Thinking about Laziness

I’ve been reading old discussions about unschooling; for example, here and here. One concern that seems to come up often with unschooling is to do with “laziness“. A lot of people seem to think that unschooling might work well if the child was naturally diligent or motivated, but that not all children are naturally that way. The idea is that some people if left to themselves would grow up to be bums or couch potatoes, and that that kind of person would be a disaster as an unschooler — unschooling wouldn’t “work” for them.

This idea bothers me on several levels so I thought I’d toss around some half-formed thoughts (this blog is my place to toss around half-formed thoughts ).

First, when I think about grown people who are un-productive or who don’t produce in a manner commensurate with expectations, I can think of a few categories they fall under:

1) Alienated. That is, people who aren’t very commited to whatever they’re engaged in, or who are resistant (passively or actively).

2) Debilitated. That is, people who have some underlying health condition or inability because of physical, mental, emotional difficulties. Either temporary or chronic.

3) Misplaced. Maybe this is a bit of both #1 and #2. Sometimes a person gets in a job or lifestyle which has demands that aren’t suited to their temperament or ability. Or don’t LOOK suited to their temperament or ability. I read an example recently — a shy college student who needed to earn money and got a job as a door to door vacuum salesperson.

All the people in these categories could LOOK “lazy” — which is a word difficult to pin down, because it is ultimately subjective and relative. But in each case the issue goes deeper and so would the solution. In the first case, the problem is not being engaged. Either the person doesn’t feel he CAN affect things, or he doesn’t care to do so. In the second case, the problem is with the underlying condition. Pinpointing and treating the condition would help with the problem. In the third case, the problem is the mismatch between the person and the situation. Since the person is more important than the situation, it seems reasonable to change the situation so there is a better match.

I wonder WHY we so often assume it’s the other way around — that the person should be stretched or compressed to fit the situation? This part of it puzzles me.

It can definitely be valuable to stretch or compress oneself, in certain circumstances. For example, a person who works very hard to accomplish a meaningful goal is doing something worthwhile. Laziness is defined as the lack of desire to do this.

But is it still laziness if you CAN’T do this in a particular situation? If you don’t really want to because it doesn’t seem important enough to you? If you sort of want to, but the difficulty is such that it doesn’t seem commensurate with the value of the result?

This seems to be where temperament and constitution come in, and these are embedded in one’s nature. My 10 year old is placid and calm and fairly slow-moving. His favorite activities are reading, eating, walking around outside watching things, and playing on the computer. My 13 year old is quite a contrast. He is always bouncing, jumping, wrestling, competing. He likes reading, eating, and playing on the computer too, but his pace is much faster and more aggressive.

They are hard-wired this way, so it doesn’t make sense to say that my 13 year old’s ability to do something quickly and efficiently is “better” or “worse” than my 10 year old’s ability to work calmly and patiently. There is no real moral virtue in either because it’s how they are.

They both stretch themselves by going outside of their comfort zone, whatever it happens to be. For 13 year old Sean, his comfort zone is activity so stretching might mean slowing down and taking time to think. For 10 year old Kieron, his comfort zone is an unhurried state so stretching means doing something strenuous.

But given this, is there good in ME requiring them to move outside of their comfort zone? I would think it depends…. I think natural family dynamics tend to move people beyond their comfort zones almost by definition. And that’s a GOOD thing. Families at their best also build natural commitment and help support weak areas.
My tentative thoughts:

–I think that it’s unfortunate, and usually futile and perhaps untruthful, to “label” someone lazy. Even in one’s own head. Because we don’t know what’s REALLY going on with someone else, and it’s unjust to put a label on someone that might turn out not to be the truth. We might see a disparity between what is expected, and what is actually produced, but that could be from any number of factors, in the categories I listed above.
–If we define laziness as an inclination to stay in our comfort zone, we can agree that all of us are tempted sometimes to that, not just certain types of people. So as unschoolers, we could acknowledge that and work on helping our kids manage the tendency just as we manage it in ourselves.

–Plus, I think it is not right to try to “solve” laziness by relying on other human factors that are just as unpleasant. For example, often schools try to eliminate what they see as laziness by using punishments and rewards. But putting fear and greed and pride in place of indolence is not really a great trade-off. Sometimes, the people who look diligent are really anxious or selfishly ambitious.

–Unschooling works from the inherent motivation of the child. And with the natural talents and temperament of the child. From what I’ve been reading, doing what you love and are suited for is the best way to develop diligence and perseverance and these traits can transfer over to other areas. But the key is personal choice and direction. Most fields of human endeavour involve some direction from outside sources, so “personal choice and direction” does not mean anarchy and aimlessness. To excel in almost anything means following in the footsteps of predecessors, and taking some kind of orders or advice. But it is important that this be self-chosen, I think. Even a small child who goes to brush his teeth at bedtime is choosing to act in response to his parents’ request.

–Unschooling, if it works for anyone, seems like it ought to work as well for the slower person as for the more energetic person. If a person temperamentally or physically has more difficulty doing certain things, is that a reason to push harder and coerce more? Unschooling would seem more likely to avoid the dangers of mismatch and alienation that result in people “looking” lazy. And it would let the “slow” more reflective person operate from his strengths while the fast energetic person could operate from his. A slow person might make an excellent naturalist while the fast one might be better suited as a soccer player. Both would probably have strengths as surgeons — Aidan’s pediatric surgeon is very calm and unhurried but obviously can do his work efficiently and well. But no one becomes a surgeon unless they, personally, think it’s worth devoting much work to the training. And that “worth” part is the part that unschooling focuses on.

(Here is a page about the danger of “lazy” which works at getting beyond the terminology a bit.) Oh, and update: it looks like Susan has been thinking about this subject too! Work Ethics Part I and Part II

Also, Unschooling and Laziness – message board discussion

Curriculum Planning and Laziness – about the efficiency of “laziness”.