A fence in a Japanese Buddhist temple. Nothing Daoist about it!
Raising a child is admittedly very frustrating, and I worry that I am not doing it right, that I am not a good influence on my child, that he might turn out like a more deficient version of me.
For example, our son loves the computer and wants to play with it constantly. I worry that this is not a healthy pastime, that it may be inculcating an excessive reliance on the high artifice of technology, maybe even harming his neurological development.
But its not simply that computers and smartphones are attractive to him – he also sees that his parents spend an inordinate amount of time working, communicating, and playing on them.
So immediately we encounter the parental double-standard: I want him to “do as I say, not as I do”; I want him to behave contrary to the model I am providing. If it’s unhealthy for him, isn’t it unhealthy for me? Or if it’s okay for me, shouldn’t it be okay for him as well?
I think this example reflects a deeper awareness that our lives are not as they should be. We do not live in a paradisiacal state, yet this is what my idealism pushes me towards. So when my son starts to throw a tantrum because I won’t let him play with the computer while I try to work on my PhD, I cannot shake the sense that something is going wrong.
Ideally he would not be throwing tantrums, but I’m not sure that the problem lies in him. He is, after all, an innocent child, and the real cause of the tantrum is that he’s presented with an enticing object (the computer) to which his parents are clearly devoted, yet he is not allowed to join in the very interesting activities of hitting buttons and moving the mouse and making the screen do interesting things.
As a parent, I wouldn’t show my child enticing food if I didn’t intend to feed it to him. Yet showing him the computer but not letting him play is akin to showing him food and not letting him eat it. His behaviour is quite natural; is mine?
The Daoist approach – indeed much of Chinese thought in general – is preoccupied with the idea of the natural. Natural is generally superior to the artificial, since it is in our nature as human beings that we find our virtue, our power.
From the Daoist point of view an innocent child exemplifies nature. He is uncontrived, he does not plot and plan, he does not act according to elaborate schemes. He eats when he is hungry and (largely) sleeps when he is tired. He doesn’t harm himself by pursuing strange and inordinate desires contrary to his nature. The child is reminiscent of the sage.
Or at least he is until he starts throwing tantrums when he doesn’t get his own way; and in this we find an example in miniature of the broader Daoist perspective on human life.
Our instinctive response to a child throwing a tantrum is to make him stop, raise our voices, tell him off, or distract him. We would institute rules and discipline to teach the child not to play with the computer. We would erect artificial boundaries to stop the child from doing what comes naturally: emulating his parents.
A more ‘natural’ response might be to examine the causes of his behaviour, but this would require an uncomfortable degree of self-scrutiny, since the primary cause of his behaviour is my behaviour. As the ancient Chinese text The Classic of Change puts it:
If someone is not as he should be,
He has misfortune,
And it does not further him
To undertake anything.
It is I, rather than my son, who “is not as he should be”, and all my undertakings – my efforts to impose discipline and better behaviour in him – will not improve the situation. After all, if I am not addressing the root of the problem, I can only add to the dysfunction. He is already responding naturally to an unnatural situation; my attempts to change his behaviour directly can only result in him responding unnaturally to an unnatural situation.
I think the better solution is to be open to rethinking our way of life right to the core. Giving up employment has been a good first step, but our lives are still unbalanced and far from what they should be. The Daoist ideal is to put things right, which means putting things back in accord with our underlying nature, removing the obstacles and impediments, the desires and schemes which constitute our departure from the way.
This is, however, a long and difficult process, and the raising of a child cannot be put on hold until things are perfect. What are we to do in the meantime? How are we to act, when all our actions might betray some unwitting error or insufficiency in ourselves? Again the Yi Jing provides an answer:
The superior man
Understands the transitory
In the light of the eternity of the end.
As the commentary explains:
Every relationship between individuals bears within it the danger that wrong turns may be taken, leading to endless misunderstandings and disagreements. Therefore it is necessary constantly to remain mindful of the end.If we permit ourselves to drift along, we come together and are parted again as the day may determine. If on the other hand a man fixes his mind on an end that endures, he will succeed in avoiding the reefs that confront the closer relationships of people.
What this signifies is that our interactions as parents with our children must be coloured and shaped by ‘the end’, which in this instance can be none other than the development of a strong and secure bond of affection. If we lose sight of this end, we will be lost amidst worries and concerns, doubts and uncertainties. But if instead we are always mindful of the end, though we may not know how things will ultimately turn out, we can at least be sure of the affection we have nurtured and developed.
I think this has to be the way forward: I will surely make mistakes, but so long as I am mindful of the ideal – a loving, enduring relationship with my son – I will have done at least one thing right.