A timely comparison Haley! I have been thinking about parenting and forming children a lot also since the Shiny Happy People documentary released, which I also watched (acknowledging shortcomings and biases of any documentary).
I suppose the first change in parenting comes from looking at ourselves. So much of what we hold firm can be driven by fear, pride or misplaced desire. It’s not bad to want safety, morality and good futures for our children- but at the expense of what? They may be virtuous and happy being poorer, more adventurous or in a marriage different than we expected. Slowing down to consider the unique person that is the child, their strengths and flaws, requires presence, adaptability and hope. We realize we cannot turn away but are needed more and more- more time, deeper intention, more help- - sacrifice! We realize we are small, need prayer and grace, and then each season choose how to form them and with what resources.
I guess one parallel from SHP and Mansfield Park would be we think that one certain ‘mold’ will form the child, each child, to be who we want them to be. We can plug that in and plot that course and then check out.
It’s worked for someone else, it’s worked for the generations before us, its the way things are always or ‘should’ be done, it’s worked for this subset of people. Again, it’s good to have a vision, but adaptability is required according to one’s circumstances. The mold may work for one of our children, and not another. The mold may work for one family, but not ours. Perhaps we have a child with a unique struggle- could be willful or innate. Or a wife who is not present, or meddling family members- we can’t change others much!
One thing I note about both Mansfield Park and SHP is that the families in raising their children chose ignorance, which is frightening. They ignored their true circumstances and what change that would necessitate, and decided that was too much trouble, too embarrassing, too wild to deviate from their pre-decided ‘norm’.
I would argue this is in opposition to Catholic values (I’m Catholic so think this way, we can say Christian too 🙃) or what they should be. Choosing to turn away from the reality of your situation and trusting that what has always been done, the method of family living you have been told will save you, will make everything all right. And then doubling down in that trajectory without ever changing course even a little.
I believe Catholic values tell us: let’s live in reality! Here is the world before you- let’s look at it as it stands. Let’s not hide from it- or hide from ourselves. There is good, and there is evil. Here they are - see them, look at them, acknowledge them. And knowing these things- let us educate! Ponder. Receive grace for surely we need it. Go to confession! See the expanse of people on our community, in all spectrums! Show grace. Be little and humble ourselves.
And then let’s still aim to choose for ourselves, and influence our children to choose, the good and the virtuous above all else, no matter where we are.
Yes, he's got a major blind spot where Mary is concerned, but he's got excellent moral principles and lives virtuously. How did he pick that up when his three siblings failed?
My best guess is that when he was away at school he must have had a truly inspirational teacher. Maybe in his theology classes. Julia and Maria had a governess at home and had no break from Sir Thomas's authority or Aunt Norris indulgence. Tom was the heir and would have had more people sucking up and no reason to work. So maybe Edmond as the second son intended for the church had an openness to his vocation that left him more open to education outside the home.
I have thought about this, too! I think your suggestions are very likely. Edmund benefits from NOT being the oldest son or the pet of Aunt Norris--kind of like how the Dursley's neglect of HP is better than their spoiling on their own son. But I'd never thought about his religious education!
I wondered about this too!! I think his sensitivity to Fanny must have helped - seeing her ignored and imposed upon must have awakened him to his family’s flaws. And growing up in tension with his prodigal brother probably did too. But he was a sweet kid even when Fanny first arrived! Something innate maybe…
We see that Elizabeth and Jane Bennet weren't raised in the best moral environment but somehow came out as upright young women.
And Mary Crawford is notes as being blessed by nature to understand people and be clever, but had so twisted of an upbringing to drown out any inate goodness.
I love reading the wonderful idealistic comments of young parents with little ones and their thoughts on how they will raise their children. My husband and I had the same wonderful idealistic dreams for how we would be such good parents and raise such faith filled good kids. I don't know quite how to say this. Children have free will too and as parents we can try to do our best and there are no guarantees...Nothing breaks a mother's heart more than seeing adult children turn their backs on how they were raised and not raising their own child in the Faith (even if starting out right). Two out of five here, but St. Monica is one of my "friends" as well as several others so I have Hope.
Absolutely, Annemarie. There is no failproof formula that guarantees a certain outcome--something that I think both MP and SHP makes very clear from the tragedies they reveal.
“Do we know our children—know their very hearts? Are they at ease coming to us with their worries, their struggles, and their mistakes? Are we focusing on certain behaviors instead of cultivating real virtues that will guide our children long after they’ve left our household? “ Such great questions! Though I didn’t see the Duggar documentary, I often examine the parenting examples in all the Austen books and wonder. My parents were fairly strict when we were young, and fairly trusting in my late teens--which is when I made the most of my mistakes and regrets. I would have benefited from more time at home and less time with peers. This is where I think we make mistakes in our modern world. The drive for social time with peers becomes so strong so young that we really don’t realize how attached they are to their peer group until it is too late and they are being formed by that group, and not us anymore. I read a book years ago called Hold On To Your kids that made the point that human beings are hard wired for attachment and that the appropriate attachment focus is parents until they are ready to form their own families. If that attachment to parents is broken, or weakened, they WILL attach and be formed by someone else. Sometimes that is another adult that is a good model (Did Edmund have that?), but more often than not in our society, it is a peer group, and sometimes an adult with nefarious intentions. While there is no perfect system/program/mold, there is a reality (God given) that parents are made to be the guides to their children and children are made to be attached to their parents, until they leave and cleave and form their own families. The only way to protect that attachment is to actively foster it, and limit peer social time/influence throughout the teen years. Hard to do, but it can be done lovingly and with great results, I have seen it!
Apparently I'm a week behind in reading, oops. But I have actually avoided reading Mansfield Park for ages because people have said that's it's a slog, as you cite here, but I have actually found it to be my absolute favourite Austen book so far. Maybe because Fanny, in personality, reminds me of myself, if myself were actually good at sticking to my values under pressure.
I'm really intrigued by the parenting parallel drawn between the Duggars and Sir Thomas, and do definitely agree that authoritarian parenting with no deep knowledge of your children or them being comfortable in coming to you is a recipe for disaster. I grew up very differently, in that my parents were not authoritarian at all, and were deeply caring and spent lots of time and energy on us kids. As a result, our family is still very close now that all kids are grown up, and I've always known I can bring faults and fears and failures to my parents without fear of punishment, and I have always been able to go to them for advice.
BUT, and this is a big but, my parents also didn't instill any strong sense of virtue in me. Maybe because of an absolute lack of religious belief to form a more inflexible moral foundation, maybe because their own parenting models were... not great, or maybe because of something else entirely. As a result, although in natural personality Fanny reminds me of myself, I see a lifetime of my past behaviors and decision-making in characters like Maria and Mary far more.
So, for me, the question becomes: How do I raise my children so that they aren't just following rules out of fear, and so that they know they can come to me with and about anything, AND ALSO so that they develop a strong sense of virtue and morality that they will not allow the world to bend or break? I'm still working on the answer to this. I imagine it will be a lifelong effort.
I also have to put in a good word for Fanny! Mansfield Park may be a little different from the other novels, but I have really enjoyed it! I too, see a little of myself in Fanny, including her painful shyness and reluctance to create interpersonal conflict. I guess I personally relate to her flaws more than Emma or Lizzie’s.
I love the clash of all these characters getting lead astray by their passions and Fanny who seems to have the sense of morality and clear vision to see it all, but lacks the ability to really affect much change.
As a mother of toddlers, the question of how to parent and provide guidance is one I ponder daily without finding great insight. I see the appeal of the authoritative and overly permissive parent because both are much easier options to fall back on when you are working through the umpteenth tantrum of the day, and you just need the kids to put their shoes on so you can go to the store.
Loving them through the chaos is painful and hard, and I constantly wonder if I’m swinging too far to one or the other extreme. And as many older parents have mentioned, there still are no guarantees that they will fully learn and embrace everything you try to teach them.
Yes, it is so hard to strike the right balance and sometimes different kids in the same family require such different things from their parents! No easy formula.
Just read chapter 4 in Hayley's book, and I am pretty sure I never before this heard the word 'constancy'. And, like, my mind is blown. I've been struggling for years to articulate what I mean about myself when I say I don't feel like I have a very well-formed conscience, and I realize how that what I actually have been meaning this whole time is that I really need to develop constancy, which I somehow didn't even know was a thing. And I think this drives right to the heart of the parenting question in both SHP and MP. Are you striving for, and teaching your children to strive for, constancy in what you know to be good and right, or are you only aiming for the appearance of what is good and right. Aside from Mary Crawford, who I think might actually not know what is good and right at all, I think this is the failing of every other character.
Jun 29, 2023·edited Jun 29, 2023Liked by Haley Stewart
Oof the parenting question is tough. I think the big cautionary tale of sir thomas is that all parents have blind spots - he assumed he was doing the right thing being a disciplinarian, teaching them respectability and adding to the family fortunes (though obviously in a morally indefensible way…), and he just didn’t think about it any further. I worry about what my blind spots are as a parent, but I also completely exhaust myself reading all the parenting books and blogs, and find myself treating my children like tasks instead of engaging in a real relationship and enjoying them for the sweet little people they are.
I’m also increasingly salty about the fact that full time work leaves my husband and me about 3 waking hours a day with our kids during the week, about 2.5 of which are spent scrambling to feed, clothe, bathe them and get them in bed. (They’re toddlers). Not much time left over for fun much less formation. Having two working parents is the right choice for our family for a lot of reasons, but it’s hard not to feel like I’m checking out like sir Thomas and lady rests a lot
A timely comparison Haley! I have been thinking about parenting and forming children a lot also since the Shiny Happy People documentary released, which I also watched (acknowledging shortcomings and biases of any documentary).
I suppose the first change in parenting comes from looking at ourselves. So much of what we hold firm can be driven by fear, pride or misplaced desire. It’s not bad to want safety, morality and good futures for our children- but at the expense of what? They may be virtuous and happy being poorer, more adventurous or in a marriage different than we expected. Slowing down to consider the unique person that is the child, their strengths and flaws, requires presence, adaptability and hope. We realize we cannot turn away but are needed more and more- more time, deeper intention, more help- - sacrifice! We realize we are small, need prayer and grace, and then each season choose how to form them and with what resources.
I guess one parallel from SHP and Mansfield Park would be we think that one certain ‘mold’ will form the child, each child, to be who we want them to be. We can plug that in and plot that course and then check out.
It’s worked for someone else, it’s worked for the generations before us, its the way things are always or ‘should’ be done, it’s worked for this subset of people. Again, it’s good to have a vision, but adaptability is required according to one’s circumstances. The mold may work for one of our children, and not another. The mold may work for one family, but not ours. Perhaps we have a child with a unique struggle- could be willful or innate. Or a wife who is not present, or meddling family members- we can’t change others much!
One thing I note about both Mansfield Park and SHP is that the families in raising their children chose ignorance, which is frightening. They ignored their true circumstances and what change that would necessitate, and decided that was too much trouble, too embarrassing, too wild to deviate from their pre-decided ‘norm’.
I would argue this is in opposition to Catholic values (I’m Catholic so think this way, we can say Christian too 🙃) or what they should be. Choosing to turn away from the reality of your situation and trusting that what has always been done, the method of family living you have been told will save you, will make everything all right. And then doubling down in that trajectory without ever changing course even a little.
I believe Catholic values tell us: let’s live in reality! Here is the world before you- let’s look at it as it stands. Let’s not hide from it- or hide from ourselves. There is good, and there is evil. Here they are - see them, look at them, acknowledge them. And knowing these things- let us educate! Ponder. Receive grace for surely we need it. Go to confession! See the expanse of people on our community, in all spectrums! Show grace. Be little and humble ourselves.
And then let’s still aim to choose for ourselves, and influence our children to choose, the good and the virtuous above all else, no matter where we are.
So many great insights here!
How did Edmond turn out so well?
Yes, he's got a major blind spot where Mary is concerned, but he's got excellent moral principles and lives virtuously. How did he pick that up when his three siblings failed?
My best guess is that when he was away at school he must have had a truly inspirational teacher. Maybe in his theology classes. Julia and Maria had a governess at home and had no break from Sir Thomas's authority or Aunt Norris indulgence. Tom was the heir and would have had more people sucking up and no reason to work. So maybe Edmond as the second son intended for the church had an openness to his vocation that left him more open to education outside the home.
I have thought about this, too! I think your suggestions are very likely. Edmund benefits from NOT being the oldest son or the pet of Aunt Norris--kind of like how the Dursley's neglect of HP is better than their spoiling on their own son. But I'd never thought about his religious education!
I wondered about this too!! I think his sensitivity to Fanny must have helped - seeing her ignored and imposed upon must have awakened him to his family’s flaws. And growing up in tension with his prodigal brother probably did too. But he was a sweet kid even when Fanny first arrived! Something innate maybe…
Right, an inate disposition goes along way.
We see that Elizabeth and Jane Bennet weren't raised in the best moral environment but somehow came out as upright young women.
And Mary Crawford is notes as being blessed by nature to understand people and be clever, but had so twisted of an upbringing to drown out any inate goodness.
I love reading the wonderful idealistic comments of young parents with little ones and their thoughts on how they will raise their children. My husband and I had the same wonderful idealistic dreams for how we would be such good parents and raise such faith filled good kids. I don't know quite how to say this. Children have free will too and as parents we can try to do our best and there are no guarantees...Nothing breaks a mother's heart more than seeing adult children turn their backs on how they were raised and not raising their own child in the Faith (even if starting out right). Two out of five here, but St. Monica is one of my "friends" as well as several others so I have Hope.
Absolutely, Annemarie. There is no failproof formula that guarantees a certain outcome--something that I think both MP and SHP makes very clear from the tragedies they reveal.
“Do we know our children—know their very hearts? Are they at ease coming to us with their worries, their struggles, and their mistakes? Are we focusing on certain behaviors instead of cultivating real virtues that will guide our children long after they’ve left our household? “ Such great questions! Though I didn’t see the Duggar documentary, I often examine the parenting examples in all the Austen books and wonder. My parents were fairly strict when we were young, and fairly trusting in my late teens--which is when I made the most of my mistakes and regrets. I would have benefited from more time at home and less time with peers. This is where I think we make mistakes in our modern world. The drive for social time with peers becomes so strong so young that we really don’t realize how attached they are to their peer group until it is too late and they are being formed by that group, and not us anymore. I read a book years ago called Hold On To Your kids that made the point that human beings are hard wired for attachment and that the appropriate attachment focus is parents until they are ready to form their own families. If that attachment to parents is broken, or weakened, they WILL attach and be formed by someone else. Sometimes that is another adult that is a good model (Did Edmund have that?), but more often than not in our society, it is a peer group, and sometimes an adult with nefarious intentions. While there is no perfect system/program/mold, there is a reality (God given) that parents are made to be the guides to their children and children are made to be attached to their parents, until they leave and cleave and form their own families. The only way to protect that attachment is to actively foster it, and limit peer social time/influence throughout the teen years. Hard to do, but it can be done lovingly and with great results, I have seen it!
Apparently I'm a week behind in reading, oops. But I have actually avoided reading Mansfield Park for ages because people have said that's it's a slog, as you cite here, but I have actually found it to be my absolute favourite Austen book so far. Maybe because Fanny, in personality, reminds me of myself, if myself were actually good at sticking to my values under pressure.
I'm really intrigued by the parenting parallel drawn between the Duggars and Sir Thomas, and do definitely agree that authoritarian parenting with no deep knowledge of your children or them being comfortable in coming to you is a recipe for disaster. I grew up very differently, in that my parents were not authoritarian at all, and were deeply caring and spent lots of time and energy on us kids. As a result, our family is still very close now that all kids are grown up, and I've always known I can bring faults and fears and failures to my parents without fear of punishment, and I have always been able to go to them for advice.
BUT, and this is a big but, my parents also didn't instill any strong sense of virtue in me. Maybe because of an absolute lack of religious belief to form a more inflexible moral foundation, maybe because their own parenting models were... not great, or maybe because of something else entirely. As a result, although in natural personality Fanny reminds me of myself, I see a lifetime of my past behaviors and decision-making in characters like Maria and Mary far more.
So, for me, the question becomes: How do I raise my children so that they aren't just following rules out of fear, and so that they know they can come to me with and about anything, AND ALSO so that they develop a strong sense of virtue and morality that they will not allow the world to bend or break? I'm still working on the answer to this. I imagine it will be a lifelong effort.
I also have to put in a good word for Fanny! Mansfield Park may be a little different from the other novels, but I have really enjoyed it! I too, see a little of myself in Fanny, including her painful shyness and reluctance to create interpersonal conflict. I guess I personally relate to her flaws more than Emma or Lizzie’s.
I love the clash of all these characters getting lead astray by their passions and Fanny who seems to have the sense of morality and clear vision to see it all, but lacks the ability to really affect much change.
As a mother of toddlers, the question of how to parent and provide guidance is one I ponder daily without finding great insight. I see the appeal of the authoritative and overly permissive parent because both are much easier options to fall back on when you are working through the umpteenth tantrum of the day, and you just need the kids to put their shoes on so you can go to the store.
Loving them through the chaos is painful and hard, and I constantly wonder if I’m swinging too far to one or the other extreme. And as many older parents have mentioned, there still are no guarantees that they will fully learn and embrace everything you try to teach them.
Yes, it is so hard to strike the right balance and sometimes different kids in the same family require such different things from their parents! No easy formula.
Just read chapter 4 in Hayley's book, and I am pretty sure I never before this heard the word 'constancy'. And, like, my mind is blown. I've been struggling for years to articulate what I mean about myself when I say I don't feel like I have a very well-formed conscience, and I realize how that what I actually have been meaning this whole time is that I really need to develop constancy, which I somehow didn't even know was a thing. And I think this drives right to the heart of the parenting question in both SHP and MP. Are you striving for, and teaching your children to strive for, constancy in what you know to be good and right, or are you only aiming for the appearance of what is good and right. Aside from Mary Crawford, who I think might actually not know what is good and right at all, I think this is the failing of every other character.
Oof the parenting question is tough. I think the big cautionary tale of sir thomas is that all parents have blind spots - he assumed he was doing the right thing being a disciplinarian, teaching them respectability and adding to the family fortunes (though obviously in a morally indefensible way…), and he just didn’t think about it any further. I worry about what my blind spots are as a parent, but I also completely exhaust myself reading all the parenting books and blogs, and find myself treating my children like tasks instead of engaging in a real relationship and enjoying them for the sweet little people they are.
I’m also increasingly salty about the fact that full time work leaves my husband and me about 3 waking hours a day with our kids during the week, about 2.5 of which are spent scrambling to feed, clothe, bathe them and get them in bed. (They’re toddlers). Not much time left over for fun much less formation. Having two working parents is the right choice for our family for a lot of reasons, but it’s hard not to feel like I’m checking out like sir Thomas and lady rests a lot
I loled for real at "lady rests a lot" 😂
Is Sense and Sensibility our next read?
Yes!