Gradualism
Part two
(On family)
13/7/04
Nowadays, the word family sounds “old hat”. The
campaign against the traditional family has been going on for a long
time. The opponents of the family, viewed as a traditional
institution, are few but very powerful. These people are the same
ones who claim to care and support human rights; they speak for the
poor, for the workers, for the underdog, for women’s rights, for the
rights of child, for environment, and so on.
These people oppose the family as a natural
institution, because they base their ideology on humanism.
Historically, the names given to this ideology include Marxism,
Socialism, Fabianism, humanism, materialism, and feminism
but Christianity is not one of them. In our modern times one name
sums up all them, that is “Democracy”.
In our present time, in the name of
“democracy”, everything is permissible, tolerable, and acceptable to
modern man and woman, except, of course, the family as a traditional
institution, which has been declared diseased, moribund, and
terminally ill with no hope of recovery.
To understand how things work against family
you need to look at the school system to which parental
responsibility has first been delegated, and then usurped from
parents completely.
In the movie, “Anya’s Bells”, situated in late
40s, thirteen year old Scott, the only child of a single mother, has
a problem at school, for he cannot read or spell. The schoolteacher
blames the boy for this. The child, of course, is not happy, because
he is the taunt of the other boys and girls, and so he hates school.
His mother is not happy either and blames the teacher. The situation
between mother and son is very tense and it looks like there is no
solution for the child’s predicament.
However, Scott finds a friend in old blind
black Anya, who uncovers Scott’s “dyslexia” [as if such a thing was
heard of in the late 40’s or ever existed or exists today].
Lo and behold, “if Scott has dyslexia, then he
is not retarded”, thinks Scott’s mother with great relief. An
interview between the schoolteacher, Scott and his mother follows.
What comes out of this meeting is that, ‘if Scott has dyslexia then
it is nobody’s fault’. There is a solution to the problem: Scott
needs special treatment, which will be given by a specialist
teacher. Bingo! After this decision, naturally, everybody is happy
as is to be expected in such a situation.
The moral of the story, or rather the hidden
message is: Scott, his mother and the schoolteacher - all are
fine. Because of Scott’s “dyslexia”, the school system cannot to be
blamed either. “Dyslexia” is an impairment in the child. However,
for this type of handicap there is a solution. It is just a matter
of knowing the problem, and giving it a name. For the rest, from now
on, everything will all be right.
However, a closer look and you will see that
this movie is based on Marxist [Kant & Hegel] dialectic philosophy:
“thesis, antithesis and synthesis”. In this case, this
dialectic says:
Thesis
·
Here we have a problem: “Scott can’t read; he is
‘slow’ [read retarded]”, according to his teacher. The movie tells
us that the child never knew his father, who deserted his mother
after she became pregnant. There is tension between mother and son;
he does not confide in her. Their relationship is not the best, and
is deteriorating.
Antithesis
·
There are arguments between mother and son, and
between the teacher and the mother. Scott’s mother bames the
teacher: “My son is not retarded. If Scott cannot read it is
because you’re incompetent”. The teacher blames the mother for “not
knowing her son.” The mother secretly blames herself, for failing
him.
Synthesis
·
Solution: after discovering Scott’s “dyslexia”, a
ready solution is found, i.e. he needs a special treatment by a
specialist teacher, of course.
Conclusion
The conclusion is that nobody is to be blamed
– everything is just ‘fine’. There was never a mention of the lack a
real family in Scott’s life, i.e. the love and support of father, of
grandparents and the benefit of siblings, which surely has some
bearing on the unhappiness of Scott.
Hollywood is telling us that we can live well
without a traditional family. You see, Hollywood also is run by
people who believe in Hegel’s dialectic; and who therefore strongly
oppose the traditional family and work to destroy it. I am sure this
movie has a contribution to make to advance this philosophy.
To be honest, I have to say that I really
enjoyed the movie, finding it compelling and touching. It has all
the redeeming features intended to make its message palatable
In the old days, when family was still
respected, protected and defended by the small and the great, and
held in high esteem as the fortress for human traditional values, to
obtain a job or social position did not require many credentials.
The simple fact that somebody came from a “good family” [a Christian
family background] was sufficient for him/her to be recommended and
accepted.
Not so today, because if you are looking for
work, the requirements are much more complicated. You would be
required to show your school certificates [doesn’t matter if you
cannot spell your name], how many years of experience you have in
the field of work, your bank account number [the only way your wage
or salary will be paid to you], your curriculum vitae [no matter if
it is a fiction one], some references from people [doesn’t matter if
these people are crooks] who know you, and so on.
Nowadays, it is not a social requirement, nor
is necessary that you come from a ‘good family’, for ‘the community
is your new family. The community is not Christian either, for that
too is old hat. The new hat is the one “everyone” is wearing today,
according to fashion. Tomorrow, it will be something else.
What we call ‘community’ today, is not an
association of nuclear families, as in the past; but anything which
has a semblance of a social and legal construct, such as the local
council, or a group of people volunteering for some social welfare
work, unfamiliar, mind you, with each other.
In this “no man land”, as I call this society
where the traditional family is missing, men and woman, and
especially children are on their own. They are without a moral
support, without mental strength, and no direction in their lives.
Moral support, mental strength and direction in one’s life are the
prerequisites for the formation of character in any individual, for
without it life is like a boat without a rudder, shaken by the waves
of a raging sea leading to its own total destruction.
Isn’t this what we have today? Just look around
and see how many people there are whose lives are in deep trouble.
Just consider how many people are drug-addicts, or mentally ill, or
homeless, in our affluent society. Or just read the statistics on
divorce, broken marriages, domestic violence, child abuse,
homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, crime, etc
Solution
So what is the solution? We must go back to the
gospel. That is the only solution, there is no other. But probably
few people still believe this. The majority of people, in particular
Christians and Catholics, think that the Gospel is old hat. I still
stick to the belief, though, that without the traditional family,
and the grace of God, there is no solution for the ills of our sick
society; and ultimately, no salvation for the future of man and
woman on this planet.
Marantha
********************************************************************************
>>Part three
