| ▲ | jamiejquinn 13 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You can firmly impose a rule and be sympathetic to a small child's reaction to that rule, no? What would you have done differently? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | bonoboTP 12 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm with Zizek on this stuff. > “Imagine you or me, I’m a small boy. It’s Sunday afternoon. My father wants me to visit our grandmother. Let’s say my father is a traditional authority. What would he be doing? He would probably tell me something like, “I don’t care how you feel; it’s your duty to visit your grandmother. Be polite to her and so on.” Nothing bad about this I claim because I can still rebel and so on. It’s a clear order. > But what would the so-called post-modern non-authoritarian father do? I know because I experienced it. He would have said something like this, “You know how much your grandmother loves you, but nonetheless I’m not forcing you to visit her. You should only visit her if you freely decide to do it.” Now every child knows that beneath the appearance of free choice there is a much stronger pressure in this second message. Because basically your father is not only telling you, you must visit your grandmother, but you must love to visit it. You know he tells you how you must feel about it. It’s a much stronger order.” | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||