File: secJ6.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 14.0-3
links: PTS, VCS
area: main
in suites: jessie, jessie-kfreebsd
size: 12,256 kB
ctags: 618
sloc: makefile: 12
file content (1168 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 73,431 bytes
<html>

<head>

<title>
J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate? 
</title>

</head>

<body>


<h1>J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate? </h1>

<p>
Anarchists have long been aware of the importance of child rearing and
education. We are aware that child rearing should aim to develop
<i>"a well-rounded individuality"</i> and not <i>"a patient work slave, 
professional automaton, tax-paying citizen, or righteous moralist."</i> 
In this section of the FAQ we will discuss anarchist approaches to child 
rearing bearing in mind <i>"that it is through the channel of the child 
that the development of the mature man [or woman] must go, and that the 
present ideas of . . . educating or training . . . are such as to stifle 
the natural growth of the child."</i> [Emma Goldman, <b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, 
p. 131 and p. 130]
</p><p>
If one accepts the thesis that the authoritarian family is the breeding
ground for both individual psychological problems and political reaction, 
it follows that anarchists should try to develop ways of raising children 
that will not psychologically cripple them but instead enable them to 
accept freedom and responsibility while developing natural self-regulation. 
We will refer to children raised in such a way as <b><i>"free children."</i></b>
</p><p>
Work in this field is still in its infancy (no pun intended). Wilhelm
Reich was the main pioneer in this field (an excellent, short introduction 
to his ideas can be found in Maurice Brinton's <b>The Irrational in Politics</b>). 
In <b>Children of the Future</b>, Reich made numerous suggestions, based on 
his research and clinical experience, for parents, psychologists, and educators 
striving to develop libertarian methods of child rearing (although he did not 
use the term "libertarian"). 
</p><p>
In this and the following sections we will summarise Reich's main ideas 
as well as those of other libertarian psychologists and educators who 
have been influenced by him, such as A.S. Neill and Alexander Lowen. We 
will examine the theoretical principles involved in raising free children
and will illustrate their practical application with concrete examples. 
Finally, we will examine the anarchist approach to the problems of adolescence. 
</p><p>
Such an approach to child rearing is based upon the insight that children
<i>"do not constitute anyone's property: they are neither the property of
the parents nor even of society. They belong only to their own future
freedom."</i> [Michael Bakunin, <b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, 
p. 327] As such, what happens to a child when they are growing up <b>shapes</b> 
the person they become and the society they live in. The key question for 
people interested in freedom is whether <i>"the child [is] to be considered 
as an individuality, or as an object to be moulded according to the whims 
and fancies of those about it?"</i> [Emma Goldman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 130] 
Libertarian child rearing is the means by which the individuality of the 
child is respected and developed. 
</p><p>
This is in stark contrast to standard capitalist claim that children 
are the <b>property</b> of their parents. If we accept that children 
<b>are</b> the property of their parents then we are implicitly stating 
that a child's formative years are spent in slavery, hardly a relationship 
which will promote the individuality and freedom of the child or the 
wider society. Little wonder that most anarchists reject such assertions. 
Instead we argue that the <i>"rights of the parents shall be confined 
to loving their children and exercising over them . . . authority [that] 
does not run counter to their morality, their mental development, or their 
future freedom."</i> Being someone's property (i.e. slave) runs counter to 
all these and <i>"it follows that society, the whole future of which 
depends upon adequate education and upbringing of children . . . has not 
only the right but also the duty to watch over them."</i> Hence child 
rearing should be <b>part</b> of society, a communal process by which 
children learn what it means to be an individual by being respected as 
one by others: <i>"real freedom -- that is, the full awareness and the 
realisation thereof in every individual, pre-eminently based upon a 
feeling of one's dignity and upon the genuine respect for someone else's 
freedom and dignity, i.e. upon justice -- such freedom can develop in 
children only through the rational development of their minds, character 
and will."</i> [Bakunin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 327] 
</p><p>
We wish to re-iterate again that a great deal of work remains to
be done in this field. Therefore our comments should be regarded merely
as tentative bases for further reflection and research by those involved
with raising and educating children. There is, and cannot be, any "rule
book" for raising free children, because to follow an inflexible 
rule book is to ignore the fact that each child and their environment is 
unique and therefore demands unique responses from their parents. Hence the
principles of libertarian child rearing to which we will refer should
not be thought of as rules, but rather, as experimental hypotheses to be
tested by parents within their own situation by applying their intelligence 
and deriving their own individual conclusions. 
</p><p>
Bringing up children must be like education, and based on similar principles,
namely <i>"upon the free growth and development of the innate forces and
tendencies of the child. In this way alone can we hope for the free individual 
and eventually also for a free community, which shall make interference and 
coercion of human growth impossible."</i> [Goldman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 139] 
Indeed, child rearing and education <b>cannot</b> be separated as life itself 
is an education and so must share the same principles and be viewed as a 
process of <i>"development and exploration, rather than as one of repressing 
a child's instincts and inculcating obedience and discipline."</i> [Martha A. 
Ackelsberg, <b>Free Women of Spain</b>, p. 166]
</p><p>
Moreover, the role of parental example is very important to raising 
free children. Children often learn by mimicking their parents -- children 
do what their parents do, not as they say. If their mother and father lie 
to each other, scream, fight and so on, then the child will probably do 
so as well. Children's behaviour does not come out thin air, they are a 
product of the environment they are brought up in. Children can only be 
encouraged by example, not by threats and commands. So how parents act 
can be an obstacle to the development of a free child. Parents must do 
more than just <b>say</b> the right things, but also act as anarchists 
in order to produce free children.
</p><p>
The sad fact is that most modern people have lost the ability to raise 
free children, and regaining this ability will be a long process of trial 
and error as well as <b>parent</b> education in which it is to be hoped 
that each succeeding generation will learn from the failures and successes 
of their predecessors and so improve. In the best-case scenario, over the 
course of a few generations the number of progressive parents will continue 
to grow and raise ever freer children, who in turn will become even more 
progressive parents themselves, thus gradually changing mass psychology 
in a libertarian direction. Such changes <b>can</b> come about very fast, 
as can be seen from various communes all over the world where society is 
organised according to libertarian principles. As Reich put it: 
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"We have learned that instead of a jump into the realm of the Children of
the Future, we can hope for no more than a steady advance, in which the
healthy new overlaps the sick old structure, with the new slowly
outgrowing the old."</i> [<b>Children of the Future</b>, pp. 38-39]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
By means of freedom-based child rearing and education, along with other
methods of consciousness raising, as well as encouraging resistance to
the existing social order anarchists hope to prepare the psychological 
foundation for a social paradigm shift, from authoritarian to libertarian 
institutions and values. And indeed, a gradual cultural evolution toward 
increasing freedom does seem to exist. For example, as A.S. Neill 
suggested there is <i>"a slow trend to freedom, sexual and otherwise. 
In my boyhood, a woman went bathing wearing stockings and a long dress. 
Today, women show legs and bodies. Children are getting more freedom 
with every generation. Today, only a few lunatics put cayenne pepper on 
a baby's thumb to stop sucking. Today, only a few countries beat their 
children in school."</i> [<b>Summerhill</b>, p. 115]
</p><p>
Most anarchists believe that we must practice what we preach and so 
the anarchist revolution begins at home. As anarchists raise their 
own children in capitalist society and/or are involved in the raising 
and education of the children of other parents, we can practice in 
part libertarian principles even before the revolution. As such, we 
think it is important to discuss libertarian child rearing. 
</p>

<a name="secj61"><h2>J.6.1 What are the main obstacles to raising free children?</h2></a>

<p>
The biggest obstacle is the training and character of most parents, 
physicians, and educators. Individuals within a hierarchical 
society create psychological walls/defences around themselves and 
these will obviously have an effect both on the mental and physical state 
of the individual and so their capacity for living a free life and experiencing 
pleasure. Such parents then try (often unconsciously) to stifle the
life-energy in children. There are, for example, the child's natural
vocal expressions (shouting, screaming, bellowing, crying, etc.) and
natural body motility. As Reich noted: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Small children go through a phase of development characterised by
vigorous activity of the voice musculature. The joy the infant derives
from loud noises (crying, shrieking, and forming a variety of sounds) is
regarded by many parents as pathological aggressiveness. The children are
accordingly admonished not to scream, to be 'still,' etc. The impulses of
the voice apparatus are inhibited, its musculature becomes chronically
contracted, and the child becomes quiet, 'well-brought-up,' and
withdrawn. The effect of such mistreatment is soon manifested in eating
disturbances, general apathy, pallor of the face, etc. Speech
disturbances and retardation of speech development are presumably caused
in this manner. In the adult we see the effects of such mistreatment in
the form of spasms of the throat. The automatic constrictions of the
glottis and the deep throat musculature, with subsequent inhibition of the
aggressive impulses of the head and neck, seems to be particularly
characteristic."</i> [<b>Children of the Future</b>, p. 128]
</blockquote></p><p>
<i>"Clinical experience has taught us,"</i> Reich concluded, <i>"that small 
children must be allowed to 'shout themselves out' when the shouting is 
inspired by pleasure. This might be disagreeable to some parents, but 
questions of education must be decided <b>exclusively in the interests of 
the child,</b> not in those of the adults."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 128] 
</p><p>
Besides deadening life energy in the body, such stifling also inhibits the 
anxiety generated by the presence of anti-social, cruel, and perverse impulses 
within the psyche -- for example, destructiveness, sadism, greed, power hunger, 
brutality, etc. (impulses referred to by Reich as <i>"secondary"</i> drives). 
In other words, this reduces our ability to empathise with others and so the
internal ethical guidelines we all develop are blunted, making us more likely
tp express such secondary, anti-social, drives. So, ironically, these secondary 
drives result from the <b>suppression of the primary drives</b> and the 
sensations of pleasure associated with them. These secondary drives develop
because the only emotional expressions that can get through a person's 
defences are distorted, harsh, and/or mechanical. In other words, compulsive 
morality (i.e. acting according to externally imposed rules) becomes necessary 
to control the secondary drives <b>which compulsion itself creates.</b> By 
such processes, authoritarian child-rearing becomes self-justifying: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Psychoanalysts have failed to distinguish between primary natural and
secondary perverse, cruel drives, and they are continuously killing nature
in the new-born while they try to extinguish the 'brutish little animal.' 
They are completely ignorant of the fact that it is <b>exactly this killing
of the natural principle which creates the secondary perverse and cruel
nature,</b> human nature so called, and that these artificial cultural
creations in turn make compulsive moralism and brutal laws necessary."</i>
[Reich, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 17-18]
</blockquote></p><p>
Moralism, however, can never get at the root of the problem of secondary
drives, but in fact only increases the pressure of crime and guilt. The
real solution is to let children develop what Reich calls <b>natural
self-regulation.</b> This can be done only by not subjecting them to
punishment, coercion, threats, moralistic lectures and admonitions,
withdrawal of love, etc. in an attempt to inhibit their spontaneous
expression of natural life-impulses. The systematic development of the
emphatic tendencies of the young infant is the best way to "socialise"
and restrict activities that are harmful to the others. As A.S. Neill 
pointed out <i>"self-regulation implies a belief in the goodness of human 
nature; a belief that there is not, and never was, original sin."</i> 
[<b>Summerhill</b>, p. 103]
</p><p>
According to Neill, children who are given freedom from birth and not
forced to conform to parental expectations spontaneously learn how to keep
themselves clean and develop social qualities like courtesy, common
sense, an interest in learning, respect for the rights of others, and so
forth. However, once the child has been armoured through authoritarian 
methods intended to <b>force</b> it to develop such qualities, it becomes 
out of touch with its living core and therefore no longer able to develop 
self-regulation. In this stage it becomes harder and harder for the 
pro-social emotions to shape the developing mode of life of the new member 
of society. At that point, when the secondary drives develop, parental 
authoritarianism becomes a <b>necessity.</b>
</p><p>
This oppression produces an inability to tolerate freedom. The vast majority 
of people develop this <b>automatically</b> from the way they are raised and 
is what makes the whole subject of bringing up children of crucial importance 
to anarchists. Reich concluded that if parents do not suppress nature in 
the first place, then no anti-social drives will be created and no
authoritarianism will be required to suppress them: <i>"<b>What you so
desperately and vainly try to achieve by way of compulsion and admonition
is there in the new-born infant ready to live and function. Let it grow as
nature requires, and change our institutions accordingly</b>."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 47] So in order to raise psychologically healthy 
children, parents need to acquire self-knowledge, particularly of how 
internal conflicts develop in family relationships, and to free themselves 
as much as possible from neurotic forms of behaviour. The difficulty of 
parents acquiring such self-knowledge and sufficiently de-conditioning 
themselves is obviously another obstacle to raising self-regulated children.
</p><p>
However, the greatest obstacle is the fact that twisting mechanisms set in 
so very early in life, i.e. soon after birth. Hence it is important for 
parents to obtain a thorough knowledge of what rigid suppressions are and 
how they function, so that from the beginning they can prevent (or at least 
decrease) them from forming in their children. Finally, Reich cautioned that 
it is crucial to avoid any mixing of concepts: <i>"One cannot mix a bit of 
self-regulation with a bit of moral demand. Either we trust nature as 
basically decent and self-regulatory or we do not, and then there is only 
one way, that of training by compulsion. It is essential to grasp the fact 
that the two ways of upbringing do not go together."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 46]
</p>

<a name="secj62"><h2>J.6.2. What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods?</h2></a>

<p>
According to Reich, the problems of parenting a free child actually begin 
before conception, with the need for a prospective mother to free herself 
as much as possible from chronic muscular tensions. It has been found in 
many studies that not only the physical health of the mother can influence 
the foetus. Various psychological stresses influence the chemical and 
hormonal environment, affecting the foetus. 
</p><p>
Immediately after birth it is important for the mother to establish
contact with her child. This means, basically, constant loving 
attention to the baby, expressed by plenty of holding, cuddling,
playing, etc., and especially by breast feeding. By such <i>"orgonotic"</i>
contact (to use Reich's term), the mother is able to establish the
initial emotional bonding with the new born, and a non-verbal 
understanding of the child's needs. This is only possible, however, 
if she is in touch with her own emotional and cognitive internal 
processes: <i>"<b>Orgonotic contact is the most essential 
experiential and emotional element in the interrelationship between 
mother and child,</b> particularly prenatally and during the first
days and weeks of life. The future fate of the child depends on it. It
seems to be the core of the new-born infant's emotional development."</i> 
[<b>Children of the Future</b>, p. 99] It is important for the father to
establish orgonotic contact as well.  
</p><p>
Reich amaintained that the practice of bottle feeding is harmful, 
particularly if it completely replaces breast feeding from the day 
of birth, because it eliminates one of the most important forms of 
establishing physical and emotional contact between mother and child. 
This lack of contact can then contribute in later life to <i>"oral"</i> 
forms of neurotic character structure or traits (see Chapter 9 of 
Alexander Lowen's <b>Physical Dynamics of Character Structure</b>). 
Another harmful practice in infant care is the compulsive-neurotic method
of feeding children on schedule, invented by Pirquet in Vienna, which was
devastatingly wrong and harmful to countless children. Frustration of
oral needs through this practice (which is fortunately less in vogue now
than it was fifty years ago), is guaranteed to produce neurotic armouring
in infants. As Reich put it: <i>"As long as parents, doctors, and educators 
approach infants with false, unbending behaviour, inflexible opinions,
condescension, and officiousness, instead of with orgonotic contact,
infants will continue to be quiet, withdrawn, apathetic, 'autistic,'
'peculiar,' and, later, 'little wild animals,' whom the cultivated feel
they have to 'tame.'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b> p. 124]
</p><p>
Another harmful practice is allowing the baby to "cry itself out." Thus: 
<i>"Parking a baby in a baby carriage in the garden, perhaps for hours at a
time, is a dangerous practice. No one can know what agonising feelings of
fear and loneliness a baby can experience on waking up suddenly to find
himself alone in a strange place. Those who have heard a baby's screams
on such occasions have some idea of the cruelty of this stupid custom."</i> 
[Neill, <b>Summerhill</b>, p. 336] Indeed, in <b>The Physical Dynamics of
Character Structure</b>, Alexander Lowen has traced specific neuroses, 
particularly depression, to this practice. Hospitals also have been guilty 
of psychologically damaging sick infants by isolating them from their 
mothers, a practice that has undoubtedly produced untold numbers of 
neurotics and psychopaths. 
</p><p>
Neill summed up the libertarian attitude toward the care of infants as
follows: <i>"<b>Self-regulation means the right of a baby to live freely
without outside authority in things psychic and somatic</b>. It means that
the baby feeds when it is hungry; that it becomes clean in habits only
when it wants to; that it is never stormed at nor spanked; that it is
always loved and protected."</i> Obviously self-regulation does not 
mean leaving the baby alone when it heads toward a cliff or starts 
playing with an electrical socket. Libertarians do not advocate 
a lack of common sense. We recognise that adults must override 
an infant's will when it is a question of protecting their 
physical safety: <i>"Only a fool in charge of young children would 
allow unbarred bedroom windows or an unprotected fire in the nursery. 
Yet, too often, young enthusiasts for self-regulation come to my school 
as visitors, and exclaim at our lack of freedom in locking poison in a 
lab closet, or our prohibition about playing on the fire escape. The 
whole freedom movement is marred and despised because so many advocates 
of freedom have not got their feet on the ground."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 105 and p. 106]
</p><p>
Nevertheless, the libertarian position does not imply that a child should
be <b>punished</b> for getting into a dangerous situation. Nor is the best 
thing to do in such a case to shout in alarm (unless that is the only way 
to warn the child before it is too late), but simply to remove the danger 
without any fuss: <i>"Unless a child is mentally defective, he will soon 
discover what interests him. Left free from excited cries and angry voices, 
he will be unbelievably sensible in his dealing with material of all 
kinds."</i> [Neil, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 108] Provided, of course, that he 
or she has been allowed self-regulation from the beginning, and thus has 
not developed any irrational, secondary drives. 
</p><p>
The way to raise a free child becomes clear when one considers how
an <b>un</b>free child is raised. Thus imagine the typical infant 
whose upbringing A.S. Neill described: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"His natural functions were left alone during the diaper period. But when
he began to crawl and perform on the floor, words like <b>naughty</b> and
<b>dirty</b> began to float about the house, and a grim beginning was made in
teaching him to be clean.</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"Before this, his hand had been taken away every time it touched his
genitals; and he soon came to associate the genital prohibition with the
acquired disgust about faeces. Thus, years later, when he became a
travelling salesman, his story repertoire consisted of a balanced number of
sex and toilet jokes.</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"Much of his training was conditioned by relatives and neighbours. 
Mother and father were most anxious to be correct -- to do the proper
thing -- so that when relatives or next-door neighbours came, John had to
show himself as a well-trained child. He had to say <b>Thank you</b> when
Auntie gave him a piece of chocolate; and he had to be most careful about
his table manners; and especially, he had to refrain from speaking when
adults were speaking . . . </i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>"All his
curiosity about the origins of life were met with clumsy lies, lies so
effective that his curiosity about life and birth disappeared. The lies
about life became combined with fears when at the age of five his mother
found him having genital play with his sister of four and the girl next
door. The severe spanking that followed (Father added to it when he came
home from work) forever conveyed to John the lesson that sex is filthy and
sinful, something one must not even think of."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 96-7]</blockquote>
</p><p>
Of course, parents' ways of imparting negative messages about sex are not
necessarily this severe, especially in our allegedly enlightened age. 
However, it is not necessary for a child to be spanked or even scolded or
lectured in order to acquire a sex-negative attitude. Children are very
intuitive and will receive the message "sex is bad" from subtle parental
cues like facial expressions, tone of voice, embarrassed silence,
avoidance of certain topics, etc. Mere "toleration" of sexual curiosity
and play is far different in its psychological effects from positive
affirmation. 
</p><p>
Along the same lines, to prevent the formation of sex-negative attitudes
means that nakedness should never be discouraged: <i>"The baby should see
its parents naked from the beginning. However, the child should be told
when he is ready to understand that some people don't like to see children
naked and that, in the presence of such people, he should wear clothes."</i> 
Neill maintains that not only should parents never spank or punish a child
for genital play, but that spanking and other forms of punishment should
never be used in <b>any</b> circumstances, because they instil fear, turning
children into cowards and often leading to phobias. <i>"Fear must be
entirely eliminated -- fear of adults, fear of punishment, fear of
disapproval, fear of God. Only hate can flourish in an atmosphere of
fear."</i> Punishment also turns children into sadists: <i>"The cruelty of 
many children springs from the cruelty that has been practised on them by
adults. You cannot be beaten without wishing to beat someone else."</i>
(<i>"Every beating makes a child sadistic in desire or practice."</i> [Neil 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 229, p. 124, p. 269 and p. 271] This is obviously an 
important consideration to anarchists, as sadistic drives provide the 
psychological ground for militarism, war, police brutality, and so on. 
Such drives are undoubtedly also part of the desire to exercise hierarchical 
authority, with its possibilities for using negative sanctions against 
subordinates as an outlet for sadistic impulses. 
</p><p>
Child beating is particularly cowardly because it is a way for adults to
vent their hatred, frustration, and sadism on those who are unable to
defend themselves. Such cruelty is, of course, always rationalised with
excuse like "it hurts me more than it does you," etc., or explained in
moral terms, like "I don't want my boy to be soft" or "I want him to
prepare him for a harsh world" or "I spank my children because my parents
spanked me, and it did me a hell of a lot of good." But despite such
rationalisations, the fact remains that punishment is always an act of
hate. To this hate the child responds in kind by hating the parents,
followed by fantasy, guilt, and repression. For example, the child may 
fantasise the father's death, which immediately causes guilt, and so is
repressed. Often the hatred induced by punishment emerges in fantasies
that are seemingly remote from the parents, such as stories of giant
killing -- always popular with children because the giant represents
the father. Obviously, the sense of guilt produced by such fantasies is 
very advantageous to organised religions that promise redemption from "sin." 
It is surely no coincidence that such religions are enthusiastic promoters
of the sex-negative morality and disciplinarian child rearing practices
that keep supplying them with recruits.
</p><p>
What is worse, however, is that punishment actually <b>creates</b> "problem
children." This is so because the parent arouses more and more hatred 
(and diminishing trust in other human beings) in the child with each 
spanking, which is expressed in still worse behaviour, calling for more 
spankings, and so on, in a vicious circle. In contrast, the <i>"self-regulated 
child does not need any punishment,"</i> Neill argued, <i>"and he does not 
go through this hate cycle. He is never punished and he does not need to 
behave badly. He has no use for lying and for breaking things. His body 
has never been called filthy or wicked. He has not needed to rebel against 
authority or to fear his parents. Tantrums he will usually have, but they 
will be short-lived and not tend toward neurosis."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 166]
</p><p>
We could cite many further examples of how libertarian principles of
child-rearing can be applied in practice, but we must limit ourselves to
these few. The basic principles can be summed up as follows: Get rid of
authority, moralising, and the desire to "improve" and "civilise" children. 
Allow them to be themselves, without pushing them around, bribing,
threatening, admonishing, lecturing, or otherwise forcing them to do
anything. Refrain from action unless the child, by expressing their
"freedom" restricts the freedom of others and <b>explain</b> what is wrong
about such actions and never mechanically punish.
</p><p>
This is, of course, a radical philosophy, which few parents are willing to
follow. It is quite amazing how people who call themselves libertarians
in political and economic matters draw the line when it comes to their
behaviour within the family -- as if such behaviour had no wider social
consequences! 
</p>

<a name="secj63"><h2>J.6.3 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be good? </h2></a>

<p>
Obedience that is based on fear of punishment, this-worldly or
other-worldly, is not really goodness, it is merely cowardice. True
morality (i.e. respect for others and one-self) comes from inner 
conviction based on experience, it cannot be imposed from without 
by fear. Nor can it be inspired by hope of reward, such as praise or 
the promise of heaven, which is simply bribery. If children are given 
as much freedom as possible from the day of birth, if parents respect 
them as individuals and give a positive example as well as not 
being forced to conform to parental expectations, they will 
spontaneously learn the basic principles of social behaviour, such 
as cleanliness, courtesy, and so forth. But they must be allowed to 
develop them <b>at their own speed,</b> at the natural stage of their 
growth, not when parents think they should develop them. What is 
"natural" timing must be discovered by observation, not by defining 
it a priori based on one's own expectations.
</p><p>
Can a child really be taught to keep themselves clean without being punished
for getting dirty? According to many psychologists, it is not only
possible but <b>vitally important</b> for the child's mental health to do so,
since punishment will give the child a fixed and repressed interest in their
bodily functions. As Reich and Lowen have shown various forms of compulsive 
and obsessive neuroses can be traced back to the punishments used in toilet 
training. As Neill observed: <i>"When the mother says <b>naughty</b> or <b>dirty</b> 
or even <b>tut tut</b>, the element of right and wrong arises. The question 
becomes a <b>moral</b> one -- when it should remain a <b>physical</b> one."</i> 
He suggested that the <b>wrong</b> way to deal with a child who likes to play 
with faeces is to tell him he is being dirty. The right way <i>"is to allow 
him to live out his interest in excrement by providing him with mud or clay. 
In this way, he will sublimate his interest without repression. He will live 
through his interest; and in doing so, kill it."</i> [<b>Summerhill</b>, p. 174]
</p><p>
Similarly, sceptics will probably question how children can be induced to
eat a healthy diet without threats of punishment. The answer can be
discovered by a simple experiment: set out on the table all kinds of
foods, from sweets and ice cream to whole wheat bread, lettuce, sprouts,
and so on, and allow the child complete freedom to choose what is desired
or to eat nothing at all if he or she is not hungry. Parents will find
that the average child will begin choosing a balanced diet after about 
a week, after the desire for prohibited or restricted foods has been
satisfied. This is an example of what can be called "trusting nature." 
That the question of how to "train" a child to eat properly should even be
an issue says volumes about how little the concept of freedom for children
is accepted or even understood, in our society. Unfortunately, the
concept of "training" still holds the field in this and most other areas. 
</p><p>
The disciplinarian argument that that children must be <b>forced</b> to respect
possessions is also defective, because it always requires some sacrifice of
a child's play life (and childhood should be devoted to play, not to
"preparing for adulthood," because playing is what children spontaneously 
do). The libertarian view is that a child should arrive at a sense of 
value out of his or her own free choice. This means not scolding or 
punishing them for breaking or damaging things. As they grow out of
the stage of preadolescent indifference to possessions, they learn to 
respect it naturally. 
</p><p>
"But shouldn't a child at least be punished for stealing?" it will be
asked. Once again, the answer lies in the idea of trusting nature. The
concept of "mine" and "yours" is adult, and children naturally develop it
as they become mature, but not before. This means that normal children
will "steal" -- though that is not how they regard it. They are simply
trying to satisfy their acquisitive impulses; or, if they are with friends,
their desire for adventure. In a society so thoroughly steeping in the
idea of respect for property as ours, it is no doubt difficult for parents
to resist societal pressure to punish children for "stealing." The reward
for such trust, however, will be a child who grows into a healthy
adolescent who respects the possessions of others, not out of a cowardly
fear of punishment but from his or her own self-nature. 
</p><p>
Most parents believe that, besides taking care of their child's physical
needs, the teaching of ethical/moral values is their main responsibility 
and that without such teaching the child will grow up to be a "little wild 
animal" who acts on every whim, with no consideration for others. This idea
arises mainly from the fact that most people in our society believe, at
least passively, that human beings are naturally bad and that unless they
are "trained" to be good they will be lazy, mean, violent, or even
murderous. This, of course, is essentially the idea of "original sin" and
because of its widespread acceptance, nearly all adults believe that it is
their job to "improve" children. Yet according to libertarian psychologists 
there is no original sin. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that 
there is "original virtue." Wilhelm Reich found that externally imposed, 
compulsive morality actually <b>causes</b> immoral behaviour by creating 
cruel and perverse <i>"secondary drives."</i> Neill put it this way: <i>"I 
find that when I smash the moral instruction a bad boy has received, he 
becomes a good boy."</i> [<bOp. Cit.</b>, p. 250] 
</p><p>
Unconscious acceptance of some form of the idea of original sin is the 
main recruiting tool of organised religions, as people who believe they 
are born "sinners" feel a strong sense of guilt and need for redemption. 
Parents to should eliminate any need for redemption, by telling the child 
that he is born good, not born bad. This will help keep them from 
falling under the influence of life-denying religions, which are inimical 
to the growth of a healthy character structure. Citing ethnological 
studies, Reich argued the following: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Among those primitive peoples who lead satisfactory, unimpaired sexual
lives, there is no sexual crime, no sexual perversion, no sexual brutality
between man and woman; rape is unthinkable because it is unnecessary in
their society. Their sexual activity flows in normal, well-ordered channels 
which would fill any cleric with indignation and fear . . . They love the 
human body and take pleasure in their sexuality. They do not understand why 
young men and women should not enjoy their sexuality. But when their lives 
are invaded by the ascetic, hypocritical morass and by the Church, which 
bring them 'culture' along with exploitation, alcohol, and syphilis, they 
begin to suffer the same wretchedness as ourselves. They begin to lead 
'moral' lives, i.e. to suppress their sexuality, and from then on they 
decline more and more into a state of sexual distress, which is the result 
of sexual suppression. At the same time, they become sexually dangerous;
murders of spouses, sexual diseases, and crimes of all sorts start to 
appear."</i> [<b>Children of the Future</b>, p. 193] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Such crimes in our society would be greatly reduced if libertarian child
rearing practices were widely followed. These are obviously important
considerations for anarchists, who are frequently asked to explain how
crime can be prevented in an anarchist society. The answer is that if
people are not suppressed during childhood there will be far less 
anti-social behaviour, because the secondary-drive structure that leads to 
it will not be created in the first place. In other words, the
solution to the so-called crime problem is not more police, more laws, or a
return to the disciplinarianism of "traditional family values," as
conservatives claim, but depends mainly on <b>getting rid</b> of such 
values. 
</p><p>
There are other problems as well with the moralism taught by organised
religions. One danger is making the child a hater: <i>"If a child is taught
that certain things are sinful, his love of life must be changed to hate. 
When children are free, they never think of another child as being a
sinner."</i> [Neill, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 245] From the idea that certain people are
sinners, it is a short step to the idea that certain classes or races 
of people are more "sinful" than others, leading to prejudice,
discrimination, and persecution of minorities as an outlet for repressed
anger and sadistic drives -- drives that are created in the first place by
moralistic training during early childhood. Once again, the relevance 
for anarchism is obvious. 
</p><p>
A further danger of religious instruction is the development of a fear of
life: <i>"Religion to a child most always means only fear. God is a mighty
man with holes in his eyelids: He can see you wherever you are. To a child, 
this often means that God can see what is being done under the bedclothes. 
And to introduce fear into a child's life is the worst of all crimes. 
Forever the child says nay to life; forever he is an inferior; forever 
a coward."</i> [Neill, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 246] People who have been 
threatened with fear of an afterlife in hell can never be entirely free 
of neurotic anxiety about security in <b>this</b> life. In turn, such 
people become easy targets of ruling-class propaganda that plays upon 
their material and emotional insecurity, e.g. the rationalisation of 
imperialist wars, the Military-Industrial Complex, increased state powers,
and so on as necessary to "preserve jobs", for security against external
threats and so forth.
</p>

<a name="secj63"><h2>J.6.3 But how will a free child ever learn unselfishness?</h2></a>

<p>
Another common objection to self-regulation is that children can only be
taught to be <b>"unselfish"</b> through punishment and admonition. Again,
however, such a view comes from a distrust of nature and is part of the
common attitude that nature is mere "raw material" to be shaped by human 
beings according to their own wishes. The libertarian attitude is that
empathy for others develops at the proper time: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"To ask a child to be unselfish is wrong. Every child is an egoist and
the world belongs to him. When he has an apple, his one wish is to eat
that apple. The chief result of mother's encouraging him to share it with
his little brother is to make him hate the little brother. Altruism comes
later -- comes naturally -- <b>if the child is not taught to be unselfish.</b> 
It probably never comes at all if the child has been forced to be
unselfish. By suppressing the child's selfishness, the mother is fixing
that selfishness forever."</i> [Neill, <b>Summerhill</b>, pp. 250-251]
</blockquote></p><p>
Unfulfilled wishes live on in the unconscious so children who are 
pressured too hard -- "taught" -- to be unselfish will, while 
conforming outwardly with parental demands, unconsciously repress 
part of their real, selfish wishes, and these repressed infantile 
desires will make the person selfish (and possibly neurotic) 
throughout life. Moreover, telling children that what they want 
to do is "wrong" or "bad" is equivalent to teaching them to 
hate themselves, and it is a well-known principle of psychology that 
people who do not love themselves cannot love others. Thus moral 
instruction, although it aims to develop altruism and love for others, 
is actually self-defeating, having just the opposite result. Moreover, 
such attempts to produce "unselfish" children (and so adults) actually 
works <b>against</b> developing the individuality of the child and
they developing their own abilities (in particular their ability of 
critical thought). As Erich Fromm put it:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"Not to be selfish implies not to do what one wishes, to give up 
one's own wishes for the sake of those in authority . . . Aside from 
its obvious implication, it means 'don't love yourself,' 'don't be 
yourself', but submit yourself to something more important than 
yourself, to an outside power or its internalisation, 'duty.' 
'Don't be selfish' becomes one of the most powerful ideological 
tools in suppressing spontaneity and the free development of 
personality. Under the pressure of this slogan one is asked for 
every sacrifice and for complete submission: only those acts are 
'unselfish' which do not serve the individual but somebody or 
something outside himself."</i> [<b>Man for Himself</b>, p. 127]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
While such "unselfishness" is ideal for creating "model citizens" and
willing wage slaves, it is not conducive for creating anarchists or even 
developing individuality. Little wonder Bakunin celebrated the urge to 
rebel and saw it as the key to human progress! Fromm goes on to note that 
selfishness and self-love, <i>"far from being identical, are actually 
opposites"</i> and that <i>"selfish persons are incapable of loving others 
. . . [or] loving themselves."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 131] Individuals 
who do not love themselves, and so others, will be more willing to submit 
themselves to hierarchy than those who do love themselves and are concerned 
for their own, and others, welfare. Thus the contradictory nature of capitalism,
with its contradictory appeals to selfish and unselfish behaviour, can be
understood as being based upon lack of self-love, a lack which is promoted
in childhood and one which libertarians should be aware of and combat.
</p><p>
Indeed, much of the urge to "teach children unselfishness" is actually an
expression of adults' will to power. Whenever parents feel the urge to
impose directives on their children, they would be wise to ask themselves
whether the impulse comes from their own power drive or their own 
selfishness. For, since our culture strongly conditions us to seek power 
over others, what could be more convenient than having a small, weak 
person at hand who cannot resist one's will to power? Instead of issuing 
directives, libertarians believe in letting social behaviour develop 
naturally, which it will do after other people's opinions becomes 
important <b>to the child.</b> As Neill pointed out: 
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"Everyone seeks the good opinion of his neighbours. Unless other forces 
push him into unsocial behaviour, a child will naturally want to do that 
which will cause him to be well-regarded, but this desire to please others 
develops at a certain stage in his growth. The attempt by parents and 
teachers to artificially accelerate this stage does the child irreparable 
damage."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 256]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Therefore, parents should allow children to be "selfish" and "ungiving", 
free to follow their own childish interests throughout their childhood. 
Every interpersonal conflict of interest should be grounds for a lesson 
in dignity on one side and consideration on the other. Only by this process
can a child develop their individuality. By so doing they will come to 
recognise the individuality of others and this is the first step in 
developing ethical concepts (which rest upon mutual respect for others 
and their individuality).
</p>

<a name="secj64"><h2>J.6.4 Isn't "libertarian child-rearing" just another name for spoiling the child? </h2></a>

<p>
No. This objection confuses the distinction between freedom and license. 
To raise a child in freedom does not mean letting him or her walk all over
you or others; it does not mean never saying "no." It is true that free 
children are not subjected to punishment, irrational authority, or moralistic
admonitions, but they are not "free" to violate the rights of others. As
Neill put it: <i>"in the disciplined home, the children have <b>no</b> rights. 
In the spoiled home, they have <b>all</b> the rights. The proper home is one
in which children and adults have equal rights."</i> Or again: <i>"To let a
child have his own way, or do what he wants to <b>at another's expense,</b> is
bad for the child. It creates a spoiled child, and the spoiled child is a
bad citizen."</i> [<b>Summerhill</b>, p. 107 and 167]
</p><p>
There will inevitably be conflicts of will between parents and children,
and the healthy way to resolve them is discussion and coming to an 
agreement. The unhealthy ways are either to resort to authoritarian 
discipline or to spoil the child by allowing them to have all the 
social rights. Libertarian psychologists argue that no harm is done
to children by insisting on one's individual rights, but that the harm
comes from moralism, i.e. when one introduces the concepts of right and
wrong or words like "naughty," "bad," or "dirty," which produce guilt.
</p><p> 
Therefore it should not be thought that free children are free to "do as
they please." Freedom means doing what one likes so long as it does not
infringe on the freedom of others. Thus there is a big difference between
compelling a child to stop throwing stones at others and compelling him or
her to learn geometry. Throwing stones infringes on others' rights, but
learning geometry involves only the child. The same goes for forcing
children to eat with a fork instead of their fingers; to say "please" and
"thank you"; to tidy up their rooms, and so on. Bad manners and
untidiness may be annoying to adults, but they are not a violation of 
adults' rights. One could, of course, define an adult "right" to be free
of annoyance from <b>anything</b> one's child does, but this would simply
be a license for authoritarianism, emptying the concept of children's
rights of all content. 
</p><p>
As mentioned, giving children freedom does not mean allowing them to
endanger themselves physically. For example, a sick child should not 
be asked to decide whether he wants to go outdoors or take his 
prescribed medicine, nor a run-down and overtired child whether she 
wants to go to bed. But the imposition of such forms of necessary 
authority is compatible with the idea that children should be given as 
much responsibility as they can handle at their particular age. Only 
in this way can they develop self-assurance. And, again, it is important for
parents to examine their own motives when deciding how much responsibility
to give their child. Parents who insist on choosing their children's
clothes for them, for example, are generally worried that the child
might select clothes that would reflect badly on their parents' social
standing. 
</p><p>
As for those who equate "discipline" in the home with "obedience," the
latter is usually required of a child to satisfy the adults' desire for
power. Self-regulation means that there are no power games being played
with children, no loud voice saying "You'll do it because I say so, or
else!" But, although this irrational, power-seeking kind of authority is
absent in the libertarian home, there still remains what can be called a
kind of "authority," namely adult protection, care, and responsibility, as
well as the insistence on one's own rights. As Neill observed: <i>"Such
authority sometimes demands obedience but at other times gives obedience. 
Thus I can say to my daughter, 'You can't bring that mud and water into
our parlour.' That's no more than her saying to me, 'Get out of my room,
Daddy. I don't want you here now,' a wish that I, of course, obey without
a word."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 156]. So there will still be "discipline" 
in the libertarian home, but it will be of the kind that protects the
individual rights of each family member. 
</p><p>
Raising children in freedom also does not imply giving them a lot of toys,
money, and so on. Reich's followers have argued that children should not be 
given everything they ask for and that it is better to give them too little 
than too much. Under constant bombardment by commercial advertising campaigns,
parents today generally tend to give their children far too much, with the
result that the children stop appreciating gifts and rarely value any of
their possessions. This same applies to money, which, if given in excess,
can be detrimental to children's' creativity and play life. If children
are not given too many toys, they will derive creative joy out of making
their own toys out of whatever free materials are at hand -- a joy of
which they are robbed by overindulgence. Psychologists point out that
parents who give too many presents are often trying to compensate for
giving too little love. 
</p><p>
There is less danger in rewarding children than there is in punishing
them, but rewards can still undermine a child's morale. This is because,
firstly, rewards are superfluous and in fact often <b>decrease</b> motivation
and creativity, as several psychological studies have shown (see 
<a href="secI4.html#seci411">section I.4.11</a>). 
Creative people work for the pleasure of creating; monetary
interests are not central (or necessary) to the creative process. Secondly, 
rewards send the wrong message, namely, that doing the deed for which the 
reward is offered is not worth doing for its own sake and the pleasure 
associated with productive, creative activity. Thirdly, rewards 
tend to reinforce the worst aspects of the competitive system, leading to 
the attitude that money is the only thing which can motivate people to do 
the work that needs doing in society. 
</p><p>
These are just a few of the considerations that enter into the distinction
between spoiling children and raising them in freedom. In reality, it 
is the punishment and fear of a disciplinarian home that <b>spoils</b> 
children in the most literal sense, by destroying their childhood 
happiness and creating warped personalities. As adults, the victims of
disciplinarianism will generally be burdened with one or more anti-social
secondary drives such as sadism, destructive urges, greed, sexual
perversions, etc., as well as repressed rage and fear. The presence of
such impulses just below the surface of consciousness causes anxiety,
which is automatically defended against by psychological walls which 
leave the person stiff, frustrated, bitter and burdened with feelings 
of inner emptiness. In such a condition people easily fall victim to the 
capitalist gospel of super-consumption, which promises that money will 
enable them to fill the inner void by purchasing commodities -- a promise 
that, of course, is hollow. 
</p><p>
The neurotically enclosed person also tends to look for scapegoats on whom
to blame his or her frustration and anxiety and against whom repressed 
rage can be vented. Reactionary politicians know very well how to direct
such impulses against minorities or "hostile nations" with propaganda
designed to serve the interests of the ruling elite. Most importantly,
however, the respect for authority combined with sadistic impulses which
is acquired from a disciplinarian upbringing typically produces a
submissive/authoritarian personality -- a man or woman who blindly follows
the orders of "superiors" while at the same time desiring to exercise
authority on "subordinates," whether in the family, the state bureaucracy,
or the company. Ervin Staub's <b>Roots of Evil</b> includes interviews 
of imprisoned SS men, who, in the course of extensive interviews (meant 
to determine how ostensibly "normal" people could perform acts of untold 
ruthlessness and violence) revealed that they overwhelmingly came from 
authoritarian, disciplinarian homes.
</p><p>
In this way, the "traditional" (e.g., authoritarian, disciplinarian, 
patriarchal) family is the necessary foundation for authoritarian 
civilisation, reproducing it and its attendant social evils from 
generation to generation.
</p>

<a name="secj65"><h2>J.6.5 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual liberation? </h2></a>

<p>
One of the biggest problems of adolescence is sexual suppression by
parents and society in general. The teenage years are the time when
sexual energy is at its height. Why, then, the absurd demand that
teenagers "wait until marriage," or at least until leaving home, before
becoming sexually active? Why are there laws in "advanced" countries 
like the United States that allow a 19-year-old "boy" who makes
love with his 17-year-old girlfriend, with her full consent, to be
<b>arrested</b> by the girl's parents (!) for "statutory rape"?
</p><p>
To answer such questions, let us recall that the ruling class is 
not interested in encouraging mass tendencies toward liberty, 
independence and pleasure not derived from commodities but instead 
supports whatever contributes to mass submissiveness, docility, 
dependence, helplessness, and respect for authority -- traits that 
perpetuate the hierarchies on which ruling-class power and privileges 
depend. 
</p><p>
As sex is one of the most intense forms of pleasure and one of the most 
prominent contributors for intimacy and bonding with people emotionally,
repression of sexuality is the most powerful means of psychologically
crippling people and giving them a submissive/authoritarian character
structure (as well as alienating people from each other). As Reich 
observed, such a character is composed of a mixture of <i>"sexual 
impotence, helplessness, a need for attachments, a nostalgia for a 
leader, fear of authority, timidity, and mysticism"</i> and <i>"people 
structured in this manner are incapable of democracy. All attempts 
to build up or maintain genuine democratically directed organisations 
come to grief when they encounter these character structures. They 
form the psychological soil of the masses in which dictatorial strivings 
and bureaucratic tendencies of democratically elected leaders can 
develop."</i> Sexual suppression <i>"produces the authority-fearing, 
life-fearing vassal, and thus constantly creates new possibilities 
whereby a handful of men in power can rule the masses."</i> [<b>The 
Sexual Revolution</b>, p. 82]
</p><p>
No doubt most members of the ruling elite are not fully conscious that
their own power and privileges depend on the mass perpetuation of
sex-negative attitudes. Nevertheless, they unconsciously sense it. 
Sexual freedom is the most basic and powerful kind, and every
conservative or reactionary instinctively shudders at the thought of 
the "social chaos" it would unleash -- that is, the rebellious,
authority-defying type of character it would nourish. This is why
"family values," and "religion" (i.e. discipline and compulsive sexual
morality) are the mainstays of the conservative/reactionary agenda. Thus
it is crucially important for anarchists to address every aspect of sexual
suppression in society. This means affirming the right of adolescents
to an unrestricted sex life. 
</p><p> 
There are numerous arguments for teenage sexual liberation. For example,
many teen suicides could be prevented by removing the restrictions on 
adolescent sexuality. This becomes clear from ethnological studies of
sexually unrepressive tribal peoples: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"All reports, whether by missionaries or scholars, with or without the
proper indignation about the 'moral depravity' of 'savages,' state that
the puberty rites of adolescents lead them immediately into a sexual life;
that some of these primitive societies lay great emphasis on sexual
pleasure; that the puberty rite is an important social event; that some
primitive peoples not only do not hinder the sexual life of adolescents
but encourage it is every way, as, for instance, by arranging for
community houses in which the adolescents settle at the start of puberty
in order to be able to enjoy sexual intercourse. Even in those primitive
societies in which the institution of strict monogamous marriage exists,
adolescents are given complete freedom to enjoy sexual intercourse from
the beginning of puberty to marriage. None of these reports contains any
indication of sexual misery or suicide by adolescents suffering from
unrequited love (although the latter does of course occur). The
contradiction between sexual maturity and the absence of genital sexual
gratification is non-existent."</i> [Reich, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 85]
</blockquote></p><p>
Teenage sexual repression is also closely connected with crime. If there
are teenagers in a neighbourhood who have no place to pursue
intimate sexual relationships, they will do it in dark corners, in cars 
or vans, etc., always on the alert and anxious lest someone discover them. 
Under such conditions, full gratification is impossible, leading to a 
build-up of tension and frustration. Thus they feel 
unsatisfied, disturb each other, become jealous and angry, get into 
fights, turn to drugs as a substitute for a satisfying sex life, 
vandalise property to let off "steam" (repressed rage), or even 
murder someone. As Reich noted, <i>"juvenile delinquency is the 
visible expression of the subterranean sexual crisis in the 
lives of children and adolescents. And it may be predicted that no 
society will ever succeed in solving this problem, the problem of 
juvenile psychopathology, unless that society can muster the courage 
and acquire the knowledge to regulate the sexual life of its children 
and adolescents in a sex-affirmative manner."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 271]
</p><p>
For these reasons, it is clear that a solution to the "gang problem" 
also depends on adolescent sexual liberation. We are not suggesting, of
course, that gangs themselves suppress sexual activity. Indeed, one of
their main attractions to teens is undoubtedly the hope of more
opportunities for sex as a gang member. However, gangs' typical
obsessiveness with the promiscuous, pornographic, sadistic, and other
"dark" aspects of sex shows that by the time children reach gang age
they have already developed unhealthy secondary drives due to the generally 
sex-negative and repressive environment in which they have grown up. The 
expression of such drives is <b>not</b> what anarchists mean by "sexual
freedom." Rather, anarchist proposals for teenage liberation are based on
the premise that a libertarian childhood is the necessary condition for a 
<b>healthy</b> sexual freedom in adolescence. 
</p><p>
Applying these insights to our own society, it is clear that teenagers 
should have ample access to a private room where they can be undisturbed 
with their sexual partners. Parents should also encourage the 
knowledge and use of contraceptives and safe sex in general as well 
as respect for the other person involved in the relationship. This
does not mean encouraging promiscuity or sex for the sake of it. Rather,
it means encouraging teenagers to know their own minds and desires,
refusing to be pressured by anyone into anything. As can be seen from
experience of this anarchist activist during the 1930s:
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>"One time, a companero from the Juventudes [libertarian
youth organisation] came over to me and said, 'You, who say you're so
liberated. You're not so liberated.' (I'm telling you this so youll
see the mentality of these men.) 'Because if I ask you to give me a
kiss, you wouldn't.</i>
</blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"I just stood there staring at him, and thinking to myself, 'How
do I get out of this one?" And then I said to him, 'Listen, when I
want to go to bed with a guy, I'm the one that has to choose him. I
don't go to bed with just anyone. You don't interest me as a man. I
don't feel anything for you... Why should you want me to 'liberate
myself,' as you put it, by going to bed with you? That's no liberation
for me. That's just making love simply for the sake of making love.'
'No,' I said to him, 'love is something that has to be like eating:
if you're hungry, you eat, and if you want to go to bed with a guy,
then... Besides, I'm going to tell you something else . . . Your
mouth doesn't appeal to me... And I don't like to make love with a
guy without kissing him.'</i>
</blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"He was left speechless! But I did it with a dual purpose in mind... 
because I wanted to show him that that's not the way to educate
companeros... That's what the struggle of women was like in Spain 
-- even with men from our own group -- and I'm not even talking about
what it was like with other guys."</i> [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, 
<b>Free Women of Spain</b>, pp. 116-7]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
So respecting yourself and others, it must be stressed, is essential. As 
Maurice Brinton pointed out, attempts at sexual liberation will encounter 
two kinds of responses from established society -- direct opposition and 
attempts at recuperation. The second response takes the form of 
<i>"first alienating and reifying sexuality, and then of frenetically 
exploiting this empty shell for commercial ends. As modern youth 
breaks out of the dual stranglehold of repressive traditional morality 
and of the authoritarian patriarchal family it encounters a projected 
image of free sexuality which is in fact a manipulatory distortion 
of it."</i> This can be seen from the use of sex in advertising to 
the successful development of sex into a major consumer industry. 
However, such a development is the opposite of the healthy sexuality
desired by anarchists. This is because <i>"sex is presented as something to
be consumed. But the sexual instinct differs from certain other instincts"</i>
as it can be satisfied only by <i>"another human being, capable of thinking,
acting, suffering. The alienation of sexuality under the conditions of
modern capitalism is very much part of the general alienating process, in
which people are converted into objects (in this case, objects of sexual
consumption) and relationships are drained of human content. Undiscriminating,
compulsive sexual activity, is not sexual freedom -- although it may sometimes
be a preparation for it (which repressive morality can never be). The illusion
that alienated sex is sexual freedom constitutes yet another obstacle on
the road to total emancipation. Sexual freedom implies a realisation and
understanding of the autonomy of others."</i> [<i>"The Irrational in Politics"</i>, 
pp. 257-92, <b>For Workers' Power</b>, p. 277]
</p><p>
Therefore, anarchists see teenage sexual liberation as a means of developing
free individuals <b>as well as</b> reducing the evil effects of sexual repression 
(which, we must note, also helps dehumanise individuals by encouraging 
the objectification of others, and in a patriarchal society particularly
of women). 
</p>

<a name="secj66"><h2>J.6.6 But isn't this concern with sexual liberation just a 
                           distraction from revolution?</h2></a>
</p><p>
It would be insulting to teenagers to suggest that sexual freedom is, or
should be, their <b>only</b> concern. Many teens have a well-developed social
conscience and are keenly interested in problems of economic exploitation,
poverty, social breakdown, environmental degradation, and the like. The
same can be said of people of any age!
</p><p>
It is essential for anarchists to guard against the attitude typically 
found in Marxist-Leninist parties that spontaneous discussions about 
sexual problems are a "diversion from the class struggle." Such an 
attitude is economistic (not to mention covertly ascetic), because 
it is based on the premise that economic class must be the focus of all 
revolutionary efforts toward social change. No doubt transforming 
the economy is important, but without mass sexual liberation no working 
class revolution be complete as there will not be enough people around 
with the character structures necessary to create a <b>lasting</b> 
self-managed society and economy (i.e., people who are capable of 
accepting freedom with responsibility). Instead, the attempt to force 
the creation of such a system without preparing the necessary 
psychological soil for its growth will lead to a reversion to 
some new form of hierarchy and exploitation. Equally, society would be
"free" in name only if repressive social morals existed and people
were not able to express themselves as they so desire.
</p><p>
Moreover, for many people breaking free from the sexual suppression
that threatens to cripple them psychologically is a major issue in their
lives. For this reason, few of them are likely to be attracted to
the anarchist "freedom" movement if its exponents limit themselves to dry
discussions of surplus value, alienated labour, and so forth. Instead,
addressing sexual questions and problems must be integrated into a 
multi-faceted attack on the total system of domination. People should feel
confident that anarchists are on the side of sexual pleasure and are not
revolutionary ascetics demanding self-denial for the "sake of the
revolution." Rather, it should be stressed that the capacity for full
sexual enjoyment is the an essential part of the revolution. Indeed,
<i>"incessant questioning and challenge to authority on the subject of sex
and of the compulsive family can only complement the questioning and
challenge to authority in other areas (for instance on the subject of who
is to dominate the work process -- or the purpose of work itself). Both
challenges stress the autonomy of individuals and their domination 
over important aspects of their lives. Both expose the alienated concepts
which pass for rationality and which govern so much of our thinking and
behaviour. The task of the conscious revolutionary is to make both 
challenges explicit, to point out their deeply subversive content, and
to explain their inter-relation."</i> [Maurice Brinton, <i>"The 
Irrational in Politics"</i>, pp. 257-92, <b>For Workers' Power</b>, 
p. 278]
</p><p>
We noted previously that in pre-patriarchal society, which rests on a
communistic/communal social order, children have complete sexual freedom
and that the idea of childhood asceticism develops as such societies turn 
toward patriarchy in the economic and social structure (see
<a href="secB1.html#secb15">section B.1.5</a>). This sea-change in social 
attitudes toward 
sexuality allows the authority-oriented character structure to develop
instead of the formerly non-authoritarian ones. Ethnological research has
shown that in pre-patriarchal societies the general nature of work life
in the community corresponds with the free development of children and
adolescents -- that is, there are no rules coercing children and
adolescents into specific forms of sexual life, and this creates the
psychological basis for voluntary integration into the community and
voluntary discipline in all forms of collective activity. This supports 
the premise that widespread sex-positive attitudes are a necessary 
condition of a viable libertarian socialism. 
</p><p>
Psychology also clearly shows that every impediment to free expression 
of children by parents, teachers, or administrative authorities
must be stopped. As anarchists, our preferred way of doing so is by
direct action. Thus we should encourage all to feel that they have
every chance of building their own personal lives. This will certainly 
not be an obstacle to or a distraction from their involvement in the 
anarchist movement. On the contrary, if they can gradually solve the 
problems facing their private lives, they will work on other social 
projects with greatly increased pleasure and concentration. 
</p><p>
Besides engaging in direct action, anarchists can also support legal
protection free expression and sexuality (repeal of the insane
statutory rape laws and equal rights for gays, for example), just as they support
legislation that protects workers' right to strike, family leave, and so
forth. However, as Reich observed, <i>"under no circumstances will the new
order of sexual life be established by the decree of a central authority."</i> 
[<b>The Sexual Revolution</b>, p. 279] That was a Leninist illusion. Rather, 
it will be established from the bottom up, by the gradual process of ever more
widespread dissemination of knowledge about the adverse personal and
social effects of sexual repression, and the benefits of libertarian 
child-rearing and educational methods. 
</p><p>
A society in which people are capable of sexual happiness will be one
where they prefer to <i>"make love, not war,"</i> and so will provide 
the best guarantee for the general security. Then the anarchist project 
of restructuring the economic and political systems will proceed
spontaneously, based on a spirit of joy rather than hatred and revenge. 
Only then can it be defended against reactionary threats, because the
majority will be on the side of freedom and capable of using it
responsibly, rather than unconsciously longing for an authoritarian
father-figure to tell them what to do. 
</p><p>
Therefore, concern and action upon sexual liberation, libertarian
child rearing and libertarian education are <b>key</b> parts of social
struggle and change. In no way can they be considered as "distractions"
from "important" political and economic issues as some "serious"
revolutionaries like to claim. As Martha A. Ackelsberg notes in relation 
to the practical work done by the <b><i>Mujeres Libres</i></b> 
group during the Spanish Revolution:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Respecting children and educating them well was vitally important to the 
process of revolutionary change. Ignorance made people particularly vulnerable
to oppression and suffering. More importantly, education prepared people
for social life. Authoritarian schools (or families), based upon fear,
prepared people to be submissive to an authoritarian government [or
within a capitalist workplace]. Different schools and families would
be necessary to prepare people to live in a society without domination."</i>
[<b>Free Women of Spain</b>, p. 133]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
The personal <b>is</b> political and there is little point in producing a
free economy if the people in it are not free to lead a full and pleasurable
life! As such, the issue of sexual freedom is as important as economic and
social freedom for anarchists. This can be seen when Emma Goldman recounted 
meeting Kropotkin who praised a paper she was involved with but proclaimed 
<i>"it would do more if it would not waste so much space discussing sex."</i> 
She disagreed and a heated argument ensured about <i>"the place of the sex 
problem in anarchist propaganda."</i> Finally, she remarked <i>"All right, 
dear comrade, when I have reached your age, the sex question may no longer 
be of importance to me. But it is now, and it is a tremendous factor for 
thousands, millions even, of young people."</i> This, Goldman recalled, 
made Kropotkin stop short with <i>"an amused smile lighting up his kindly 
face. 'Fancy, I didn't think of that,' he replied. 'Perhaps you are right, 
after all.' He beamed affectionately upon me, with a humorous twinkle in 
his eye."</i> [<b>Living My Life</b>, vol. 1, p. 253]
</p>

</body>
</html>