Sunday, April 12, 2015

What are we doing when we teach fiction to kids?

I want to make an observation I’ve never heard anyone make before. I’d be interested to know if anyone has expressed the same thing. If not, I’d be shocked, since this is something that’s right under our noses. Here it is:

When we teach children fiction — reading it, writing it, understanding it, loving it — as important as those teachings are, I think they also have a negative side effect. By teaching fiction so often and beginning at such an early age, we condition children to expect the “just right” results to flow inexorably from the writing of those who are good and bright.

Before kids learn about economics or law, politics or psychology, they learn that we’re supposed to treasure writing not primarily based on how well it corresponds to reality, but primarily based on whether it makes us feel good. And I intend the double meaning of “good” as in both “contented” and “moral.”

This could explain why well-educated, intelligent people, all across the political spectrum, so often make the unspoken assumption that good intentions and well-crafted words are sufficient for making good public policy. Now, when I put it like that, you might think that’s obviously false, and you might question how many people really believe this. But that's the assumption being made whenever anyone argues in favor of a law by referring to the righteous aspirations underlying it, without contemplating whether the process initiated by the text of the law could lead to results that are at odds with those aspirations. And people do that all the time.

This is not a lament that not enough people understand the concept of unintended consequences. In fact, I think most liberals and conservatives and libertarians understand the concept pretty well. The problem is that even with this fundamental understanding, they have an easy time selectively ignoring unintended consequences to suit their politics. For instance, I think many on the right too readily overlook the unintended consequences of going to war and criminalizing drugs. And I think many on the left overlook the unintended consequences of welfare, the minimum wage, affirmative action, and gun laws. My point here isn’t to say that anyone’s position on any particular issue is right or wrong. For instance, some would retort that conservatives overlook the unintended consequences of making the minimum wage too low. And others would say the anti-war folks overlook the negatives of so-called peace and the unintended consequences of refraining from going to war when it’s justified. Fair enough — but those are just more examples to support the broader point that there’s a lot of blindness to unintended consequences all along the political spectrum.

The approach I'd like to see more of, the pragmatic approach — scrutinizing policies with an eye for unintended consequences — is easily eclipsed by a belief in the power of brilliantly benevolent writing. From an early age, we awaken in children a shimmering, numinous sensibility that transcends empiricism and rationality.

By the way, you might notice that I haven’t proposed anything to be done about all this.

7 comments:

The Godfather said...

John, I'm not a regular reader of your blog, but I do read your mother's blog "religiously" and that's where I saw this post. The following is what I said in a comment on Althouse, and because it's critical, I thought I ought to share it with you:

I hope this doesn't come across as rude or judgmental, but the reason that Jaltcoh hasn't heard this observation before is because it's so obviously wrong.

Yes, it's true that some of us some of the time give too much weight to what appear to be good intentions. Obamacare is called the "affordable" care act, and affordable care is good, right? RFRA promises to "restore" our "religious freedom" and who could object to that? But fiction, good fiction, is more likely to make us wary of such promises than to buy into them. Do kids still read Hansel and Gretel? Isn't Obamacare a gingerbread house? The first grown-up book I can recall reading as a child was Tom Sawyer and soon after that Huckleberry Finn. Was it Bill Clinton who got us to whitewash his fence? Do the Duke and Dauphin remind you of the Ombama Administration? Or of Hillary!?

We can't blame fiction for our being idiots.

John said...

When we teach children fiction — reading it, writing it, understanding it, loving it — as important as those teachings are, I think they also have a negative side effect. By teaching fiction so often and beginning at such an early age, we condition children to expect the “just right” results to flow inexorably from the writing of those who are good and bright.

I find this idea is based on a flawed understanding of fiction, and the role of the parents and teachers in guiding a child to understand not only self, but the world around.

If today's educators provide political indoctrination on who are the "good and the bright" and only safe, politically correct fiction is allowed then perhaps your point might have some validity, but I prefer to believe children grow to understand the differences between a piece of fiction and reality.

Of course there is an alternative risk that what children are taught to believe as reality is actually a created fiction and not as real as their parents and teachers lead them to believe. When this happens the conflicts can be significant and perhaps overwhelming.

For example, I think we see this in today's youth who expect well paying jobs after college when the nation is moving from an industrial basis to a service based one? Children who have never been allowed to fail or struggle, how do they deal with this reality? Is it the fault of a piece of fiction?

Alan said...

Remarkably interesting idea, and even if it isn't 100 percent right, it at least tries to answer a question that's seldom even addressed.

Bob Boyd said...

"But that's the assumption being made whenever anyone argues in favor of a law by referring to the righteous aspirations underlying it, without contemplating whether the process initiated by the text of the law could lead to results that are at odds with those aspirations. And people do that all the time."

I think you're on to something here, but I'm not sure its the laws themselves people are getting emotionally attached to. Its the people who who are promoting the laws.
They are viewed as heroes in a struggle against villains. People don't see that the text of a law won't lead to the promised result because they don't care about the boring details. They just want the "good guys" to win and the "bad guys" to lose like in the stories.

Kirk Parker said...

Oh good grief, John: the Clinton and Obama administrations have been as vigorous in pursuing the War On (Some) Drugs as any others, haven't they? This is a profoundly bipartisan folly...

John Althouse Cohen said...

Oh good grief, John: the Clinton and Obama administrations have been as vigorous in pursuing the War On (Some) Drugs as any others, haven't they?

That's what they do to remain politically viable in the country at large. That doesn't necessarily represent what most Democrats or most liberals believe.

John Althouse Cohen said...

But fiction, good fiction, is more likely to make us wary of such promises than to buy into them.

You may be right about that. But you said my post is "obviously wrong," and your observation doesn't show that I'm obviously wrong. I admit I could be wrong, but I don't find it obvious. My post doesn't say it's terrible to teach children fiction. I'm just saying it has one negative side effect. The role of fiction in our lives is complex — it could have the negative side effect I'm describing while also having the salutary effect you're describing.