|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Thursday, 12 August 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Who would dare stand in judgement over "deviants"?
Children it is observed are easy targets of varied adult frustration. In the two main areas of socialization - namely home and school - child abuse takes on numerous forms. Parents and the rest little realize that even a harsh word could be emotional harassment. In foreign climes, laws protecting children - not necessarily indigenous citizenry, are strictly enforced. I recall how a one time Child Care and Probation Department chief cited an incident of a Sri Lankan couple's reprimand of their only child that invited the neighbour's concern whose tip off had the child welfare official at their doorstep. The couple was ordered to appear before similar institutional chief in that country. Even after the couple's return to Sri Lanka that foreign body kept monitoring the child's progress through its local Colombo based counterpart. All this apart, the home and school adult membership believe children should be taken to task for what they see as "not listening to what is being said." Children are thus dubbed "obstinate" or in native parlance, "murandu". This then is sequel to a socialization process that demands conformism resulting in personality stunting adding to whatever existing physical stunting as well. Adults view of themselves as "paragons of virtue" and "perfect role models" is highly questionable bona fide. While they themselves fall short of their "good behaviour" prescription, complete submission to adult demands is insisted upon, much to siblings' frustration. Now comes the question: who sets standards for whom and for what? Regardless of accepted deviance among the system's adult membership, the call for all that goes with "good behaviour" "manners" and "etiquette" knows no bounds. The numerous 'hellos' and "how are you?" - all part of worldwide socialization very often in adult years, end up only sweet whisperings come crisis of a fellow human. Sociologist Erwin Goffman was right when he described man's front and back stages. To be borne in mind is that it is the same man/woman who in adult life contravenes drilled childhood niceties for personal gain. How then could an adult find role sanctity to reprimand the young? A school principal insisted in him not being worshipped. "I am not worthy of worship," he said reminding on lookers of his own frailty as a human. Not surprising then why he prevailed upon staff members the cane off all children policy, however "incorrigible" - for he believed more in mind - handling instead. Social acting - invariably the end result of socialization later sheds the "correction" of childhood years. The purity of childhood innocence is slaughtered in the system's abattoir. Human relationship is only as far as goal attainment goes. Who then is suited to correct whom? |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
Of recent happening was a nerve wracking story of a school teacher
whose reprimand led a little girl to suicide.
