Sometimes I wonder where I would be without Theodore Dalrymple, the retired prison doctor and pseudonymous essayist with a particular genius for dyspeptic commentary on the state of Britain. He most often appears in the excellent City Journal. I regard him as a public service. I can outsource (he would put that word in inverted commas) what would otherwise be an occasional outburst of dismay at the country's cultural decay, knowing that nobody could do it better. Oddly enough, I find him very soothing, but the main thing is that I think he allows me to stave off becoming an angry old man a little longer.
Britain is the worst country in the Western world in which to be a child, according to a recent UNICEF report. Ordinarily, I would not set much store by such a report; but in this case, I think it must be right--not because I know so much about childhood in all the other 20 countries examined but because the childhood that many British parents give to their offspring is so awful that it is hard to conceive of worse, at least on a mass scale. The two poles of contemporary British child rearing are neglect and overindulgence.
Consider one British parent, Fiona MacKeown, who in November 2007 went on a six-month vacation to Goa, India, with her boyfriend and eight of her nine children by five different fathers, none of whom ever contributed financially for long to the children's upkeep. (The child left behind--her eldest, at 19--was a drug addict.) She received $50,000 in welfare benefits a year, and doubtless decided--quite rationally, under the circumstances--that the money would go further, and that life would thus be more agreeable, in Goa than in her native Devon.
Reaching Goa, MacKeown soon decided to travel with seven of her children to Kerala, leaving behind one of them, 15-year-old Scarlett Keeling, to live with a tour guide ten years her elder, whom the mother had known for only a short time. Scarlett reportedly claimed to have had sex with this man only because she needed a roof over her head. According to a witness, she was constantly on drugs; and one night, she went to a bar where she drank a lot and took several different illicit drugs, including LSD, cocaine, and pot. She was seen leaving the bar late, almost certainly intoxicated.
The next morning, her body turned up on a beach. At first, the local police maintained that she had drowned while high, but further examination proved that someone had raped and then forcibly drowned her. So far, three people have been arrested in the investigation, which is continuing.
About a month later, Scarlett's mother, interviewed by the liberal Sunday newspaper the Observer, expressed surprise at the level of public vituperation aimed at her and her lifestyle in the aftermath of the murder. She agreed that she and her children lived on welfare, but "not by conscious choice," and she couldn't see anything wrong with her actions in India apart from a certain naivety in trusting the man in whose care she had left her daughter. Scarlett was always an independent girl, and if she, the mother, could turn the clock back, she would behave exactly the same way again.
It is not surprising that someone in Fiona MacKeown's position would deny negligence; to acknowledge it would be too painful. But--and this is what is truly disturbing--when the newspaper asked four supposed child-rearing experts for their opinions, only one saw anything wrong with the mother's behavior, and even she offered only muted criticism. It was always difficult to know how much independence to grant an adolescent, the expert said; but in her view, the mother had granted too much too quickly to Scarlett.
Even that seemed excessively harsh to the Observer's Barbara Ellen...
Incidentally, here is a good column on almost the same subject by George Will.
Paternalism is the restriction of freedom for the good of the person restricted. AIPCS [American Indian Public Charter School] acts in loco parentis because Chavis, who is cool toward parental involvement, wants an enveloping school culture that combats the culture of poverty and the streets.
He and other practitioners of the new paternalism -- once upon a time, schooling was understood as democracy's permissible, indeed obligatory, paternalism -- are proving that cultural pessimists are mistaken: We know how to close the achievement gap that often separates minorities from whites before kindergarten and widens through high school. A growing cohort of people possess the pedagogic skills to make "no excuses" schools flourish.
Unfortunately, powerful factions fiercely oppose the flourishing. Among them are education schools with their romantic progressivism -- teachers should be mere "enablers" of group learning; self-esteem is a prerequisite for accomplishment, not a consequence thereof. Other opponents are the teachers unions and their handmaiden, the Democratic Party. Today's liberals favor paternalism -- you cannot eat trans fats; you must buy health insurance -- for everyone except children. Odd.
once upon a time, schooling was understood as democracy's permissible, indeed obligatory, paternalism -
Here are the questions for you and Mr. Will: when was that time, and didn't the children raised in that system grow up to be the parents of today who are ruining their children?
Mr. Donegal:
I estimate that that time came to pass when Ben Chavis graduated from high school. And no. The parents of today, especially the mother, father, and remaining step fathers of the dead child, were not the product of that time.
At any rate, I find it fascinating that you are more interested in questioning the period in time delineated by Mr. Will to pose a rhetorical question, rather than answer for that period in time demarcated by the death of a fifteen year old.
Maybe it is just the way my quasi-paternalistic mind works but when I get rotten eggs from a supermarket, the last question that comes to my mind is: "Which came first the chicken or the egg?"
Mr. Crook:
I read your piece on the US, Georgia, and Iraq question. I found it ironic that your balanced analysis, challenged my thoughts on the matter better than any of the extreme and contrary opinions I have yet read.
Thank you.
Agree --
Dalrymple is really a public treasure. His "stuff" reminds me that what appears to be a non-judgmental charity toward what used to be called "the lower orders" and their "choices" actually disguises a kind of contempt:
You will notice, that the people who decline to judge their bad behavior are the very first to form charter schools, succeed from cities with large indigent populations and basically, to leave them in the lurch.
Agree --
Dalrymple is really a public treasure. His "stuff" reminds me that what appears to be a non-judgmental charity toward what used to be called "the lower orders" and their "choices" actually disguises a kind of contempt:
You will notice, that the people who decline to judge their bad behavior are the very first to form charter schools, succeed from cities with large indigent populations and basically, to leave them in the lurch.
i actually get a kick out of theodore dalrymple; dyspepsia of that order is an art form.
i get no kick out of generalizing by anecdote, romanticizing the educational system of the past, claims that teacher's unions exist as a vehicle to oppress children, and bilge about the democratic party being the handmaiden of said teacher's unions.
people keep saying that clive crook is a sharp guy, and he does have a gift for a well-turned phrase, but his idea of useful inputs is, at best, 50-50, and often less than that.
PS. JudgeClovis, you have some actual data? or do you too generalize by anecdote? hate to burst your bubble, but quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about in your second graf.
Howard:
I personally agree that the Democratic Party is the handmaiden of the teacher's union. However, none of the authors, you falsely indict, made such an assertion.
Stop using the Straw Man fallacy, in where you retort an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.
l.delvalle@yahoo.com, let's go the tape, shall we?
our host cites george will approvingly. george will wrote: "Other opponents are the teachers unions and their handmaiden, the Democratic Party."
i then noted that i actually like dalrymple for the greatness of his dyspepsia, but that clive's choice of inputs is 50-50 at best, clearly (at least in my mind) signalling that george will is a shoddy choice of input.
so what straw man where am i creating?
Dalrymple is entertaining but his gloomy portrait of Britain is more than a little skewed. The UK is not in the throes of some terminal social crisis and remains a great place to live, in many ways superior to the US.
Theodore Dalrymple informs us that "The two poles of contemporary British child rearing are neglect and overindulgence." In Western culture, have religious family-orientation and survivalist cultural conditioning been replaced by neglect of long-term thinking and overindulgence of various appetites? According to the environmentalist Aldo Leopold,"Every form of education is also a form of indoctrination." Parents and public schools fail to educate, but corporations fill and perhaps create the educational vacuum. The multi-national corporations indoctrinate people to neglect long-term thinking and to overindulge appetites for branded products and services. Corporations and governments collude together for money and power. Pop culture and advertising slogans might be the ultimate weapons of mass self-destruction.
My experience is that people who rail on about 'multi-national corporations' don't have jobs in big companies. If they did, they'd see that even the best are nattering bureaucracies that get things done only by having a few very skilled people thrown into the right positions.
The multi-nationals pretend to be powerful by putting out slick ads but muddle along building microcircuits and refining oil by leaning on the talents of overworked techies.