Our son has come to that stage in early childhood development
where defiance and mischief have gone from a casual hobby to a passionate
career. For that reason we, like many parents before us, have turned to the experts
for advice. Over the past few months, we have read books and watched videos
created by those claiming to be the most qualified to assist novices in
navigating the treacherous waters of toddlerhood.
The first book I read was penned by a disciple of the R.I.E. (Resources
for Infant Educarers) philosophy. Created by Hungarian immigrant Magda Gerber, the
movement focuses around respect for the autonomy of even the youngest child.
The movement’s goal is to foster an “authentic child” who “feels secure,
autonomous, and competent.” In a nutshell, it asks the parent to view their
toddler as fully aware human and to communicate accordingly. A general rule of
thumb would be: If you would not interact with another adult that way you
shouldn’t interact with your child that way. Time outs? There are no time outs
in life! Counting out loud? That crap doesn’t fly at a shareholder’s meeting!
“Educarers” are enlightened enough to recognize that their
child’s misbehaviors are the result of the parent’s inability to effectively
communicate their expectations. Following this path involves looking the child
in the eye and explaining to them in a calm, unwavering voice that you do not
wish for them to continue or repeat an action. It may take repetition and
simplified sentences, but it will be well worth the effort once you and your
offspring develop a reciprocal understanding of each other’s wishes and
expectations. Gerber’s disciples vehemently reject the idea that a toddler is
simply an underdeveloped human being helpless in the face of their desires and
emotions. They dismiss this line of reasoning as the “caveman theory.”
Naturally, the very next book I read was by a child
psychologist who was a staunch disciple of the very caveman philosophy
denounced by the first book I had read. Not only did he disagree with the
Gerber philosophy (which he called the “young adult assumption”), his book
spent an entire chapter convincing the reader that the R.I.E. approach was not
only ineffective; it was likely to lead to literal
child abuse. The book was light on actual statistics, and I thought the RIE
= felony inference was a tad heavy-handed. I understand passionately-held philosophical
differences, but we might be getting carried away when one child-rearing book
accuses another of perpetuating child abuse. It isn’t as if the first book came
with a sock full of pennies and a list of plausible excuses to use on nosy daycare
workers.
This book, called 1,2,3 Magic, instituted a system of
counting to deter what it deemed “stop behaviors.” These would include
insubordination, fits, arson, etc.. and when they occurred the parent was
simply to address the child in a calm voice and announce “that’s one.” If the
child were to continue the behavior they would say “that’s two.” At the count
of three, an age-appropriate punishment would be applied. If they are younger,
it could be a timeout. If they are older, perhaps they could be forced to open
a MySpace account. He stresses there will be no discussion or explanation because any attempt by the caregiver to rationalize their actions would undermine their
authority. Over a period of time, the child will learn to stop the behavior
before the count of three.
I then watched a DVD from the Happiest Toddler on the Block
series. This philosophy relies heavily on speaking “toddlerese”, a trademarked
manner of communicating with a child. It involves the caregiver attempting to
match the inflection and energy of an upset toddler to convey empathy and
understanding. If the toddler is throwing themselves on the floor and yelling “BUT
I WANT TO PLAY WITH THE CIRCULAR SAW!!!!” you would position yourself in a
similar position and, with a slightly diluted level of energy, repeat “YOU WANT
TO PLAY WITH THE CIRCULAR SAW!” until they stop.
Here the idea is that by using “toddlerese” you convey that
you understand your child’s wishes and emotional response. Once the child
realizes this and settles down, you would then be able to explain that although
you understand their wish to fiddle with power tools, it might not be the best
idea. There was also a section of positive reinforcement that seemed rather
reasonable but contained a chapter called “playing the boob” which could lead
to some unnecessary confusion among consumers.
Interestingly enough, the one of the few things that all the philosophies
and authors agreed upon was the ineffectiveness of spankings. None of them
recommended it and some went so as far as to suggest that they could irreparably
harm the emotional health of the child. I found this especially interesting since
I was spanked by both my parents and, on occasion, public school teachers
throughout my formative years. I would say that I turned out just fine, but one
could utilize the content of this blog to make a strong counter-argument.
Aside from the moratorium on spankings, all three alluded to something
far more important: consistency. If you tell them that you are going to take
away their iPad, take away their iPad. Don’t make empty threats or cave at the
first signs of a fit. Otherwise your precious little offspring may find
themselves staring at the business end of a Celebrity
Big Brother 38 contract. Kids need guidance and boundaries. A wise friend
of our family once observed that there is nothing more frightening for an
impressionable young child than to wake up one day and realize that they are in
charge of their own lives simply because their parents no longer wish to be.
Great article, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm spanking my kids and anyone who tries to stop me hahaha
ReplyDelete