Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » Conformity – Thought = Socialization
  • Conformity – Thought = Socialization

    Filed at 1:59 pm under by dcobranchi

    On Tuesday, Daryl posted an AP story on homeschooling that contained this obligatory “socialization” quote:

    At some point, children are going to have to interact with the rest of the world,” [Dr. Ted Feinberg] said. “If they haven’t had the opportunity to build their emotional muscles so they have that capacity to interact, how effective are they going to be outside their cloistered environment?

    This got me thinking about something Ayn Rand said in her 1970 essay, “The Comprachicos,” a critique of progressive education theory, particularly as applied in pre-schools:

    The thinking child is not antisocial (he is, in fact, the only type of child fit for social relationships.) When he develops his first values and conscious convictions, particularly as he approaches adolescence, he feels an intense desire to share them with a friend who would understand him; if frustrated, he feels an acute sense of loneliness. (Loneliness is specifically the experience of this type of child—or adult; it is the experience of those who have something to offer. The emotion that drives conformists to “belong,” is not loneliness, but fear—the fear of intellectual independence and responsibility. The thinking child seeks equals; the conformist seeks protectors.” (Emphasis added.)

    The “socialization” argument is always rooted in fear, and that’s why it’s so effective. When political leaders talk about the need to do something for the “children,” whatever the specific policy, it’s an attempt to stifle political debate by exploiting the fear of parents and other conformist adults. These fears are then transferred to the children, and the vicious cycle continues. The greatest crime in modern culture is to think for yourself, especially when it comes to education. That is why homeschoolers, by and large, are heroic figures.

    And keep in mind, Rand rejected both religion and political conservatism. Her views on education, therefore, cannot be dismissed as a right-wing Christian effort to shelter children from the “multicultural” world. (There are, in fact, many successful homeschoolers that follow Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism.) Of course, Rand rejected multiculturalism as a means of education, and for good reason: If you teach a child he must equally value everything without pronouncing judgment, he will ultimately value nothing and seek refuge through social conformity.

    (Note: The Rand estate has not made the full-text of “The Comprachicos” available online, but the essay can be found in the Rand anthology, Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. And in case you’re wondering, “The Comprachicos,” is taken from Victor Hugo’s 1869 novel The Man Who Laughs. In the book, “comprachicos” referred to the Spanish word for “child-buyers”; Hugo described men who bought children and disfigured them until they became monsters.)

    4 Responses to “Conformity – Thought = Socialization”


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 5th, 2004
    at 6:24 pm

    We’re heroes? Cool! 🙂

    Rand must have read Emerson: “Whoso would be a man must first be a nonconformist.”


    Comment by
    Tim Haas
    August 5th, 2004
    at 9:06 pm

    [John Wayne]

    We’re not heroes. We’re just doing what’s got to be done.

    [/John Wayne]


    Comment by
    Dave
    August 5th, 2004
    at 10:53 pm

    Objectivism – Rand’s “religion”


    Comment by
    speedwell
    August 6th, 2004
    at 11:14 am

    Dave, your ignorance is showing. As an Objectivist myself, I can tell you that the proper word for the more dogmatic faction of the school is “cult.” “Religion” refers to a theistic belief system (and don’t start quoting the dictionary at me, you know very well how you meant it).

    Ahem.

    Skip, a hundred thanks for explaining where “comprachicos” came from. I have just started reading “The Man Who Laughs” right now–am literally on the second page–and I would have been extra-strength shocked to read about it without the warning. Not that it isn’t shocking even WITH the warning.