The word natural has been making rather too many appearances in the comments here for my liking; 'natural parent-child relationship', for instance. We have also seen 'artificial' used in a pejorative sense when talking about my own parenting techniques, 'The artificial excesses you describe'.
I don't know what it is about this concept of 'natural' being good and 'artificial' being bad; especially when it comes to parenting and training children. It is part of a particular mindset which I can't abide. 'Natural' seems to have become generally synonymous with wholesome and good. Of course cholera is quite natural, as are earthquakes and tsunamis. Radioactivity is the most natural thing in the world; even our own bodies are naturally radioactive. We are also made of nothing but chemicals, but 'chemical', like 'artificial' and 'radioactive' seems to have become one of those words which indicate 'bad' and 'dangerous'. It's like those who talk about 'natural' food and compare it unfavourably with 'artificial' foods, foods full of 'chemicals'. One sees on smoothies and so on; 100% natural ingredients- nothing artificial added. Well that's all right then! But wait a minute. I could mix up a solution of orange juice, uranium, arsenic and typhoid germs and then market it with the label; '100% natural - no artificial ingredients'. Yummy!
The idea of 'natural' parenting is so absurd as to hardly need examining. I suppose that in homes where this is the norm, nobody bats an eyelid if the baby shits on the sofa and then starts eating it. After all, it's perfectly natural. Surely they won't try to get the poor little mite to open his bowels over a potty? I wonder what terrible method one would use to achieve that end? What did somebody yesterday describe this sort of distasteful conditioning as? Ah yes, I remember; ' consciously applying a technique that involves, at some level, a distortion of the natural parent-child relationship'. Presumably this obsession with the 'natural' is why so many home educating parents are dead set against vaccinations; there's nothing more natural than a case of polio. There's a comforting thought when you're laying flat on your back in an iron lung, 'At least I didn't use anything artificial to prevent the polio virus from multiplying.' But hang on a moment, an iron lung? That's artificial too! Better switch it off at once. I'm sure that death is far more natural than relying upon some complicated machine in order to breath.
How do we avoid 'distorting the natural parent-child relationship'? Do we try not to impose our will upon the developing child? Are we to avoid conditioning the child and inculcating certain habits? Certainly from what people were saying yesterday, parents should not decide in advance to follow any systematic programme with the kid. That really would be 'abhorrent'. Suppose the baby wishes to eat from the cat's bowl? I have seen a child that wished to do this; crawling around on all fours and copying the cat, even sharing its food. Should we permit this? if not, why not? Will we distort the natural parent-child relationship by insisting that the child voids her bladder in a specified place rather than randomly around the house? This sounds pretty artificial to me! What if my child wants to go out to the park without wearing any clothes. Should I allow this? After all it is a sight more natural to walk about naked. Anybody on here allow their six year old to walk to the park or go shopping without any clothes on at all? You prudes! What about eating earth? Or how about this. Your toddler has insisted on going to the shops naked and then while he is getting bored, he begins fiddling with his penis. What do we do? Try and persuade him that this is not quite the thing in public? Steady on there! What sort of complexes are you going to set up in his infant mind around sex and his genitals? Best leave him to get on with it. Mind you, if you say nothing, he might continue with this habit and still be doing it in public when he is five or six, or even perhaps when he is fourteen. Oh well, it's his body!
It strikes me that nearly all parent impose certain parameters upon their children's behaviour and lifestyle. The rule seems to be that as long as you do this unobtrusively and pretend that you are very laid back about parenting, you qualify for being a 'natural' parent. Admit that you plan ahead and have a system that you are working to and you automatically become that most dreadful of beings; the controlling parent. There is a lot of hypocrisy involved here. Many parents read Penelope Leach and then try to apply her methods consistently. A lot of these techniques are every bit as contrived and artificial as anything which Skinner suggested and yet Penelope Leach seems to be OK for the natural parents. I wonder why this should be?
Firstly of course, she is a woman. I have I think mentioned before that when I used to write for some magazines, Nursery World springs to mind, they would always change my name from Simon to Simone! The reason for this is that mothers feel much more comfortable reading stuff that other women suggest about babies rather than something written by a man. I used to cringe, because I would write a perfectly sound, somewhat dry piece on language acquisition in the under fives and it would be headed, 'Mum Simone Webb explains....' I suspect that if the things which I have written here over the last few days had been by a woman recommending stuff from Penelope Leach or Maria Montessori, nobody would have remarked upon it at all. It was that fatal combination of a man following another man's ideas to raise a little girl. Creepy or what?
Times change. I remember when the most popular book on childrearing was the one by Dr Spock. These days, a book on this subject by a man would probably not sell like hot cakes. So I am thinking that the negative reactions to what I have written on childrearing and operant conditioning are probably less based upon objective analysis of the text and more upon an instinctive feeling that men should not really be involved in the care and upbringing of babies at all - that's really women's work - and secondly in the wooly-headed view that 'natural' is good and 'artificial' is bad. There may of course be a measure of personal dislike and animosity towards me too, which might tend to colour the opinions of those who read anything which I write. How else to explain the comment left by some fool who said: ' everyone's happier when following their own interests, but I suppose that would be such a minute consideration of yours as to be hardly relevant' ?
Ah yes, I remember so well my first encounter with an HE family who came to my home. The 2 year old pooed behind a chair (mum did not believe in nappies.) And I was berated for not having organic milk in the house. The two facts were not related, just things I remember from all those years ago. We also knew of a family who refused to use metal implements to eat with, only wooden sticks. Others who did their own dentistry.
ReplyDeleteThere are some oddballs in the HE community.
But then, there are also some fabulous people who have enriched our lives immeasurably.
Mrs Anon, a bit odd herself.
'I suspect that if the things which I have written here over the last few days had been by a woman recommending stuff from Penelope Leach or Maria Montessori, nobody would have remarked upon it at all.'
ReplyDeleteI don't think so, Simon. It was the programmatic aspect of it which shocked people and the terminology you used. It was also a slight departure from your usual blog-writing style. I'm quite sure that you set out to shock us. ;-)
Well done for making us think.
Mrs Anon
Yes, I was not putting myself forward as a model of normality Mrs Anon. My intimate friends all regard me as being pretty well as mad as a hatter. I too met some HE parents like those you describe. The family who refused to eat hot food becuse it was unnatural. Their eight year old daughter had never had a hot meal in her life. She wasn't allowed to go to other people houses alone, just on the off-chance that she might eat a piece of toast or something! We also encountered a family whose baby did not wear nappies, even to bed (their bed, naturally). The idea was that by wtching a baby you can tell if she is about to empty her bladder or bowles. Well it wasn't infallible and after a couple of visits we stopped inviting them round. I am not squeamish about my own kids bodily fluids, or solids, but other kids' shit on the carpet was mor ethan even I could stomach. Their own house smelled pretty awful, for obvious reaons, and so the acquaintance languished and then died.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right, Simon, that not only is the distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' used inaccurately by many people, but the frequently associated assumption that natural is good and artificial is bad is also flawed.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean either that parents using these categorisations and making that association don't have a point - that societies can move so far away from the kind of environment that the human body is adapted to live in, that we put ourselves at serious risk.
In other words the basis of their argument holds true, even if they have got hold of the wrong end of some sticks.
Human beings though are delightfully inconsistent....most people would describe our family as fairly " rigid" (probably the only way I could cope with so many children) and certainly I have been pro-vaccination; but then I was also what might be described as an "extended breastfeeder" - which would fit the whole "earth mother" sort of concept. One of my home educating friends is violently anti "chemical"- campaigns vehemently against vaccination/hospital birth/use of sun screens (causes cancer apparently!) and yet happily smokes 20 a day....
ReplyDeleteYou might notice that my 'distaste' had nothing to do with what was 'natural'. I too find it extremely annoying when people suggest that all things natural are good and anything else is bad. Probably because I've been on the receiving end of "but it's not natural" type comments.
ReplyDeleteWhat I suggested was that the way you described your approach to child rearing charcterised the child as a passive object of your actions. At the heart of my approach is a recognition of the child as a person and an appreciation of the two-way learning potential of human relationships. Do you see my point?
I see your point Allie. It was one raised by a number of scientists who questioned the validity of Skinner's findings and by people who objected to its application in shaping the behaviour of people in institutions.
ReplyDeleteSubsequent research has shown quite clearly that behaviour is an outcome of genetic and environmental influences interacting with the child's behaviour itself.
Operant conditioning is a useful tool in moving behaviour towards what the parent wants, but it begs the question as to what behaviour the parent wants and what the child's role is in all this.
I take your point Allie, but I'm not sure if I agree with you. We all treat our children as passive objects from time to time. Consider the case of a toddler who refuses to cooperate in having her teeth cleaned. We know that this can lead to terrible problems and so after all the debate has been exhausted, we will clean her teeth for her anyway. Failing to do so would be a neglect of out duty as parents. When this happens, the process is as mechanical as cleaning out a vacuum cleaner; we simply remove the dirt from the child's teeth.
ReplyDeleteI always worked from the perspective that I knew more than my child, which is quite true. She might have wished to avoid a little temporary discomfort now, but I was aware of the future advantages of what I was doing. Sometimes I rode roughshod over her wishes and she did indeed become the passive object of my actions. Anything less would have been an abdication of my reponsibilities as a parent.
Simon says:
ReplyDelete"I always worked from the perspective that I knew more than my child, which is quite true."
No it's not. Often it's true. Much of the time you do know more than a child but there are very important things which your child knows better than you. Your child knows how *they* are feeling - physically and emotionally. This means it is vital for us to tread carefully when we do things for our children's 'own good'. Yes, rotten milk teeth are a problem but so is a sense of invasion and fear at someone else forcing something into your mouth.
I'm not saying I've never forced my will on a child and I'm not saying I've never used manipulation. I've also made mistakes and lost my temper and so on. But I always try to remember that the child is a person - a young person with obvious gaps in their understanding of the world - but a person. So I try to treat them as I would like to be treated. If I didn't understand why someone was demanding that I put something in my mouth then I'd kick up a fuss. I might refuse.
I actually used explanation and reason with my children when it came to tooth cleaning. When they were toddlers I showed them my horrible 1970s fillings and explained what they were. Then I explained that cleaning could stop that happening to their teeth. Bingo. They both spent the next few years happily opening their mouths wide so we could 'finish off' their tooth cleaning.
"When they were toddlers I showed them my horrible 1970s fillings and explained what they were. "
ReplyDeleteShocking scare tactics, Allie! Yes, I too found the inside of my mouth to be a valuable teaching tool for this purpose.
Yes, I think I used 'natural', but realised later that I really meant authentic. I think children can tell when someone is acting or false in their reactions and emotions, mine certainly can and react negatively when they perceive it. Being 'natural' in your behaviour and reactions with your children has nothing to do with 'nature' in this instance. Probably just poor vocabulary use on my part yet you seem to have managed to produce a completely irrelevant blog post as a result!
ReplyDelete"Shocking scare tactics, Allie! Yes, I too found the inside of my mouth to be a valuable teaching tool for this purpose."
So did you have to force your child's mouth open and force a toothbrush in, or was this just said to stir things up? I'd imagine it would be very difficult to do this with a resistant toddler without hurting them physically.
But the reason you 'rode roughshod' was not because you were her parent and it was your wish that she have her teeth cleaned; it was because it was in her interests for her to have her teeth cleaned.
ReplyDeleteThere's also the issue of what works and what doesn't. It just so happens that riding roughshod in your case ended up with the desired outcome. In other cases, coercion, even as a last resort, can be impossible; ie the child flatly refuses to clean their teeth and the child in question happens to be a hulking 15 year-old with learning difficulties, say.
'In other cases, coercion, even as a last resort, can be impossible; ie the child flatly refuses to clean their teeth and the child in question happens to be a hulking 15 year-old with learning difficulties, say.'
ReplyDeleteActually, what normally happens in those cases Suzyg, is that said hulking teen is given an anaesthetic and the rotten teeth removed. Sad but true. When I taught such kids that was quite common.
Much better to have dealt calmly and sensibly with the teeth-cleaning process in the first place.
In fact, there was a documentary on tv a few years ago about more and more toddlers having to have ALL their teeth removed because, in the parents' words, 'They like sweets and they won't let us brush their teeth.'
'Grow up,' was my response to those parents.
Just adding that persuasion and logic was all that was necessary re teeth, for our kids.
Mrs Anon
"Actually, what normally happens in those cases Suzyg, is that said hulking teen is given an anaesthetic and the rotten teeth removed. Sad but true. When I taught such kids that was quite common.
ReplyDeleteMuch better to have dealt calmly and sensibly with the teeth-cleaning process in the first place."
You seem to be making the assumption, Mrs Anon, that what causes the child to refuse to brush their teeth is that the matter is not dealt with calmly and sensibly in the first place. And that what causes rotten teeth is not brushing them.
As a child I was very diligent about my teeth cleaning. I'd seen my parents' dentures. I was rarely allowed sweets. I had my first cavity at six, and cavities were almost an annual event thereafter. My best friend had perfect teeth through to adulthood. Her teeth cleaning routine was very haphazard. I strongly suspect my cavities were due to my parents' insistence on the daily consumption of citrus fruits for the benefit of my immune system. Acid erosion, in short. Made worse by regular brushing. There are of course many causes of bad teeth, besides not brushing them.
We've had real difficulty getting my son (with autism) to clean his teeth. We've tried being matter of fact (worked until he was 7, by which time the habit is supposed to be established), informative and calm and authoritative (all ineffective), bribery (what Simon would call operant conditioning - worked for a few weeks), and insisting (at what point do you stop insisting - the point where you are trying to prise the child's mouth open?).
What made the difference was changing the type of toothbrush we used. We've tried everything and the one that works best is the silicon type for babies that fits on the finger. It's the most comfortable and manageable for him.
So far he's had one cavity. It was in a new molar that had come up next to a baby molar that had cracked. It appeared only when the baby molar fell out. I asked the dentist how we could have cleaned in that gap to prevent the decay. He said we couldn't and that cavities sometimes appear despite one's best efforts.
My point being that although one can draw valid generalised conclusions about the whole population, those generalised conclusions do not necessarily apply to everyone in that population.
Nor can one work back from those conclusions to individual cases. E.g. smoking causes lung cancer, so anyone with lung cancer must have smoked.
"even if they have got hold of the wrong end of some sticks."
ReplyDeleteLOL, suzyq! Was the pun intentional?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"These days, a book on this subject by a man would probably not sell like hot cakes. So I am thinking that the negative reactions to what I have written on childrearing and operant conditioning are probably less based upon objective analysis of the text and more upon an instinctive feeling that men should not really be involved in the care and upbringing of babies at all - that's really women's work "
It's funny you should say this because the two posts that struck a particularly strong chord with me in the early part of the discussion posted by scatty yesterday, http://familyrun.ning.com/forum/topics/boundaries-and-unschooling-as, were those written by Alan Marshall and Andy Cronin. From memory (I haven't read it for a while), I suspect the ratio of men to women is much higher on the Taking Children Seriously email discussion list compared to other parenting lists and men may even be in the majority. Certainly they seemed the most vocal (and there's nothing wrong with that)!
'You seem to be making the assumption, Mrs Anon, that what causes the child to refuse to brush their teeth is that the matter is not dealt with calmly and sensibly in the first place.'
ReplyDeleteYes, that was the case with all the teens I knew personally who ended up having general anaesthetics to remove their teeth. And my dd has autism so I'm well aware of the sensitivity issues associated with that.
Mrs Anon
I'm intrigued that a teacher of teenagers might actually know what early strategies parents used in relation to teeth-brushing.
ReplyDeleteHow did you find out this information, Mrs Anon? Did the teenagers tell you?
No, their carers did.
ReplyDeleteMrs Anon
"Actually, what normally happens in those cases Suzyg, is that said hulking teen is given an anaesthetic and the rotten teeth removed. Sad but true. When I taught such kids that was quite common.
ReplyDeleteMuch better to have dealt calmly and sensibly with the teeth-cleaning process in the first place."
Mrs Anon, the impression given here is that you think that dealing calmly and sensibly (can you describe what this means in practice) will always result in children letting parents brush their teeth and children brushing their own teeth well when older. Thus any parent of an older child who has cavities (apart from the odd small cavity, such as those caused by mechanical damage like grinding) did not take this approach and is at fault. Do you really think this is true or am I misreading your post?
'... instinctive feeling that men should not really be involved in the care and upbringing of babies at all - that's really women's work'
ReplyDeleteThat's got nothing to do with it. The advice is the important thing, not the gender of the adviser. I'm much more likely to follow William Sears' advice than Gina Ford's, for instance, or Penelope Leach's, for that matter.
'It strikes me that nearly all parent impose certain parameters upon their children's behaviour and lifestyle.'
I agree. It's important (and inevitable) that children learn that there are limits to acceptable behaviour, for their own sake and for others'. What the limits are varies from family to family, and society to society. If you look at tribal societies (which I suppose you could call more 'natural' than ours) you will find that they all impose parameters; the Yequana, for instance, chase their toddlers outside if they pee on the floor.
'The rule seems to be that as long as you do this unobtrusively and pretend that you are very laid back about parenting, you qualify for being a 'natural' parent.'
'Natural' parenting is not more permissive by definition than 'unnatural' parenting or whatever you call what you did. The difference is in the way in which the parameters are set and maintained. The discussion Scatty linked to explains this very well.
'Admit that you plan ahead and have a system that you are working to and you automatically become that most dreadful of beings; the controlling parent.'
Nothing wrong with forward planning. I aimed to help my children become the best people they could be, and I developed certain ideas about the best ways of achieving that aim. But one thing I learnt very early on was that I wasn't working to a system, I was working with a person, and then with two very different people who had different capabilities and needs, and who required different kinds of interaction with me. One loved my story about little monsters in his mouth that ate his teeth and needed chasing away with the toothbrush; the other would have been terrified, but was easily persuaded to nurture her baby teeth. No naughty step, no sticker chart, just people interacting.
Ah. Sorry to labour the point but I'm still trying to work out how one can insist, calmly and sensibly that a child that flatly refuses to open its mouth to clean its teeth does so.
ReplyDeleteAs one of the anons says, "So did you have to force your child's mouth open and force a toothbrush in...... I'd imagine it would be very difficult to do this with a resistant toddler without hurting them physically. "
I suppose the point I'm making is that, after seven years of calm and sensible success, we suddenly hit an unforseen problem. That took years to overcome. It made me realise that some parents might never actually be able to overcome it, however calm, sensible and resourceful they might be.
'Thus any parent of an older child who has cavities (apart from the odd small cavity, such as those caused by mechanical damage like grinding) did not take this approach and is at fault. Do you really think this is true or am I misreading your post?'
ReplyDeleteYes, you are. But I don't think there's much point in explaining the exact circumstances of the specific children I was referring to.
Mrs Anon
"Yes, you are. But I don't think there's much point in explaining the exact circumstances of the specific children I was referring to."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, it sounds as though you took offense at my last comment. The impression given in your earlier comments is that dealing with teeth brushing calmly and sensibly will *always* result in good teeth brushing practices (though you don't define what's involved with calmly and sensibly), which automatically implies that any parent of a child with problem teeth were not calm and sensible in their approach. This seemed a very sweeping generalisation for you and didn't 'fit' with other things you've said, hence the attempt to clarify.
So do you think it's possible for a parent to be calm and sensible about teeth brushing and the child still refuse to brush their teeth or have them brushed? Is it that, in the example you gave, you were referring to particular children, *most* of whom you think would have been OK if their parents had been calm and sensible from the beginning? I'm not taking a dig at you, just trying to understand what you meant when you said;
"Much better to have dealt calmly and sensibly with the teeth-cleaning process in the first place."
"Yes, that [not dealing with teeth brushing calmly and sensibly] was the case with all the teens I knew personally who ended up having general anaesthetics to remove their teeth."
It's heartening to know that an Anonymous is also trying to clarify the same point. Think of Red Riding Hood. All the paths taken by characters in the story lead to Grandmother's house, but they don't all start in the same place, nor do the same characters tread them. Even if all the characters end up at Grandmother's, you cannot deduce from that fact alone which of the characters took which path.
ReplyDelete