> That is not modern parenting, that's just parenting. Aside from some fringe philosophies (Summerhill for example) I have yet to come across any seriously taken historical example of parenting advice that is not focused on shaping children into something the parent desires, even if that is a very loose mold.
Try Emile from Rousseau. In general, what you are describing is the difference between the sciences of pedagogy an psychology. In one sentence, (since the enlightenment) pedagogy tries to find the optimal conditions for humans to develop their true self, while psychology usually observes a misguided development and tries to find a treatment. Psychology therefore has to have some model of what constitutes normality to compare against. These specific studies and treatments are easy to write about as a scientific journalist or parenting literature author. It's telling that practically none of the parenting books I've skimmed through are based on pedagogy.
(that's no dismissal of psychology at all, but you have to use the right tool for the job).
>pedagogy tries to find the optimal conditions for humans to develop their true self
"True self" is not a real thing - it's mystical psychobabble. In reality you are a product of your genetics and experiences, the ratios of which are still contested, however as of now the latter is much easier to influence than the former and as a result is really the only medium we have to work with if we want to influence outcomes.
>>pedagogy tries to find the optimal conditions for humans to develop their true self
>"True self" is not a real thing - it's mystical psychobabble.
Yep you are right, but I don't speak English natively and did not have much time :) A better phrasing probably would have been the true potential of the species, not of an individual. But true potential sounds too elitist... I'll try more verbosely: Mostly since the enlightenment (let's say the second half of the 18th century, one landmark was Emile by Rousseau), most central-european theory of pedagogy has a specific vision of an ideal of a developed human being (or species) to strive for. It's centered around development of practical, cultural and emotional skills, reasoning, the ability to assess the own actions relative to the state and necessities of society as a whole. Something like the living according to the categorical imperative of Kant while not feeling deprived of the own needs.
Try Emile from Rousseau. In general, what you are describing is the difference between the sciences of pedagogy an psychology. In one sentence, (since the enlightenment) pedagogy tries to find the optimal conditions for humans to develop their true self, while psychology usually observes a misguided development and tries to find a treatment. Psychology therefore has to have some model of what constitutes normality to compare against. These specific studies and treatments are easy to write about as a scientific journalist or parenting literature author. It's telling that practically none of the parenting books I've skimmed through are based on pedagogy.
(that's no dismissal of psychology at all, but you have to use the right tool for the job).
reply