Saturday 29 August 2015

Children should not be forced into cleaning their schools; response to another commenter on "Thinking Taiwan"

Here. I appreciate that calling the practice "break time slavery" sounds hyperbolic, but I do intend it to be taken seriously. It is what it is, even if diminished by degree.

***

No, I'm not having any of that.

A school has no authority over children except that which may be delegated by parents (and even that must necessarily be limited). Unless the parents have agreed to it, the school has no authority to force children to clean - and whether it be school corridors, classroom windows or the children's living quarters is immaterial. In addition to the lack of expressly delegated authority, there are two issues which further embolden my objection. The first is the question of what should a school be for, to which I submit the answer must be: preparation for life as an adult, the essence of which is becoming accustomed to the condition of freedom, making choices between different values* and accepting responsibility for the consequences of these selections. To that end, students must be left to decide for themselves whether, when and how to clean. The second issue is the ineffectiveness of forcing students to clean; I strongly suspect it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the students' cleaning habits and preferences later in life. There will probably of course be sex differences with the girls eager to do cleaning to avoid punishment, and the boys generally not giving a rubber dub duck.

All you are accomplishing is instilling the habits and mentality of unquestioning obedience to non-consensual authorities. That sobering consideration alone should weigh far more in our minds than the frankly trivial benefits of getting the school cleaning done on the cheap.

"Finally, I’d like to point out that when you say “the standing custom within high schools”, you are being slightly misleading as the custom starts in primary school …"

OK then, in primary schools. Hire a few cleaning ladies and be done with it.


*Opportunity costs: a clean and presentable environment is one value. More time spent reading chemistry is another value (an additional half hour exercise or sleep are still other values). Time spent cleaning is less time spent reading chemistry and so on.

***

A further thought: you write....

"Calling it slavery is hyperbole not unlike the term “wage slave” because the school doesn’t own the students nor can it punish them with death or severe harm."

I disagree and I can answer this without resort to dictionary definitions.

You imply that ownership and disposal by killing or maiming are the defining elements of slavery, but that is the error of defining something by referring to a legal status. And the legal status of slavery was different in different times and places. In the second century AD, slaves in the Roman Empire for example could not be arbitrarily put to death by their masters but had to be put on trial to determine whether they had in fact committed a crime or not. Yet they were still considered slaves. I would suggest that is because the essence or defining feature of slavery is involuntary labour. It may exist in different degrees and in differing social contexts, but it is what it is.

So for you to say that forced break time chores are not a form of slavery just because this practice is legal and slavery is not, is a bit like saying when a man forces his wife to have sex (in somewhere like India), it is not rape because forced marital sex is legal and rape is not. It's an attempt to get around the problem by definition, or more specifically, of invoking narrow aspects of a legal status as a substitute for a definition.

11 comments:

  1. I strongly suspect it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the students' cleaning habits and preferences later in life. There will probably of course be sex differences with the girls eager to do cleaning to avoid punishment, and the boys generally not giving a rubber dub duck.
    I would be interested in seeing a survey on this.

    A school has no authority over children except that which may be delegated by parents (and even that must necessarily be limited). [...] All you are accomplishing is instilling the habits and mentality of unquestioning obedience to non-consensual authorities.
    I mostly agree with you it's just the question of what makes a parent a "consensual authority". Why can a parent make his or her child take out the trash? On a less theoretical note, have you actually met any Taiwanese parents who disagree with the breaktime cleaning? I strongly suspect that they would not disagree and, in fact, have already implicitly agreed to it, since they obviously know all about it (having been through it themselves). I believe that in loco parentis is a pedagogical concept most Taiwanese parents would 100% agree with and support.

    So the schools send out consent forms and, once they all come back signed, it stops being slavery?

    As for what the definition of slavery is ... I'll just say I actually wasn't trying to refer to any specific legal definitions*. I disagree with the idea that the essence of slavery is involuntary labour. That's the defining feature of the feeling of being a slave. The feeling you get when your boss tells you to buy a coffee for him. In my opinion, the essence of being a slave is being under the harmful control of another. Labour is just one way to measure the strength of control present.

    The Romans could not, as you say, arbitrarily kill their slaves. But they could kill them no?

    You know, I never said I thought it categorically was not slavery. I just said it was hyperbolic. (Hint: nobody listens to wage slaves when they call themselves that.) And that the situation at hand is very similar in nature to what parents around the world routinely do to their children.

    * In fact, some legal definitions use the term "involuntary servitude".

    ReplyDelete
  2. "...it's just the question of what makes a parent a "consensual authority".

    Parents are not consensual authorities, they are the default authorities until such time as the child reaches adulthood (however vaguely defined), and this is a different category of thing from consensual or non-consensual authorities*, though I think the condition of parental love requires the fostering of the child's development and encouragement of the rational prerequisites to self-governance.

    "On a less theoretical note, have you actually met any Taiwanese parents who disagree with the breaktime cleaning?"

    No, but I haven't been going around asking. Perhaps I should.

    "I strongly suspect that they would not disagree and... I believe that in loco parentis is a pedagogical concept most Taiwanese parents would 100% agree with and support."

    Actually, I agree - I think you're probably right about that. But I also think I could reason one or two of them out of that opinion (I could certainly reason their kids out of that view if I tried, which I wouldn't).

    "So the schools send out consent forms and, once they all come back signed, it stops being slavery?"

    Yes. It then becomes bad parenting, which is a status similar to the "bad" choices made by racists in a system in which racial discrimination is not criminalized. It should not be illegal per se, but for anyone who holds freedom in esteem, it is a "bad" choice to make because its' effect (insofar as it is successful) is to instill the mental habit of unquestioning obedience, which, in the case of teenagers now developing the rational prerequisites to self-governance is a retardation of that development. The parental choice of consenting to the school ordering the kids to clean windows and toilets etc should be challenged by social means. I would certainly object to it, and I would think poorly of parents who allowed their teenage children to be ordered about like that.

    "I disagree with the idea that the essence of slavery is involuntary labour. That's the defining feature of the feeling of being a slave."

    Involuntary is an adjective describing an action that takes place either in the absence of choice, or under coerced choice. It is not a descriptive reference to any particular emotion.

    "The feeling you get when your boss tells you to buy a coffee for him."

    That doesn't happen to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "In my opinion, the essence of being a slave is being under the harmful control of another."

    The problem with that is that "harmful" requires some sort of value, and is therefore highly subjective (and subject to post-hoc rationalization and so on). You can't be having that. Is a married man a slave to the extent that he is under the "harmful control" of a nagging, ear-bashing wife? No I think institutional coercion is the better criterion because the logic of it (eventually) boils down to the application of physical force (e.g. the cops carting you off to be held in custody because you refused multiple court orders pursuant to your refusal to send your kids to school).

    "The Romans could not, as you say, arbitrarily kill their slaves. But they could kill them no?"

    Not without a trial to determine whether the slave had in fact committed a crime, and moreover a crime serious enough to warrant the death penalty. That's why putting slaves to death was not arbitrary - i.e. for the same reasons we do not arbitrarily put disliked people to death.

    "Hint: nobody listens to wage slaves when they call themselves that."

    Least of all me. The analogy is inapt because a "wage slave" is not coerced or compelled by anyone. His choices and opportunities may be limited (and in fact probably far less limited than he might be aware of), but there is no coercion and hence no "wage slavery". In the case of "break time slavery", both students and parents (despite their own likely acquiescence or even approval) do not have any legal choice in the matter and are compelled by institutional power operating at a distance.

    *Both of which presuppose some capacity for self-governance, in that a choice is either accepted or over-ruled.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is "involuntary" not a reference to the state of "not wanting to do it"? The husband who is nagged into doing what his wife wants done, is that not involuntary?

    Aren't you really trying to say "involuntary labour effected through institutional coercion"? If you agree with that, then is it really the labour that is the essence, or the coercion? You say that with consent forms it stops being slavery. Yet, in terms of labour, nothing has changed from the student's point of view.

    "Harmful control" was a really bad way to word it; I avoided the "coercion" because
    No I think institutional coercion is the better criterion because the logic of it (eventually) boils down to the application of physical force (e.g. the cops carting you off to be held in custody because you refused multiple court orders pursuant to your refusal to send your kids to school).
    this is a really myopic description of coercion. For example, the authority of a Boss with a captial B is often "compelling" enough, and being able to terminate employment is a pretty good way to coerce someone into, say, taking on extra workload. Using this narrow definition, there's no coercion involved in break time slavery because at no point can anyone physically harm a student just because he or she sat down and refused to lay a hand on a mop.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The husband who is nagged into doing what his wife wants done, is that not involuntary?"

    It might feel like it sometimes, but no. He can actually refuse. If he complies he does so because he chooses to do so freely. Granted there will be consequences to refusing but they do not threaten his life or freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If you agree with that, then is it really the labour that is the essence, or the coercion?"

    Yes I agree with that. But "involuntary labour" is shorter and thus an economy of words.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Yet, in terms of labour, nothing has changed from the student's point of view."

    True, but what has changed is the source of the authority. A sufficiently mature teenager can argue rationally with his parents, with the distant educational authorities? Not so easily.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "...a really myopic description of coercion..."

    No it isn't, because it is a description bound to the context in which it is applied. Yes, a "Boss" can threaten you with the sack but though that may be a hardball means of persuasion if you have no, or few, or unlikely alternative means of income, it is still not coercion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "...there's no coercion involved in break time slavery because at no point can anyone physically harm a student just because he or she sat down and refused to lay a hand on a mop."

    Except perhaps the parents to whom the legal coercion will be directly applied. Perhaps I should concede that the students are coerced by proxy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. >Yes, a "Boss" can threaten you with the sack but though that may be a hardball means of persuasion if you have no, or few, or unlikely alternative means of income, it is still not coercion.
    Unemployment is not a threat to life?

    >Except perhaps the parents to whom the legal coercion will be directly applied.
    I am as confident as it is possible for a lay person to be that there is nothing the school can, or would, do against the parents. That would be like the school taking legal action against a parent for a student choosing to sleep in class.

    My point is any punishment involved, assuming the teacher doesn't just throw up his or her hands and ignore it, would have to be academic - demerits, etc. In the most absolute, extreme case (which I do not deem realistic at all) I can just barely "imagine" a school trying to threaten a student with expulsion for causing trouble*. But if the threat of unemployment is not considered coercion, then what of demerits (a rating system) or expulsion (lack of access to the school)? My point is, I don't think a student resisting to the bitter end will lead to the involvement of physical force.

    (Expulsion: I image what could happen is that maybe the student would be punished with something like extra labor, i.e. weekend labor but then he or she would still refuse to go. Then, supposing the parents are supportive and the child still refuses to accept the extra punishment and that the school is unusually vengeful, an expulsion could, maybe, happen. Although I think if the parents fought the expulsion in court they could win, though at that point they probably would be more interested in finding a different school.)

    "the cops carting you off to be held in custody because you refused multiple court orders pursuant to your refusal to send your kids to school".
    1) You know homeschooling is an option (albeit an unpopular one) right?
    2) Based on what it says in the Compulsory Education Act jailtime is ... highly improbable.

    Having said all this I think the most effective way to end this practice would be for all the students to go on permanent strike. It would certainly be interesting to see what the parents' responses are ...

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Unemployment is not a threat to life?"

    No. Unemployment is a condition, not an intention. Obviously it's a problem for the unemployed person, but that doesn't mean sacking someone is an act of "coercion", or that an employer commits a crime whenever he sacks someone.

    "I am as confident as it is possible for a lay person to be that there is nothing the school can, or would, do against the parents."

    I am not so confident. Would a school (or perhaps more likely the government's department of education) take legal action against the parents of a child who refused to do chores? Not at first, certainly not - and perhaps not at all. Letters and scare-visits from the education department or local authority would probably suffice. But I think some sort of legal action could eventually happen if the situation involved a large number of children in concert and if it were escalated far enough simply because the school is unlikely to expel a hundred or so children at one time.

    "You know homeschooling is an option (albeit an unpopular one) right?"

    I have heard that, but I haven't looked into it properly. My guess is that legal provisions are made for homeschooling to take account of exceptional cases (e.g. where a child has a special medical condition requiring constant supervision), and that a parent must apply for a permit to see if their child meets the criteria. What I very much doubt is that homeschooling (or unschooling) is a recognized, legitimate alternative to State schooling which parents are free to choose. I would expect that, at the very least, there would be a formal requirement upon the parents to subscribe to the national curriculum and perhaps even a required reading list for their kids forced upon them. If that's what it is, then it is a poor alternative. Were I a parent (and I could get the wife to agree), I'd still take that option if it was there but I'd take the risk of ignoring the curriculum and figuring out a way to evade the notice and sanctions of the education department.

    "Based on what it says in the Compulsory Education Act jailtime is ... highly improbable."

    Because they do not expect to be challenged by random individual cases, let alone by a concerted effort. They are right to be confident on this point, which is a shame in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete

Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.