Earth
Mother Enterprises |
A common phrase nowadays is the dictum that people should suffer the consequences of their actions. Usually, the speakers are not in a loving relationship to the people they think need discipline. Sometimes, though, the speakers are parents of much-loved children. This may be said to distinguish themselves from brutal parents who beat a child for misbehavior and to portray themselves as progressive parents who believe in other kinds of punishment.
The parent who will enforce time outs or remove privileges is providing a kinder, gentler alternative to beatings and scoldings, but this is a minor step up. There is another approach that is more sophisticated, more successful for teaching of inner discipline, and more natural.
Taking away the privilege of television as a punishment for breaking a sibling's toy, for example, is not natural. It is arbitrary in a way that confuses, rather than clarifies, right from wrong.
The punishment does not emphasize that the wrong is a moral wrong of having hurt another person. It is treated as a wrong of disobedience to the parent. It affirms the privileged status of the parent and demonstrates that what the parent gives can be arbitrarily taken away, when the parent is displeased. It implies that what the parent desires for amends is a deprivation or pain for the child. This implies that the parent gets satisfaction from balancing a scale through a mild form of vengeance.
A natural form of discipline that highlights the parents' roles as protectors and teachers is very different. In this example of the broken toy, the first response is to interrupt the destructive behavior. What is preferable, when possible, is to anticipate what is about to happen and prevent the toy from being broken, explaining that the sibling loves the toy and the parent doesn't want him/her to be hurt by having it broken. Likewise, the parent can reassure the about-to-misbehave child that they want to protect them from doing something wrong.
Assuming that the act has taken place, however, the parent can act immediately to minimize the breaking of the toy, by gathering it up and putting it aside to be fixed. The parent can state that breaking the toy is not a good thing to do and find out why, as best they can, why the child broke the toy.
If the child was angry from jealousy, for example, the parent can promise to help the child deal with anger and jealousy better. The parent should urge the child to talk about feelings and needs.
Children naturally act out, showing feelings through actions, some of which are primitive. Action is a more accessible means of communication than verbalizing. Learning to put feelings and requests into words is a very gradual process, and parents need to constantly point out the alternative of speech to impulsive action.
After that, the attention is directed to amends. The wrong was not disobedience; the wrong was that someone got hurt. The wrong was close to an accident in wrongness, because the child is still learning alternative behavior. Even in an accident, reparations are appropriate.
The children are brought into the discussion of what would be adequate reparation. Part of an allowance could be directed to buying the materials, such as glue, needed to repair the toy. A toy liked by the aggrieved child and owned by the offending child might be offered to make up for the broken toy.
Ideally, everyone involved will feel joy and satisfaction when a solution is found. At that point real forgiveness comes naturally. After that point, apologies and acceptance of apologies tend to flow freely, as outward acknowledgments of the completion of an inner process of redemption. Those expressions should not be required falsely, rather they should be taught as ways to express the reality of a successful resolution.
For older children, the natural consequences may be more severe in practical and interpersonal ways. If a teenager breaks curfew for something other than truly accidental reasons, for example, then a parent has other teaching to do. First, the parent should let the child know that the most serious consequence is that the parent worries and loses trust in the child.
If the parent believes that the influence of other teenagers is a major factor in the misbehavior, then a natural consequence is to cut back on the freedom to be with those specific peers. The parent may say that the child is not strong enough to resist those influences yet. He or she will be protected from situations beyond their ability to exercise good judgment. The parent should treat the misbehavior as a sign that the child is not ready for certain responsibilities.
Just as the parent should not give in to a toddler who insists he/she can cross the road safely, the parent should not acquiesce to a teenager who puts forth a flood of promises. The parent should explain that the child will gain more freedom after a period of compliance with other rules, that the teenager can earn back the trust that had been prematurely proffered.
In other words, the parent rightly assumes the responsibility for this problem. The parent judged wrongly in allowing enough freedom for the teenager to misbehave. Whatever is necessary to move back to the degree of freedom that feels secure to the parent will take place -- no use of the car, restricted use of a car, checking in by telephone at certain times of day, only having those friends come to the house in a supervised situation -- whatever gives the parent confidence.
The natural consequences of breaking a trust is to have to deal with the distrust of the person betrayed. The usual reparative behavior called for is a process of re-earning that trust, which is very specific to the situation and individuals involved. Only privileges that are connected to putting the teenager in risk of repeating the same disappointing behavior should be removed. None should be removed for the sake of vengeance.
My mother used this process in a simple way that worked for me, when I was about ten years old. I had a habit of leaving a banana peel lying on a side table in the living room after eating, planning to throw it away when I got up, but then forgetting. She asked me to be sure and throw it away in the trash, but I kept forgetting. Without an angry or denigrating edge to her voice, she said she wasn't going to buy bananas for awhile, because she was tired of finding the banana peels left lying around.
I did without bananas for about a month. Then she bought some and told me that she hoped my doing without them for a month would help me remember to throw the peels away. When I next ate a banana, which I loved to eat, I thought, "Should I get up right now and take the peel to the kitchen trash, or is there some way I can make sure to remember to take it when I get up?"
That is when I developed a skill, useful to this day, of doing something to remind me to do something important later. For example, one tactic was to lay the peel on my lap, so when I got up, its falling in front of me would be the reminder. I also was more apt to notice it as I started to get up, compared to the less likely possibility of seeing it on the table.
My mother didn't ever say I was a slob or inconsiderate. She was only emphasizing this learning, because this was something important to her sense of cleanliness. In other words, she was teaching me to pay attention to how other people feel. Because of this, I don't stubbornly resist doing things in a way to suit others, unless I have a moral conflict with their way. She elicited a willingness to be cooperative and did not stir up defensiveness in me.
Natural consequences are difficult to apply, unless the parent takes the time to observe, anticipate, analyze, and negotiate. The more fine-tuned the parent's response, the more the child will feel understood and supported in the discipline. To not discipline at all implies that nothing matters and that a child's behavior is invisible and irrelevant to the parent.
A child will accept brutal, arbitrary attention over neglect, but loving guidance will go a long way toward raising a child to become a caring, flexible, considerate, responsible adult with an active and available conscience.