|
|
|
please stay infantile
Tuesday, August 7 2001
It's very hot in New York City today. Walking down the streets of Chelsea I occasionally pass a vent blowing even hotter air, probably from an air conditioner excessively cooling some office space. Momentarily I'm overwhelmed.
People have lots of motivations and proclivities, but one tendency everyone has, at least some of the time, is to be conservative. I'm not talking here about telling a hippie to cut his hair and get a job, swerving the SUV to run over a snake, or cranking Dr. Laura on your headset. I'm talking about being resistant to change. People want some things in their lives to stay forever as they are. No one has ever bought a brand new car and eagerly anticipated its first dent. No one has ever cheered the advancing toes of crowsfeet spreading from the corners of their eyes.
But fantasy conservatism can extend beyond such practical denial to more pathological desires. For example, parents often harbor Peter Pan fantasies about their own children, though these can vary widely in terms of the stage at which parents subconsciously desire their offsprings' growth to arrest. Perhaps, for example, pro-life Christian fundamentalists (who fetishize the pisciform embryo) mourn the graduation of their progeny to the fetal stage. For other parents, ones who love being providers but don't enjoy difficult questions about the blueness of the sky or where babies come from, an extended infancy might be ideal. Even my mother used to joke about putting a brick on my head so I wouldn't grow beyond the adorable age of five or six.
I think we'd all agree that growth and change is important and necessary for a creature to reach its full potential. There are a lot of nooks and crannies out there waiting to be explored, and the coddling of overly-protective parents stunting development and limiting access to the big scary world leads ultimately to frustration and perhaps even spectacular rebellion. It is with this in mind that I disagree with Gretchen's position, as stated this evening, about little Edna, her youngest cat. Unlike Sally the dog and Noah the big fluffy grey cat, Edna is not allowed to explore the tiny fenced backyard which is accessible by a backdoor on Gretchen's unit. I suggested to Gretchen that she supervise Edna in the backyard occasionally so that she wouldn't get lost should she slip out. But Gretchen disagreed and stated that she doesn't want Edna to ever go out, that if she develops a taste for exploring the back yard then she might want to go out all the time and then be at additional risk for injury, disease, or theft. Evidently Noah, who is now conditioned to going out, is a lost cause for Gretchen. But with Edna there is still a chance of perpetual indoor kittenhood. To me it's an simplistic, unrealistic policy, one more suited to teddy bears and stuffed unicorns than live animals. I am in disagreement, but Edna is not my cat.
A contrary view (thanks Jason).
[REDACTED]
For linking purposes this article's URL is:
http://asecular.com/blog.php?010807 feedback
previous | next |
