I don't believe that it is the child's responsibility to prevent themselves from being traumatized when the parent places them in a situation
where the child doesn't have responsive resources available.
I do want to add that I am more of an advocate of suiting our American environment to our children's needs than expecting that they will adapt to an unnatural
environment from which they have no recourse. When that environment is organic such as the Yeguana tribe, that is a totally different realm than one artificially or arbitrarily imposed on a child without the child having a means of dissent.
For instance, I consider our home the organic environment from which our child does not have to leave unless he chooses to "follow me
". And I do consider my own expectation not to leave him without adequate care, which is my responsibility to provide, such as I did not birth into the natural order of an extended support system in our home/family/community.
Because I chose to birth into a nuclear family unit
, but chose also to *adopt* a CCish parenting/living practice, I am accountable to not obstruct or impose expectations that the CC children would not experience, imo. By insisting or expecting that our son will come with me against his will seems in opposition to the practices of the CC tribe from my understanding. I've never seen a quote or situation from the CC book otherwise.
In order to provide an equivalent freedom of the CC children, for our son to "follow me" or not, our son has the option to refuse leaving his 'organic home' environment, or I work to find a alternative which meets both my need for him to have adequate caregiving and
his to not "follow me". This effort on my part to replicate the *choice* that the CC children had, decreases the artificial and arbitrarily imposed environments to which children are generally objecting when they are "having a tantrum". This follows that imposing 'dressing to go out', 'hurry we have to be somewhere', 'having to get in the carseat', when our son does not want to follow
causes the emotional distress in ways that the CC children were not subjected.
Therefore, our son has the option not to leave his organic home environment or we find another solution. The same facilitation of choice occurs when he doesn't want to be somewhere, he has the option of going home with support. We work to find a solution to that also. It really doesn't follow that I can just take him somewhere (by car) and expect that he could get himself home, like the Yequana children. That is totally an artificial construct which *I* create, nothing like the indigenous Yequana tribe.
After ds was born I read TCC and adopted the "trust" ds to know best what he needs. And my mothering instinct kept me attuned to meeting his needs naturally, as we were naturally an interdependent dyad.
The aspects of TCC that I embrace are not interfering with a child's self-trust, not imposing teaching or engagement, and trusting that a child will learn through my modeling and his observation as a spectator of social situations, and me as a responsive resource. And I am confident that children desire to be harmonious social participants and attached to their community.
I really don't perceive ds, dh and me as separate "independent" entities in the way that our independent minded American culture promotes. So, there is no "adult-centered: child-centered" dichotomy from which we strive for a balance. We are an entity of a family. An interdependent
family: just as what affects one, affects the whole. Our goal is optimizing the health of the whole family unit and this is the natural order of community and social beings as the TCC tribe exists, imo. It is very much an "Americanism" to embrace an independence agenda, rather than to meet the needs of the whole family unit.
We are constantly attuned and attentive to each other as inseparable from Self. Which is what the mother/child bond is with babies, older children, and family included from my experience and understanding.
Self Trust is more protective than Self Doubt. I consciously and actively work at not interfering with ds's inherent Self Trust
. However, when *I* choose to place him in an environment which is not a natural one for him to explore safely, it is MY responsibility to maintain a safe environment for him, imo. Did the child have the CC freedom to NOT go
to the park, the restaurant, the store, the in-laws, the class, the playgroup, daycare, etc?
Scott Noelle's article about "Where's My Center?~ A closer look at child-centered parenting and the continuum concept" is more reflective of a parent-child attunement than Liedloff was aware of, imo, as she was a young Western observer, and not a parent herself. http://www.scottnoelle.com/parenting/child-centered.htm
"I'm in charge (of myself)" is a fairly common interpretation and implementation of the Continuum Concept, for both children and adults. It is the delta between our inorganic environment and the original Yequana environment which creates the challenges
, ime. In a tribal environment with multi-generational models and "leaders", a child can *choose* who (among many) they emulate and follow, or remain with, or resource. Embracing the practices of self-determination and interconnectivity which were observed in the Yequana, necessitates more forethought in a nuclear family unit within an industrialized and mechanized society, ime.
The continuum concept implementation is challenging in our society!