From Lynelle's comment on my previous post: "i kind of believe that as a parent, it's actually part of my job to try to instill certain values in my kids. i try to do that through example, suggestions, sharing experiences, asking my kids questions about their thoughts and feelings and reasons, and talks."
She goes on to detail some of the values she hopes her kids will share.
I've been thinking about this a lot these past few days. What are my values? Are there things that I am SO passionate about that seeing their opposites in my kids would really bother me? For half a minute, as I ran through the list of things people often freak out about, I thought Maybe I'm exempt. I mean, religion is the biggie, and I'm not religious, so...
But there are things I feel religious about. Oh, yeah. Unschooling. Peaceful parenting. Being kind. Making fun a priority. Living a wide-sky life. Certain political and social viewpoints that I hold.
Do I hope for my kids to share those values, and have I tried to instill those values in my kids? Yes, and yes. And do I, intentionally or otherwise, make clear to my kids when they are choosing something that is contrary to those values? Yep.
I try. I hope for. I communicate.
But that's where it stops.
Let's say MJ interacts with somebody else in a way that I characterize as unkind. I might talk to her about the other person's viewpoint, about things I think she could do to make amends, about strategies for interactions with this person in the future that might have a better outcome. All of this is parenting, and it can be peaceful and kind and free from shaming or punishment. (It can also be brief. A ten-second conversation is going to tell me if she is open to discussing this with me. And if she is, a two-minute conversation might be long enough to cover all of the above.)
But if MJ reviews her own actions and is fine with them, or if she does not want to discuss it... At that point, I am left with the relationship that I have with MJ, and the relationship that I have with the person I think she hurt. I can separate those from each other. My relationship with MJ from that point is just as it usually is: accepting, respectful, taken for what is now rather than what is past (and the problematic interaction is definitely past). My relationship with the other person is whatever s/he and I need it to be, and I can respond as a sympathetic friend or sympathetic stranger or whatever is appropriate.
Beyond that, I'm helpless. MJ's relationship with this other person is none of my business. MJ's assessment of her own actions is none of my business, even and perhaps especially when I disagree with her assessment.
One more example: Let's say Chloe becomes a mother and decides that Cry It Out is what works for her family. Phew. Oh boy. First, that is really hard to imagine. Chloe ignoring a needy baby? Not gonna happen. Second, that is really hard to imagine. My poor grandbaby!
Would Chloe hear from me? Oh, yeah. I'd send her the research on the harm that CIO does, and I'd encourage her to see things from the baby's point of view. I'd volunteer to stay at her house and take care of the baby during the night. I'd probably beg.
But if none of that worked... At that point, I'm left with my relationship with Chloe and, separately, my relationship with the baby. I'm still going to want a relationship with Chloe even if she is a sadly misguided mother. And I'm going to believe that the baby needs his grandma desperately, so I'm not going to do anything to jeopardize my contact with him. And of course I'm going to be the most loving, accepting, snuggle-him-up grandma I can be.
Beyond that, I am helpless. It's none of my business.
It is easy to be respectful of our kids when we approve of what they are doing. I think being respectful when we don't really approve is where the "radical" in "radical unschooling" comes in.
Nosferatu
8 months ago
45 comments:
Wow! Really good post Ronnie. I actually am needing to hear this today (as if it wouldnt be useful anytime) but Kal and I are butting heads a little bit. This is what I needed to hear.
While I can understand your action in both examples. I wonder how you would feel if your daughter was hitting someone...would you still not feel you had the right to force her to stop? I can assure you if my child is being hit, I will force yours to stop. And I would do the same were it my kid doing the hitting.
One of my kids is a 'mothering' type. She has hugged a kid around the neck, no real damage, but I certainly stepped in and made her stop, then explained why. It doesn't require evil intent to harm. (nor did it require a great deal of 'force' to convince her to stop)
How about theft? Do you stop a 2 year old from taking a book from the store? and if you do, what if it is a book from a friend? where do you draw the line?
Do you allow your child to destroy a library book?
Would it be ok for a child to rip out flowers from a carefully cultivated garden?
I can think of tons of examples where I would enforce my will on my child, and many I would even support the use of govt force to impose my will on others.
What if instead of CIO a mother took the 'give em something to cry about' tactic? I am NOT suggesting your daughter would do such a thing, only that I support govt force to stop excessive abuse. (I might settle for, or even prefer a lynch mob....)
Where do we draw the line between allowing folk free will and protecting each other?
Every time we impose our will on our children, in regards to keeping appointments, cleaning the house, or enforcing a no hit rule. We are passing on values. Some of us insist on more in childhood than others. (I am not paying the dentist bill for a kid who wont brush their teeth)
The line between allowing children free choice and preventing them from doing lasting damage is not set in stone. But for most it IS there somewhere.
For me it is somewhat north of 'so long as you are not hurting me or mine, have at it.'
How would I feel if my daughter were hitting someone... This is not a hypothetical. Both of my daughters have hit someone -- each other! I felt sad and frustrated. I intervened.
But as I have been trying (and trying) to explain, whatever intervention I choose does NOT change their values.
"Every time we impose our will on our children, in regards to keeping appointments, cleaning the house, or enforcing a no hit rule. We are passing on values."
What is the basis for your belief here? How do you know that imposing your will helps? Really. What evidence do you have? How do you know that whatever evolution of values you see in your child wouldn't have happened anyway?
"I am not paying the dentist bill for a kid who wont brush their teeth"
Would you pay the dentist bill for a kid who brushes her teeth but gets cavities anyway? Most kids--most humans--fall into that category. How do you know the kid who won't brush her teeth is not the same as that kid? To assume that your kid is getting more cavities than she would, and then to WITHHOLD MEDICAL CARE based on that assumption, is appalling. What value is that teaching? Vindictiveness? Thoughtlessness?
Question your assumptions. Or at least notice when you have no control group for your experiments. I have a control group for mine--hundreds of kids who have been and are being raised the way I describe, and they are kind and generous and creative and fun.
And trust your children. Kids are born loving and generous and whole. They learn as they get older. They do this learning whether you are kind or cruel. If teaching values is your goal, isn't it FAR better to show them kindness?
I want to answer something from a Facebook comment:
"Your right to swing your fist ends at my face."
I believe this. I am not saying (and, if you will reread my values posts, have not said) that anything goes!
But I am going to assume positive intent from my kids. They are doing their best with the resources and information they have at every given moment. In any moment, I can provide guidance and resources and love, but my primary position is one of trust that they will get it all figured out. And they will. They are.
Jeff was right.
And that fist/nose saying bugs the shit out of me. It is so pathetically shallow that it barely even works as a direct statement. As an analogy, it is beyond simplistic and utterly meaningless. Ack! Going to bed now before my head explodes.
it's a crazy busy day so i'll try to write later. so why, you ask, do i need to write that i'll not write now?
because as i was reading these comments, in my sleepy-morning state, the word verification for adding comments looked like "valueblog" to my morning eyes. and the serendipity of that amused me so.
(it actually is "valebog", but i liked my first take better!)
;)
"I try. I hope for. I communicate"
I don't try and hope. That sounds weird. But I honestly don't try and hope that my kids have the same values as me.
I model what it means to have values. I model what it means to treat my values with respect and importance. I also model what it means to question my values.
Then when my kids are doing the same, we communicate. Communication is HUGE. We talk about what is important to them and why. In an instance where my child might hurt someone or destroy someone's property I intervene. Although, beyond a certain age, it's never happened. They values others. :-)
Politically, I do not hope my children take on my values. I hope they take on their own and possibly find better ones! We talk about it a lot and if they differ from me, I don't always tell them their values are in direct opposition to mine unless they ask my opinion. It's OK with me if they decide to join a political party I disagree with or join a church. I respect their values and decisions enough that I don't feel a need to tell them I think they are wrong.
As for Lady Chadwick,
-If a two year old takes a book from the store, chances are he does not understand what he is doing. It is not theft.
-Technically as the adult, I am responsible for the library books. So no. But why would my child destroy a library book after I've explained that it belongs to someone else?
Most of your examples are hypothetical. I think situations come up in people's lives that can be dealt with. but the who, what, where and when, is so important in dealing with that situation. It's not black and white and it's why I don't do hypothetical.
I think people (especially children) are inherently good. :-)
Whoa... this comment got a lot longer then I meant it. Sorry! More coffee please....
Ronnie-
I am really appreciating your post bc the first example has come up a lot for me. Bc of my own baggage.....let me say that again with feeling: BECAUSE OF MY OWN BAGGAGE!......I have wanted to control my child a lot in the past in regards to how she "made" another kid feel. There were times when i was more sympathetic w/ the other kid then my own kid! WOWZERS was that a wake up call, and ever since it has driven me to dig deep inwardly to explore the visceral reactions that i sometimes have as a response to my kid's behaviors.
When I react strongly bc our kid is not doing what we want them to, it is always my own stuff. I love how my kid uncovers my own shit so nicely! :P
thank you so much for putting words to something that i've been actively working on for awhile, especially this past month.
As to withholding medical care, I don't, instead I insist my kids brush their teeth, if they get cavities anyway, at least I tried. I can't afford to find out how much worse it will be to not try (and I am quite certain medical evidence backs up brushing as useful)
So what do I do when my kid doesn't want to brush? I remind them gently why it is important..and then if they still don't want to, I insist (doesn't take much)
So does this mean they will have consistent teeth care as adults? Nope, might, but no promise, it does mean when they are able to afford the dentist they will be in charge of brushing or not as they choose. (and will have from 16-20 years of a good habit behind them)
When I say 'pass on' I do not mean 'force them to acquire'. A distant relation passed on a ceramic pair of feet. I didn't bother to keep them.
I do not promise that my kids will all be slightly tree hugging, Christian, home-educating, libertarians. But I do promise they will maintain some basic rules while I am paying the consequences of them. (IE no hitting, and brush your teeth.)
Statistically children tend to claim the faith and political views of their childhood. (not all, but statistically a large number) values are a lot harder to study they tend to be rather fluid and hard to define.
Oddly enough the kids religion and politics are the least of my concerns. Sure it would pain me to raise a Democrat but eh, so long as they are relatively civilized and such, no big deal.
I have not read many of your posts, so maybe the general gist is not one of 'anything goes' but from the last three..that is the impression I get.
"Where do we draw the line between allowing folk free will and protecting each other?"
Lady C:
There are consequences to behaviors, and i mean that in a judgment free way- neither good or bad, necessarily.
informing kathrynn of the possibilities of her actions allows her to know of possible consequences, while also giving her free will.
i can explain to kathrynn that treating people in such and such a way might result in them not wanting to play w/ her. I can't "make" her act a certain way (although i can gently hold her fist if she tries to hit someone), but i can offer her information, guidance, and support. I can help her dialogue w/ her friend if there is a conflict. I can "allow" kathrynn to be 'mean' to another kid, and then help her deal w/ the consequences, if there even are any!
None of the families i know live in a vacuum (although if i read her right, someone accused ronnie of raising her kids one on FB. LOL!)- and what i mean by that is that we are moving through the world WITH our kids, partnering with them, offering resources and information to them....
We don't live in an Either/Or world, thank goodness. She can still have free will and make "good" choices, and "bad" choices too! Having trust to allow this to unfold is a powerful and wonderful thing. :)
sorry for typos....
"and I am quite certain medical evidence backs up brushing as useful"
actually, the evidence has long suggested that nutrition is a more important precursor to dental health, but that's a whole other topic. :D
All of my examples have happened.
My second youngest regularly is 'tough on books'. Sometimes the sound of ripping paper is fascinating to a kid. So we have to stop her. We remind her how it is not ok to destroy a book we point out the scrap paper she can destroy. We do not allow her to continue the destruction.
All of my children have had to be taught not to take things from a store or anothers home. Sharing is sometimes only temporary, a lesson that they all went through. (well not the 6 week old yet)
Give is a very complex word for kids. give a toy you might get it back, give food you prolly wont. give paper you wont be able to use it when you get it back. Give money and even though you know perfectly well it is in that cash register they wont be giving it back....
Are children inherently good? prolly but why don't we allow them to dump water on the carpet? water is good, dumping is fun (and fun is good).
Children need boundaries, some simple, like not dumping their juice on the carpet, (and especially not on grandmas carpet) some more complex, like write in notebooks, not just any book, some VERY important 'don't hit'.
So your children value others? I bet you do to, and your modeling of that has helped them learn how to respect and value others.
Hae you ever had a conversation with your kid and watched the light-bulb replace the sullen look? I have, those flowers I wouldn't let my kid pick. I had to explain they were not wild, and that the owner when to a lot of work to help them grow there, just like her own garden. The sullen cranky 'why wont mommy let me do anything' look was replaced by one of understanding.
On the other hand her brother has had that same sulky look. No lightbulb, but he accepts that my rule is a rule and that is that.
Sigh..I lost another rather long post. Really you all don't need it so heres to brevity.
Free will in kids...that is the part I just don't get. If you would willingly force a child not to hit, why can you still say they had free will to choose?
They had free will to choose so long as they didn't choose too badly...
"Free will in kids...that is the part I just don't get. If you would willingly force a child not to hit, why can you still say they had free will to choose? "
free will is free will.
i have it. you have it. my kid has it. she has the free will to want to hit, and i have the free will to gently hold her arm so that she does not hurt another being.
perhaps its semantics? i don't feel like i'm forcing her to do anything. i feel like i'm keeping her from physically hurting someone.
we don't live in an "anything goes" world. is that what you think?
having free will and living in a world that has some boundaries or rules-- those things are not mutually exclusive.....
i think we're perhaps talking languages based on different worlds. thanks for the dialogue. :)
"free will is free will.
i have it. you have it. my kid has it. she has the free will to want to hit, and i have the free will to gently hold her arm so that she does not hurt another being. "
I was thinking along the same lines except I was thinking more like... my child has the free will to hit, but I have the free will to protect the victim. My children know, because I tell them, I will not let you hurt [insert name here]
The hitting example - I might not hold a child's arm if s/he were trying to hit someone. Using physical force to make someone do anything is not something I approve of. On the other hand, I wouldn't stand back and let another child be hit, either. So what do I do?
Personally, I would get in the way. Offer the kid a choice that doesn't include hitting another child. Stand between them, so they could stop hitting, or they could hit me. I am less likely to be hurt by a child's punches than another child is. In my opinion, I don't have a right to lay hands on the hitting child any more than they have the right to punch someone. But I do have the right to inhabit the space the child is punching at, and that is what I would do.
Gil - Yes, there are all sorts of ways to stop the hitting. I don't have the same problem with physical intervention as you, so long as it's gently done. I do have a problem with the shaming that so often accompanies physical intervention.
I didn't have to impose, instill, or otherwise impart basic values of decency on my kids. They were each born sweet and kind and generous but with an infant's ability to cope with stress and conflict.
As they got older, they learned, and we helped them learn, better--or perhaps I should say less basic--ways of coping with stress and conflict.
As they got older, we showed, shared, and talked about our more complex or philosophical values. These are the ones that I hoped would make sense to them, Heather, and that I'm pleased that they have mostly adopted for their own and, yes, improved on, and in turn shared their improved versions with me.
"and then if they still don't want to, I insist"
This is not radical unschooling, Lady Chadwick. If you are not interested in moving closer to radical unschooling, why are you even commenting here?
If you *are* interested in moving farther down the RU path, let's start with this:
"So we have to stop her. We remind her how it is not ok to destroy a book we point out the scrap paper she can destroy. We do not allow her to continue the destruction."
Stop for a minute. Breathe. Think. *Why* do you have to stop her? *Why* is it not okay to destroy books? Aren't there books that it would be perfectly okay for her to destroy, perhaps some 25-cent books from the thrift store or that too-liberal book you received for Christmas one year? I know I've got a Bill O'Reilly book my kids are welcome to destroy. :-)
What we try to do in radical unschooling is to move past our knee-jerk obedience to the rules of our own childhoods. If your child has a need and an enjoyment of ripping up books, or sticking gum on furniture, or drawing on walls, or saying the F word, or going out in the rain without a coat, MAKE IT HAPPEN. It's usually SO easy to do that you end up wondering what the heck the fuss was all about.
I think I'm done talking about this now, for the moment, and will let my little 3-part series on values--and the discussions in the comments--stand. If others want to continue the conversation, feel free.
So, one final note: Free will is not values. Actions are not values. Actions are often not even especially reflective of values. (Sometimes it's just temper or ignorance or a simple mistake.) Values are in our hearts and minds. My children's hearts and minds are theirs to control.
perhaps i'm not getting it, because it seems to me that there is a lot of common ground in this discussion.
i didn't read anyone here saying that *values* can be forced. just that sometimes intervention may be useful to shift *behavior* if another person or someone else's things may be hurt by our own child(ren).
it might be that "forcing" a child to stop is being read as physical and/or punitive force, yet i'm not reading it that way. to me, it seems that people are conveying gentle styles and proposing non-coercive, non-punitive ways to intervene, with parents living and modeling their values, and having conversations to share their views about why they believe different behavior and different values may be worthwhile for the teens to consider. yet also with full awareness that there's only so much we can do to encourage behavior that reflects our values; ultimately, our kids will choose their own values.
whether we choose to distract a child from tearing up someone else's book, or we step between them if one child is physically hurting another, or we set a boundary that selling meth isn't ok in *our* garage, (we'll each choose different "battles" because we're different people), OR... whether we tell adults that spanking their child isn't ok in *our* house, i'm seeing (or imagining?) that there is agreement that whatever intervention or boundary we choose, it may only change the behavior for that specific time and place; and it does NOT inherently change the values of our kids, or of other adults.
there seems to be shared hope, wishes, want for our kids to choose some of our values for themselves, *with* awareness that although most of us would try to share about the merits of the values that matter to each of us, we can often change behavior, yet we cannot *make* our kids choose our values; their hearts and minds and values are not actually ours to decide or control. i'm not hearing a dissenting voice about that. (oblivious-ness is bliss?...)
As to why I comment when I have no intention of really being a radical unschooler? I suppose you would prefer only folk who think alike comment? I can easily oblige.
Though honestly I do want to understand how someone can think it is ok to rip a book.... (Though I can think of a few I dislike, I don't go around desecrating things just because I don't like them)
Before I go a comment on why I wouldn't allow my child to destroy a book - cause it is awfully hard to read em after, I like to read and I don't like to pay for library replacements.
I have rights too. I have the right not to need to pay for replacements just because my daughter likes the sound of ripping paper.
Besides I read Fahrenheit 451 it instilled in me a deep fear of destroying literature. And worse censorship.
I often question my own rules, and my own values. I want my children to have as much freedom as possible, while still educating them on things I find important. Like acceptance. Which is why I read blogs by folk with different view points.
There you go, Lynelle - a little more dissent.
Lady - How can someone think it's okay to rip a book? Different values. Look at the language you've used: desecrate, censorship, destruction. Your caretaking of books is fervent, even though thousands of redundant paperbacks are destroyed every single day, in every single book store around the world. They rip off the covers to send back to the publishers for refunds, and then they throw the books in the recyling. This is not censorship or desecration; it's standard business practice.
Also note how you describe your daughter's enjoyment of ripping up books: "just because [she] likes the sound of ripping paper." Why "just"? Why not say, "My daughter likes ripping up books, and I'm not entirely sure why, but her enjoyment is reason enough to find a compromise." As I said, find some books that it *is* okay for her to rip up. Maybe your local bookstore would provide you with some of those coverless paperbacks. Just say, "These books are important to me and I want to keep them safe, but you can rip up these books that were going to be thrown out anyway." Ta da! You've honored your own values AND HERS.
I enjoy a good debate, and letting go of our need for control is a huge topic in the unschooling community. I get comments sometimes from people who have been challenged by what I write, and who want me to clarify. I get comments from people who don't agree with some of my points (see Heather's comment above), and who want to challenge me. But you came to the blog of a radical unschooler, with an audience that is made up almost entirely of radical unschoolers, and promoted parenting practices that we find sad and disturbing and that we have worked VERY hard to move away from. To what purpose?
hmm... i'm still hearing dissent about ways to distract *behavior*, as opposed to dissent about not being able to control or choose values for our kids. (selective hearing?...)
although radical unschooler philosophies make it unlikely to choose words like "children need boundaries", it seems to me that the non-coercive interventions and distractions are still boundaries ~ radical or not, i believe that most of us would intervene to stop a child from drawing on a museum's walls, tearing a library book apart, torturing an animal, hitting other children, selling meth in our garage, etc.
i still don't hear anyone suggesting forceful or punitive ways to shift behavior, so perhaps that explains why i'm not seeing significant dissent. yet i love the diversity of creative ideas offered for non-coercive distraction/intervention. sharing about those (as people have done) may enable people (radical unschoolers or not) to have more ideas, more creativity, and more tools to choose from for those times when we feel that we need to intervene and/or distract behavior of our children (or other adults).
to me, that reflects the philosophy we're hoping to model and live with our kids. it seems that with our kids, we aim for an ideal ~ willing-ness to question and sometimes change our own values, and to sometimes suggest (gently and non-critically) that our kids reconsider theirs. even when we disagree with our kids' values, behaviors, or choices, it seems that we try not to minimize their values, behaviors, and choices; it seems that we share about the reasons and merits of the values that matter to us, and we offer creative alternatives that may enable them to get what they want in ways that fit our values and their needs. with other parents, we may be able to still come from that ideal.
(i say all this from the perspective of my own life priority and ideal of respectful living/respectful parenting. i don't know if i fit the definition of radical unschooler. so my input might not meet radical-ness standards. ;) )
sidetracking slightly...
to me, some of these kinds of conversations remind me of a teen friend and her choice and deep belief in being a vegan. for her, it's more than a food choice; it's reflective of non-coercive life philosophies that matter to her. she told me that when people tell her "i think i could be vegan except for bacon" (or chicken, shrimp, or whatever), she encourages them. she's like "that's great! be a vegan except for bacon!"
she says that even though she could make the argument about how that isn't really a vegan (and it's not), her intent is more about encouraging people to eat less meat and dairy. still eating bacon doesn't fit the philosophy/boundary she's chosen for herself, yet if the person is making vegan choices except for bacon, it's a hell of a lot closer than not going for vegan at all. if the person does that, it's still a lot less pain and coercion of animals, and that fits what she wants for animals and the world.
Ronnie, i think that your integrity and your style, words, and shared experiences have very understandably earned a lot of admiration and respect in people's hearts.
it seems natural to me that your blog would attract radical unschoolers as well as people who lean that way in some areas yet not others. i think you are in a unique yet challenging position where your words might plant seeds in some people to shift to a radical unschooling style completely, or... you might sometimes influence people to shift towards radical unschooling "except for bacon".
it's not your job or responsibility to do that, yet if you want to, i think you are in a place where you might significantly change the world, beyond the radical unschooling choir.
If I say, "Honor your kids' values" and someone says "I make my kids brush their teeth and I refuse to even consider letting my daughter tear up a book," I see dissent, so I guess we have to disagree on dissent. :-)
"i think you are in a place where you might significantly change the world, beyond the radical unschooling choir."
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I was actually thinking about this on the way to work--about the fact that there are more readers of my blog than show in the comments--and I think you're right. This conversation is useful, even if Lady C. doesn't find it so, and even if I am bothered by yet more evidence that I can't help all kids. And I REALLY love the ripping up books example. It is such a perfect example for this, because destroying books is a religious thing for many people. Talking about how to get past the fervor and alarm, and how to get creative and cooperative in finding solutions, is completely supportive of radical unschooling.
So, Lady C, if you're still here, I take it back. Comment away!
about disagreeing about dissent... (smiles), perhaps this helps: i'm making a distinction between how people might feel and what they might DO about the feelings.
there are things that each of us might feel so strongly about that it's almost dogmatic or religious/fervor-ish. for me, respectful living/parenting might fall into that category. emotionally and philosophically, i feel so strongly about that topic that i believe and strongly feel that *everyone* should behave respectfully with others. it's just what you "do"; what you *should* do; and if people don't want to, part of me wants to "make" them do that because respectful behavior is the right thing to do dammit! at which point, i've hit irony, but in my head, i can tolerate the irony. yet what i DO about that important-to-me philosophy is different. i'm separating the thoughts, feelings, values from actions.
i did hear that Lady Chadwick wouldn't let her child tear up a book or hit other kids. i took her passionate words to be similar to the talks i have with myself in my head, and with philosophical peers ~ uncensored deep belief that it's just *wrong* to tear books. (substitute anything though... it's just wrong to... be disrespectful to our kids, deal meth from our garage, let your child cry it out, etc.)
action-wise, respectful-ness is the ideal i try to live. with peers who think similarly, i can convey my strong thoughts and feelings and even include criticism of others' choices without censoring because it's a passion we share. with people who don't share my respectful-living views, or with people who are on the fence, or with people who apply respectfulness with adults and not kids (or some other combination), i try to adopt more of the style i use with my kids ~ model, ask about their reasons and needs, suggest alternate strategies that still address their concerns and needs, share my reasons (without criticizing theirs to the extent that i can manage that!), and then sit back, wait, and hope the seeds we plant will sprout.
action-wise, even radical unschoolers seem to have some boundaries and may stop a child from tearing books or hitting kids, depending on whose book it is, whether the hitting is a consensual thing (i.e. teenagers consensually boxing...?) or other factors. it seems to be the HOW that makes a difference. i don't have enough information to know how Lady Chadwick is intervening. perhaps her insistence on not tearing books *is* done by distraction first, and then by gently taking the library book out of the child's hand if needed? perhaps there *are* some books that she'd let her child tear, but the classic she loves that her kid tried to tear last week was fresh on her mind as she typed? perhaps her insistence on not hitting is also done by distraction, talks, and offering a pillow for the child to hit instead, and taking the child to another room with her if all else fails? until/unless i know more about *how* she intervenes, i don't feel i have enough information to know if her style is significantly different from an unschooling approach. so i'm agnostic about dissent.
perhaps that helps. if not, i'll agree with your disagreeing about dissent. ;)
about wanting to help all kids... i wonder if Jeff's words about values as the last bastion might be useful? (it still doesn't resonate for me, yet i see his point and understand that it would resonate for many), so even as radical unschoolers, it sounds like there are bastions?
did any of us get where we are all at once? perhaps it seemed easy and obvious that our kids can choose their own clothing and food, but dammit, they really must have a bedtime! until the day i wondered *why* did i think that they must have a bedtime?!
the philosophy was there, but it took a while for me to decide how broadly to apply it. and i suspect that part is still evolving. all or nothing doesn't seem realistic to me. i think that progress is good and it DOES help kids, even if we aren't all-the-way immediately. hoping that we can grow and support others in applying respectful philosophies, helping kid by kid, step by step, bastion by bastion...?
Lynellex, you seem like a very intelligent person. Your comments make great sense to me, and while I am not always as respectful as I would like to be with people, I figure I can learn more by seeking out info.
Ronnie, thanks for permission to comment :).
I think our disagreement is a lot less terrible than it might seem. After all I gave my kid paper to rip, you bought yours a book to rip. shrug...either way we didn't let our kid destroy certain property.
I understand what you and Lynelle are saying, about how close our positions are, and (for the book example) if your daughter is perfectly content with the alternative of ripping up paper, then we are.
But suppose your daughter isn't satisfied with using paper instead (and I suspect she is not or you would have talked about a specific instance instead of saying that she is "regularly" tough on books). Suppose that, for her, the experience of ripping up an actual book is *the thing*--ripping up this finished object, pulling pages from the binding, feeling the binding get floppier as the page count is reduced--suppose all that is what she is fascinated by. Ripping up paper is a pale substitute, and it doesn't satisfy her.
What I am challenging you to do is to look past your own values (that books are sacred, that destructive activities are bad) and find a way to meet her needs, even though you don't understand them and even though they make you uncomfortable.
"...either way we didn't let our kid destroy certain property."
This is SO not the point. Would I protect a library book? Of course! But that part is a no brainer; I don't even have to think about it. What takes thought and care is seeing my kids' choices as valid, questioning myself more than them (since I certainly have more baggage!), and making a habit out of seeing and responding to their needs with a calm, creative "Yes" instead of a knee-jerk "you can't."
"Close" is a subjective evaluation and close on a given position is not the same thing as singing from the same hymnal. Here's what I have to say about close and positions.
"...either way we didn't let our kid destroy certain property."
this statement of Lady Chadwick's *is* applicable to my points. radical unschooling philosophies can easily convey as if there are no boundaries at all. it may be easy for people to think that we *would* let our child destroy a library book. (yet we'd have some creative way for that to work? i.e. paying the library for the book? or donating a pile of books to make up for the damaged book? or...?) not saying any radical unschooler *would* do that (i don't actually know), yet i think our words and philosophies can easily be heard as anything-goes.
the books, garage meth-selling, hitting, and other scenarios that have been used as examples in these comments show that we do set some boundaries, yet we try to do so in ways that respect our kids' wants, and in ways that are a win-win as much as possible. that said, there are times where a child may want to draw on *this* museum wall, or rip *this* book, right here, right now, and no distraction, alternate book or wall, other offer, or reasoning results in the child being perfectly happy to do something else. in reality, i think perfectly-happy isn't always possible, yet i'll aim for that, with acceptance that sometimes the best i can get is a sad child who has been treated with respectful-ness in how i implement a boundary i consider to be necessary at the time. not my ideal, but sometimes the best i can do. (with my mind in overdrive, thinking about what *else* i might have tried, aiming to have perfectly-happy next time if possible.)
i expect that people will have some knee-jerk "you-can't!" reactions. we're changing some things that we've thought, felt, and believed for a lifetime. to me, it's where we go from there that matters. and to me, that breaks down into (at least?) two parts ~ action, and philosophy.
action-wise, do we implement the "can't" without considering the child's wants, needs, opinions, and preferences? do we use force and blaming, guilting, shaming, and criticism to implement the "can't"? or do we develop a toolbox of creative alternatives that aim for honoring our kids' wants, needs, views, even if we think we can't or don't want to change our own knee-jerk reactions? do we look for ways to say "yes" to things that matter to them, even if doing so leaves us sitting in our own discomfort for a bit?
philosophy-wise, do we dig deeper, question our "can't", and see whether it's worth keeping at all, or whether it might be reduced or eliminated? to me, even if we don't question every knee-jerk reaction, it's still a significant and positive step to look for and implement more creative and respectful actions. even without addressing the philosophy part, when people implement the action part, kids' lives are going to be better.
AND... when people see how effective and mutually happy it can be to implement the action part, i think that paves the way for them to shift towards also digging deeper into their "can'ts" and implementing the philosophy parts more often.
i share my values and reasons with my kids, yet i try hard to stop at telling them how to think. and it's similar here ~ i'm less inclined to focus on how people "should" think (even though i have strong opinions!), than on how they might consider acting. i believe that the positive results they'd experience from acting more respectfully is so likely to create internal shifts that will lead to them to digging deeper into their philosophies. i think it's holistic and real and lasting when it comes from internal shifting.
build the field and the people will come? help with creative actions and the philosophy will follow? just my suspicion and belief. ymmv
I'm not sure there are boundaries. I have supported my kids in things I couldn't have imagined supporting before I was a mom, and I have left all sorts of happily shattered boundaries in my wake.
But even if there are, I think it is counterproductive to get caught up in finding them. It's not a focus that will help anybody. It won't help me be a better parent. It won't help Lady C get creative. And it won't foster in my kids the sense that the things they want to do are fun, interesting, worthwhile, acceptable, and supported to the best of my ability. I want to keep my focus on "How can we make this work?"
If people want more discussion of what parenting looks like with radical unschooling, and all the nuances of implementing boundaries in respectful ways, I recommend the Unschooling Basics list on Yahoo! Groups.
Can I just like lynellex comment? Wheres a digg thumbs up when you need it?
BTW no my daughter does not like to destroy books, she likes to read them, and being a klutzy 2 year old she turns the pages none to gently, sometimes that starts a rip. Or continues one started by some other child..these are library books, and she is my third, the chance of her finding a pristine book are about nil)
I can only go by what you write here. You said she was tough on books and that you thought she liked the sound of the ripping pages. You said you give her paper to tear instead.
At any rate, I'll leave our discussion here for whatever value (heh) people can draw from it.
Words, for all we speak the same language, we don't translate the same all the time.
'tough on' has always been used in my family to describe accidental damage...
Though now that you mention it, I did assume the distraction was due to the sound of paper not to wanting to destroy the book. Since she is only 2, she isn't likely to explain her motives clearly.
I could get a book and ask if she wants to destroy it. But in general I see no reason to encourage something I dislike. Which is prolly why I could never be a RU.
"But in general I see no reason to encourage something I dislike. Which is prolly why I could never be a RU."
it's good that you know that about yourself, bc yes this would really get in the way of having an RU relationship (in which trust is paramount).
"it's good that you know that about yourself, bc yes this would really get in the way of having an RU relationship (in which trust is paramount)."
hmm... radical or not, applying the unschooling philosophy of questioning my own premises, values, thoughts, and reactions, i'm pondering my own views and i'm pondering that statement. it seems obvious to me that RU relationships require a high level of trust. if there is implication that *only* RU relationships are built with solid trust, that sounds too much like there is only one true way. i don't believe that to be true about religion, politics, parenting, or anything else that i can think of at the moment. i think there are different directions of trust. that might or might not equate to different amounts or levels of trust. i'd think that would be sometimes, yes; sometimes no. i can think of many examples where trust exists, yet possibly in different flavors than RU trust.
a two year old might want to feel "hot" and yet i will intervene if he wants to touch the very hot stove burner to learn about "hot". i *will* help him to find other ways and other temperature comparisons, but i'll apply creative options or distractions and/or gentle physical re-location if he's insisting on touching the actual very-hot burner. i trust that he is interested in "hot" and/or the stovetop. *and* i trust that i have a little more experience on this one issue, so i'll apply my protective-ness on that one and i trust that if he remembers this later in life, he will understand and even appreciate my decision.
if there is implication that it's only RU if you meet kids' needs *proactively*, in all areas, including areas that stretch our own comfort zones, as opposed to reactively, i'm wondering where child-led fits in. for a child who likes to rip books, i'll find a way for that to happen ~ i'll have options handy if i know this is something she seems to enjoy now and then. yet i don't feel a need to proactively provide books. i'll go with *child-led* there and i'll help, support, and enable her to meet her needs when she actually has that need. i don't think that selective reactive (vs. proactive) strategies inherently means that someone is less caring, sensitive, trusting, or supportive of their child. (it might mean that someone is not RU. i'm a little vague about that, and about whether it's more important to be RU than to be supportive and respectful of our kids. fitting the RU label or not, it seems that kids' lives are better if respectful-ness is applied, and i'm confused if that isn't a shared premise. so be it though.) with the book-tearing, i trust that i will notice and/or she will let me know when she has that need. i trust that she will know or eventually realize that i come from a perspective of "how can we make this happen?" and i trust that we'll find a creative way for her to enjoy tearing-ness, or whatever it is that appeals to her. and i trust that the history that i build with her will have her know that about me.
(two parts; too long. big surprise?!)
i may see/trust that (theoretical) curious/experimental teens may want to experience altered states of mind. i might or might not chose to look the other way, or by allow experimentation in our home. i'm not likely to proactively buy drugs for them. i don't believe that is evidence that i don't trust them. (in RU, is that what a parent would/should do?) i'll question & push on my boundaries, i'll ponder the real & perceived risks & i'll try hard to make reality-based/accurate distinctions between "real" & "perceived". i'll talk, listen, & learn about their interest & reasons. i'll come from strong memories of my own teen years & the thoughts, feelings, experimentation, freedom, & autonomy i wanted (& still want). i'll trust that this might be a step they want in their journey.
i don't feel a need for me to *like* this part, or to convince myself that this is "good" any more than i feel a need to convince them it isn't. i'll aim for thinking of it as a neutral "is" aspect of their journey. i might or might not attain that level of zen ;) i'll trust that they will see my understanding & my support, even if i don't provide drugs for them. i'll trust that they will also be sensitive to the legal risk to themselves & to me. i'll trust that the freedom they want to decide things for themselves comes with awareness of the associated risks & responsibility. i'll trust that they will pursue their journey in ways that also respect the support & risk i might take in supporting them.
~~~~~
in questioning & pushing on my own thoughts & boundaries about these conversations, i re-noticed that in general i dislike labels, yet i know that they can be useful for identifying like-minded-ness & kindred spirits. i question & often revise my own boundaries; i push on & past them often; i'm a strong believer in sitting in my own discomfort when it makes sense to do so, & i believe it very often makes sense for me to do so; i care about, notice, & support my kids' wants & needs; i believe that their wishes matter hugely & i want to support them.
i believe that i learn soo much from them ~ there IS significant advantage & merit in their perspectives that lack the baggage & history that comes with some of mine. i believe that there is also benefit in my perspectives ~ just as we help them fly & grow in life so they may forge their own paths & grow their own lives & experiences, my flight & life experience also have merit. *not* to force onto them, but to share with them, so that there's a two-directional path & options for re-considering our own perceptions on *both* ends, & learning from each other ~ taking what works & filing or discarding the rest on both ends. i realize that i can only "make" my direction happen, while working & hoping that they will also want to implement two-way-ness from their end. i'm willing to accept that might not happen or it might be intermittent or slow-coming at times. i think that's an "is" aspect of life.
i suspect that i don't meet radical-ness standards. i'm ok with that. i can still learn from aspects of RU philosophies & i'm grateful for the opportunity to do so. RU or not, i trust that my kids will see that with kids, friends, & my family, i almost always come from a place of "how can we make this happen?" while recognizing the reality that every rare now & then, there's isn't a win-win path (or i haven't found it yet?), yet there is always a sensitive, caring, & respectful path. i will work hard to find or make that path, & i trust that kids around me will know that about me based on the history i'm building with them. i trust that they'll let me know when they see areas i'm missing. & oh geez, are they good at that!
all that to say and share that RU or not, i think there are valid and sometimes different flavors of trust. ;)
"if there is implication that *only* RU relationships are built with solid trust......"
nope, not making that implication!
:)
"i trust that they'll let me know when they see areas i'm missing. & oh geez, are they good at that!"
This is a big part of it, being open to our kids' feedback. Anytime I take a position and dig in my heels and feel even the slightest bit self-righteous (as in "I'm definitely right about this"), I hamper communication and problem solving.
This thread is a case in point. I bristled about more traditional parenting philosophies being brought to "MY blog," and it's made me write a few abrupt and cranky things. That doesn't help anything. Everybody in the conversation ends up feeling defensive.
The exact same dynamic happens in conversations with my kids. Leading with "you're wrong" or just about any other "you" statement, or leading with "I'm right" or "I know better than you" all but stops communication in its tracks. At best, it makes kids feel separate from their parents (separate in a bad, unvoluntary way as opposed to separate in a good, "I'm ready for this" way). At worst, it makes them feel ashamed or misunderstood. What makes me realize I'm making this kind of mistake is attention to my kid's reactions.
The obvious signs I've misstepped: she's angry or crying or refusing to talk to me. The less obvious signs: she's looking down or away, the light's gone out of her eyes, she's pouting. The signs that come up later: she does whatever it is again soon after or she's sneaking behind my back to do whatever it was.
In traditional parenting, all of those signs are considered acceptable responses to good parenting. To me, they are all signs of my failure to connect with my child. And it means that whatever I was doing to trigger that response--no matter how sensitive, caring, and respectful I thought I was being--has been taken by my daughter as rejection and unfair/unreasonable restriction. And it often means I've been attempting to impose my values on her.
Then it's back to the drawing board, only now I've got some apologizing to do on top of better solutions to find.
*acceptable responses - I mean normal - I know the sneaking isn't considered acceptable
Trust is an interesting word...I trust my kids in many ways, for example in general they are smart enough not to try things to terribly dangerous. Or at least not try them twice.
Like the hot stove, my son who insists on his own proof for everything, touched the stove, got a small burn and has since learned to trust my words for hot stove. Not much else though.
But I do not trust my 2 your old not to hurt her baby sister. She just doesn't get what can hurt a baby and what cannot, all her experience up to now has been with bigger kids or dolls. You can poke a doll, turn it upside down, hold it by the hair, and all sorts of interesting things, with no damage, Babies not so much. My experience
can help her not hurt her sister, if she listens.
And if that makes me a traditional parent, so be it.
An experienced radical unschooler would know enough about child development to know you don't leave a toddler alone with a baby, no matter how many times you've told the 2-year-old that poking hurts.
If the 2-year-old hurt the baby, there would be no, "WHAT?! But I TOLD you blah, blah, blah." There would be no punishment, no guilt trip. The parent would take the responsibility of leaving the baby alone with the 2-year-old, not blame the 2-year-old for being 2.
There might be further exploration of WHY the 2-year-old hurt the baby: Boredom? Not enough attention? Jealousy? Curiosity? As much as is possible with a 2-year-old. Those issues would be addressed.
I would trust my 2-year-old (if I still had one) to be 2, and to plan accordingly, not hold my 2-year-old responsible for acting like a much older child, then blame them when they failed to do so.
Oh my gosh - I have no idea if anybody is still reading this thread, but you all MUST go watch this somewhat related video. SO sweet, and baby Ethan and his dad make my point very nicely. :-)
Awesome! To paraphrase Devo:
Rip it! Rip it good!
Post a Comment