“The mass of men have been forced to be gay about the little things, but sad about the big ones. Nevertheless (I offer my last dogma defiantly) it is not native to man to be so.” – G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
A while ago I was sitting with Bridget in the doctor's office, and because she still sees her pediatrician, the TV was on a desperately energy-sapping children's show. (I think this show pretends to channel Mr. Rogers, which I will be honest and provocative, and say I never liked all that much. But as disagreeable as I always thought that show was, this new one raises it to glossy, slicked-up levels of brain death that I did not know were possible. Do you know which show I'm talking about? I don't know its name. Doesn't matter.)
In any case, the topic or theme was sadness. Somehow enfolded in the veritable minky-quilt of suffocating, too soft yet unbearably grating sound that pervades this show — at least, the room was filled with a cushiony-prickly wall of background noise at all times — was a segment about sadness. And there was a lesson about sadness. And a dumb song about sadness. And there were sad unpleasant-looking CGI cartoon animal characters who inflicting their sadness on us.
The message, boiled down, was this: Sometimes you feel sad and you should wait. The sadness will pass away.
Sad.
So, this is not correct.
I am going to try to tell you why, and it might take a while, we'll see.
I'm going to try to put into some semblance of order my thoughts when I hear the question, “How do I teach my child the faith?”
Does it seem like a non-sequitur for me to say: We parents need to develop the moral life of our children, and it's not as hard as we think it is, nor will it require a lot of workbooks; we just need to commit.
They need to know some things; among them, God's commandments.
We need to give them the gift of knowing when and why things make them sad, and what they can do about it. And we need to give them hope that life is more than a matter of waiting things out until we feel better — until other people do something to make us feel better.
The viewpoint represented on this stupid children's show (please, never show it to your kids!), which is propaganda for nihilism, has pervaded even our spiritual life.
To wit, another anecdote: a series of posters on the walls downstairs at our church reference prayer. Among them, a cartoonish child is praying; the thought-bubble above her head says something like “Dear God, please take my sadness away.”
Again, adults passing along the message of futility.
I would go further. I think that we are experiencing a vast adult self-absolution project. Parents don't know and don't inquire into the causes of sadness in their children, because they themselves are sad, having lost their own moral compass or even the memory of having had one, or the existence of one.
As religion slides into moralistic therapeutic deism — a sort of feel-good, nice religion that makes no demands — objective right and wrong, good and evil, evaporate. We still have sadness, but we retreat into pretending it doesn't matter.
When really, there are two reasons for sadness, no matter what your age:
1. Something bad has happened to you, not of your own doing. (It can be anything from something really objectively terrible, like financial ruin or cancer or someone attacking you, all the way to really just a feeling, maybe even a chemical imbalance.) This is a call from God to join your suffering with His. Great graces result from learning this Way. Suffering becomes a gift and a union with God. It still hurts, but you don't just endure it, waiting for it to pass, suspending your soul in the meantime. It has meaning.
2. You have done something wrong, and of course, this presupposes that you know right from wrong. In that case, there is only one way out: repentance, sorrow, amendment. Anything other than this and the sadness only overwhelms you or you thrust it far enough down that only a hard exterior or callous indifference can contain it.
But if we don't know these things, we won't be able to pass them on to our children…
… but instead we dishonorably shift the resulting burden of purposelessness — and sadness! — on the child.
How cold, for a parent or teacher (or TV show producer) to see the child's vulnerability, and to offer to a little person for whom every hour seems like an eternity, the smug advice to wait it out.
Let's inquire into a different way. An older, better way.
How fitting that today's Responsorial Psalm at Mass extols God's law*:
Psalm 19
R. The judgments of the Lord are true, and all of them are just.
The law of the LORD is perfect,
refreshing the soul;
The decree of the LORD is trustworthy,
giving wisdom to the simple.
R. The judgments of the Lord are true, and all of them are just.
The precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
The command of the LORD is clear,
enlightening the eye.
R. The judgments of the Lord are true, and all of them are just.
The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever;
The ordinances of the LORD are true,
all of them just.
R. The judgments of the Lord are true, and all of them are just.
They are more precious than gold,
than a heap of purest gold;
Sweeter also than syrup
or honey from the comb.
R. The judgments of the Lord are true, and all of them are just.
You might ask: Doesn't Christianity mean that we don't need God's law anymore, because we are under the dispensation of grace?
Well, if that were the case, why would Jesus Himself have said, “If ye love me, keep my Commandments”? (John 14:15)
We have to teach our children the Commandments and the moral life. I will help you.
{Now, I do have a lot — a lot! — of posts about other aspects of raising children: how to get children to behave, to get along, to refrain from disruption, to do chores, etc., etc. If you go to the menu bar and drop down “Raising Children” you will see how much there is! If you are new here, do prowl around the archives. You may be surprised. I'll try to round up the biggies for you.}
*In the Mass today, only one aspect of this remarkable Psalm is brought out. The beginning is also amazing, connecting the cosmos to the inner life of God: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” and so on. You know, reading it, I feel more cheerful already!
Annie says
Great post. I would add, however, that there’s a third cause of sadness: spiritual desolation from the Enemy, which he gives to one who is following the Lord to try to make him turn away. St. Ignatius of Loyola talks about this in the Spiritual Exercises. See especially paragraphs 315-327 (Rules for the Discernment of Spirits, Week 1… I recommend the Puhl translation.)
Leila says
Thanks, Annie; great point.
Mary Elizabeth says
Very very well timed. And sound as always.
Noel Miller says
Beautiful! Thank you so much! I know which childrens’-show-that-shall-not-be-named you are talking of, and I kid you not, a study was done specifically trying to show that children who watch it are more empathetic. The eye-rolling inducing fact about this study is that the parents of the test subjects were also instructed to talk to their children about the concept from the show (as questionable, as you have pointed out, those concepts might be). Might I suggest that those parents skip showing their children the inane show and simply talk to their children instead?
Leila says
Noel, thanks for this comment. As readers of this blog know, I am really opposed to this constant behavioral approach to entertainment, differing so very fundamentally from actual moral instruction, which should either be direct or so indirect as to not really be noticed, but built into the fabric of the medium, which should aim at its own sort of beauty or at least pleasantness.
But to me, the final insult is the dreadfulness of the whole package. There is nothing charming in the visuals or delightful to the ear. It’s so very formulaic, without even a nod to creativity.
Noel Miller says
Also, while we watch very little TV, Mr Rogers has sort of been our go-to, so I’d be interested to hear what you dislike about it and if you have other suggestions!
Leila says
Noel, see my reply to Katie below, re: Mr. Rogers.
We do have a lot of show ideas here, in the comments: http://www.likemotherlikedaughter.org/2012/10/10-survival-tactics-for-rescuing-bad-day/
Gwenny says
Oh darn. I usually like Daniel Tiger. “You gotta try new foods ‘cuz it might taste good.” Also, season 5 when he gets a new baby sister totally helped me prepare my preschoolers for a new baby. “There’s time for you and baby, too.” I haven’t seen this sadness one, though. Leila, sometimes I feel like there’s nothing I can just trust anymore, even my own judgement.
Anne says
Most of the Daniel Tiger songs are straight from sound, helpful Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which aims form one’s judgment using input from the emotions but never overtaken by them. On the whole CBT is very practical and helpful, and is enormously beneficial to those who struggle with distorted thinking. It’s also well-aligned with Thomistic thought on the emotions and right judgment.
That being said, there are a few episodes of Daniel Tiger that are problematic, like the sadness one. Others are brilliant, like the one with the storm, “Take a grown-up’s hand, follow the plan, and you’ll be safe.” Very reassuring and since the episode makes clear that the grown-ups are in charge of forming and implementing the plan, it takes a huge burden off the child.
Anyway, the point is that I don’t the the show needs to be rejected wholesale. Just do be careful about some of the episodes that border on moral and spiritual matters.
Leila says
But how have we gone from telling stories to implementing behavioral techniques? Is this really why we show our children TV? Are we drawing them in with beauty (or at least something pleasant) or are we hammering them with a message?
I really question using psychological tools intended for people with actual issues that they can’t control, on the general population. I am not sure about whether this show has the right view of emotions. It seems rather Stoical to me. It certainly seems to have no grounding in the actual development of the child. No toddler should be expected to have this kind of overview on his emotions.
As I say, anyone can watch whatever they like. But the story I’m telling here about the hour I spent being inflicted with it is that this show not only delivered a message I find objectionable and honestly, somewhat hopeless, but did it in a form that lacked any quality that one looks for in entertainment. There was no pleasure in it at all.
Melissa D says
Love this post. Love it.
As an aside, I have started asking receptionists if they’ll turn the TV off. (After asking other moms in the office if they mind.) I think most parents hate the TVs at the doctor. Usually I can deal with a Disney film, but ugh the shows. The noise. The endless feeling of having someone grab you and shake you.
Agreeing with you on all other points here, too. But we really can ask to have these relentless screens turned off, and it can give other parents the morale to ask on their own next time.
Katie says
This is a very good point, one that’s obvious in hindsight. We were in the lab waiting room of the children’s hospital once, patiently waiting for a potentially life-changing (or not– and, thankfully, not) test for a newborn. And some awful cable kids’ show about dinosaurs was blaring. It never occurred to me in the tension of the moment to just… find a human with a remote. What a notion. =)
Michaela says
I know the show you’re talking about well, and also this episode. In it, the title character feels sad because his favorite pet duck must go away to a farm in the country, and separately, because he sees his two friends playing without him. He feels sad and doesn’t know why, exactly. The words of the song that get repeated are: “It’s OK to feel sad sometimes. Little by little, you’ll feel better again.” I think this is a perfectly sound message to send to very young children, particularly given that the response when young children (~ 3-4) feel sadness is often to do anything to make the bad feelings go away. Both children and parents need to understand that sometimes that is impossible and even undesirable. Sadness has its place.
While I understand the wisdom of joining your suffering to God’s, I challenge you to explain that to a very young child. This show’s message that sometimes there is no immediate way to make sadness go away, and that is fine, is refreshing, and is an age-appropriate way to express the same thing you are driving at.
I object to the idea that this show is smug. I find this entry to be smug. I appreciate so much of your advice on this blog, but I wanted to see more thoughtfulness and practical suggestions here, not a breezy dismissal of a children’s show.
Leila says
I’m sorry you find my post smug. It’s a series and I promise you I will get to details and practical advice, because that’s what I’m all about.
I can tell you that I would never let a child watch that show. Its aesthetic is abhorrent to me.
Leila says
P. S. Michaela, I have had seven four-year-olds, and yes, that is my point — this is exactly what you begin to explain to them. They can see the crucifix — now is when you talk to them about it. I linked to my post about it in this one.
Mary says
I’ve only had one four-year-old, but a quick story about her – when she was a few months from turning 2, she saw the cover of a Lenten publication with a picture of Jesus crucified, and His pierced side. She immediately rushed off, and came back with a jar of ointment that we used for her bumps and bruises, and wanted to put some on His “scrape.” She didn’t have many words to talk about it, but she totally got it. I guess I’m just saying, it’s really easy to underestimate the little ones.
Nicole says
I agree completely, Michaela. I love all of your post, Leila, but found this off base. I love for my kids to watch, read, and listen to beautiful films and stories. Daniel Tiger is about teaching. As someone studying to be a therapist and who has multiple young children, one with sensory issues, this show is 90% right on in giving effective tools consistent with many parenting books. Does everything need to be moral instruction? I have had children with big, all consuming feelings, who get paralyzed by social situations or separation anxiety. This show gives great tools for kids and even for parents to deal with these situations empathetically and calmly. As someone who came from a quasi authoritarian, impatient home, it was such a relief to have something my daughter and I could watch together to help her navigate the little snags of childhood without my yelling and her falling apart. Emotional intelligence is a more up and coming thing in therapy and parenting, but a useful concept to be introduced to early on in life. Of course children’s shows didn’t used to be like this, the understanding of human emotional development was completely different.
Leila says
Nicole, the fact that this show is consistent with many parenting books only calls into question the wisdom of those books.
I think empathy is exactly what this show is lacking. For instance, if a child loses his ducky, that is a tragedy for him. Mom should condole with him and give him a hug, not put him in front of a show that tells him to wait his sadness out.
I certainly don’t know where you got the idea that I think everything should be moral instruction! In fact, the whole point is that the show is moralizing without being moral, and certainly without being entertaining.
I fear that this sort of advice and these types of “tools” will create an epidemic of empathy-less people who’ve grown up on it. I have noticed that adolescents seem much more willing to put up with everyday pain in an irrational way — more tattoos, less appropriate clothing (flip-flops in Massachusetts in December?), more hook-ups, more bulimia, more anorexia, more cutting (something that was unheard of in my hippie, decidedly unconventional milieu when I was young). I’m not blaming this on the show, but I do think the show reflects a weird detachment that is all the norm these days.
Most of all, what worries me is the aesthetic of the show — its relentless inhuman sounds, the overly bright colors, the bland pat reassurance.
Just because adults feel the need to explore their emotions endlessly, does not bear at all on whether it is good for children to do so. I would say that all indications are that it’s a terrible idea.
Dixie says
So many new children’s books and TV episodes are about getting the child to go along with what the adult needs. I have found a number of Daniel Tiger episodes to be like this — often totally off-base about what a child needs to get through a problem. The show will acknowledge a child’s emotion or worry — that’s good — but then the solution is just to sing a stupid song and then the feeling/worry is just gone. POOF. As if to say, get over it, kid. Get with it and stop making trouble for me by having needs.
We have been letting our small kids watch a couple of episodes of PBS Kids shows each day lately, and we keep having to nix more and more of the shows. I know there were a couple of posts that had lots of good recommendations in the comments about good shows for kids. I’ll have to revisit them; and in the meantime, I’m ordering some Little Bear DVD’s.
We used to be a no-TV (except for special, fun times on purpose) family, but I have found in the past year that the house is much happier if the kids clean up the living area (“blitz!” Thanks, Auntie Leila!) and then watch a show or two while I finish making supper in peace. So we’ll have to start looking again for shows that are at least neutral for the kids.
Anne says
Little Bear is the greatest children’s show of all time. Love, love, love it!
Tia says
My kids enjoy Room on the Broom and The Gruffalo on Netflix and the sound and aesthetics of those ones don’t make me want to gouge my eyes out. Their other favorite, Octonauts, is really awful on the eyes and ears (and their horrible “Creature report, Dance Break!” song gets stuck in one’s head), but so far I haven’t noticed anything objectionable morally speaking. Although the “science facts” they learn about each animal are kind of ridiculous and stretch even the thinnest concept of a useful insight. The other scourge in our house is Berenstain Bears, which is so moralistic, but at least the sound of that show is not so grating.
Honestly, we just let them watch old stuff like the old Winnie the Poohs and Mary Poppins, and sometimes we’ll put on all those odd videos on YouTube of just trains running down tracks or old nature documentary clips and they love them. Also, kids this age really don’t mind watching things over and over again.
Mrs. B. says
We love the Wind in the Willows dvds (the claymation by Cosgrove and Hall, issued by A&E), both the long movies and the shorter episodes. We love the BBC series of Beatrix Potter stories. I hope the Paddington Bear series I just bought will be good too (the old British show, not a movie).
We also have a lot of old Disney cartoons (my kids have quickly learned to skip obnoxious Leonard Maltin and his condescending commentary…), Tom & Jerry and the like…
Christine P. says
I’m going to disagree with you about Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood — and propose that one half of one episode is perhaps a rather small sample size for such sweeping judgments about an entire series.
We watch Daniel Tiger at our house and I have absolutely found it to be a net benefit for us. We were able to use a few episodes about going to the doctor to help my toddler overcome his fear of doing the same, and the episodes about preparing for and then welcoming a new baby (and navigating the changes in family life that come with that) were also very helpful tools in preparing his heart for our own new addition last summer. Where I have found the most benefit for myself is in watching the adult characters on the show; they are incredibly positive role models in terms of reacting to children with empathy, grace, and wisdom. I am certain that watching Daniel Tiger with my child has made me a better mother to him in several ways.
Are there occasional approaches we’re not crazy about? Sure, but I don’t think there are enough to merit throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We talk about what happens on the episodes we watch — and since I’m the adult, I can also decide that we won’t watch certain episodes, since I’m the one with the remote!
The key, of course, is that we’re watching *with* him… ie, parenting. And since we’re doing that, we can talk about what we disagree with as well as what we find admirable. We’ll keep watching.
Leila says
To me, the key to a show is that you don’t have to watch with the child — you can rest a bit or clean something.
I honestly thought I was going to go insane with that show on. The content was terrible, but overall, it’s the aesthetic (if you can call it that) that I object to. My point here is that it’s enveloping the child in a message that is not helpful — simply waiting doesn’t do anything.
Of course everyone is free to watch whatever they like.
Rachel says
I agree with Christine P. We enjoy Daniel Tiger and even though the songs sound very stupid to us grown-ups, the use of repetition and simple phrases is very helpful to small children. “When a baby makes things different, find a way to make things fun!” has been a life saver in our home with a new baby. And “sharing with you is fun for me too,” on and on.
Now of course since the show is secular it does not go into the depths of the purpose of suffering. However, helping children identify their emotions is powerful and rather new when it comes to television shows. When a child does something Bad it’s usually because they are Sad, but haven’t identified it. Then they become Mad. And when they are Mad they do something Bad. (We can it the sad-mad-bad cycle) and so just simply helping a child realize that they are sad, or scared or what have you can head off a lot of behavior issues I have found.
However I do agree with you so strongly on the cause of sadness and the purpose of suffering in our lives as Christians. Our sufferings are a beautiful opportunity to offer it up to join along His sufferings. But how on EARTH do you try to explain that to a 3-year old? Or even a 7 year old? I am truly asking because I actually love talking about this stuff with my kids but then I start over explaining about how Jesus is in Heaven yes, but He’s here too, and yes, we can offer this up for his suffering? No, he’s not suffering any more He’s in heaven. But sometimes He is. But wait. Oh wait. Hilarious to try to explain to a little one.
Do you have advice on a few simple phrases that you have used to explain sadness and what to do with it with a small child? Usually I just tell my child something like “I know you’re sad about that. Spending time with Jesus will give you some comfort. Can I pray with you?” But I’d love to hear more of what your thoughts are.
Rachel says
P.S. I do agree with you about the aesthetic. I do enjoy the messaging of the show, but wish it were aesthetically more appealing and even beautiful!
Leila says
But Rachel, for the child, the medium *is* the message. If something sounds stupid to you, it’s stupid. Why would you subject your child to it? We rightly reject the inanities of the trite nonsense of the past (from which we extract what is truly good) — without realizing that we not only have those of our own, but we are imprisoning our children with them. At least a stupid book could just be put down. This show’s noise penetrates every corner. It’s inescapable.
And why are we fixated on getting the child to name his emotions? I just don’t get it.
Things need to be beautiful and pleasant. They should give us pleasure, make us laugh, and be ordered to the good. If they are instructions, then let them instruct, but let it be quick.
sibyl says
Oh, I’m so late to this conversation, no one will read this comment. But I can’t agree enough with you here. The stupidity is SO objectionable. A TV show is entertainment, passive, non-real. Those little themed “lessons” get filed under entertainment, and no one — I submit to you no one — is moved or changed by them UNLESS their loving parents are connecting the ideas to the love and direction that already exists.
Parents mediate their young children’s world, and that includes emotions. I challenge readers to say whether watching Mr. Rogers taught them how to name their feelings or be more generous. Instead, we learn this through our parents, as we all know to our chagrin and/or gratitude. If we were raised to bottle up our anger, no TV show helped us do better. If we were compassionate children, we learned that from the air of our household, not the TV.
Finally, Auntie Leila, you are totally right in your article here that secular culture is engaged in trying to exculpate parents. Children are enormously sad in our nation, and it isn’t because of random sadness germs floating around. It’s because they are often betrayed, shuffled, raised by strangers, and made to handle many things they simply can’t.
Leila says
Thanks, sibyl — I did read it 🙂
And you put it very well!
Katie says
I’m with you on the aesthetic of the show in question. My husband caught a clip and put his finger on one of the subtle crazy-making things about it: the voices of all the singers are auto-tuned. Thus the mini theme songs seem even more canned; no child’s voice sings perfectly on rhythm and pitch like that. (Not to mention how odd the meter and melody frequently can be in the first place…”I can’t WAIT to MEET the bay-BEE”).
Even knowing there’s way more inane children’s TV out there than DT’s tidy, cloying, learning scenarios, it doesn’t make the whole thing more enticing by comparison. It still grates. I think this broad point is well-taken, separate from scripts or content which may be commendable or problematic in their own right… that the visuals and soundscape of a show are important; that nuance and charm are both pleasant and formative. It’s one of many (to me, astounding) departures from the more respectful, non-dissembling spirit of Mr. Rogers… consider that his show had a live combo playing jazz in real time, matching up the tennis shoes and trolley chimes and whatnot with the actual movements at each taping.
I do know plenty of kiddos who love DT, as it’s a ubiquitous piece of the preschooler zeitgeist. And the potty episode has that jingle that seems to turn up everywhere to magnificent effect, so that is one nice bonus for us parents of littles. =)
Leila says
Katie, good observations. I was so busy trying to mentally escape that I didn’t consciously observe the auto-tuned aspect — I think I also just have not fully absorbed that auto-tuning is a thing. I just scream inside my head “computerized!!!” and try to hide.
I fear that it’s conditioning children to a certain mode, like the photoshopping of bodies — after a certain point, you can’t not see the imperfections in anything that hasn’t been submitted to the process.
As to Mr. Rogers, I just found the pace unbearably boring. There is something about his mein that I find smarmy. But I don’t set my face against him the way I do these computerized shows. You are right — there was a lot of creativity put into that show; I just happen not to really like it and that’s fine — others can like it 🙂
Gwenny says
There are good suggestions in that thread, like Little Bear and Kipper, but several moms, including me, recommend Daniel Tiger… so… 😣
Also, just a note, there are so many DVD recommendations, and they’re amazing, I’m sure, but I don’t have a traditional tv or a DVD player. When my children get screen time, it’s on an iPad. I’m sure I’m not the only one! I’m constantly looking for options to stream some of those old goodies. Especially the Beatrix Potter movie which I remember from my own childhood. Anyone have any recommendations?
Leila says
Yeah, that was a while ago, before I had encountered Daniel Tiger so was just trusting everyone haha.
And before streaming became quite so ubiquitous. We need a new thread — will think about how to set that up.
Mrs. B. says
I must have been a very simple child, or very dull, or very naïve, or whatever, because I have no memories of needing my feelings to be explained to me. It was all very clear to me. Maybe the difference between me and so many children today is that my world was simple and stable. If there was a storm, it wouldn’t have even occurred to me that “the burden of a plan” was on me, as one reader says, and that I needed to be reassured that the adults were competently in charge.
I’m not even sure a child is rationally conscious of things that go without saying: of course your parents take care of everything! What kind of life could possibly lead a child to feel he has to bear the burden of behaving like an adult? Not a good one. Or it could be something else: it could be that adults are projecting, and imagine (or fear) the child has all sorts of emotions and thoughts that the child really doesn’t – the adults have no idea how a child feels and thinks, and go by what they know of themselves, applying it to the child.
This whole discussion also fits well with a philosophy very popular today: we’re better off being guided by experts, we better not trust our instincts, we may think we have common sense, but we can’t be sure, can we: let’s outsource authority and we’ll sleep better. It’s the triumph of technique over wisdom. Learning to wash hands is now the subject of a formal school lesson. Worse, emotions and thoughts are the subjects of formal school lessons. I think it’s kind of creepy that we have accepted all of this so uncritically.
Melissa D says
I have a hunch that for many parents now, those who grew up as what used to be called “latch-key children,” there’s such a dearth of parental presence in their memories that we’ve given much more weight to the idea of plans, formulas, and media instruction. Not blaming my own parents, not blaming 2-worker parent families or single moms who can’t stay home, AT. ALL. But there is a huge reliance now on guidance that is formulaic, because many of us got far less family guidance than we needed, in its proper context. And soul-less formulas are not what humans need.
I have a hard time believing that *just now* have we struck on the magic formula that puts us, and kids, in touch with their emotions. (And… just looking at my 3 kids, most of their “sadness” was envy or anger, and they knew exactly what it was.) We aren’t talking the death of a parent here. Just garden-variety sad.
Leila says
Thanks, Mrs. B — great comment.
VICTORIA says
Mrs. B, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Mrs. B. says
Dear Leila, I look forward to more thoughts on how to communicate the faith to children. Sometimes I have a hard time with it: I feel a sort of inner reticence, it seems strange, unnatural to have to talk about some things, to be explicit. I just hope God’s whispers in my kids’ ears make up for my deficiencies!
Evelyn says
I agree! and also look forward to the same. My 3 year old is somewhat squeamish when he’s asked about the faith but has no problem discussing it when he initiates.. usually a question or concern. I feel the same way:)
Logan says
I love the point you make about this teaching nihilism because I’ve been really wrestling with that idea recently. I ran across this great quote of Flannery O’Connors a couple years back but recently (well, since moving back to the US) feel the pressing truth of it. “If you live today, you breath in nihilism … it’s the gas you breathe. If I hadn’t had the Church to fight it with or to tell me the necessity of fighting it, I would be the stinkingest logical positivist you ever saw right now.”
You are so right about the evil we are doing to our children by gassing them with this emptiness. The thing is I don’t even recognize it always when I see it anymore. That is the frightening thing! Also, the Church doesn’t feel like it’s setting a strong lead anymore.
Another thing: I had been wondering why so many parents I know talk in these weird sappy slogans to their kids and now the comments here have led me to the conclusion that I think it must be coming from TV culture modeling its schlop onto parents.
Rosemary says
Oh, you kicked the hornet’s nest, Auntie Leila! I can’t stand Daniel Tiger but I have discovered that it’s a very divisive issue among moms and has its fierce defenders. I hate the autotuning and the all-about-my-feelings theme of every episode, and Daniel is a real brat sometimes. One of the horrible songs actually said “When you can’t get what you want, stomp three times and make yourself feel better.” Stamp your feet because you can’t get your way?! I thought that was pretty classic bratty behavior.
Leila says
Haha, Rosemary! That’s astonishingly bratty!
And yet, I could see one family thinking that a kid giving a stomp is okay, while another insists on NO STOMPING. That’s the beauty of family life — you tailor it to your own specifications.
I think maybe this nest needed to be kicked, to be honest!
Tia says
Would love suggestions that also differentiate for movies or TV shows that boys v. girls tend to gravitate to. All the shows I loved as a child, such as Rikki Tikki Tavi, Charlotte’s Web, the Velveteen Rabbit, the Secret Garden and Anne of Green Gables, just seem too slow paced for my boys, and the shows my husband remembers nostalgically are just awful, like the Care Bears movie or The Smurfs. I also really remember liking the Frog and Toad books on tape but don’t know where to find them.
Our kids do seem very drawn to the aesthetic of some of those old Disney movies, especially those from the Jungle Book era, and while the illustrations are gorgeous in many of them, I’m not a big fan of a lot of the messages so I feel like I have to watch them first. (Also, can someone please explain to me why people in Robin Hood’s England sound like they came straight out of Tennessee?)
Rosie says
Oh, Frog and Toad (and all the other great Arnold Lobel stories – read by him) are available on cd on Amazon, though we’ve been enjoying them through our library via Overdrive on car rides lately!
Jo says
Oh but man the bit about Robin Hood’s England sounding like Tennessee, while I’m sure it was more just casting on the part of Disney, might actually be closer to how English used to be pronounced! (As I type this I of course realize that Robin Hood would’ve been speaking Old-to-Middle English anyway, but shhhhhhh.) http://www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2012/03/24/149160526/shakespeares-accent-how-did-the-bard-really-sound
Elizabeth W says
You’ve hit on a bit of a hot subject! I am with you on “Daniel Tiger,” though I do see some of the points of its defenders. My kids watch the show occasionally—it’s one of those which I kind of loathe, but towards which my heart is somewhat softened by my kids’ unironic enjoyment. (This is not enough to soften my heart in all cases. “Little Einsteins” is right out.) DT has moments of cleverness and sweetness—the new baby storyline was pretty great—but it does give me the heebie jeebies. My primary complaint is the creepy and unnecessary Auto-Tuning of all the singing. So yes, it’s aesthetics and taste and all that, but I think you hit on something deeper that is amiss too. It is not a story- or character-based show but seems to have sort of a mental hygiene agenda, with only the best intentions and yes, sound cognitive-behavioral underpinning, but behind it all, sort of a void. The characters are just means to the end of the Lesson which needs to be taught to the children and their parents. It’s kind of dreary all in all. I would argue that it’s possible to have character, story, and useful lessons too, if you must, and it can be done with some flair, as in the case of “Doc McStuffins.” (Did not think I would like that one, but it’s pretty decent actually. I don’t allow the Disney Channel, though, but just rent DVDs of individual shows sometimes.)
I appreciate your broaching the topic of kids’ stuff that is inoffensive and supposedly “safe,” yet fundamentally useless or even opposed to the faith that we want to pass on to them. I am not sure I will go so far as to ban Daniel Tiger outright, but this helps me think about which of these “useful lessons” need to be built on or counteracted with real answers from the faith.
P. S. My number one fave show that I can happily put on for them and go do the dishes is probably the “World of Peter Rabbit” cartoons from the 90s. They are quite exquisite. I’m going to check out “Little Bear”….
Colette says
Here’s another way to look at Mr. Rogers, Auntie Leila — he brought a half hour of order and wonder to many of us who weren’t getting it elsewhere.
Bernadette says
My mother still talks about a little girl she went to school with, who had no father, and was devoted to Mr Rogers … I am sure he filled quite a void for many, many children who longed for that order and wonder and a strong, attentive adult presence, and weren’t getting it at home.
I am pretty strongly anti-screen media of any type for young children (under 7 or so), but I do have a soft spot for Mr Rogers. I’m also, sadly, sure that his moral code was lacking a strong foundation, and that were he around today, he would be endorsing all kinds of issues in order to make people “feel good,” but given that it’s such a relic, I feel pretty safe with most episodes.
Shauna says
Like Bernadette, I also have a soft spot for Mr. Rogers.
But I just wanted to mention that I do not believe “his moral code was lacking a strong foundation”. He actually was an ordained Presbyterian minister, and from what little I know, I’m thinking he valued the traditional family.
I know this post was not really about Mr. Rogers, but just had to add that he was a kind, gentle grandfatherly type, and I think that his calmness was definitely appealing to some.
Katie says
Good point, Colette. That rings true, including for children in a pretty stable setting. His slow, careful, observant style would surely “click” with some and reinforce the order and wonder (am I giving myself away!), but tiresome to others who enjoy something a little more rollicking. =)
Kessie says
I think my kids learned more about feelings from Understood Betsy than they would from a TV show. When we started reading it, my daughter asked, “Who is the bad guy in this?” I thought about it, then said that we’d read the whole book and figure it out then. And the scene where Betsy gets the letter from Aunt Francis and she’s so ashamed, but doesn’t know why. We had a great discussion about that scene.
My kids watch stuff on YouTube, but we don’t do much tv aside from that. Mostly we do books. Sounds like tv has only gotten more asinine.
BridgetAnn says
Don’t forget, this is Part 1 of a series. As Aunt Leila mentioned, she has raised seven four-year-olds- who are now adults -and is writing to impart her wisdom about the whole process. Even granting that this tv show fills a gap for some families, is there perhaps something better with which to fill it? For example, the current toddler drama is resolved but will the eighteen-year-old drama remain unresolved or more difficult because of the long lasting negative effects of that toddler solution? (lack of beauty, disproportionate emphasis on feeling, etc.)
I’m sure my almost three-year-old would know his abc’s by now if I gave him an electronic game about them but I’m more concerned with the negative effects of the latter than about him learning his letters as soon as possible. Would he always expect learning to be a game and give it up when it got difficult? Do I want his imagination to be filled with electronic images of the abcs?
I’m not the expert here, just a random example. Looking forward to Part 2 … 🙂
Deirdre says
I love this comment, BridgetAnn! So 100% with you.
Stephanie says
Ohhhhhh….you dropped the “c” word…commit. It took some big inner mommy work in the trenches of very young ones to finally COMMIT to the vocation. Lots of distractions and busyness keep many mamas from just seeing and committing to the beautiful work in front of them. Cant wait for more posts! Annnnddd…I was giggling thinking that you were in your own ring of purgatory with that show on a tv that you aren’t supposed to tamper with or ahem…turn off.
Arielle says
I love this conversation. My son loves Daniel Tiger, but I have had the same qualms about it as you. I may move over to more “truck tunes,” which is not at all educational (well, I suppose he is learning how the trucks work) but more genuinely aesthetically pleasing (this will be funny to those of you who have seen it), to a two year old.
There was always something about DT that seemed nihilistic to me. Every episode is about an event that has been planned for the kids (going berry picking, visiting a friend’s parent’s guitar shop), as if the entirety of life were geared toward their enjoyment. The children are almost never shown doing something selfless or experiencing adult reality (like going to synagogue). The aesthetics are absolutely awful. They are so geared toward the lowest and easiest type of pleasure in a child’s brain that my son would actually cry when the real people came on.
The thing is, I do think there are some useful lessons in it. I’m a therapist, and I do think it is good for the general public and not just those with mental health problems to learn that emotions well up and pass on if they are acknowledged and experienced, rather than resisted or fought. Many times we can and should do something about the cause of our sadness, but many times we cannot. There is a lot of human misery that results from fighting and ultimately perverting the course of these emotions. (For example, being able to tolerate the sadness of your friends leaving you out helps you not transform it into anger and go over and hit them.) I’m not Christian, but I don’t think the beautiful theological meaning given to suffering is incompatible with the helpful realization that this feeling will not go on forever.
As far as the storm episode, I think that even well-raised and protected children have some awareness of the fact that their parents are not omnipotent, and that there are things in the world that are genuinely scary. Hasn’t anyone’s child had a fear of the dark or of thunder? The other night, my husband and I were taking my son to the grocery store when we saw a woman get attacked. Her attacker ran away and my husband chased after him and helped the woman. My son was the most upset I have ever seen him outside of getting surgery. Of course I reassured him his Abba was coming back and that he was going to be ok, but my son was smart enough to know he was being exposed to the uncertainty and danger of the real world. (I wasn’t entirely sure my husband was going to be ok.) After my husband came back, my son whispered to himself “grownups come back to you,” a direct quote from a DT song. It is not a lesson he needs to learn from TV, but it gives him language for it and a way to organize his experience. I’m not sure I would have come up on my own with a little song about grownups always coming back, but I think it was helpful.
Responding to Mrs.B, “Maybe the difference between me and so many children today is that my world was simple and stable.” Perhaps – but did you have no awareness of suffering? No glimpses of adult reality – no funerals, no natural disasters? “Or it could be something else: it could be that adults are projecting, and imagine (or fear) the child has all sorts of emotions and thoughts that the child really doesn’t” all I know is that my son’s cry in that moment had an element of trauma to it. I can’t know exactly how he was experiencing it, but it seemed clear he was in a great deal of pain related to fear that his father would not come back. Children do have very real fears about separation, loss, injury. You can tell if you listen to them. Of course, this kind of event is rare. But probably every child experiences at least some like it.
I am going to think more about letting him watch DT, though, after reading this post!
Leila says
Arielle, I really appreciate your comments. You are really thinking about it and I see the pros and cons.
About this “grownups come back” — and here is an example of the more I learn about this show the less I like it — it’s NOT ALWAYS TRUE.
What if, God forbid, Dad does not come back? Then not only has something devastating happened to the child, but in addition, something he was told turns out to be false. Where is his trust then??
Note that in fairy tales, very often the father goes off and does not come back. (Think Cinderella, and many more.) The consequences are then worked out in a way that is a bit detached from the child but also respects his inner strength AND spiritual help that will not fail.
I really REALLY caution parents about these facile, pat “lessons” — they could end up being really destructive of the deepest need of the child to TRUST.
Arielle says
Well, yes… I think the lesson is mainly about daily separations, in which the child really does experience inordinate fear (from a realistic perspective – not from their own). I am also not sure that being so brutally honest would mitigate a real trauma like the death of a father God forbid, which explodes all the implicit guarantees we make to children about life even if we never make them explicit. And what are the costs, on the other hand, of failing to say reassuring but only probabilistically true things? How would you have handled the situation? Part of it was my own inability to acknowledge the danger in that moment, and having this totally illogical thought that if it were really that dangerous he wouldn’t have gone.
Leila says
Arielle, all I can point to is the way the culture has handled this question in the past. There are two causes of “grownups not coming back”: a deliberate abandonment and some sort of unintended tragedy.
As to the first, this happens today *far more frequently* than in the past. In fact, I would say that the great majority of children who are the core consumers of TV shows like this one have experienced just this. So the lie is a conscious one, isn’t it?
As to the second, I hope we all realize that any one of us could be taken at any moment. If we tell our children that “Mommy will always be here for you” or “Daddy will always come home” we are not being honest.
On the other hand, of course we want to be reassuring — no sane parent would *emphasize* the frailty of existence or even the possibility of the world turning upside down in this way. We can say “Mommy and Daddy would never get divorced” if we were prepared to die to make it true, but of course, that goes back to the main issue.
The way to deal with it is also two-fold. First, we help our children to know God and the reality of God’s unchangeable nature, His presence, His trustworthiness. When we read Scripture we find exactly this, and that is why, little by little, we do want our children to know Scripture intimately. Even the youngest child senses that there is something beyond, something permanent, that he can trust, even MORE than his parents.
Second, the stories we tell our children must give them a way to deal with loss. Fairy tales do just this, as do the best of the great books, and I will be talking about them in future posts — but I also have talked about them a good deal in the past — you can look at my Library Project posts to see (in the blog menu).
The culture tends to tell stories that validate its choices. In the past, when people honored marriage and family (or at least took them for granted as *givens*, which we do not), the stories that they told supported belief in those institutions — and since the institutions are God-given and true, the stories have deep psychological meaning and healing, as well as spiritual formation. Our culture values self actualization and our god is the the belly. We need to be skeptical of the wisdom of its stories.
Let’s ask what lessons we really are teaching our children. What higher calling can a man have than to give his life to protect another? It’s not that your thought is illogical — that your husband wouldn’t have gone if the situation had been really dangerous. It’s that it’s ultimately not *true* — if you examine the case with detachment (because believe me, I wouldn’t probably choose to send my husband into danger at the moment), what else could he do? Who would honor him for *not* going? At most we would understand, but honor is for the one who goes. Above all, it’s in the nature of a *man* to be honorable, to the extent of dying for the sake of another. (It’s in the nature of the woman to resist this a bit, which of course makes our world a little safer, thank goodness!)
I think finally we have to confront the underlying spirit of the age: that nothing is worth dying for, that suffering is always useless, that waiting is the only remedy for (inevitable!) suffering…
All of this, our children are learning, from the very first moment of their lives, little by little. There is no other way.
Arielle says
Thank you for your wisdom Auntie Leila.
Arielle says
It took me until I was 20 to realize that the phrase in Psalms “though my father and mother forsake me, God will gather me up” referred not just to abandonment (which would obviously never happen to me) but also death (which almost certainly will.)
Mrs. B. says
Dear Arielle, you make me sound like an advocate for parental emotional neglect – which of course I am not 🙂 My point was not at all to deny that children have strong emotions, so what’s all the fuss about. My point was that a well-ordered world helps both parents and children learn life lessons organically, and in a spiritually sound way. I would caution parents to rely on tv shows when it comes to the emotional life of the child, especially shows that espouse a positivist view of human nature, where all you need to do is dissect and label a phenomenon: all is flat, there is no depth. I think you understand what I am talking about. What I lamented was the need in so many parents to trust experts a little too uncritically, in completely normal situations: do we know what we are entrusting them? Do we know where their advice comes from, philosophically? If we don’t think it matters, we’re are deluding ourselves.
Consider the movie The Sound of Music, and the storm scene: Maria has to deal with scared children. She doesn’t sit them down, and helps them “recognize their emotions”, and label them, and make a lesson of it all. This is what a lot of parental advice comes down to, these days: a sort of scientific approach. But it’s not like Maria’s only other option is to scoff at the children and tell them to grow up. Maria takes care of their fear in a rich, creative, very human way – without even really explaining anything explicitly to them. So I guess my point was that I’d rather be like Maria than Daniel Tiger and all his behavioral techniques.
Melissa D says
Love this example.
Arielle says
I apologize for misreading your comment! I love that example too. It’s true that there is so much room for creativity in mothering, rather than just focusing on feelings; it’s hard for me to remember sometimes as a therapist.
Anna says
I’m going to have to give a big shout out here to the Busytown tv show by Richard
Scarry. So cute and it’s available on iTunes. We try to watch it together as a family for a fun “movie night.”
Amy says
Fred Rogers was, by all accounts, a wonderful human being. That being said, even as a child I found his program to be intolerably boring, mainly due to the slow pacing.
My own children literally preferred looking out the window and watching the leaves fall off the trees to watching Mr. Rogers.
And Daniel Tiger…..ugh! Just shoot me now.
Olivia says
I haven’t watched the show but as a music teacher I really dislike the auto tuned “children’s” voices in all sorts of media. It’s a terrible model for singing technique (and don’t get me started on the copying of pop singers!) and then they think they can’t sing. I like Charlotte Diamond and Sharon, Lois, and Bram. Their music is actually imaginative and not filled with “lessons”. The latter sing many folk songs and nursery rhymes. Can’t go wrong there.
Katie says
Oh, YouTube episodes of the Elephant Show are a special “daddy” treat at our house.
Although that goes back to the question of pacing and where is the asymptote on the boredom/wholesomeness curve… I genuinely enjoy Mr. Rogers and have since childhood, but I am perfectly content to skip Bram &co (while enjoying afterward the delightful toddler renditions of the many excellent songs). I daresay it’s a question of disposition and personality, more than of the intrinsic merit of any one show… happy it exists but kindly don’t ask me to sit through it very often. =)
Leila says
By the way, dear readers, this post was NOT about Daniel Tiger 🙂
Evelyn says
The comments for this post really surprised me! I am hands down with Auntie Leila here.
My children learn from me. Sometimes I regard that as a burden, as the duty only increases, but it remains true nonetheless. They see what I put on the TV (or their plates), they see how I grumble (or don’t, but let’s be honest, I’m still learning to habitually Offer It Up), and what boundaries I set. And when I let them choose a Netflix program that is subpar in so many ways (aesthetics, message, songs) then they subconsciously set a standard to what mom believes is good.
We’ve got sucked into our share of addicting, pathetic programs but we try to keep it to simple adventure stories. I agree with Auntie Leila that when morals and spirituality are discussed and “taught” on TV there’s a problem. And it freaks me out as each show seems headed in that direction. I’ll be reviewing the TV list of what’s appropriate!
Anyhow, our little sponges are taking it all in. I want my children to realize that what we fill our bodies, our minds, our souls with is so incredibly important. So much that it is worth the little infliction (turning it off, walking away, etc.) for their overall well being.
Audrey says
Wonderful post Leila! I had an experience recently of letting my kids watch a show that I thought would be fine, and then finding it really abhorrent, but couldn’t put a finger on why. All I could think at the time was “it’s just lame!” It really helped to read what you said about the propagating nihilism; I do think that was it and why my reaction was so strong. Looking forward to future posts on this topic!
Caitlin says
This has given me SO MUCH to think about. I’m so glad that you’re tackling this Auntie Leila, and that you’re willing to kick the hornet’s nest. 🙂 I think that part of the problem is this insistence that every experience that a child has must be “educational” in a created and engineered by adults kind of way. So we really don’t need to feel bad that kids are watching tv because it is “educating” them and NOT just for pleasure. As if listening to a good story skillfully told in a beautiful way just for enjoyment is somehow not educational…… But this seems to be going on in all aspects of life for children. My husband is a university professor, and I have found it terribly interesting that all the working parents refer to their children as being in “school” and not in daycare. They’re constantly wondering why my children aren’t getting the great benefits that “school” provides! Because of course the expert teachers at school are doing something that we as parents could never do!
As an aside, I LOVED Mr. Rogers as a child. Although, it was created in the city I was raised in (Pittsburgh, PA). Many of the portions filmed of Mr. Rogers out and about were places that I recognized so it was thrilling for me to watch. My pediatrician’s office had the same curtains that were in Mr. Rogers house, and I thought it was the greatest thing!
Leila says
Caitlin, I really wasn’t trying to tackle Daniel Tiger! It was part of my story of thinking about the importance of morality in the education of children… the 10 Commandments… sadness… just an anecdote.
Oh well!
Anel says
Dear Leila
I have read all the links that you have posted in the body of the post as well. It might only be semantics [Eng. not my first language], but are we to understand that there is something *wanting* with regards to the Cross? Can that be? See the verse I refer to:
“…[I] who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church. (Col 1: 24)”
I went to my own Bible [2 different translations] and the newer translation [my own back to English direct translation/s here] says:
“I am now glad about all the suffering I had to endure for your sake(s), because the persecution of Christ is not over yet. I endure my share of it for the sake of his body, the church.”
Older, more literal translation:
“Now I rejoice in my suffering for your sake and add my flesh to the remains of the persecution of Christ, for his body, who is the church.”
So I don’t interpret it that the Cross has anything wanting – for is there anything more complete?
I interpret it as that suffering is not over, and we should devote it to His body, the church. Not to “help” the Cross [for want of a better word], but to “remember” it [also for want of a better word]..?
Please help?
Thanks
God Bless
Leila says
Dear Anel,
I really do think I explained it better in that post than I could here in the comments. Suffice it to say that perhaps you need to be Catholic — that is, to have a Catholic’s understanding of what the sacrifice on the Cross was — that it is *made present* with every Mass in an unbloody way — to understand the distinction between “remembering” and “helping” although I think the traditional way of saying it is “joining” or “being drawn up into in an efficacious way”.
All that implies that it was the perfect sacrifice, but that He allows us to participate in it. What is “lacking” or what needs to be “added” is precisely our will, our personal sufferings, our selves. This is by His choice. We are Christ in the world, and the only way to show that is to “offer up” or “add” or “join” our sufferings with His. Everything else is just words…
Diana says
Wow, I LOVE that way of putting it! Thank you!!
Anel says
Thanks, Leila! It makes sense. I will introduce this thought into our family worship. Myself a melancholic [with a little more experience than my like tempered eldest son] can maybe apply and introduce this fruitfully…
Jenna says
Well I admit we got on the Daniel Tiger train when I was expecting my fourth and had bad morning sickness that required medication.
I have appreciated your thoughts, primarily because they have led me to recall how my oldest two were raised through their early childhood (up to 4 or 5) with virtually no tv (I could count on my hand the number of times they watched shows) but my three year old, the one who was toddling around when I had morning sickness, has had a steady diet of tv.
This has been a helpful reminder to me to reprioritize, especially in your replies to the comments about fairy tales. She does LOVE fairy tales and nursery rhymes, especially Goldilocks and the Three Bears, but she references tv in a way that my older children never did. For instance, they will jokingly say “you never can tell with bees” when something seems a bit suspicious, and I love hearing them quote beautiful literature to explain real life. Meanwhile my daughter will sing those cutesy/annoying Daniel Tiger songs as a rejoinder on how to cope (especially “stop, and listen to stay safe”).
Sigh. There is always work to be done and room to improve. I’m glad you reminded me of this.
Victoria says
Your comment sparked something in my own mind that I’ve been mulling over for the last several days. The line “you never can tell with [insert mysterious thing]” is one of those lines that concretely prove the point that literature is often a better medium for teaching children than television. It happens to be a line that gets used frequently in our home too. The world is NOT a certain place. Only Christ is certain. As others have pointed out, many contemporary children’s shows try to foist a sense of security and “normalcy” on children. What I love about this line from Winnie the Pooh is that saying “you never can tell with…” is such a great answer to almost everything, and it’s not scary or unsettling when it comes from Pooh. “Mommy, are all dogs nice?” “Well, some dogs are and some dogs aren’t, you never can tell with dogs, so you should ask to pet them first.” “You shouldn’t walk up to strangers in the grocery store and just start talking. Not everybody wants to have a conversation, some people do but some people don’t and you never can tell with strangers.” Etc. I think it’s the sort of thing that makes uncertainty OKAY and normal!
In fact, what’s extra nice about the story that this quote comes from is that Pooh tries his experiment, he doesn’t get honey, he has a nasty fall, but he recovers and survives to the next story. What a great lesson that is, and amusing for all ages to boot!
Ivy says
One last comment on Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood which also relates to the overall message of the post. I started out my parenting journey heavily influenced by modern suburban parenting exemplified by DT and have come to reject it wholeheartedly, thank you Auntie Leila.
Here’s the thing. However good it sounds or feels for parents to ‘create empathic learners’, ‘develop articulate, emotive chidren’, offer choices, apply XYZ modern psychology idea to children is whatever the intended message, the message received by the 1-5 year old is ‘the world revolves around me. My emotions, my schedule, my needs.’ The red flag for me in this area was realizing that I really didn’t like any of the kids (good, Christian, even homeschooled kids) I knew raised on these same popular ideas because of said self-centeredness, and didn’t expect mine to be any different unless I changed something.
This is exactly why Leila’s advice for a proper understanding of suffering, dependance on God’s laws as a source of happiness, the understanding of human nature that has passed the test of time in things like fairy tales is just what the doctor ordered. It directs the child outward, not inward.
Thank you Auntie Leila!
Ivy
Leila says
Oh, Ivy, thank you!!
The more I am reading about this show (and the category it is part of), the more I am realizing how deeply the exact view you so clearly describe has infiltrated this medium — and of course, TV shows are the most relied-upon means of capturing children’s attention.
You really summed it up so well.
Kate says
You go off the tracks when you assert that there are only two reasons for sadness. Small children often feel sadness because something isn’t as they expect, or because they are physically uncomfortable and don’t understand it, or because they are responding to the emotions of the people around them, or for little reason or no discernible reason at all.
A small child–ages 2-5 is the target for the show you saw–needs to know that pretty much most of these feelings WILL pass.
And for that matter, it’s a decent lesson for the adults among us. A lot of sadness–not contrition, not guilt, not restlessness, not pain, just sadness–is passing, influenced by things as unrelated to moral goods as the WEATHER–so psychological and sociological (happiness) research tells us. The first lesson, before anything else, is simply to not be driven to act on everything we feel. And that is a completely age-appropriate lesson that has nothing to do with any wider cultural critique.
This piece was really stretching it.
Leila says
How on earth do you know what the 2-5 yo watching this show (not to mention the captured-audience 56 yo) is sad about?
You have no idea.
Jamie says
Wow! What a shocking response to your post. Thank you for helping open up minds and giving us young moms a challenge…are we really thinking about what we put in front of our kids?
Rebekah W. says
Thank you, Auntie Leila, for another much-needed series, especially needed for those of us given the care of children!
Donna L. says
Dear Auntie Leila~
I am so happy to read about the moral life of children and how to nurture it~thank you for writing about this!
I am an “antique Mommy” {50+ years old} who still has young kiddos. I am often challenged by your thoughts and appreciate what you have to say about what our children watch. I know that it may be an unpopular opinion to take on a children’s show to illustrate a point, but you did it well as evidenced by the large number of comments.
When our oldest three were 3, 5 and 7 {12 years ago} we decided to pull the plug on cable because there wasn’t much worth watching with our young children. It was a challenge to clean and rest without the television to babysit, but we found some old Winnie the Pooh and Little Bear videos that worked well.
As I walk about with my children, in this Brave New World, we are all shocked at the number of people and children who are drawn and fixated on screens all the time! It is rare to see eyes looking around and connecting with others. I was a full-time public school teacher, before we had our children, and I can say this confidently: the shows of today that are created by psychotherapists and researchers are NOT creating empathetic people who are resilient and aware of others in their surroundings. . If anything, it’s feeding an obsession to watch/listen/engage/zone out in technology at all times. I find that tragic and sad…and a moral black hole….we can do so much better!
Jill says
Amen, to the original post! My kids are taken with Daniel Tiger, but I am not. I really don’t want my toddlers watching shows with “lessons”.
Curious…do you have any opinions about Curious George?
VICTORIA says
Thank you for writing this. I resisted Daniel Tiger for years despite peers singing its praises. It looked both annoying and sounded like pandering, empty nonsense. About three days ago (would that I had read this first!) I decided if even my sister liked it, I should stop “judging” and give it a try. I streamed the first episode for my kids and oh how I regret it. It was as awful a show as I thought it would be: condecending, divorced from any spiritual reality, and just hideous to watch and listen to. I think your observations in this post (and in the comm boxes) are spot on. It actually made me a little sad, when I finally experienced the show myself, that so many serious Christians I know endorse this kind of thing. We don’t know how to raise children any more! If it wasn’t for voices like yours, I would probably be lost myself.
I’m certainly not judging moms who let their kids watch bad television. I have my own steaming pile of mistakes and sins over here. I just hope that my two cents helps another young mom like myself wake up to this very specific pitfall.
Victoria says
Oops, that should be “condescending” and “weren’t for voices like yours…” Only a tiny bit sleep deprived here today…
Melinda says
You’re quite sure of yourself and your comprehensive understanding of things, aren’t you?
“Sadness arises from TWO things, and only two”
Well, are you a philosopher? A psychologist? A theologian? Might there exist truth outside of your understanding?
For a Catholic, you do seem terribly confident and proud in your own sovereign authority!
Leila says
Melinda, did I say this — “two thing and only two”??
Did I?
Seems to me you are missing the point of the post, and you know what, it’s only a blog post. It’s my musings and that is all. I am sure that I miss many things and I say so often. God bless you.
Rachel Meyer says
I thought I would point out that in addition to just waiting, Daniel Tiger also does things to make himself feel better – draw a picture of the duck, talk with a friend. I think a lot of adults have no idea how to manage their own emotions, especially overreactive sadness and anger, and the idea that you can purposely make yourself feel happier is a good lesson.
My own 2-year-old, whenever he hurts himself, comforts himself by saying “I will feel better?” Certainly not because of this inane television program, I just told him, “your head will feel better” a few times and it obviously made an impact. He knows how to find his comforting toy, ask for a hug, or move on to a fun activity. He has much more emotional control than the average toddler, which is to say, still not much compared to a healthy adult.
Something about your post seems off to me, philosophically speaking. I guess I like to distinguish between natural virtue and supernatural virtue. Grace builds on nature. Naturally speaking, without the message of the Cross, I do not believe that the only response to sadness is nihilism. That is, I believe that sadness has a natural place and purpose which can be appreciated without divine revelation. It helps us see what is good and what is bad, become aware of our own unhealthy attachments to certain things, and feel motivated to avoid bad things which are avoidable.
You’re criticizing a secular children’s show because it isn’t telling children to “offer it up.” Sure, there is a place for teaching supernatural truths to children, but just natural truths also have a place, like “you feel sad when something bad happens. Don’t despair – you will feel happy again. Enjoying something else, crying about it or talking with friends can help you feel better.”
And I love Mr. Rogers. He was an honest person in an industry of illusion, and he respected children and believed that they deserved better programming then flashy, distracting images with no value. A clueless parent might watch the program and learn something about how to talk, learn and play with their children.
Leila says
Dear Rachel, you make a good point about natural virtue and supernatural virtue, and it is not my intention to downplay natural virtue. I have many posts here about helping children to be patient and to learn self control; when a parent tells a child who has bumped his head, “you’ll feel better,” he’s helping the child learn that lesson, as you say, and simply to learn a valuable experience about life in general.
I have many reasons for disliking Daniel Tiger. One of them is that in the episode that held me hostage, the hurt was not physical, it was the pain — the sadness — of losing his duck, and then the pain — sadness — of being rejected by friends.
The message was overwhelmingly, “Just wait, it will pass.” I regard this as a callous message, one that when spun as positively as possible merely rises to the Stoical. It doesn’t help at all with the main issue a child has, which is to become more aware of his own interior life as well as the world around him.
All delivered in the most banal and grating way possible.
It’s very different for a *parent* to say to his own child (or one he knows well), “just wait, this hurt will pass.” Knowing one’s child, perhaps one has observed that he tends to overreact, or didn’t care much for the duck, or what have you. Perhaps the parent has already talked to the child about the fact that sometimes other children are busy with their own matters and simply don’t notice him, and that he’d best just find something else to do. Perhaps the parent would like to offer the child a less self-centered reaction, little by little, so he just wants to minimize the event. These are possibilities, and parents need to learn the art of discerning them.
But as a universal, one-size-fits-all sort of prescription, I find “just wait it out” in the context of the presumed age of the child and the real sadness of the events to be sending a message to child and parent alike that is not a good one. (Similar to the poster I mentioned further down in my little essay.)
It completely ignores the child’s need to simply acknowledge his pain — and have someone he loves acknowledge it! — and then do something productive with it (whether on a spiritual level or a natural level) — even if that something is to make an effort to overcome it (which “waiting” passively is not — not the way it was expressed in the show).
If they were telling a *story* of a child who approached a problem with a certain solution, that would be one thing — a story implicitly acknowledges that there is a certain set of circumstances operating and that other circumstances might be different. But the show does not tell the story. It simply posits a situation and then moralizes, but with no moral content.
This show doesn’t even have the charm of an Aesop’s Fable, so feeble and ineffective is its moralizing. It’s more like mind control than storytelling.
I compressed a thought in my post, eliding the possible more “natural” solutions that a parent could apply, and going straight to “offering up” because that was a side note to the main point, which is to address the moral teaching of a child — that second possibility of sadness, that the child has done something wrong (for instance, he disobeyed by bringing his duck when told not to, or was himself being unfriendly to other children; children the ages of those who watch the show only begin to deal with these matters, but being in the habit of noticing one’s own fault is something parents have to teach, little by little, as I describe in the next post).
The DT episode made me think of this important topic, because it’s so very poverty-stricken in its solutions. Compared to the simplest folk tale, it’s like a bowl of gruel.
As to Mr. Rogers, as I said in the comments, I just never liked watching that show. I suppose I can be allowed my tastes. But I don’t have any substantive objections to it and I do see value in some aspects of it. It’s a matter of preference.
Anna says
I am not sure where to put this comment, but this might be a good spot. I am reading chapter 48 in the Summa (Domestica, that is) and got to the part about when you saw the man with an eye out of socket. It caught me by surprise because I have a distinct memory of being in Pike’s Place Market in Seattle when I was about five, and as my parents crossed the street, I turned back and saw two people sitting on the sidewalk on a blanket and one of them had his eye in his hand but still attached. Such an odd memory! I had forgotten that, but for a long time afterward it sometimes came to mind. My encounter was more of the bizarre, as the person didn’t seem to mind it but somehow was trying to get attention, as in, to exhibit something weird and shocking. It was always a surreal, otherworldly memory.