For Parents: Interview with Dale McGowan Part 2

August 12th, 2010   by   Andrew

In this part of the interview, Dale McGowan discusses how to talk to children about the difficult issues such as mystery and death. As well, what do you do if your child doesn’t believe your answers?

.

GwbG: Many parents squirm when faced with the big questions from their children. Where do babies come from? Why isn’t the world fair? What happens when you die? Do you have tried-and-tested answers for these questions or did you find yourself scrambling?

DMcG: I never squirm. What I do is hold my breath, drop to my metaphorical knees, and crawl humbly toward the question like a supplicant. These questions are among the biggest rewards and privileges for me as a dad, and I’ve recently become (sadly) aware that they are tapering off as my kids get older and their dialogue naturally becomes more of an internal monologue.

But I do scramble. I usually start by freaking out at the kid a bit for the pure quality and worthwhileness of the question. They love to freak Dad out with a good question. My next step is not so much the provision of an answer as the reinforcement of the questioning impulse. I don’t shy away from offering my own opinions, but they know that’s what they are, and I always try to get their own uninfluenced thoughts first. It’s pure pleasure for me.

GwbG: Have you ever been left speechless or stunned by a question from a child?

DMcG: Yes, but not in the expected ways. Mostly by the complexity and nuance of prior thought a question can reveal.

GwbG: Death is a particularly difficult one. Have you found that a child needs to be comforted or needs an explanation when dealing with death? Or do children work through these things themselves? How do you explain the mystery of death to a child?

DMcG: We all need to be comforted in the face of the impossibly unfair reality of our eventual end. Yes, it’s beautiful in its way, it’s ever so necessary, blah blah blah. It still evokes pure fury from me as a dead man on leave.

I would even say that we grown-ups flatter ourselves by suggesting that we are in a position to comfort our children when it comes to thinking about and dealing with death. If anything, the opposite is true. Compared to their parents, children have a greatly reduced grasp of death. As Emory University psychologist Melvin Konner notes in The Tangled Wing, “From age three to five they consider it reversible, resembling a journey or sleep. After six they view it as a fact of life but a very remote one.” Though rates of conceptual development vary, Konner places the first true grasp of the finality and universality of death around age ten—a realization that includes the first dawning deep awareness that it applies to them as well.

The fact that children tend not to fully “get” death during the early years has its downside—crossing the street would be easier, for example, if they did—but it also has a decided advantage. These are the years during which they can engage the idea of death more easily and more dispassionately than they will as adults. And such early engagement can only help to build a foundation of understanding and familiarity to ease and inform their later encounters with this most profound and difficult of all human realities.

GwbG: Do children accept mystery, or accept it when a parent doesn’t know, or at least when a parent admits to not knowing the answer to some big, heartfelt question?

DMcG: Kids are entirely comfortable with the idea that much is unknown. There’s no reason they should expect their parents to know everything unless the parent has gone out of his or her way to cultivate that silly idea. Parents who do that also implant the dangerous idea of the infallible authority. I prefer to model breathtaking ignorance and humility before Newton’s “great ocean of [unknown] truth.” Takes the pressure off a bit as well.

GwbG: At some point [Heaven forbid!] your own child may even disagree with you or not accept your explanations! Is this the end of the world?

DMcG: I not only expect it, I explicitly invite them to do so. My kids have heard the invitation to think for themselves and differ from me so often that they now roll their eyes whenever I repeat it. “Now, that’s just my opinion,” I say. “I want you to think about it yourself and make up your own…”

I never even get to the end of the sentence anymore. “I know, I know, you want me to think for myself!” they say. Excellent. Message received.

Big thanks go to Dale for taking the time with these questions. I particularly like the combination of the words “breathtaking ignorance”. Parents have a tough enough job as it is without having to carry the title of ‘infallible authority.

My brother at one point was overwhelmed with the questions from his very young son. He finally had to look at his boy and say, “Look, I’m still learning all this stuff myself, you know.”

It was a small moment really just between them, but it turned them into a team of practically inseparable explorers.

.

On the weekend I will post a commentary on the week and with any luck drum up some tougher questions for Dale.

.

Thanks again Dale. And message definitely received!



For Parents: Interview with Dale McGowan Part 1

August 10th, 2010   by   Andrew

Dale McGowan is part of the team behind Parenting Beyond Belief and Raising Freethinkers. I first came across Dale’s blog last January while doing random searches and getting distracted by unique art. It was his banner art that caught my attention (from a guy named Glendon Mellow at The Flying Trilobite), and before I knew it I was absorbed by Dale’s essay on the unconditional love of reality.

Since that first chance encounter, I’ve learned that Dale had a lengthy career as a college professor, has been blogging for a few years now on secular parenting, and in 2008 was named Harvard’s Humanist of the Year.

Dale was gracious enough to share his insights on the highs and lows of parenting for my blog. Today’s post will be Part 1 and on Thursday I will post Part 2.

.

GWBG: Let’s start with something fun – what’s been the greatest reward or joy for you as a parent?

DMcG: The unending flood of meaning and purpose it has brought. It isn’t necessary to have kids to find and feel that, but I’ve never had a firmer, more satisfying grip on my own meaning and purpose than in the fifteen years since I became a dad.

GWBG: A little more serious now – what’s been the greatest struggle or challenge for you as a parent?

DMcG: Patience. I’m ten times better than I was at the beginning. I’ve learned a tremendous amount from my wife in this area.

GWBG: I’m curious about how children see values or morality. From your experience have you found children to be naturally in touch with some system of values or morality, or does this need to be nurtured in some structured way?

DMcG: When it comes to broader conclusions of this kind, I don’t trust my experience overly much. There’s no area of life more saturated with correlation/causation fallacies than parenting (“I feed my kids wheat germ every day and they always do what they’re told!”), so I’d rather look to the research. People like Marvin Berkowitz and Larry Nucci have done tremendous work in the study of moral development, including cross-cultural studies. Children in cultures around the world tend to reach certain landmarks in moral development reliably and on time regardless of what their parents do or don’t do.

The reliability with which kids hit these moral landmarks was underlined by a University of Zurich study published in the August 2008 issue of the journal Nature. Kids between 3 and 4 were seen to be almost universally selfish, after which a “strong sense of fairness” develops, usually by age 7 or 8. Fairness was most evident toward those with whom the children identified. So one of the main tasks in moral development is not building the moral sense in the first place, but extending it beyond the natural affinity for those who are most like us.

[A deeper look into this topic is available on one of Dale's blog posts from October. ]

GWBG: Do kids need absolutes? For example, rules around the home or how to treat other people or even just basic values (examples: be honest always, never steal, always do your homework). Do they understand absolutes or is something else needed?

DMcG: Kids certainly need rules. I hesitate to call them “absolutes” because that term carries so many unstated implications—among them, the idea that a given rule is invoked by the parent ex cathedra and must not be questioned. My kids know that they are free to question the validity of, and ask the reason for, any rule we have. That doesn’t mean they are free to disobey anything they wish, only that they can and should understand the reasons for the rules—and even challenge those they feel are unfair.

Yes, my kids know that they should not lie or steal. But if the rule is just a “because I say so” pronouncement based on my authority, it stands or falls as my authority does—and that’s something guaranteed to wax and wane as my kids grow. If instead I always make a point of telling them why lying and stealing are a bad idea—Will I be able to trust you next time, How would you feel if someone did that to you, etc.—they are more likely to learn and retain the moral imperative. This also gives them the ability to think morally, to develop active moral judgment rather than the mere ability to follow rules.

GWBG: At some point, maybe 5 and 10 years of age, children can become comparison fanatics. They become aware of how different families live and work and run the home. And now, more and more, communities are made up of different cultures, religions, and even languages. When a child comes to you with questions like “Why don’t we do this?” or “Why do they do that?” How would you try to explain those differences?

DMcG: This is such a terrific question and one of the great challenges. I’d skew the age range later, since teens are even more prone to this (especially when it comes to material/economic comparisons), but kindergarten is indeed the point when recognition of difference goes into overdrive.

Attitude toward difference is one of the defining distinctions between the (philosophically) liberal and conservative approaches to life. The conservative position tends to define a best/right way of doing or being, and to advocate moving toward that way. The liberal position suggests that there are many good ways to be, and that differences in approach are a reflection of different contexts and starting points, not of distance from the best way. When it comes to explaining difference, I think philosophically liberal parents (myself included) have an easier task. And again, there are reasons for differences, so I try to articulate them whenever I can.

GWBG: Let’s say another parent or maybe even a teacher explains something to your child that you don’t agree with. Maybe they are part of some specific religion or background and start talking about their beliefs. Is there a line at which you would stop the other parent, or maybe offer your own viewpoint? How flexible is that line and is it best just to bring it up later in private? And do children understand these different viewpoints from other families?

DMcG: This relates to the previous answer. My kids have been raised knowing that different people believe and think and do different things, and that they (my kids) are invited and encouraged to think things through and come to their own conclusions. If a child has been raised curious, capable of asking questions, and accepting of differences, I can let difference wash over my kids from all directions. The only thing I watched for early on was any attempt to frighten them into belief or consent on any point (e.g. by invoking hell as the consequence of honest doubt and questioning). Now, at 8, 12, and 15, all three of my kids are well beyond the point where I have to protect them even from that. They can handle the differences and maintain their own independence incredibly well.

.

.

The second half of this interview will be posted Thursday. Any questions or comments for Dale can be either submitted here or on his site.