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]

She wasn't just drinking an American soft drink, the picture I got was that she seemed to be obsessed with it.

That's a pretty common sort of experience for people who pull kids out of school, though, too, even if they don't dump all their rules at once. There's a huge amount of transitioning needed to go from one lifestlye to another that's soooooo very differernt. Its not uncommon for kids to spend a lot of time doing things they didn't have the time or opportunity to do before - stay up all night, for instance, or play hours and hours of video games. Its one of the reasons there are unschooling lists and groups, to help parents understand this transitional process and so help their kids move through it without adding in other kinds of baggage.

[Bruce Mitchell]

Thanks Meredith for this insight.



Meredith said:

She wasn't just drinking an American soft drink, the picture I got was that she seemed to be obsessed with it.

That's a pretty common sort of experience for people who pull kids out of school, though, too, even if they don't dump all their rules at once. There's a huge amount of transitioning needed to go from one lifestlye to another that's soooooo very differernt. Its not uncommon for kids to spend a lot of time doing things they didn't have the time or opportunity to do before - stay up all night, for instance, or play hours and hours of video games. Its one of the reasons there are unschooling lists and groups, to help parents understand this transitional process and so help their kids move through it without adding in other kinds of baggage.

[Louise Gibson]

I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction to deal with exactly what you were saying about the unlimited TV/video games and staying up till the early hours situation.
We started unschooling about a month ago, maybe 4 months if I count the Summer.

I never told the kids that they could now do whatever they wanted, I just told them that we were unschooling now, which meant that they would be learning all the time from everyday life.
I did not say they could stay up all night, or watch tv or play computer games as much as they wanted, I just stopped saying 'NO' as much.

We just discovered Netflix instant streaming, and holy cow, but I got hooked too, I just could not believe how great it was to see something immediately, so I know how my kids felt.
I have to go to bed at a decent time, so I just ask them to keep the noise down, but they have been staying up till 2 or 4 in the morning.

They are in the process of doing this for hours at a time, but I've noticed recently that they will suddenly 'explode' around the house, setting up the whole office of Torchwood (great BBC Sci Fi drama), with stations for all the characters, and laptops made out of books, and then they proceed to act out many different scenes, and then they go on their virtual world and act it out there.

So anyway, I guess I'm asking is there a time to be worried about all of this?
I worry about all those things you hear about the decreased ability to focus related to too much tv watching etc.
I do keep an eye on what they are watching, and I've noticed that they don't really like movies with men running around with guns unless it's fantasy or sci fi.
They do come and tell me about funny things they have watched or ask what something means etc.
They did accidently see some explicit photos online, and that led to some very interesting discussions about sex and various parts of the anatomy. I did not act shocked, I just answered their questions, because I really do want to keep an open line of communication and let them feel that it's ok to discuss anything without fear of being told off.

Any advice is welcome.

Louise



Bruce Mitchell said:

Thanks Meredith for this insight.



Meredith said:

She wasn't just drinking an American soft drink, the picture I got was that she seemed to be obsessed with it.

That's a pretty common sort of experience for people who pull kids out of school, though, too, even if they don't dump all their rules at once. There's a huge amount of transitioning needed to go from one lifestlye to another that's soooooo very differernt. Its not uncommon for kids to spend a lot of time doing things they didn't have the time or opportunity to do before - stay up all night, for instance, or play hours and hours of video games. Its one of the reasons there are unschooling lists and groups, to help parents understand this transitional process and so help their kids move through it without adding in other kinds of baggage.

[C. D. Eagle]

All I know is when I was given freedom once I started college I failed out and did nothing but play video games and eat. I ignored my parents. Once I got used to the freedom I was able to balance my life out get a job do good in college and lose my weight. Also once I discovered unschooling, anarchy, agnosticism, my life just became better.

What I am trying to say is that I don't think it is TV that's bad, just the fact that people never had TV and then went crazy when they got it. It would have been helpful if people used to TV had given them some guidance.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

*** 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. ***

I think if the situation is looked at objectively without the value judgement of good or bad, better or worse, the result of introducing a world of plenty into a world of not plenty, it's not unexpected that they'd embrace whole hog the plenty.

If there weren't advertising, just programs of rich lives far away, it would be like: "Look, the rest of the world has these wonders but you can't have it unless you go there." It would be harder to see the effects of that since it would be internal, not the external litter of Coke cans ;-)

With advertising, it gave them the ability to bring those wonders of the world to them.

People in the over busy land of too many choices can look with envy at simpler lifestyles. But I'd bet most of the people forced by circumstances to live those "simpler" lives would chuck it all for life being way easier. Washing machines! Flush toilets! Central heating! A Coke whenever you want it. Hazelnut or vanilla in your latte? Well, the Bhutanese may not the washing machines or flush toilets ;-) But they can get what seemed wonderful and exciting to them.

The simple life isn't so wonderful when you haven't chosen it.

If someone wants a simpler life, they get to choose the level of hardship they're willing to put up with to "pay" for whatever benefits they get from it.

It's easy from the outside to see the important things they've lost. It's not so easy to see from their point of view what is so wonderful about what they can get now that they want so much of it to the exclusion of other things we value -- especially since they're giving up valuable things (family life, crime free life) for what is so plentiful to us that it's nearly valueless. It's way way too easy to conclude that advertising has corrupted a thriving more naturalistic culture.

The effects of a wealth of wonders in a world that feels deprived would look the same as corruption by advertising but what's going on internally isn't the same. And it's why unschooled kids can have the world of television at their fingertips, including the advertising, the freedom to watch as much as they want whenever they want it, and yet not become mindless consumers or neglectful of other things in life like the Bhutanese. The Bhutanese response is what is expected when deprivation meets abundance. When new unschoolers with limits are encouraged to let go of the controls on TV, they're warned that glutting may happen.

The advantage unschooled kids have -- the reason kids who had controls lifted don't continue to glut for years -- is they can leave the TV and still experience the abundance of this society so advertising isn't showing them much that they don't already know about. (And for kids who know their parents will help them get what they want, the draw of advertisement is -- surprisingly! (though not surprisingly to unschoolers) -- even less. Not being able to have something ramps up the value of it.) For the Bhutanese, beyond the television is their old, hard life, so what they can see on the TV, what they can buy is worth (to them) a lot more than to those living amidst abundance.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

*** It would have been helpful if people used to TV had given them some guidance. ***

What kind of guidance could possibly get them to believe these wonders were not really so wonderful? I'm thinking only experience would allow them to draw that conclusion, not someone's words.

It would have been less cruel to let the outside world trickle in so their society could adjust to the changes. As it was, it was like blowing up the dam to give a down stream town some water.

[Bruce Mitchell]

I am all for personal experience being a great or even the best teacher, but one thing I have learnt in life is that it is just not possible to learn everything by personal experience. There is way too many things to experience and learn. Why not take advantage of what others have experienced and work with their findings and guidance? I could give plenty of examples, but won't.

The sort of guidance that might have given the Bhutanese a more balanced picture of TV might be stories of how cultures or people's lives have been severely damaged by TV, how TV often seems to facilitate violence - at least the academics and/or the policy makers might have got it earlier and had a more circumspect introduction of TV.



Joyce Fetteroll said:

*** It would have been helpful if people used to TV had given them some guidance. ***

What kind of guidance could possibly get them to believe these wonders were not really so wonderful? I'm thinking only experience would allow them to draw that conclusion, not someone's words.

It would have been less cruel to let the outside world trickle in so their society could adjust to the changes. As it was, it was like blowing up the dam to give a down stream town some water.

[Bruce Mitchell]

Joyce said: People in the over busy land of too many choices can look with envy at simpler lifestyles. But I'd bet most of the people forced by circumstances to live those "simpler" lives would chuck it all for life being way easier. Washing machines! Flush toilets! Central heating! A Coke whenever you want it. Hazelnut or vanilla in your latte? Well, the Bhutanese may not the washing machines or flush toilets ;-) But they can get what seemed wonderful and exciting to them.

The simple life isn't so wonderful when you haven't chosen it.

This is basically my main point, that traditional societies (who may or may not be practising radical unschooling) tend to be corrupted by the developed world.
I'm not sure it is absolutely true, as you suggest when you say 'most people'. The Himba having been exposed to this wonderful life are supposedly enjoying a resurgence in their natural ways, for example.

Another point is that the simple life is much easier when generations before you have been doing it. The Westerner dumped in a rain forest is going to find it very difficult, without skills or support or the guidance of previous generations.

Another point on this subject is that some social researchers suggest that happiness is more related to social support systems within villages and extended families, for which reason Vanuatu was described by the New Economics Foundation in 2006 as the happiest place on earth. But all this is supposedly under pressure from urbanisation.

[Meredith]

This is basically my main point, that traditional societies (who may or may not be practising radical unschooling) tend to be corrupted by the developed world.

If a traditional society is "too" isolated, though, such that they don't know how to deal with big life changes that don't dovetail with their traditions, I don't think they can be said to be doing anything like radical unschooling. Gentle parenting, maybe, but unschooling depends on choices. There have been "traditional" societies in areas rich with trade and connection to other cultures, but they don't tend to make it into highly publicized studies because there isn't an absence of outside influences.

[Meredith]

Louise, would you mind re-asking your question in the "New to unschooling" forum? Its already getting buried here.

[Meredith]

The Westerner dumped in a rain forest is going to find it very difficult, without skills or support or the guidance of previous generations.

Well, but that's why unschoolers try not to "dump" kids into the world, the way schooling does. A Westerner Choosing to go to a rain forest (or someone from, say India choosing to go to university in Britain or the US) is likely to do some research, line up some resources on the ground and have a very different experience than someone "dumped" into any lifestyle at all. Unschooling doesn't do away with culture shock and adjustment, but it does help people have tools for dealing with culture shock and adjustment.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

*** Another point is that the simple life is much easier when generations before you have been doing it. ***

That doesn't make it easy, though. And it's arrogant to suggest it is just because the outside world admires these cultures and thinks these little capsules of ancient times are like gifts to us which should be preserved.

There is something the Bhutanese perceive as good that's worth giving up other things, worth putting up with the downside. (For now, anyway.)

For the record, I do think it's sad that something unique is being lost. But I'm trying to be objective and see it from the Bhutanese point of view and why these seemingly senseless choices make sense to them. People don't owe the world the preservation of their culture if it means living in what they perceive as hardship and deprivation compared to other parts of the world. A couple generations down the line, maybe next year, they may look back and be flabbergasted at what they lost for what little they gained. And if they revive their culture, it will be their choice, not the outside world imposing limits on them because the outside world wants them to preserve this ancient way.

I hope the outside world can help -- since outsiders caused it! -- but outsiders are far more likely to screw things up because they see from their own point of view and not from the point of view of the people they're trying to help.

The help will be especially bad if the outsiders see the Bhutanese as thoughtless victims and outside products as being more powerful than them, taking over their will, making them buy them. There's a humongous hole in the theory that advertising is corrupting. If it were, then radically unschooled children would show the effects far more than any other group of children. Schooled children at least get to escape the TV while they're at school! Unschooled children have it right there, front and center, every day they're home. They can turn it on anytime they want, watch as much as they want, see as many commercials as they want. And yet they act nothing like the Bhutanese.

From what I read of others, what I know first hand of other unschoolers, is that my daughter's relationship with TV is fairly typical. At 19 she lives a very busy life and, as much as she enjoys certain TV shows, TV is just a small part of it and down several notches from the top of her priority list. (It's hard to get her to watch enough to keep the DVR from filling up ;-) Other than football and baseball, an hour a night is enough for her.) Other than Pokemon, even when she was young and wanted a lot, what she wanted wasn't advertised. Loads of stuffed animals, Beanies, video games. During her teen years it was hard to get her to make a list for Christmas since she didn't want much. Now she's feeding a passion for '80s metal music and shops for clothes at the Salvation Army. Her story is not at all unusual for radically unschooled kids.

I never saw TV as a corrupting influence and it hasn't shown any signs that it is, despite the fact that it has always been easily accessible in our lives. (Cable from birth with dozens of channels then satellite and FiOS, both with hundreds of channels.)

In the light of that, it makes more sense that the Bhutanese are making choices, choosing something they perceive as better and setting aside something they perceive as worth giving up. (Not universally better, just some lack in their lives that it's filling.) It's exactly what most kids who've been limited do when the limits are lifted. It's what *humans* do. There were lots of people after the deprivations of WWII were lifted who ended up hoarding what had been limited, even when it became more abundant.

The advantage for unschooled kids (at least in America), as I said before, is that abundance is overflowing in their society. Once the previously-limited kids feel filled up on what they'd been wanting, feel confident that TV will remain freely accessible and abundant if they walk away, their viewing levels off and they watch when they want and turn it off when they're done.

As far as I can see, the Bhutanese don't have that abundance when they walk away from the TV.
And this flood of change was too much for their society to adapt to.
You might find the page The Economics of TV watching helpful in understanding. There's even a page linked at the bottom to Abundance. :-)