This is a peer response to Jenny’s post that can be found here.

I definitely agree with Jenny’s post. I had not thought to compare Joseph Zobel’s message on education to that of Rousseau’s but her post really had me nodding. After reading her post, I thought back to some scenes in the novel that really relate to Rousseau’s theory that children should be allowed to enjoy an easygoing and happy youth, free from all kinds of restrictions, including physical ones. Additionally, while Rousseau implied a tough love that should be shown to children to ensure their proper understanding on the way the world works, Zobel showcases a very cruel childhood and education through Jose Hassam’s early life.

Mme Léonce is introduced as a nice, but a strange authority figure in Jose’s life. Soon, however, Jose becomes suspicious of her unexpected kindness, and it becomes apparent that Mme Léonce’s feeding him would not be a favor unreturned. Jose, instead of enjoying his free time, becomes stuck, growing more and more indebted to Mme Léonce every time she gives him a meal. She starts to treat him, a mere child, like a servant, ordering him to clean up her kitchen in exchange for food. At this point in his life, Jose should be enjoying his childhood, free of stress and full of curiosity and adventure to be explored. Instead, he is “constantly afraid of Mme Léonce whom…[he] detested because of the unending humiliation [he] underwent at her house” (Zobel 69). A child should never have to experience embarrassment in such a degrading way. Jose is put in a situation in which his sense of justice had matured too fast, recognizing immediately that what Mme Léonce was putting him through was not acceptable. Forcing her to do these “li’l favor[s]” restricted him from his childhood freedom that Rousseau advocated so strongly for (Zobel 68). Not only does this take away from his playtime with Raphael and his other friends, it also causes him to reach school late, taking away valuable time from proper education.

A place of prayer should never be the same place where violence is condoned. While sitting with other children for Sunday prayers, Jose giggles with the rest of them. This does count as rude during a time dedicated to silent prayer and praise, but the people who are the most religious should act as the best role models for the children who will learn to copy them. Adults should also understand that children have “this uncontrollable urge to laugh,” especially in situations where one definitely should not do so, and that with children, they tend to imitate each other – when one laughs, the rest will, too, eventually (Zobel 95). So when a woman of faith shows children cruelty instead of love, Zobel’s contradiction to Rousseau’s theory on childhood education is evident. Jose narrates: “Mam’zelle Fanny…hadn’t forgotten to bring her whip, lashed out…with blows on our backs and even on our faces if we hadn’t had time to bend down. And she would lead two victims away by their ears, putting them to kneel down in front of the Holy Table” (Zobel 95). This act of brutality is committed to teach these children and the rest of those watching a lesson. This restricts a child’s right to learn of their own free will, by the ways of which they choose. Just as importantly, it is taking away the children’s love for things that are being taught to them, for these topics are accompanied with violent reproach when not practiced to adult satisfaction. This is exactly what Rousseau wants to avoid with his thoughts on “cruel education” suppressing a child with limitations and “making him miserable,” just like Jenny said in her post (Rousseau 4).