Children as Philosophers: Solved? Part 2
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
24. July 2008 at 12:57
Picky question:
If the philosophy of Surrealism is defined as belief in the tenets of the surrealist movement, shouldn’t we be asking if they believe those tenets, rather than if they just act in a way that seems to support them? I don’t dispute that children often act in surreal ways, I’m just not sure that it’s their “philosophy.”
Maybe I’m just getting ahead of you…or maybe I’m just reading the “Children as Philosophers” post title too literally.
Do continue…
24. July 2008 at 13:20
I didn’t address that point, but that is what i am trying to get at in saying that they are Natural Surrealists, rather than Surrealists. Children don’t need to believe them because they live them, and surrealism is about the pursuit of something children have ready access to.
There are some metaphysical and epistemological questions wrapped up in that though: children simply believe what they perceive as reality. There is no -ism involved. Even if children could comprehend the tenets of surrealism, asking one if she believed them may be like asking an adult if the believe in gravity.
24. July 2008 at 14:31
I was thrown by my semantic assumption that for a child to be a philosopher, they would need to be capable of holding a philosophy, whether or not they could articulate it.
It’s the difference between, “Children do what they do naturally, and their actions support a general Surrealist philosophical view,” and, “Children naturally hold a Surrealist philosophical view.” But I get where you’re coming from…
24. July 2008 at 14:49
Sure, maybe the overdone “Children and Philosophy” type title would be clearer, but it’s too late now, the series is named.
6. August 2008 at 12:40
I think the “natural” qualification is sufficient enough to solve this semantic problem. Philosophers have been using the term “natural” or “state of nature” for centuries to describe something uninfluenced by outside forces. Further, epistemology is a philosophical question, but one’s personal epistemological assumptions are rarely ever evaluated or made explicit whether you are an adult or a child–yet it is still a governing principle (arguably THE governing principle) of ones personal philosophy.
6. August 2008 at 12:41
Sorry, I guess I came pretty late to this discussion.
7. August 2008 at 22:28
Better late than never, and you got to the heart of much of what I didn’t say. I kept writing these big long essays, realizing I didn’t want to proof them and consequently outright deleting them and then thinking, “That was stupid, now what am I going to write.” So these essays will probably be pretty raw.