It is desirable to inspect a little more closely the various forms of
this early mendacity. To begin with those little ruses and
dissimulations which, according to M. Perez, are apt to appear almost
from the cradle in the case of certain children, it is plainly difficult
to bring them into the category of full-fledged lies. When, for example,
a child wishing to keep a thing hides it, and on your asking for it
holds out empty hands, it would be hard to name this action a lie, even
though there is in it a germ of deception. We must remember that
children have an early developed instinct to secrete things, and the
little dissimulation in these actions may be a mere outcome of this
hiding propensity, and the accompanying wish that you should not get the
hidden thing. Refusals to tell secrets, or as C. called them ‘private
secrets’ (a fine distinction), show the same thing. A child when
badgered is most jealous in guarding what he has been told, or what his
fancy has made a secret. The little ruses or ‘acted lies’ to which I am
now referring seem to me at the worst attempts to put you off the scent
in what is regarded as a private matter, and to have the minimum of
intentional deception. As Mrs. Fry has well shown, this childish passion
for keeping things secret may account for later and more serioua-looking
falsehoods.[180]
-----
Footnote 180:
_Uninitiated_ (‘A Discovery in Morals’).
-----
More distinct marks of mendacity appear when the child comes to use
language and proffers statements which if he reflected he might know to
be false. It may readily be thought that no child who has the
intelligence to make statements at all could make false ones without
some little consciousness of the falsity. But here I suspect we judge
harshly, applying adult tests to cases where they are inappropriate.
Anybody who has observed children’s play and dramatic talk, and knows
how readily and completely they can imagine the non-existent so as to
lose sight of the existent, will be chary when talking of them of using
the word lie. There may be solemn sticklers for truth who would be
shocked to hear the child when at play saying, ‘I am a coachman,’ ‘Dolly
is crying,’ and so forth. But the discerning see nothing to be alarmed
at here. Similarly when a little girl of two and a half after running on
with a pretty long rigmarole of sounds devoid of all meaning said: “It’s
because you don’t understand me, papa”. Here the love of mystery and
secrecy aided by the dramatic impulse _made_ the nonsense talk real
talk. The wee thing doubtless had a feeling of superiority in talking in
a language which was unintelligible to her all-wise papa.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account