Mary Coleman

EDF 520/Reflective paper 1

2/4/98

From Hodgson, Raised in Captivity, "Children in an Adult World" and

"Toward a Child-Centered Culture"

In reading these two chapters, I can say that, after an initially

negative response to Hodgson's arguments, I have come to see her point

somewhat better after closer reading. Still, I take issue with some of

them. Recognizing that these are only the opening and closing chapters

of the book and the fact that I have yet read not the core of it, there

are times when I cannot clearly follow the logic of her arguments. For

example, Hodgson says that, "We often deny children legal empowerment

because we maintain they don't know what's best for them . . . . This

attitude is based on a cynical view of human nature." (p. 239) Does it

necessarily follow that because we believe children need to learn and be

molded by the adults who care for them, that we, these adults, are

cynics? In fact, it seems to me that "left to their own devices"

entirely, children would become "social misfits," as Hodgson puts it.

Perhaps it is because I do not entirely understand what she means by

"legal empowerment" that I cannot agree with her statements. Certainly,

all children have the right to be properly cared for and not abused.

But, does she mean to say that children, especially very young ones, are

capable of making sound decisions about their own lives? I am not sure.

She does clarify this a bit for me by saying earlier: "I am not

suggesting that children should be allowed to ignore the laws that make

civilization possible." Still, I am not completely convinced that I

understand her point of view here.

Another part of the problem for me may be Hodgson's broad use of the

word "child." In the examples she cites in the final chapter (Amy Fisher

and the Menendez Brothers), she is clearly talking about teenagers.

Still, I assume that she intends to apply her arguments to all children

since she talks about the "balkanization of children" as a negative and

the importance of not categorizing children into artificially distinct

groups.

This brings me to the question of personal responsibility that Hodgson

touches on page 7. I agree with both her and Kaminer (as quoted by

Hodgson) that "somewhere along the line we still become accountable for

ourselves." I also agree with Hodgson that our childhoods do shape the

adults we become, for better or for worse. But, when is the

responsibility for misdeeds passed from parent to child or is it the

child's all along? Short of mental or physical abuse, how much can we

really blame on our childhoods and, by association, our parents?

I realize that I am asking more questions than I am answering. For this

reason, I look forward to reading the rest of this book and trying to

better understand Hodgson's position, which is clearly well-researched

and nuanced.