Bold Allegations and Unknown Identities: A Critical Analysis of Francis Beynon’s ‘The Thou Shalt Not System’
By Kyra Sinclair
The article ‘The Thou Shalt Not System’[1] was published on November 25, 1914 in the Grain Growers’ Guide as part of the Country Homemakers section, which told the daily lives of Prairie women through the Woman’s Page from 1908-1928. The author, Francis Marion Beynon, wrote a critical column about the confinement of children criticizing conventional parenting regimens during the early 1900’s and presenting her opinion that children should be compensated for amusements that are forbidden. Beynon speaks towards the need for alternate amusements for children if parents continue to fear, and therefore forbid, new social settings such as dances and playing cards. Beynon’s argument is sensible and addresses the becoming issues of youth rebellion. Her argument is likely influenced by outside scholars such as Maria Montessori, but she does recognize it, nor does she recognize any youth experience, which weakens her allegations and makes the article seem opinionated rather than factual. In this analysis three aspects of Beynon’s writing will be addressed and explained in terms of how they influence the reliability of her argument: the lacking identification of outside influence, the portrayed identity of the author, and the incompatibility of argument and solution.
The other columns on page 10 of the Grain Growers Guide reveal women’s opinions of childhood behaviours and were written for discussion whereas Beynon’s piece was assertive and opinionated. This piece was written as Maria Montessori’s program was emerging into America, and the similarities between Beynon’s argument and Montessori’s methods question whether Beynon’s argument was influenced by Montessori’s disciplinary methods and used as a way to promote new practices because she saw its beneficial potential. Beynon claims parental control dictates the freedom of a child, and recognizes that this approach is no longer accurate with changing society– “without the slightest compunction… [parents] cut their families off from all amusements… because they feel it is right.”[2] This statement insinuates the need for a new control over children, stating that parents selfishly make decisions that inflict rebellion. Similarly, Maria Montessori states “the child, in her conception, ought to be free, within the limits imposed, not by [parental] convention, but by social amenity;”[3] both women share the opinion that children require a sense of freedom that should be dictated by societies limits. The main difference between these conclusions is Montessori is a recognized graduate of medical school and Beynon’s educational background is unknown; therefore making Montessori’s claims reliable but not Beynon’s. Beynon’s identity is not given and this reduces the likelihood of people employing her approach because there is no proof it works.
The fact she writes about children and critiques parents restriction of them with no reference to bearing or working with children also adds to unreliability of her argument.
A lack of parental experience would make Beynon insensitive to the protective aura and emotions which often results in parental capitulation. Her message is portrayed in such a way that victimizes the parents: “It never occurs to [parents] that there is any tyranny or injustice in [their] conduct, chiefly because they have never conceived of such a thing as the divine right of parents being questioned.”[4] This claim, along with subsequent critiques, suggests Beynon is superior to parental ignorance thus insinuating she is not a parent herself. She does not acknowledge the hardships of being a parent or how the erratic behaviors of children impact their susceptibility to rebellion; rather she blatantly puts the blame on parent’s ability to “forbid young men and women… without providing an alternative outlet for their social instincts.”[5] The condescending tone reflects a sense of animosity towards parents, but also suggests a strong desire to fulfill her proposed change. She briefly acknowledges that parent’s decisions may “be justified on the grounds of the children’s own good”[6] but later claims they are “arbitrarily [decided]” which suggests they are unreasonable. If Beynon were a parent she would likely convey advice rather than belittle parenting techniques.
Beynon’s argument that children need a substitution for what is forbidden in order to prevent rebellion is a valid concept, but her argument and later solution are not compatible. She emphasizes that parents should not strangle their children with rules because forbidding them influences rebellion or the “beginning of evil,”[7] yet provides controlled social environments such as a “skating rink, or a gymnasium”[8] as her solution. Her conclusion that these structures will establish “safe and healthful exercise and social intercourse”[9] is naïve because rebellion at this time was coming from excessive amounts of restriction upon society.[10] This column is written following the start of WWI, therefore Beynon’s concern for adolescent curiosity is prepossessed,[11] this questions if she foresees the becoming issue or simply jumps to conclusions. She does not state where she got her allegations from, nor does she mention any research done on the topic and this impacts the reader’s ability to believe if her claims are facts or opinion.
Beynon addresses an issue that is becoming, but throughout her column she does not state where she gained insight from. It can be concluded Maria Montessori influenced her allegations, but it is not proven at any point, nor is any background information of Beynon’s experience with children. Her tone relays a sense of authority, therefore insinuating a goal of change, which in Beynon’s case is to give children alternate opportunities for amusements that are forbidden. The lacking of references which distinguish whether her allegations are fact or opinion impact the chance of her gaining individuals that are willing to try her proposed method.
\
[1] Beynon, Francis, “The Thou Shalt Not System,” Grain Growers Guide. (1914): 10.
[2] Beynon, “The Thou Shalt Not System,” 10.
[3] Tozier, Josephine, “An Educational Wonder Worker: The Moethods of Maria Montessori,” McClures Magazine, (2011): 10.
[4] Beynon, “The Thou Shalt Not System,” 10.
[5] Beynon, “The Thou Shalt Not System,” 10.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] The implementation of the War Measures Act as well as “the world struggle of … [an] unprecedented advance in the art of large scale dying [and] an equally rapid advance in… large scale lying” impacted the children because their freedom was excessively restricted. Lacking parental presence and their ability to lie made breaking these rules easier to accomplish.
Basen. I, “Why Canadian media embraced censorship during WWI: Ira Basen,” CBCNews, (2014).
[11] Presented earlier than common post-WWII youth rebellion fears.
Bibliography
Basen, I. “Why Canadian media embraced censorship during WWI: Ira Basen.” CBCNews. (2014). http://www.cbc.ca/news/why-canadian-media-embraced-censorship-during-wwi-ira-basen-1.2722786.
Beynon, Francis. “The Thou Shalt Not System.” Grain Growers Guide. (1914): P:10.
Tozier, Josephine. “An Educational Wonder Worker: The Methods of Maria Montessori.” McClures Magazine. (2011): P.10.
