Talking to Kids Alone is Not Enough to Instill Good Habits; or, The Fantasy of Reform Through Mere Conversation

While I was visiting my mother at Christmas, I happened to catch a glimpse of one of those made for TV movies (don't know what it was called) that follow a predictable plan: nice family with naughty (in this case, orphan boys who become adopted by the family at the end) children. Mom and Dad have a number of serious conversations with said difficult children about life and the errors of their ways. After a time (a few weeks) the children realize, epiphany-like, how naughty they have been and make a dramatic turnaround. They live happily ever after.

Perhaps this makes for a nice tidy two hour Hallmark Channel movie that fits a stereotyped ideal of, "if only the troublesome kids had someone to sit them down and explain things they would be fine." But, it does not bear much resemblance to real life because it does not fit with the reality of human nature and how we truly become better human beings.

Children (and adults too) who behave badly (especially if we are talking about kids older than toddlers) do so because they have developed certain bad habits. Bad habits (or, "vices") are not made instantly. They become ingrained and more set into place over a period of time. To reverse a bad habit a child must replace his vices with virtues (good habits). You cannot simply subtract a vice from a person's character without instilling a virtue as its replacement. And you cannot instill a virtue instantly through talking.

Developing good habits takes time, repetition, persistence, and good will, along with the firm, consistent and loving help of others (parents especially).

Helping a child to grow in virtue must involve much more than mere talk. Conversation is helpful. But it only has a supportive role. Talking itself does not instill virtue. The good behavior must be actually practiced and repeated. Over time, the child who develops the good habit of desiring to act well, intending to do so, willing to do so, and then in fact consistently doing so--without difficulty--has acquired a virtue.

It can be compared to sports. Take karate (which I did for a couple years as a teen; my Dad earned a black belt in Tae Kwon Do karate). Karate includes learning how to punch and kick in certain ways and learning forms--sequences of specific martial arts moves precisely choreographed in traditional, set patterns. If you want to learn to punch properly, an instructor at some point is going to have to come over and place his hands on you and show you how to move. The same goes for each position of a form. Your body has to learn how to correctly assume each stance, how to execute each kick and punch. Learning to do so takes physical practice with guidance by others until it becomes an ingrained habit that your body "knows." When you become good, you can do the forms, kicks, and punches properly and with relative ease (at least without struggling). No matter how much talent you have it cannot happen instantly or automatically. And, you can't learn karate just by an instructor describing things to you while you do nothing. You have to physically practice--you have to do karate--time and time again until you learn it and become competent at it.

Virtues, or habits of good actions, are similar. While sports skills become gradually ingrained into your body through expertly guided practice, virtues become gradually ingrained into your soul through wisely guided practice.

Imagine how silly the idea would be to think that the karate kid could become an amazing karate wiz merely by Mr. Myogi talking to him with no accompanying practice at all--no waxing, or sanding, or painting, or anything. Just talk. Ridiculous, no? Same with virtue. It is simply not how human beings work to imagine that a child (or anyone) could transform bad patterns of behavior into lasting good ones just by listening to someone else talk. This is not how a virtue becomes ingrained into the soul. It is contrary to our basic human nature.

So the next time you see one of those idealized, fantasy TV movie moments where Mrs. wonderful has a real "heart-to-heart" conversation with naughty Johnny and then, magically, Johnny becomes a good boy, roll your eyes. Life just does not work this way. Let's leave the fantasy of reform through mere conversation  where it should stay--in fantasy-land.

"Sexting" Shows Failure of Radical Feminist Movement

There is a horrible phenomenon going on among American teenagers. It is called "sexting." This is where someone takes a nude photo (probably with a cell phone) of themselves and then sends it by cell phone message to another person, presumably a member of the opposite sex in whom the sender is either interested or is dating.

The consequences of this can be devastating, even to the point of suicide, such as happened with this 13 year old girl.

So many questions surround this. One is do parents have a clue about this? Another is how has radical feminism contributed to creating an environment where this is now possible on a large scale?

How has our society gotten to the point where a large number of teens, including those considered good kids, would even consider sending nude photos of themselves to other kids? This is not merely a function of technology being available (i.e. cell phones). I am quite sure that a mere 20 years ago, kids would never have been open to doing this in such large numbers as they apparently are today.

One of the bad ideas that has emerged from radical feminism is that if women choose of their own accord to embrace sexually provocative activities (e.g. provocative dress, pole dancing, nude photos, etc.), they can thereby "own" more completely their own sexuality. By "owning" their sexuality through acting out sexually, they supposedly somehow deplete the sexual control that men can assert. Somehow, some women have convinced themselves that by this sort of taking back of their sexuality, they can equalize the sexual power game between men and women. No longer will men have the advantage.

This line of thought is utter foolishness. And the fact that it is is tragically demonstrated by the suicides of teen girls (the girl above is not the only one) after they could no longer endure the humiliation by their peers after sexting a photo that got sent (of course) to others they had not intended to see it.

Rather than neutralizing or equalizing sexual power with men, this sort of behavior only makes women the agents of their own further sexual degradation. It makes them agents of their own abuse by men who most want to abuse them. They are handing themselves on a silver platter to exactly the sort of men who want to use and abuse women as mere objects.

But hey, let's just keep on selling sexually suggestive fashions to ten year old girls! Let's dress up 7 year olds in pageants like they are 20-year-olds flaunting their bodies. Let's have school counselors tell teens they can do what they want sexually as long as they are "ready" and they do it "safely." Let's have music videos and TV shows that display younger and younger girls flaunting themselves as sex objects. Let's have special web sites set up by Planned Parenthood specifically for teens that give explicit directions on perverse sexual techniques. Let's have school health classes that instruct, in a clinically neutral manner, how to do certain sexual things "safely" (if you are ready, of course).

The dark spirit behind a strand of radical feminism that is so misguided as to encourage women and girls to flaunt themselves as sex objects is part of the reason sexting is now common. It is merely another form, using technology, of the flaunting that is downright approved by radical feminism as part of the quest to "take back ownership" of their sexuality.

But this whole idea is absurd--that one could "take back" one's sexuality by degrading it and cheapening it.

One does not gain ownership of something by giving it away easily as though it were worth nothing to begin with. The most vile men--the sort who do not care to relate to women as whole persons but only want to use them as sexual objects for their own pleasure--I'm sure, do not look upon a woman strutting herself sexually as "empowered." They look upon her as an easy target, readily handing over to him exactly what he wants with little effort. And I'm sure such men are only too happy to let her believe the silly fiction that by handing herself over by her own choice to be used sexually as an object she is becoming more sexually empowered. Ridiculous. But, so long as she thinks this, she will convince herself not only to continue letting herself be used sexually as though her sexuality were worth nothing, she will tell herself she is happy in so doing. And the vile man smiles and thinks to himself, "What a deal! I can treat her like worthless dirt and she comes back smiling for more! Wow! Hurray for women's liberation!"

Among those teens who are sexting, I wonder which gender--boys or girls--sense somewhere in their hearts that by doing this they are making themselves potential targets for abuse? Thanks radical feminism. You have done such a great job that teen boys can now get girls to deliver sexually explicit photos to them simply by asking! Thank goodness these girls have become "empowered," or they might be easy targets for becoming sexually objectified and treated as things rather than as whole persons.

What Place, Reverence For Our Elderly? A New Year's Resolution?

Perhaps this might offer some food for thought if you are inclined to make New Year's resolutions. . . .

I was thinking today of the place that American culture gives to (or, fails to give) the elderly. And it dismays me how poorly American culture in general treats those among us who are aged.

Though there are many good and beneficial things about America and what our nation has given the world, this falls under the category of a negative.

Asian cultures, historically (perhaps the younger generations in Asia are also letting this slip), were highly respectful and reverent toward their oldest family members. The elderly are greatly respected, honored, and appreciated in traditional Asian society.

How does American culture treat the elderly today? Basically, it ignores them. It is indifferent. It treats them like an afterthought.

Why? Many reasons, I'm sure. But certainly one significant reason is our excessive worship of everything young and youthful. Now, youthfulness has several good attributes. But it also has negative attributes that are gradually tempered with the coming of age and wisdom. Do we know this anymore as a society? Do we care? We go out of our way to highlight the ideas and energy of the young. But do we also have interest in the wisdom and experience of the aged--interest that is more than mere humoring?

In light of this I am reminded of the Old Testament. How did ancient Middle Eastern cultures regard the elderly? In the Old Testament view of the world it seems as though the respect and reverence that a family had for its eldest patriarch would continue to increase up to the point of death. The time just before death would be the point at which the most high regard would be given to an aged father of the family.

Consider the scene in Genesis 49, the death bed of Israel (Jacob). In this and similar Biblical death-bed scenes the family would gather around. The father would give a coveted blessing. On such occasions the respect and honor given by the family to the dying elderly person would be at its highest.

In stark contrast to this, do we go out of our way to honor our elderly as they lay dying? Sure, we spend money on funerals and say nice things after they die. But, given a situation in which we can reasonably anticipate that death is nearing, how do we show our love and respect to them before they die? Do we go out of our way to gather around?--To go to their bedside and be with them? To pray with them and honor them and accompany them respectfully as they pass from this life to the next?

I work now with the elderly, as I have in the past (on the oncology ward of a Naval hospital where I helped care for a number of elderly, dying patients). And it seems to me that the norm now in American culture is almost the opposite of the Biblical model. We give all our attention to the young and the potential of youth. We worship the god of youthfulness. As people age, get beyond middle age, retire, and become elderly, our society pays them less and less attention to the point of near-total indifference. Then finally, they die alone--unaccompanied, unloved, unnoticed. It happens every day in hospitals and houses and care facilities all over America. Of course there are wonderful exceptions to this. But this norm of neglect is all-too-common, and, I fear, increasing.

If we take our commitment to our Christian faith seriously, we have to do what we can to love, honor, and respect the elderly in our own families and in our society at large. We should pray that our loved ones do not die alone. Seriously. If it seems at all in the realm of possibility, please consider praying that you (and other loved ones) might be present at the side of an elderly member of your family (especially someone who is now alone) at his or her time of death. It is a great act of love to hold the hand of the dying, tell them you love them, that Jesus loves them, and to give them the dignity of not dying alone. The pain it may cause us to do so is secondary to the love and reverence given to them.

Good book About the Art World

I'm reading a very interesting book: Seven Days in the Art World, by Sarah Thornton. It caught my eye as I was in Barnes & Noble the other day and I'm glad I picked it up.

The author is a sociologist with a background in art history. She provides an intriguing inside look into the various subcultures that make up the "art world."

Here are a few quotes from her introduction:

The contemporary art world is a loose network of overlapping subcultures held together by a belief in art (p. xi).

and,

[C]ontemporary art has become a kind of alternative religion for atheists (p. xiv).

and,

Although the art world reveres the unconventional, it is rife with conformity (p. xv).

 and,

The art world is not a "system" or smooth-functioning machine but rather a conflicted cluster of subcultures--each of which embraces different definitions of art (p. xix).

 The second quote above is especially provocative. I suspect it is a fairly accurate observation.

Selfishness and True Charity are Mutually Exclusive

Is it truly Christian to do a good thing for someone else because I am secretly looking forward to some sort of personal reward from God?

When Christians talk about performing a charitable service in the context of encouraging others to join them they often say, as an enticement, something like, "and you get back so much more than you give." While this may be true, I do not like how common this emphasis has become.

Sometimes such an exhortation primarily emphasizes the benefits to the charitable giver and the benefits to those in need only secondarily. The benefits to others are merely an afterthought. It's as though the person trying to encourage charitable behavior were saying, "If you want lots of spiritual benefits to come into your life, do good things for others. God likes this and will reward you for it. Oh, and by the way, other people benefit also."

This is not an appropriate attitude for anyone who genuinely seeks to imitate Jesus Christ. He did not seem to be the sort of person who said to Himself, "If I do this good thing for this person, yes he will benefit, but I will also get a big reward as well, so I think I'll do it." No. This sort of attitude is selfish and therefore far from the mind of Christ.

When we engage in doing something charitable for others, seeking benefits for ourselves should never be our primary motivation. The fact that we might experience personal spiritual fruits in the course of doing good deeds ought not be the foremost thing in our minds. If it is, our motivation for doing the good work is tainted. We have turned it into an act of selfishness.

When we do good things for others, we should not be thinking of ourselves. Rather, we should be thinking of the other person(s), and how much they, as a child of God, are worthy of our love and sacrifice. Our interior attitude as we perform charitable works should be other-centered, not self-centered. I should not care whether I will benefit when I do a good deed; I should care entirely about the others I am helping and how I can be of service to them.

In some Christian circles it is an all-too-common phenomenon to be mainly interested in the blessings we receive ourselves when we do good deeds for others. This is a perversion of the Christian faith, and is certainly not the example set for us by Christ. If we have to be enticed into loving others by the carrot of receiving a personal reward of whatever form, we have not even begun to comprehend what it means to imitate Christ. We should love because every human being is worthy of nothing less, no matter what happens to ourselves in the process, no matter the personal cost.

We Americans seem to be big on seeking rewards. But staying at this level, that of expecting a reward for everything we do, is ultimately childish. There comes a time when we must put childish things behind us, begin living more as adults and stop looking for rewards; and instead, seek to learn from Jesus how we might give more and more of ourselves away for the benefit of others.

Yo-Yo Ma on Artistic Collaboration

I discovered an interesting set of podcasts. Sony Music has something they call, "Sony Masterworks Podcasts." Included in this is a section on the recordings of cellist Yo-Yo Ma.
And in this section is a podcast titled,
"Musical Friends, Trust, & Collaboration."

In this particular podcast, Yo-Yo Ma talks about what is needed for a good musical collaboration. I transcribed a section of this. I think these remarks apply not only for music, but for any artistic collaboration.

Preconditions for great musical collaboration. Of course there's no formula for chemistry. If there were, there would be great chemistry all the time. But if you had to put approximations of what might be good chemistry between people, I think good chemistry can only occur when two people are ready for it, when people are actually open to it. If one person is closed off, and the other person is willing, you can't have a great musical collaboration. So it's a timely thing, because not everybody is open all the time; and not everybody is closed all the time, hopefully. . . But, there are certain moments when people can be open to each other and to something maybe similar or different; like-minded people--they're searching. . . Once people are open there is the willingness to share what they know--the willingness to not just own and say, "This is mine, you can't play with my toys." But, rather, "This is my toy. And you can play with it. Try this." Or, "Try that. Take it into your room. See what it does in your room." Then, there has to be enough mutual respect from both people to say, "Look, I don't really love your toy but I really like you. So maybe I'll play with your toy and then I discover that your toy is really interesting." So, you have to have some predisposition for respect, that you are willing to take a certain risk. . . [A great collaboration] has to honor the fact that two people are willing to take a certain risk, to trust each other, to be vulnerable to the other person, to have enough respect for each other as well as for yourself that you can be vulnerable and not feel that you are making a fool of yourself. . . All of those preconditions I think are important. . . . I think trust is an essential element in collaboration. . . You have to be willing to jump and have the other person catch you.

So, as pointed out by Yo-Yo Ma, these are especially important themes for a fruitful artistic collaboration (these all apply mutually to the collaborators):

• openness
• willingness to share
• respect (for yourself as well as for each other)
  
• willingness to take risks
• trust
• vulnerability

[images from the Internet Cello Society photo archive]

The Wexford Carol; A Beautiful, Ancient Christmas Song Sung by Alison Krauss

Happy Advent to all! This is the first week of the Advent season--the season of waiting in quiet expectation for the coming of Jesus into the world.

I am not a fan of overdoing Christmas-themed celebrations before the actual day of Christmas. I think there is wisdom in following the Catholic Church's lead on this, of waiting for the big day and then celebrating for a period of days afterwords. Pre-Thanksgiving Christmas hoopla definitely strikes me as too early, and sadly, brought about primarily for commercial reasons, not reasons of faith.

But, making concession for reality, I want to post this video now instead of waiting for Christmas Day.

Here is a hauntingly beautiful Irish Christmas song, The Wexford Carol, in the style of a Celtic ballad, sung by Alison Krauss and accompanied by Yo-Yo Ma on Cello (Natalie MacMaster plays violin). It dates back to the 12th century.
[For the lyrics see here]




To hear Yo-Yo Ma comment on this song and Alison's singing, go to the podcast here.