 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All these pieces of advice make sense, and will go some way in helping children and young people cope with the aftermath of that terrible day. But two issues that typically receive only cursory attention in these guidelines are, in fact, the most profound and important. As a matter of fact, the two ‘lessons’ that children, and their parents, can learn from this critical period are ‘empathy’ and ‘political awareness’. Judy Myers-Walls, Child Development Specialist at Purdue Extension, Canada, alludes to these concepts when she says: "It would be helpful to guide them towards separating the evil of the event from the value of people. Adolescents could easily take the emotions of the event as a call to paint entire groups as enemies. Alternately, they may be able to understand that the concerns of groups may be legitimate, but that using violence — whether it is a fist, a bomb, or an airplane— is never the best way to deal with frustration or anger." Empathy and political consciousness are two areas that some parents steer clear of in their child-rearing practices. The reasons for this evasion emanate from a discomfort with broaching these subjects with children. In some cases, for instance, parents may be doubtful that a quality as amorphous and intuitive as empathy can be ‘taught’ and uncomfortable, in other cases, with a topic so controversial as politics. But empathy and the courage to take a political stand are fundamental to making this a kinder and gentler world. And a lack of empathy and an absence of commitment to political action to ‘doing our part’, no matter how small, are fundamental to the terrible misdeeds that people— mostly men— perpetrate upon other people. And, of course, in the kind of world most of us want to live in, empathy and political action, however one defines ‘political action’, are inextricably intertwined. The courage to take a political stand, to form opinions and then to act on issues on which one feels strongly, untempered by empathy, is dangerous indeed — a recipe, in fact, for violent or even terrorist acts. And empathy on an individual level, while vitally important to a healthy life, is ineffectual in the wider world if it is not exercised in a broader socio-political context. This crucial interface between political action and empathy is one of the lessons we can teach our children as we watch these events unfold on our television screens or discuss them over the dinner table. "We don’t talk about politics in our family" is often put forward as a virtue, as if "not talking politics" is the equivalent to avoiding brainwashing children into one ideology or another. But political consciousness doesn’t mean political propagandising. It means sharing information and knowledge, encouraging critical thinking, and teaching values. It means helping children to bring together the personal and the political, to understand that the same values that guide us in our families and our friendships, can guide us in our international relations. Surely the lessons we feel comfortable teaching our children — about racism and intolerance and greed and violence and abuse of power in their personal relationships— can be extended to our country’s relationships with other countries in the world. No matter what the age of our children, if they are old enough to look troubled by the talk or the images, or old enough to ask questions, then they are old enough to talk about these things. If the child is three, you talk to the child in a language a three-year-old understands and comprehends. You talk about fighting in the playground, and using words instead of hitting, and thinking about how they would feel if someone said something nasty to them. And if the child is 17, you talk to that young person about the choices they can make if someone taunts them with cruel words, or breaks into their locker, or is ostracised on the playing field. Whatever their age, you talk to young people about the similarities and differences between children in India, Canada, or Afghanistan, in the temple or in the mosque. You talk to them about hunger and hurting and being afraid, because every child, no matter what their age, has been hungry and hurt and afraid. The only differences are where it happens, what we can do about it, and whether it will go away or not. And you talk about the fact that two wrongs don’t make a right, because the rules of the playground aren’t, after all, very different from the rules of international relations. If we avoid talking about these issues
because they are too horrible or too difficult, or because we don’t
think our children are ready to talk about them, or because we are not
ready to talk about them, then these events hold huge potential to harm
our children. Because not only do these events communicate insidious
messages of hate and violence and intolerance, but we have wasted an
enormous opportunity to raise our children’s consciousness about the
human condition, and about their vital part in the unfolding of this
world. —WFS |
SUCH
disasters as the WTC bombings or other extreme negative experiences leave
people, especially children and women, emotionally wounded and the horror is
likely to get frozen in their memory. Such intrusive and painful thoughts,
images and nightmares may become so preoccupying that a person may become unable
to engage in normal work. The persistence of such experiences for a long period
might result in the onset of the clinical condition of post-traumatic stress
disorder. This disorder is characterised by painful recollections, recurrent
nightmares, withdrawal behaviour in self-defense, anxiety, depression,
anger/hostility, outbursts of impulsive behaviour usually of non violent nature,
hyperalertness, poor concentration and difficulty in falling asleep. Children
tend to sleep with their eyes open to avoid dreams. A symptom that often occurs
in children with such traumas is an exaggerated startle response. Even the sight
and/or sound of gunfire, bombing, missile attacks, splash of blood on electronic
media reactivates memories of terrifying events, and consequent negative
reactions. All such symptoms are more intense and frequent in children than in
the adults.
The parents, at times, are in
fact the part of the problem. They tend to transmit their own anxieties,
insecurities and prejudices to their children. Earlier they used to be
protective of their children, in case anything happened to them. Now a majority
of them are waiting for it to happen. The world is seen by them as awful,
hostile and unpredictable. "Safety"’ henceforth becomes an integral
part of popular discourses about how parents should raise their children. After
these attacks, more parents will negotiate and establish the extent of their
children’s personal geographies according to their understanding of what
restrictions or surveillance a good parent should impose on youngsters and
according to perceptions of their off-springs’ competence to cope with such
‘public’ dangers. However, an obsessive control on the children’s
autonomous use of outdoor environment by overzealous ‘good parents’ can
restrict the range of multiple life experiences so essential for their balanced
development. There are numerous instances in which parents play a positive role
in emotional healing by responding with empathy and sensitivity to such children’s
deep craving for acceptance and intimacy. Parents need to recognize that such
informal support networks—characterised by unhindered communication and mutual
obligations—clearly influence our ability to handle distressful events in our
lives. Many of the conversations with children and others are actually mutual
counselling sessions in which we exchange needed knowledge along with advice and
reassurance that will be valuable in dealing with contemporary stresses.
Dr. J.M Jerath,
Professor, Department of Psychology, PU: "I
am of the view that the child should be prepared for reality the
way he has been prepared for any other phenomenon or situations.
He should be made to understand the etiology of violence, the
social factors and the inspiration for it. Why only the parents,
if you want the child to grow up as a socially useful and
productive member, then the onus is on society to equip him/her.
Educational institutions, the media and other agents that form
public opinion should dispense information so as to help children
gain a general understanding of aggression. It is like preparing
for other calamities. We find aggression so pervasive that if we
were to explain the reasons behind the violence and aggression, it
would help put things in perspective. In the case of terrorism, it
is the aggression-frustration nexus that works. People who indulge
in such acts might be having complexes and looking for publicity
or harbouring feelings of inferiority. Trying to explore and
understand the psychology of terror and violence can help children
comprehend the larger picture."
Sherry
Sabharwal,
Reader, Department of Sociology, PU:
"I do not think that we need to prepare our children for
violence for the simple reason that they are already exposed to so
much violence. Even cartoons have a considerable content of
violence in them. The children have become desensitised to
violence and inured to the images of horror. In fact, in our
country, be it death, violence or even injustice, we just resign
ourselves to it and accept it. If we prepare children for
violence, we are only adding to the problem. We should, in
reality, consciously and assiduously prepare our children for
peace. We should categorically tell them that whatever is
happening is wrong and it is not acceptable. When adults say,
within a child's hearing, "Whatever has happened is good,
America had it coming, serves them right", he is actually
sending a wrong signal. Every person who dies is an individual.
Perhaps when terrorism is at our door or when an individual is
directly affected, it then that it hits us. Otherwise, it is
always something that is happening elsewhere, to someone
else."
Keshava Kayastha,
Chairperson, Department of Sociology, PU: "There
has always been a time of violence in history. The category of
children whose immediate lives have been shattered will be
affected differently. There might be those who have been exposed
to verbal violence and still others who have seen visuals and
impressions that linger. Children can respond to and adjust to
situations more responsibly and are more accepting. They have less
fears of their own and it is the parents who are insecure. Even in
instances of communal violence, hostility between children is more
of a temporary nature and because they are seen as responding to
adult expectations. Left to themselves they also play with each
other and do not have stable biases in the manner adults have
them. Children forget verbal violence. However, visual images are
relatively more long-lasting and in case of a felt experience
there can be trauma which can be treated. Human beings belong to a
highly resilient species that adapts extremely fast. Just see the
manner in which people were terrorised by militants in Punjab and
also by the state, responded to the situation. Children who have
been kept in an institution take longer to recover because even
during their rehabilitation they are constantly reminded of what
happened to them."