Paternal Life

For everything there is a season, and that is no less so for blogs. In light of my previous post, I’ve decided to allow this blog’s season to come to its end. 

For those who have read, commented and engaged with me via Paternal Life, thanks. This blog has been an important part of my journeying as a young father. 

For those interested in continuing to read, comment and engage with me, I’ll be continuing to blog over at Per Crucem ad Lucem. 

Again, thanks.

The Saturday Age recently ran this interesting piece. My desire to seek out more then led me to discover this interview with Olivera Petrovich by Rebecca Bryant. I thought it was worth re-posting:

‘Young children see the world with fresh minds that embrace both scientific causality and metaphysical speculation, says Oxford psychologist Olivera Petrovich. And their conceptions show striking similarities across widely differing cultures, she tells Rebecca Bryant in this exclusive interview with Science & Spirit.

Science & Spirit: What is your current role in the field?

Olivera Petrovich: I am currently with the Experimental Psychology Department at Oxford University, where I research and tutor in developmental psychologist. I also lecture in psychology of religion at Oxford — my course is open to theology, philosophy, and psychology students.

S&S: Your research interests lie in the psychology of religion, focusing especially on the development of spirituality in children. How do you go about it?

Petrovich: My approach to this is very strictly empirical. It begins with children’s accounts of the physical world — notably their causal explanations and the way they categorize objects and events around them. I’m interested in children’s spirituality as it develops in their encounter with the physical world, not through the teaching they may receive in bible classes and so on. I’m not at all looking at the cultural transmission of spirituality.

S&S: You recently conducted cross-cultural studies involving British and Japanese children. What were the aims — and the findings — of this research?

Petrovich: I was really interested in children’s ability to offer both scientific causal explanations and metaphysical explanations, which go beyond the scientific. Japanese culture is very different from Western culture with a very different history of science and religious tradition. So I thought I should be able to get some interesting comparisons between Japanese and Western children.

I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word “God,” instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., “nobody knows”) or an incorrect response (e.g., “by people”). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion — Shinto — doesn’t include creation as an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, “We Japanese don’t think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.” So it was wonderful when these children said, “Kamisama! God! God made it!” That was probably the most significant finding.

I’ve also established that children’s natural concepts of God aren’t purely anthropomorphic. They certainly acquire a conception of God-as-man through their religious education, but no child actually links the representation of, for example, God-as-Jesus with the creator of the world. Rather, their images of God the creator correspond to abstract notions like gas, air, and person without a body. When you press them, they of course fall back on what they’ve been told, saying things like, “I know he’s a man because I saw him on the telly,” or “He’s just like my daddy.” These are very rational responses, but they’re not natural conceptions formed by children. Rather they’re imposed by the culture in which the children live.

S&S: In what ways do adults’ religious concepts differ from those of children?

Petrovich: I did test adults in Britain, but not yet in Japan. The results show that the differences between lay adults and children tested under the same conditions are largely quantitative. Adults are more accurate at identifying objects and describing their physical properties, but the categories they use in their explanations aren’t qualitatively different from those used by children. When it comes to adults’ speculations about the creator — the source of objects — they do display greater cultural influences than children, but when you systematically compare adults’ and children’s descriptions, you see significant similarities — in their references to God being something like air or gas, for example. Children’s descriptions are very basic, whereas adults use more sophisticated vocabulary, but there is no more information about God in adults’ references than there is in children’s. I think this is perfectly plausible and predictable because we can’t say that we as adults have more privileged access to God than children do. We’re all in the same position.

S&S: From your research, do you think it’s possible that the inclination toward religion or spirituality is universal?

Petrovich: I think possibility is the precise word to use here. I can’t be more certain than that because I have only worked with children aged three-and-a-half upward, and that’s already an old age when it comes to basic understandings, some of which are in evidence in the first year of life. However, the cumulative contribution of many domains of cognitive developmental psychology suggests to me that it’s a serious possibility that spirituality is a universal aspect of human cognition. Recent research shows that human infants aren’t passive recipients of information around them, but obviously think, making inferences and forming hypotheses. There’s also a lot of research showing that very young children are quite good at handling temporarily hidden objects. So, I think it needn’t be too difficult for them to make the inference that surely there must be some kind of invisible principle for what we see around us.

S&S: What drew you to the psychology of religion, as opposed to any other field in psychology?

Petrovich: I’ve always been interested in religion as well as psychology — even before I knew the word “psychology” existed. As a child I remember being interested in how people think, in why I thought this way and others thought that way. I began to notice that some people go to church and believe in God and others don’t. Also, like all children, I kept asking questions about the origin of the world. But I might’ve been more fortunate than some other children because I remember, for example, my mother telling me that even though we don’t really know the answers to these questions, it nonetheless remains very important to think about such issues.

As soon as I discovered psychology as a possible area of serious study, I thought that religion must surely be the most fascinating aspect of human thought. You can’t say that this stimulus is more likely to lead you to the concept of God than any other, and so the interesting question is how thought about God occurs.

S&S: How do you see your work fitting into the wider field of science and religion?

Petrovich: This is a very important question indeed. What drives me is the realization — which I hope is correct — that psychology is probably the best-placed science to explain both the origin and continuity of the interaction between science and religion in human affairs. You can find astronomers, geologists, biologists, and chemists throughout history who have either been religious or non-religious. And the difference between these two groups has always intrigued me. What is it in people’s thought patterns, in their education, in their further development, in their interaction with other people and disciplines that makes them perceive the world in one way rather than the other? I think experimental cognitive psychology is in a unique position to answer most of these questions because we can’t achieve a great deal in inspiring others to see the world as we see it unless we first understand how the human mind works — and that is just what cognitive psychologists aim to do.

S&S: Where do you see your interest in science and religion taking you in the future?

Petrovich: What I ideally would like to do is obtain a proper, funded post in academic psychology of religion within a psychology department. That doesn’t exist at the moment, anywhere, but the interest is tremendous — every year for the past four or five years I’ve had inquiries from students wanting to do research in this area.

The other thing would be to get funding for one or two studentships to work on a large project with me so that people can get trained. At the moment, you have very good psychologists with no education in theology or religion, and theology people who have no technical knowledge of how to do psychological research. Why is that relevant? Because if people have no idea about a field, they can never reach a hypothesis that’s worth investigating.

Olivera Petrovich is the author of the upcoming book, The Child’s Theory of the World. She can be contacted at olivera.petrovich@wolfson.ox.ac.uk. Rebecca Bryant has a doctoral degree in philosophy from Oxford University. She is a writer and researcher based in Oxford.

Trevor Cairney has posted a helpful (and encouraging) review of the ‘Your Baby Can Read!’ program developed by Dr Robert Titzer. While I was unaware of Titzer’s thesis, the concerns Trevor outlines make real sense to me. As I noted in a comment on his post, I spend all day with a 2-year-old. We cook, play, dance, listen to music, read, count the dongs on the grandfather clock, paint, sort through food, and eat leaves in the garden, among other things. It’s learning all the way, and the resultant growth in her is obvious. I can’t imagine how spending an hour a day sitting in front of a TV (which she is not interested in at all) watching DVD’s can compare with sitting on dad’s knee reading, or kicking a football or counting flower buds in the garden, or learning to share toys and attention with friends. I’m keen to hear from others who may have had experience with Titzer’s program, and whether or not their experiences echo any of Trevor’s concerns.

Ben, over at Faith and Theology, offers a wee review of Robert L. Short’s, The Parables of Dr. Seuss.

And while I’m mentioning books, I’ve been meaning for ages to draw attention to Amanda Craig, an author of five novels, and children’s book critic for The Times and columnist for The Sunday Times. Her site is a mine of helpful reviews and recommendations for children’s books, and anyone who loves all the Hairy Maclary books and is ‘increasingly resistant to pop-ups, and other gimmicks’ is already earning some major brownie points from me.

Grant Thorpe is an experienced parent and Baptist pastor from South Australia who is currently presenting a series of 5 talks based on his helpful book Christian Parents & Their Children. I will post them here as they are made available.

1. Hope for our Children (45 mins)

2. Children of the Covenant (36 mins)

3. Representing Our Father’s Authority to Our Children (42 mins)

‘Those who say that children must not be frightened may mean two things. They may mean (1) that we must not do anything likely to give the child those haunting, disabling, pathological fears against which ordinary courage is helpless: in fact, phobias. His mind must, if possible, be kept clear of things he can’t bear to think of. Or they may mean (2) that we must try to keep out of his mind the knowledge that he is born into a world of death, violence, wounds, adventure, heroism and cowardice, good and evil. If they mean the first I agree with them: but not if they mean the second. The second would indeed be to give children a false impression and feed them on escapism in the bad sense. There is something ludicrous in the idea of so educating a generation which is born to the … atomic bomb. Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker’. – Clive S. Lewis, Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories (San Diego: Harvest Books, 2002), 31.

In June and July 2007, Waging Peace researcher Anna Schmitt conducted a three week fact-finding mission to Eastern Chad. The aim of the mission was to assess the humanitarian, human rights and security situation in the region and to collect testimonies from Darfuri refugees and Displaced Chadians.

While collecting testimonies from adults, women told Anna how their children had witnessed horrendous events when their villages were being attacked. This prompted Anna to talk to the children. She gave the children aged 6 to 18 paper and pencils and asked them what their dreams were for the future and what their strongest memory was.

When the children handed Anna their drawings, she was shocked to see the details of their memories of the attacks. While a handful of children had submitted drawings of daily life in the village or in the refugee camp, the majority of the drawings described the attacks on their village by Sudanese Government forces and their allied Janjaweed militia. Many of the drawings depict adult men being killed, women being shot, beaten and taken prisoner, babies being thrown on fires and Government of Sudan helicopters and planes bombing civilians.

The five hundred drawings collected by Waging Peace amount to a form of criminal evidence from silent witnesses. The killings, bombing and looting shown in the drawings directly contradict the Government of Sudan’s version of events over the last four years of bloodshed. The pattern that emerges from these drawings corroborates what we know has been taking place in Darfur and shows a worryingly similar pattern of attacks developing in Eastern Chad.

The drawings will be exhibited in London and throughout the world to raise awareness about the crisis in Darfur. They will also form part of a submission of evidence to the International Criminal Court which is investigating crimes taking place in Darfur.

Drawing 1: This boy was 9 when his village in the area of Aishbarra, Darfur, was attacked in 2003 by the Sudanese Government forces and Janjaweed militia. The drawing shows houses burning, villagers being shot and even amputated. The villagers that are attacked are coloured in black, while the attackers have lighter (orange) skin – showing the ethnic character of the attacks (ie Arabs attacking ‘black Africans’ – in this case Massalit). In the bottom right of the drawing are two young men, attached by the neck, led away by a janjaweed fighter. These boys could be taken into slavery, or may become child soldiers.

Drawing 2: This young boy was ten when his village in the area of Aishbarra, Darfur, was attacked in 2003 by the Sudanese Government-allied Janjaweed militia. The drawing shows fleeing civilians stopped by the Janjaweed. The civilian men are put in a row to be shot. One man is shot. This method is often used by the Janjaweed as a means of psychological torture, killing some of the men and not others, leaving the women to watch helplessly. One woman and one man are shown with tears falling down their cheeks. In the bottom left hand corner of the drawing, a Janjaweed is searching the men’s suitcases for belongings to loot. Once again, the skin colour of the victims and the attackers is different, reflecting the ethnic character of the attacks. The attackers are on worse-back and in machinegun-mounted pick up trucks, both widely used by the Janjaweed militia.

Drawing 3: This young boy was 11 when his village in the area of Aishbarra, Darfur, was attacked by the Janjaweed in 2003. This drawing depicts a man shot to pieces by the Janjaweed militia.The attackers are on camel and horse backs, clearly identifying them as Janjaweed. They nonetheless are wearing Sudanese Government uniforms (red insignia on the shoulder and army outfits), showing the clear link between the Sudanese Government and the Janjaweed militia, which are armed, trained and equipped by the Sudanese Government. The skin colour of the attackers and the victim is yet again different, the Janjaweed having lighter skin than the attacked civilian.

Drawing 4: This young boy was 9 when his village in the area of Aishbarra, Darfur, was attacked in 2003 by Sudanese Government forces and Janjaweed militia. In the drawing, two women and a boy are shown fleeing an attack by Janjaweed in two machinegun-mounted pick up trucks and Sudanese forces in a tank. Houses in the village are set ablaze. The Janjaweed and Sudanese forces are shooting at the three civilians and the boy is hit in the leg. The fact that these are women and children who are being shot at clearly shows that the attackers are targeting civilians. The use of a tank in the attack is particularily interesting as the Sudanese Government has consistently denied using such heavy weaponry in Darfur.

Drawing 5: This young boy was 8 when he had to flee his village in Darfur. In this drawing he shows Janjaweed and Sudanese Government troops working together (bottom half of the drawing), and an SLA solider killing a Sudanese Government soldier (top half of the drawing). Interestingly, a Sudanese flag is drawn on the tank, clearly identifying it as from the Sudanese Government.

Drawing 6.1: This young boy was 17 when his village was attacked in 2003. In this three panel drawing, he describes the attacker getting ready, the attack of the village (burning houses, dead bodies) and the displacement caused by the attack.

Drawing 6.2

Drawing 6.3:

Drawing 7: This boy was 8 when his village in Darfur was attacked in 2004. His drawing describes this attack, where Janjaweed forces (drawn on horse backs) and Sudanese forces (in vehicles and tanks) worked together to burn his village, kill many civilians (shown lying on the ground) and lead to the displacement of the survivors).

Drawing 8: This picture was drawn by a young Chadian boy in a camp for displaced persons in Eastern Chad. His drawing describes the attack on his village by Janjaweed militias from Sudan. On the top left hand corner of the drawing is written ‘ataque village’ (French for ‘attack of the village’). The attackers, wearing military uniforms and on camels are shooting civilians with machine guns and burning their houses. Bullets are coming from all over. Next to each civilian that is shot is the word ‘Morts’ which is the plural of ‘dead’ in French.

Drawing 9: This young boy was 8 when his village in Darfur was attacked in 2003 by Janjaweed and Sudanese armed forces. He is now 12 and living in a refugee camp in Eastern Chad. In this drawing the attackers, on camel and horse backs and in armed vehicles, are setting the houses on fire and shooting at civilians from all corners (note how the bullets are crossing each others paths). The villagers are also fighting back with spears and arrow, while the Janjaweed and Sudanese forces are attacking them with machine guns. The skin colour of the attackers is lighter than that of the victims, clearly denoting the ethnic aspect of the attacks.

Drawing 10: This picture was drawn by a young Chadian boy in a camp for displaced persons in Eastern Chad. His drawing describes the attack on his village by Janjaweed militias from Sudan. The whole village is set on fire and there are body parts scattered in the right of the drawing. Next to the body parts, the boy wrote ‘Mourire Jan de village’ (Mourir gens du village) which is the French for ‘the people from the village are killed’. Under the attackers in the left of the picture is written ‘janjinwite’, clearly identifying the attackers as the Sudanese-Government allied Janjaweed forces.

Drawing 11: This young girl was 11 when her village in Darfur was attacked in 2004. The drawing, depicting an attack by the Sudanese government and the janjaweed forces, contains small explanations within the drawing. On the bottom left, she writes: ‘The Sudanese government soldiers entered the village on camels’. On the bottom write, under a tank: ‘heavy artillery’. Under the plane, she writes ‘the airplane bombs are dropped over the house’.

Drawing 12: This young boy was 15 when his village in Darfur was attacked by Janjaweed and Sudanese armed forces in 2004. Houses are set on fire and civilians are shot dead and thrown into the river. Behind the drawing, he has written ‘Look at these pictures carefully, and you will see what happened in Darfur. Thank you’.

Drawing 13: This boy was 9 when his village in Darfur was attacked by Sudanese Government forces and Janjaweed militias in 2003. This drawing describes in detail some of the exactions committed by the Janjaweed (on foot and on horses) and the Sudanese forces (in tanks, machine gun mounted vehicles and planes). At the top of the picture a boy is thrown into a fire. In the middle, a man has a bag over his head before being shot. A Soldier in a ‘technical’ shoots a civilian. At the bottom, a soldier appears to be cutting a man’s head off. Women, with hands tied behind them are being marched off at gun point. A woman with her possessions on her head leaves with her 2 children, pursued by 2 soldiers. A Government plane is bombing the village and setting the houses on fire.

Drawing 14: The young boy was 10 when his village in Darfur was attacked in 2003. Sudanese Government forces in pick up trucks, helicopters and airplanes and Janjaweed militias on horsebacks are seen attacking a village.In the left of the drawing, an antonov is bombing the village, putting fire to the huts. Sudanese forces on the ground and perched in trees are targeting young women, men and children. Three women are tied up and taken away by a Sudanese soldier while men are killed and thrown into the valley.

Drawing 15: This young boy describes the attack by Sudanese Government forces and Janjaweed militias on his village in Darfur. In the top of the drawing, a Sudanese helicopter is shown bombing the village, setting houses on fire and killing civilians and a donkey. Under the houses, the young boy wrote ‘village on fire’. A Sudanese soldier and Janjaweed forces are shooting and killing at fleeing civilians. Under the drawing of armed men on horseback, is written ‘Janjaweed’.

Drawing 16: In this drawing, a young girl from Darfur shows the peaceful life in her village being disrupted by a violent attack by Sudanese Government forces and the Janjaweed militia. Some villagers are seen herding cattle and sheep or sitting under trees. But this sense of calm is contrasted by Sudanese airplanes and helicopters bombing the village and setting fire to the houses. Government forces in pick up trucks and Janjaweed on horse and camel backs are shooting at civilians.

Drawing 17: This drawing clearly depicts an attack by Sudanese government forces on a village in Darfur. Three airplanes and a helicopter with Sudanese Government markings are hovering above the village, with one of the planes shown dropping a bomb. The huts are on fire as villagers are seen fleeing.

Drawing 18: This drawing describes an attack by Sudanese Government forces on the village in Eastern Chad. Sudanese armed forces, identifiable by their berets and uniforms, arrive in the village on machinegun mounted pick up trucks and by foot. They shoot at the fleeing population that only has arrows to protect itself, while the houses are set alight.

Drawing 19: This young boy drew an attack by Sudanese Government forces on his village in Darfur. Sudanese soldiers on foot, in elaborate pick up trucks and in tanks shoot at the village while three helicopters set fire to the houses. A mother and her two children are seen fleeing.

Drawing 20: This young girl describes an attack on her village in Darfur. In this drawing the attackers (Sudanese army and Janjaweed militia) are drawn with a blue top and orange trousers, while the targeted civilians are dressed in green and purple. A Sudanese helicopter drops bombs on the village while armed men on horses, camels and by foot are shown shooting civilians, stabbing them and setting fire to their homes. Next to each dead person is a cross.

Click here to read the article in the Independent about ‘Drawings from Darfur’.

[HT: Waging Peace]