To become truly independent, Neill would argue that children must learn to facethe world as individuals. As Neill states, "A child must learn to findsecurity not in any symbiotic attachment, but in his or her capacity to graspthe world intellectually, emotionally, artistically. He or she must use all ofhis or her powers to find union with the world, rather than to find securitythrough submission or domination" (Neill, Summerhill, 1960).
To sum up Neill's ideas on healthy human development, one could say that Neillbelieves that unfree education results in life that cannot be fully lived. Thus,if a child never detaches him or herself from his or her parents, then he or shewill be unable to venture down the path to self-actualization.
Furthermore, if a child does not cut these primary ties, then he or she willforever be indebted to what Neill referred to as anti-life. "Suchan education [one that is unfree] almost entirely ignores the emotions of life;and because these emotions are dynamic, their lack of opportunity for expressionmust and does result in cheapness, ugliness, and hatefulness. Only the head iseducated. If emotions are permitted to be really free, the intellect will lookafter itself" (Neill, 1967).
Neill further noted, along the lines of freedom and license [see
Again and again, Neill resurrects this theme of mutuality. Thus, if a child isgoing to development in a productive, healthy manner, he or she must respect theparent and or teacher and vice versa. There has to be a certain amount ofsacrifice and detachment on behalf of the parent [and the teacher] ifchildren/pupils are to live in accordance with their internal desires to learn,grow, and ultimately to actualize.