Yesterday we announced this blog open to guest writers who have been following the Johansson case. Today, we are happy to introduce Helen E. Lees, a graduate student at the University of Birmingham, UK. Her PhD thesis "considers what happens to the self of parents and other adults upon discovery of the possibilities of elective home education." Due to her research, she brings interesting insight to the tragic story of the Johansson family. We continue to accept articles from guest writers. Send your submissions for consideration to: returndomenic@aol.com
Domenic and the New Paradigm
By Helen E. Lees
 |
| Domenic and his father in happier times. |
The philosophical understanding that underpins this idea comes from Thomas S. Kuhn, who wrote 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' in 1969. Kuhn says that when people discover a new way of doing things, they change paradigm and what results is an incommensurability of understanding and communication between those in the old world/paradigm and those in the new. My research shows home education is a 'new' paradigm and also that consequently- involved in education as a field with diverse options - is the problem of incommensurability: although people are talking about essentially the same thing (education), different ways of doing things means that when people have an understanding coming from a particular paradigm or 'worldview', they cannot easily understand other people in an alternative paradigm and with another 'worldview'. It requires effort for people in the 'old' paradigm to see - literally - from the point of view of those in the 'new'.
It seems that social services have a lack of understanding and an inability to understand home education practice and choices. They are, it seems, only seeing the situation from their own point of view. My research suggests why they might be so intractable in their views with regard to Domenic being in the care of his 'alternative' parents. Kuhn also talks about the strong resistance from those in the 'old' paradigm towards those in the 'new' paradigm. If we apply this to Domenic's case, it makes some sense of the strong and continuing resistance that social services seem to have displayed against Domenic's parents: if social services give in and return Domenic, it threatens their belief that their worldview and opinions are the 'correct' ones. This is a strong and world-shattering threat that must be guarded against at all costs at the level of their personal self; although it is likely to be dressed in professional language and rationale.
In the UK, there are many examples of social services having a very weak grasp of the basic concepts of home education and seeing it, as a result, as poor education. The problem of incommensurability is a global one. Of course, home educating has been highlighted through various academic research to constitute another (personally and socially positive) way of life, so it is not just about education. It is also about lifestyle. If a mother wants to follow natural medicine practices for example (a very Indian and Vedic attitude), this is a life view. It is also a life view that is valid on its own terms. If it is seen from a medical/scientistic perspective it loses validity. From following the case of Domenic Johansson being taken and kept from his parents it strikes me forcibly that what is happening is not fact based on sound judgment, but facts based on a determination to maintain validation of a particular worldview that is not and - in a democracy - cannot be allowed to be seen as the only valid worldview.
Gotland social services do not have all the answers and are not in possession of the truth. Their worldview is not the only valid one. Their facts can be seen differently. A child has the right to be brought up in the worldview of its parents and parents have the right to bring up their child in their own worldview. Using this argument, the only clause that would substantiate violation of respect for a particular worldview or paradigm of living would be substantial and substantiated profound harm to the child. I do not see any evidence of such harm having been perpetrated against Domenic by his parents. They seem, from what I have read, heard, seen, felt and personally judged, to have a solidly loving attitude and a valid worldview.
My research backs up the Johansson's claims that the situation they are experiencing is unfair. Why is their son away from and out of their care? It doesn't make sense from any worldview, actually. Whilst this non-sense is unfolding, Domenic, of course, is changing his worldview... Domenic's parents are having to agree to change theirs. A dominance in perspective creates totalitarianism at the level of personal choice. A democracy is founded on personal choice. Adherence to a worldview - for anyone - is not secured by taking children from their parents.
Helen E. Lees
Fantastic analysis! Thank you Helen for explaining it like it is. People have the right to their own opinions, beliefs, lifestyles, and educations - especially if there is absolutely no real harm done to anyone.
ReplyDeleteSo well written Helen.
ReplyDeleteThis helps us to understand the reason why the ss have taken it upon themselves to remove this little boy from his family. On the other hand it shows the nonsensical attitude behind their cold hearted actions.
So very sad. If only they (SS) could just stop for a minute & realise the harm they are doing, not just to the parents but more so to Domenic.
All of this heartache....messing up of people's lives, tearing loving families apart & all based on the fact that someone else just happens to think differently from them!!!!!
We would think....hope, that someone somewhere within the power system would make sense of all of this & return this family to their former happiness.
Wishing Domenic & his parents all the best. I hope for all of you that this will soon come to an end.....you're powerful & strong. Keep hold of that thought as it'll see you through to the end. xxx
Imagine the uproar and scandal if homosexual parents had their children forceably removed from them as a result of their lifestyle choice. There would be a movement larger than life advocating on their behalf and their story would be told all over the world and heads of State would apply pressure to the government to reverse their position. No such outrage or outcry from the world. Why? Because we are talking about who has control of the next generation--the State or individual parents. The State cannot afford to allow parents to raise children who think for themselves. That would mean they would no longer have the socially engineered power structure that they currently enjoy.
ReplyDelete"Academia has sold itself to the Christian public using a sleight of hand to redefine the
ReplyDeleteobject of education. If we start out assuming that a “good education” involves learning a
lot of knowledge about subjects rarely found in the cultural life of the Church and family,
then it certainly appears that the Church and family are poorly suited to teach them. But
where does this ideal of education come from? Is not the biblical object of education to
raise up children to be successful Christian adults capable of making their own way in the
world spiritually and economically? Is the Church incapable of teaching people to think
as Christians? Is the family unfit to teach the arts and sciences of putting food on the
table through productive industry and commerce?"