does this contradict UP? and what do you think of it?

[readytobedone]

at the recommendation of my therapist, i am reading a book called _the magic years_ by selma fraiberg. i'm reading this passage that seems dead-on to me, and it puts words to something that's always vaguely troubled me about UP. i was wondering what others thought. here is the passage:

"If a child feels that he is loved 'just the same' when he kicks his father during a temper tantrum as those other times when his reasonable self is in command, what motive does he have to control his temper? If he loses nothing in his father's eyes by behaving in this way, why should he exert himself to establish self-control? And does his father really love him 'just the same' in the moment he nurses a bruised shin...? One day a specimen of such a father may be produced but he doesn't yet exist and for purposes of raising a child it's hard to imagine how a human race would profit by it. For the child needs to know that his parents do not feel 'just the same' toward him under all circumstances or he will have no incentive to work for the ideals his parents set for him or to restrict his own behavior."

i can't figure out how to word count that, but i hope it's not too long...

[Rico'sAlice]

That passage is pretty much exactly the opposite of UP so if it resonates with you and UP was unsettling, but you still want to strive for UP then maybe you need to reread the book.

I personally find that passage insulting. Like most behaviorist type stuff it basically denies humans the ability to make decisions for their intrinsic merit rather than to be rewarded/avoid punishment.

My motivation to make a nice dinner for my husband is not that he will love me more if I do and less if I don't. My motivation is that I love him and want him to be happy and well nourished and comfortable, etc.

I can let my child know that I don't feel the same way about every behavior (hitting hurts me and kisses are pleasant) without stating/showing that I love HIM more/less depending on which one we do. I tell him things that should/shouldn't be done b/c he needs that information. I (try!) to model ways of doing things that are good. But it's done so that he gets the information so as he matures he will be able to make good decisions on his own.

But I think at some point a lot of this relies on your inner feelings about the nature of man and such.

[fromtheheart]

I'm with PP. It's the opposite of UP. It specifically says that the parent doesn't love the child just the same if the child does the wrong thing.

That means the love is based on the condition that the child do no wrong.

Well since that's impossible- because no one can do no wrong!- then the child will never fulfill the condition.

When the child does the wrong thing, love is withdrawn.

And, is therefore given conditional love. The opposite of unconditional.

Just my thoughts

[Wild Lupine]

Sorry, but I am going to agree with the previous PPs. This passage doesn't acknowledge children's ability to develop compassion and altruism. It shows that the only reason a child might have to avoid kicking his father is to avoid punishment (withdrawal of love being the biggest punishment of all). That only teaches children to be self-centered, and is ineffective in the long run, according to UP.

It is also mixing up love and anger IMHO. Anger is a normal response to being hit by one's child, but loving them less???

[readytobedone]

maybe i'm just not UP material

anyway, in the wider context of the book, i think the author's point is that children first develop a conscience that is not intrinsic, but based on the approval or disapproval of their parents...first, you see a 2 year old who can say NO NO NO while she is dumping milk on the floor. she knows her mama is not going to like it, but she hasn't yet developed the ability to stop herself.

when she does develop the ability to stop herself, it is for her parents--for their approval. she inhibits the behavior to make them happy, even though she doesn't understand why the action not a good thing to do. only later is she able to act according to her own sense of right and wrong. the parents' approval is like a moral compass for the young child...

i think that is probably true.

i guess the problem comes in when the child doesn't make the transition from doing things according to what will make the parents happy, and doing things for him or herself. you see a lot of adults, though, with no intrinsic conscience, so i guess doing the right thing based on the fear of disapproval is as far as some (maybe many) people get

i dunno, to me it just seems overly optimistic to think that very young children can do the "right" thing for intrinsic reasons. i'm not talking about punishments, either, i'm just saying--i do think most of the time when DD does what i ask (a rare occurrence with a 2 year old!), she does it because she knows it's important to me. only later will she develop the ability to judge the act in and of itself. i'm sure i ask her to do things she doesn't understand all the time!

the author is into logical consequences, FWIW, not punishments per se.

is UP opposed to logical consequences?

[paxye]

Originally Posted by readytobedone

anyway, in the wider context of the book, i think the author's point is that children first develop a conscience that is not intrinsic, but based on the approval or disapproval of their parents...first, you see a 2 year old who can say NO NO NO while she is dumping milk on the floor. she knows her mama is not going to like it, but she hasn't yet developed the ability to stop herself.

when she does develop the ability to stop herself, it is for her parents--for their approval. she inhibits the behavior to make them happy, even though she doesn't understand why the action not a good thing to do. only later is she able to act according to her own sense of right and wrong. the parents' approval is like a moral compass for the young child...

I "kind of" agree with this, but what I see different between what the author is pushing and UP is that "approval" is most likely manifested in a different way. I can show my approval/disapproval of an action without reward, punishment or withdrawing love. Yes, children do things/don't do things to make us happy, but I do things to make them and DH happy also. That is what we do with the people that we love.

Originally Posted by readytobedone

i dunno, to me it just seems overly optimistic to think that very young children can do the "right" thing for intrinsic reasons.

I think it is optimistic to teach children through reward and punishment and then think they will make the transition later on.

I never knew unconditional love in my family growing up and it still isn't there, everything has a catch. I was lucky though that I found friends and through their family life and relationships I saw that it was possible and I knew that it was what I wanted to strive for.

Originally Posted by readytobedone

the author is into logical consequences, FWIW, not punishments per se.

is UP opposed to logical consequences?

Depends on what you believe is a logical consequence. The logical consequence of spilling water on the floor is that the floor it wet and someone needs to clean it up.

What comes after is what can change a natural consequence into an imposed consequence and it can depend on many factors...

Imposed consequences lead to power struggles and often withdrawal of love even though some people may look at the consequence as being "logical" because it has to do with the incident.

[GuildJenn]

My problem with the part you quoted is that it's not really true in my experience. I *do* love my son just as much when he is acting out as when he's not. I may experience frustration, anger, upset, concern - but love is not the question and withdrawing it is not the answer. In my opinion.

[readytobedone]

Originally Posted by GuildJenn

My problem with the part you quoted is that it's not really true in my experience. I *do* love my son just as much when he is acting out as when he's not. I may experience frustration, anger, upset, concern - but love is not the question and withdrawing it is not the answer. In my opinion.

hmmm...well, i can unequivocally say that i don't love her just the same when she's biting me constantly. i love her, but not "just the same" as any other time.

is there something wrong with me?

[readytobedone]

Originally Posted by paxye

I can show my approval/disapproval of an action without reward, punishment or withdrawing love.

hmmm...but when you disapprove, doesn't the child experience that as a withdrawal of love anyhow? not necessarily a traumatic horrible one, but just...mom doesn't like me a lot right now?

i can't think of a single situation where i express disapproval, and someone should interpret that as nothing is different in how i feel about them. if DH doesn't do the dishes when he said he would, i'm irritated. i act irritated. i act like i am not happy with him.

i think UP goes too far for me in discriminating between character and actions. in the end, what YOU do, cumulatively, does say a lot about who YOU are, and disapproval of the action is not entirely absent judgment of the person. to think you can completely separate what a person is and what he/she does is, i think, fallacious.

[GuildJenn]

Originally Posted by readytobedone

hmmm...well, i can unequivocally say that i don't love her just the same when she's biting me constantly. i love her, but not "just the same" as any other time.

is there something wrong with me?

Not necessarily.

I just - well it's been one of the biggest surprises in parenting to me so far. Maybe it's because most of my son's "issues" have been age-appropriate - we haven't hit some wall at 12 years old when he's lashed out inappropriately or something. But I haven't yet experienced anything like a loss of love for him even when I've been angry.

I have a feeling it's more to do with what you consider 'love' than anything else.

I do think moral development is important and am a big fan of of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. I believe in using a stern tone of voice and "the look" or even phrases like "I am really unhappy about this." Not sure it is pure UP.

I find that with my particular child, that's really quite enough. Although he's 4, he exhibits a lot of self control a lot of the time. For example, he is really really kind to younger children and has handed over prime treats to them. (For parents of biters, take heart, 'cause the one situation he used to bite in was if he had a prime treat and some other child reached for it.)

If I were to attribute this to anything but him, I think it would be almost exclusively to modelling and consistent boundaries. If character is what you DO (and I agree) then I think he learns way more about that from what he sees and how we respond to him than anything we would tell him.

I guess I also believe that parents have a special role to play in the unconditionality of our love. I would be ok telling an older child that something they did impacted on my respect for them. But not my love.

I agree that as parents our role is to guide them to make moral and ethical choices and to learn self-control. But I don't agree that withdrawal of love is necessary to get there.

[GuildJenn]

Originally Posted by readytobedone

i can't think of a single situation where i express disapproval, and someone should interpret that as nothing is different in how i feel about them. if DH doesn't do the dishes when he said he would, i'm irritated. i act irritated. i act like i am not happy with him.

Okay, but let's say he didn't do the dishes, and in the next 5 minutes, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. I doubt you'd find the dishes had that much impact on your love.

[expecting-joy]

But perhaps that's because you have lived in a world of conditional love your whole life. I think in choosing parenting styles and choosing what you believe a lot of introspection needs to occur and often we need to work hard to heal ourselves in order to be the parents we want to be.

My dd5 hasn't read Alfie Kohn, but she has lived in a household that believes in unconditional parenting. It has been interesting to see that she "hates it" when people praise her achievements. She will actually tell them ahead of time not to do so. Sure, she's human and does things that aren't nice some times. But generally she chooses to do things that others would consider nice, polite, considerate, constructive, because she sees the value in them. I think that is the important goal.

Of course you aren't happy when your child bites you, but why is she biting you? Clearly that comes from somewhere and perhaps that are multiple things you as a parent can do to change her environment so there wouldn't be a reason for her to bite. When my child do what I consider undesirable things, I have always been able to trace that behavior back to myself, my dh, or some indient involving other parties. There's a reason, and we work with that.

As for a two-year-old not understanding, well, it's hard to say. If they are never given the chance, they won't, and some are capable sooner than later. Personally, I believe if you treat them as you would a good friend, and explain things to them and generally treat them with respect, then they do internalize and process things sooner, and that helps everyone. Do they have higher order thinking skills at two? No. But they can see that if they spill the milk, no one can then drink it. They can see that it may ruin something. They can see that someone has to clean up the mess. It's a process, of course.

And I definitely love them the same no matter what they do. I enjoy it when they do nice things. I get frustrated when they do hurtful things. My job is to guide them so they will see that doing hurtful things isn't pleasant and that being kind makes them feel good. I don't tell them that, but I let them see it.

[heartmama]

I think there is a grain of truth in that statement. I would just caution how one interprets it.

Certainly people do not *feel* the same way if you kick them in the shin vs. give them a hug. I completely agree it would be unhealthy for a child to be raised by people who tried to feel the same way in both situations. Seeing that our actions influence other people is a part of learning.

However it's a bit confusing to invoke the term "love". I think parents love a child no matter what.

So yes I agree with the idea that it is natural and healthy for children to gradually learn that if the hurt a person, that person will feel differently than if they help a person.

But that does not involve "love".

Also, there are parents who let their emotions become too affected by child behavior, and/or manipulate their child in unhealthy ways using their emotions. I think parental responses have to be balanced by the influence they do have on a child's self image. Children are very sensitive to parental attitudes towards them. You don't need to be a martyr, but you also can't act like another child and indulge your angry/upset feelings as often or as deeply as you might wish to do.

[paxye]

Originally Posted by readytobedone

hmmm...but when you disapprove, doesn't the child experience that as a withdrawal of love anyhow? not necessarily a traumatic horrible one, but just...mom doesn't like me a lot right now?

i can't think of a single situation where i express disapproval, and someone should interpret that as nothing is different in how i feel about them. if DH doesn't do the dishes when he said he would, i'm irritated. i act irritated. i act like i am not happy with him.

i think UP goes too far for me in discriminating between character and actions. in the end, what YOU do, cumulatively, does say a lot about who YOU are, and disapproval of the action is not entirely absent judgment of the person. to think you can completely separate what a person is and what he/she does is, i think, fallacious.

Have you ever read Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg? This is exactly what he teaches. There are ways to speak that do not pass judgement, language without criticism or demand or the use of guilt to manipulate people.

Instead, of language giving us power over other people (using language as punishment and reward), NVC is about connecting our feelings with our needs and expressing those needs and giving us power with people. It is a way of communication that allows for giving to come naturally and willingly instead of creating an initial power struggle.

But I do understand that if you don't have those language skills then UP could be hard to accomplish because language can be used as punishment and reward very easily.

[mommysarah5]

i dont love my children any less when they misbehave and im not going to try to make them thing i do just manipulate them into doing what i want *shrugs*

i find by nature they want to cooperate, i just have to give them the tools they need to do so. yes when they are blatantly doing the opposite of what you seem they dont want to cooperate, but really they are expressing the unmet need that leaves them unable to cooperate. ultimately they want they need met so ultimately they CAN cooperate. You dont have to love them less, if anything, you may need to love them more during those times.

no *I* don't feel the same about a kick in the shins and a hug, but i certainly don't love my child less or wish to make them think i do during those times just so they hug me more and kick me less. do i want to be kicked less? sure. but i dont need to love them less at the time to accomplish that. as i said, i really think i might need to love them more if anything. i dont respond the same, but i respond in a way that comes from the same amount of love and in a way that shows the same amount of love.

[Daffodil]

To me, the passage the OP quoted is not necessarily very much at odds with UP, though it could be, depending on exactly how you interpret it. I think sometimes people get the idea that UP is about acting neutral all the time, even if your kid is kicking you or showing you some awesome new achievement. You could see the OP's quote as simply arguing against that kind of neutrality and pointing out that your kid needs to know that you're not happy if you're being kicked, so it's perfectly appropriate to show anger in that situation.

And personally, I do have a hard time feeling as much love for my kids if they're doing something I find really annoying. I do still love them, but at that moment I probably don't feel it much. And if one of them started spending a lot of time doing things that hurt or annoyed me, I might find that my normal background feeling towards that kid became less loving. I'm not sure it would be possible for me ever to reach a point where I felt I didn't love the child at all, but I think it would be possible for me to love the child less.

For the most part, I do want my kids to feel that I love them no matter what they do. I've talked to them before about the idea that sometimes when I'm angry I can have a hard time feeling the love right at that moment, but that it's still there and once I calm down I feel it again. But I've sometimes wondered whether it's a good idea to shield them from the reality that people's feelings toward them are affected by their behavior, and that if they act horribly enough some people (possibly even me) might love them less. If I wanted to address that, I guess maybe the best way would be to talk more about how being angry can make people feel less love at that moment, and how if there are a lot of moments where they're not feeling love, the not-loving feelings can start to take over. I don't think a discussion like that would go against UP.

But I don't think it's a good idea to use the idea that bad behavior makes you love your kids less as an everyday way of encouraging them to behave. You can show them that being kicked makes you angry (which will, of course, discourage them from doing it) and also show them that you still love them even if they kick you. For instance, you could wait until after you're both calm, then give your kid a hug, maybe apologize if you think you got too angry, empathize with him about whatever was making him so upset, and assure him that you still love him even though you got angry. I don't think that cancels out your initial angry reaction and leaves him with no motivation not to kick you. I think it gives him even more motivation not to kick you, because it helps him feel more loving to you.

I also don't think I agree with the idea that kids need to go through a stage of behaving well just to please their parents. I think as soon as they're old enough to control their actions, they're also old enough to understand the reasons the parents want them to act in a certain way, and parents ought to focus on those reasons rather than on their approval or disapproval. A 2 year old is certainly old enough to understand that dumped milk makes a mess and makes someone have to do extra work to clean it up.

[heartmama]

I find it's not helpful to think in terms of absolutes.

There are moments when I just intuitively know that ds needs me to be calm and neutral. There are other moments when I know he will learn something important and valuable if I show emotion, whether it be joy or anger.

There isn't a one-size-fits all response.

[momma_unlimited]

I don't think of love as a feeling, but as an action, a verb. In my marriage vows, I vowed *to love* my husband til death do us part. How could I ever make such a committment if it depended on how I felt at any particular future moment? Feelings are rather like the weather, they change a lot. So, I choose to love; it is an act of the will; but I don't always *feel* loving. I don't have to feel loving to *be* loving, though. I can feel angry, hurt, resentful, etc and still exert the willpower to maintain the committment of love I have made to each family member.

I don't think UP is based at all on how you FEEL towards your children. If it was, your feelings would be the "condition" of your parenting.

So, you are consistent no matter how you feel. That does not mean you disregard your feelings or are fake, because feelings don't have to be acted upon to be valid or validated (NVC helped me understand that). I think it a sign of personal maturity to be able to acknowledge both your thoughts and your feelings, realize *they are not YOU*, and choose to act independently of them if they are not helpful in a situation.

[mommysarah5]

Originally Posted by heartmama

I find it's not helpful to think in terms of absolutes.

There are moments when I just intuitively know that ds needs me to be calm and neutral. There are other moments when I know he will learn something important and valuable if I show emotion, whether it be joy or anger.

There isn't a one-size-fits all response.

and of course, its all in how You express that joy or anger.

sometimes the more mad I feel though, the more I find it best to respond as loving as possible, and the better results I get and the better I feel as well. Not sure what the reason is for that, but it works for me. Might have something to do with the "worse" the behavior is the bigger of an unmet need there is, and the more love necessary to heal the situation to gain long term compliance.

[chaoticzenmom]

hmm, I'm not a UP expert and have only watched the dvd, not read the book. The problem with the statement that you read is that it assumes that children start off bad and have to be taught to be good. I don't believe that's true and it hasn't been my experience.

I can see her point of it maybe being confusing to a child if he does do somethign that he considers bad and gets no response. UP isn't about not responding to your child's behaviour though, it's about teaching and modeling. At least, that's what I got from the dvd...I should read the book.