Before I move onto today’s myth, a few observations.
Gill at Sometimes It’s Peaceful has suggested that we could use Graham Badman’s assertion that “maintaining the status quo is out of the question” for our own ends. The implications of the current situation are not acceptable for any family, and in that sense then, Mr Badman is correct. Rather than returning to the trenches and being on the defensive, I believe that we need to be abundantly clear about the positive outcomes we want to see from our public servants. Many other parents have come forward today to say similar.
In a similar vein, prompted in part by the findings of the Database State report, Bishop Hill writes today that “we are probably heading, as a society, for a pretty major decision about our relationship to the state”. As I commented on Gill’s blog, I think the government is on far shakier ground than it would currently care to admit, and that means, I think, a golden opportunity to halt this incessant creep of the state before it actually begins to live our lives (and the lives of our children) for us.
Yesterday, I made the point that scientific progress and the social change we see today are neither good nor bad things, morally speaking, although the state, the media, the experts and the general public tend to use such rhetoric to suit their purposes: The internet has turned our children into poor communicators with ADHD, for example. For many, hostility to change is an automatic response.
Regardless, it is short-sighted indeed to attempt to fully protect every single child from every single thing that is unfamiliar or new, and it is certainly not the state’s role to ensure this. Protection from every conceivable risk leads to ingrained dependence, real vulnerability and, therefore, increased danger. To combat this, the state would have to grow yet bigger and protect yet further, swallowing increasing amounts of money in the process (which it does).
Children who are informed, allowed to make decisions and treated as responsible individuals worthy of respect are far more likely to live up to this expectation, to be safer, and to and contribute more to society in the long run. Which is what the government says that it wants, of course...
