be in when they grow
up." That's in the post that might be voted off the island.
You were either addressing Pam Sorooshian or the list. Either way,
the idea that our kids will be in the world when they grow up seems to
indicate you have missed the basics of unschooling as many of us have
been discussing it since before you had children. They have never
been removed from the world. They ARE in the world.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
http://sandradodd.com/ideas/consider6.html
That's something I wrote in the late 1980s and was put into a
collection (not just on webpages, but once on paper...) It was
written in the context of the SCA, but says something I've understood
about politics for 25 years or so.
An objection to discussing politics on this list is not an indication
that I'm vague on what it means, or that I have no political
preferences of my own. My well-considered practice of discussing
learning without regard to where a person lives doesn't mean I'm
unaware that there are differences in jurisdictions.
I've spoken at nearly 40 conferences. There are always interpersonal
and regional politics involved in those situation, because there are
limited resources of time and money, and people with different
favorite interests. There are politics in and around the creation of
lists and other online resources. There are motives and purposes and
preferences. There doesn't need to be drama and intrigue, though,
when people are honest and want to help children and parents more than
they want to help themselves.
As to ideas like "just rhetoric" or "just semantics" (quoting from
many prior discussions, not from this particular one), there is
persuasion used to help people understand unschooling, and then
there's argumentative posturing designed to make the writer seem
clever or powerful.
And as to semantics, because we're dealing with words, the better the
writing, the easier the reading. If ideas are fumbled or misstated,
it takes a LOT of people's time and energy (and I woke up this morning
thinking I didn't repair my misspelling of aqua, but... sometimes
there are glitches).
The idea of choices is not the same as "power over oneself." Respect
isn't the same as autonomy. Teaching oneself isn't the same as
learning. Such discussions sometimes bring clarity to people who
didn't even know they needed it, so I don't mind them coming around
(and coming around again later, and then... eventually we start
giving people webpages of previous good parts).
http://sandradodd.com/choice
Sandra
That's something I wrote in the late 1980s and was put into a
collection (not just on webpages, but once on paper...) It was
written in the context of the SCA, but says something I've understood
about politics for 25 years or so.
An objection to discussing politics on this list is not an indication
that I'm vague on what it means, or that I have no political
preferences of my own. My well-considered practice of discussing
learning without regard to where a person lives doesn't mean I'm
unaware that there are differences in jurisdictions.
I've spoken at nearly 40 conferences. There are always interpersonal
and regional politics involved in those situation, because there are
limited resources of time and money, and people with different
favorite interests. There are politics in and around the creation of
lists and other online resources. There are motives and purposes and
preferences. There doesn't need to be drama and intrigue, though,
when people are honest and want to help children and parents more than
they want to help themselves.
As to ideas like "just rhetoric" or "just semantics" (quoting from
many prior discussions, not from this particular one), there is
persuasion used to help people understand unschooling, and then
there's argumentative posturing designed to make the writer seem
clever or powerful.
And as to semantics, because we're dealing with words, the better the
writing, the easier the reading. If ideas are fumbled or misstated,
it takes a LOT of people's time and energy (and I woke up this morning
thinking I didn't repair my misspelling of aqua, but... sometimes
there are glitches).
The idea of choices is not the same as "power over oneself." Respect
isn't the same as autonomy. Teaching oneself isn't the same as
learning. Such discussions sometimes bring clarity to people who
didn't even know they needed it, so I don't mind them coming around
(and coming around again later, and then... eventually we start
giving people webpages of previous good parts).
http://sandradodd.com/choice
Sandra
Robert Alcock
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
If on top of that my responses to such allegations are going to be censored because I'm not "courteous" enough, then, what can I say? It's not the kind of welcome I usually like to receive.
As for not writing about unschooling, in the present topic I'm talking about what it's permissible to talk about on this list, and it is marked "Off topic".
The reason I'm asking is, quite frankly, that I think it's a waste of my time posting to a list where the decision about what counts as "unschooling" is made arbitrarily according to rules that I don't really understand. I mean, what part of "Always Learning" is it that I'm not getting? Don't the wider implications of unschooling count as relevant?
Robert
>Excuse me, but I was trying to be as courteous as is possible when people start saying things like I "unschool my children for political reasons" when they don't know a thing about my motives for doing so. Telling someone they're wrong, when they are, isn't discourteous.
> -=-Thanks for the welcome, anyway. (Does that mean I'm off moderation
> again?)-=-
>
> You'll be on moderation until you leave or you're out the trapdoor or
> your posts start to be courteous and about unschooling. The one in
> which you tell Pam Sorooshian she's dead wrong is in the queue. I'm
> going to let her decide whether to let that one through or not.
If on top of that my responses to such allegations are going to be censored because I'm not "courteous" enough, then, what can I say? It's not the kind of welcome I usually like to receive.
As for not writing about unschooling, in the present topic I'm talking about what it's permissible to talk about on this list, and it is marked "Off topic".
The reason I'm asking is, quite frankly, that I think it's a waste of my time posting to a list where the decision about what counts as "unschooling" is made arbitrarily according to rules that I don't really understand. I mean, what part of "Always Learning" is it that I'm not getting? Don't the wider implications of unschooling count as relevant?
>No, I'm not trying to suggest that at all. It was a rather flippant remark. As a matter of fact I don't think that anyone was born only to have children (if "I was born to do X" has any meaning at all, which I doubt.) But it's quite amazing what negative connotations people seem to be able to put on phrases that to me seem entirely innocent.
> -=-But I think that a life totally centred on the relationship between
> children and parent/s within a nuclear family is not that good,
> either. I want to have a bigger life (I guess I wasn't born just to
> have children!)-=-
>
> You seem to be suggesting that there are people here who were born to
> do nothing but have children and they have no bigger life than their
> own families.
> Either you intended to be that insulting, in whichDefinitely not the former, and I certainly hope not the latter, since writing/translation is actually my current profession (not about unschooling, as yet.)
> case you probably shouldn't be here, or you're totally clumsy with
> words and ideas, in which you should read much more and post much less.
>You're right, that was a clumsy phrase.
> Reading more would have kept you from writing "you can't ignore that
> there is a world out there that your kids will be in when they grow
> up." That's in the post that might be voted off the island.
Robert
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[email protected]
>>>> "Power over oneself" is only one way of putting this principleinto words. Not the only way, not necessarily the best way - just the
best that occurs to me at the moment. You say tomato... <<<<
Many parents come to unschooling and find that first they may want to
learn how to share power with their children. The point of calling it
partnering with our children is that focusing on getting power from the
state is a whole other issue that we as adults may indirectly influence
through lobbying, voting and things like that (however that works out
in Spain and elsewhere). Probably a major difficulty in coming to
unschooling is just that: figuring out which choices to allow our
children to exercise within the protection of the family so that they
don't experience the most difficult results of their decision making
right when they're just learning how to make decisions. Children may
not necessarily value "power over themselves" so much as being able to
rely on the people in their family for help in growing up, especially
their parents.
The responsibility to obey laws is not transferable to children but
given to adults. Unschooling may have some effect on the law at some
point but I don't look for it and it's not my personal goal because,
for the most part, I haven't found myself in disagreement with the law
where it pertains to me.
~Katherine
Pam Sorooshian
On 5/8/2009 12:12 PM, Robert Alcock wrote:
what unschooling is all about and that politics is really about power
and therefore, "unschooling is political, by definition." Your words,
not mine.
Encouraging our children to lie because we think the law is wrong, that is what I mean by putting our cause above the interests of our children. All your talk is about the law being wrong, but not about what the child is learning or feeling or about the relationship between the child and the parents or other people, etc.
Look for HEM or AHA yahoogroups lists. I'm not sure which ones are currently active, but the people on those lists tend to get off into politics a whole lot.
-pam
>> >You said it, not me. You wrote at length about power - you said that is
>> > Some people, like Robert, unschool their kids as a political
>> > position/statement/act.
>>
>
> Sorry, but you're jumping to conclusions and this one is dead wrong, which says a fair bit about your prejudices about me.
>
what unschooling is all about and that politics is really about power
and therefore, "unschooling is political, by definition." Your words,
not mine.
>>I suppose that any activity that takes us away from our children could be construed as putting our own philosophy above the interests of our children.>>
Encouraging our children to lie because we think the law is wrong, that is what I mean by putting our cause above the interests of our children. All your talk is about the law being wrong, but not about what the child is learning or feeling or about the relationship between the child and the parents or other people, etc.
>> Like spending our time getting into arguments on the internet, for instance... and I am wondering whether this discussion is worth continuing, if people are this prejudiced about what I'm saying.>>So - twice you've said I'm prejudiced against you. Based on what, do you think? I'm going by what you write here - nothing else to go on. That's not prejudice, even if I'm misunderstanding.
>>Well, actually I would be interested to hear about the other lists you mention. It's certainly not that I want to convert other people to being anything other than they are. I'm here and talking about what I am because I actually do unschooling, and try to do it in my life as a whole, not only in my family.<<
Look for HEM or AHA yahoogroups lists. I'm not sure which ones are currently active, but the people on those lists tend to get off into politics a whole lot.
-pam
Robyn L. Coburn
<<<< I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would apply their
principles to only PART of their life.>>>
I hope you didn't get the idea that this is recommended here. My experience
with this list is encouragment to do the opposite.
<<<< One way of putting into words the principle that inspires my
involvement in unschooling is "power over oneself" (combined, and I hope
this goes without saying, with "respect for others".) >>>
Well I don't think it does go without saying. The combination of the two
concepts makes all the difference.
Sandra and others have talked about where the word and idea of "power" in
itself could be leading down a path that can make unschooling harder, almost
like a tangent to unschooling. I think I, and maybe more of us here,
understand what you mean by "power over oneself". It's a bit like the word
"autonomy" discussion so recently canvassed here. You might like to look at
the archives for that. However if our word choices effect our thinking and
our communication with others, sometimes it's better to just let go of a
word that might be limiting.
Personally I believe by continuing to be attached to the idea of power -
preserving personal power, giving power to our children, worrying or
reacting to the perceived or real power that governmental authorities have
over us, looking at relationships in terms of power - continues to keep all
kinds of opportunities for conflict in our mindset. By talking to your
children about "power over oneself" that continues to keep the idea alive
that they should or must be on the alert for the nebulous or the corporeal
forces waiting to take it away. It keeps everyone living in a state of
defensiveness.
That feeling that power must be preserved and protected imbues the "respect
for others" side of the coin with an "as long as they aren't trying to
disempower me" mindset. At least that is what I am seeing could happen. By
focussing on power, instead of relationships, and preserving power as the
priority insted of community and the family team, the danger is that you end
up with "you can't tell me what to do" being said.
I understand the attraction of offering our children "power over oneself".
But having been through that thinking and out the other side, I have learnt
that keeping any notion of power, even good power, in the thinking
eventually leads to the ideas of power struggle and resentment over who has
power in the relationship. This kind of thinking had me on an unpleasant
stroll down bad childhood memory lane with all the knee jerk emotional
reactions that old tapes can cause. Keeping my focus on "making concious
choices now" is better.
<<<< the power to decide what to learn, how to learn, and when to learn it
unschooling. Everything that I see from the stories of other long time
unschoolers whose kids are now grown, from the stories of folks with kids
the same age as mine, and most importantly from closely observing my own
daughter is that she never, NEVER, has any reason to *decide* what, how or
when to learn anything.
That is like saying she would "decide" to breath. To be sure there are
moments when she plays at holding her breath for some game or swimming, but
in living her life most of the time she just breathes. In living her life
and engaging in her passions she just learns.
Automatically, naturally, inevitably.
What I do, and her father does, is help her *do* what she likes to. Provide
the space, the money (as much as possible), the time, the rides, the
resources, the other people that *she* judges will help her do what she
likes to. This includes everything from arranging playdates to joining the
YMCA for the swimming pool, to staying up late with her, to recording her
favorite tv shows, to listening to her stories, to reading aloud (she said
she wants me to read her books to her a couple of times so that it will be
easier for her when she reads them for herself next time - her spontaneous
comment.)
I would argue that she has no power to decide what to learn because learning
is a natural biological process. It will happen. Nor can it be pushed or
hurried. Many people have told stories of their kids being frustrated with
themselves because they want to read, but can't yet developmentally.
Therefore I think you are using the word "learn" here as a synonym for
"study". Your kids are very young. I think if you move more towards the idea
of helping them do what they enjoy, without adding your own value judgment
to it, you will find that they learn plenty.
<<<< If we are to live by the principle of "power over oneself" then this is
a most impertinent question. It makes no difference in principle whether the
stranger who asks the question is a nosy neighbour or an agent of the
state;>>>
It makes an enormous difference.
Just like it makes a difference if the person asking you a health question
is a nosy neighbor or your doctor.
You mentioned having <<<complete power over our children, as long as we
stick within the law>>> Legal questions from police officers about the
legality of an activity are not impertinent. No-one gets to say that they
have power over themselves and it trumps the law.
In this country, the USA we have the right to remain silent, and choose not
to incriminate oneself. It's the Fifth Amendment to the constitution.
However that is not the same as saying, "none of your business". Once the
police have a warrant or probable cause (in this original party case the
complaints about noise) it has legally become their business.
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
principles to only PART of their life.>>>
I hope you didn't get the idea that this is recommended here. My experience
with this list is encouragment to do the opposite.
<<<< One way of putting into words the principle that inspires my
involvement in unschooling is "power over oneself" (combined, and I hope
this goes without saying, with "respect for others".) >>>
Well I don't think it does go without saying. The combination of the two
concepts makes all the difference.
Sandra and others have talked about where the word and idea of "power" in
itself could be leading down a path that can make unschooling harder, almost
like a tangent to unschooling. I think I, and maybe more of us here,
understand what you mean by "power over oneself". It's a bit like the word
"autonomy" discussion so recently canvassed here. You might like to look at
the archives for that. However if our word choices effect our thinking and
our communication with others, sometimes it's better to just let go of a
word that might be limiting.
Personally I believe by continuing to be attached to the idea of power -
preserving personal power, giving power to our children, worrying or
reacting to the perceived or real power that governmental authorities have
over us, looking at relationships in terms of power - continues to keep all
kinds of opportunities for conflict in our mindset. By talking to your
children about "power over oneself" that continues to keep the idea alive
that they should or must be on the alert for the nebulous or the corporeal
forces waiting to take it away. It keeps everyone living in a state of
defensiveness.
That feeling that power must be preserved and protected imbues the "respect
for others" side of the coin with an "as long as they aren't trying to
disempower me" mindset. At least that is what I am seeing could happen. By
focussing on power, instead of relationships, and preserving power as the
priority insted of community and the family team, the danger is that you end
up with "you can't tell me what to do" being said.
I understand the attraction of offering our children "power over oneself".
But having been through that thinking and out the other side, I have learnt
that keeping any notion of power, even good power, in the thinking
eventually leads to the ideas of power struggle and resentment over who has
power in the relationship. This kind of thinking had me on an unpleasant
stroll down bad childhood memory lane with all the knee jerk emotional
reactions that old tapes can cause. Keeping my focus on "making concious
choices now" is better.
<<<< the power to decide what to learn, how to learn, and when to learn it
>>>This is where I see a fundamental schism between different definitions of
unschooling. Everything that I see from the stories of other long time
unschoolers whose kids are now grown, from the stories of folks with kids
the same age as mine, and most importantly from closely observing my own
daughter is that she never, NEVER, has any reason to *decide* what, how or
when to learn anything.
That is like saying she would "decide" to breath. To be sure there are
moments when she plays at holding her breath for some game or swimming, but
in living her life most of the time she just breathes. In living her life
and engaging in her passions she just learns.
Automatically, naturally, inevitably.
What I do, and her father does, is help her *do* what she likes to. Provide
the space, the money (as much as possible), the time, the rides, the
resources, the other people that *she* judges will help her do what she
likes to. This includes everything from arranging playdates to joining the
YMCA for the swimming pool, to staying up late with her, to recording her
favorite tv shows, to listening to her stories, to reading aloud (she said
she wants me to read her books to her a couple of times so that it will be
easier for her when she reads them for herself next time - her spontaneous
comment.)
I would argue that she has no power to decide what to learn because learning
is a natural biological process. It will happen. Nor can it be pushed or
hurried. Many people have told stories of their kids being frustrated with
themselves because they want to read, but can't yet developmentally.
Therefore I think you are using the word "learn" here as a synonym for
"study". Your kids are very young. I think if you move more towards the idea
of helping them do what they enjoy, without adding your own value judgment
to it, you will find that they learn plenty.
<<<< If we are to live by the principle of "power over oneself" then this is
a most impertinent question. It makes no difference in principle whether the
stranger who asks the question is a nosy neighbour or an agent of the
state;>>>
It makes an enormous difference.
Just like it makes a difference if the person asking you a health question
is a nosy neighbor or your doctor.
You mentioned having <<<complete power over our children, as long as we
stick within the law>>> Legal questions from police officers about the
legality of an activity are not impertinent. No-one gets to say that they
have power over themselves and it trumps the law.
In this country, the USA we have the right to remain silent, and choose not
to incriminate oneself. It's the Fifth Amendment to the constitution.
However that is not the same as saying, "none of your business". Once the
police have a warrant or probable cause (in this original party case the
complaints about noise) it has legally become their business.
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
[email protected]
>>Well, actually I would be interested to hear about the other listsyou mention. It's certainly not that I want to convert other people to
being anything other than they are. I'm here and talking about what I
am because I actually do unschooling, and try to do it in my life as a
whole, not only in my family.<<
Try Freethinking Unschoolers. Search in Yahoo groups. I was on there
for a short while a long long time ago.
~Katherine
Sandra Dodd
-=-That is like saying she would "decide" to breath. To be sure there
are
moments when she plays at holding her breath for some game or
swimming, but
in living her life most of the time she just breathes.-=-
That's her deciding NOT to breathe. For fun, or for a challenge.
But when it comes down to it, if she can breathe she will.
Last July 24 several families got in on a goof project not to learn.
One whole day, learning nothing. That was a FUN way to see whether
people could decide to learn!
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
are
moments when she plays at holding her breath for some game or
swimming, but
in living her life most of the time she just breathes.-=-
That's her deciding NOT to breathe. For fun, or for a challenge.
But when it comes down to it, if she can breathe she will.
Last July 24 several families got in on a goof project not to learn.
One whole day, learning nothing. That was a FUN way to see whether
people could decide to learn!
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]