(I originally wrote this to my daughter, so the "MOM" comments are hers.)

I understand a lot about psychology that I had apparently previously missed in other classes. One understanding is how the cultural climate (termed the Zeitgeist, since the roots of modern psychology are German) in the United States shaped what the people were and were not willing to accept about a "science" often termed "psuedo."

Interestingly, Americans embraced the theories of behaviorism above all others. It seems apparent to me that what Americans loved about behaviorism was their belief that it was the type of psychology most personally controllable. I'm not sure of how much psychology to which you have been exposed, so I will assume nothing.

The field of psychology is not considered a real science by the scientific community (hence, the general populace), because the scientific method cannot be applied absolutely; observations concerning human motivation will always (so far) have to be interpreted subjectively. Even if two subjects in an experiment "report" similar thoughts regarding their respective motivations, there is no way to be sure their thought processes were actually similar or even that they are telling the truth.

Okay, behaviorism was/is a school of psychology in which the results are most demonstrably connected to the actions of the person conducting the experiment. For instance, Pavlov (early behaviorist) would ring a bell at the same time he fed his dogs. Because of biologic responses the dogs would begin to salivate at the sight/smell/whatever of the food. After a time Pavlov would not produce the food but only ring the bell, and the dogs would automatically salivate. This was the beginning of the behaviorism John Watson would make famous in America by the middle of the 20th century.

("MOM!," you are thinking, "Why the hell are you telling me all this?!)

(I'm just ignoring that.)

What Americans loved about Watson's theories (in the beginning) was their ability to apply the principles to their own children. If people could "shape" their children's behavior through such methods as withholding rewards, administering punishments (BTW, Pavlov determined years before that punishment NEVER produced lasting changes, but Americans disregarded that bit of info) or keeping and adhering to rigid schedules of conduct, parents would not have to "believe" that the natural inclinations of their children were any reflection of themselves.

So, if parents had a "strange" child (interpret anyway you like), they were able to modify that child's behavior through systematic applications. Before knowledge of behavioral principles applicable to humans, parents would feel guilty and responsible that their own genetics had been the cause of the "strange" behavior. This is very similar, in my mind, to why parents don't let their young children choose their own clothes; they believe that mismatched or odd clothing displayed by their children will be a reflection TO OTHER PEOPLE of their own "mismatched or odd" selves.

Of course, today, with behaviorist theories firmly entrenched in the American mindset, children's outward displays of anything deemed unacceptable is attributed by other people to the parents' lack of control over their offspring. In the early 1900's people just locked their children in closets. Now we have drugs.

Damn. I'm getting there. Okay, natural science has long "established" humans as social creatures in need of communities. In my considered opinion, this established norm became a bit outdated before the general acceptance of behaviorism in this country. Feel free to tell me if you disagree. Certainly, when there were far fewer people roaming the earth, it was a matter of survival to interact with others. Even as recently as before money became the preferred form of barter, the dairy farmer traded his milk with the chicken farmer, so both families could have breakfast.

Of course, bushels of wheat had to be inspected for bugs and baskets of eggs had to be examined for cracked shells. When this grew tiring, people eventually had to sit down, make coffee, chat about the weather,…and probably meet the children. Shit, now the neighbors have seen how strange the kids are! After the industrial revolution, when we would simply walk into a shop and slap down our pennies for pie, we could decide when to leave or even whether or not to bring our children with us to the shop.


Did you know that in the early part of the 1900's there were very rigid times applied to when one could or could not receive visitors (definitely in the cities, anyway, and definitely for women). Early afternoon was reserved for letter writing and napping, and absolutely NO ONE would dare drop by during the dinner hour unless it was an emergency. Watch Mary Poppins. The Banks household is a model for what 1920'2 accepted decorum was, at least until MP arrived.

Fast forward to the 1950's in America, Dr. Spock (no, not the guy from the original Star Trek) published a book which was hailed as the quintessential child-rearing manual. The Zeitgeist at the time? Post WWII, Baby Boom, mother at home (eating valium), fathers at work (only outside the home), affluence increasing, suburbia enlarging, TVs for everyone (which brought the world in every living room), and the first inkling of globalization as a concept. People sent their children to bigger and bigger schools which subscribed to behaviorist principles as forms of student management.

This increase in children's interaction with others made it more apparent if a parent was bereft in their ability to modify any "strange" behaviors exhibited by their children. Now at this point we are not talking about a society that NEEDS to depend on others, we are talking about one of the major foundations of the American democratic way – competition.


MY POINT! The current idea that spending time alone is anti-social is a figment of the current American Zeitgeist. The "Y" generation (and mine) has been socialized to believe that interaction is a biologic expectation when it is actually a competition. We have been taught to measure ourselves compared to others instead of measuring ourselves relative to ourselves. You can see this in the regular classroom. Most teachers will grade students based on the kid in the class who does what is considered "A" work. When I was a teacher, I graded students based on my assessment of individual possible performance. So, I would get a normally "A" student doing less than what he/she was capable, a normally "C" student doing more, and the standard reaction would be:

A: WTF? I got a "C" and dumbshit here got an "A"?

Me: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you compared yourself to dumbshit.

All of this laborious reading you, my child, have had to endure is only to explain to you that your wanting to have time to yourself is what sets you apart from the majority.
I know none of this is actually helpful in this real world, but I did write it all because I had to.

Want to comment on this Blogs? Sign up to Edit Red and you will be able to comment on Blogs and get access to: Upload your own stories and poems, get readers and their feedback, promote your work...