“Gentle Discipline” is sort of an umbrella term that incorporates a whole slew of books and theories, all with varying levels and definitions of “gentle” and “respect,” but Mothering has a pretty good, basic definition:
Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.
When I was in college I remember several long, drawn-out debates about the nature of human nature that never really made it to any conclusive ending — even though I went to a religious university where we all supposedly had the same basic beliefs.
So I realize even the second sentence in that definition is not a cut and dried issue, even in the Mormon world, but I have found that this perspective (assuming children are good, or at least innocent, and assuming the best possible intentions for all their actions) brings the most joy into our home. (Not to mention that I find more evidence for it virtually every time I look at a child.)
Anyway, so within virtually all the literature on this type of parenting lies what looks like a very critical contradiction (if you read to the end of my last post, this bit will be a repeat.)
It is a contradiction that caused me to eventually throw up my hands and throw out the books — all the parenting books (and I’d read more than my fair share, I’m pretty sure — desperate as I felt for help in this area!) — and just carve my own path.
But my own path has, amazingly, led me right back to all the books I wrote off! Probably not an exact coincidence, obviously, but it’s interesting that I felt so confused about it all, and consequently my parenting felt a little out of whack (and a lot inconsistent), until I gave up trying to fit my family into some expert’s theory — and then I ended up doing just that!
(Well, mostly. I wouldn’t say I’m completely in line with any one author — every family is going to be a little different, and we all take what works for our families and leave the rest. But a lot of what works for us is some compilation of the writings of Kohn, Aldort, Holt, Liedloff, Leo, Noelle, Cohen, Coloroso, Ginott, Neufeld, and Goddard.) (By the way, if you’re LDS and looking for quotes related to gentle discipline, that last book has a whole bunch of great ones right in the beginning.)
Looking back, now I can see where I was so confused — and it is pretty obvious why I was. I’m amazed that someone hasn’t written a book addressing exactly this issue. I mean, I guess some of them do, in a round-about way, but, for me, this is the most crucial point, and the most difficult for me to figure out how to put into practice. I know I’m not alone because it is the most common question asked on parenting forums.
These are two of the main ideas expressed in Gentle Discipline circles.
- Let the child be free. Respect her choices. She needs autonomy. Do not hinder self-expression; it is important. Follow your child!
- You’re the adult; children want their parents to be in charge. Of course don’t let her be hurtful! You are responsible for her health and safety.” Be a leader!
Do you look at those as two opposing sides? Does it shock you that the very same people who purport number one preach number two just as heartily? I’m not kidding — or exaggerating. Not even a little.
I get it now, I do, and though I won’t attempt to explain it because if none of the wise, practiced, and educated writers listed above could lay it out well enough for me to grasp, I certainly don’t have any hope of clearing things up, but it turns out it’s not a contradiction at all!
Those two things are compatible, and not just in a continuum sort of way, wherein you can have one only up to the point that in conflicts with the other. This is not a precarious tip-toeing down the line between “controlling” and “permissive.” Giving a child freedom and being her leader are compatible in a way where they are both present: fully, completely, all the time.
We have to have the first in order to raise children who are not docile little shells who are only calm and quiet and sweet and “happy” because they’re too afraid not to be. (Even if they’re only afraid of losing their parents’ love and affection and “Good girl!”-type accolades, the loss of which is likely far scarier to most children than any belt.)
And we have to have the second because children do need sure, confident leaders to give them information and guidance and help them feel safe, stable, and secure enough to be naturally sweet and happy (if not so much calm and quiet, because now we are talking about a contradiction, if you’re pairing those two words with “little children”!)
It’s figuring out how to have both — not how to balance them so that they each get an equal share of time, but how to actually be my child’s leader while letting her be free — that is the trick to the type of parenting I strive for — and write about constantly on this website.
Filed in: parenting | December 18, 2009
