Debunking the myth of the innocent child.

I get the impression that among conservatives, there seems to be some sort of obsession with the "innocent child". Everywhere you look, there are conserverative groups that are "concerned about the children","protective of the innocent unborn" or "little baby jesus cries" types. I feel that it may be necessary to adress this issue at the core and add some science and reason to it.

From my knowledge, there have been several studies that have shown that children are by no means "innocent". Not only is there the classical Freudian stuff, that basically says that humans go through all sorts of "perverted" stages in their development, but I have also read some more recent remarks about how children are generally much closer to the "homo economicus", the selfish human who reasons only in terms of his own benefit, than adults.

Recent studies seem to show that selfless and social behaviour are an aquired skill that develops through interaction and education. This would suggest that children, humans in their early stage of development, are more "beastlike", closer to our primate relatives in nature. I think this is something that needs to be adressed more often when dealing with conservatives, since it seems to hit them in the core or their worldview. Not only does it show that there is nothing angel or godlike about the "little baby jesus", it also is a good example of the fact that humans have animal origin.

Now I unfortunately don't have any weblinks on this. I would be happy if someone has some input. And also, do you agree with me that conservative have some weird views with regards to this?

on edit: added references
http://www.etr-associates.org/recapp/theories/AdolescentDevelopment/developmentalTheories.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies

Children aren't cardboard cutouts anymore than adults are. They're certainly sexual from an early age, but that doesn't mean that they're not innocent as well. And the complicated stew of nurture and nature is still a mystery.

childhood and what they think of as "innocence".

Your post seems to be a little too much in the opposite direction though. I used to teach Psychology, but I'd have to go look at some references now . . . your characterization of Freud thinking that children are "perverted" is way off base. He regarded them as being a-moral, not im-moral.

Regarding the development of the moral mind, I would like to suggest that you acquaint yourself with: 1. Jean Piaget on the stages of cognitive development and then 2. Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan on the parallel stages of moral reasoning.

I would think that anyone who has read Lord of the Flies
would agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies



Tesha

Of the Cosa Nostra as well as the Yakuza, are all under 7-years-old.

TlalocW

that said most children dislike clowns. Good judgement on their part.

come on...this is base hypocrisy.

:thumbsup:

:sarcasm:

Really, I think its about time that every gathering of "concerned of children" people gets picketed by people with signs reminding about iraqi children.

suggest..."

You said it, YOU cite it. Please.

I'm not saying you are wrong or right but this thread could get heated easily.

JUST CITE SOMETHING, and forgive my shouting. Thank you, I think.

but those are fundamental in development. They don't have healthy development if they don't test the boundaries.

Like you, I have no studies at hand to back that up, but I didn't claim that any "studies suggested" otherwise.

I'm just a mom, what do I know? :eyes:

On this, the RW (as well as most of humanity) has a good point--and you cite some really awful examples to prove your not-so-good point.

The perception of innocence in children is based on a child's vulnerability and powerlessness by dint of size, and its lack of responsibility by dint of ability to reason. Your statements seem to hold the child responsible for its lack of development.

Emphasis on "baby Jesus" sentimentalizes the anthropomorphic aspect of God made flesh to dwell among humans. Different kettle of fish.

Innocent as a character trait - I guess you can make a case that children can be as nasty and cynical as adults.

On the other hand innocent as opposed to guilty - Children aren't seen as being responsible for their actions.

I'm not sure what the point of this argument is.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

He doesn't "blame" Bush. Weird, especially in the context of this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2689437

rather than the leaders. Its a basic humanist thing.

So, an adult in a position of EXTRAORDINARY power is to be given "mercy" but a powerless child in the developmental stages isn't "innocent"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2689437

Excuse me, I need some fresh air...

It is something I learned from German history. In Germany people learn that "it was all Adolf Hitler's fault" is not a valid explanation. It is the collective reaction of the people who follow, that should be criticized first.

Isn't your "innocent child" concept pretty much the same as Locke's tabula-rasa theory? If so, does that mean that 'recent studies' have countered his idea to an absolute degree? If so, how?

Further, I think that while the greedy adults, the "homo economicus" types, almost always favor Republican candidates, our mature liberal nature instinct is to give these people a pass, probably because they remind us of children who we should treat with tender loving care. If we were more objective, realizing that these folks are 'adults' just 'behaving' like children, our reaction would be more effective in promoting a progressive agenda.

The only problem with your post, come to think of it, is I rarely hear Republicans say that they are thinking of the children. That is more of a liberal concept. They care about fetuses, certainly, but not children.

And it's what prompts many Fundies to beat the living shit out of their children.

And you're right; Children are not "innocent" .. they are Innocent, full stop, without the scare-quotes.

or you would get why they are "innocent". Even their animalistic drives and Id are innocent. And as they age, bullying and mean spiritedness are often more a reflection of their home environment than some sort of intrinsic "problem".

in a weird way.

Recent studies seem to show that selfless and social behaviour are an aquired skill that develops through interaction and education. This would suggest that children, humans in their early stage of development, are more "beastlike", closer to our primate relatives in nature.

It doesn't suggest anything of the kind, actually. If it did, beastlike doesn't correlate with non-innocent, and yes, you had better define what "innocent" means in the context of this piece.

Like someone else said, you don't have children.

:crazy: