Brooklyn by Colm Toibin

Source of book: I own this.

 

This book was this month’s selection for the book club I am in, The Literary Lush. This isn’t a book that was on my list, which is often the case - the club encourages me to read outside my usual genres. 

 

I was really hoping this book would be good - it seemed like a promising premise: a young Irish girl immigrates to the US in the 1950s, and finds herself torn between her new life and her family. 

 

Unfortunately, the execution of the book was not all that great, and it was ultimately a disappointment. 

 

There are several reasons I found it problematic. The first is simply that the writing, while competent, was pretty flat. There were very few descriptions, most of the characters felt one-dimensional, and even the protagonist’s inner life was barely outlined. A book that is all plot is fine in some genres, but this book isn’t a thriller or a mystery, but a realistic story that aspires to be literary. In that genre, you have to make the story compelling through the vibrancy of the writing, not through gore or suspense. 

 

Another thing that bothered me is that the protagonist is static. There is no real growth or development, and she remains as passive at the end as at the beginning. Everything in the book happens to her, and she does little to actually make things happen. And even when she does, it is in response to other people, not her own initiative. 

 

There are a number of set pieces in the book that are interesting, but seem to have nothing to do with the rest of the book. They have no effect later, they aren’t referred to, and they seem there perhaps to be a scene in a movie or series. (Which is, unsurprisingly, what happened with this book.) 

 

Not all modern books are this way, of course, but I have run across a few that seem to have been written with the movie rights in mind. Thus, scenes that would play well on the screen are included, whether or not they make for a good narrative arc in a book. 

 

At the risk of spoilers, here are some of those scenes. Eilis is badly seasick on the trip over, and she is befriended by a more experienced woman in surviving. Hey, we have an interesting character! But then she is gone, and never referred to again. 

 

While taking night classes, she borrows books from a library, and the Jewish librarian is puzzled by her lack of knowledge about the war or the Holocaust. But this never goes anywhere. And her decision to overstudy on the legal cases is noted, but again, this never means anything. 

 

Oh, and there is a brief lesbian encounter (not really consensual and pretty icky), but what was the point? Since it was with her supervisor, shouldn’t there have been some fallout at work? Or some effect on Eilis’ psyche? 

 

But these would make interesting movie scenes - a bit of fan service perhaps. Sigh. 

 

And then there is the central plot point, one that I just don’t find appealing. Yep, she has to choose between two guys! Who saw that coming. Except that she never really chooses. Circumstances direct her, and it is difficult to imagine she has any genuine passion for either. 

 

We get hints of ideas that might have been interesting to explore. Tony is a plumber, and he may feel jealous of Eilis’ education. But that is never explored. We see the Irish/Italian cultural differences, but there is little we see of what the characters actually think or experience. Eilis’ classmates struggle with learning English in a way she does not, but this is mentioned but never examined. 

 

More than anything, I just felt like I couldn’t actually care about it. The only thing that really got into me enough to make me care was that I loathed Eilis’ mother. (For personal reasons.) Good old mom, essentially sucking Eilis’ sister dry, and when she dies, glomming onto Eilis and trying to drag her back in. At least in this case, the character was fleshed out enough to matter. 

 

I am sure that one of the problems with reading this book when I did was that I was just finishing up The Golem and the Jinni - another book that is all about the immigrant experience. It shares many of the same themes, and the same conflicts. And it is the better book in every way. Despite the main characters being, technically speaking, not human, they felt so much more real and relatable. 

 

It was just weird to have a book so surface, so glossy with no depth. The more I think about it, the more I feel like it wanted to be a screenplay, not a novel. The visuals would compensate for the lack of description, and the scenery-chewing would provide the missing emotional depth. In that sense, I suppose the author may have accomplished his purpose: he got his movie. 

 

But readers who tend to find a book to be better than the subsequent movie may very well find the book disappointing.

 

Our book club discussion of the book, on the other hand, was most excellent. 

 

Authoritarian Parenting: Outsourcing Your Morality

"It is not so easy as people think to be a free man. In truth, the only ones who assert that it is easy are those who have decided to forego freedom. For freedom is refused not because of its privileges, as some would have us believe, but because of its exhausting tasks...Liberty has sons who are not all legitimate or to be admired. Those who applaud it only when it justifies their privileges and shout nothing but censorship when it threatens them are not on our side...In short, all flee real responsibility, the effort of being consistent or of having an opinion of one's own, in order to take refuge in the parties or groups that will think for them, express their anger for them, and make their plans for them."

~ Albert Camus ("Homage to an Exile")

 

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery… For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself…But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”

~ Epistle to the Galatians

 

“Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”

~ Epistle to the Hebrews

 

***

 

Two Visions of Morality

 

There is an eternal battle in human society between two visions of morality. 

 

On the one hand, there is the authoritarian vision: those who have power determine morality for everyone else and exert control through rules. These people claim that God speaks through them, and that their power is proof of this. 

 

In the various writings of the New Testament, this vision is referred to as “The Law.” 

 

On the other hand, there is a vision that there is no mediator between God and people - there is no one authority that can speak for God or determine morality for the rest of us. Writers over time have used various words for this: Saint Paul used the term “Grace.” Later writers such as Camus would use the term “Freedom.” 

 

In this vision, each of us has the responsibility for our own morality. We choose it, and must defend it on its own terms, rather than shift blame to an authority or a rule or law. 

 

The first allows us to outsource our morality, to avoid responsibility for our beliefs and words and actions. The second places that responsibility firmly back on us, and we cannot evade that responsibility. As Camus notes, it is a heavy responsibility. As the unknown writer of Hebrews puts it, it takes constant use to train oneself in ethical thinking and behavior. Legalism and authoritarianism are the easy, lazy way out. 

 

***

 

The Historical Battle Between the Two Visions

 

Some of our greatest revolutions of the modern age were expressly concerned with this battle of ideas. 

 

When Martin Luther nailed his complaints about the Roman Church, he was challenging the outsourcing of morality to religious authorities. 

 

When various religious dissenters formed some of the original US colonies, they established freedom of religion, a concept that would eventually be enshrined in our constitution. This wasn’t just about religious observance per se, but about freedom of conscience - the right to own one’s own morality, rather than be forced to outsource it to religious authorities.

 

When the enslaved sought to free themselves, they did it in no small part to take responsibility for their own morality, rather than outsourcing it to their enslavers and the enslavement system. (Including having the choice of partners and the right to raise their children.) 

 

Our current Culture War battles are ultimately about the separation of authoritarian religion and state power - that is, the right of the rest of us to own our own morality, rather than outsource it to the authoritarians. 

 

***

 

Outsourcing Morality in the Family Context

 

For children growing up in homes that embraced Religious Authoritarian Parenting, morality was easy: “Children Obey Your Parents in the Lord.” 

 

Want to know what is right and wrong? Your parents will tell you. And whatever they tell you to do or not do is in fact right. Period. 

 

Sure, in theory there was an exception: you could disobey a command to commit a sin. But how did you know what was sinful? Well, your parents would tell you. 

 

And if they believed in Religious Authoritarian Parenting, then they also believed that the specific religious, cultural, and political beliefs of that subculture were God’s most perfect truth. To question the cult was to question God himself. As long as the parents are following the morality of the cult, then they would by definition be right, and the child wrong. 

 

To the child, the parents were, for all intents and purposes, God himself. 

 

For a child then, to challenge the beliefs of one’s parent was to sin. I remember being told plenty of times when I did protest, that I was too young and too immature to know better than them, so my job then and there was to simply cheerfully obey and let them worry about the morality of the decision. 

 

Similarly, a wife was not to attempt to formulate her own morality for herself - that was her husband’s job. She could, if he delegated the job to her, formulate the morality to be imposed on the children (and my mom did and continues to do that), but the responsibility for determining the family morality was vested in the man, not the woman. 

 

A woman could, in theory, refuse to commit a sin she was commanded to commit, but as with children, this was illusory: by definition if the husband were in good standing in the cult, then he was right, and she was wrong. In practice, a woman could only challenge a husband who was either an unbeliever or the “wrong” sort of Christian. (Meaning a non-believer, in practice.)

 

To the wife, her husband is, for all intents and purposes, God himself. 

 

But wait! The husband/father also outsourced his morality!

 

This could happen in a few ways. The man could be expected to submit to church leadership (pastor or elders or both.) He could also be expected to adopt the morality of a parachurch organization, like, say Focus on the Family. Or Bill Gothard. 

 

To the layperson, the religious authority is, for all intents and purposes, God himself.

 

The most indirect version of this was outsourcing morality to the ideology. This is mostly how it went for my parents. 

 

Our church history was pretty messy (I may talk about that in another post) for reasons that weren’t their fault, so particularly during their embrace of Gothard’s cult, there wasn’t really a consistent church authority. About the time I left home, they started drifting away from Gothard’s organization, but retained the general ideology - and indeed the ideology is far bigger than Gothard or any one person. 

 

The ideology itself is theopolitical - it is a marriage of religion and politics, with the politics driving the religion. 

 

The specifics of this theopolitical ideology are beyond the scope of this particular post, but I have discussed it all over this blog through the years: patriarchy, white supremacy, classism, anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry, xenophobia, and so on. It is all about maintaining historical hierarchies. (I hope to get into this in a future post.)

 

For those who outsource their morality to this theopolitical ideology, it becomes their idol - it is, for all intents and purposes, the voice of God himself. 

 

***

 

Outsourcing Morality to an Ideology is Still Outsourcing Morality to Other Humans

 

The lure of outsourcing morality to an ideology is obvious: because it isn’t exactly an identifiable human being, it is easy to think of it as somehow above human nature. 

 

“Hey, don’t blame me! I’m just following [my religion, God, the Bible or other holy book…]”

But it is really just outsourcing morality to other humans. 

 

At best, outsourcing morality by claiming to “just follow the Bible” is to outsource morality to humans who have been dead for over 1000 years. 

 

But of course, it isn’t just them. 

 

As I discussed in this post, there are at least five layers of humanity involved in our interpretations of scripture. And that includes the modern-day humans who invented most of the specific Modern American Conservative Evangelical doctrines and practice. (Hat tip to my friend D.N. for that term.)

 

Outsourcing morality to ideology like this simply complicates the chain of humans, but it doesn’t eliminate it. The result is still the same: rather than owning one’s morality, taking responsibility for it, and defending it just like any other belief, outsourcing allows you to avoid responsibility for beliefs and actions, blaming someone else. 

 

Or, to use a modern example: “I was just following orders.”

 The Nuremburg Trials, where the Nazis tried this defense - which is now called the Nuremburg Defense.

***

 

The Reason Authoritarians Outsource Morality is to Convince People to Commit Evil

 

In the last post, I noted that the perfect concentration camp guard is the one who gives instant, cheerful, unquestioning obedience to an authority. 

 

The point of authoritarianism’s outsourcing of morality is to remove the natural (and in the view of some of us, God-given) checks on evil behavior. 

 

Specifically, authoritarianism demands you ignore your intellect, your experience, and even your conscience. And forget about empathy: empathy is actually a sin according to authoritarians. 

 

Rather, morality is simply obeying your authority - “I was just following orders.”

 

While most of us haven’t (yet) been expected to support concentration camps and ethnic cleansing (although Trump has called for them), many of us have been expected to put aside our own consciences and sense of morality by outsourcing them to our parents. 

 

Just some of my own examples:

Music

 

I briefly pushed back on Gothard’s teachings on music on the grounds that they were racist as hell - and they are - but got pretty thoroughly slapped down by my parents. After trying to believe their beliefs for a while, I gave up and just didn't talk about it anymore. But rejecting the cultural contributions of African Americans is straight-up racist. And it is wrong.

Misogyny

 

One of the biggest fights with my parents as an adult has been over gender roles. I refused to even ask my wife to quit her job and be a stay-at-home mom, because I do not believe that is moral. My mom in particular demanded that my wife and I outsource our morality on this issue to her. You can add in toxic beliefs about female bodies and a number of other issues, where we were expected to obey my parents rather than think for ourselves. We had the audacity to take responsibility for our own morality - and when we did, we realized we could most certainly not agree with my parents. 

Anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry

 

I have talked a lot about this since we left organized religion, and no longer have to keep our mouths shut about this. After our former pastor demanded that we all refuse to let empathy get in the way of ideology, I knew I could no longer even pretend to be anything other than affirming. 

 

This is, in my opinion, one of the great moral issues of our time, and, like slavery before it, conservative religion is utterly failing the moral test. (The biggest, however, is Trump - and evangelicals are utterly failing this moral test, exactly for the reasons I note in this post: he represents to them “legitimate” authority, as well as a way to outsource their immoral politics rather than own them.) 

 

This is an area of morality that I now refuse to outsource to any person or ideology. Particularly not an ideology deeply rooted in a misogynistic view of women and sexuality. I see no reason I should have to ignore my intellect, my empathy, and my conscience just because a bunch of ancient people who thought men could freely rape their slaves had an issue with gay sex. 

 

Racism and Xenophobia

 

My relationship with my father began to disintegrate rapidly the moment I started calling him out on his racist politics. A particularly shocking moment is when he dropped the appalling comment, “I don’t like Trump’s style, but at least he is finally doing something about the Hispanic problem.” I tried to walk away in disgust, and he dug out a psychological technique he used on me since childhood, demanding that I look him in the eye and continue to engage. For the first time in my life, I refused to be cowed, and pushed back. And later went public with that statement since there was no repentance on his part. 

 

Because I did so, my parents cut me out of their lives. As it turns out, I was expected to outsource that part of my morality to them rather than think for myself and, well, talk back, rather than instantly, cheerfully, and unquestioningly concur. (This is the reason they gave, but there are others, in my opinion: when my kid came out as transgender, they didn’t want any pushback on their bigotry from me; and I made official my decision that I would no longer engage with my narcissist sister, and since they are her narcissistic supply…take a guess how that went.)

 

It is fascinating to me that being opposed to gay sex and refusing to acknowledge that sex and gender are complicated has become the big litmus test for “true Christianity” while issues that can be found in the Torah, the Prophets, the teachings of Christ, and the Epistles such as welcoming the immigrant are so easily abandoned. 

 

The thing that makes me saddest about all this is that my parents taught me good moral values back in the day. 

 

I learned that one must oppose racism in all its forms, including systemic racism. I was taught that embracing immigrants and refugees was not merely a core American value, but a core Christian one. 

 

I was taught that God valued women for far more than their reproductive systems - and that unmarried or childless women were equally valuable to God and society. 

 

I was taught to live in peace with our LGBTQ+ neighbors - who are some of my earliest memories. 

 

I was taught that math and science were important, not conspiracies against truth. I was taught critical thinking and the importance of questioning authority. 

 

Until.

 

At some point, my parents outsourced their morality. Not just to a church, but to certain influential leaders. And also to a political party and its propaganda wing. 

 

Over time, their beliefs and values and actions changed dramatically, until many were the polar opposite of what they taught me. 

 

It wasn’t that the Bible changed. Or that they had some intellectual epiphany. Nope.

 

What changed was that their religious tribe increasingly embraced reactionary politics. These days, the easiest way to predict their beliefs is to scroll through the Fox News headlines. Or to look at what the latest xenophobic hate charlatans like notorious sodomite James Dobson (one of the OG Authoritarian Parenting gurus) are spewing. 

 

When they decided to outsource their morality to this toxic combination of religious leaders and political movements, they surrendered their ability to think for themselves and act morally. To quote Camus again:

 

“In short, all flee real responsibility, the effort of being consistent or of having an opinion of one's own, in order to take refuge in the parties or groups that will think for them, express their anger for them, and make their plans for them."

 

***

 

Outsourcing Morality Prevents Proper Moral Development

 

There are a number of different frameworks that psychologists and philosophers have created to describe healthy moral development in humans. I think one of the simplest is particularly helpful in understanding why authoritarian thinking stunts moral growth. 

 

Our earliest form of morality is that of authority. We as toddlers obey our parents because they give us rules to follow. At a time when human children are differentiating themselves from their parents and others, it is normal to push against these rules and find a degree of separation. 

 

This isn’t evil, but it is normal human development. That doesn’t mean rules are bad, but pushing against them isn’t bad either. 

 

Next comes empathy. Having separated from other humans and developed a healthy sense of self, a child has to shed their normal infantile narcissism and come to see other humans as existing as themselves, not merely in relation to the child. In this phase of development, it is healthy to grow to understand the feelings and inner life of others. 

 

Finally, as we grow into adulthood, we learn to synthesize empathy and intellect and understand how the rules we humans create serve the needs of society and peace among humans. At this stage, we can question whether the rules we have actually serve these needs, or if they merely enable the powerful to oppress the weak. We can then formulate a true ethical framework that leads to improvement in our morality and can indeed lead to the creation of a better world. 

 

Religious Authoritarian Parenting seeks to skip the middle phase, cutting empathy out of the equation. 

 

Instead, rules and authority are seen as the sole basis of morality - obey your parents and approved authorities and you are doing right. 

 

To the limited extent adults are permitted to exercise the third phase, they are to do so without empathy, and merely look to extrapolate the same rules into new and increasingly legalistic and cruel forms. 

 

***

 

Growing Up Under Religious Authoritarian Parenting

 

All of us who grew up under Religious Authoritarian Parenting know some of the epithets directed at us. Particularly for children like the boy I was, who wouldn’t entirely bend under the demands of authority. 

 

“Strong Willed” - James Dobson literally wrote a whole book directed at us, and how a parent could more effectively break our wills. My parents gave me this book when we had children. I made sure it ended up in a landfill rather than in a used bookstore where it could lead to child abuse.

 

“Independent Spirit” - There is nothing worse a child could be called than this, at least within the Gothard system. Having an independent spirit was the equivalent of being a Satan worshiper - it was an utter rejection of God. I was regularly accused of this.

 

“Self-Governed” - a friend recently mentioned that their father considered this the worst thing a child could be. Nothing could be more “despicable or hell-worthy.”

 

Think about those terms. 

 

Why the hell is it a bad thing to have a strong will? - which is nothing more or less than a strong sense of self, and confidence in one’s own conscience and ability to think. 

 

What on earth is wrong with having an independent spirit? - self-reliance is practically an American given, sometimes to a pathological level, of course. But isn’t the goal for all of us to be able to think for ourselves, to function as adults rather than dependent children? 

 

And aren’t people who fail to become able to govern themselves rather dangerous and pathological? I mean, self-control is literally one of the Fruit of the Spirit, and a crucial and necessary part of developing into a healthy human. 

 

This gives the whole game away, doesn’t it?

 

The point is as I have stated: to create humans who outsource their morality rather than learn to distinguish right from wrong on their own. 

 

Again: to create human robots that psychopathic leaders can exploit and use as their minions to do evil. “I was just following orders.” That’s really all it is. 

 

***

 

My Parents’ Devolution

 

As I noted above, my parents’ devolution was gradual - their parenting gradually became less nurturing and more authoritarian as I got older - which is the opposite of how it should have been. “Because I said so” is literally necessary sometimes when dealing with an irrational toddler. But it is rarely if ever appropriate for teens. At that point, you either convince your child using logic and empathy and ethics….or they are going to just go behind your back as soon as they are able. 

 

What my parents don’t really realize about me is just how incredibly hard I tried to follow the rules, to subordinate my will to them, and so on. I really did. I even said things I didn’t (deep down) believe, to both make them happy and to try to convince myself they were right. 

 

But I never really could outsource my morality. My sense of justice, of ethics, and of empathy was too strong. Yes, I had my embarrassing Rush Limbaugh phase, and I continued in Evangelicalism until age 40 - I’m not going to claim that I always got it right - but as an adult, I chose to own my own beliefs, to refuse to outsource my morality, and to listen to my own reason and conscience. If I was wrong, I was going to be wrong because I chose it, rather than put the blame for my bad choices on someone or something else. 

 

As an adult - one who is rapidly approaching a half century old - it has come to pass that my conflicts with my parents didn’t end when I grew up, but have instead increased to the point where estrangement has resulted. 

 

And each and every one of our conflicts has, at its core, been about morality - and who has the power to determine morality. Do I (and my wife and kids) have the power and right to determine my own morality in light of my own intellect and conscience? Or must I subordinate my morality to my parents and the “authorities” they follow? Will I and my family be free to live our lives as our consciences lead us, without harassment, disapproval, and estrangement? Or is love and approval conditioned on our being clones – religious, cultural, and especially political – of my parents?

 

As I noted above, these questions found application in the core areas of my life, such as how my wife and I divided up necessary duties such as breadwinning, childcare, and housework; how we chose to raise our children; whether we accepted our LGBTQ+ children at all; and whether we had to tolerate bigoted and hateful opinions directed against our fellow human beings without protest. 

 

As it turns out, my parents utterly failed at breaking my will, and causing me to outsource my morality to them or anyone else. I will not bend the knee, and I refuse to submit again to slavery. I will work out through constant practice the moral and ethical issues that face me. 

 

And I will center “Love Your Neighbor As Yourself” as the center of Christian - and indeed moral - practice. 

 

***

 

The Grave Responsibility of Grace and Freedom

 

As Camus and Saint Paul understood, Grace and Freedom are not easy. To take responsibility for one’s own beliefs and actions is the essence of being a fully mature and ethical human being. 

 

To hide behind the law, to hide behind rules, to hide behind authority - that is easy. It takes no thought, it asks no empathy, and it requires no responsibility. 

 

It is also feels so very safe and comforting. To never have grave self-doubt, to never wonder whether you picked good or evil in a given situation, to never worry that you might be held accountable for your choices. Outsourcing your morality creates the cozy illusion that you can't possibly be wrong - you just believed what those who spoke for God told you.  

I know this is one reason my parents were so drawn to authoritarian religion. This promise of certainty, of rightness. All they had to do was obey and believe, and everything would work out for them.

 

But to say, “I believe this because I chose to” is to accept the responsibility to make sure that your beliefs are good and not evil. It is to acknowledge that if your beliefs are damaging others, then you are to blame. Not God. Not your parents. Not your religion. Not your political ideology. You. 

 

If you choose to believe that women should be relegated to the home, and denied full political, social, and economic equality, own it. Don’t blame God for that. You chose to believe that. Just admit you don’t think women are fully human and thus don’t have the right to choose their own lives.

 

If you choose to believe that we should persecute and marginalize LGBTQ+ people, own it. Don’t blame God for that. You chose to believe that. Just admit you hate them and want to harm them. 

 

If you choose to believe that people of different ethnicities should be left to starve outside our borders, own it. Don’t make up shit to deflect from your own selfishness. And don’t claim Christ taught that shit. You chose to believe that. Just admit you don’t give a rat’s ass about their well being. 

 

Only once we stop outsourcing our morality, and start taking responsibility for it, can we actually have a truthful and productive discourse about how to balance the needs of a diverse humanity, and truly love our neighbors - ALL of them. Even if they don't believe the same as you, or agree to outsource their morality to the same authorities.

 

The Goal of Religious Authoritarian Parenting

 The goal of Religious Authoritarian Parenting:

 

To break and destroy the will of a child so that it will be instantly, unquestioningly, and cheerfully obedient to the commands of a parent or other approved authority.

 

***

 

I have thought about how to start this explanation, and decided I needed to clear up some of the confusion regarding terms. The reason for this is that, like pretty much everything connected to the Right Wing generally, and to Fundamentalist religion specifically, the language is not used for the purpose of truth, but for obfuscation: to hide in euphemism what is really meant, intended, and carried out.

 

Just like the truth that if the Right Wing’s political goals were openly stated, most humans would hate and reject them, if the goals and techniques of Religious Authoritarian Parenting were truthfully stated, they would be recognized as abusive, cruel, and evil. So we have to use language to hide the truth, and twist evil into good and cruelty into kindness. 

 

Because of this, book after book has been written laying out some program of child training, using a fire-hose of words to obscure the central point: that the goal is to force one human being to unquestioningly obey another. 

 

Let’s look at some of these falsehoods one at a time.

 

***

 

I will use “Authoritarian” throughout this discussion, but I do want to emphasize that while authoritarian parenting can exist outside of the religious context, it is primarily a phenomenon in our own time within conservative religious subcultures. My own experience of it was within that subculture, as promoted by three men who greatly influenced my parents: James Dobson, Bill Gothard, and John MacArthur. There are others, but these three are always at the top of any list. 

 

***

 

“This parenting method isn’t authoritarian, it is authoritative.”

 

I heard that one so much as a child, and I can tell you, it is bullshit. Of course the parenting method is authoritarian. In fact, “authoritative” is mostly a misnomer, used because it sounds better and more scientific than “authoritarian.” 

 

Here is how I have heard the difference described in religious circles:

Authoritarian is “high structure” combined with “low warmth” while Authoritative is “high structure” combined with “high warmth.” 

 

This is, as I stated above, misleading.

 

First, authoritarianism really isn’t about “structure.” Plenty of non-authoritarian parents provide lots of structure for their kids. In fact, some probably over-schedule a child’s day, leaving them little time for free play. As an orchestra geek, I grew up around many of these kids, and I can tell you that, whatever the weaknesses of this approach, it wasn’t synonymous with authoritarian parenting. 

 

Second, I also have known parents who were highly authoritarian - and even openly abusive - who were terrible about providing structure. If the focus is on obedience, it is actually more “effective” for life to be unstructured - that way the parent can be arbitrary and unpredictable, yet insist on instant obedience from the child. 

 

Third, this idea of “warmth” is a kind of euphemism in itself. Whether a parent is distant or smothering has little to do with authoritarianism - one can demand obedience either way. 

 

For that matter, the “we hit you because we love you” is such festering horseshit that I don’t even want to dignify it with a discussion. The cold-blooded beating because God wants it is actually worse than the “I got frustrated and did what I learned as a child” kind. 

Authoritative parenting is strict, while other parenting is permissive.

 

This misses the point altogether. Believe it or not, the children of nurturing parents have to do their homework and chores too. You don’t have to be authoritarian to have expectations, and having expectations does not make you authoritarian. 

 

Likewise, “permissive” is a misused term here. Of course we all know parents who, for reasons that usually go beyond their intentions, let children run amok. The confluence of poverty and parenting is beyond the discussion of this post. 

 

But let’s think with a bit more nuance here. The real issue is what freedoms children are allowed to have, and these should be appropriate for their ages and development levels. Just like responsibility should be. 

 

An example here might be that small children do not get to eat candy all day instead of healthy food, right? But that doesn’t mean having a battle over every meal, until the child learns to obey without questioning. In my household, we took the kids shopping practically from birth, and as soon as they were able to express preferences, we had them pick out vegetables and plan meals. These days, they each plan and cook one dinner a week - and I can tell you each kid has totally different favorites. 

 

Some would call that parenting permissive, perhaps? Yet others might be shocked that we expect that much from our kids. 

 

Again, this isn’t about authoritarian parenting - because it doesn’t require breaking a child’s will and demanding instant, unquestioning, and cheerful obedience. 

 

“The choices are between authoritarian/authoritative parenting and chaos.”

 

Again, this is not true. Plenty of authoritarian families roil with chaos. And plenty of nurturing families run smoothly. It isn’t an either or. 

 

“Kids need to experience consequences.”

 

Sure. And so do adults. But that isn’t the point here, is it?

 

Consequences for what? And do we really believe this? Part of parenting is in fact sheltering children from consequences, until they develop enough to be responsible for themselves. 

 

When my kids were very small, I made sure they couldn’t touch hot objects. Okay, I tried. One of our kids tripped and burned their hand pretty well on one of those old built-in heaters. 

 

To say that the burn was a “consequence” of their running indoors when they probably were warned not to is both true, and also stupid. It was an unfortunate accident, and not really the kid’s fault at that stage of development - they were a toddler and did what toddlers do. So we try to protect our kids in that sense.

 

As they get older, they experience more consequences for decisions, and learn to weigh these in determining their choice of action. 

 

But the authoritarian parenting project isn’t about these natural consequences. They are about a parent imposing artificial consequences for failure to instantly, unquestioningly, and cheerfully obey a parent. 

 

Those aren’t natural consequences, they are artificial, and are all too often arbitrary. I personally can attest that I often had punishment imposed on me because I pushed back against arbitrary decisions I disagreed with, because to do so was not “obedience.” 

 

As an adult, my parents could no longer impose that kind of consequence when I disobeyed - although they did continue to wield disapproval and shaming. Ironically, the natural consequences of doing so included them losing relationships, and it turns out that they really didn’t like those natural consequences at all. Silly kids, consequences are for you, not your parents.

 

***

 

So back to the actual goal, as I stated above, because the goal is the core issue, and also the actual problem.  

 

It isn’t really about raising children to be able to function in society, to behave well toward their fellow humans, or any of the other things that are sometimes claimed. These are things that nurturing parents do too! Every parent wants their kids to be functional, and most want their kids to be empathetic and well socialized. (Again, ironic that the same people pushing authoritarian parenting are now also railing against “the sin of empathy.”) 

 

The goal of authoritarian parenting is obedience.

 

It is about subordinating the will - and indeed personhood - of a child to its parents. (And later to other approved authority figures. I intend to talk about that in a future installment.) 

 

Thus, when there is a parent-child conflict - and of course there always will be: we are humans and that is how we are - authoritarian parenting makes it a power struggle that must always be won by the parent. Might makes right. 

 

So, if a child protests what it sees as an unjust expectation, the only issue to be resolved is whether the child will obey or not. And it will, given enough application of force, violence, or psychological manipulation. After all, children are relatively powerless compared to adults. 

 

Keep in mind the rest of the goal. The child is to obey, but also to do so without questioning or protest. This one got me in plenty of trouble as a kid, and even more so as a teen. I have always questioned authority, and will speak up if I disagree. (So do my kids, by the way.) 

 

And also to do so cheerfully - so no visible inner protest either. 

 

The goal is thus a complete subordination. The child does not matter as a human being, but is seen completely as a subordinate. 

 

The child is no longer to have a will of its own, but only seek to do what the parent commands. 

 

Does any of this sound familiar in other contexts? 

 

For example, what about our history of enslavement? Wasn’t the goal of that as well to have instant, unquestioning, and cheerful obedience? Yes. Yes it was.

 

It is also the goal of the military, which is perhaps necessary to get humans to work together to die and kill for a certain goal. (Perhaps also why early Christianity and my own anabaptist family roots got in trouble for refusing to kill for country…) But a family is not an army, and even soldiers get to go home at the end of their enlistment. 

 

In the case of religious authoritarian parenting, this goes even further: children are seen as naturally evil, and can only be made good by training them to obey. I could write a whole post on this - and might - because it is demonstrably a lie, and is the root of so much trauma for children. 

 

The bottom line: a child is expected to surrender their will, their personhood, to their parents, and eventually to other approved authorities. 

 

***

 

One more thing I wanted to debunk here, and that is the idea that the argument is about the means of parenting. 

 

For example, much has been said about the desirability and effectiveness of corporal punishment. The subculture I was raised in believed that children who were not spanked would grow up rotten, for example, while secular experts have disputed this - and shown evidence to the contrary. 

 

But I think this too is to miss the point. I am reminded of how the kids in the Great Brain books I read as a child felt that spanking would have been preferable to the silent treatment method used by their parents. And I kind of agree with that. 

 

Here is why: While I do not feel that corporal punishment was particularly effective on me, the authoritarian methods that fucked me up far more were the psychological ones: the teaching that God speaks to children through their parents, that the authority structure was God’s will for the family and society, that disobedience (including talking back) opened a child’s soul to Satan, that children were inherently sinful (aka evil) and were in a constant battle for power with their parents, and so on.

 

Particularly the “if you do not obey us, you are inviting Satan into your heart” one. For a child who was so eager to be loved by his parents, and who felt drawn to God, this was devastating. It meant that increasingly as I grew up, I had to choose between my own vision for my life and being what my parents demanded. 

 

As it turned out, I ended up sacrificing several things I should never have been expected to sacrifice - and things I would not sacrifice again if given the chance. Those will be the subject of a future post. 

 

The key thing here, then, is not the means - although means matter. 

 

If the end sought is bad and evil and cruel, the means will by definition be bad and evil and cruel as well.

 

The fundamental, unsolvable problem is that the GOAL of authoritarian parenting is irredeemable. No matter how careful, no matter how thoughtful, no matter how ostensibly “loving” the means are, the goal will always be evil and unredeemable. 

 

Breaking the will of another human being is wrong.

 

Full. Stop. 

 

It is wrong, it is evil, and it is cruel. You cannot make it otherwise, so any means to that end will by definition and inevitability be wrong, evil, and cruel as well. 

 

Because breaking the will of another human being is an inherently abusive project. It just is. 

 

Thus, every method for accomplishing this abusive goal is going to be abusive. 

 

Again, as I noted earlier in this post, breaking the will is different from having expectations, structure, or consequences. The overwhelming majority of parents, whether good or bad or indifferent, have expectations and structure, and allow consequences. But only authoritarian parents attempt to break the will of a child. 

 

***

 

What is the point of Religious Authoritarian Parenting?

 

It really is two-fold. 

 

First, parents are promised by the religious charlatans that promote authoritarian parenting that if they just follow the formula, then their children will turn out to be religious, cultural, and political clones of themselves. 

 

And not only that, their children will love and adore…and obey them forever. It’s a win all around!

 

Except, of course, that it isn’t. The promises are just snake oil, and what is really left afterward is a legacy of broken and damaged relationships, resentment, and all too often estrangement. 

 

The second goal is the creation of a theocratic authoritarian society, one organized based on hierarchies with white males at the top. I hope to explore this in a future post. Until then, consider this: 

 

Isn’t the ideal concentration camp guard the one who is conditioned to give instant, unquestioning, cheerful obedience to an authority figure? 

 

***

 

One final thought: A good way to determine if parenting is authoritarian is to look at what happens as a child grows into teenhood, and then adulthood. 

 

Does the expectation of obedience diminish as the child matures? Or does it continue, and even double down?

 

For Bill Gothard, a child was only to be given “freedom” to make their own decisions as they demonstrated that they would make the same decision as their parent. 

 

Note that it wasn’t that they showed good judgment, critical thinking, empathy, ethics, or anything else: the key was that they would anticipate what the parent would do, and do that exactly. 

 

This is known in psychology circles as “Bounded Choice,” and it is the illusion that one can chart one’s own path. All of us who grew up in religious authoritarian homes have experienced this. We could make “any choice we wanted” as long as it was the one “God wants you to make.”

 

Which meant the one that our parents and the charlatans they followed said God wanted. 

 

Once upon a time, I naively thought that when I became an adult, and moved out, I would be allowed to make my own choices, and that my parents would continue to give me love and approval, even if my choices weren’t the same as the ones they made. (Assuming, of course, that I wasn’t doing illegal or immoral stuff.) 

 

That was not the case. It turned out that “moral” and “what we would do” were, in their minds (particularly my mom’s), the exact same thing. God wanted what they preferred. His mind was exactly the same as theirs, by some amazing coincidence. 

 

And it didn’t just apply to me: it applied to my wife and kids too. They were expected to dutifully do things their way, always. This led, inevitably, to unnecessary and stupid fights over how I chose to live my life and raise my kids. 

 

I’m getting all too close to age 50 these days, and yet, this is still going on. 

 

While I am estranged from my parents, my mom still sends me a birthday e-mail each year. This year, she decided to make a reference to the Last Judgment and express her wish that I would “walk in truth.” A not-so-subtle way of saying that she thinks I am going to hell because I do things differently from the way she thinks I should. Isn’t that lovely? But don’t you know, she really just loves me and wants me to go to heaven…

 

That’s life with religious authoritarian parents for you. 

 

In this case, it is pretty clear that a significant issue for her is my acceptance of my LGBTQ kids. Whose existence she blames on my wife working outside the home rather than demonstrating proper gender roles. By being affirming, I am not “walking in truth,” and am thus bound for hell. Well, okay then…as Huck Finn said, I’m choosing hell. 

 

In my previous post on Religious Authoritarian Parenting, I noted that I believe that a significant driver of parent-child estrangement is this very thing. 

 

It turns out that it really isn’t easy to break the will of a child (or an enslaved person for that matter.) Humans tend to turn out to retain their humanity even after decades of attempts to turn them into cheerfully and unquestioningly compliant foot soldiers. 

 

Instead, humans are going to human. And that means that culture is never static - it is always in constant change. No parent ever is going to have kids that are religious, cultural, and political clones of themselves. No parent ever. 

 

I have to wonder, considering how differently my parents chose to live their lives from their own parents, why they thought that with just the right authoritarian parenting formula, we would turn out to be clones of them? 

 

Perhaps it was that the religious charlatans pushing this shit were able to convince them that there is only one way to live one’s life - only one that God approved of - and that therefore the way they did things was the only acceptable way. 

 

And that the only acceptable way to exist is as a white-culture cishet middle class patriarchal American expressing the culture of the 1950s. Or was it the 1850s? I’m not entirely sure, but definitely somewhere back in an imaginary past. Whatever the case, that way never worked for me or my family, and neither it nor my way will work for my kids. 

 

Ultimately, it just makes me achingly sad that a relationship that could be beautiful between a parent and child is reduced to a power struggle that a parent must win, and win by destroying a child’s will. What a bloody stupid waste.