I was firmly entrenched in the positive discipline method before I discovered the Mistaken Goal Chart, and now, I cannot imagine thinking through misbehavior without it.
First, what is a mistaken goal? The practitioners of positive discipline hold that behavior is purposive. That means that when a child does something inappropriate, she is trying to meet some need or want. She is trying to achieve a perceived value, even if the value isn't in her best interest or if her way of of trying to achieve it is inappropriate. The mistaken goal chart includes four possible reasons a child might misbehave: to get attention, to have power, to get revenge, or to give up and be left alone. There might be more reasons, but in my experience, these four are awfully common.
Because positive discipline is not permissive, the point of identifying a child's mistaken goal is not to ignore the behavior itself; inappropriate behavior must be stopped. The point is that when a parent or teacher has more information about why a child misbehaves, he can choose his explanations, tools, etc with more care and directly address the child's actual problem.
The first mistaken goal is called "undue attention." The child's goal is to get the attention of the parent or teacher, and it is "undue" because the call for attention is inappropriate. A baby crying for milk or a terrified child needing to feel protected from a big dog is not trying to achieve a mistaken goal; her goal is perfectly rational, and she needs "due attention." An example of undue attention might be a child who acts up when mom is on the phone because he doesn't like it when she is not available to answer his questions or look at his drawings.
Next is "misguided power." The child's goal is to have power over someone else or to prove that no one has power over him, and it is misguided because the child has chosen an inappropriate way to gain power and control. A child who fights getting dressed because he wants to pick out his own clothes is seeking legitimate power over his own body and choices. But a child who refuses to put his shoes own because he doesn't want to go in the car to pick up his brother from school might be an example of child seeing inappropriate power; he cannot have power over the schedules of everyone in the house.
The child who has the mistaken goal of "revenge" is trying to get even. She might be hurting and want to hurt others so they feel as bad as she does. An example of this would be a child whose feelings got hurt when her mom set a limit, and so she lashes out and tells her that she wants to go to her dad's house she to make mom feel just as bad as she feels. Not that that has ever happened here. Sigh. I can't think of a time that a child taking revenge would actually be okay, but I think the wrong the child wants to get revenge for could be real or just perceived. Either way the goal of revenge would be a mistaken one.
The last one is the hardest for me to get a handle on because it is so much rarer and more scary. A child who is acting based on "assumed inadequacy" has decided that she can't do things well and may as well not try. She may actually not have the skills to be a competent person, or she might have made a wrong judgment about herself. But either way she is acting as if she is inadequate. For example, a child might have decided that he is not able to make friends, and so he doesn't even attempt to get to know his classmates or the other kids on the playground. He assumes from the beginning that he will fail, and so he doesn't bother to put forth any effort.
To use the mistaken goal chart, a parent introspects about his own reaction to the child's misbehavior and uses his feelings as a clue about which mistaken goal a child might be trying to achieve. At first, I was very resistant to this part. After all, what do my feelings have to do with my child's motivations. But when I used the chart, I found that my feelings did seem to be good clues. After putting some thought into this, I came up with this explanation.
Our feelings are automatic responses to certain kinds of situations. Anger is our reaction to a perceived injustice. Sadness to a perceived loss of a value. Happiness to a perceived gain of a value. When our children misbehave and we react to it, we are reacting to more than just the momentary situation. Our subconscious has made a gazillion integrations about our child's behavior that we may not have consciously considered. Our emotional reaction is based on what we perceive in the moment and all the integrations we've made in the past, even subconscious ones. So, when I feel anger at Livy's misbehavior, it's a good starting point to look for some injustice against me, real or perceived.
Will our feelings always lead us to the right mistaken goal? Definitely not. That's why I think it is wise to use the mistaken goal chart as Jane Nelson and Lynn Lott intended, as a guide and a starting point, and not as a final answer. Our emotions are great indicators, but they aren't tools of cognition. The mistaken goal chart tells me that if I am challenged, it would be a good idea to look and see if Livy might be seeking misguided power. The feeling of being challenged might be based on something irrational, but, especially if the parent has been working hard on his psycho-epistemology and carefully evaluating his feelings through introspection, the feeling is likely to point to something real that is going on. The mistaken goal chart is a way to find a starting point for thinking about the child's goals.
What I find so valuable about the chart is that it helps me address the root of a child's problem and not just work on the symptoms. It's possible for the same behavior to come from any of the mistaken goals, and if the parent just punished or stopped the behavior without trying to understand the cause and work on it, the behavior (or one like it) is likely to happen again.
For example, a child might refuse to put away his dirty dishes in the dishwasher because of any of the mistaken goals. What follows might not actually be said or even understood completely by the child, but these are the things they might be thinking or saying or acting.
- Undue attention: "If I don't do it, mom will yell at me or help me do it. I don't care if it's negative attention, I just want her to focus on me right now."
- Misguided power: "You can't make me do it! You do it! You aren't the boss of me! I don't have to put away my dishes just because you say so!"
- Revenge: "You were working on your blog all day and didn't help me with my art project, so I'm not gonna do the dishes now!"
- Assumed inadequacy: "I will not do it right. I never do. So why bother?"
Instead of just getting mad and forcing the child to put the dishes away, a parent who figured out his child's mistaken goal could address the larger issue while still stopping the inappropriate behavior.
- In the case of undue attention, the parent might insist that the child put her own dishes away but make sure to spend some special time with the child at another time or do the dishes together while talking or singing. The limit is set about dishes, but the parent also knows that the child is craving more attention.
- In the case of misguided power, the parent might insist that the child put her own dishes away but talk with the child about whether she is feeling out of control of her own life. Maybe the child needs more choices about when and how to do the dishes or maybe the child is feeling out of control in some other area. The parent can search for a way to give the child a reasonable chance to feel powerful and in control if he knows that she is acting from misguided power.
- In the case of revenge, the parent can insist that the child put her own dishes away but talk about what might have hurt the child's feelings. If the parent finds out it was revenge for her all day blogging session, she can let the child know that is inappropriate and help her find other ways to express her anger. The parent can validate her feelings of anger.
- In the case of assumed inadequacy, the parent might break the job down into smaller steps that seem manageable or express confidence in the child or remind her of a time she succeeded. In the future, the parent can watch for times the child does really well with chores and point out to her that she is capable.
The mistaken goal chart has become a part of the way I see Livy's behavior, and it has enhanced my response to her. When I remember to see her behavior as goal directed, though mistaken, I stay calmer and am in a problem solving frame of mind. It also helps me to teach her about introspecting about her own motivations. When I know that she is acting out of revenge, I can help her to realize that she is feeling hurt and lashing out. Then we can address the hurt in a healthier way. I hope she won't have to learn to sort out her tangled motivations in her late 20s, as I did.
I don't always get it right, though, as I said above, and that is also good practice for both of us. She gets to see that adults screw up too (always a good lesson), and, even if she tells me that I am wrong about her motivation, I still encouraged her to introspect and figure out what it was. I really really like the times when we get good results whether I am wrong or right, so the Mistaken Goal Chart is my friend!
I use things I have learned from the chart all the time, but the best times to use it for me are the times when Livy is doing the same kind of behavior over and over. Those times when nothing is working, and I feel like I am going to sell her to the gypsies. I have never gone to the Mistaken Goal Chart at a time like that and not come back with a better understanding of what the underlying problem might be or a few new suggestions for what to do (yes, there are suggestions!! Woohoo!!).
I recommend that all parents and teachers take a good look at this chart and revisit it often, especially in hard times. It's applicable to every kind of situation. It gives you different tools depending on what the problem is. It's only one piece of paper, so it will fit in your purse or pocket. It's the Swiss Army Knife of parenting tools.
26 comments:
Kelly,
Thanks for this (and your other parenting advice). So if I can only find some parenting chewing gum wrappers, can I be the MacGyver of moms?
Melinda
The Mistaken Goal Chart looks like another great tool. I just printed it out and plan to reference it when I feel "stuck." I noticed that each description of the child's belief revolves around "belonging," which is the fundamental principle in Positive Discipline, and with which I disagree. But if you replace "I belong" with "I feel good about myself" it doesn't seem to change much in the prescriptions of what to do, most of which I do agree with.
Do you have any thoughts on whether the "belonging" part of PD is meaningful or something that can be ignored?
Oops, I forgot to subscribe to comments so I'm leaving another one.
I do agree with you, Amy, almost completely. I always think about Susan Crawford and Lynn Salsman's way of putting it. They said that children want two things - to feel worthy of love and to feel efficacious. I do think that feeling that you belong in your family and that they want and love you is a way children learn to feel worthy of love. Honestly, I just change some of the less objective language in my head to things that mean nearly the same thing most of the time when I think of the PD principles. The way that Jenn and I teach it is slightly different from those kind of other-focused principles. We teach that children learn to love and feel loved in their families and classrooms, and I think that is really what the PD people mean by "belonging." Of course, there is more than just that; there is that whole feeling efficacious thing. And the thing I love about PD is that even if the developers of the ideas might not have completely known it, these tools support learning the skills and virtues that make a person efficacious and happy.
Did that answer you? I'd be happy to talk about this more, if it didn't completely (or even at all) address your question.
Yes, it did answer my question. I agree that most of the PD tools support the right values of real self-esteem and independence (and more!), but not all of the tools. I used to think that the "belonging" premise was the problem, but now I think that it is not essential and could be replaced with better words without changing much. But then I still have a problem with PD, so it is something else. I have a clue, but I haven't quite worked it out yet.
Anyway, the Mistaken Goal Chart is still an excellent tool, and I just ordered the PD Toolcards, too, after hearing your latest podcast.
Fwiw, I got hung up on "belonging" too when I first encountered PD. Learning more about the psychologists who influenced Jane Nelsen (their names are Rudolf Dreikurs and Alfred Adler) helped me understand that this idea of belonging is really another way of saying that children want to feel that they are a value of their parents.
All people, including children, want to be valued by the people they value, and when a child is first developing a sense of self-esteem, he couldn't learn it from parents who ignore him or treat him as if he's not a value to him.
Healthy self-esteem begins with a child's feeling that he is a value to someone, his parents. From there he can learn to value himself, which will become primary, of course. But it's hard to imagine a neglected child who doesn't feel as if he's worthy, that he belongs to his family, will easily figure out that he ought to value himself most of all.
That may not make sense as it was written during many interruptions, and I see that Kelly has left a terrific answer instead! Oh well, I'll throw it out there, too.
I am curious about your objections/criticisms, Amy, because I think it would be helpful for me to think them over and check my premises. So when you figure them out, please do let us know!
Arghh...last sentence, second paragraph: "...not a value to THEM."
Jenn, yes, I don't disagree that very early on, a child needs to feel that he is a value to his parents to kind of "kick start" a later feeling of efficacy that will develop into mature self-esteem. (I think it's more like "do no harm" though--I think you'd have to be pretty neglectful to really damage the infant--but I could be wrong about that.) I would never call that a "need to belong," but again, I no longer think this is a big issue in PD.
My thinking now revolves around what is fundamental in parenting, and I think that focusing on self-esteem (even in a legitimate way instead of the BS of empty praise and equality of results) is not a fundamental. At least, not beyond 1-2 years old.
So I would argue that these great techniques can also be derived from another principle - but I don't exactly know what it is yet. But I'm hoping to figure it out and that if I do, it would bring more clarity and consistency to the general ideas of PD and Faber and Mazlish.
In the meantime, I'm much better off erring on the side of being concrete-bound and not being overly concerned with an overarching parenting philosophy. I'm sure I'll have a complete philosophy as soon as I'm done with parenting!
Glad you saw my comments since I meant to thank you, too, for the Toolcard pitch. The podcast really drove home how valuable they are in a way that I didn't get from your blog, for some reason.
I agree that self-esteem is only part of what a child needs to develop with a parent's encouragement/guidance.
I was reading The Virtue of Selfishness the other day, and the three primary values are, as I'm sure you know, Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem. And the virtues are the actions a person takes to get there. I think a parent's primary job is to do what you can to encourage kids to value reason, develop their life's purpose(s), and develop healthy self-esteem.
Kids need help and guidance, not having instincts, and what with being new and all, but I think that's the fundamental job of parenting. They're new here; we're not. We love them and value them, so we're here to help, and this is beyond the basic obligations of food, shelter, etc. A parent who is trying her hardest to raise her children according to her values will want to try to help her children value those things, too.
Every single tool I use with my kids (when I do it according to my principles and not when I lose my temper, of course) reinforces those values and teaches them a virtue or two, gives them practice in acting morally. Conversely, I believe that punishing (doing something else apart from the natural consequences in order to reinforce a negative lesson) and rewarding (doing something else apart from the natural consequences in order to reinforce a positive lesson) do not support those values or teach virtues.
When I'm unsure what to do in a parenting situation, I always go back to the things I want my children to value (Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem) and the virtues I want them to learn/experience/practice (Honesty, Independence, Pride, etc.) and see if I can find a way to treat them/teach them/parent them that will reinforce those values. PD tools, almost without exception--in fact, I'll have to really think hard about whether or not there is an exception--help me do just what I want to do as a parent.
It has been very useful to have parenting principles that I can use in different contexts, and the principles are derived from the values/virtues. My principles are the same for my 2 year old, my 5 year old and my 8 year old, even though they are all in very different stages of development.
I'm not finished articulating them all perfectly just yet, and continue to check premises and refine my ideas, of course (that's what Brendan and Kelly are for!), but this is why I'm confident that I can say I will continue to use these principles as they get older, even though I am not entirely certain exactly HOW I'll apply them, not knowing the contexts in which I'll need them.
The people who created the PD ideas and tools are beginning from different starting premises than we are, which is why Kelly and I are making the effort to explain why parenting according to PD ideas falls in line with Objectivist principles. There are a few points of disagreement that we might have with some people in PD, but they are very minor, not fundamental (for example, the "use logical consequences very sparingly" is something some PD proponents would agree with, but Kelly and I would disagree with).
By the way, all of this is a provisional statement, made off-the-cuff as I write this comment, so I reserve the right to edit/rephrase this in the future. I stand by it, but I haven't taken the care I typically would if I were writing this into a post, for example.
Jenn, you write pretty darn well off the cuff! :)
Just to clarify, the principle(s) I'm looking to define are at a lower level than the ethical principles of values and virtues you mention. I want to find the meta-princple(s) in the field of parenting. Something in-between ethics and "use natural consequences" or (to use a bad principle) "spare the rod, spoil the child." I sense the need for a step in-between. I think Jane Nelsen's "belonging" is her core principle in the parenting realm. I want to find some equivalent, but more correct, integrating principle of parenting.
This may be kind of nit picky, but I don't think belonging is that kind of core principle. The originators of positive discipline see belonging as one of the core needs a person has. Like we see reason, purpose, and self-esteem. I would say the PD core principles are these:
Behavior is purposive.
Dignity and respect for all.
Community feeling is essential to mental health.
Children do better when they feel better.
Kindness and Firmness at the same time.
Teach life skills.
Not punitive, not permissive.
Focus on the long term.
Mistakes are opportunities for learning.
Jenn and I change them a slight bit when we teach, mostly to get ride of community feeling and to phrase the others in ways that we think highlight PD's applicability to Objectivist parenting. Here's what we list as our core principles when we teach:
* Behavior is purposive.
* Children do better when they feel better.
* Kindness and Firmness
* Not punitive, not permissive
* Mutual respect (Goes both ways) (Everyone gets to pursue his own self-interest.)
* Teaching life skills. (independence)
* Think long term
* Yippee mistakes!
If you are looking for something more fundamental than that, try my post of The Nature of Children. I don't know how to hyperlink it here, but you can find it by searching my blog. It begins to answer my more fundamental questions about the metaphysical nature of kids to help me figure out how to build ethical and epistemological principles about how to treat them. It's only a beginning, though. I am constantly working on this too.
Kelly, I remember that post. I'll re-read it. That list of principles doesn't resonate with me. Some of them seem more broad than others and I can't integrate them. But I like a lot of them, as independent ideas. I'm getting this idea of "the child's need to belong" as the core principle of PD based on my memory of Nelsen's main book (can't think of the title). I thought she stated it as such, but I don't own a copy so I can't check.
Oh, I don't know about the books. Here books were not my favorites. I was using her training materials for parent educators.
I wanted to clarify that Jane's books weren't my favorite style wise, but I thought the content was useful. I prefer more technical and philosophical parenting books, and she told us that she specifically writes in a different style from that, one that is accessible to the tired mom who isn't a big reader. So I think I am just not her target audience. But the training materials that Jenn and I have used are AWESOME!
Hi
Great discussion.
I have liked learning about PD b/c it helps concretize for me ways to implement more fundamental principles. (Same with parts of Love and Logic as well as Faber and Mazlish.)
I know I had (have)great intentions as a parent---but in the heat of the moment it was often hard to know what to do. And I can tell you, now that my kids are almost 15 and 18 (yikes!) it was easier when they were little, much harder from about 11 until now, and I am starting to see it ease up again.
Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem are just too abstract to guide me in my daily efforts. So here are some things that helped me.
More than any thing else, I wanted my kids to know "in their bones"
1. The world is knowable
2. People don't know everything and make mistakes, so we need a way to trying to figure things out. That includes me.
3. You have what it takes. Put another way "You are enough."
This last was really key as this was decidedly not the message I got from my parents. Underlying all of their very well-intentioned and loving parenting efforts was the message "We have to correct and mold you b/c at the root of things, you (and humans in general)are flawed."
I learned later than I wish to say "You may be right--but right now I don't agree and I have to go with what I think is right. I will keep giving it more thought."
I also learned later than I would have liked that my job is not to make sure my kids make the right choices but to make sure that they are safe to make their own choices and learn from them. Looking at parenting from that perspective really helps send the message "you have what it takes."(Of course, I would step in for threats to life and limb.)
This last (that i am not responsible for thier choices) was hard to act upon consistently --not only because of how I was raised, but b/c it goes against the grain of what most other parents think a parents job is. It's hard to stand back and watch my kids make poor choices and not fall into the trap of accepting responsibility (and blame) for those poor choices--esp. when other parents I respect have parenting styles closer to that of my parents.
Just a few of my thoughts.
Beth, thank you so much for commenting. It's always helpful to me to hear from someone who has been where I am and can see it from the other side of teenagerhood. I also sometimes have trouble letting Livy live with the consequences of her mistakes (and she's only 6!), and I can't imagine how much harder that must get as they get older and the mistakes get bigger.
Beth,
I enjoyed reading your comment, and much of what you say makes sense. I also struggle against what was ingrained into me about the parent-child relationship--that it's my job to "fix" them, and that somehow if left to their own devices, the kids will gravitate toward bad choices. When I consciously remember to stay out of their choices and let the consequences (natural) fall where they may, I am still so often surprised when they choose the good, which happens at least as often as they choose the bad.
I wrote about the specific principles I use in a post last November (Kelly uses these too), called "On Children, Parents and the Use of Force." (http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-children-parents-and-use-of-force.html) The principles I use on an every day basis when making decisions about whether and how and to what extent I need to involved myself are:
The Life, Limb, and Rights Principle (When do I step in? When the child's life or limb is at serious risk in my judgment, or when the rights of others are or will soon be violated. In other words, I try to set limits by rational standards.)
Erring on the Side of Freedom (A corollary of LL&R--means if I can't think of a good rational reason to say "no" then I say "yes" and let the consequences--good and bad--happen and let the child experience them, and help them cope if necessary.)
Enforcing Limits (If a limit must be set, then I need to enforce it--since the limit is based on LL&R then it is just that I enforce it.)
The Minimum Use of Force (When enforcing a limit, including the times when physical limitations must be set, I use the least amount of physical force to keep the kid within the limit, for the least amount of time. The child always has an option to demonstrate he can remain within the limit at any time. The moment he can do so, I stop doing what I am doing. I never hit them.)
Those principles apply only to discipline situations though, and there are wider principles such as:
How I interact with them (respectful and kind communication, and I never, ever lie to them, though I try to present information in ways they can understand)
How I help them gain skills such as problem-solving (modeling and coaching and encouraging--never bribing--and through giving them lots and lots of practice)
How we negotiate conflicts (The Trader Principle, etc.)
How we do work around here (productivity, and we respect each other's right to work uninterrupted--well, some of them are still learning that!)
Sharing passions and having fun!
I'm sure there are more, too--those non-discipline examples are off the top of my head.
Positive Discipline tools are all very consistent with these goals--discipline and communication and sharing our lives together in a mutually respectful way.
Jane Nelsen offers concrete ways to achieve these ends, and though Kelly and I modify our language a bit when explaining the ideas to Objectivists, the underlying principles are pretty much already there. By the way, Jane has told me a number of times that she is an "Ayn Rand fan." :o) Always nice to meet a fan.
Because I have some principles, and because I have tools that support those principles, I have options as a parent when I encounter situations I wasn't prepared for (every day, and again, I can't even imagine what the next decade will bring as they all hit the teens). I have options that will help me guide and encourage and reinforce Objectivist principles, and I have options that will help me do that guiding and encouraging and reinforcing while behaving virtuously myself.
Other PD authors who might be worth looking into if you are not a fan of the PD books themselves are Barbara Coloroso and Faber/Mazlish.
Jenn, it's interesting to hear you distinguish between discipline and other interactions with your children. That's another thing I've been thinking about. Is there any real distinction between the two? Of course there is if you have a traditional punishment/correction mentality. The kid did "wrong" so you "discipline" them. But with a non-punitive mindset, what does "discipline" even mean? Is it all just teaching, in one form or another? I don't have an answer - just thinking.
Beth - your principle are at the level of abstraction I'm looking for, but those aren't exactly the ones I would choose (although I think they are great). Actually, when you speak of making children safe to make their own choices, you're getting towards the kind of thing I'm thinking about. I got started on this track of thinking after Ray Girn's course at OCON, where he expanded the idea of the Montessori "prepared environment." I'm starting to think of parenting as a purposeful shrinking of reality for the child so that he has the right options to choose safely and independently, and to suffer/enjoy the consequences. That environment is steadily expanded until he has full freedom. I think there is something fundamental there. Unlike Jenn, I wouldn't set limits based on adult concepts such as force, rights, or property, but based on a standard of where the child is in his development.
That's as far as my thinking really goes, yet, but if I can work out the meaning and implications of such a principle, I do think I'd end up at very close to the same place as all of us here in this discussion. Essentially, that's how I'm parenting now. I just think it would help me in those situations where I'm not sure what to do.
Amy (et al.)
RE:"Unlike Jenn, I wouldn't set limits based on adult concepts such as force, rights, or property, but based on a standard of where the child is in his development."
I think there is something to this and to your idea of the expanding "prepared environment." I hope you keep us informed on your further thoughts.
Although I have always kept the principles of force, rights and property in mind--I have found them a bit confusing to apply in the unequal relationship of parent and child.
Also, property rights within a family are not always obvious. One of the things I have struggled with is "who owns the commons?" Although, technically, my husband and I own our house and have the ultimate final say--there is more to it than that. My children have no other home and really don't have the option to leave. Where to draw the line on things like how messy common areas are ends up being a collaboration with give and take, and not a matter or property rights.
Also, my son especially learned the language of property rights--and it took me a while to realize that it is not always the key principle operating. I know it's my fault for getting distracted by it--but that is the danger when it is given prominence. I wish I could think of a specific example but right now it is escaping me. I just have the voice of my husband in my head saying "But this isn't about property rights." Close and shared living also require courtesy and cooperation which sometimes take precedence over strict property rights.
I realize that compassion and generosity are not primary virtues--but I think they deserve a place of importance within close relationships--perhaps as extensions of the presumption of good will based on the full context of one's interactions.
Also, I see gratitude and forgiveness as subsets of justice which must be attended to.
These last 4 (compassion, generosity, gratitude and forgiveness) are less well developed in my oldest child--in part I think b/c I focused too dominantly on property rights and force. (Of course, it could be individual temperament and a whole other variety of other things. I don't know how one can sort all of that out.)
All that said--even knowing I made a million mistakes in parenting (some unintentionally, and some the unintended consequences of very intentional actions)--my kids have somehow survived my mistakes and are well on their way to being moral and competent adults. Believe me--there have been plenty of times I wasn't sure I would be able to say that.
Parenting is one of the greatest and most soul-searching challenges I have ever been involved in. And I wouldn't trade it for any thing in the world.
PS I also like Barbara Coloroso. One of my favorite chapters was "How to get you kid out of jail"
I haven't read Coloroso yet but she's now on my list!
I must add that Jenn's "assume positive intent" has been one of the most helpful principles I've used in parenting so far. I went into this job thinking that kids naturally turn towards the bad and must be somehow coerced or convinced to turn towards the good. I know this contradicts everything that I know about ethics, but I still held that premise. Those three words helped me break it. There is something fundamental in that, too, I think. No Original Sin.
Thanks, Kelly, for alerting us to this discussion - I surely would have missed it!
One of the top things I teach my kids is learning to recognize their own emotions & desires. It's a favorite parenting topic of mine! May I share a post motivated by this one? It's the mistaken goals concept for grown-ups! Really, our temper tantrums become more complex, mistaken goals more obscure and the chart would be much much messier - but we could all stand to learn about identifying our own motivations.
Beth said:
"Although I have always kept the principles of force, rights and property in mind--I have found them a bit confusing to apply in the unequal relationship of parent and child."
Agreed. This is where having principles helps me (versus being focused on concretes). Kelly & I argue that the relationship between parent and child is unique because of the nature of children, and that it changes as the child develops (see her Nature of Children post). The parent-child relationship is inherently unequal, and it is because of this metaphysical given that we parents need to make sure we are not being arbitrary in our decision-making and when we use our judgment to override the children's desires. It is not easy.
"Also, property rights within a family are not always obvious. One of the things I have struggled with is "who owns the commons?" Although, technically, my husband and I own our house and have the ultimate final say--there is more to it than that. My children have no other home and really don't have the option to leave. Where to draw the line on things like how messy common areas are ends up being a collaboration with give and take, and not a matter or property rights."
To clarify my earlier comment, I didn't mean only property rights--I was referring to things like hitting or screaming loudly while people are trying to work...other rights infringements.
My husband and I, before we had kids, had to collaborate and give-and-take about our common areas, too--this negotiation happens whenever you share living quarters with anyone. Doing this with children prepares them for life with roommates and spouses!
"Close and shared living also require courtesy and cooperation which sometimes take precedence over strict property rights."
Yes. This is what I mean by our family using the Trader Principle in communicating with each other and working out deals for common areas in the home, etc.
"I realize that compassion and generosity are not primary virtues--but I think they deserve a place of importance within close relationships--perhaps as extensions of the presumption of good will based on the full context of one's interactions."
They are definitely important, and part of my principle of communication kindly and respectfully--and if you don't, then you might experience the natural consequence of a hurt, angry Mom, or a Mom who doesn't want to take you to the playground after you hurt her (or a sibling's) feelings.
"All that said--even knowing I made a million mistakes in parenting (some unintentionally, and some the unintended consequences of very intentional actions)--my kids have somehow survived my mistakes and are well on their way to being moral and competent adults. Believe me--there have been plenty of times I wasn't sure I would be able to say that.
Parenting is one of the greatest and most soul-searching challenges I have ever been involved in. And I wouldn't trade it for any thing in the world."
YES YES YES! :o) I make a zillion mistakes every day, but I also know I don't need to be perfect. And it's the best job ever. :o)
And Amy said:
"Unlike Jenn, I wouldn't set limits based on adult concepts such as force, rights, or property, but based on a standard of where the child is in his development."
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I tailor how we talk to, interact with, teach/explain ideas, etc with the child's stage of development.
But I do not use excessive physical restraint when a tap on the shoulder will suffice, and I do not let a child yank a toy from another's hand (a use of force) because it is wrong. I do not let the baby hit people because it violates the victim's right to not have his body hit. I do not let people wantonly destroy property unless it truly 100% belongs to them, because it's a violation of property of someone else.
No matter what stage of development the child is in, these principles apply.
I am possibly misunderstanding something though, so I'd appreciate clarification.
The beauty of Objectivism as an integrated system is that the objective principles still hold is this very unique context--that of a young human being developing and a parent trying to guide him along.
So--all of these principles are valuable and good. I think the difficult part is distilling them down to a few essentials that you can hold onto without exceeding the crow. Otherwise--it's too hard to dredge up the right principle when parenting on the fly--which happens more often than not.
Amy, maybe that's what you are looking for.
I think I still am as well.
I guess I better hurry up!
Yes, Jenn, I agree that the reason those actions (hitting, etc.) are wrong is the same for children as for adults. And I wasn't talking about the parent's use of force. I was referring to what standard you use to set your limits. You've said that you set limits based on whether the child is violating rights or using force, etc. Do I understand you correctly? What I'm saying is that I would have a different standard for what limits to set in the first place. Mine would end up being more restrictive than yours.
Hey Beth. I think the way I'd essentialize the principles would be something like "treat the kids as if they are human beings who need my help and guidance to learn and practice moral behavior."
Because the way I treat them and communicate with them is very very similar to the way I treat adults--the main difference is that I explain more of the whys and wherefores of my actions and the actions of others.
Also, I have the obligation to restrict their improper behaviors when/if they can't do so themselves, so when I must do that, I do it in the most respectful possible way, using the least amount of force/restriction/I'm sure there's a better word here possible to ensure that the behavior is stopped until they are prepared and able to be back in control. Remembering that they are human beings worthy of respect and kindness helps me handle difficult discipline situations where I must use some kind of force/limit-setting in a "kind and firm" (to use a PD phrase) way. Remembering that they are young and learning and need my guidance helps me remember that other famous Mommy Mantra: "This, too, shall pass."
I'm not sure if this is clear or not (it's late and I'm not feeling well), but it's the best I can do for now. If I can think of a better way to phrase what I'm trying to convey, I'll be sure to let everyone know! I think it is important to have the ideas distilled down in some way. Thanks.
Post a Comment