On the radio the other day, the head of a children’s charity told listeners her secret of success with children: love.
She gave an example of the healing powers of “love” as expressed through touch: a hardened, tough-as-nails child criminal in the charity’s care was reduced to tears on being given a “loving” massage. (Yes, well……) The presenters of the show were quick to express their approval of the power of “love” and to bemoan the fact that “we just don’t touch each other enough” in our society.
So, a touchy-feely, hugsy-wugsy culture is going to cure society’s ills, is it? This “miracle cure” is going to solve all the problems that beset people, and children in particular, in our society? What a load of bollocks.
Firstly, the head of charity clearly understands nothing about love since she thinks people can turn love on or off at the flip of a switch.
I have worked closely with children all my long working life. When I encountered children experiencing problems coping with life, “hugs” did not deal with the problem — far from it. What dealt with their problems was nitty-gritty practicalities. So, for example, on one occasion I taught organisational skills to a teenager. She had, in fact, self-diagnosed this particular problem, which was just going from bad to worse with every passing month. Her belief that people are born with organisational skills and that these can not be taught meant that she did not ask for help. In addition, the other adults around her also thought that one is born with such skills, that they cannot be taught, and they therefore ignored her very real and urgent needs (trying to give her “hugs” and “love” instead).
Giving children “hugs” or “love” instead of teaching them how to cope with life is, in fact, child abuse.
Then there is all this very fashionable nonsense about being “up close and personal” i.e. being touchy-feely, hugsy-wugsy with other people……………
…………………nasty, nasty stuff. Society nowadays is convincing people to indulge in very nasty, unhealthy practices. The practice of being “up close and personal” is one of them. (Psychological/mental health, as well as physical health, is maintained by keeping one’s physical and emotional distance from other people, of governing one’s emotions, of exercising emotional self-restraint, of exercising emotional self-control.)
My first real encounter with this growing trend — then in its relative infancy — was at work. The mother of one of the children had died of cancer. The reaction to this, an appalling exhibition of mass hysteria, a stomach-churning display of out-of-control emotions, encouraged by the adults in charge, was nauseating, was repellent, to behold. For example, children were regularly seen huddling in tearful groups indulging in group hugs. Adults treated the children as if they were made of brittle glass and would shatter at any moment. There were offers of “counselling” for any child who wanted it. There was hardly a dry eye in the place. This went on for weeks afterwards, long after the mother’s funeral. It is hard for me to describe the sickening atmosphere these over-indulged emotions generated. Like any healthy person would, I wanted to get away from this revolting behaviour, not to be contaminated through contact with it. This incident contrasted strongly with similar incidents a few years earlier where self-restraint was practised………but these earlier incidents pre-dated the era of Princess Diana…………
…………….who taught people bad, nasty, unhealthy behaviour. She indulged her emotions, gave public displays of being “up close and personal”, notably by visiting hospices and, with her bare hands, shook the bare hands of AIDS sufferers. Her sister-in-law, Princess Anne, clearly did not share her opinion. When she visited my workplace — not a hospital so we were all supposedly in good health — she took care to wear gloves on her hand-shaking rounds that day.
I am reminded here of the film Kingdom of Heaven. It is set in Jerusalem during the crusades around the 12th century. One of the Christian lords has been fomenting trouble with the Muslims. To prevent a battle against Salahadin, the Christian King of Jerusalem must punish this Christian lord, Raynard. The king is, in fact, a leper. He wears a mask over his face and gloves on his hands. No part of his bare skin is exposed to view. The Christian lord’s punishment, however, is to kiss the ring on the naked hand of the king, a hand dripping with suppurating, leprous sores. Raynard takes his king’s bare hand in his (bare hands) and fervently demonstrates his obeisance by kissing the king’s ring. That scene is designed to generate a disgust response, a healthy response lacking in Princess Diana.
So, back to the head of the children’s charity. Back to that miracle cure: “love”. When that woman was spouting her nonsense, all I heard was sales talk. Reality and the genuine desire to help children, it seemed to me, had nothing whatsoever to do with it.