»Your competent child« Jesper Juul CHAPTER ONE: FAMILY VALUES - PDF

Description
»Your competent child«jesper Juul CHAPTER ONE: FAMILY VALUES We are at a unique historical crossroads. Across many different societies, the basic values that secured the foundation of family life for more

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 11
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Jobs & Career

Publish on:

Views: 17 | Pages: 11

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
»Your competent child«jesper Juul CHAPTER ONE: FAMILY VALUES We are at a unique historical crossroads. Across many different societies, the basic values that secured the foundation of family life for more than two centuries are undergoing a period of disintegration and transformation. In Scandinavia, women have been in the vanguard of these changes, abetted by advanced social legislation and the comforts of the welfare state. In other countries, civil war or economic hardship has sparked this development. The pace at which change is occurring varies, but the cause is the same: the hierarchical, authoritarian family, headed by either a matriarch or patriarch, is becoming extinct. As a result, the map of the world is teeming with many different types of families. Some make a desperate attempt to maintain the standards of the good old days, while others experiment with new and more fruitful ways of living together. From a mental health vantage point, there is every reason to welcome this change. The traditional family structure and many of its values were destructive for both children and adults, as these scenarios will illustrate. A café in Spain: A father, mother and two sons, ages three and five, have just finished eating their ice cream and cake. The mother takes a napkin, spits on it, grasps firmly the youngest son's chin and begins to wipe his mouth. The boy protests and turns his face away. She grabs hold of a handful of his hair and tells him in an angry whisper how naughty he is. His big brother looks on, grimacing but only for a moment. Then his face settles into a neutral mask. The father also has a pained look, but then he turns with irritation toward his wife why can t she make the boy behave himself! Why does he always cause such a fuss? By the time they leave the café, the boy has recovered. Window shopping, he notices a new toy in a store window and points to it enthusiastically. He wants his mother to look. But she is ahead of him, and when she walks back to him, she grabs his arm and him away without even glancing at the toy in the window. He begins to cry, begging her to look at it, but she is unrelenting in her determination to win. Pontela cara bien! ( Make your face beautiful! ), she repeats, over and over again. A café in Vienna: Two young married couples, one with a son about five, sit down outdoors to have a cup of coffee after shopping. When the waitress appears, the boy's mother says to her son, We're having coffee, what do you want? The boy hesitates a little and says, I don't know. Irritated, the mother says to the waitress, Give him some apple juice. The coffee and juice arrive, and after a while the boy says, politely and cautiously, Mommy, I would rather have Coke with lemon, if that's possible. Why didn't you say that to start with! the mother replies. Drink your juice! But in the same breath, she says to the waitress, The boy's changed his mind. Give him a Coke with lemon, so we can have some peace! For about ten minutes, the boy sits quietly while the adults chat. Suddenly the mother looks at 2 her watch and says angrily to the boy, Drink your soda! Are we going? the boy asks, visibly excited. Yes, we've got to hurry home. Now drink up! The boy swallows his Coke in large gulps. I'm finished now, Mommy, he says happily. Wasn't I quick? The mother ignores him, and begins talking to the other adults. Once again, the boy sits quietly. After half an hour has passed, he asks cautiously, Mommy, are we going home soon? Shut your mouth, you little brat! she explodes. Another word from you, and you ll go straight to bed when we get home. Do you understand!? The boy withers and resigns himself. The other adults look at the mother with approval and the boy's father lays an affirmative hand on his wife's arm. A bus stop in Copenhagen: A grandmother and two grandchildren a four-year-old boy and a six-year-old girl are waiting for a bus. The boy tugs at his grandmother's coat and says, Granny, I have to go to the toilet. You can t go now, she replies. We've got to get home! But I need to go, badly! the boys says. Look at your big sister, how big and sensible she is, the grandmother says. Yes, but I need to...really bad! Didn't you hear me? You can go to the toilet when you get home. If you don t behave yourself, I ll have to tell your Mommy. And then you won't come into town with me again! The adults in these scenarios are not bad people. They love their children and grandchildren, are delighted when the children behave themselves, and appreciate their funny and cute comments. But they behave in unloving ways because they have learned to regard unloving acts as loving, and loving acts as irresponsible. For several hundred years, what we really taught children was to respect power, authority and violence - but not other human beings. * THE FAMILY AS A POWER STRUCTURE For centuries the family has existed as a power structure in which men have absolute power over women, and adults have power over children in terms of all social, political, and psychological aspects of life. The hierarchy was unquestioned: the man was on the first rung, the woman below him -- if there were no adolescent sons - followed by sons and then daughters. A successful marriage depended on the woman's ability and willingness to submit herself to her husband; the clear purpose of childrearing was to make children adapt to and obey those in power. As in all other totalitarian power structures, the ideal was a situation in which no open conflicts occurred. Those who didn t cooperate met with physical violence, or found their already restricted individual freedom further limited. For those who understood how to adapt themselves, the family provided a secure foundation, but for those whose individuality was more robust, the family and its pattern of interaction could be alarmingly destructive. Those who suffered and developed symptoms were treated by 3 educators and psychiatrists so that they would quickly readapt to the power structure. When those in power (spouses and parents) tried to resocialize women or children who acted out, they were encouraged to show understanding, love and firmness -- but never to surrender their power. As a result, many women and children were admitted and often re-admitted to institutions, and forced to take medication. Of course, this description is both incomplete and unfair. Admittedly, there were aspects of traditional family life that were pleasurable and happy. People loved each other. On another level, those who submitted successfully enjoyed a special form of security similar to that experienced by well-adjusted citizens in totalitarian societies. Some of us may even feel nostalgic for the good old traditional family, but only rarely did it exert a positive influence on the well-being and development of the individual. In other words, from a social point of view, traditional families often looked successful, but the pathology it caused lurked just below the surface. Only towards the end of the last century did we begin to take an interest in children as individual beings. That s when we realized that meeting children s intellectual and psychological needs was important for their wellbeing and development. Recognition of women s rights came even later -- in the 1920's when women began to demand to be taken seriously as human, social and political beings. Thus, in the first half of this century, the family gradually became less totalitarian although the actual power structure, which served as a basis for family life, remained unaltered. One of the legacies of the traditional family exists in our language, which originated during a time in which successful families were defined as conflict-free, and when our ideas about what constituted a healthy family were vastly different than they are today. I d now like to update the definitions of many of the terms and concepts that we use when we speak about families and children. Methods of Upbringing In Scandinavia we discussed methods of childrearing with great confidence right up to the middle of the 1970s. We believed that children were asocial and potentially animal-like; therefore, adults had to associate with them and use methods that would ensure their individual and social development. The methods varied along ideological lines, but the notion that it was necessary to use a method went unchallenged until very recently. Now that we know that children are real people from birth, it is absurd to speak of methods. Think for a moment how we would sound if we applied this concept to adult relationships. Imagine, for example, a man saying to a friend, or to his therapist, I m in love with a tall, blackhaired woman from Portugal, but I have many problems with her. Can you give me a method so that she will be less difficult to live with? Clearly, no adult would think of approaching another adult with this idea in mind. But this is how we have approached our relationships with children since the beginning of the 18th century. When children are born, they are fully human that is, they are social, responsive, and empathic. These qualities are not taught, but are inborn. Yet for these qualities to develop, children need be with adults who behave in ways that respect and model social, human behavior. To use a method any method -- is not just superfluous but also destructive because it reduces children to objects in relation to those who are nearest and dearest to them. It s time, according to both clinicians and researchers, to change how we relate to children to move from a subjectobject relationship to a subject-subject relationship. The Age of Defiance Around the age of two, children gradually begin to free themselves from their total dependence on their parents. They want to be able to think, feel and act on their own. There s never any doubt as to when this independent age begins. One morning, as you dress your two-year-old 4 daughter, she tugs at your arm and says, Me can! or Me do it! And how do most parents respond? They say, Stop it! You can t do it, I have to. We haven't got time to play games! In other words, when children become independent, many parents become defiant! Yet this brief anecdote also illustrates how clever children are at cooperating! If a parent meets his two-year-old s burgeoning independence with reluctance and defiance, the child will, in the space of a few months, become either defiant herself - meeting defiance with defiance - or lose her initiative entirely and become even more dependent. Young children necessarily become increasingly independent and self-reliant it s part of their development. Only a totalitarian system would view the natural and progressive development of a child s unique, inner-determined personality as a problem. Describing children as defiant is a typical ploy of those in power; it s intended to keep the children subordinate. Puberty Puberty is a neutral clinical concept that has, over the course of this century, acquired an extremely negative connotation. Conflict, argument and trouble these are the qualities associated with adolescence. After the World War II, the equally-negative concept of prepuberty emerged alerting parents of younger children to the fact that trouble is just around the corner. Viewed objectively, puberty is an intrapsychic (that is, it takes place within the individual), psychosexual period of development which causes many year olds to experience internal uncertainty and turbulence. The idea that this development should in itself cause interpersonal conflicts with adults is rubbish. The number of conflicts and their intensity depend, among other things, on the ability of adults to acknowledge their changing parental roles, and on the way in which they approached the development of their child s integrity during the first 3-4 years of the child's life. Teenage rebellion Similarly, the teenage years are described in militaristic, political terms: rebellion, independence, revolution, lack of discipline, for example. This is not surprising. In a power structure in which adults represent stability and are invested with maintaining a conflict-free environment, every progressive development must necessarily be defined as an attack on the establishment. The same dynamic exists with women in midlife. When they begin menopause, their every action and mood is attributed to hormones. This excuses those in power (men) from shouldering any responsibility for disruptions that arise. In the same way, teenagers are blamed for being teenagers. What adults need to do instead is face up to their overriding responsibility in terms of structuring the interaction within the family. Now, let s consider a number of concepts we traditionally use in connection with child-rearing that reflect how those in power view reality. Embedded within these concepts is the belief that maintaining the power structure is best for all concerned. Limits Within a power structure it is necessary to have law and order; therefore, limits were set to govern children's physical, mental and emotional pursuits. These limits - what children could and couldn t, and should and shouldn t do -- were enforced as if the family was a policing unit. This led adults to assert that certain limits were healthy and good for children a proposition many accepted although there is no evidence to support it. Let me elaborate: It is true that children develop in harmonious and healthy ways when the adults of the family set some limits. But, as I will explain later, it is important that both children and adults set their own limits. The question of setting limits for others is first and foremost an expression of power. 5 The question of limits inevitably arises whenever parents discuss children s upbringing. We tend to think that only our generation has difficulty setting limits, that our parents accomplished this with more ease. In fact, limit-setting has always been difficult. Parents have always asked experts for advice about how to get children to respond or obey, as they used to call it. For as long as families sought to uphold the power structure, parents were advised to think about limit-setting in terms of four elements: unity, firmness, consequences and fairness. Let s explore each of these in turn. Unity Unity is strength, as the saying goes, and that was precisely the reasoning behind one of the family's most important credos: It is important that parents agree about how to bring up children. I have met countless couples who sacrificed their marriages in order to live up to this ideal, and who suffered from overwhelming guilt because they did not succeed. They believed, as many parents do, that children feel the most secure when their parents agree, and that they were harming their children when they failed to agree. A certain amount of disunity was tolerated but only if expressed after the children had gone to bed. When children were present, nothing less than unconditional unity was demanded. However, this article of faith is only true if we insist on thinking of the family as a political unit. When those in power have to enforce law and order, it is to their advantage to agree, so that they can face their children as a united front. Parents also perceived that disunity would allow children to play one parent off against the other - to drive a wedge in the family s leadership. Yet in practice, parents seldom agree. For example, in many families, dads dole out discipline only to have moms intervene for more leniency. In this situation, mom is viewed not as a disloyal soldier but rather as a the family s first-aid dispenser whose job it is to tend to the wounded. Yet even as they performed this role, many women never questioned the necessity of limits, or thought to examine the reins under which they themselves lived. To me, it is not important whether parents agree about upbringing or not. In principle, they need only to agree about one thing, namely, that it is acceptable to disagree. Only when they experience each other s differences as wrong and undesirable do children become insecure. Firmness The concept of firmness, which is related to unity, is also necessary to keep the power structure intact. When members of a family voice different opinions, it is experienced as hostile opposition, and creates conflict. What does it mean for adults to be firm? They have to be able to say, in unison, NO! when children disobey. The healthy alternative to this power play is open, personal dialogue that takes into account the desires, dreams and needs of children as well as those of adults. To act in this way is to display true leadership. Consequences Suppose children still did not obey, even after we spoke with a united and firm voice. What next? Regardless of the particular conflict, parents usually select one of two consequences: either they resort to physical violence, or they limit children s personal freedom. Neither of these is easy to carry out. Most of us cannot physically hurt our children or restrict their personal or social freedom with a clear conscience. That s why we resort to these familiar justifications: - It's for your own good! - You'll understand when you grow up! - You must learn to adapt yourself! - It hurts me more than it hurts you! - If you won't listen, we'll have to knock it into you! 6 And what did children learn as a result? When a parent said, I make the decisions here! children learned that they had no personal freedom. When a parent said, Children should be seen and not heard! children learned that they had no freedom of speech, and that they needed to censor themselves. Interestingly, after punishing their children, many parents begin to worry that they have harmed their relationship with them. Typically, they then express this fear as a demand -- Give your Dad a hug now, and let's forget all about it or, more indirectly, as a question - Are we friends again? Ironically, this is what adults often say to each other breaking off a loving relationship: Can't we still be friends? These feelings of awkwardness and doubt are justified. By dealing in consequences and punishment, parents gradually destroy their relationship with their children. These adults decline all responsibility for the conflict that has arisen, and turn the child into the guilty party. This not only erodes the child s confidence in his parents, but also in his own self-esteem. Fairness For many parents, a large part of childrearing was concerned with criticizing and correcting children when they acted incorrectly. Children, then, needed to admit to having done something wrong, or demonstrate genuine remorse. According to this model, adults are responsible for making children recognize that they were truly and seriously in the wrong. Only after this admission can children begin to improve themselves. This way of thinking gave rise to such well-known expressions as: - Shame on you! - You should be ashamed of yourself! - Aren't you ashamed of yourself? In this system, in which any conflict between parents and children can be explained by the lack or failure of a child s upbringing, the concept of fairness was introduced as a guideline for those in power. Practically, it allowed adults to ascertain that the child was truly guilty before the punishment was carried out. Thus, parents didn t focus as much on the initial act of violence, but on the unfairness that would ensue if they punished a child who was in fact innocent. Paradoxically, this often meant that children only remembered (and protested against) those episodes for which they had been punished for something they had not actually done. The more general - and deeply unjust - experience of being wrong was repressed, because it was normal that is, it was the normal state of mind for children raised under a system in which
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks