I enjoyed that article, Karen. I think that the descriptions and analysis are very accurate.
(Forewarning: There may be certain nuances in your post that I am not necessarily getting, such as about "'social conservatives.") However ...
One thing I was waiting for in the Post article was to get to the levels below alpha, beta, and gamma. One of my daughters was likely a gamma, but the other (older) was none of these. These days, I tend to think of social constructs more with reference to my Goldens then with my grown children. With our Golden sisters, we clearly have an alpha (wannabe, anyway, since we're in the way), while the other is definitely an omega, in dog-terms (first in nothing, last in everything). As I watch our dogs play out their roles and instincts, I often think of my daughters-sisters. My older, J, was much an omega. She was loving and sweet, but "different." Today, she would no doubt be subjected to frequent tests to find out what was wrong, and occasionally she was then, but the tests were not as sophisticated and were therefore inconclusive. Her elementary school principal did not know quite what to make of her, and suggested placing her in what were then called "special classes," but we refused. J struggled in her classes, but kept up through hard work alone. She liked everyone, but had few friends, as some of her ways were just out of sync with the mainstream. She could say very silly things, meaning them seriously. She was the butt of quite a bit of ridicule, especially from the alpha types. Fortunately, her kindness and generosity caused her not to really realize that she was being dissed (although I suspect I am over-estimating the extent to which that was true). Her sister was a high achiever, but always thoughtful of J, and no one celebrated her sister's accomplishments more than J. She persevered with good spirits not only through school, but then through college, and eventually through a master's degree. She just had to do it all her way. As a well-adjusted adult now, she still has to do things her way.
Anyway, as I say, I was looking for some recognition in the article of the girls who can't be alphas, betas, or gammas. There must be tons of them, and their life is not made easy in the schools. Children's capacity for inflicting hurt, even if unknowingly or unintentionally, can hardly be exaggerated.
You may have it right about the impetus for parents' rights coming from the family values crowd. Perhaps you were connecting family values to the social conservatives. I think I am out of touch with the meanings of either of these labels. I don't even know if I am a social conservative. I may well be. Even so, I would not be a supporter of parents having too much influence over the schools. When I was a professor I refused to have anything to do with parents, even to the point of not returning their occasional phone calls. Of course, at that level I was making the point that I considered my students to be adults, not children. I respect authority generally, and with respect to schools I trust their authority and judgment more than I ever would that of parents, who are so easily blinded to their children's shortcomings. (That is not withstanding the incident I mentioned where we insisted that J remain in regular classes; in that case we had the support of J's teacher at the time).
Some day you might tell me briefly what a "social conservative" is. I know I am a political conservative in most matters, but I don't know about the former. I'd like to find out, because I hate to be a bore. ;-)
JC |
