___________________________________

___________________________________

Are Our Children Still Welcome?

A Reflection on the Meaning of Values in Family Education Bert Roebben
1.

Postmodern Parents: between ethical goodwill and moral uncertainty

This articles point of departure is from the presupposition that an effort to instill norms, values and a sense of purpose is always a significant element in the educational process. Indeed, questions concerning values and meaning are always a necessary aspect of the process of raising children. In their day-to-day engagement with children and young people, contemporary adults are continually striving to obtain some perspective on the future of the present generation and of generations to come. The questions that arise about this future are meaning questions, questions concerning the significance and purpose of their engagement. It is often true, of course, that such sensitivity for personal values and meaning leads something of a hidden life because of the fact that parents today tend to act under pressure from the society around them. Nevertheless, the so-called moral indifference, which is considered such a defining characteristic of contemporary social life, does not mean that we are free to conclude that parents and educators have no clue as to what is important for the welfare of their children. On the contrary, contemporary parents are far from indifferent. The kind of adults their children will become, or rather, the kind of adults they hope their children will not become, is a matter of serious concern to them.1 Parents want the best for their children. They want them to share in the good life and they are inclined to ask themselves incisive and self-critical questions when things do not turn out as they ought in the

raising of their children. In a time of moral uncertainty, such as ours, the desire for the good fortune and well-being of future generations is both strong and fragile at the same time. When things go wrong, the disappointment is often hard to bear. From time immemorial parents have wanted the best for their children. What is new for our time is the fact that the meaning and content of the best is no longer a simple given. Until thirty years ago both church and state (along with a variety of other authorities) offered a clear framework for the organisation of society and family alike. They provided the rules of the game which were, to a greater or lesser extent, successful in contributing to the realisation of the best. Daily (social) life was supported by this framework, with its common convictions, disciplines, rituals, symbols, foundational archetypes, etc. Whether this way of living was beneficient to the persons well-being, was itself never questioned or discussed. In fact, personal conscience simply did not tolerate such questioning and often punished perpetrators with inordinate guilt feelings. Today, however, Christianitys majestic narrative, which has overshadowed life in the Low Countries (via Catholic Action and Christian social engagement, among other things), has lost much of its lustre. It has not been simply a matter of course that those who have populated the latter part of modernity have been swept along by the force of this narrative. Other important narratives, such as communism (since the fall of the Berlin Wall) and late-capitalism (with its adjunct phenomena such as joblessness, performance-drift and environmental pollution) have also waned

________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethical Perspectives 2 (1995)1, p. 63

___________________________________

___________________________________

significantly in recent years. Questions have arisen concerning the justifiability of these social projects where the whole person is concerned. Our contemporaries no longer spontaneously allow one particular ideal to colour their lives, nor do they blindly follow after a flag which no longer offers any security. It is for this reason that people today see their lives as meaning-giving projects which they themselves must design, and as something which must be revisioned and reconsidered time and again as lifes circumstances change. People give shape and form to the good life by constructing their own personal meaning-giving projects, or at least by holding fast to some freely chosen beacons which give direction and meaning to their lives. People today are striving for spiritual selfcontrol in their lives which they then hold forth as an ideal in the educational process. The past held relatively secure and certain values which, in turn, had to be passed on to children as they matured into adulthood. Children today, however, have to learn to live with uncertainty, with the fact that norms and values are no longer pre-supposed and given but that these are the ongoing subject matter of social debate. Consequently, children must now learn to be socially animated and to acquire the ability to communicate with others on questions of norms and values.2 In striving for such a social and educational ideal, such a postmodern concept of the good life, would be, in the eyes of some, to bite off more than one can chew. Parents and educators fear that they are being asked too much because they themselves are not sure how they are going to pass on this sense of social animation and values-communication to their children. They want the best for those in their care, but they have doubts as to the right procedure for achieving this. Indeed, they feel trapped in the tension between ethical goodwill and moral uncertainty. There are so many possible directions to take or paths to follow, and many of these are riddled

with pit-falls. Moreover, the journey is fraught with the temptation to become sidetracked. The media are pretty adept at devising paths (i.e. norms and values) which we ourselves have not chosen. Some propose that it is impossible for society to break free of pressure from the media and from other hidden norms. For that matter, they continue, such freedom is not necessary. Life is much easier when people dont have to think and when they dont have to bother each other as they put together their personal life styles, norms and values included, according to the principle to each his own.3 In opposition to such relativism are those who sense that society is about to collapse from its lack of moral standards and that the tide can only be turned by a bold, moral re-awakening (a sort of spring-cleaning). These people tend to opt for a strict and rather dogmatic approach to social life and education that is rooted in the conviction that clearly defined norms and values can be passed on in their entirety to the coming generations. Both approaches, as far as I can see, are fundamentally incompatible with education as such. On the one hand, relativism leads to a kind of cynicism in which nothing seems to hold value anymore: the child is disoriented on his or her path towards the good life. On the other hand, dogmatism leads to blind indoctrination: young people are not taken seriously as they go through the process of moral development and are ultimately deprived of the necessary tools for living life as adults in our ever-changing world. By earnestly reflecting on the tension between ethical goodwill and moral uncertainty found among parents and educators today, and by probing the depths of the feelings of powerlessness and failure which frequently accompany this tension, we can allow them enough breathing space to regroup, as it were, and to learn how to choose for authentic norms and values, thus avoiding the pitfalls of both relativism and dogmatism. In this day and age, education has be-

________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethical Perspectives 2 (1995)1, p. 64

___________________________________

___________________________________

come primarily a social problem. The postmodern educational process raises questions with regard to the meaning of education as such (What are we about?) precisely because society itself is struggling with the question whether it still wants to be authentic, existing peacefully and in a way which leads to the contentment and well-being of its members, in unity and diversity. Cynicism and dogmatism are not the only options, a middle way is both conceivable and (politically) achievable. In this middle way the inalienable uniqueness of individuals as well as groups can be realised in harmony with the common good. In the educational process such a middle way is both possible and desirable. In its demand for continually renewed creativity and deliberation, the search for the middle way is never finished. A unified vision of the truth is no longer a given in our postmodern experience, and this can very well lead to frustration. Nevertheless, the journey towards and the search for truth in the company of many others can also be an enriching and maturing process, leading to the creation of the proper climate in which values and truth can emerge step by step. It is a humbling thought that truth can only come into existence through communication. Societys search for a middle way is pre-eminently pedagogical, i.e. it is rooted in the question whether we still, if at all, want to find purpose in the education of future generations, purpose in the sense of meaning and intention. Pedagogy must, therefore, always remain a pedagogy of hope. If pedagogy loses its purpose, lets cynicism and dogmatism run their course, and gives up its dream of a contented life for every child, it will cease to do justice to its most essential task, namely, to provide children with the skills for creating a better future.4 If this vision is allowed to disipate, and extreme relativism and cynicism are allowed to gain the upper hand, then educators will be denying both themselves and those in their care a future which will make history. Such a loss would be nothing short of fatal.

The ultimate purpose or norm of education can indeed be traced in the educational process itself. It is perhaps the task of our postmodern society to re-think this norm and to realise it anew. This norm might be stated as follows: at first, young children are looking for parents and educators who will take them by the hand and lead them through success and failure in a way of life which has value and merit. After this phase of initiation comes a letting go stage in which the emerging adult with right and reason goes his or her own way, regardless of whether or not this deviates from the path taken by his or her predecessors. Initiation and communication, that is, educators who exemplify a purposeful life and children who are slowly-but-surely given the skills to be responsible for their own options, are a duality that is characteristic of life as such and of the educational process in particular. Part 3 will be dedicated to a deeper discussion of this matter. Before going further, however, I would like to pause briefly to consider the period of rapid acceleration in which our perspective on the family has found itself in Western Europe over the last thirty years.
2.

Moral Education in the Family in Rapid Acceleration (1960-1995)

A great deal has changed in family life over the last thirty years, as the people who have raised their children during this time can attest. The significant contrast between the period before the anti-establishment activities of the late Sixties and the period that followed forced many parents and educators to thoroughly reconsider what they understood by moral education. Prior to the Sixties, moral education took place within the confines of the family. The parents (above all the father) received a mandate from both church and state to pass on moral values to their children in raising them. After 1968, however, this mandate came under a lot of pressure. The traditional family model, which was operative until the

________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethical Perspectives 2 (1995)1, p. 65

___________________________________

___________________________________

Sixties, established rules that were authoritative and obvious (i.e. neither open to dispute nor supported up by reasonable argumentation). These were handed on as the rules of the game to which everyone was obliged to conform. The formation of a young persons conscience was primarily a question of character training, together with drilling in the rules, which were provided by church and state and which it was ones duty to keep. In the modern family model (1960-80) both traditional authority and moral education were undermined on account of the crisis that authority as a whole was undergoing. Under the influence of the anti-establishment protest movements of the late Sixties, people became sensitive to the fact that they could rid themselves of the burden of patronisation by being mature, independent and responsible. As they grew up, children were swept along on the same wave. They were considered partners in the process of education, related to their parents and teachers by emotional ties, and no longer under the tyranny of an authoritarian pedagogical system. In this way, an anti-authoritarian educational system was born. The way in which the family was organised within the home, along with the way it presented itself to the outside world, was no longer defined by the prescribed norms of the institutional family, but was the subject of dialogue and discussion between parents and children. Parents granted their children rights (unthinkable in the old model) and demanded reciprocal rights for themselves (e.g. a career for both husband and wife, an evening out, hobbies etc.). The modern family ideal was characterised by the presupposition that genuine social life was possible if the educational process (in both school and family) led to maturity, independence and responsibility. Norms and values were also a part of this possible world. It was thought that, given the right atmosphere, each person (and, therefore, each child) had it within him or herself to make a personal choice for the good. Given the opportunity to develop, each person

would spontaneously choose good and avoid evil, thereby doing his or her bit for a better world. Postmodern critique of this struggle for freedom has caused many of our contemporaries to think again. Did the new found emancipation lead to a genuine liberation? Did we really become free to join in the creation of a better world for all people? Or were we crippled by our fear of freedom and dragged along by new majestic narratives such as commercialism? We had been called upon to put together our own life project, but was it possible to do so in freedom and responsibility? Are we free at all when it comes to the choice between good and evil? Should we not, rather, let ourselves be organised by values such as respect for others with an eye for the common good? Should we not keep our eyes fixed on a horizon of humanity for all? After all, is this not the true liberation, the liberation which lay at the origins of the Enlightenment, as well as the emancipation of the late Sixties? The least we can do is to become aware of the fact that in society as a whole, and in the educational process in particular, we often find ourselves striving for norms and values that we did not choose. Furthermore, if everything is possible, how can we make a choice? Is it not so that we try to dispel our lack of certainty by continually gearing ourselves towards others because they are a source of approval and encouragement? The media control our behaviour to a great degree, including our moral and ideological values. They delude us into thinking that we are choosing freely for what we consider nice, easy and appropriate for our style of life, and they confirm us in those choices. At the same time, however, they confirm us in our purchasing behaviour. Youth cultures, above all, with their tendency towards experimental behaviour, are watched very closely and manipulated with a view to marketing newly emerging lifestyles and value patterns geared to young and adult alike. We live, therefore, in the illusion that we are free to channel surf, free to define our

________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethical Perspectives 2 (1995)1, p. 66

___________________________________

___________________________________

own goals in life. We forget, however, that freedom can only be achieved in history, that freedom is not possible without responsibility, that our freedom cannot be at the cost of the freedom of others, that real liberation is a slow process, needing time and space to come to fruition. Moreover, societys concealed norms and values, presented and represented by the media, are very demanding. People today feel pressured to perpetually comply with the demands of a restless, postmodern lifestyle. At work, at play, and in the world of relationships, we feel compelled to perform according to norms and values which are not our own, but for which we must still take responsibility. If societys only norm is that men and women must prove themselves and their life styles, then in the long run this will tend to become an obligation. The so-called new flexibility, held up as exemplary in the postmodern age, will then run the risk of turning into fragility.5 We will run out of steam, children will feel lost and unsure, the young will react impulsively. Busy and agitated weekends, as well as the flight into drugs and depression, should be seen against this background. Can the family offer any consolation? Can it serve as a breathing space in a restless and troubled world? Can people feel at home in the family and be liberated from their performance angst? Can children and adults arm themselves against the cynicism of the consumer society? Is it possible to create a climate in which the other is accepted even when he or she fails to perform or runs out of steam? Can an open perspective within the family itself be maintained, open to a world which is yearning for authentic humanity? These are the questions which have preoccupied the postmodern family (more or less since 1980). I have already indicated that there is a need for a new ideal in the educational process. In what follows I will consider the question of whether it would be responsible to try to establish such an ideal, with its renewed concern for the norm or purpose of education, in the postmodern family.

3.

Family Education: between initiation and communication

Our description of the tension in which parents and educators find themselves today clearly showed that there is a danger of falling into the trap of indifference and cynicism. Against the background of some recent developments in family life, that is, having lost sight of the purpose of the educational process and no longer being inspired by a pan-generational perspective of the common good for all humanity, it is now quite understandable why some people have tended towards cynicism. Such people have securely nestled themselves in the consumption model of social living and now tend to avoid irritating questions about its concealed norms and values. Actually, they tend not to ask themselves any questions at all, wanting to be left in peace and not held responsible for the choices they do or dont make. As we have said, such cynicism is fatal for children and young people as they search for the ideal(s) which will govern their adult lives. The emancipation movements of the late Sixties correctly pointed out that it is important for the emerging adult to attain moral maturity, independence and responsibility. Indeed, the purpose of moral education consists in forming a conscious and integrated vision of what is of value, together with the ability to actively express this vision in words and to justify it to those who think otherwise. This entails both an ability to live with plurality and the capability to communicate, i.e. dialogue and eventually agree with others on what is of value and what has to be done so as to achieve it in a variety of particular situations. In order to prepare young people for this task, however, they must first be initiated in a particular vision of the good life following the example of their parents and teachers.6 Before a child can call into question the value of a certain ideal or perspective on life, with an eye to the creation of his or her own perspective on life (in

________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethical Perspectives 2 (1995)1, p. 67

___________________________________

___________________________________

adolescence), he or she must first be introduced to it (in the childhood years) via the example of his or her predecessors. This is indeed the paradox of moral education: autonomy or self-determination is only learned through heteronomy or being-determined-by-others. Children are not pocket-sized moral philosophers; they learn the difference between good and bad as they experience them step by step in the educational process. As such, education means to lead out (from the Latin e-ducere) and to let go with the words: Now it is your turn. This, however, can only happen after a period of initiation and sensitisation (from the Latin educare to mould, fashion, nourish) to what is good, true and beautiful. The time is ripe today to renew our discussion and realisation of the educational process in light of the integral dynamic of initiation and communication.7 In a time of threatening indifference and meaninglessness, parents and educators must once again become aware of the fact that (young) children look up to them and expect them to be striving towards what is of value. Both young and old alike must engage in a common search for a meaningful future. In such a search parents must be prepared to tell their story once again, the story that roots them in their own tradition. L. Dasberg, the Dutch-Jewish educationalist, points out in this regard: By withholding tradition we deny our sons and daughters and students the possibility of being part of the educational process, the right to a pedagogical relationship and the right to their inheritance in history. For Dasberg this is a question of life and death. What would happen ... if adults dismissed it as authoritarian to take infants on their shoulders? Young people would be able to do nothing more than bang their heads against the wall in desperation in the hope that they might from time to time get a glimpse of what lies behind it.8 To pass on cynicism to our children is indeed the worst favour we can do for the coming generations; it not only denies them their past, but also their future and reason for living. The person who has no past

does not know how to give meaning to the future. Such a person can only drown in the now. The ability to communicate with others on the question of values presupposes a certain valueinitiation, an introduction to the world of values which cannot be missed out. If this does not take place, or if the educator is simply not prepared to think about it, then children and young people will inevitably be dragged along in the spiral of indifference. In this event it would be nothing short of hypocrisy for society to blame the younger generations for the collapse of morality and the increase of violence in todays world. As long as the day-to-day lives of young people continue to be brutalised by consumer sex and violence, it will be impossible to turn back the tide of counter violence perpetrated by young people against society. We should not lay the burden for moral education on the shoulders of our younger generations; it must instead remain the first and foremost task of parents and educators.
4.

Are Our Children Still Welcome Guests?

I would like to conclude this article by way of a somewhat provocative question: Are our children still welcome guests? In the Flemish language the word gast (guest) can also mean child. Do we truly treat our children as welcome guests? In asking this question, then, I would like to suggest that the value of hospitality should once again be practiced in welcoming, raising and educating our children. As has been noted, norms and values are constantly being passed on in the educational process. The cynicism and submissiveness which are a consequence of hidden norms and values can only be overturned if we make ourselves aware once again of what we actually want from education, of the purpose we see (or dont see) in its endeavour. Such an achievement is indeed within our grasp. In the process, we nonetheless involve our children, whether we like it or not. When parents and educators concern themselves

________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethical Perspectives 2 (1995)1, p. 68

___________________________________

___________________________________

with the value of a particular life project, in other words when they themselves struggle with it, they not only pass the value on to their children but the very process of appreciating values as well. The process is infectious where children are concerned. They are given a mirror in which they gain insight into the development of their own values. In this way children can experience the hospitality of their parents and teachers anew. The bottom line is this: when families are together, quality time must be set aside for talk and play, for dialogue on what occupies, inspires and gives a sense of purpose to both child and adult alike. I am not suggesting here that parents should stay at home all the time; what I am suggesting is that quality time must be set aside which the family can spend more consciously and authentically on lifes more important questions. Such questions surface primarily during times of crisis, at times when the obvious character of the purpose of education, or even life itself, fades into darkness. At times like this, essential questions arise: Have I done the right thing?, Why did this have to happen to me?, Why do I keep on going inspite of it all?, Would I not be better to quit? When families grasp for words to at

tempt to express what they are going through, then the possibility for genuine harmony grows. When it comes to finding purpose in life, many families feel themselves isolated and alone. For this reason I would propose that they network with one another in order to discuss their experiences and empower one another as much as possible. People need to encounter one another in their day-to-day experiences of raising and educating their children. Such encounters need to be more than mere skill gathering meetings which increase the efficiency of the educational endeavour.9 Such networks could, in principle, provide people with the opportunity to share their value questions, and perhaps solve them precisely because such questions are already part of the relationship they have with their children. This is precisely what I meant above by the phrase pedagogy of hope. When parents and educators regain a sense of purpose in the educational process, and receive their children with hospitality once more, then society itself will take on a new lustre, a lustre of hope and future. Then the educational process will become an infectious homefire, not only for our own children, but for the many others who will feel attracted to it as welcome guests.

Notes
1. P. SMEYERS, The Necessity for Particularity in Education and Child-Rearing. The Moral Issue in Journal of Philosophy of Education 26(1991), p. 63-73. 2. J.A. VAN DER VEN, Vorming in waarden en normen. Kampen, Kok-Agora, 1985; ID., Moral Formation in the Church in Concilium (1987)191, p. 117-127. 3. R. BURGGRAEVE, Prohibition and Taste: the Bipolarity of Christian Ethics in Ethical Perspectives 1(1994)3, p. 130-135. 4. B. ROEBBEN, From Ethos to Ethics. Moral Education in a Post-Modern Era in Values Education 2(1994-95)2, p. 5-8. 5. M. ELCHARDUS, P. HEYVAERT, Soepel, flexibel en ongebonden. Een vergelijking van twee laat-moderne generaties. Brussel, VUB-Press, 1991. 6. T. LICKONA, Character Development in the Family in K. RYAN, T. LICKONA (eds.), Character Development in Schools and Beyond. Washington, The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 1992, p. 201-217. 7. B. ROEBBEN, To Initiate into a World of Difference: A Design for Dynamic-Integral Values Education in Louvain Studies 19(1994), p. 338-349; ID., Een tijd van opvoeden. Moraalpedagogiek in christelijk perspectief (Nik - Didach), Leuven/Amersfoort, Acco, 1995.

________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethical Perspectives 2 (1995)1, p. 69

___________________________________

___________________________________

8. L. DASBERG, Wat is er terechtgekomen van de eeuw van het kind? in A.G.M. VAN MELSEN, Wie ben ik, wie zijn jullie? Een waardenvaste opvoeding in een waardeloze wereld? Baarn, Ambo, 1980, p. 31-32. 9. L. VANDEMEULEBROECKE & H. VAN CROMBRUGGE, Family Life Education in T. HUSN, T. NEVILLE POSTLETHWAITE (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 19942, Vol. 4, p. 2262-2267.

________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethical Perspectives 2 (1995)1, p. 70