Let’s stop for a moment. Consider vulnerable communities. For the benefit of what population, if not that of children, are we building a hospital whose supposedly state-of-the-art design makes the economy of the necessary accommodations for its basic needs? (One morning at the Montreal Children’s Hospital, we tried to find a toilet suitable for a three-year-old child; vain hope.)
What population, if not that of children, does the legislative apparatus authorize to be declared non grata in accommodation, restaurants and accommodation? (Perhaps waiting to know the equivalent of the wave “ pet-friendly ”.) With regard to which population, if not that of children, are official recommendations in terms of diet, physical activity and access to screens being neglected within the public institutions supposed to serve as a beacon? in social, physical, intellectual development?
What population, if not that of children, is being prescribed psychostimulants (considered elsewhere as narcotics) in an ever-increasing way, in order to “treat” behavior deemed incompatible with the educational system? On which other population do we endorse the systematic use of behavior regulation methods (the famous “rewards”) beyond our domestic animal companions (for whom a growing number of specialists, moreover, flatly refuse any punitive approach such as dressing tool)?
What other population, if not that of children, is hardly named in the debates concerning its life and its survival (let us reread the articles published over the last month), including in the titles of the institutions which are in principle dedicated to them? (“Children”, “youth” and “students” seem to be used as synonyms in Quebec.)
Towards what other population, if not that of children, do we agree to verbalize and hear our uninhibited aversion with the usual “I don’t like children”? (Unless, of course, it has become such a vital part of the survival of our finances that labor law legislators immediately find a place for it among us, despite some skeptics.) All this, this population does. undergoes without provoking any audible public outrage.
annoying voices
However, voices are rising all over the world to defend the unique needs of childhood. These voices, coming from psychologists and doctors, sometimes from pedagogues, call on us to “break the cycle of violence” against children. Physical violence, of course, but also physiological, emotional and social violence.
Many of these voices conceive of upsetting and “inappropriate” behaviors as a way for children to communicate their difficulties through their own physiological, emotional and neurological means. These voices speak in unison: it is by offering emotional attachment, recognition and presence that we can carry out our mission of helping the child to cross his great emotions inside the acceptable limits for life in society.
The trouble with this vision of children, who then acquire the outrageous right to exist as full-fledged people, is that the bulk of the work to be done is on the side of the adult, the only one from whom we can expect a mature brain.
School
Having grown up in a country where school still exists today mostly on a part-time basis, for me there is nothing natural or necessary in forcing childhood to meet objectives of success and performance eight hours a day. On the one hand, the children: for eight hours, apart from a few moments of free activity, they must nourish their brains and self-regulate their emotions and behaviors, without failing to eat their meals at their desk. Had that not been enough, they come home already at 7 years old with almost an hour of schoolwork to do before they can surrender to their sleep (or not).
On the other hand, the teachers: for as many hours, they must transmit the material and manage the emotions and behaviors of little humans whose bodies are still fundamentally “pure movement”, in the words of the Brazilian activist for the childhood Ana Bruno. Who among us could manage to play either of these roles while maintaining a semblance of mental, emotional, physiological health? Certainly not me.
Unless, of course, certain compromises are made (thanks to the controversial TBIs, in operation since 2011, we count on the help of YouTube for literacy tasks, while the individual computer gadgets available to the most lucky girls are already introducing kindergarteners to the “free” platforms of Google Classroom).
We know it too well, the system is broken on all sides, and no one has a solution. We need more staff, better working conditions, structures that are healthy, safe and aesthetically pleasing to live in. And yet, that would not be enough. Not if we made the choice to become a society that respects childhood, children and their physical, cognitive, emotional and neurological particularities. Far from it.
The path of counter-evidence
We love “miniadults”. So we push children to adapt to our world until they become extensions of it. Productivist and disciplinary world par excellence, capitalist to put it bluntly, from childhood to old age. Horizon of the school system, the contemporary labor market is also the engine of the most varied pathologies. Studies conclude that simply sitting in a sitting position for eight hours a day goes against the physiological needs of an adult.
Clearly useless studies, as we persist in the sacred model of school where children must learn to sit up and nourish body and brain with two miserable periods of physical education per week. By going against the current of scientific evidence, but above all of the alarming signs that they throw at us (sometimes with their chairs), it is against our children that we are moving forward.
Exist against the needs and limits of their physiological and neurological age, without disturbing the smooth running of our world. This is the little we demand of this royal caste. Uninhibited, we “steal their adolescence”, after having stolen their childhood, and we still dare to believe in the future of society.
Fortunately, our flesh is animal. Life has its limits. Teachers and children crack here and there. Will we have the courage and the maturity to respond to their calls for help and to question ourselves as to the reasons for an ever-increasing number of children with “behavioral disorders” requiring “consultations”?
Will we one day be able to wish our children more than to “survive” thanks to their amazing “resilience”? One thing is certain, the emancipation of certain populations (in which I include myself as a woman-mother) cannot be achieved at the existential expense of the most vulnerable in society. The future will never cease to remind us of this.