Debating the Core (Part one): Who should educate the future?

Debating the Core (Part one): Who should educate the future?

Tariku Abas Etenesh

Introduction

Have you ever said or heard it claimed that the family is the core of the society? The core that presents the base for all that the individual has in turn to claim or contribute to the society? Such arguments of the role of family in the life of an individual are not more manifest in any field as in the world of education. The father of psycho analysis, Sigmund Fraud, has stated that in the life of the individual “early foundations are critical”. Such an assertion is at least indication that the life experience that the child forms in his formative years on the planet is so important that it will be inseparably linked to his manifested wants and dislikes.

It seems recognition to this fact that many educational theorists argue that any teaching and learning theory should recognize the place the role of the family in the child’s learning. Thus, in the rhetoric of teaching and learning theories that will best effect changes in the learner, the contribution that the solid past will have is paramount. In this short discussion I try to present two  opposing views (of one philosopher and one spiritual teacher) on the role of the family in raising the child.

First philosopher I would like to mention in this regard is Ayn Rand: the novelist and philosopher who introduced the philosophy of objectivism in her monumental works, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountain Head and The Anthem and others. The source I will based this reflection on, however, is not her book or any of her many articles. It is her interview she conducted in 1965, which I recently got the chance of viewing. In this interview, which was conducted in the presence of studio audience, Ayn rand was given the chance to explain her philosophies and how it is translated in her personal life and how she would like it translated in the life of many in the world. In her answers she strongly emphasized that man should always be responsible for his own destiny and to do so should relay in his own reasoning more than anything else. Moreover, she said that the individual should neither allow others take charge of his life nor should he take responsibility for others lives.

The Initial interview session was followed by a Q&A session. Many questions were asked and answered by the guest. But the one question that interested me came from a woman in her mid forties, who asked:

Woman:” What in your opinion in the responsibility of our society to children who would be our leaders?”

Rand:   To begin with the society has any responsibility towards anyone; neither for the future leaders or for the future victims. Society has nothing to do properly speaking with the life of anyone person except to keep away from his way and give him a chance.

Thus, according to Rand, no individual, be it gifted or disadvantaged, should be offered any extra hand of help and care or even opportunity from the society except be given the chance to explore for himself what he is fit in this world for and strive to get that with his own genius and not blame or thank any third party, including god, for what comes as result, except himself. This argument leaves the child as the sole responsibility of his family. 

The family has to try his way in the world and give the child an opportunity of a decent education and then leave the child to explore for himself what he could achieve. For Ayn Rand, any form of collective responsibility is a lesser virtue that should not be allowed in a free society. In a free society, thus, the role of the family is to help the child grew in the direction of freedom and exploration in which he will live not for anyone’s sake but for himself and never for others unless he chose to do so for his own selfish interest. The problem as for me of this view is that, inspire of claiming that we live in a free society and we are free, there will always be individual differences among families. This has a direct impact on the world view and values the child will grow with before he comes to school to get the training that could make him/ her full person.

A rather too extreme view of the role of the family emphasized by the second person I wanted to bring to this reflection is the spiritual teacher Chandra Mohan Jainthe,  commonly known as OSHO. To balance the comparison, I will present a quotation from one of his many interviews on variety of issues, which included the role of the family in the raising, the child:

Interview: …Who do you think should take care of the children?

OSHO: it is a real fact that a boy grows up hating his father and the baby girl grows up hating her mother. What family does to children is to limit their imaginations, and make them look like their parents which in many senses might not be the best thing to be in the world.

Interviewer: so who should take care of the children?

Osho: the society should. The community should have the responsibility to create a situation in which all children in a specific community should be raised in together and be allowed to learn whatever they feel like and not be limited by their family’s interests and wants.

According to Osho thus, the role of the family in the teaching of the child should be too minimum as it will end at the point of birth. Once there are born children should be free to explore for themselves what they would like to be or do. This includes what religion they want to follow, who to take as right, or wrong, what to learn and what to and what not to. For Osho this is the free society.

For Rand the family is the pivotal part of the raising the Child for Osho, the family has almost no role. On the flip page of their argument, however, we find Osho believing that the community should take care of the raising of the child , while Rand asserts that the community has not responsibility whatsoever for the individual.  

The interesting thing in the claim by Osho is that fact that one is from a rich or poor family, or is from this or that culture, or religion, shall have no dominating role in shaping the child’s worldview as all will be exposed to what they would like to and allowed to or help to achieve that. In this sense the two thinkers seem to take different course to reach at the same end: A free thinking individual, who would not be disarmed of his will and desire to work hard and find his own way-out and define his own truth either by over indulgence by society or limitations by family.  

The ultimate aim of any education system is as for me to help the individual exploit his potentials to reach at his own goals in life unhindered. However, the two people differ in the place the backdrop of the training of the child should be like.

TBC...