« personalization overload | Main | of tenuous misanthropy and not so tenuous tests »

personalization overload, pt. 2

**Continued from previous post...

When I mentioned this topic previously, I connected it in kind to the problem with adult inability to deal with unexpected or out-of-the-ordinary emotion in that it is a problem of rearing and education. In order to become adults who value the opportunity to personalize but do not require it, in fact, sacrifice that desire when it's for the best, children must be taught how. For example, I will give you a scenario: parent takes child into a fast-food restaurant and says, "You can have anything you'd like." This happens over and over until the child expects to get what they would like every time. There is no guidance to the child's decision, no instruction teaching them that their choice is a privilege to enjoy rather than right to demand in every circumstance. Now comes an instance when, for whatever reason, the child is unable to order whatever he wants. We all anticipate the result: an attitude, a tantrum. New scenario: a parent offers guided choices. "You may get a hamburger meal. What side would you like: apples or french fries? What drink would you like: lemon slice or iced tea?" On another day: "Today Mommy needs to choose. Let's get chicken fingers and apples, ok? I'll let you choose next time." On another day: "Today is special, you may order what you'd like from the menu as long as you get a sandwich or chicken with it." And so on, offering the child guided choices when appropriate. Now comes an instance when the child may not choose. I think we will all anticipate a much more pleasant response from this child. Child A has become a creature who expects every desire and whim to be fulfilled. Child B enjoys the personalization of his order, but understands that he can't always have what he wants.

(And I do not think this type of scenario is limited to a home experience. I believe there are numerous classrooms and curricular experiences that cater to children's whims and limit their experience to only what they know or want to know.)

The key here is that adults allow children the opportunity to choose while not indulging their selfishness. When we indulge a child's selfishness behind the justification that we want them to be happy, we actually set them up for discontent and unhappiness. A child reared to expect to have things exactly the way he likes every time will end up being a sorely disappointed adult when he discovers that rarely in life do things actually conform to our every personalized whim. Except of course, for my [redacted] sets of icons. :-P (I'll never divulge the information that hints at my selfish weakness for computer individuality. haha) The thing is, individuality can be an incredible strength. Americans revel in the freedom to be individual, to seek their individual well-being and happiness. This isn't a bad thing. We must, however, remember that the primary weakness of individuality is selfishness. Unchecked self-interest is not a good thing for an individual or for society. It is an incredible gift to be able to choose things that fit us, to have the options to listen to the music we like, to have the color car we enjoy, to choose from a plethora of desktop icons and wallpapers. The problem lies when we are unwilling to concede our desires for something better; when we fail to acknowledge that our ability to choose injures someone else; when our determination to have what we want becomes a selfish grasping, when our desires have devolved into petulant whims. Henry Ford is famous for saying, "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." Amazingly, he sold plenty of just, plain black Model T Fords. His customers knew that if they wanted his affordable, available automobile (alliteration unintentional) they would need to sacrifice their desire for individual color. I am skeptical that his car's colorful limitations would do so well in today's market. The viewpoint has changed. We've allowed our sense of and desire for individuality to become our excuse for self-service and selfishness. It isn't pretty. If we want to restore the nobility of the Individual, Rugged or otherwise, we must purpose to teach children the balance of desiring personalization and deferring to what's best, that using discretion in our choices sometimes means sacrificing our individual desires (particularly those of the whim strain) for what's best, that having a choice placed in boundaries for that best (eg. uniforms in school) is not a removal of some fundamental right to which they are entitled and can therefore express their discontent in any way they choose. When we expect every aspect of our life to fit our personalization plan, we have become petulant creatures of selfish whims. This is not the American spirit of individuality at all; it is something far uglier and even sinister.

This is a long post, and I failed to offer warning. I'm not even sure I managed to say everything I intended. haha. Perhaps that put some readers off. I feel it is important, though. If we wish others, those looking in on us, to see the nobility of the spirit of individuality rather than its pitfall vice, we must, as parents and educators, imbue upon children the understanding of discretion, of care for the best, of sacrificing selfishness for kindness. To me, a significant part of this process is teaching them how to handle their desires for personalization in their lives. The home and the classroom are excellent training grounds for this process. The Individual can be a noble figure when the Individual is taught to look out for his brethren even in the way he views personal choices.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.adayinthejourney.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/344

Comments

The idea of individuality (well, as we know it today), however, is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'd say even as early as the beginning of the 20th Century. Before that, there was a strong emphasis on community. Back when America was founded, it was founded on a sense of community within Puritanism. So while individualism isn't necessarily a bad thing, I think humans were created to be communal beings.

But I'm probably talking out of my butt here. :P

I don't think you are. I think you've hit on a good delineation. American's enjoy the aspiration of rugged individualism, yet often forget that the icon of rugged individualism, Theodore Roosevelt (made of awesomness), was supremely mindful of the community--thus the national parks and the first real health care proposal in modern governmental history. I think the difference, when considering your point, between pursuing healthy individualism (or individuality, if you prefer), comes in its impact on the community. If it considers and contributes to the community, it's beneficial. If it flouts, derides, combats, or harms the community, it's harmful and selfish.

I agree with you that even in our individualism, we ought properly to be mindful of the community. Selfishness is not.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)