Our Children between Generalizations and Speech Restrictions

Introduction and problem

If we ask a child about the extent of his love for his mother, it would open its arms wide and say: “As far as the sky.” This generalization in judgment is found in adults when saying: I love you very much.

This may be said to be a metaphor and exaggeration for emphasis; however, this depends on the extent of the individual’s ability to express him- or herself within the field of language, he or she submits to it and says “Chocolate is the best thing”. As for an adult, he or she would say, “Al-Mutanabbi is the greatest poet.”

Where absolutes (generalizations) continue in judgments according to linguistic, semantic and morphological contexts, these contexts harbor cultural patterns, which can be dismantled as a material produced by the mind at a certain historical moment. These patterns formed a culture for the meeting and became a legislative authority, the role of the tongue is to sign and specify what It is the law of this unobserved power. As for the scopes of its achievement, it varies between the generalizations of the adults and children.

Children’s absolutes are general in all languages that are they own the world. As for adults’, they are the image what a child would become in a society.

We will study these absolutes as sociological signs in their social reality, by asking:

How can the tongue, as a law confirming the authority of language, be an obstacle to the natural development of a child’s ownership of his world? What is the culture, in which these absolutes persist in a permanent denial of truth, relativity, and dealing with the other?

First: The child’s possession of its world in the spatial space and the resulting consequences

The child tries, through launches or gestures of his hands, to gather what it has by saying: “My mother is mine, the game is mine.” The pronoun (mine) is general in children, innate and resists independence from the mother by holding on to a part of the world as a denial of participation, before it merges through the denial of negation/participation with the society’s laws and customs.

What happens in Arab societies is to extract the child from this natural possession by force, so they say to a child “You are a fellow man.” This generalization would determine for the child what it would become and negate that it is a woman/harem. That would be not only to determine its biological sex, but also its sexuality through behavior, and to impose a value that this society carries through its tongues, as Pierre Bourdieu asserts. Because the society’s culture, with its patriarchal reference, is the authority, it imposes the laws of dependence and hierarchy in relations.

This generalization, as a message of discourse, shares the power of verbalization, enthusiasm and body language to express a tribal culture, whether religious, educational or military. All of which are ideological that emit verbal/symbolic violence. It is the other side of the masculine system’s power, and its centrality is in the language. The role of the male child is the bearer and carrier of this inheritance, as he is the little man, an extension through his name of his grandfather and his clan or the carrier of his oppressed parents’ dream that did not come true.

In traditional culture, male dominance continues to deny the other and his humanity, so they give the male child toys characterized by violence and moves. The child says in its self-centred speech, according to Jean Piaget, while talking to its toys: “I will destroy, I will prevent, I will win…” imitating its father or any character it is influenced by.

Later, we find him physically and verbally bully trying to impose hierarchy on his peers, the behavior of his sisters and even his mother. This reference allows him to control and distortedly dominate, so he becomes dependent on gender, directing his emotions outward, in the extension of his alleged ownership of his body.

As for the female child, is placed in exile, where she does not exist, she is subject to a contradiction between the sacred that she must preserve as she does not possess it, and her forbidden desire to discover it that is prohibited by the society. Sometimes they cover her, and sometimes they own her by compulsion since the age of infanticide until now, so she says in her self-centred words while talking to her doll “I will clean, I will arrange…” preparing herself for her future role, exiled in herself, directing her emotions within herself through dreams in which she adorns her conditional oppression and exile.

Second: The child’s possession of his world in the communicative space and the resulting consequences

The child communicates with its world with absolute words that would be assigned later in his/her meeting, which can be classified in our societies as prohibitions, such as” boogeyman” everything is scary. The acceptance group is like” Coco”, everything flies.

These generalizations affect the child’s psyche and imagination in the light of the occult culture that is devoted to determining destiny. The bogeyman as a sign of sociology related to darkness, or certain characteristics forms a psychological repulsion and neurosis that affects the child’s stability and the balance of his/her personality later.

Coco’s word its samples will be studied in school through the principle of knowledge about a thing, but what happens is the segregation of school seats between the sexes on a biological basis based on gender. The curricula come to focus on methods and strategies at the expense of the educational material. Then, we note outcomes such as reversing concepts to express a cultural pattern governed by political, military and religious domination, such as the words “security, sir.” These outcomes also include reducing intellectual concepts to definitions that do not serve the process of social development and are not loyal to the origin of these concepts, such as democracy, mathematics, identity. The glorification of a past, a party or a pre-state identity, with its fundamentalist reference, can be noted and its examples in the Arabic language are many, such as the division of speech, verb tenses and the use of derivatives. As a result, the many rules are far from the inspiration and creativity of the students, so they resort to memorization without creating contexts that open to cultural formats that can be developed. So, the compulsive life and the multiple alienations convenient to the patriarchal system are imposed in the interest of the results. Hence, people do not care what their children achieved, but what their grades were. This would encourage a culture of case management and corruption.

Third: The child’s possession of his world in the interactive space and the resulting consequences

What is meant here is the emotion, interaction and judgment with what the child communicates in its spatial space. This space is previously governed by multiple economic, cultural and social structures.

The child gets agitated, cries and gets angry, sometimes, it makes a judgment: I love you as much as heaven or chocolate is the best thing. These generalizations are often accompanied by symbolic signs or the ways of the child’s ownership themselves are symbolic. This is normal due to the formation of personal conscience and internal judgment, which will determine the nature and independence of a personality. However, oppression with its warning and prohibitive types, deprives the child of these natural absolutes. When it is said “Do not cry”, what is required is to negate this state of expression, and to stereotype it with a patriarchal reference that imposes on him/her a behavior consistent with the prevailing cultural pattern, that is, crying is for the weak and not for men. The female, on the other hand, is weak and consoled in her crying, which makes the male suppresses his emotions along with the standards of defect and halal.

These generalizations deviate in line with the prevailing ideology, so that the word “best” becomes determined by the prevailing regional, tribal or ethnic public taste, and the rulings become subject to it.

To conclude, the more the ideological closedness resulting from a persecution is, behavior, dialect and customs are modulated. So, it is not surprising that someone says” Al-Mutanabbi is the greatest poet or that so and so is the greatest president.” This would be to express a complete identification between a person’s conscience and the values ​​resulting from the prevailing cultural system.

This consequence is the cause and the result of what our current human being is all of their reactions and defensive mechanisms are just the face of their alienation and are the distorted image of their identity, as well as the reality of their human existence.

The more human the institutions and their laws are, the more these generalizations take their natural growth through a unique, creative individual, which is what it should be. As for the opposite, it is what we have seen in the ownership consequences in our Arab societies.

All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research and Study Center.