Alice Bachini
Taking children seriously is about more than not deliberately hurting them. It’s about helping them learn good things, protecting them from bad things and enabling them safely to develop the knowledge they need for their next set of problems (interests and challenges). And taking toddlers seriously seems to me as complex and challenging or more so than taking kids seriously at any other age, in a very general sense, for various reasons: most of society is not set up to accommodate them in sensible ways (would you want to spend two hours tied into your chair eating chicken nuggets?); most adults don’t especially enjoy sharing toddler activities particularly much (depending on the toddler activities – Noddy jigsaws no thanks, but I can watch Terminator 2 quite a few times and still enjoy it); toddlers need a lot of ongoing constant help with simple things like using the toilet, finding bits of lego between the floorboards etc, which is frankly not most people’s idea of fun most of the time; and toddlers aren’t always brilliant at expressing their ideas verbally, which is still adults’ favourite form of communication. Erm, certain other forms notwithstanding.
So, all in all, life as a toddler-parent can get tough. And there are no times tougher than When Toddlers Get Upset. The train is coming into the station, you’ve got to get on, and Toddler decides he wants to buy another kit-kat right now, from the station caf
Comments
When toddlers get upset
I really loved this article - someone out there seems to know my two-year old son very well!
For me, though, sometimes the worst part of toddler upsets are the responses of other adults, who so often want to label as 'naughty' or 'disruptive' or 'out of control' a little boy who is just pursuing some goal that seems perfectly reasonable and interesting to him at the moment. Maybe I need to develop a thicker skin about whether other people think I'm a terrible mother!
But on the other hand, what about when people one can't totally ignore (relatives, old friends, health care professionals etc) start talking darkly about the need for 'boundaries' and 'discipline'? What do you say to them? (I should add that this isn't in cases where a child has actually harmed anything or anyone - rather, just when the child is being quite emphatic about what s/he wants in a situation where other people would quite obviously prefer hir to act invisible - as most people seem to want toddlers to be, most of the time. And needless to say, I have no desire for my child to be invisible.)
All helpful hints very much appreciated.
About the phrase "without intentional coercion"
I actually wondered if this phrase -- used in the context of stating the TCS philosophy that it's possible and desirable to raise children without intentional coercion -- could at least partially apply to those situations where a toddler's heading for something destructive and the parent can't get the child interested in ANYthing else and ends up having to just scoop her up and remove her from the situation?
The parent truly WANTS to find a common preference that will keep this little one (or the cat or the friend's baby that her child is roughly handling) safe, while still making her child happy, even happier than she was in the previous harmful activity -- but can't find the common preference quick enough as the situation requires immediate intervention. So we intervene first to prevent harm, and find the common preference later. In these cases can we say (to ourselves) that we're not being INTENTIONALLY coercive -- or is this just a cop-out?
Susan
In response to Susan's
In response to Susan's comment:
I think it might be useful to keep in mind Noam Chomsky's idea of justified coercion. Chomsky is an anarchist, and obviously against intentional and unjustified coercion (whatever other problems one may have with him), and yet he finds it acceptable to seize a child in imminent harm. His explanation was this:
"I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children...the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way."
Sometimes, coercive power is justified. It is simply very very rarely justified. As long as we are constantly challenging and interrogating our own relationships with our children and removing unnecessary control and coercion, I think we are on the right path.
Because you're right, a parent in that situation is not intentionally coercing, or at least not intentionally DOMINATING.
Post new comment