Judith Suissa

The claims of parenting : reasons, responsibility and society

Acknowledgements.- Introduction.- 1. The languages of psychology and the science of parenting.- 2. The priority of the particular and the first person.- 3. The intuitive, caring mother.- 4. Good enough parenting?- 5. Rights, needs and duties.- 6. Existential anxiety, responsibility and the political aspects of the family.- References.- Index.

Untangling the mother knot: some thoughts on parents, children and philosophers of education

Although children and parents often feature in philosophical literature on education, the nature of the parent–child relationship remains occluded by the language of rights, duties and entitlements. Likewise, talk of ‘parenting’ in popular literature and culture implies that being a parent is primarily about performing tasks. Drawing on popular literature, moral philosophy and philosophy of education, I make some suggestions towards articulating a richer philosophical conception of this relationship, and outline some of the implications, questions and problems this raises for philosophers of education.

Parents as ‘educators’: languages of education, pedagogy and ‘parenting’

In this article, we explore to what extent parents should be ‘educators’ of their children. In the course of this exploration, we offer some examples of these practices and ways of speaking and thinking, indicate some of the problems and limitations they import into our understanding of the parent–child relationship, and make some tentative suggestions towards an alternative way of thinking about this relationship.

Tiger mothers and praise junkies : children, praise and the reactive attitudes

This paper addresses some discussions of praising children in contemporary parenting advice. In exploring what is problematic about these discussions, I turn to some philosophical work on moral praise and blame which, I argue, indicates the need for a more nuanced response to questions about the significance of praise. A further analysis of the moral aspects of praise suggests a significant dimension of the parent-child relationship that is missing from, and obscured by, the kind of parenting advice exemplified by the discussions of praise with which I began.

Anarchism, Utopias and Philosophy of Education

This paper presents a discussion of some central ideas in anarchist thought, alongside an account of experiments in anarchist education. In the course of the discussion, I try to challenge certain preconceptions about anarchism, especially concerning the anarchist view of human nature. I address the questions of whether or not anarchism is utopian, what this means, and what implications these ideas may have for dominant paradigms in philosophy of education.

Character Education and the Disappearance of the Political

In this article, I explore some contemporary versions of character education with specific reference to the extent to which they are viewed as constituting a form of citizenship education. I argue that such approaches often end up displacing the idea of political education and, through their language and stated aims, avoid any genuine engagement with the very concept of the political in all but its most superficial sense. In discussing some of the points raised by critics of character education, I defend the need for a more robust and radical conception of the political as a basis for a form of political education.

Private Schools, Choice And The Ethical Environment

Abstract In this paper, we consider the relationship between the existence of private schools and public attitudes towards questions about educational provision. Data from the 2010 British Social Attitudes survey suggest that parents who choose to send children to private schools may become more entrenched in their support for more extensive forms of parental partiality, with potential ramifications for the future supporting of progressive education policy. We suggest that addressing questions about the existence of certain forms of education and school choice policies requires consideration of the broader ethical environment.

Vocational Education: A Social Anarchist Perspective

This article discusses the social anarchist tradition of educational thought and practice, in order to throw new light on the philosophical discussion of the liberal-vocational distinction. Focusing on the central anarchist idea of integral education, I argue that the political stance of social anarchism is inseparable from the educational ideas and practice of this tradition, and contrast the key aspects of this political perspective with those embodied in mainstream educational policy and theory in the liberal state. Examining the issue of vocational education and training in light of this often-neglected political position can, I suggest, contribute to our understanding of the relationship between educational practice and values, political ideas and social change.

The question of 'parenting'

Parents, parenting and the perceived breakdown in family relationships make headlines on an almost daily basis. Recent years have seen an unprecedented burgeoning of policy initiatives designed to address such problems as lack of discipline amongst children, a rise in teenage pregnancies, worrying levels of drug and alcohol abuse amongst teenagers and children, eating disorders, childhood depression, and so on – and increasingly, it is parents and families that are at the centre of such policies. Whether through parenting support classes, ‘parenting orders’, proposals for ‘home–school agreements’ or an ‘upbringing pledge’ or ‘civil birth vow’, there seems to be a growing consensus amongst policy makers that accumulative evidence has indicated the undisputed role of early parenting patterns on children’s social, emotional and intellectual development, and that to abstain from intervening in family life in order to disseminate this evidence and optimize outcomes accordingly would amount to a moral and political failure. Yet while there is no shortage of literature on the significance of particular models and patterns of parent–child interaction and their policy implications, we feel that the normative assumptions and conceptual distinctions implicit in a great deal of this study have not received sufficient attention from philosophers. At the same time, we recognise that philosophy does not hold a monopoly on ethical and conceptual arguments, and that, indeed, when addressing an area as rich as this, it is often impossible to separate out the empirical and the descriptive from the conceptual and the normative. With this in mind, then, we have brought together a group of academics whose research interests converge on issues at the heart of the nature and role of parenting, family life and upbringing. The group met three times over a period of 6 months for a series of seminars, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK) Research Networks and Workshops Scheme. Our initial intention was to look more closely at some of the language(s) characteristic of current policy and popular literature on parenting in Western European states. We hoped, in doing so, to offer an overview of the way in which the current ways of thinking and speaking about the parent–child relationship may represent a shift in our understanding of this relationship and its role within the wider social discourse, and to explore the cultural, historical and political aspects of this shift. At the same time, we wished to suggest – or possibly to recover – different conceptual frameworks that would allow us to explore alternative ways of thinking and speaking about the parent–child relationship, thus potentially broadening out the public debate about parenting and contributing to policy initiatives in this area. Many of the contributors share an unease about the predominance of a certain language of ‘parenting’ that seems unduly focused on a narrow, possibly overly prescriptive account of the roles and duties of parents. Some objections to this

Dissenting Voices: a Reply to Maskell

Duke Maskell ( Journal of Philosophy of Education , 32.2) argues that ‘our idea of education is puerile’ and that we need to rethink it. Drawing on the work of Jane Austen, he essentially reasserts the classic nineteenth-century ideal of Liberal Education. Yet in so doing, Maskell fails to acknowledge the social and political implications of this ideal. I argue that if we wish to engage in a rigorous philosophical debate on education, we cannot afford to ignore the social and political context implied by our educational concepts. Furthermore, this debate can be enriched by an understanding of alternative, dissenting positions on education, specifically, in this context, that of early Socialist and Anarchist thinkers.