Part 2: Defining Terms

In Breton’s first manifesto he wrote that surrealism was pure “psychic automatism” used to express in verbal, written or “any other form” the “actual functioning of thought.” Which is to say the surrealists believed that linguistic, social and cultural constructs sullied and interfered with the foundational function of human thought, and sought to break through these barriers to tap into the true deep structural functionality of the mind.

In part one of Children as Philosophers: Solved?, I stated that children are Developmental or Natural Surrealists. Henceforth I will use the term Natural Surrealists.

The predominant usage of Natural in this context is to underline the inborn state of the child’s brain and thought patterns. If you are interested in the natural structure of thought, the only place to find it is in a mind that has not had formality imposed upon it by any one of the many eventualities in life that cause significant change, physiological or otherwise, in the brain: acquisition of spoken or written language, puberty, the progressive effects of age, social structure, and so on.

So without these influences children exhibit many of the desired characteristics, and significant practices, of surrealists simply by acting naturally, that is, by acting without conscious or self-conscious thought. Because the assimilation of “adult” or societal values and customs is an ongoing process, and each child has not only a unique brain, but also a unique upbringing, different children exhibit these characteristics to various degree throughout their development.

Making use of the word Natural in this context also allows me to highlight a related meaning of the word: children are predisposed to be good at surrealism in the same way one might say Tiger Woods is a natural at golf (though the analogy breaks down, the usage is common).

In the next segments, I’ll begin a discussion about the various ways that children act and think like surrealists