含有〈儿童〉标签的文章(6)

[译文]留下孩子独处有多可怕?

Why are we so afraid to leave children alone?
为什么我们害怕让孩子独处?

作者:Pat Harriman & Heather Ashbach, UC Irvine @ 2016-08-23
译者:明珠(@老茄爱天一爱亨亨更爱楚楚)
校对:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻)
来源:UC, http://universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-are-we-so-afraid-leave-children-alone

Leaving a child unattended is considered taboo in today’s intensive parenting atmosphere, despite evidence that American children are safer than ever. So why are parents denying their children the same freedom and independence that they themselves enjoyed as children?
在今天这种强化父母责任的社会氛围中,留下孩子无人照看被视为禁忌,虽然有证据表明美国孩子比以往任何时候都更安全。那么,为什么父母拒绝孩子拥有从前他们自己是孩子时享受的同样的自由和独立呢?

A new study by University of Calif(more...)

标签: | |
7513
Why are we so afraid to leave children alone? 为什么我们害怕让孩子独处? 作者:Pat Harriman & Heather Ashbach, UC Irvine @ 2016-08-23 译者:明珠(@老茄爱天一爱亨亨更爱楚楚) 校对:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻) 来源:UC, http://universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-are-we-so-afraid-leave-children-alone Leaving a child unattended is considered taboo in today’s intensive parenting atmosphere, despite evidence that American children are safer than ever. So why are parents denying their children the same freedom and independence that they themselves enjoyed as children? 在今天这种强化父母责任的社会氛围中,留下孩子无人照看被视为禁忌,虽然有证据表明美国孩子比以往任何时候都更安全。那么,为什么父母拒绝孩子拥有从前他们自己是孩子时享受的同样的自由和独立呢? A new study by University of California, Irvine social scientists suggests that our fears of leaving children alone have become systematically exaggerated in recent decades – not because the practice has become more dangerous, but because it has become socially unacceptable. 加州大学尔湾分校社会学家们的一项新研究认为,近几十年,我们对单独留下孩子的恐惧被系统性地放大了——不是因为这种做法更危险,而是它对社会已变得不可接受。 “Without realizing it, we have consistently increased our estimates of the amount of danger facing children left alone in order to better justify or rationalize the moral disapproval we feel toward parents who violate this relatively new social norm,” said Ashley Thomas, cognitive sciences graduate student and lead author of the work, published online this month in the open-access journal Collabra. “我们没有意识到这一点,所以不断提高对孩子被留下独处时所面临危险的估值,并以此更好地为我们对违反这个相对较新的社会规范的家长所做出的道义谴责加以正当化或合理化,”Ashley Thomas说。他是一名认知科学研究生,也是本月在开放获取期刊COLLABRA上在线发表的相关研究的第一作者。 The survey-based study found that children whose parents left them alone on purpose – to go to work, help out a charity, relax or meet an illicit lover – were perceived to be in greater danger than those whose parents were involuntarily separated from them. 一项基于调查的研究结果发现,(人们对被单独留下的孩子所面临危险的评估,和父母离开的原因有关,)比起情非得已的离开,因自己有事而离开,比如上班、助阵慈善、放松或与非法情人幽会,人们感知到的危险更大。 The researchers presented survey participants with five different scenarios in which a child was left alone for less than an hour. Situations ranged from a 10-month-old who was left asleep for 15 minutes in a cool car parked in a gym’s underground garage to an 8-year-old reading a book alone at a coffee shop a block from home for 45-minutes. 研究者为被调查者提供了五种不同场景,每个场景里有一个孩子独处不超过1小时。情景从10个月的婴儿独自躺在停于体育馆地下车库的凉爽小汽车里熟睡15分钟,到8岁孩子独自在离家一个街区的咖啡店看书45分钟。 “Within a given scenario, the only thing that varied was the reason for the parent’s absence,” said Kyle Stanford, professor and chair of logic & philosophy of science. “These included an unintentional absence – caused by a fictitious accident in which the mother was hit by a car and briefly knocked unconscious – and four that were planned: leaving for work, volunteering for a charity, relaxing or meeting an illicit lover. After reading each scenario and the reason behind each child being left alone, the participants ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 how much estimated danger the child was in while the parent was gone, 10 being the most risk.” “在每个给定场景中,唯一变量是父母离开的原因,”逻辑学和科学哲学教授Kyle Stanford说。“这些场景包括一个不得已的离开,比如虚构一个事故导致母亲被车撞暂时昏迷,另外四个是有计划的:工作,到慈善机构志愿服务,放松和与非法情人见面。了解每个场景和孩子被单独留下的原因后,被调查者从1到10给父母不在期间孩子独处的危险性评分排序,10最危险。” Moral disapproval inflates estimate of risk 道义谴责放大了风险评估 Overall, survey participants saw all of these situations as quite dangerous for children: The average risk estimate was 6.99, and the most common ranking in all scenarios was 10. Despite identical descriptions of each set of circumstances in which children were alone, those left alone on purpose were estimated to be in greater danger than those whose parents left them alone unintentionally. 总体上,被调查者认为所有场景对孩子都相当危险:平均危险值是6.99,而在所有场景中最常见值是10。尽管孩子独处的每个场景描述相同,但父母有意离开留孩子独处的危险评估比无意留下他们的情况更大。 “In fact, children left alone on purpose are almost certainly safer than those left alone by accident, because parents can take steps to make the situation safer, like giving the child a phone or reviewing safety rules,” said Barbara Sarnecka, study co-author and associate professor of cognitive sciences. “The fact that people make the opposite judgment strongly suggests that they morally disapprove of parents who leave their children alone, and that disapproval inflates their estimate of the risk.” “其实,有意让孩子单独留家几乎肯定比因意外让孩子单独留家更安全,因为父母可以采取措施让情况变得更安全,比如给孩子一个电话或重申安全准则,”认知科学副教授和研究共同作者Barbara Sarnecka说。“人们坚定做出相反判断的事实表明,他们在道德上不赞成父母离开让孩子独处,这种谴责放大了对风险的评估。” This is also born out in participants’ view of children left alone by a parent meeting an illicit lover as being in significantly more danger than children left alone in precisely the same circumstances by a parent who leaves in order to work, volunteer for charity or just relax. 这也是为何在完全相同的环境背景下,受调查者认为家长约会非法情人而把儿童留家独处比起父母因工作、参加慈善志愿服务或放松而离开让儿童留家独处更危险。 In scenarios where participants were asked to judge not only how much danger the child was facing, but also whether the mother had done something morally wrong, researchers expected the perceived risk ranking to be lower. 当受调查者不仅被要求判断孩子面临多少危险,还要判断母亲是否有失德行为时,研究人员预计在这些场景下所感知的风险排名会降低。 “We thought giving people an alternative way to express their disapproval of the parent’s action would reduce the extent to which moral judgments influenced perceptions of risk,” Thomas said. “But just the opposite happened. When people gave an explicit judgment about the parent’s conduct, estimates of risk to the child were even more inflated by moral disapproval of the parent’s reason for leaving.” “我们认为,给人们一种不喜欢父母行为的替代表达方式,能减少影响感知风险的道德评判程度。”Thomas说。“然而事实正好相反。当人们对父母行为给出明确评判后,对孩子的风险估计会因对父母离开原因的道义谴责而更加被放大。” In fact, people’s risk estimates closely followed their judgments of whether mothers in the scenarios had done something morally wrong. Even parents who left children alone involuntarily were not held morally blameless, receiving an average “moral wrongness” judgment of 3.05 on a 10-point scale. 事实上,人们的风险评估与母亲在场景中是否做了失德的事的判断密切相关。在10分制评价里,即便不得已导致孩子单独在家的父母也并非被认为在道德上无可指责,他们也要接受平均3.05分的“失德”判断。 Fathers given more leeway than mothers 父亲的回旋余地比母亲更多 The authors found another interesting pattern when they replaced mothers in the stories with fathers: For fathers – but not mothers – a work-related absence was treated more like an involuntary absence. This difference could stem from the view that work is more obligatory and less of a voluntary choice for men. 作者把故事里的母亲替换成父亲时,发现另一个有趣的现象:对于父亲——而不是母亲——因为工作离开更容易被当作不得已的情况对待。这种差异源于一种观念,认为工作对男人而言更义不容辞,是更不得已的选择。 “Exaggerating the risks of allowing children some unsupervised time has significant costs besides the loss of children’s independence, freedom and opportunity to learn how to solve problems on their own,” Sarnecka said. “As people have adopted the idea that children must never be alone, parents increasingly face the possibility of arrest, charges of abuse or neglect, and even incarceration for allowing their children to play in parks, walk to school or wait in a car for a few minutes without them.” “除了在孩子的独立性、自由和学习自己解决问题的机会方面的损失之外,夸大给孩子些无人看管时间的风险,有很大的代价。”Sarnecka说。“当人们都认为孩子们绝对不能独处的时候,家长越来越多面临逮捕,被指控虐待或疏忽的可能性,甚至因为允许孩子在公园玩,步行到学校或独自在车里待几分钟而被监禁。” “At a minimum,” she continued, “these findings should caution those who make and enforce the law to distinguish evidence-based and rational assessments of risk to children from intuitive moral judgments about parents – and to avoid investing the latter with the force of law.” “至少,”她继续说,“这些发现应该提醒那些制定和执行法律的人,把依据证据与理性地评估孩子的风险从对家长的直觉道德评判中区分出来——并避免因为法律的力量而将判断权交给后者。” The study involved survey responses by 1,328 participants on Amazon Mechanical Turk ranging in age from 18 to 75, with a fairly even split of men and women and those with and without children. Females accounted for 52 percent of respondents, while 48 percent were male; and 56.43 percent had children, while 43.57 percent did not. More than 80 percent of the participants were white, and two-thirds had completed at least some college. 本研究在Amazon Mechanical Turk网站上调查了从18岁至75岁的1328人,男性与女性,有孩子与没孩子人的回答有相当差异甚至泾渭分明。受调查者中,女性占52%,男性48%;有孩子的占56.43%,没有的占43.57%。超过80%是白人,三分之二有大学文凭。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]『妈妈语』如何帮助婴儿学习语言

It may be baby talk, but ‘parentese’ is an infant’s pathway to learning the language, international study shows
跨国研究表明:“妈妈语”虽然萌萌哒,但却是婴儿学习语言的必经之路

作者:Joel Schwarz @ 1997-7-31
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny)
来源:UWToday
网址: http://www.washington.edu/news/1997/07/31/it-may-be-baby-talk-but-parentese-is-an-infants-pathway-to-learning-the-language-international-study-shows/

Parentese, the exaggerated, drawn-out form of speech that people use to communicate with babies, apparently is universal and plays a vital role in (more...)

标签: | | |
7245
It may be baby talk, but ‘parentese’ is an infant’s pathway to learning the language, international study shows 跨国研究表明:“妈妈语”虽然萌萌哒,但却是婴儿学习语言的必经之路 作者:Joel Schwarz @ 1997-7-31 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny) 来源:UWToday 网址: http://www.washington.edu/news/1997/07/31/it-may-be-baby-talk-but-parentese-is-an-infants-pathway-to-learning-the-language-international-study-shows/ Parentese, the exaggerated, drawn-out form of speech that people use to communicate with babies, apparently is universal and plays a vital role in helping infants to analyze and absorb the phonetic elements of their parents’ language. An international study shows that infants are so good at analyzing this speech that by the age of 20 weeks they are beginning to produce the three vowel sounds common to all human languages — “ee,” “ah” and “uu.” 妈妈语,指的是人们在和幼儿交流时使用的那种夸张、拖长的说话方式。它似乎是普天下皆有的现象,而且在帮助婴儿分析和掌握父母语言的语音要素方面发挥着关键作用。一项跨国研究表明,婴儿分析这种说话方式的能力极高,以至于他们在20周那么大时就开始发出所有人类语言都共有的三个元音,即ee,ah和uu。 “Parentese has a melody to it. And inside this melody is a tutorial for the baby that contains exceptionally well-formed versions of the building blocks of language,” explains Patricia Kuhl, a University of Washington neuroscientist. Kuhl recently headed a team of nine researchers from the United States, Russia and Sweden investigating how infants master the complex task of acquiring speech. Their findings are being published in tomorrow’s issue (Aug. 1) of the journal Science. “妈妈语具有内在的韵律。对幼儿的辅导就藏在这一韵律之中,其内容包括了语言基本材料的极为成熟的形式”,华盛顿大学神经系统科学家Patricia Kuhl如此解释道。Kuhl近来带领一个9人团队对婴儿如何得以完成学会说话这种复杂任务进行了研究,研究者分别来自美国、俄罗斯和瑞典。他们的发现将于明天(8月1日)发表于《科学》杂志上。【编注:注意本文发表于1997年。】 The new study examined differences in how American, Russian and Swedish mothers speak to their infants and to other adults. The study shows that parentese is characterized by over- articulation that exaggerates the sounds contained in words. Mothers in the study were, in effect, sounding out “super-vowels” to help their infants learn the phonetic elements of language, says Kuhl, who is the chair of speech and hearing sciences and the William P. and Ruth Gerberding professor at the UW. 这项新研究考察了美国、俄罗斯和瑞典的妈妈们在和她们的婴儿说话时跟她们和其他成人说话时的区别。研究表明,妈妈语的特征是夸张发音,对词语中的音素进行夸张。Kuhl说,实际上,被研究的妈妈们都会发出“超级元音”来帮助她们的孩子学习语言中的语音要素。Kuhl在华盛顿大学担任言语及听觉学院主席,同时还是该校的“盖博丁夫妇”讲席教授。 “In normal, everyday speech adults generally race along at a very fast pace,” Kuhl says. “But we know it is easier to understand a speaker when they stretch out sounds. That’s why we tend to speak more slowly and carefully to increase understanding when we teach in the classroom or talk to strangers. We also do this unconsciously with babies, giving them an improved verbal signal they can capitalize on by slowing down and over articulating.” “在正常的日常交谈中,成年人一般都会以非常快的速度放连珠炮”,Kuhl说。“但我们知道,如果说话者拉长声音,就更容易被人听懂。这就是为什么我们在进行课堂教学或和陌生人说话时会把话说得更慢更仔细,这是为了增进理解。面对幼儿时,我们也会下意识地这么做。通过放慢语速、夸张发音,我们向幼儿提供了一种改良过的语言信号,以便他们利用。” The mothers in the study were not aware of what they were doing, she says, and so parentese was produced unconsciously and automatically. “When women across three different cultures, speaking three different languages, show the same pattern when speaking to their infants, biology is telling us something about it’s necessity and value to their babies. It’s our job to figure out why they do it and what it’s good for,” Kuhl adds. 她还说,被研究的妈妈们对于自己的作为并没有自觉意识,因此妈妈语是无意识、不经意产生的。“来自三种不同文化、使用三种不同语言的妇女在和她们的婴儿交谈时都呈现出同一种模式,这是生物学在向我们透露某些东西,关乎其必要性及其对幼儿的价值。我们的任务就是要搞清她们为什么要这么做以及这么做的好处”,Kuhl补充说。 To explore differences in the way people communicate with infants and adults, 10 women from each of the three countries were first recorded talking for 20 minutes to their infants, ranging in age from two to five months. Then they were recorded in conversation with an adult. 为了查明人们与婴儿及他们与成人交流时的区别,研究者首先对分别来自上述三国的各10位妇女与其婴儿的交谈进行了20分钟的录音,婴儿年龄从2至5个月不等。然后又录制了她们与某一成人的谈话。 In both cases, the mothers were told to talk naturally and were given a small list of target words containing the three common vowel sounds and asked to include them in the conversations.. The selected English words were “bead” for the “ee” sound, “pot” for “ah” and “boot” for “uu.” Similar common words were selected in Russian and Swedish. The three languages were chosen because they represent substantially different vowel systems occurring in human languages: Russian has five vowels, English has nine vowels and Swedish has16. 在两种情形中,妈妈们都被要求进行自然交谈,并拿到了一份简短的目标词汇表,这些词汇都包含有常见的三种元音。妈妈们被要求在对话中使用到这些词汇。被选中的英文单词包括bead(含元音ee),pot(含元音ah)和boot(含元音uu)。俄语和瑞典语中也选的是类似的常见词汇。之所以选这三种语言,是因为它们代表着人类语言中存在本质区别的不同元音体系:俄语有5个元音,英语有9个,而瑞典语有16个。 The more than 2,300 recorded target words spoken by the subjects were then isolated and acoustically analyzed by spectrograph. This analysis showed speech directed at infants had more extreme or stretched out vowel sounds than speech with an adult. This was true among all 30 mothers across the three languages, says Kuhl. 然后,研究者把研究对象说过且被录制的2300多个目标词汇单独提取出来,并用声谱仪对之进行声学分析。分析表明,跟对成人说的话相比,对婴儿说的话中包含有更过分或更为拖长的元音发音。Kuhl说,使用三种语言的30位母亲全都如此。 The use of parentese seems to benefit infants in three ways, she believes. It makes the sounds of vowels more distinct from one another, and it produces expanded vowel sounds not produced in ordinary adult conversations. This exaggerated speech allows mothers to produce a greater variety of vowel pronunciations without overlapping other vowels. Kuhl相信,使用妈妈语似乎会从三种途径有利于婴儿。它能使元音发音彼此之间区分得更为清楚,同时能发出成人们在日常对话中不会发出的拖长元音。这种夸张的说话方式能让妈妈们发出更为多样化的元音读法,且不与其它元音重叠。 To speak, an infant must be able to reproduce the appropriate features of individual phonetic elements using a tiny vocal tract which is about only one-quarter the size and lacks the same frequency range of an adult’s. The exaggeration of parentese helps the infant separate sounds into contrasting categories and helps the baby distinguish between different categories, she believes. 婴儿的小声道在大小上只有成人的大约四分之一,缺乏成人所具备的那种频率范围。为了说话,婴儿必须要用这种声道来再现每个语音要素的恰当特征。Kuhl相信,妈妈语的夸张发音能帮助婴儿将声音分为对比鲜明的类别,并帮助他们区分不同类别。 “What infants are doing with this information is not memorization. Their minds are not working like a tape recorder,” says Kuhl. “Because their mouths and vocal tracts can’t form the same sounds as adults, they have to transform adult sounds to frequencies they can use. So they must be analyzing speech.” “针对这些信息,婴儿们做的并不是熟记。他们的心智并不像是录音机那样运转”,Kuhl说。“因为他们的小嘴和小声道无法发出成人那样的声音,他们必须将成人的发音转化为他们能够使用的频率。因此,他们必定分析发声。” Babies’ brains, like their bodies, need to be nourished, she says, and parentese provides them with “essential nuggets” of information about language that their lightning fast brains analyze and absorb. 她说,幼儿的大脑跟他们的身体一样需要滋养,而妈妈语则为他们提供了语言信息的“基本材料”,以便他们能用其闪电般快速运转的大脑进行分析和吸收。 The use of parentese seems to be universal, she says, and parents don’t have to worry about learning it when they take a newborn home from the hospital. 她说,使用妈妈语似乎是普天下共有的现象,父母们把新生儿从医院抱回家后并不需要担心如何学会妈妈语。 “Moms, dads, caretakers, younger siblings and even college students who were handed a baby in the classroom have been observed speaking parentese. Talking that way seems to be a natural communications mode we all use. That means parents don’t have to work hard at this. Just by talking and communicating with their infants they are playing a vital role without being aware of it,” Kuhl says. “人们已经发现,妈妈、爸爸、保姆、小哥哥小姐姐都会说妈妈语,甚至是在课堂上被塞给了一个小宝宝的大学生也是如此。以这种方式说话似乎是我们所使用的一种自然的交流模式。这就是说,父母们无需在这方面用功。只要和他们的婴儿说话交流,他们就在不自觉的扮演一个关键的角色”,Kuhl说。 Collaborating researchers in the study come from the Early Intervention Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia, and Stockholm University in Sweden. The research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. 参与本研究的合作研究者分别来自俄罗斯圣彼得堡的早期介入研究所和瑞典斯德哥尔摩大学。研究得到了美国国立卫生研究院、加拿大社会科学与人文研究委员会及瑞典银行三百年基金会的基金资助。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[微言]childhood与成人礼

【2014-08-02】

@罗不特 【@澎湃新闻:从儿童的发现到童年的消逝】1942年6月10日,德国法西斯在集中营用毒气杀害88名儿童。七年后才有了国际儿童节。这起源来得很晦暗。人类长期没有儿童的观念,孩子一旦断奶就被当成袖珍版成人,直到现代才发现了儿童…… http://t.cn/RPIl01g

@whigzhou: “人类长期没有儿童的观念”——瞎说,要是没有儿童概念,怎么会有各种成人礼?

@whigzhou: 有关成年仪式,以及个人在该仪(more...)

标签: |
5280
【2014-08-02】 @罗不特 【@澎湃新闻:从儿童的发现到童年的消逝】1942年6月10日,德国法西斯在集中营用毒气杀害88名儿童。七年后才有了国际儿童节。这起源来得很晦暗。人类长期没有儿童的观念,孩子一旦断奶就被当成袖珍版成人,直到现代才发现了儿童…… http://t.cn/RPIl01g @whigzhou: “人类长期没有儿童的观念”——瞎说,要是没有儿童概念,怎么会有各种成人礼? @whigzhou: 有关成年仪式,以及个人在该仪式前后被以不同方式对待的社会规范,历史记载和人类学材料汗牛充栋,coming of age http://t.cn/RPxeeVS age grade http://t.cn/RPxes1Q 和 initiation rite http://t.cn/RPxeDIS 这几个词条,对此提供了很多线索,相信阿利埃斯观点和“小大人”一说的,可以自己去看。 @whigzhou: 阿利埃斯的比较仅限于西方文化的不同时段,从更大范围看,西欧中世纪的情况反倒像是特例,很可能是对封建制的适应,封建制下,儿童的继承权和财产权很早就可以由法律所确定,因而年龄小并不妨碍其以合格主体资格(由监护人代理)参与封建契约关系。 @whigzhou: 现代社会确实出现了许多有关儿童的新规范,但你不能据此断言古代没有儿童观念,古代也没有三八妇女节、女士优先礼节和带薪产假,但你总不能说古代没有女性观念吧?  
读史笔记#17:对待孩子,严厉还是宽松?

对待孩子,严厉还是宽松?
辉格
2014年6月29日

随着80后一代逐渐成家立业、为人父母,有关教育的反思和讨论也热烈起来,越来越多人对旧的教育方式表示不满,努力探索自己的方式,这些反思和探索,也推动了近年来的新教育实践,不过,尽管新一代对旧教育表现出颇为一致的反感,但对于理想的方式是什么,却充满着争议。

争议焦点之一是,是否或多大程度上可以使用严厉甚至惩罚性的方式,有些家长主张完全的宽容和接纳,反对惩罚,对责骂和体罚更是深恶痛绝,而另一些则认为有必要施加一些约束和规则,为此有时不得不使用较严厉的管束措施,甚至某些惩罚手段,也许还包括体罚。

实际上,近代以来当人们对教育问题有了更多自觉之后,这样的争论始终存在,德国首相俾斯麦还观察到一个有趣现象:严厉与宽松会在代与代之间交替,在严厉父母的棍棒下长大的人,或许是因为自己的痛苦经历,会格外宽松地对待自己的孩子,而他们的孩子,或许认识到过于宽松也有其负面作用,转而严厉对待自己的孩子;这也许表明了,无论哪种倾向,过于极端可能都有问题。

生物学家贾瑞德·戴蒙德(Jared Diamond)在新几内亚丛林里做鸟类田野调查时,对当地土著的生活有过数十年的第一手观察,在前年出版的《昨日之前的世界》( 标签: |

5224
对待孩子,严厉还是宽松? 辉格 2014年6月29日 随着80后一代逐渐成家立业、为人父母,有关教育的反思和讨论也热烈起来,越来越多人对旧的教育方式表示不满,努力探索自己的方式,这些反思和探索,也推动了近年来的新教育实践,不过,尽管新一代对旧教育表现出颇为一致的反感,但对于理想的方式是什么,却充满着争议。 争议焦点之一是,是否或多大程度上可以使用严厉甚至惩罚性的方式,有些家长主张完全的宽容和接纳,反对惩罚,对责骂和体罚更是深恶痛绝,而另一些则认为有必要施加一些约束和规则,为此有时不得不使用较严厉的管束措施,甚至某些惩罚手段,也许还包括体罚。 实际上,近代以来当人们对教育问题有了更多自觉之后,这样的争论始终存在,德国首相俾斯麦还观察到一个有趣现象:严厉与宽松会在代与代之间交替,在严厉父母的棍棒下长大的人,或许是因为自己的痛苦经历,会格外宽松地对待自己的孩子,而他们的孩子,或许认识到过于宽松也有其负面作用,转而严厉对待自己的孩子;这也许表明了,无论哪种倾向,过于极端可能都有问题。 生物学家贾瑞德·戴蒙德([[Jared Diamond]])在新几内亚丛林里做鸟类田野调查时,对当地土著的生活有过数十年的第一手观察,在前年出版的《昨日之前的世界》(The World Until Yesterday)一书中,他从这些观察中选择了9个主题,并结合其他39个小型前现代社会的人类学资料,展示了这些社会日常生活的某些侧面,作者希望它们对生活在现代大社会的人们能有所借鉴和启示。 主题之一便是如何对待孩子,戴蒙德发现,不同社会的做法千差万别,中非的阿卡([[Aka people|Aka]])族俾格米人采取完全放任主义,从不打骂孩子,也不约束或干预孩子的活动,数月婴儿摆弄利刃,几岁孩子去野兽出没的丛林中玩耍,都不会有人管,新几内亚的伊努(Enu)族人,会看着孩子将手伸进火堆而无动于衷,结果人人身上都有几个儿时留下的烧伤疤痕。 在另一个极端,巴拉圭的阿契([[Aché]])族印第安人严格限制孩子行动,5岁之前很少离开母亲身体一米以上,加纳的塔伦西人([[Tallensi]])会毫不迟疑的责罚犯错的孩子,常见方式是鞭打,而且社区内每个成年人都觉得有责任矫正所见到的不当行为,无论犯错者是不是自己孩子。 大致上,规模小、结构简单的狩猎采集社会,对待孩子最宽松,而规模较大结构较复杂的农牧社会则管教更严厉,其中以畜牧者为最;更细致的比较可以发现影响管教宽严的几个关键因素:首先是环境中常见危险的性质,像草原狩猎者面临的狮子鬣狗毒蛇之类危险,特征很明显,一旦出现成年人会作出强烈反应,因而孩子很容易学会。 亚马逊丛林中则充斥着难以识别却随时可能触及的有毒动植物,而且这种危险很少留给个体通过探索试错进行自我学习的机会,一旦犯错往往非死即残,不像玩弄刀具和火堆,后果虽痛苦,却顶多留下几个伤疤。 其次是有没有贵重财产可被破坏,狩猎采集者财产极少,仅限于可随身携带的物品,孩子玩火可能烧掉的,只是一间原本就会定期抛弃的简易茅屋,而农民孩子却可能因玩火而烧掉贵重的住宅或谷仓,或者因疏忽而放跑牲口,从而危及全家生计乃至性命。 第三个因素是孩子所承担的任务和相应责任,传统社会都会让稍大的孩子参与一些生产活动,既可减轻家长负担,也可为今后独立生活训练技能,通常这样的工作是辅助性的,并不独立承担责任,但也有例外,特别是畜牧业者,经常让孩子独立照看和放牧牲口,而更常见的,是让大孩子照顾弟妹。 一旦赋予孩子重大责任,就不可避免会在他们失职时施以惩诫,这一点在现代社会常表现为另一种形式,虎妈们对孩子抱有高而不切实际的期望,为此制订严格的培养计划,一旦孩子表现不合期望,便施以重罚,许多悲剧正是这样酿成。 最后一个因素是社会结构,越是大型、结构关系复杂、等级分化度高的社会,个人受其约束的社会规范就越繁杂,需要习得的社会技能也越多,为此家长需要种种方法让孩子意识到什么行为是不可接受或不受赞许的,即便它与危险或伤害之间的因果关系并不那么显而易见,因为社会规范背后的逻辑往往并不那么显白,家长自己也未必领悟。 传统经验中或许没有多少可以照搬的做法,但确实可以给我们一些启示,极端放任主义的家长,确实可以做到完全的宽容和接纳,但为了避免伤害,就要为孩子创造一个消除了全部危险的温室,也不让孩子承担任何任务和责任,但这样孩子或许就失去了许多自我探索和试错,学会独自面对危险的机会,也失去了学习生活技能和学会承担责任的机会。  
[微言]自由过继与收养

【2012-11-19】

@迢书 【再论儿童买卖合法化】http://t.cn/zj2x6jv 准确的说,这叫“儿童抚养、监护机会买卖合法化”。大部分人反对儿童买卖合法化,就因为闻不惯里面的铜臭味儿。为了道德优越感,放弃理性,无视现实,不惜以法律之名,把儿童推入火坑。

@wenkino: @whigzhou 老师怎么看?

@whigzhou: 我赞同传统的自由过继和自由收养制度,但这不是“儿童买卖”,按人口买卖这个词的习惯用法,买卖一个儿童的结果是该儿童成为买(more...)

标签: | | |
4729
【2012-11-19】 @迢书 【再论儿童买卖合法化】http://t.cn/zj2x6jv 准确的说,这叫“儿童抚养、监护机会买卖合法化”。大部分人反对儿童买卖合法化,就因为闻不惯里面的铜臭味儿。为了道德优越感,放弃理性,无视现实,不惜以法律之名,把儿童推入火坑。 @wenkino: @whigzhou 老师怎么看? @whigzhou: 我赞同传统的自由过继和自由收养制度,但这不是“儿童买卖”,按人口买卖这个词的习惯用法,买卖一个儿童的结果是该儿童成为买家的奴隶,而过继和收养则没有这样的结果 @whigzhou: 据说波斯纳就是因为提倡自由收养制度而断绝了自己进入最高法院的前景 @whigzhou: 对自由过继/收养制度的一种合理担忧是,它可能会激励儿童拐卖,所以,一种正式公开的过继/收养程序可能是必要的 @whigzhou: 要求一种正式公开的收养程序,即向收养者施加了建立和保存证据的责任,也意味着当收养关系的合法性面临任何挑战时,举证责任在收养者一边  
[微言]儿童权利与不知情失窃

【2012-04-25】

@wayshall 延伸看了一下,看到“儿童的权利不是儿童的权利”,而是属于其父母的,这个太颠覆了吧,那父母虐待自己的孩子岂不是合法?

@whigzhou: 未必啊,他的邻居们或许拥有阻止他虐待孩子的权利

@whigzhou: 人类过度发达的移情能力总是让他们在表达自己意志的时候忘了那是自己的意志,而不是其所指向对象的

@sanqia: 关在地下室就无人得知了。

@whigzhou: 你想表达什么?将权利归为儿童自身会让这种情况有所不同吗?

@whigzhou: 地下室里的强奸杀人同样可能不被发现,然后呢?

@饼干龟: 如果邻居们不知道有这个儿童,那么父母虐待儿童就是合法的?

@whigzhou: No,偷了一笔别人汇给你而你(more...)

标签: | | | |
4215
【2012-04-25】 @wayshall 延伸看了一下,看到“儿童的权利不是儿童的权利”,而是属于其父母的,这个太颠覆了吧,那父母虐待自己的孩子岂不是合法? @whigzhou: 未必啊,他的邻居们或许拥有阻止他虐待孩子的权利 @whigzhou: 人类过度发达的移情能力总是让他们在表达自己意志的时候忘了那是自己的意志,而不是其所指向对象的 @sanqia: 关在地下室就无人得知了。 @whigzhou: 你想表达什么?将权利归为儿童自身会让这种情况有所不同吗? @whigzhou: 地下室里的强奸杀人同样可能不被发现,然后呢? @饼干龟: 如果邻居们不知道有这个儿童,那么父母虐待儿童就是合法的? @whigzhou: No,偷了一笔别人汇给你而你从未知情的钱,也是偷窃,是犯罪 @whigzhou: 甚至偷走一张汇给你钱的汇票,第二天承兑银行破产,仍是犯罪,尽管即便汇票不被偷走你也拿不到钱 @饼干龟: 既然别人可以替我判定我有阻止别人偷窃我的财产的权利,为什么别人不可以替儿童判定他有阻止父母虐待的权利? @whigzhou: 因为你能够表达意志因而具备拥有权利的资格啊,这里存在三个层次的判断:1)同意你拥有某种权利;2)同意你具备拥有权利的资格;3)同意上述认定该资格的原则,三个层次不可混淆 @饼干龟: 当我已经有了资格,别人就可以替我同意我具有某种权利了,而无需我的自由意志了。那么,又是为什么要以具有自由意志来作为我具有资格的原则呢? @whigzhou: 不,执行权利仍需自由意志,这是权利与禁则的根本区别所在 @饼干龟: 可是在我执行之前,你就知道他犯罪了。 @whigzhou: 不,如果真是你的权利,征得你同意就合法 @饼干龟: 那么,在我不知情时,就不能判定偷窃者有罪,对吗? @whigzhou: 不对。司法系统出于效率考虑,将某些行为默认视为“会被权利主体同意”,另一些则相反,对于后者,若行为人不能证明已征得权利人同意,即为非法 @饼干龟: 如果失主已经去世,检方是否可控诉该非法行为? @whigzhou: 此问题分民法与刑法两部分,民法问题上,若失主无继承人,此为无主财产,谁捡到谁得,刑法问题上,符合偷窃要件者,仍受刑法禁则之约束 @饼干龟 你认可此禁则否? @whigzhou: 视语境而定,讨论现实法律问题,我一般选择(我理解的)普通法背景,姑且认可;但根本上是否认可,还没想好,或许不必要,比如在我的无政府主义方案中,这就扯太远了…… @whigzhou: 前一种情况下,认可也是以法律经济学的效率分析为前提的,假如经验表明该禁则是无效率的,那就撤回 【后记】过去半年中,我在此问题上的观点已经改变了,现在我认为,承认儿童主体资格而同时让监护人代理其权利,和否认其主体资格而同时赋予旁人以阻止某些对儿童的行为的权利,在多数情况下是等价的,而两者不等价的部分,前者会让体系更简洁/一致/合理: 1)将人类作为整体来认定主体资格,比将其成员区分对待,在道德情感和直觉上是更容易接受的; 2)这样也更容易用简单一致的原则处理精神病人、昏迷者、植物人、丧失部分记忆或表达能力的病人、被导游带到异乡的游客、远洋轮船上的乘客……等等处于部分被监护状态下的个人的权利问题,实际上,自由意志能力不是个或有或无的问题,而是一个连续谱,简单承认其主体资格而同时用默示意志和监护权来限制其行使方式,是更简洁的做法。