Talk:Poisonous pedagogy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Poisonous pedagogy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Transferred from German-English_translation_requests:

de:Schwarze Pädagogik[edit]

Corresponding English-language article: Poisonous pedagogy
Worth doing because: the English version makes very little sense.
Originally Requested by: User:Jackiespeel 8 March 2006
Other notes:
Status: translated, ready for review/proofreading. Chonak 02:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supported:

One phrase in the German was unclear so I omitted it: der Tabuisierung der Berührung mit Hilfe eines abstrakten Erziehungsapparates: "the tabooization of touching with the help of an abstract child-raising device". Is that what Rutschky intended?

"Abstract child-raising device" sounds like a disparaging way of referring to morality or religion. If so, I think it's non-NPOV and should be clearly attributed to its author. Chonak 02:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children's books and fairy tales[edit]

Traditional children's fairy tales portrayed child abuse and manipulation by wicked adults. Alice Miller discussed them in her book "Thou Shalt Not be Aware." However, this section simply says how they "affect children is disputed, because of the variety of experiences." It is not clear to me how this section illustrates the concept of Poisonous Pedagogy. -- Bookish 13:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text as it currently appears is just a translation of the German counterpart. Is the writer of the article perhaps interpreting "cautionary" fairy tales as thinly veiled threats directed at children? Chonak 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the fairy tales section should either be removed completely or substantially re-worded. I am currently participating in a major re-write of another article, but I could come back to this one later. Do you agree that it should be removed or revised? -- Bookish 20:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the author's logic: he is presenting the named children's stories as examples of tales in which an evildoer is killed. If one were to take such stories as de facto threats addressed to children ("Behave or die"), that could be considered part of poisonous pedagogy.

It definitely needs work. As I'm not well versed on the concept of schwarze Pädagogik (have never read Rutschky's views and only one book by Miller), I'm not in a position to do the rewrite at present. I've posed your questions and mine over at the German talk page to see if the original writers can expand on the section.

The reference to the Hays Code does need explanation too, as noted below. Chonak 22:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posing the questions at the German talk page. I think the article is basically very good, but I'm not happy about leaving it up to visitors to try and guess the author's logic in the fairy tales section. Tales in which an evildoer is killed are a recurring theme in all kinds of literature. What is the specific relevance to Poisonous Pedagogy? The Children's books and fairy tales section is very short at the moment, and I feel the article would not be weakened if it was removed until a more carefully reasoned version could be introduced. I have read most of Alice Miller's books. Although she mentions childrens' fairy tales, it isn't one of her major themes. I wouldn't find it easy to compose a condensed summary. However, she discusses Rutschky's Schwarze Pädagogik at great length in For Your Own Good.

The Hays Code struck me as a confusing digression. Personally, I think it would be better not to make an attempt to massage it into having some relevance. -- Bookish 11:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that the complete text of Alice Miller's For Your Own Good is available online. I worry that relying too much on translations of a German Wikipedia article is not the best way to improve the English version. -- Bookish 12:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you about the 'fairy tales' section, so I'll cut the text from there and save it somewhere (maybe a subpage of this talk page) to preserve it in case we find some way to make it relevant. (As a newbie, I'm averse to tossing material.) I'll add a link to the Miller book on the article's book list too. Chonak 07:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done the right thing. The fairy tales chosen as examples were not well known classics to English speaking audiences. Removing the section also takes care of the Hays Code problem. I suspect the person who added it misunderstood the article. -- Bookish 09:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hays Code[edit]

Thanks, 81.173.134.142, for adding the Kellogg link: a good observation. About the Hays Code, could you expand that "see also" with a few words to show what part of the Production Code relates to this section? Because of the length of the Production Code article, I think the connection isn't clear enough yet. Again, thanks. Chonak 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Without a few more words to show how the Production Code relates to this section I think it might confuse readers. -- Bookish 13:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article format[edit]

The References section is sub-divided into "Books" and "Web pages." As it is a Wikipedia custom to include an "External links" section for links to external web pages, is there any reason why that change should not be made to this article? -- Bookish 14:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Chonak 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

Since I translated the article, the German version has (IMHO) improved the first paragraph as follows (my translation):

Poisonous pedagogy is a designation for repressive child-raising methods from past centuries. It is a basically negatively loaded umbrella concept, comprising behaviors and communication of a strongly manipulative or violence-prone character.

It may be good to rewrite the English first paragraph too, though I worry that the above text verges on POV. (Hard to avoid it with this topic.) Chonak 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have incorporated something approximating to the above in a new rewording of the introduction. Alarics (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iwnit: I absolutely agree. The discussion and criticism should be left inside the paragraph of that name. The author (or translator) of the introduction definitely shows a particular point of view against the idea of "Poisonous pedagogik". The German article is much more neutral in this respect. I don't think that the following expressions should be used in a presentation of the subject: - "which they regard as repressive", - "comprising behaviors and communication that these theorists consider to be "manipulative" or "violent"", - "Miller claims that this alleged emotional damage". I think it would be better to write things like: - "those psychologists point at the repressive character of some forms of education based on violence", - "to describe the manipulative or violent aspects of some behavior and communication", - "Miller claims that this emotional damage".

No, because that would imply that Wikipedia agrees with one side of the argument. If we say "... the repressive character of some forms of education based on violence", it implies that we agree that it is repressive and that those forms of education are based on violence. Alarics (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crackpot quote[edit]

The quote in the second paragraph of after the subtitle "Historical background in Germany" made my heart sunk. I consider it impossible to parent away a child's own will. Having a will of your own is an inevitable consequence of being human. At best, a person may be unsure about what he or she wants due to unaccostumedness to listening to his or her own emotions. Also, some persons habitually refrain from telling what they want because they think that nobody will listen to them. I think the wording was originally made by a psychologically highly ignorant person who mistook blind obedience for lack of will. This leads to the question: is blind obedience really something good? I don't think so since it can so easily be abused. What I mean is that a blindly obedient person can easily be made to do things which are harmful to him or her. The interests of different persons inevitably differ from each other. What is good for one person might not be good for an other and the reverse. Furthermore, parents don't always know what the best is for their child. There are the obvious examples of mentally impaired, addicted or mentally ill parents failing to provide for their children's physical needs. But even if the parents are able to provide for their child physically they may not be able to meet the child's physiological needs. Also, there are plenty of examples of parents forcing their children to do things which they don't realise are good for the parents but not for their children. Such examples include forced leisure activities, study programs and professions chosen by parents without asking about the wills of the "children" - which are often teenagers or even young adults - and arranged marriage. Most of these appear to be done in ignorance of the very existence of differences of interests between family members. However, some of them are probably done by parent unconsciously projecting their own unfulfilled childhood dreams on their children. All in all these parents unintentionally make their children unhappy by making decisions for them which the children do better themselves. Consequentially, it is necessary for all children to learn to make their own decisions. In practise it means taking responsibility for more and more according to their growing mental capabilities. Something authoritarian parenting tends to take far too little into account.

2009-12-08 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

All the above is beside the point. This page is not intended for our personal views on the substantive issue, only for discussing how the article might be improved. -- Alarics (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I have not expressed myself clear enough for you. I am a sceptic who has pointed out many errors in the articles if Wikipedia. This time my point is that a child’s own will can’t be parented away: only suppressed. In the light of modern cognitive science the quote seems like a very dangerous crackpot idea. It would be suitable to add a disclaimer saying that the quoted person’s goal is now considered unattainable.

2009-12-09 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may add such a note to the page, of course -- if you can cite a reliable source for it, but not if you are merely stating your view. You need to name a specific authority who has stated in writing that they consider it unattainable, and state where and when they wrote it. -- Alarics (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The myth of all children being born evil[edit]

I don't think humans are born evil. I think we are born with the potential of both good and evil but with the proportions varying between different persons. However, this idea is not taken out of thin air. Steven Pinker has pointed out that some people needs more nice people around them in order to be nice themselves. From this I draw the conclusion that you can't make children nicer by punishing them but by being nice to them.

2009-12-08 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Misunderstanding by critics[edit]

Frank Furedi seems to think that Alice Miller is against parents rebuking their children at all. I am quite sure that they are wrong. Such people are only against physical punishments and probably other dregrading tratment of children as well. Appearantly, some people still thinks that these are the only ways of rebuking children. As Alfie Kohn has ponted out it would be enough to just tell them that they have done somthing wrong. Personally, I think it would be good to also tell why it is wrong providing the child has mental capacity to understand the atrguments. I also think that explaining why something is wrong is good for the parent as well. If you can't explain why somthing is wrong the rule in question is propably superflous.

2009-12-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

All the above is beside the point. This page is not intended for our personal views on the substantive issue, only for discussing how the article might be improved. -- Alarics (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the critic ether severely misrepresented or misunderstood his opponents’ ideas. If the later is the case he appears to have thought ”all or nothing” indicating ether fanaticism or severe ignorance of differences in parenting methods. This in turn would make the criticism quite irrelevant.

2009-12-08 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is still only your view. Wikipedia has to mention all sides of the argument (for which there are reliable sources) without endorsing any of them. -- Alarics (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. WP:NPOV talks about "all significant views" (original emphasis). The significance of a certain view in turn should be backed up by reliable sources independent from the publisher of that viewpoint.

Moreover, please assume good faith. The other IP was clearly posting here with the sole interest of improving the article. If you are incapable or unwilling to recognise that, please refrain from responding. Thank you. --87.79.164.176 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Frank Furedi seem to have committed the false dilemma fallacy.

2010-05-14 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

If you can find a reliable source that makes such a criticism of Frank Furedi, you can cite it in the article. Otherwise it's just your personal view, which is beside the point, as is mine. Alarics (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'The child is held responsible for the anger of adults.'[edit]

The following is pretty specific. And I think at least some of it would make a good addition to our article.

John Bradshaw, Bradshaw On: The Family, page 8. http://books.google.com/books?id=VmF-4cco9nMC&pg=PA7&dq=%22poisonous+pedagogy%22&hl=en&ei=ov9eTN-pN4aglAfO-M2zCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22poisonous%20pedagogy%22&f=false . . ‘3. The child is held responsible for the anger of adults. ‘4. Parents must always be shielded. ‘5. The child’s life-affirming feelings pose a threat to the autocratic parent. ‘6. The child’s will must be “broken” as soon as possible.’ .

And--hopefully!--there's the positive side of the street. How to be a more constructive leader, etc. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Haarer[edit]

Why is Austrian Johanna Haarer not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4901:B049:B119:A79:5135:B0B8 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenal was a Roman, not a Greek[edit]

Juvenal was a Roman, not a Greek.

76.19.63.222 (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Michael Christian[reply]

Thanks. Fixed by Lumos3. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

Hello, I am currently rewriting the German version of this article, and the outcome is quite different from the current English version. The reason for my rewriting was that most participants in popular child rearing discourses are not aware that poisonous pedagogy is not a scholarly term but a buzzword, that came up in the late 1970ies among psychoanalysis oriented left writers who advocated antiauthoritarian pedagogy. Both Rutschky and Miller had very limited awareness that child rearing is embedded in historical contexts, on the other hand Rutschy very strictly draws her sources from the pedadogy of Enlightenment and of Philanthropism. This has been critized, for very good reasons, for instance here: "alice+miller"+adorno&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinx56Tv5XfAhWFAXwKHcE-BsYQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q="alice%20miller"%20adorno&f=false. Greetings, --Stilfehler (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]