Unschooling, Individualism, Political Philosophy

[Beatrice]

I've been playing around with some ideas areound these concepts for a while but I'm interested to see what other people make of them.

My first introduction to the idea of RU was through Taking Children Seriously, which is explicitly based in libertarian political philosophy. I don't personally identify with libertarianism, except through this intersection. Like a lot of others on this site I'm politically left-leaning. But I am coming increasingly to feel that there is an uncomfortably classist? elitist? contradiction between believing that state intervention to protect, eg. children from abuse and neglect is a Good Thing...except when I'm in the group being targeted as neglectful, as a freebirther, unschooler, etc. It seems like a difficult political line to walk between believing in my personal right to disengage from the status quo where I happen to disagree with it, but still believing that the state needs to be there to intervene in other people's lives where I happen to agree with it.

I also feel like unschooling, especially radical unschooling, is the ultimate flowering of the modern cult of the individual in the West. Its cultural specificity is obvious when you compare it to the situation of children in less rich nations who are personally desperate to be given the choice to attend school. It's simply not transferable to social conditions which don't put the same emphasis on individuals helping themselves, but instead prioritise what individuals can give back to their communities. And it's far too often a vehicle of privilege, where our middle class preoccupations with optimising our individual offspring's emotional and intellectual development simply ignore the many children and families without our educational and financial opportunities where a state education system is often the only existing ladder out of poverty for a small number of kids, while simultaneously functioning to perpetuate an underclass which is necessary to support models of state (conservative and progressive) which rely for their legitimacy largely on the anxieties of the privileged Us about the underprivileged Them. Obviously a conservative political view relies very explicitly on having an underclass to define itself against, but can even progressive governments honestly work towards removing the disadvantages of the underclass without removing their own reason for existence, when their reason for existence is removing the disadvantages of the underclass...?

No idea where I'm going with this and my kids are sick of me engaging in philosophising instead of paying attention to them :lol Hopefully I'm not the only person who thinks about these things...

[Beatrice]

I suppose the discussion question is, Is it possible to have a politically-consistent philosophy of unschooling which doesn't end up somewhere near libertarianism? Does it matter? Is it just a way of making an accommodation with reality the best we can?

[Sarasvati]

Yup I think about these things too. Don't have time to write out a well-thought reply yet, will percolate as I do my stuff and come back later.

[Aurora]

I have to admit, I hadn't actually considered that before, but now that you've mentioned it, yes. Part of me thinks it's acceptable for intervention when a child is being neglected or abused, but only according to my own perception of abuse (which includes babies being left to cry repeatedly for long periods, regular smackings etc, regular verbal abuse and threats etc). I feel so strongly that these things are damaging to kids long term, but I'm sure those who carry it out believe they're 'teaching their kids a lesson' thus helping them.

But of course if I was being accused of abusing or neglecting my kids via the paths I've taken with them thus far, I would be angry and upset, and resentful of the fact our family business has become state business. We've all read and watched the nasty media reports painting AP to be irresponsible, selfish, we're depriving out children/fucking them up for life. But one thing I can say, is that my decisions were not only based on instinct but EVIDENCE. Beatrice, I don't even know what Libertarianism is (off to google now), and I have no idea about the policy atm for intervening if a child is suspected of being abused. Is it based on evidence (eg studies done showing what kind of behaviours screw kids up)? I don't think so, because there is plenty of evidence against CCing but that's not commonly labelled as abuse.

But we couldn't even have a stat-based policy anyway, as we know the Govt would be responsible for collecting that data and painting whatever picture they saw fit- perhaps nowhere near the truth. Plus, even if they did base it on correct stats, there are so many of us that choose what we *know* is right for our kids despite what the stats say, and have happy, healthy, thriving kids to boot (and yep I am sure really abusive parents would say that too) so intervention purely based on stats wouldn't work.

I have yet to read Taking Children Seriously (to be honest, I haven't been too inspired as of yet due to hearing of some cult-like Yahoo groups/discussions made up of dedicated readers.) I'll get there eventually though. And I'm quite clueless about politics still, so I am probably just yabbering on here stating the obvious but wanted to ponder aloud anyway.

[Beatrice]

Thanks for your thoughts :) I wouldn't worry about feeling clueless: I reckon to anyone who's actually studied political philosophy it's pretty obvious that I haven't :lol

[Sarasvati]

I didn't come back to this sorry! Will probably have to address points piecemeal. (note: I am not saying these attitudes are specifically espoused here, they are just things I have been thinking of).

Re: state intervention being ok if it's stuff I feel is necessary, but as far as my own shit is concerned... well see this is where I am thinking registering for hsing comes in. I DO think the state has a responsibility to the children. So I don't see how I can say on one hand "the State has a responsibility to ensure children aren't being abused, have access to learning opportunities etc" but then say "but they have no business what we do in our family because I've done the research". I do think that is a bit hypocritical and maybe a bit classist to think like that. Oh look, I have a degree, my partner works in a well-paying white collar job, so how dare they suggest I might not know what's best for my kids! (But those working class dole bludgers, now you can intervene all you want!) Doesn't sit well with me. I *don't* want to deal with govt interference when they don't know how to tell the difference between abuse/neglect and opting out of the mainstream. However I do see that I possibly am supporting a double standard if I choose not to register because "it's none of their business". This is one reason I'm still undecided. I hate the thought of dealing with bureaucrats who don't understand natural learning or who might label it as neglectful. But I think maybe I can show that natural learning is a valid choice, and is just different to the mainstream, to make things easier for those who come behind. I am the type of person who can turn natural learning into a well-written curriculum retrospectively ;). I have always been quite academic and I can present well. So the likelihood of harassment is small. But it is still a possibility. Quandary.

I agree about the ability to twist stats. I fear a close look at my parenting choices because the mainstream doesn't bother to understand them or look at the research. But I don't see how I can support intervention in other cases if I want them to just leave me alone.

[Beatrice]

Indeed.

There's a case in Sweden at the moment where apparently a child has been removed from his parents because they decided to homeschool him (although I haven't found much in the way of corroboration for this outside fundy homeschooling blogs and Wingnut Daily, so I'm not sure how reliable the story is). I think the Swedish model of social intervention is one which a lot of progressives like, but of course this is a logical outcome of a system which believes in a high level of state control over things like education. Home ed is apparently illegal in the Netherlands, too.

[Janet]

I'm going away to ponder this. I don't see "the state" as necessarily just about the face of repressive govt but also potentially as "society" and as a leftie and feminist I see myself (and my society/community) as having a responsibility to others which is why I make some of the ethical choices I make. These have little actual impact on my family but can be part of a wider movement to, for example, hopefully share wealth more fully with other families I don't get to see. Now I'm going to ponder after my kneejerk response. :lol

[Beatrice]

That's always been my feeling too, Janet. But I'm not sure how I can reconcile it :shrug

[SamanthaW]

Our association with Radical Unschooling grew organically from our political philosophy.

The problem, in my opinion, with TCS is a) it's commonly grossly misinterpreted and b) what could potentially be an interesting and liberating movement is much too closely tied with classical libertarianism.

I do not identify with libertarianism for a wide range of reasons. On a surface level, I will not be associated with people who claim the title in order to promote what is essentially a pro-gun, individualist, ageist and racist agenda. DH and I have been badly burnt by these people and steer well, well clear. On a more fundamental level, libertarianism assumes that the basic framework of our society is unchangeable. I disagree.

For example, both libertarians and myself agree that there should not be government payments made to people living in poverty. Libertarians envision this in terms of our society as it stands, thus the impoverished continue living in poverty, presumably relying on the ruling class's charitable nature(!) I, on the other hand, envision this in terms of a complete absence of the state, in a society free of the hierarchies created by capitalism and the patriarchy.

I struggle to label my own political philosophy but find that free-market anarchist (or even more specifically, free-market anarcho-feminist!) might come close. I wholeheartedly embrace the notion of free trade & the free market, but go to great lengths to distinguish this from capitalism (which is not, and has never been, about truly free trade).

Regarding the state intervening in, for example, child abuse/neglect - our final decision to cut ties with libertarian circles came through an exchange I had with a prominent Australian libertarian who had said something in an article about 'not allowing the state to tell us how to raise our children'. I wrote to him agreeing with the sentiment but asking him to please explain what he meant as he surely wasn't condoning violence against children. His response clearly defended a parent's right to strike children and kept harping on about the state not being allowed to intervene. I again agreed with keeping the state out of the picture but that libertarian philosophy specifically condemns violence. He disagreed, evoking classical Millsian libertarianism. Mills did write that children were not entitled to liberty and bodily autonomy; he also extended this to non-white people, the handicapped, and sometimes women. Whatever.

But I feel that the core of the state-intervention-in-parenting problem is that it essentially treats children as property, as does our legal system and societal structure as a whole. Whether the child belongs to the parents or to society as a whole, the child is still reduced to nothing more than chattel. In order for anything to change, children must be afforded basic human rights.

I'm not convinced that radical unschooling is the ultimate expression of individualism. I may be a proponent of individual liberties, but should those liberties be universally granted they would be especially useless outside of the context of community. TCS often overvalues individualism - decrying any attempt at compromise - and is often misinterpreted along these lines with somewhat disastrous results.

To answer your question, Beatrice, I think that radical unschooling in its purest interpretation transcends libertarianism and approaches something much, much better.

I've written this with dozens of interruptions for drinks, cuddles, feeds, stories and dance parties, so please ask if I haven't made my point entirely clear!

[Beatrice]

No I think it's a great response. As I said, I've never really done much political philosophy and my ideas about libertarianism are a pretty shallow mishmash which really don't come close to appreciating it as a spectrum of thought rather than a scary gun-totin' stereotype :oops And I'm only just trying to work out what my questions are, so to have your perspective to bounce them off is really helpful :) I think that part of the problem is that I've never really put in a lot of thought into why I believe what I believe in a political sense - I'm a reflex leftie because my family tradition, upbringing, and sense of what is "right" is left-leaning - so that's probably going to come under the microscope next :lol


I'm not convinced that radical unschooling is the ultimate expression of individualism. I may be a proponent of individual liberties, but should those liberties be universally granted they would be especially useless outside of the context of community. TCS often overvalues individualism - decrying any attempt at compromise - and is often misinterpreted along these lines with somewhat disastrous results.Yeah, that's what I could never really get my head around in TCS. I'm really interested in what you've written about universally-granted individual liberties being useless outside the context of community, I'd love you to expand on that :)

My fairly poorly-formulated OP was trying to nut out my thoughts about modern conceptions of selfhood, which foregrounds the right of the individual to maximise their own potential in a way which AFAIK isn't found in any other historical or social context. I'm not sure if maximising one's potential as an individual is the same as maximising one's rights as an individual, though? I think it's another, subtler way to maintain social hierarchies as political rights are granted to more sectors of the population - for example psychoanalysis starts blaming your failure as a fully-potentiated individual on your mother around about the same time as women are moving into the public sphere in greater numbers, campaigning for the vote etc. Obviously mothers were already being held responsible for the moral welfare of their children before psychoanalysis, but I think "Are they being brought up to be morally pure?" is a very different (extrinsic) emphasis to "Are they being brought up to be psychologically healthy?"

Gah, it's been a long time since I was studying this stuff at uni :lol

[SamanthaW]

I'm going away to ponder this. I don't see "the state" as necessarily just about the face of repressive govt but also potentially as "society" and as a leftie and feminist I see myself (and my society/community) as having a responsibility to others which is why I make some of the ethical choices I make. These have little actual impact on my family but can be part of a wider movement to, for example, hopefully share wealth more fully with other families I don't get to see. Now I'm going to ponder after my kneejerk response. :lol

I find it fascinating that the fundamental political philosophy of a left-identifying person can be so similar to mine, when I believe I would technically be considered right-wing. Exactly why I hate the left/right labels. It's entirely possible to believe in the right to private ownership and also be an ethically consuming, socially responsible, community minded individual. :)

[Beatrice]

But I feel that the core of the state-intervention-in-parenting problem is that it essentially treats children as property, as does our legal system and societal structure as a whole. Whether the child belongs to the parents or to society as a whole, the child is still reduced to nothing more than chattel. In order for anything to change, children must be afforded basic human rights.I see the state-intervention-in-parenting problem as basically acting as a band-aid on a tumour. The tumour is the social system which perpetuates disadvantage and just addressing the symptoms of it as they arise doesn't do anything to address the underlying problem. The problem is how to get from here to somwehere better, though? I'm finding it hard to believe in "government" as a solution to anything at the moment :bah I don't see how it can actually, honestly end disadvantage without doing itself out of existence, and well, flying pigs seem much more likely :lol

Gawd, I love a good thought experiment :lol This is one (http://candobetter.org/node/1439) I found particularly interesting this morning. It left me wondering (again) if the reason I'm a card-carrying doomer is because the idea of peak oil as requiring us to work on a grassroots level to fundamentally change our social systems to be able to survive is the only way I can see anything ever changing...

[Hush]

These are not discussions I've ever heard, nor thought about... I'm so grateful to be here :) Agree with you about peak oil B, I look forward to it, I hope it brings about drastic change. I think it's what we really need, a huge shake up to make everyone look at what is really going on, what is really important.

[Belinda]

This point has been made a few times in differennt ways, but the government isn't separate from society, it is a reflection of society. So it won't fix anything, change anything, etc etc, until society as a whole sees it as a problem.

I think it's good that we don't know the answers to these questions, because I feel that any simple, neat package that 'solves everything' is highly suspect. I believe that we as a society and as individuals are groping our way through these problems. Some are further along the path than others, but I am a big believer in evolution, not revolution. In my teens I came across the quote "revolutions just make people dizzy". Revolutions are fought, some one is always against them. Revolutions necessitate the simplification of ideas - just get rid of the capitalists and have everything owned by the state - to be sellable. Then they show that those neat ideas don't always work quite as expected and, oops, there's Stalin.But evolution is slow. It changes things with little opposition because by the tiime you realise it's happened, its over. Evolution allows for mistakes, it allows for backtracking and just saying 'well THAT didn't work...'

Having these political lables is a handy shorthand, but to my mind it is actually a very 'masculine' way of devising power sharing. It defines and divides people, making the party system and democracy in its current form to 'work'. Its easy and simple, and heck in our culture we like simple! But it doesn't involve any collaborative, thought-out strategies. It overrules the complexity in the real world.

I don't have any answers, but I think sometimes, the questions are the important bit anyway.

[Beatrice]

I've just spent the last couple of hours reading about anarchism :lol Really interesting stuff... I totally agree, Belinda, the questions are usually the important bit :)

[Beatrice]

Bumping for anyone with further thoughts :)

[Mud]

There are a lot of interesting points to think about. Although I tend to be repelled by our government institutions – meaning schools, hospitals, jails – I feel I have to face that they are essential in our society as it stands; they create our society, in many ways, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I may choose not to donate money to them (on top of tax) but I try not to mentally disengage from them, and I try to remember that they are not just important for other people we care about but are an important aspect of the culture that we are part of. While my immediate family may have the good sense and luck to stay the hell away from them (as much as possible), in a broader sense we can never be completely outside them. We cannot truly escape them, so I try to think about how they could be reformed, how funding could work better, how they should be connected to the community. Their systems of control have extended into our everyday lives, so I try to be aware of how this operates. Surveillance is a big part of this, and subsequent state intervention. I can’t see state intervention in people’s lives going away, but we can demand more transparency and accountability, and respect for human rights.