First lessons of morality of childhood.

Of all the moral wounds of society, egoism seems the most difficult to extirpate. Indeed, it is so all the more inasmuch as it is nourished by the very habits of education. One has the impression that, from the cradle, people strive to excite certain passions which, later, become a second nature, and we marvel at the vices of society, when children suck them in with the milk. Here is an example which, as each one may judge, belongs more to the rule than to the exception.

In a family of our acquaintance there is a little girl of four or five years, of rare intelligence, but who has the little defects of spoiled children, that is, she is a little capricious, given to crying, stubborn, and does not always give thanks when something is given to her, which the parents take to heart to correct, because, apart from these little defects, according to them, she has a heart of gold, the consecrated expression. Let us see how they act to remove these little blemishes from her and to keep the gold in its purity.

One day they brought a sweet to the child and, as usual, said to her: “You will eat it, if you are good.” First lesson of gluttony. How many times, at the table, does it happen that they tell a child she will not eat such a delicacy if she cries. They say: “Do this or do that and you shall have cream,” or any other thing she fancies; and the child is constrained, not by reason, but with a view to the satisfaction of a sensual desire that they encourage. It is still much worse when they tell her, which is no less frequent, that they will give her portion to another. Here it is no longer only gluttony that is at play, it is envy. The child will do what is asked of her, not only to have, but so that the other shall not have. Do they wish to give her a lesson of generosity? Then they say: “Give this fruit or this toy to someone.” If she refuses, they do not fail to add, in order to stimulate a good sentiment in her: “I shall give you another.” Thus, the child decides to be generous only when she is sure of losing nothing.

One day we witnessed a fact quite characteristic of this kind. It was a child of about two and a half years, to whom they had made a similar threat, adding: “We shall give it to your little brother and you shall not eat.” And, to make the lesson more sensible, they put the portion on the latter’s plate; but the little brother, taking the matter seriously, ate the portion. At the sight of this, the other turned red and one did not need to be a father or mother to see the flash of anger and of hatred that sprang from his eyes. The seed was cast; could it produce good grain?

Let us return to the little girl, of whom we spoke. As she did not take the threat into consideration, knowing by experience that they rarely carried it out, this time the parents were firmer, for they understood the necessity of dominating that little character, and not waiting until age had made it acquire a bad habit. They said that children must be formed from early on, a very wise maxim, and, to put it into practice, here is what they did: “I promise you — said the mother — that if you do not obey, tomorrow morning I shall give your cake to the first poor child who passes.” No sooner said than done. This time they did not yield and they gave her a good lesson. Thus, the next day in the morning, a little beggar girl having been sighted in the street, they had her come in, obliged the daughter to take her by the hand and herself to give her her cake. About this they praised her docility. Morality: the daughter said: “Had I known of this I would have made haste to eat the cake yesterday.” And everyone applauded this witty reply. Indeed, the child had received a strong lesson, but a lesson of pure egoism, of which she will not fail to take advantage another time, for now she knows what forced generosity costs. It remains to be seen what fruits this seed will give later, when, at a greater age, the child applies this morality to things more serious than a cake. Are all the thoughts known that this single fact may have made germinate in that little head? After this, how do they expect a child not to be egoistic when, instead of awakening in her the pleasure of giving and of representing to her the happiness of the one who receives, they impose upon her a sacrifice as a punishment? Is this not to inspire aversion to the act of giving and to those who have need? Another habit, equally frequent, is that of punishing the child by sending her to eat in the kitchen with the domestic servants. The punishment lies less in the exclusion from the table than in the humiliation of going to the servants’ table. Thus is inoculated, from the most tender age, the virus of sensuality, of egoism, of pride, of contempt for inferiors, of the passions, in a word, which are, and with reason, considered as the wounds of Humanity. One must be endowed with an exceptionally good nature to resist such influences, produced at the most impressionable age and where they can find neither the counterweight of will, nor of experience. Thus, however little the germ of the bad passions may be found there, which is the most common case, considering the nature of the majority of the Spirits who incarnate on Earth, it cannot but develop under such influences, whereas one would need to watch for its least traces in order to stifle them. Without doubt the fault is the parents’; but, it is well to say, often these sin more by ignorance than by ill will. In many there is, incontestably, a censurable carelessness, but in others the intention is good, it is the remedy that is worth nothing, or that is badly applied. Being the first physicians of the soul of their children, they ought to be instructed, not only in their duties, but in the means of fulfilling them. It is not enough for the physician to know that he must seek to cure: he must know how to proceed. Now, for the parents, where are the means of instructing themselves in this so important part of their task? Today much instruction is given to woman, she is submitted to rigorous examinations, but they have never required of a mother that she know how to act to form the morals of her child. They teach her household recipes, but they do not initiate her into the thousand and one secrets of governing young hearts. Thus, parents are abandoned, without a guide, to their own initiative, which is why so often they set off on a false route; they also gather, in the imperfections of their grown children, the bitter fruit of their inexperience or of an ill-understood tenderness, and the whole of society receives the backlash.

Considering that egoism and pride are the source of the majority of human miseries, as long as they reign on Earth one can hope for neither peace, nor charity, nor fraternity. It is necessary, then, to attack them in the embryonic state, without waiting until they become vigorous.

Can Spiritism remedy this evil? Without any doubt; and we do not hesitate to say that it is the only one powerful enough to make it cease, to wit: by a new point of view under which it makes one regard the mission and the responsibility of parents; by making known the source of the innate qualities, good or bad; by showing the action that can be exercised over incarnate and disincarnate Spirits; by giving the unshakable faith that sanctions duties; finally, by moralizing the parents themselves. It already proves its efficacy by the more rational manner in which children are educated in truly Spiritist families. The new horizons that Spiritism opens make one see things in a quite different way; its aim being the moral progress of Humanity, it must necessarily cast light on the grave question of moral education, the first source of the moralization of the masses. One day they will understand that this branch of education has its principles, its rules, like intellectual education, in a word, that it is a true science; perhaps one day, too, they will impose on every mother of a family the obligation to possess this knowledge, as they impose on the lawyer that of knowing the Law.