Annie asked:

Would your philosophers give their opinions on whether there is a link between the increased
aggressiveness and lack of respect of school aged persons and the lack of encouragement by
parents towards a belief system?

As a mum of two teenagers I've seen at first hand the attitudes of youngsters and how much different
they are to the ones I was brought up with. I am speaking as someone who was a teenager in the
punk era and who was into punk and rock music, but I was brought up (at least until high school) to
go to church each Sunday, to respect the law and teachers (I left school in the late 70's when school
children were still caned or clipped round the ear). Has my generation produced a society of
youngsters who hold nothing in respect? Few of my generation send their children to church on
Sundays, most of us still hold anti-establishment views, albeit toned down. However, despite all our
shouting we do still hold onto certain values we were brought up with. Has the generation of punk
rock and new romantics totally stuffed up society?

============

I don't agree that the generation of punk rock and new romantics totally stuffed up society. This
charge has been leveled at many generations before — Socrates was put to death for it 2500 years
ago.

I work in schools and I don't agree that young people hold nothing in respect. I think some of them do
(as some of every generation always did), but many don't. In fact, I was talking to one of my classes
about this today.

I agree that attitudes are different. However, you need to draw a distinction between the forms of
respect and respect itself. I mentioned to my class that some of the forms of respect that were
widespread in my youth (standing when a teacher enters the room, calling teachers 'sir' or 'miss')
have virtually disappeared. Nevertheless, these students still respect teachers. If the well understood
forms of respect of the past disappear, it is easy for older people to falsely conclude that respect itself
has gone.

I don't think that sending children to church is any more likely to teach respect than not sending them,
nor clipping them around the ear. How they are brought up in the home has much more influence.
The best way to produce respect is to model it.

To my mind (and this is an incredibly complex issue, so I am only addressing a few aspects),
increased aggressiveness and any failing respect is more likely to be a product of the rise of
individualism and greed in public life. Economic rationalism, market driven economies, politicians with
an eye only for the main chance: these are modelling a lack of community respect that is really
damaging. The real villains in my eyes are George W Bush, John Howard, Maggie Thatcher, Ariel
Sharon, Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat and lots of others.

Respect is vitally important — it is a complex of basic foundations for morality. But it is also a difficult
and contentious cluster of concepts, and the forms of respect can change quite a bit without respect
itself disappearing. Respect can best be built, while it is simultaneously being clarified, by working
together in communities.

Tim Sprod

I have been working in a Montessori nursery school for a few years, teaching and looking after
children aged 2 — 5 years. Older colleagues I've worked with have expressed the view that concerns
you, that aggressiveness and lack of respect have greatly increased in young children during their
teaching career.

But my first thought is that it is certainly not just 'school-aged persons' who display increasing
aggressiveness and lack of respect! You only have to consider the many reported incidents of road
rage, attacks on health service workers, teachers and so on to realize that this is a more general
trend in society.

I would place some of the blame with the increased use of drugs, which reduce people's control over
their actions, and also lead to related crime as addicts are prepared to use any means to finance their
addiction. But another factor, which has been suggested to me by my present employer, is that of
individualism — which I suspect was mitigated by Christian belief, as it has a strong emphasis on
helping others.

Most people today seem to be out to get what they can for themselves, without concerning
themselves about how that affects others. There is a general assumption that everyone should be
ambitious, aspirational, go-getting, with regard to both careers and leisure time. It's expected of you. It
is difficult to get away from this attitude, as it is expressed in the media, and parents unconsciously
pass on their attitudes to their children.

My employer suggests that eventually individualism will reach an extreme, after which attitudes will
begin to swing back the other way, towards a greater sense of social responsibility.

Katharine Hunt

You have most certainly raised a question which is at the forefront of concern for both government
and society at large. For someone, like myself, who can go back much further than yourself, the state
of the society in this country, and particularly the behaviour of many young people, is very disturbing.
By comparison, people of my generation feel to be living in a totally different country, with radically
different values to those which provided the foundations of our upbringing. You have, in my opinion,
touched on some of the causes for our present demise, however, there is no simple explanation to
what we see going on around us, and particularly in the area that your question focuses on. I am in
some agreement with the thrust of your argument, that the belief system to which you and I were
exposed now has little or no value in modern society. Also the false urgency and pace of society does
not allow time for reflection and taking stock.

In former days most schools actually taughtreligion, bible study was often the first lesson of the
morning; children learned the ten commandments, the sermon on the mount, selected psalms,
parables and miracles : as opposed to the modern idea of religious study, which usually means a
study of comparative religions or the odd hymn at assembly. In addition children attended Sunday
school, and sometimes more than one church service each Sunday. In most communities the church
was the central focus, children were not only involved on Sundays but during the week also, in social
activities, choir practice, preparing for special events, etc.. In my day the only distraction was the
radio, which, apart from "children's hour" and one or two nature programmes, had little impact on our
activities. Children played out more, they were more involved in make believe, and were seemingly
more inventive than most modern children. They were involved in children's things, the songs they
sang were children's songs, they listened to children's stories, they spent more time being infants,
progressing more slowly into and through adolescence.

This, I believe, is at the crux of your concerns. Children are not allowed to be children very long, they
assume more grown — up ideas too early. One of the major reasons, in my opinion, is the massive
influence of T V, the sorts of things that children are exposed to, would certainly never have been
allowed when I was a child, nor when our own children were young. The soaps are certainly not the
sort of fair that young children should be exposed to. Many children are now not living in the real
world anymore, they know the characters of Coronation Street, Eastenders, etc., better than they
know the people in their own street. These programmes contain a great deal of violence, bad
manners, bad grammar and sex, hardly the stuff for an impressionable child trying to learn the basic
values and ethics of life. Much of the pop that is commercially thrust upon them from 'the box' has an
aggressive base or contains sexual innuendoes, quite unsuitable for youngsters who should still be
singing nursery songs. The role models are hardly suitable for children, however, they are also
pushed into it through massive peer pressure, so the problem then becomes cyclic, fed and
stimulated by high pressure advertising. I think you are right to be suspicious about the influence of
the punk stuff you were involved with. In my opinion the 60's and 70's have a lot to answer for in
regard to the decline of conventional values and the rise of aggression and drugs.

Although I hesitate to say it, and indeed do not want to believe it, I would be hypocritical to my own
conscience if I did not state the belief that the 'do-gooders' in society must shoulder a great deal of
the blame for what we see today in the attitudes of young people. The removal of strict discipline in
schools was fatal, children will always take the line of least resistance, and to suddenly find that the
roles were reversed, and they could exert pressure on teachers, who were unable to respond without
themselves getting into trouble, provided those who disliked school with ideal opportunities. I knew a
teacher who almost lost his job for placing a hand on the shoulder of an unruly thirteen year old girl
who was refusing to stand in line in the playground, she accused him of assault, he had to appear
before the Head the following day in the presence of the girl's parents, to receive a ticking off and
warned as to his future conduct.

Another area where do-gooders have intervened targets parents. Children are encouraged to ring a
help line to report their parents if they believe they are being ill treated. Now, obviously, no one in
their right mind condones violence inflicted on children, whether it be by parents, teachers, or anyone
else. However there is a danger here, where perfectly innocent and good parents could be, and, I
understand have been, compromised by a vindictive son or daughter. I vividly remember as a child
being smacked by one of my parents, for a few moments I hated that parent, I did not consider the
fact that I had done wrong and deserved what I got; possibly, under the conditions appertaining to
day, I might have picked up the phone in my rage and reported my parent for assault. Children are
prone to act on the spur of the moment, and this is the great danger. Some might say, better to be
safe than sorry, I don't know. My point in all this, regarding teachers and parents, is to show that
some of your concerns must be brought about by the state handing greater power to young children
who have not yet acquired the education or the ability to reason that you would expect to find in
someone holding these powers. Where parents are lax, this power is carried onto the streets and
manifested in vandalism and violence. The do-gooders have also reduced the powers of the police
and modified the law in such a way, that to attempt to punish these youngsters in a way that would
leave a lasting impression is not now available to them.

However, as you say, the belief system is a problem, the former belief system has been abandoned
with no attempt to replace it. When you tell a child that something he/she is doing is wrong, how do
we back up our assertion ? In the past we would be able to point out that God would not be very
pleased, or to indicate that he/she would jeopardize their chances of getting into heaven. Say that to
most children today and they might give you some very odd looks. Also, based on the christian ethic
was the firm idea of 'family,' mother, father and children in a secure home where father was the bread
winner and mother was the manager of the household, with close bonding to her children (privileged
households excepted). I am not saying whether this is right or wrong, but it certainly worked to the
advantage of children. However, human rights, do-gooders, and women's lib, amongst other factors,
put paid to this. There is also a biological basis to the family system which people find convenient to
ignore. Split families, single parents, step fathers, step mothers, no matter how good these parents
may be, and I know some excellent ones, there is often something missing where the children are
concerned.

I must conclude by saying that despite the depressing scenario I have painted, there are still many
young people who, thankfully, recognise a moral structure in society, who do respect their parents
and teachers, and who do not mug elderly people, steal cars and vandalise property. It is just
unfortunate that there are now rather more of the latter than there used to be. Also, I appreciate that
there are still good parents like yourself that hold on to the basic values of society.

John Brandon