This second chapter describes pretty well exactly what you would imagine it would. Each action a parent takes communicates more than just the rules to a child. It can also communicate mixed messages, statements that don't make sense, and invitations to test limits. This chapter focuses on three approaches to communicating messages to children and how those messages communicate rules. These three styles are listed as punitive, permissive, and democratic approaches.
The first discussed is the punitive approach to communicating rules. The first example is a mother with two quarreling boys. They diagram this interaction, which was an interesting way to look at how the situation was handled. In this example, the mother's aggressive approach to disciplining the children and playing investigator to place blame not only causes the situation not to be resolved, but escalates it. The second was a situation with a father who was stuck in a stale-mate with his own son. In this example, the father admits that his father was the exact same way, to which he reacted with rebellion and anger, exactly like his son was reacting to his own discipline techniques. Though this is a very vague description, the author makes a pretty good case for why this kind of discipline system does not work. In the diagram you see what is communicated to the child with this approach, that all the power is held by the adults, parents are responsible for solving all problems, and hurtful or violent means of communication are acceptable.
The second discussed is the permissive approach to communicating rules. In the first example we revisit the mother with two quarreling boys. She tries to convince the two boys to stop fighting, but all her pleas, appeals and lecturing leave her with a determination to take away the toy they were arguing over. Unfortunately, she is easily persuaded to give the toy back and finally gives up on the whole thing. In a later example they talk about a child who never does what he's told and seems to believe that rules are not made to be followed. He ignores his mother and pushes her regularly to the point where she can't take it anymore. This may be an extreme example, but it goes to show the point. In a permissive approach, children hold all the power, parents must again solve all the problems, parents are there to serve their children, and children learn to be self-centered and disrespectful.
The third approach is considered the democratic approach, though it's not really all that democratic. It's more just a word to communicate that it's the balance between the two systems. I have an extreme issue considering it democratic when it's got no sense of democracy to it, but we'll go with it for the sake of the review. In the case with the mother, she quickly comes in and communicates that there's a problem and it will be resolved. She allows the children cool down time before they discuss the problem, then goes on to come up with a solution. She encourages the cooperation of the children and directs them to a swift resolution of the problem. The second example is a three-year-old blowing bubbles in her milk at the table, who swiftly has the cup removed from her after a warming. The one thing I do not like about this chapter is it states that the child gave the father a defiant look. I'll be honest, I doubt in this case the child's look was what I'd consider defiant, but a lot of people view things differently when it comes to defiance. The author points out that this form of discipline helps the child learn how to resolve the problem, they have freedom within their limitations, but limits are firm.
The chapter goes on to explain the mixed approach though it doesn't go into much detail. This is used more as an opening to show how these parents who used the mixed approach were able to deal with bad behavior through this "democratic" communication style. The example shows the child rebelling against it until he realizes he's not going to get away with his old tricks. He then (of course) ends up complying, begrudgingly, and so changes the family's negative pattern.
The questions at the end of this chapter really focus on helping parents learn to identify these parenting styles through examples. The goal seems to be to help identify the negative traits of each role so we might better recognize them in ourselves. While I do value the concepts illustrated with these questions, I will admit, they do kind of make my eyes glaze over.
As I looked at my own life throughout this chapter, it was pretty clear where some of our problems have their roots. For example, much of the reason my daughter resists my partner when he's enforcing the rules is the way he handles her. More often than not he's very strict. That incredibly strict nature leads her to want to push and rebel against him even more, especially where her father was so incredibly strict. With me, I know I've had days where I fall into being permissive because I'm just too tired and worn out to bother with being firm. I'll admit it, more often than not permissiveness is born out of laziness with me and I do sometimes fall a little towards the punitive side out of apparent need and encouragement from other parents and friends. It's given me a lot of points where I can identify my own problems with my kids, especially my challenging older daughter, to try and get our household back in a little more order.
I have to say, while there is some of what he's listed that I don't agree with, for the most part, his reasoning is pretty sound. The points I don't always agree with are how to respond to a child's actions, like taking a cup away from a three year old for ten minutes because they were blowing bubbles. I know from having a three year old that in ten minutes, they probably won't even be thinking about why the cup was taken away anymore. It's the same reason why time-outs are set at one minute for each year of age. Still I can see some value in what he's trying to get at here.
No comments:
Post a Comment