Friday 11 March 2011

Cooperative parenting; replying to my sock puppet

Sometimes, people commenting here feed me the lines I need in so neat a fashion that I am frankly astounded. It is almost as though these individuals are my sock puppets; setting themselves up for me to knock them down again! One such commented here on the post I made yesterday, saying;

'I think there are 2 ways to have gentle "well behaved" children,

1. Frighten or embarrass them into it.
2. Behave in a gentle well behaved way and show them that that's a good way to be.'

This is, at least on the face of it, an interesting idea. Of course it is a piece of shameless self-advertising from the parent concerned who, we are invited to suppose, is gentle and well behaved, as opposed to the rest of us authoritarian types who are ogres. I quite like this image! I think that most people will see the flaw in the above claim at once. Frightening and embarrassing your child might produce a gentle, well behaved child. It is more likely to produce a neurotic or deceitful one; perhaps a child who is outwardly polite in the presence of his parents but is secretly a cruel bully. Similarly, gentle and well behaved parents might produce gentle and well behaved children. I have however known a few gentle and well behaved parents whose children were little monsters; rude to their mother, running riot, tormenting the cat and doing pretty much as they pleased because their mother did not have the gumption to control them. Real parenting is a lot more complicated than simply dividing parents up into two classes in this way; the good, gentle parent and the bad, frightening one!

I do not suppose that I have myself ever frightened my child. I have probably embarrassed her, but that is simply an inevitable result of a middle aged father having a teenage daughter. How has discipline been maintained in our home? It is quite simple. From a very early age, it was made plain to the children that in a family, everybody has to do things that he or she would rather not do. My daughters saw this as a background. They knew that I was not over keen on doing the washing or cleaning the windows, but became aware at a young age that their mother and I did these things anyway. From the time that they were toddlers, they knew that just as we did things which we did not like, so to would they have to do the same. It might be putting their toys away in the evening or sitting down and writing; but from the moment they could walk, they were expected to understand that as well as being individuals, they were also part of a unit. I don't believe that they were frightened or embarrassed by this; it was just the background. If they wanted a smooth life, with the cheerful cooperation of their parents, then they too had to play their part.

What sanctions were used to enforce this happy state of affairs? Well to begin with, I have never struck my children. this simply did not feature in the scheme of things. There were things that my daughter wanted to do. Going on days out and so on, visiting places like the park, playing games. If she cooperated by doing her part, then there always seemed to be time for the things which she enjoyed. If she delayed matters by messing about and not getting down to the things which we saw as her own duties; there might not be time for the pleasant excursions. This was not presented in the form of threats or rewards; she was never told that if she was a good girl we would do such and such a thing. It was more contrived to be an inevitable consequence of her own actions. If I had to tidy her room myself, because she had failed to do so, then I would have to do the laundry after that and this might eat into the time spent on things which she enjoyed. I never showed any anger or even irritation, I just let her know that the delay was her own doing and that the remedy lay in putting her toys and clothes away promptly next time. There was no nagging about the state of her bedroom; it just resulted in her missing out on time in the park or library. We did not have a computer until she was eleven and she used to book sessions on the ones in the library. If there was a delay in leaving the house because she had to do things which I had asked her do but she had not bothered with, then this ate into her hour on the library computer. This only ever happened once, but it was enough for her.

This process of cooperation has continued to this day. Like most seventeen year-old girls, she requires a good deal of money. If I am in a cheerful mood and have some in my pocket, then I usually share it with her. If, on the other hand, there is a bad atmosphere because she is being awful, then I feel less inclined to do so. The main thing is that we both realise that if the other is irritated, then the general atmosphere in the house becomes bad and nobody wants that. I try to avoid it and so in general does she. There would be no point in her trashing her bedroom, because this would be counter-productive to her own best interests.

I was always at pains to ensure that my daughter did not see the ill effects of her behaviour as being imposed by me. The reason is that when once a child starts to think like that, then she will persuade herself that if she evades the attention of the parent then everything will be fine. This promotes slyness and is a poor introuduction to the reality of life. The truth is that laziness and so on bring their own consequences and it is important for a child to learn this from a tender age.

21 comments:

  1. Simon I wonder if you are aware that you appear to have fallen into the trap of many parents who talk about their children in golden terms. Your posts suggest that there was never any friction between yourself and your daughter. She never had a tantrum when she couldn't have her own way or was ever rude or challenging, you say you never 'showed any irritation' if she didn't get things done. I find these wholy blissful accounts of child rearing and family life annoying not because raising children isn't a wonderful and fulfilling endeavour, but because it veers so far from actual reality. I wonder why it is that particulary in HE circles everyone seems to be trying to define some sort of child-rearing utopia?

    However I do think there is merit in some of what you say re cooperation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It sounds like you are a believer in natural consequences, a technique often pushed in parenting books. However, there is nothing natural about the consequences. If a parent decides that something will happen as a consequence of a room not being tidied, that they will tidy it and there will not be time for the park as a result, for instance, the consequence is a punishment that the parent has decided to hand out to the child whilst being able to deny that they are punishing the child.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree anonymous 2. It is still an nonconfrontative punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well,I sort of agree with the theory, but would also point out that Simon only had a small family. I have 8 children - at one time we had 6 under 6 years old and a lot of that time was spent just "doing" rather than thinking deeply about parenting or consequences.

    In addition all children are different, even if they share genetics (and some of ours don't even share that). My older 2 boys (now grown men) were always pretty easy children - I suppose they saw what needed doing and did it; they understood consequences without anyone needing to point it out. Some of my younger ones are very different - probably the family order makes a difference too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'She never had a tantrum when she couldn't have her own way or was ever rude or challenging,'

    Well, she didn't have any tantrums; nor was she rude. I'm not sure about challenging, it's a bit vague. I said that I did not show irritation, not that I was never irritated!

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'If a parent decides that something will happen as a consequence of a room not being tidied, that they will tidy it and there will not be time for the park as a result, for instance, the consequence is a punishment that the parent has decided to hand out to the child whilst being able to deny that they are punishing the child.'

    There is something in this. However, the trick is to make it appear like a naturul result of the child's behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'Anonymous said...
    I agree anonymous 2. It is still an nonconfrontative punishment.'

    I take it that 'punishment' is being used here as a pejorative term for something bad?

    ReplyDelete
  8. ' Simon only had a small family. I have 8 children - at one time we had 6 under 6 years old and a lot of that time was spent just "doing" rather than thinking deeply about parenting or consequences.'

    A very fair point; it is easier to raise two children in this way than it would be eight.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Old Webb says-Like most seventeen year-old girls, she requires a good deal of money. If I am in a cheerful mood and have some in my pocket, then I usually share it with her. If, on the other hand, there is a bad atmosphere because she is being awful, then I feel less inclined to do so.

    so you bribe her by giving money to get her to be nice around the house and do certain jobs you belive she should do?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Simon wrote,
    "This promotes slyness and is a poor introuduction to the reality of life."

    and Simon wrote,
    "However, the trick is to make it appear like a naturul result of the child's behaviour."

    Sounds like you are teaching slyness by example. Of do you think your daughter will never realise what has happened? (presuming she never reads your blog).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Common preferences is the TCS version of cooperation. It involves cooperation from both parties, not just the child's. Here is the first paragraph of an article on the TCS site:

    "One important concept in TCS is that of common preferences. Common preferences are policies that all parties after a successfully resolved disagreement prefer to their initial positions: everyone gets what they want. These are created through a combination of changing one's wishes to more moral ones, and creatively working out how best to proceed for everyone. TCS distinguishes between common preferences and all other possible ways of coping with prima facie disagreement, such as compromises (in which no one gets what he wants) or choosing winners and losers according to some mechanical formula like voting, taking turns, obedience to one's superior in a hierarchy and so on."

    http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/common_preferences_and_non_coercion

    ReplyDelete
  12. "These are created through a combination of changing one's wishes to more moral ones"

    How is this done? How does one change one's wishes so that they become more moral. Who establishes what the definition of moral is?

    ReplyDelete
  13. It might interest you to know that 'sock puppet' is a fairly well known internet term for making a post on a forum in a different name to your usual one, in order to conceal your identity. Are you replying to yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'Sounds like you are teaching slyness by example. Of do you think your daughter will never realise what has happened? (presuming she never reads your blog).'

    We have discussed this frequently; it is hardly possible to maintain a deception of this sort into the adult life of a child! We often simplify and exaggerate things to children in order to get the point across; few of us both with this when they are past puberty.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'Anonymous 3 said...
    It might interest you to know that 'sock puppet' is a fairly well known internet term for making a post on a forum in a different name to your usual one, in order to conceal your identity. Are you replying to yourself?'

    Thank you, I am well aware of this; that's why I headed the post in this way. I was suggesting that the person who commented at the end of my post yesterday almost seemed to be feeding me the lines that I needed, as though he was a sock puppet of mine.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "How is this done? How does one change one's wishes so that they become more moral. Who establishes what the definition of moral is?"

    It's probably easier with an example. Suppose Jim want the toy fire engine and snatches it from Paul. A discussion about how Jim might feel if Paul did this to him might follow with suggestions and brainstorming as a group to discover how both Jim and Paul can both get what they want out of the situation without harm to the other.

    A natural consequence might be that Paul hits Jim and snatches it back. It would probably teach Jim to be more careful about who he snatches toys off in future, but they could both potentially learn more about problem solving if a common preference can be found. A solution might be as easy as finding a toy that one of them prefers over the red fire engine, or finding something they both enjoy doing more.

    Obviously it's not always that easy and failures are to be expected. But practice, whilst not making perfect, definitely improves problem solving skills of this kind. Now when my older children hit a problem, they immediately go looking for solutions and it has benefits outside the family too. One child managed to negotiate funding for a project they wanted to do at college in this way, for instance (it cost the college about £350). The common preference included giving an interview for a newspaper article which resulted in positive publicity for the college.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous that is actually quite interesting. Thanks for answering my question with an example.

    ReplyDelete
  18. anon says-presuming she never reads your blog).

    she reads his blog and agrees with his crazy ideas on home education about home visits looking for abuse his daughter is obsessed with abuse of children who are home educated. she also fully supports Ed Balls M.P the man who attacked home educators with his children bill which the Webb family fully supported! any chance your daughter will say sorry i got this wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Simon wrote,
    "I take it that 'punishment' is being used here as a pejorative term for something bad?"

    It doesn't seem to go with cooperation which suggests people working together towards something they both/all want. If everyone wants it and are working towards it, why should punishment be necessary to enforce it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "We have discussed this frequently; it is hardly possible to maintain a deception of this sort into the adult life of a child! We often simplify and exaggerate things to children in order to get the point across; few of us both with this when they are past puberty."

    Yes, but the point was, on the one hand you suggest that slyness in children is something to be avoided by good parenting, yet on the other hand, you seem to be teaching slyness by example.

    ReplyDelete