Envy and Violence

We want to clarify how to raise a happy generation. I'm very interested in the topic of envy. When we expect a child to act for the benefit of society, we often encounter manifestations of envy. If one child receives something, another one wants it too. Even between the ages of six and nine this is very pronounced. Each one tries to stand out, to earn recognition. Studies show that it's enough for a teacher to say a word of approval to a child who is dissatisfied with himself in order to help him lift his spirits. And the reverse is also true. When a teacher pays no attention to a child, doesn't encourage him, doesn't single him out, the child quickly loses his sense of confidence, his ability to act and to learn. How do we deal with envy?

Upbringing is a complex science. It's complex because understanding it is built on combining two opposite phenomena. On one hand, there is individual development; on the other, social, collective development. These goals are at times opposed to each other. On one hand, I am like everyone else and want to be united with everyone, standing out in no way. Society is the main thing for me, and I will serve it not in order to gain some benefit or out of a desire to use people, but from a pure heart. I care about society the way an adult cares about children. On the other hand, there must be personal development, which happens by way of envy, the passion for honor and fame, as well as hatred — all of our individualistic and even cruel impulses. Of course, everything depends on how these manifestations are used, but they are all present.

Since the problem really does exist, let's examine each aspect separately, and then find out how to combine them together, since that is the hardest part. First of all, when working on the development of a child or even an adult, it is forbidden to "erase" anything in his nature. His inclinations must be used in the most optimal way. By "optimal" we mean the absence of any contradiction between personal and public benefit.

If there is such a clash, it means that you, as the organizer of the learning process, as a sociologist and researcher, are approaching the matter incorrectly. And we must know how to bring society and the individual to a good state, one that is harmonious between them.

But envy has its own role, just as honor does. They don't exist for nothing.

And how would we develop without them? But let envy, the passion for honor and fame, push me in my individual development toward becoming an active, useful part of society, able to advance it toward equality, toward harmony, toward unity. At the same time, let each person stand out in something unique to him alone, for only he can give this to society, and no one else.

The question is how to achieve this. That envy can be positive I do understand.

A combination of different things is needed. Perfection is formed by the joining of opposite elements. Just as in our body, some parts work on absorption, others on excretion, contraction, or relaxation. The systems are different and opposite, but a law of harmony operates between them, in accordance with which they act for the sake of one goal — life. In the same way we too must rise above personal interest. I will want to be the best, the strongest, but in order to bestow upon society, so that it succeeds, because otherwise I simply don't exist.

From what you're saying, one can draw a method for working with children: constantly show them examples where several parts form a whole that is better than the separate elements composing it. But what do we do with the desire to be the best? It is in us by nature.

And let it be! But I use it for the benefit of the whole of society. I don't suppress others; rather, I try to find such a connection that I can rejoice from being together with them. And then the common happiness will become a pleasure for me. It's a great achievement for a child or for an adult to understand that otherwise he destroys society, and along with that he himself perishes.

How do we realize this in society?

With children it's simple to do, because they can be brought up in this direction. The habit will become second nature, and you'll see that afterward they won't be able to behave any other way.

The science of upbringing says that nothing in a person may be destroyed. The various inclinations, the manifestations of envy, hatred, passion, the desire for honor and power, must be allowed to develop — only in the right direction. If you're going to rule, rule over yourself; if you're going to hate — what exactly do you want to hate in yourself? How does passion control you, to what extent do you remain human? What is wrong with honor? If I don't respect myself and don't want to be respected, then I will have no connection with society.

But how do we turn this in the right direction?

Everything depends on what kind of respect a person seeks, what he is respected for, and by whom exactly. If you use all of a person's human inclinations, you literally control the child, you make of him whatever you want. You can prepare him for anything.

For instance, giving a prize to whoever does good deeds at school or at home. In this way we use his striving for respect, but instead of being first, let him be the kindest or the one who helps others the most.

I still believe that nothing should happen "behind the scenes," where the educator acts "on the sly" and performs some manipulations with the children. On the contrary, he must raise the question for clarification.

A frank conversation?

Yes. A frank conversation with the children, with the aim of showing them how subject they are to their inclinations, and how capable they are of directing their use from evil to good and vice versa. To demonstrate to the child that he can, on one hand, subordinate his own qualities to himself, and on the other hand, how much these qualities rule over him.

In essence, what is being proposed is a kind of separation that in psychology is called "working with parts" and "stepping outside of oneself." We tell the child: your anger is not all of you. There are other components in you as well. If you look at your anger from the outside, if you understand what it drives you toward, you'll be able to control it. Use it, but only correctly.

Does "correctly" mean for the benefit of society?

Ultimately, yes, because the well-being of society guarantees my success. We must show this to the child, and it depends on how we build his environment, because we are the ones who do that. Whether he wants to or not, he is within it. If we build the environment for the child in such a way that it demonstrates to him the standards accepted within it and, in accordance with them, evaluates the child, then the child has no choice. He will want to meet these standards and to earn the recognition of society.

So it turns out that society must be based on the principle of "not at the expense of another"? To do nothing at the expense of another, otherwise we destroy everything.

Yes, and then any criticism or question that the children clarify among themselves in order to reach a decision — with the help of the educator, of course — will be subject to this rule.

And what do we do if it doesn't work out that way? If a child uses force, gets into fights? Today, in an ordinary school, violence is one of the most serious problems. Children come to school with means of self-defense. They're afraid that, without the ability to protect themselves, they risk their physical safety. Or the opposite — a child strives to demonstrate his power over the others, intimidates the other children. Today we're facing real criminality. The question is, how do we help? Suppose an incident of violence occurred: someone got into a fight with someone, caused pain. What do we do in such a situation? Do we organize a discussion on the spot, or do we wait a few days?

We must solve the problem comprehensively. Upbringing has no right to give temporary solutions; it doesn't administer "local injections." Either we correct it or we don't — we cannot do it halfway. It's impossible to remain in one's egoism and hope for better times. That's why it is necessary to draw up a program and act in accordance with it: together with the parents, the children, and the entire school collective. First of all, we must prepare the teachers and parents for the new integral upbringing. Both in the classroom and at home, the child must be raised according to the same principles and values. He shouldn't hear one thing from the teacher and another thing at home. Everything must be unified: not two different environments, but one homogeneous environment, which we must take care of.

In carrying out this process, we move gradually. Even when a child is working on his nature, sometimes it breaks through to the surface.

And it's very good that it breaks through, because the child learns from this. It will be wonderful if every second we discover obstacles along the way. We can discuss them, learn from this material, draw conclusions, work in the classroom. Each one writes down what he saw, why it happened this way and not another. Each one must become his own psychologist.

This is genuine emotional labor.

Of course! He has to grow up to be a human being, a personality. And how else will he become a proper, useful element of society?

So we tell the children: it's good that you quarreled, now let's talk about it, analyze it? You suddenly fell to the level of animals and beasts; let's look at how this happens in nature. And then ask a leading question: are they similar to us? Is such a discussion better conducted at the very moment the event occurred, or later?

We can talk about the event later only in the case where the children remember what happened and are able to grasp it after time has passed. And only at a certain age, when the child is able to understand the connection between events.

So, as soon as the incident occurs, do we immediately show some nature film and begin discussing why it happened, even if the child isn't ready to take it in? After all, he's usually in a storm of emotions: he hit someone or was hit himself.

It's precisely after big outbursts of emotion that a child calms down quickly. But he is the least inclined to discuss it. He would very much like to forget about what happened. He's ready to accept and bear a punishment and move on. But to talk about what happened to him, and how to correct it, he does not wish. And I suppose that one of the aspects of your proposal is to turn the incident into material for discussion.

Let them spend half a day at school working through what happened.

A child won't misbehave simply because he won't want to spend half a day afterward working through it!

That is exactly what is called upbringing. That's how we build a person.

Often violence among children is caused by the examples they get through television or the Internet.

I've already said that a child must be surrounded by a homogeneous environment. It's unacceptable for him to watch television programs at home that carry information deviating from the direction we've chosen. And I observe a very alarming picture: violence, prostitution, drugs, terrible models of behavior. All of this has already lost its sharpness — we don't pay attention to it. Nevertheless, it continues to be broadcast, and naturally, a person is shaped in accordance with what he sees.

What you're saying coincides with psychological approaches asserting that the more violence there is in films, the worse it is for us. But there's also the opposite view: why not show children everything? Let them learn how one shouldn't behave.

It doesn't work that way.

There's an opinion that if we hide children in a "greenhouse" and don't let them find out what real life is, then, when they encounter it, a blow awaits them.

If we one day stop all of this and begin raising children differently through the TV channels, at school, and at home, what's wrong with that? And what are we doing instead? We're showing a human society that has sunk to brutality and puts it on display. Even in real life the things they show us in films don't happen. It turns out that we want to increase violence even more, to make it the norm of life.

Do you think these children won't be successful in life afterward?

They won't know how to fight.

They don't need to fight. Why do you assume that the one who knows how to fight achieves success? Show me such examples!

I don't know how successful a child will be, but at the very least he'll be able to answer war with war.

Answer? No one wins from that! No one is better off for it.

It goes without saying that both sides suffer losses in the process.

No one wins! When we prepare a child to go out into life, we teach him not to become a hooligan and a thug. If you're attacked, walk away, run. Be kind to people, gentle, responsive. Why don't we tell him: take a knife, a stick, arm yourself? Because subconsciously we understand that real safety is possible when a person behaves well. That always guarantees greater safety. In this way we don't draw fire upon ourselves. That's why we mustn't teach a child aggression.

Let's sum up. We spoke about how to properly use our inclinations: not to fight against them, but to direct them into the right channel — for the benefit of society and not of oneself. This small correction will change society. We spoke about violence. If an incident of violence occurs, it's necessary to stop it on the spot and discuss what happened to them. Each one will see that the "beast" sitting inside him has broken out. Let's not forget that the right attitude toward society — with love for it — is capable of giving a child the confidence he lacks.