In my last posting, I made a short case for considering ideological indoctrination as a psychological risk factor in child development -- and not just for the indoctrinated child, but for non-indoctrinated peers as well. However, I stopped short of suggesting legal intervention in these cases. Why?
One objection is based on the historical utility of related laws and statutes. Laws that are designed to curtail public expression of prejudice have arguably led to a change only in the subtlety, not the frequency, of such expressions. Hate groups may disappear underground, and coded speech replaces blatant epithets, but the problem remains. It just gets harder to spot.
Here’s a quote from our old friend D.G., the “swastika mom”:
"I'm willing to jump through their hoops," she told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. "If they want me to deny my beliefs, I'll tell them that, but at the same time, I'm not a traitor to my politics, my beliefs. I just want my kids back."
Lesson learned, obviously, and that lesson is to lay low for a while. So we get silly claims like, “I wear the swastika necklace, but not because it has anything to do with Nazi ideology – it has such a profound history!” Sure... just like all those people wear crucifixes because they appreciate the geometry of right angles!
A second objection is based on the difficulty of establishing universal public standards. Here's the rub: depending on your perspective of the social good, more popular ideologies become implicated in a very similar way. Kids are taken to church services and political rallies (or not), dressed up in gendered colors (or not), fed meat and bought leather shoes (or not), made to wave flags (or not), taught to respect their elders (or not), told to salute veterans (or not), and plunked in front of the television for hours on end (or not). All of this happens long before they can understand the social implications of these practices; children go along, but mostly because of their parents' influence. ‘It is the right thing to do’, they may reason, ‘because Mom and Dad tell me so.’
(Think I’m exaggerating? After you're done here, do a web search for "baby clothes political" or "baby clothes religious". You'll find all kinds of stylish ways to have children speak on your behalf before they are even capable of speech.)
Over the years I've seen a lot of talking heads crow about ritual male circumcision as an example of legal child abuse. Yet this debate seems tied up with its clear and irrevocable (without surgery) physical aftermath -- an actual scar is left behind.
If parents should have such legal power to alter a child's anatomy (or, if you prefer, to mutilate it) as they see fit, should they not also be given similar legal power over its psychology? It’s a sobering thought, I admit, but it fits with our modern conception of child-raising as something to be done within the standards of a family rather than those of the larger community.
My third objection comes from my perspective as a scholar. Laws that restrict speech restrict ideas -- not just the ideas conveyed by the speech itself, but also the reactions of the audience. Advances in social thought are sometimes gradual developments of earlier ideas, but occasionally they come from radical dissent. I’d rather see laws that allow people to openly express their ideas, and that encourage people who find those views distasteful to openly express their dissatisfaction. Forced dialogue is most likely to be disingenuous dialogue.
