The Elf on the Shelf is preparing your child to live in a future police state
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Then my kid is freaked out about Santa. "What? This person in funny clothes will break into our house, at night, while I am asleep, and I am supposed to be happy about it". Yeah that is pretty creepy too.
Then Elf On The Shelf. Wife said all the friends are doing this thing with their kids. We decided not to, it is too strange. Now reading this it makes it even worse. You know back in the day it used to be "God is watching you. Don't do bad things. Don't think bad thoughts. Etc.". That is very effective brainwashing. Once done on a child they will cary guilt and this nagging feeling of being watched and critisized with them for life (Hey isn't that Super Ego? I saw someone drop Slavoj Zizek's name, he would know). Today not many people are religious but I think they are earning for a substitute. Perhaps unconsciously if you will. This is that substitute -- "Elf will see you mix salt in the sugar bowl and will punish you".
I think you're wrong about that. I also think you're wrong to conflate your apparent phobias about religion with Elf on the Shelf and government control.
Well it depends where. In US you are probably right. But! The pun works there as well. The Elf is just a pointer (or a type) to God. You know first teach them about the Elf then once that is internalized teach them about God.
The ultimate effect is to induce self-sensorship. I think that is critical. This is not unlike the Panapticon effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon ) described by Bentham and then expounded and implemented, one can say, by a surveilance society. Before that religion and God served as that mechanism -- induce self-sensorship and behavior control by positing an omniscient and ever vigilant God. Once you've convinced the person they are being watched. You don't have to actaully watch them.
He is a mostly benevolent authority figure who helps the engines out of their scrapes, but engines that defy him or disturb the peace are punished. In an early episode he left an engine bricked up in a tunnel. Quite a few engines have also been sent away as well.
It is slightly funny to see childhood again through adult eyes but I'm not sure what I'll do when my son is old enough to understand these things. Im sure the idea of being left alone in a tunnel would have terrified me as a child. :)
To the Controllers.
So all these shows have consequences, even the good ones. I'm not sure what is worse, whining and tantrums or deference to authority figures?
PS. I'm not the only one who thinks Caillou is a whiner: http://google.com/#q=caillou+whiner
Even before the doll there was the whole "Santa knows who was naughty" routine, which I consider "black parenting" (don't know the proper English word).
The experience is a good yearly reminder to me just how differently my children perceive and understand the world than I do. At Christmas time, we and many other families make a special effort to bend the world a bit towards their way of thinking.
Magical.
Now DuffelBlog has picked up on this concept:
SNOWDEN: ‘Elf On A Shelf’ Actually Hugely Successful NSA Project http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/12/elf-on-a-shelf-snowden/
(I know someone who makes plush animals. I'm really tempted to have her put a camera in an Elf on the Shelf.)
If you need a mental purge after encountering this I recommend Slavoj Zizek's Pervert's guide to Ideology. The 'Elf on the Shelf' embodies the Lacanian psychoanalytic concept of 'the big other'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pervert's_Guide_to_Ideology
It would be interesting to see if this toy specifically correlates with these feelings (would be a hard multi-decade study to design...) but I do think there is the point to be made at large that we exist in a surveillance state, and in fact that since at least the 1700s these forces have been very powerful in shaping Western culture. (For that I would suggest reading Foucault, Gilliom, J.B. Rule and Dandeker.)
Bazollocks. Before the Elf turned up, my children had already become used to two far worse "spies" that can follow them around the house and issue summary justice: their parents! The idea that surveillance is universally nefarious and undesirable, even when limited in nature or scope, seems a tired and stereotypically American trope to me.
Clearly there are some obvious benefits to some surveillance, but whether or not they outweigh the negative aspects is an issue that's clouded by the fact surveillance isn't being done legally, reasonably, or in a limited scope a lot of the time. The problem arises when everyone feels they're under surveillance but no one seems to see the benefit. I think people would be much more willing to accept (limited) surveillance if we weren't continually told that crime rates are worsening, we're constantly under threat from terrorism, and everyone is a suspect. Couple that with the fact that most of the media coverage of surveillance is when it's being misused and you have a recipe for people not wanting to be watched at all.
So, there is the authoritarian component. Beyond that, I didn't like the idea of this little thing intruding on our responsibility as parents and, to some extent, usurping our authority by presuming to share it. It is odd to defer to this silly little Elf. We don't need an Elf to help us raise our kids, thank you very much. I'm also not a big Santa fan for this and other reasons.
So, in some ways, this thing is conditioning parents as well. We have been "put upon" by our school to continue this, which lends a subtle pressure to conform to societal norms, no matter how new or questionable. And, in this case, that norm is to defer to some outside authority, with whom we are completely unfamiliar.
All of this is made even worse by the fact that it is the product of one person's imagination, and was meant for commercial gain.
There's always the legend of Krampus to be truly terrifying.
Not a half-bad idea. I guess the natural progression would lead to an inevitable coup against Santa as well.
>There's always the legend of Krampus to be truly terrifying.
Somehow hadn't heard that legend, but just looked it up. That's just plain wrong/traumatic. Why even bother with the carrot of Santa if you're going to go that far with the stick on the other side?
No, for parents you get Amazon Echo.
The makings of a truly terrifying horror movie.
http://www.chrisharding.net/wetherobots/comics/2007-12-17-Tr...
At this time of year if I can get the kids to ratchet it down by pointing to the elf, I'll take what I can get.
hey, you're only doing your parental duty of developing super-ego of your children :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krampus
(As satirized on an episode of The Office, and as Christoph Waltz recently discussed on Jimmy Kimmel.)
"Krampus is represented as a beast-like creature, generally demonic in appearance. The creature has roots in Germanic folklore. Traditionally young men dress up as the Krampus in Austria, Romania, southern Bavaria, South Tyrol, northern Friuli, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia during the first week of December, particularly on the evening of 5 December (the eve of Saint Nicholas Day on many church calendars), and roam the streets frightening children with rusty chains and bells."
I'm sure that makes for a very merry Christmas! :)
Does Disney work for the NSA now? Are they trying to indoctrinate the children?
Shutterbug is more fightning considering the content is conditioning for ubiquitous surveillance drones flying everywhere.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11209390/How-the-CIA...
Firstly it shows an abusive dictator taking what he wants with force and threats (the King says he'll marry the miller's daughter if she creates enough gold for him, but kill her if she doesn't). This is not portrayed as a bad thing, and no justice is ever done for it.
Secondly it suggests that a contract freely entered into can be reneged upon later if you simply change your mind (the miller's daughter, now the queen, refuses to hand over the baby as she'd previously agreed to do, in order to save her life from the baby's father).
I suppose it could be argued that the contract was not entered freely by the miller's daughter, since she was under mortal threat. However, it was not the other party doing the threatening, but a third party (the king). Perhaps a lawyer could comment on this.
Or maybe it's just a nice story and I'm reading too much into it ;-)
We have a very old edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales and the stories are horrible. I used to read them at my grandparents house when I was around 10 or 12 and some really gave me the creeps (like that you have to set the changeling on a pot in a hot stove to kill it).
There are two brothers, both soldiers. One is rich, one is poor. The poor one gives up soldiering and becomes a gardner. He grows a huge turnip, and gives it to the King as a gift. The King is impressed, and declares that the gardner shall be poor no more, and gives him gifts, proclaiming that he shall have even more than his brother.
The brother then gives the King gifts, expecting to get rewarded by the King and return to being wealthier than his brother. The King is impressed, and gives the brother the most impressive thing the King has--the giant turnip. That pisses the soldier brother off, and he hires murderers to kill the gardner brother.
The murderers lure gardner brother out to the woods, and prepare to hang him, but they hear a traveller approaching and panic, and only manage to get the gardner stuffed in a sack that they hang from a tree and then they run off.
By the time the traveller arrives on the scene, the gardner brother has managed to make a hole in the sack and get his head out. He hails the traveller, and finds out that the traveller is a student in search of knowledge. The student asks what the gardner is doing in the sack. The gardner tells him it is the Sack of Wisdom, and by hanging in it from a tree, one acquires the secrets of the universe.
The student begs to be allowed into the sack, and the gardner agrees to change places. The student rescues him, gets into the sack, and the gardner hoists it up the tree. The gardner then steals the student's horse and goes home. (Some versions have the gardner send someone an hour or two later to go cut the student down, some just end with gardner riding off on the horse).
WTF?
What is the point of this story? I don't see a lesson...no bad guys get their comeuppance. The guy that I thought was going to be the good guy (the gardner) ends up stealing from the naive student when it suits him. Is the lesson that it is really every man for himself and so when someone does something bad to you, go ahead and find someone else you can screw over to fix your situation?
Perhaps the lesson is that bad guys don't always get their comeuppance; most people can't simply be classified into 'bad' and 'good'; people might screw you over even if you trust them.
Pretty important lessons for children (and everyone). Even if you tell children only the fairy tales with lovely happy-endings, they will experience the truth of the schoolyard.
Under what circumstances do you prefer children to have to deal with these lessons? I suggest that Grimm is popular for good reason.
http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Punish-The-Birth-Prison/dp/...
This is the reason authority induces power. Just by looking, it turns what it sees into a ready and waiting instrument capable of enacting its intentions within a space of desires. Authoritarian seeing is like a magnetic field acting on a domain of free agency."
...
"Why? Because authority exercised through direct coercive action is inefficient to the point of being useless beyond a certain scale. But authority expressed and exercised through the authoritarian eye is nearly infinitely scalable. The source of this leverage is of course the fact that humans (and agents in general), unlike non-sentient matter, can recognize and respond to being seen."
...
"The condition of a social system that has submitted to authority is a sort of self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating collective learned helplessness."
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/03/22/social-dark-matter-on-s...
I see a parallel with this and the concept of "black-box abstraction": If this Elf is an abstraction of surveillance, it's basically saying to the child that they should unquestioningly accept however it works, and not attempt to discover what it really is. That's what I think is the really disturbing part - children are being taught to not think deeply about and "dig into" how the world around them works, but to internalise the belief that everything "just works" like magic. I say this as someone who was known for (sometimes aggressively) disassembling all my toys when I was young. I'd probably give the Elf the same treatment if it existed back then. :-)
_glances at nest tstat_
_glances at dropcam_
Hmmm...
I think the Elf on the Shelf gives exactly the right message about the place of surveillance in our society.
Buy the Elf on the Shelf
WowIndeed, I'm sure it's a useful substitute to talking to your kids like human beings deserving of respect and giving them real world reasons why they should not misbehave.
You're emotionally manipulating another human being through lies. But it's OK because they're underage and you're their guardian. Right.
And you keep the emotional scars.
It does NOT spy on children, and frankly, they live in a completely different universe than the modern Santa.