Just feel like sharing...
I've been reading some behavioristic parenting advice, such as that presented at this site: http://www.parentrx.com/topics/. There is actually a lot of advice that I find decent at that site (I think most somewhat thought out approaches to parenting are apt to contain some gems about the importance of healthy relationships and so on), but it's mixed in with other tidbits that horrify me.
For example, the author, Glenn Latham, offers the advice that whenever a child is tantrumming, interact as little as possible with the child and shun her or him throughout the tantrum and for a few minutes afterwards, saying little more to the child than that when s/he acts that way, the parents do not want to be around the child. Other similarly stinky advice at least asks the parent to identify whether the tantrum is supposedly needs-based or manipulative and to offer some empathy for the former category. But I guess that even this selective empathy is too much internalizing for some behaviorists. All tantrums are taken as acts of manipulation directed to coerce the parents into complying with the child's demands. The environment the child is subjected to for the time-out should be as utterly barren and unstimulating as possible. Maybe in Latham's world rather than naughty chairs and stairs, parents should have access to child-sized sensory deprivation chambers. Imagine how quickly discipline would work then! A cure to misbehavior everywhere! Woot! (Well... not likely.) He also advises that before going to a friend's house, a parent with a child who may tantrum while there should ask the friend if they have somewhere "suitable" to put the child if the child should tantrum during their visit. That's just lovely advice. Hey friend, maybe you have an empty fruit cellar I can use if my child has a tantrum while we're over? I want to be sure that she KNOWS that I'll banish her to solitary confinement in a sensory deprivation chamber if she doesn't comply with my will. While Latham may be offended with this take on his position, it is not far off from what he encourages parents to do to their children. Think about it. Do others see this shunning in a barren environment as a total mindf*!#? Given where a child is at developmentally and how dependent the child is on her or his parents, I seriously wonder if doing this to one's child, and the child knowing that one will consistently repeat the punishment if the child continues to do whatever they've been told not to do, is tantamount to a sort of mental torture or terrorism, even if relatively minor compared to many other forms. I know there is a book that argues that there are common parenting practices that are so horrible for children that they are, or border on, traumatic. I'll have to track it down. That sounds about right to me.
What I feel like sharing: While reading parenting advice that is along the behavioristic/mainstream way of doing things, there are often pictures of children on the screen, some with their parents, some in other situations. Really, I have no idea if the children pictured are being parented the way I'm reading about as the pictures may have been culled from a photo database. Still, I feel some pretty strong emotions when looking at the pictures as I'm imagining that these children are treated in the ways described. This isn't the worst sort of parenting imaginable, I know, and it's well-intentioned. Still, I disagree with it and want to pinpoint what it is that I'm feeling when I look at those pictures. This is interesting to me and I feel it may be helpful in sorting out what I think is wrong with the advocated approach to parenting and then think about whether all of these thoughts and feelings are well-founded.
One feeling I'm having is similar to the one that often occurs when driving fast over a little hill. Dread, perhaps? Fear? Thinking about the discomfort I have, I think I may also be experiencing a sympathetic form of humiliation. Looking at another picture -- of two children hugging -- with the context of the picture in mind, I found myself imagining to be the behavioristic mother of these children. Though the advice advocates an overall atmosphere of love and warmth, I couldn't help but feel a coldness and distance, a need to be on guard so that I could respond "scientifically" and ignore or punish them for their "bad" behaviours and to selectively positively reinforce some of their good behaviours. The author whose work is being discussed, Glenn Latham, seems to have the freaky dog-training bit down, though he doesn't explain it in those terms. An explanation of what I mean: someone on these boards (sorry I forget who!) recently raised an idea that is really sticking with me: that dog trainers know that the key to successful use of praise and rewards is to avoid offering them for every positive action so that the dog keeps trying to get praise, like a gambler keeps trying to win the jackpot; seen that way the manipulative and harmful nature of these tactic really bubble up to the surface, at least for me).
Another feeling/thought/bias that comes to mind when looking at the pictures that are meant to stand-in for children being raised in behavioristic homes: I interpret what appears to be happiness, and what may be happiness, as tentative and constrained. It's an unfree type of happiness, or something like that. One that is depending on the parent's continued support and in perpetual fear of wayward impulses and acting against how the parents want the child to act. I remember my own happiness being constained because I felt the need to hide the silly parts of my personality from my father, who I thought would interpret it as childish and annoying. This is a huge part of who I am, so when I was happy while around my parents, my ability to fully express and feel happy was limited to the repetoire of actions that I felt would be o.k. with them and constrained further by the fear that I might slip up and meet with their disapproval.
Hearing about these behavioristic techniques and imagining to apply them leaves me feeling inauthentic in my expressions of love, support, and concern (i.e., when I imagine acting as the advice indicates that I should act).
In front of me is an article I'm saving from the Vancouver Sun entitled "If Music Be the Food of Brains, Play on Kids. . .." It's about the intellectual benefits that can come from playing the piano. The author playfully indicates that she's not about to tell her children that it's good for them, since "nothing sucks the fun out of an activity faster than being told it is good for you." Geez. What a worldview that is! This statement is at odds with the flavour of the rest of the article, which encourages forcing children to stick with the lessons and practicing despite tears and whatnot, telling them that it's simply not an option for them to quit. Nothing was said about alternative approaches to learning the piano that can be far more pleasant for children.
Above the article in a picture of a little girl who is maybe 3 years old. She has a serious look on her face and is playing a piano is a fancy pink dress. With no context, I think I'd read the picture as adorable and assume that the girl has chosen to play the piano and is having a good time. With the context of the article, the picture is still really cute, but it raises some uncomfortable feelings. A 3 year old child forced to play the piano for her own good!?! I start imagining the same girl with her head on the piano, crying and begging to get up to play.
I've been reading some behavioristic parenting advice, such as that presented at this site: http://www.parentrx.com/topics/. There is actually a lot of advice that I find decent at that site (I think most somewhat thought out approaches to parenting are apt to contain some gems about the importance of healthy relationships and so on), but it's mixed in with other tidbits that horrify me.
For example, the author, Glenn Latham, offers the advice that whenever a child is tantrumming, interact as little as possible with the child and shun her or him throughout the tantrum and for a few minutes afterwards, saying little more to the child than that when s/he acts that way, the parents do not want to be around the child. Other similarly stinky advice at least asks the parent to identify whether the tantrum is supposedly needs-based or manipulative and to offer some empathy for the former category. But I guess that even this selective empathy is too much internalizing for some behaviorists. All tantrums are taken as acts of manipulation directed to coerce the parents into complying with the child's demands. The environment the child is subjected to for the time-out should be as utterly barren and unstimulating as possible. Maybe in Latham's world rather than naughty chairs and stairs, parents should have access to child-sized sensory deprivation chambers. Imagine how quickly discipline would work then! A cure to misbehavior everywhere! Woot! (Well... not likely.) He also advises that before going to a friend's house, a parent with a child who may tantrum while there should ask the friend if they have somewhere "suitable" to put the child if the child should tantrum during their visit. That's just lovely advice. Hey friend, maybe you have an empty fruit cellar I can use if my child has a tantrum while we're over? I want to be sure that she KNOWS that I'll banish her to solitary confinement in a sensory deprivation chamber if she doesn't comply with my will. While Latham may be offended with this take on his position, it is not far off from what he encourages parents to do to their children. Think about it. Do others see this shunning in a barren environment as a total mindf*!#? Given where a child is at developmentally and how dependent the child is on her or his parents, I seriously wonder if doing this to one's child, and the child knowing that one will consistently repeat the punishment if the child continues to do whatever they've been told not to do, is tantamount to a sort of mental torture or terrorism, even if relatively minor compared to many other forms. I know there is a book that argues that there are common parenting practices that are so horrible for children that they are, or border on, traumatic. I'll have to track it down. That sounds about right to me.
What I feel like sharing: While reading parenting advice that is along the behavioristic/mainstream way of doing things, there are often pictures of children on the screen, some with their parents, some in other situations. Really, I have no idea if the children pictured are being parented the way I'm reading about as the pictures may have been culled from a photo database. Still, I feel some pretty strong emotions when looking at the pictures as I'm imagining that these children are treated in the ways described. This isn't the worst sort of parenting imaginable, I know, and it's well-intentioned. Still, I disagree with it and want to pinpoint what it is that I'm feeling when I look at those pictures. This is interesting to me and I feel it may be helpful in sorting out what I think is wrong with the advocated approach to parenting and then think about whether all of these thoughts and feelings are well-founded.
One feeling I'm having is similar to the one that often occurs when driving fast over a little hill. Dread, perhaps? Fear? Thinking about the discomfort I have, I think I may also be experiencing a sympathetic form of humiliation. Looking at another picture -- of two children hugging -- with the context of the picture in mind, I found myself imagining to be the behavioristic mother of these children. Though the advice advocates an overall atmosphere of love and warmth, I couldn't help but feel a coldness and distance, a need to be on guard so that I could respond "scientifically" and ignore or punish them for their "bad" behaviours and to selectively positively reinforce some of their good behaviours. The author whose work is being discussed, Glenn Latham, seems to have the freaky dog-training bit down, though he doesn't explain it in those terms. An explanation of what I mean: someone on these boards (sorry I forget who!) recently raised an idea that is really sticking with me: that dog trainers know that the key to successful use of praise and rewards is to avoid offering them for every positive action so that the dog keeps trying to get praise, like a gambler keeps trying to win the jackpot; seen that way the manipulative and harmful nature of these tactic really bubble up to the surface, at least for me).
Another feeling/thought/bias that comes to mind when looking at the pictures that are meant to stand-in for children being raised in behavioristic homes: I interpret what appears to be happiness, and what may be happiness, as tentative and constrained. It's an unfree type of happiness, or something like that. One that is depending on the parent's continued support and in perpetual fear of wayward impulses and acting against how the parents want the child to act. I remember my own happiness being constained because I felt the need to hide the silly parts of my personality from my father, who I thought would interpret it as childish and annoying. This is a huge part of who I am, so when I was happy while around my parents, my ability to fully express and feel happy was limited to the repetoire of actions that I felt would be o.k. with them and constrained further by the fear that I might slip up and meet with their disapproval.
Hearing about these behavioristic techniques and imagining to apply them leaves me feeling inauthentic in my expressions of love, support, and concern (i.e., when I imagine acting as the advice indicates that I should act).
In front of me is an article I'm saving from the Vancouver Sun entitled "If Music Be the Food of Brains, Play on Kids. . .." It's about the intellectual benefits that can come from playing the piano. The author playfully indicates that she's not about to tell her children that it's good for them, since "nothing sucks the fun out of an activity faster than being told it is good for you." Geez. What a worldview that is! This statement is at odds with the flavour of the rest of the article, which encourages forcing children to stick with the lessons and practicing despite tears and whatnot, telling them that it's simply not an option for them to quit. Nothing was said about alternative approaches to learning the piano that can be far more pleasant for children.
Above the article in a picture of a little girl who is maybe 3 years old. She has a serious look on her face and is playing a piano is a fancy pink dress. With no context, I think I'd read the picture as adorable and assume that the girl has chosen to play the piano and is having a good time. With the context of the article, the picture is still really cute, but it raises some uncomfortable feelings. A 3 year old child forced to play the piano for her own good!?! I start imagining the same girl with her head on the piano, crying and begging to get up to play.
