radical unschooling, natural learning, traditional lifestyles

[Meredith]

In another discussion someone made a comment:

 

"[Radical unschooling is] a great word for what has been done for thousands of years by many traditional peoples."

 

Is it? Or is that a somewhat glamorized view of traditional lifestyles, a variation of "in the good old days..."?

 

If some traditional lifestyles do represent a kind of radical unschooling, how does that play out in the modern world?

 

 

[Meredith]

Lately I'm noticing a lot of confusion around the phrase "natural learning" - I'd noticed it before with "organic learning" - and its the same sort of confusion that comes up with radical unschooling, that people take the modifier (radical, natural, organic) as a description of a kind of lifestyle rather than a description of the word that follows - its the unschooling that's radical, the learning that's natural and so on.

The idea that traditional lifestyles constitute a kind of unschooling seems to me to be a part of that misunderstanding. Parents want to create a kind of "controlled environment" in which kids can "naturally" learn what parents want them to learn. The trouble is there's a rest of the world that kids eventually discover and want to learn about - and so far the parents I've met, either online or irl, who tried to create that kind of controlled environment run into the same kinds of issues as conventional parents and fall back on conventional strategies - maybe continuing to unschool academics, but not whole-life unschooling.

Maybe that's just my sample space, though, so I'm curious.

[Scott]

Thank you for the discussion here. I would like to toss out as one point in the spectrum, The Continuum Concept, which is presented as based on its author's experiences among the Yequana indians and their methods of childraising.

Continuum is often associated as foundational to Attachment Parenting and both are in my understanding often affiliated with and practiced by many unschoolers and radical unschoolers as consistent with unschooling. I am fairly sure most members here are familiar with both of these.

[JennyStar]

Continuum is often associated as foundational to Attachment Parenting and both are in my understanding often affiliated with and practiced by many unschoolers and radical unschoolers as consistent with unschooling.

Not all unschooling parents come to unschooling from that direction. Some ideas and concepts are compatible with unschooling and some aren't. Some people like to MAKE ideas compatible and interchangeable. It doesn't always work and sometimes it makes it harder to understand unschooling, it makes it convoluted.

Just like "natural learning" and "organic learning" can be terribly confusing for people trying to get at the heart of unschooling. They can be used as descriptors of what unschooling is, but sometimes it leads folks away from other very crucial aspects of unschooling.

Parents want to create a kind of "controlled environment" in which kids can "naturally" learn what parents want them to learn.

Meredith said that. All kids learn naturally, it's what they do. Even kids in school learn naturally, but they are also picking up and learning other things too, things that harm curiosity and joy of learning and parcels out what is and should be fun and what isn't.

I have a personal aversion to "organic learning", that's just me and the hippie environment that I grew up in. I eat organic veggies and sometimes I buy things made from organic cotton. I never took organic chemistry in school, but I suppose I partake in it every time I make bread. Organic, the word itself, from a dictionary definition doesn't really apply to learning, so it's weird for me to hear it and see it written. That's just me, and someone could point to how I might be missing something there.

I don't think that radical unschooling, as we know it today can ever be transported back into some distant far off time and place. What was done in the history wasn't in reaction to compulsory mass education. Unschooling is that and through that reaction some pretty amazing things have come out of it in regards to raising children that just might have been more common many many eons ago.

[Meredith]

Continuum Concept is a good example of a controlled environment - the original studies were done with people who were very isolated, which doesn't translate well to living with children in a complex environment with lots of choices. The vast majority of people who are interested in CC or Attachment parenting (and ideas related to those as Bob pointed out) don't unschool - most start limiting food sometime between ages 3 and 4, when children naturally stop being easy-going about food, and put kids in school by age 5, if not sooner.

Plenty of parents who are interested in unschooling with young children will "ease in" from a more controlled environment and that's not a terrible thing - in fact its good, tried and true advice from longtime unschoolers! Easing in helps parents develop confidence both in natural learning and in themselves - what's interesting is that when second and third children don't get the same kind of easing in they do just fine. With young children, going slowly into unschooling is all about parental comfort and deschooling.

Where something like the Continuum Concept departs from unschooling is when kids aren't interested in what parents are doing. The whole Idea is that its natural for kids to be interested in adult activities - but when kids are given the freedom to make other choices - for adults to follow them and be interested in them - kids often spend much less time wanting to know what mom and dad (etc) are up to. That's something that can happen anywhere from age 2 to adulthood - which is why ideas like CC seem to work, some kids really are fascinated with what adults are doing and want to learn about those things. But not all kids are like that (mine, for instance) and that's why people ultimately leave traditional settings for the wider world, that setting doesn't have enough options.

I was raised with a set of religious traditions. They weren't made onerous when I was little, there were little rites of passage that let me feel like a "big girl" at six and nine and as a teen, but ultimately I wanted more than what was offered - and beyond a certain point there Was no more, so I left that religion. My brother likes the traditions and has stayed within the religion after some early adult exploration.

One of the complaints thats sometimes made about unschooling is that it doesn't seem to be sustainable - and for good reason, it isn't! Its not about future generations, which is kind of important in passing on traditions and traditional lifestyles. My kids aren't growing up with more than passing knowledge of the traditions in which I was raised and my brother has no children - the tradition in terms of our close family dies with my generation.

That's the big reason behind my skepticism about describing traditional lifestyles as unschooling - is there a way that unschooling can be sustainable without compromising either the freedom to choose what to learn or the traditional lifestyle itself?

[Teresa]

Meredith said:is there a way that unschooling can be sustainable without compromising either the freedom to choose what to learn or the traditional lifestyle itself?


I see what you mean here. But I don't think that all of us are equal as vessels of tradition to begin with. There are always those for whom tradition itself is important, who happen to like the things that are often traditional (such as preparing food), or who are perfectly content to do some things the same ways their parents or their claimed culture do. These acts could be perfectly intrinsic in some people, or it could be ways to seek approval or belonging or control. But anyway, through these people, the traditional lifestyle is maintained, even in the array of choices present in modern times.

And then, of course, there are people who choose to pursue other things, people for whom tradition is not as important, whose interests are not shared or particularly indulged by family or culture, and who are not content to accept certain ways of doing and ways of being simply because they are accustomed to them. While they may still participate in some traditions (the way that many who are no longer Christian still do the big-family Christmas thing), or they may still have a soft place in their hearts for certain elements of the traditions they were familiar with as children, they don't actively uphold those traditions, and probably only expose their own children to it tangentially.

I'm not sure if it's based on personality or cultural conditioning, but I wonder if these two "types" of folks--vessels of tradition, and mavericks, have existed side by side almost as soon as ways of doing things were formalized within a group. I'm imagining some Celtic heath dweller looking at other people happily leaping over fires on the hills, thinking, "Eh. I don't really think this is going to affect the weather this year, and I'm not that good of a jumper anyway," or whatever. (And no offense meant by that likely inaccurate example!)

However, I'm also wondering if, in many traditional cultures, some traditions were wrapped up in survival strategies. But I don't know if these would qualify as traditions. Identifying and gathering wild edibles, hunting small game, and starting fires from friction would likely have been skills important to many "traditional" cultures. I could imagine that, by sheer saturation throughout a culture, children would be exposed to and interested in how these things are done (though doubtless there would be a wide spectrum of interest in and mastery of these skills). Certain related traditions may have sprung up around these kind of "core skills," but as cultures changed and those strategies were less imperative, it would make sense for the traditions to wane or evolve or give way all together. At that point, some people could hold on to the traditions for personal reasons, but because whatever practice would not be so utterly present in a particular culture, a child would have far less opportunity to experiment with it.

Also, I think that many kids are naturally curious about what their parents or friends do. I think that might be both a function of proximity and kinship ties. That doesn't strike me as a falsely controlled environment. But at a certain age, when kids are old enough to express and pursue their own different interests, that's when the control might come in to play. My kids are both young, but the almost 5 year old has a mix of interests that are mine and his fathers and those that are totally different than ours. I wonder if this mix will persist...

[Meredith]

But at a certain age, when kids are old enough to express and pursue their own different interests, that's when the control might come in to play. My kids are both young, but the almost 5 year old has a mix of interests that are mine and his fathers and those that are totally different than ours. I wonder if this mix will persist...

See, that "certain age" came pretty young with my kids - they were the kind who were dashing off hither and yon as soon as they could run. So the sort of classical "kids helping out" stages passed us by twice. Ray has dabbled with this and that over the years, sometimes in response to parental pressure (we didn't start out unschooling and his bio mom doesn't unschool so he has pressure from her,too) but has consistently moved off in his own directions. As Mo has gotten older some of her interests have coincided with ours but its more been a matter of her developing and interest first and George and I get to join in.

I'm not sure if it's based on personality or cultural conditioning, but I wonder if these two "types" of folks--vessels of tradition, and mavericks, have existed side by side almost as soon as ways of doing things were formalized within a group.

Sometimes I wonder if "mavericks" have been selected against to some extent, and people who go with the flow are somehow genetically dominent. I don't know if that's true or a bit of american cultural baggage - everyone else is sheeple and I'm and individual as it were. But given my skepticism over that bit of cultural baggage I also wonder if that's too narrow a distinction. Certainly there are a lot of different personalities and some fit better into groups than others.... but some also fit better into certain kinds of groups. That's true for me. Depending on the people around me I can seem very very strange or a wallflower, a source of friction or a source of thoughtfulness - one of the advantages of living communally was getting to "see myself" as all those things and how very much that depended on the people around me.

I don't think that all of us are equal as vessels of tradition to begin with. There are always those for whom tradition itself is important, who happen to like the things that are often traditional (such as preparing food), or who are perfectly content to do some things the same ways their parents or their claimed culture do. These acts could be perfectly intrinsic in some people, or it could be ways to seek approval or belonging or control. But anyway, through these people, the traditional lifestyle is maintained, even in the array of choices present in modern times.

Oh, I love this - the idea that "tradition" is something to choose or not choose. I do some very "traditional" things, myself - I'm a seamstress and quiltmaker and knitter. I make my own rugs out of scraps, make my own curtains, re-cover my own furniture (and now I have two old futons and am thinking of building a new couch). I built the house I live in with my own hands and limited electricity. I like the idea that I'm choosing to preserve aspects of "traditional lifestyles" in that sense. Thinking in those terms the idea of something like "sustainability" makes more sense... although the traditions I'm preserving are a mixed bag, not any one particular lifestyle.

[Bruce Mitchell]

Meredith said: If some traditional lifestyles do represent a kind of radical unschooling, how does that play out in the modern world?

An example of a traditional lifestyle that I have read about recently in two university courses was Bhutan. In a nutshell, in 1999 they introduced uncensored satellite TV (most countries censor their satellite TV) and within four years their special culture degenerated into unheard of crime and corruption and degeneration. More than 35% of parents now prefer to watch TV than talk to their children. Farmers let a crop fail because they were watching TV. Extreme violence arrived plentifully for the first time. Children began making American or Western type choices, from clothes to icons to behaviours. Now 50% of children watch TV for up to 12 hours a day. And much more in only four years from TV.

What I interpret from this is that this modern world with its many choices is highly influenced by TV. The modern world is a highly controlling entity on ourselves and our children. Whatever your parenting style, it [the modern world and TV] is highly controlling and extremely powerful.

In other words, the modern world appears to not control, instead offering many choices and much freedom but in fact can be understood to be as controlling as any traditional culture. The unschooler or radical unschooler or natural educator or whoever, who may be at various stages of minimizing control on their children will find it hard to handle such a powerful controlling force.

Any traditional lifestyle that may also be radical unschooling just cannot seem to resist the ravages of TV and consumerism.

I have spent time with the proud Himba tribe in Namibia. Whilst there are still many practising the old ways and there is a resurgence, there are many corrupted by the modern world, drawn into prostitution and alcohol.

It seems to me that as much as we might claim to be unschooling, we are still highly controlled by our culture, which is increasingly becoming a global homogenized Westernized TV-influenced lifestyle.

Even if a culture lives isolated from all other cultures, nature still is a giant controller that has to be handled. Ways of handling this giant force are developed and traditions and ways emerge, so that the next generation can more easily handle their life. These ways can become dogmatic or evolve.

The influence of TV is as strong as any religion or traditional controlled environment.
It seems most of us live in TV's grip.

[Alan Marshall]

***The influence of TV is as strong as any religion or traditional controlled environment.
It seems most of us live in TV's grip.***

I don't think so. That study you cited seems suspect to me. Any time there is a significant change in a culture there will be some negative consequences. Was television really the only thing that changed in that instance? Would censured television have been better?

Anyway, it's a huge logical leap to say from that study that we are all controlled by television. My daughter has gone months without watching any television when she had free access to it. Years if you don't count DVDs.

I'd write more but my shows are on. **walking like a zombie, eyes glazed over** must go watch television, must go watch television...

[Meredith]

Any traditional lifestyle that may also be radical unschooling just cannot seem to resist the ravages of TV and consumerism.

And yet radical unschooling families with no limits on television don't have that problem. From my perspective the issue in those cultures wasn't tv so much as transitioning. They went from zero television to unlimited television and didn't know how to make it work. That's Why so many times people new to unschooling are advised to ease in rather than jump in with both feet.

It seems most of us live in TV's grip.

With no limits on how much tv they can watch or video games they can play, my kids don't spend all their time in front of the television or computer. My 17yo spends most of his time out of doors and my 9yo spends most of her time writing, drawing and building. Are they special? Not at all. Television is just one resource in their lives, and not always the one they want to use.

[Bruce Mitchell]

Alan, the study is being used by Open University, which is a reputable university. They do say the article is written by journalists and designed to be emotive, but the Guardian is a quality British newspaper.

The information given in both courses seemed to say the only thing that changed was the introduction of uncensored satellite TV. Censored TV would as I understand it might have made a big difference; for example, the more obvious commercial channels, all the time selling, could have been eliminated and this might have avoided the rapid degeneration from spiritual culture to materialistic culture.

Even if your daughter does not watch at all, she is still influenced by so many who do watch - including yourself, it seems! For example, I've read stories of a tribal South American woman who married an American. If I recall correctly, she had never watched TV, and soon after arriving in USA, she was right into Coca-cola; also, if I recall correctly, on the TV programme, it was showing how advertising had influenced her to be like this (images of giant Coca-Cola electronic billboards).

Good on your daughter and Meredith's children and any other radically unschooled family who honestly achieves more of a balanced lifestyle!!

It just seems to me that so many are heavily influenced by it. This world view is all around us, influencing us; our heroes are movie and wrestling stars. All I am pointing to, which seems to be part of the original question of this thread, is that traditional societies tend to be corrupted by the modern world. All their good stuff seems to be swallowed up by the 'developed' world. I would suggest we (in the modern world) still don't know how to make unlimited TV work. As I understand it, radical unschooling is a suggested way to make it work. Bring it on!



Alan Marshall said:

***The influence of TV is as strong as any religion or traditional controlled environment.
It seems most of us live in TV's grip.***

I don't think so. That study you cited seems suspect to me. Any time there is a significant change in a culture there will be some negative consequences. Was television really the only thing that changed in that instance? Would censured television have been better?

Anyway, it's a huge logical leap to say from that study that we are all controlled by television. My daughter has gone months without watching any television when she had free access to it. Years if you don't count DVDs.

I'd write more but my shows are on. **walking like a zombie, eyes glazed over** must go watch television, must go watch television...

[Alan Marshall]

****For example, I've read stories of a tribal South American woman who married an American. If I recall correctly, she had never watched TV, and soon after arriving in USA, she was right into Coca-cola****

Was this story by any chance sponsored by Pepsi? :) If a tribal woman emigrates to America and then drinks American soft drinks I find it hard to be concerned about that. It seems like a natural thing to happen with or without TV.

****I would suggest we (in the modern world) still don't know how to make unlimited TV work. As I understand it, radical unschooling is a suggested way to make it work. Bring it on!****

Ah, yes, but part of "making it work" is not to see TV (or junk food or the internet or video games or anything else) as an evil, scary boogieman that controls us and our children and turns us all into mindless consumers in the first place.

[Bruce Mitchell]

I don't think the people of Bhutan saw TV as an evil scary boogieman. They probably saw it as something amazing - a gift. Witness the effect this gift had on them. It is me and others looking at the effect of TV on this culture that are concerned with its negative effects. I also think TV can have very positive aspects. For me, perhaps TV is more like nature, which can have devastating effects, but is not evil, and of course, like TV, it has very positive aspects.

I think the tribal woman programme was a reputable documentary (even so Coca Cola might have had their fingers in it) concerning the transition of an indigenous person into the developed world. She wasn't just drinking an American soft drink, the picture I got was that she seemed to be obsessed with it.



Alan Marshall said:

****For example, I've read stories of a tribal South American woman who married an American. If I recall correctly, she had never watched TV, and soon after arriving in USA, she was right into Coca-cola****

Was this story by any chance sponsored by Pepsi? :) If a tribal woman emigrates to America and then drinks American soft drinks I find it hard to be concerned about that. It seems like a natural thing to happen with or without TV.

****I would suggest we (in the modern world) still don't know how to make unlimited TV work. As I understand it, radical unschooling is a suggested way to make it work. Bring it on!****

Ah, yes, but part of "making it work" is not to see TV (or junk food or the internet or video games or anything else) as an evil, scary boogieman that controls us and our children and turns us all into mindless consumers in the first place.