One often hears about educational experiences aimed at “freeing” children from the prejudices and stereotypes widespread in society. It is also believed that, once no longer conditioned, children can understand true reality. For example, I read about one such experience in which a child did not say that there were black and white children in his class, but simply that they were all children; from this it was concluded that children have no racial prejudices, but instead understand the equality of all human beings.
This is what was once called, in relation to Montessori, the “mystique of the child”: the idea that the child, in his simplicity, understands everything, whereas the adult, dazzled by prejudices and stereotypes, cannot truly understand.
In this specific case, the child would supposedly have understood that all children are human beings, equal beyond racial and cultural differences.
In reality, however, the child has not understood at all that cultural differences exist, nor has he considered whether such differences may have connections with genetic inheritance (racism). The child has not yet acquired the mental categories necessary to frame these aspects of reality.
What seems essential to me is the idea of an education that eliminates stereotypes (prejudices).
In reality, education consists precisely in transmitting to new generations the culture (mindset) of the society to which they belong, that is, in effect, a set of prejudices that serve as necessary parameters for understanding reality.
Thus, in the West, we teach our children that war is evil and, for believers, against God (as the Pope proclaims), whereas in the Middle East people speak of holy wars (jihad), in which those who die bearing witness to the faith (shahada) go to paradise. I was struck by the fact (reported by a journalist) that some children in Gaza say they would like to die in order to escape that earthly hell and go to paradise. Yet we too once had the “Deus vult” of the Crusaders and the holy wars against heretics.
In particular, sexual education (and education concerning the role of women) is often regarded as the overcoming of patriarchal stereotypes.
But if it is a prejudice to think of a woman as a housewife, it is equally a prejudice to think of her as an engineer or a soldier. These are simply two opposing stereotypes, and each person may judge one preferable to the other.
Likewise, may a woman wear a bikini, or must she wear a veil? Both are prejudices, yet the world cannot be understood without them.
To take another example, a child may be taught that betraying one’s spouse is wrong; yet it may still be done without condemnation. It is said that one child immediately understood this by remarking that one could therefore remain friends with an unfaithful spouse. But apart from the fact that it still seems contradictory to me to say that something is wrong and yet permissible, I would especially observe that the problem of sexual fidelity is hardly suitable for a child’s understanding.
Beyond these pedagogical aspects, however, this way of thinking reminds me, for example, of the television series My Brilliant Friend, which I followed with great interest for its historical portrayal of recent decades. In it, the protagonist one night leaves her husband’s bed to slip into another man’s bed, with whom she later leaves. Yet this act is not presented as something shameful—one might even call it infamous—but almost as a right to realize herself.
People used to say that a woman should not tell her man “I am yours,” but rather “I am my own,” meaning “I am mistress of my own body and myself.” Yet I wonder whether it might instead be more in keeping with a woman’s deepest nature to feel entirely and exclusively devoted to one man.
In reality, there exists a principle of sexual freedom according to which, when one feels attraction toward someone, one may—or even should—follow it. Some say that this is what it means to be oneself (and that one must be oneself).
Others instead say that love is oriented toward the continuation of life, and that for this reason fidelity within the couple is necessary and therefore sacred. For some this is more important for women; for others it is equally important for both sexes.
These are always prejudices through which we interpret reality: is a woman who goes with whomever she likes a prostitute or a free woman?
But can we really think that a child is capable of choosing between these two interpretations?
Every civilization, every movement, seeks to create a new model of humanity, above all through the education of children. The result can never be complete, yet we certainly do change. Not only are we very different from the ancient Romans (one need only think of gladiatorial spectacles), but also from our own fathers and grandfathers (consider, for example, the importance once attached to a bride’s virginity).
Yet man is always man: fundamental characteristics cannot change, but only be expressed in different ways.
In conclusion, we must first understand what we mean by prejudice. The important point is that prejudices should not be unchangeable, but open to criticism and choice. Yet it is certainly difficult to think that a child can do this. Can one really imagine that a child is capable of discussing female modesty, the necessity of war, or the relationship between genetics and culture? Certainly not: it is unthinkable to approach such problems with a child in a critical way, and that is precisely the difference between rigid prejudice and prejudice open to criticism.
Education, therefore, is the transmission of the culture (that is, of the prejudices) of the society to which one belongs.
