No Confusion

By DAPHNE LEE

From Tots to Teens, StarMag

PROFESSOR Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, announced two weeks ago that he would be leaving his post as professor of science and understanding at Oxford. One of the things Dawkins plans to do during his retirement is to write "a children's book on how to think about the world - critical thinking contrasted with mythical thinking."

Dawkins wishes to warn children about the dangers of believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales, including fantasy and science fiction. He was quoted in several British papers saying, "I would like to know whether there is any evidence that bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards has a pernicious effect. So many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes and I'm not sure whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality. Perhaps it's something for research."

Dawkins' words remind me of "Paul", an acquaintance who told me that if he ever had children they were definitely not going to be allowed to watch Sesame Street. "What are they going to think? That people have purple faces? That birds play guitar? Talk about confusing! My kids won't know what's real and what's not."

I tried to argue with him but I didn't quite know what to say to defend Big Bird and gang. "I watched Sesame Street and I turned out OK," I offered, only to be met with a smirk that plainly said that I was sufficient proof that no child should ever be allowed to watch coloured monsters sing the alphabet.

As Dawkins acknowledges, it's not known for certain whether make-believe and fairytales, magic and myth (and silly rhymes sung by giant yellow birds and cookie-obsessed hairy creatures) have a harmful effect on a child's ability to think and reason: "Perhaps it's something for research."

I can't imagine how one would conduct the experiments though. Who would be the poor children chosen to be kept fantasy-free? Well, I know there are religious groups that discourage their members from reading fantasy because they believe that it promotes belief in the occult, or simply powers that have nothing to do with god. I don't know - isn't it possible to approach something simply as a story? Just because you enjoy a book does it mean you'll swallow every thing it contains, hook, line and sinker?

Dawkins' fear (like that of some religious leaders) suggests a belief that children are completely gullible. It also implies a total lack of confidence in the ability of adults to help the kids they care for figure out the difference between fact and fiction.

Either way, it ignores important reasons why children enjoy and revel in fantasy in the first place.

Children's fantasy writer, Susan Cooper, in a lecture she gave for the Cambridge Forum (a public radio show) a year ago, talked about how fantasy helps children make sense of the world and the "five great mysteries of the universe: life, death, time, good and evil."

She quotes Alan Garner, another children's fantasist, who said that "the function of the storyteller is to relate the truth in a manner that is simple." Fantasy, said Cooper, may not be real, but it is true.

Authors ask questions about human existence and explore universal questions within the framework of stories - always a child-friendly medium. Serious subjects like death are more gently and effectively presented to children in the form of metaphor, and, as Cooper declares, "Metaphor is the language of myth and fantasy, poetry and song."

This is how the creation myths began, before the age of science when mankind was fearfuly trying to make sense of phenomena, like the weather and the seasons. Now we know the real (scientific) reasons behind the passing of time, and myths are told simply as amusing stories. However, other tales still help kids grapple with serious questions that science may not deal with - like good and evil, right and wrong; and of course, the search for identity.

Religion plays a part in shaping the way some people understand these subjects, but stories, I feel, allow for a more universal, more open and less limiting approach.

A few days ago, my three-year-old was watching Elmo's World (a Sesame Street spin-off) and she pointed excitedly at the screen and said "What's that girl's name?" I looked and saw an orange monster singing in a high "girly" voice. It was then that I suddenly had my answer for "Paul": We should not worry that our children will be confused because there are men with green faces and little girls with pink hair making music and talking. Children simply don't see the colours. They haven't yet built the barriers, based on appearance, that divide people into "them" and "us". All they see is people (kids) singing, having a good time, being silly. Orange, blue, yellow and green - those are fun details, but they don't really matter.

Confusing? I think I'd rather call it democratic.