Wendell Berry has written with deep insight about why sex and sexuality can never be fully privatized, because its effects, for good and for bad, are inevitably socialized. I thought about him this morning while reading David Brooks' column [behind TimesSelect] in which Brooks discusses why both right-wing and left-wing sex education aimed at reducing teen sexual activity (or if you prefer, "irresponsible" teen sexual activity) cannot be demonstrated to work. Brooks, who has gotten interested lately in neuroscience, cites research in driving his conclusion that sex education that is prescriptive and didactic is weak because it doesn't address how people actually make decisions:
Deciding is conscious and individual, but perceiving is subconscious and communal. The teen sex programs that actually work don’t focus on the sex. They focus on the environment teens live in. They work on the substratum of perceptions students use to orient themselves in the world. They don’t try to lay down universal rules, but apply the particular codes that have power in distinct communities. They understand that changing behavior changes attitudes, not the other way around.
This makes intuitive sense to me, and it drives my deep interest in embedding my family in a moral community. We parents can (and should) instruct our children in proper morality regarding sex and every other aspect of human endeavor, but they will also receive messages from their community. I've said here before about how Michael Medved told me right after I became a new father that my wife and I shouldn't be under the impression that we could raise our children to be morally responsible alone, because no matter how hard we worked to create a morally sane environment in our house, so much of our work could be undone if the community of playmates in which our kids participated lived out a contrary morality.
My wife Julie and I have talked in the past about our rather different high school experiences, with regard to sexual morality. She went to a Baptist high school; I went to public schools. She says that the kinds of things that I dealt with all the time, as a routine part of high school life in a fairly conservative community, sound so foreign to her. It wasn't that I was in "bad" schools, and that the kids in her high school were all angels; the difference was that there was in her school a shared sense of morality. Everybody knew where the lines were, and these were observed and enforced not only by the adults, but by the entire community. Nobody was stopping you from transgressing, but if you wanted to be a good kid (by Christian standards), it was a lot easier because the peer culture of the school strongly reinforced it. She says today that she lived in a bubble then, and is deeply grateful for it, because even though she, like all of us, face a different world when we enter adulthood, either in college or in the working world, we're better able to navigate it if we've spent our formative years growing in moral maturity within a community that knows right from wrong, and lives it out intentionally.

Add to Newsvine
Franklin,
I don't really know Donny, so I can't comment one way or the other. From my experiences with homeschoolers, they are certainly "sheltered" frorm some things, but in other ways they are not.
However--perhaps looking at the situation in reverse might be useful. In the law school I attend, I can count on less than one hand the number of people I know (and I socialize a fair amount) who really seem to take the time to think deeply about and/or discuss the material we study. My sense is that many of my classmates look at their schooling as merely technical training. To me--that is somewhat of an issue. Lawyers have a great deal of power in society--and from some of our class discussions I get the feeling that not only have many of us never encountered a thought about the "deeper things" in life, but many don't or can't look at things from the perspective of anything besides a utilitarian or cost/benefit perspective.
In a sense, that is a form of sheltering--from a great body of great thought.
One more thing--I think we probably are coming to the same conclusion in different, albeit significant ways.
My means has to do with less of a libertarian view of the world. I think, rather, that as a natural institution, the family has certain inherernt rights which cannot be subordinated to the state. You could probably poke holes in the argument, but I shudder to think of the implications were it merely an institution organized around utilitarian objectives.
Though this is not the time and place to discuss this subject, that is probably why we go separate ways on some of the homosexual issues.
Don, again, well taken.
Personally -- and from a deep sympathy for your law school example -- I would ask for a deliberation of the balance between the internal sovereignty of the family and its utilitarian value to the larger society. That value is critical. Society cannot survive without it, something that easily allows me to sit at the table with people who are otherwise using reprehensible (to my ears) rhetoric. Community is valuable from both perspectives, the micro and the macro; it's the deliberate attempts to devalue it from either side that we should rightly be worried about.
I actually rather like the idea of home-schooling, what with the public schools being run by paranoid lunatics and social experimenters on one side and the private schools being run by religions that I would never want my child to embrace on the other. Fortunately I don't have children so I don't have to make that choice!
But I do have a step-granddaughter and as she is now in adolescence, I know that the hormones are going to start flowing if they aren't already and keeping her in a bubble is not likely to work, if only because the time will come when she will leave the bubble and follow the call of nature, as it were. This is simple reality. And in the final analysis the type of life she will live will be her decision and no one else's. Oh, she may be influenced in any number of ways, but she will be the one doing the living.
Fortunately for her future she seems to have more brains in her little finger than both of her parents possess in their overfed bodies and I can only hope that when the time comes she uses them.
As a proof to the contrary, my brother went to a private school, and has had problems with drugs, sex, and domestic issues (starting with his out of wedlock children with two different women). I went to public schools and have a stable family that started the "right" way (marriage before kids, etc.). So it's not a public school problem with sex, it's an individual problem.
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?