A
few years back we had neighbours with a young family. I was digging
in the garden when the smallest boy came over to talk to me.
“Why
are you are doing that?” he asked me.
“Because I am turning over the earth and getting out the weeds”,
I answered.
“Why?” he asked.
“Because I want to plant a rose bed”, I answered.
“Why?” he asked.
“Because I like flowers”, I said.
“Why?” he asked.
“Because flowers are beautiful”, I said.
“Why?” he asked.
“Because I find flowers are attractive”, I said.
“Why?” he asked.
At
this point I was stumped to find an alternative answer for him. He
had just come to realise the importance of connected thinking, of
purpose and reasoning, of grounds for action and consequences. He
had found the power of the question “Why?”.
Thinking
in this way is vitally important for children if they are to function
effectively, whether as children or later as adults. If they do not
see the connections between people’s perceptions, intentions
and actions, they will be unable to function socially. Some children
with autism have to be taught this skill carefully. They are unaware
of their impact on people, of the hurt which they cause. It is hard
for them then to develop the sorts of reciprocal relationships which
will be mutually rewarding and sustaining. Life risks being simply
a series of episodic experiences with no purposive thread.
Thinking
of this sort is crucial to education, to planning ahead, to investing
with a view to future returns - whether in terms of money, time or
caring for the next generation.
In
the early 1960s there was a research project - in Southampton, I think
- in which the language of children and their families was analysed
in detail. I do not have the statistics to hand, but the general outcome
was that a differentiation could be made between families where speech
patterns were simple and direct and those where speech was more complex
with more subordinate clauses.
In
the first type of family, they would have said, “Stop hitting
the cat”, while in the second they would have said, “Stop
hitting the cat because it doesn’t like it and may scratch you.
You wouldn’t like it, would you?”
In
the first type of family there was no teaching of consequences and
no generalising of the learning, so that learning was a series of
singular episodes relating to specific things that were or were not
acceptable. In the second type of family children were taught the
consequences of their behaviour and how it was perceived by other
parties (in this case, the cat), in a way which made generalised learning
possible so that thinking could be transferred to other situations.
The children were also encouraged to think for themselves and identify
with the line of action, internalising the learning.
Recently
there was a report from the United States that some children were
genetically predisposed to learn social behaviour more slowly than
others, and that they needed simple repeated teaching if they were
to internalise norms and appreciate the consequences of their behaviour
for others.
Which
all goes to show why it was important for my small neighbour to learn
the importance of the word “Why?” He stayed with me for
some time, and being trained to respect children as small people,
I responded politely, trying to give sound rational answers to his
persistent “Why?”
The
problem with such conversations is that one’s answers often
reach a point where the answer is circular, in effect, “I like
it because I like it” and any alternative formulation is simply
the same thing in a different guise, or one may reach deeper and deeper
levels of causation until the answers relate to the Purpose of Life
and one’s fundamental beliefs. This may be an aspect of thinking
which is of help to the child, but the conversation is somewhat limited
if one party’s contribution is simply to continue to ask “Why?”
without offering any feedback. Even Socrates threw in a few suggestions
when questioning his students to get them to think more clearly.
After
an hour or two I dug up a clump of plants which needed splitting and
gave part to my little neighbour, suggesting that he should ask if
his father if he could plant it in his garden. Don’t ask why.
