Lately I've been thinking about the concept of sheltering, and balance with sheltering...and how to recognize motives and entrenched theories that maybe should be challenged with this.
I think all loving parents shelter to some degree. Parents are predominantly the ones bringing the world to really young children. So, exposure is largely based on the parent/or other care-provider's ideas or what they are electively bringing to the child's surroundings...until the child starts developing more of his/her own theories. Obviously most parents wouldn't intentionally expose their children to things that their best knowledge deems harmful to the child...such as scary or illicit material...things not age appropriate for example. So...I think the drive to protect children (from harm, psychological or physical) is a good thing.
I've also seen many sheltered children grow up and passionately seek out the very things their parents have sheltered them from (as soon as possible). That whole "forbidden fruit" thing. My concern about this is not so much about outcome...outcome meaning whether or not child will share parent's values. My concern is the anger and resentment there...and how somewhere along the line (before the expression of these emotions)...the child is hurting.
Sheltering can be controlling and imbalanced. How do we know when it's imbalanced? I think one clue is when "sheltering" is a predominant focus. I think this not only runs the risk of turning a person off...as far as from his/her parent's values...but it also can really take the fun out of life and can feel more about the parent's image or "formula for how to parent effectively" than about the child and the child's individual needs and feelings.
I think most parents have the best of intentions...but values differ. When I look back and think about sheltering from rock music, or long hair or ear rings on a boy...etc...it seems obvious. I would never be that controlling! But sometimes I recognize "living by avoidance" in my thinking surrounding ideas that I consider "progressive."
You know, avoiding commercialism...behaviorism...crowd control tactics...etc. Is it possible that my child will view my reasoning and approach to parenting as mostly about "avoiding things?" I think I should think about my thinking.
Hypothetical example...say child wants to play baseball. Child loves it, no pressure from parent, no problem so far... But, you know, it sure is a "praise heavy" climate...sports! "Alright, good hit!"..."Everybody high five!" Cheering "keep it up!" It's really in the nature of sports! Can you imagine a baseball game without this? Either way...you are unlikely to find one.
I think it would be the dumbest idea in the world to say "Oh, I don't want you to play baseball, even though it's fun and you like it! The coach is using behaviorist tactics to encourage you guys, and I want people to treat you more respectfully than that!" This is a pretty extreme example...but it still makes the point. The message there is "This world is not good enough for us. We are in this world, but not of this world..." puke puke puke!
I'm doing my best to parent without behaviorist/controlling tactics, and I feel passionate about it, but I also feel confident that what parents are giving their children is more deserving of focus than what they are protecting them from! Children are individuals and they very much want to feel a part of their world...and the more theories they have the more a parent's thinking and ideas will be challenged! Parents can learn from those challenges...more opportunity for growth!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Funny you should mention the sports thing - my child is already a sports fan at the age of two, and he's never even seen sports on TV. He is obsessed with sports balls and constantly wants to play a "game." I just know he's going to want to "do sports," and I'm going to love watching him do it. My husband was a soccer and volleyball player, and has thought some about how to coach sports "unconditionally." Maybe we can talk him into starting a league!
Love this last paragraph:
"I'm doing my best to parent without behaviorist/controlling tactics, and I feel passionate about it, but I also feel confident that what parents are giving their children is more deserving of focus than what they are protecting them from! Children are individuals and they very much want to feel a part of their world...and the more theories they have the more a parent's thinking and ideas will be challenged! Parents can learn from those challenges...more opportunity for growth!"
I think that what you talk about in this post is fine line that feels easier to successfully navigate as my son gets older... maybe because *I* have had more practice thinking through it. LOL
I see how spending more time thinking about this, and having more experience in this area, could bring clearer perspective as far as maybe what is really petty in the bigger picture (is that your meaning?).
But...my thinking is that this would be more and more complex as child ages. Just because child will have more and more of hir own ideas/theories and there is more potential for needs to conflict (or what people want to conflict).
When I think about issues such as media/food/peer interaction...as child ages I just see so much more potential for parent's ideas for what is optimal to differ with child's ideas. More and more into that "forbidden fruit" territory if parent is even subtly trying to avoid something that child is interested in.
My thinking is that rather than widening the bubble, that parent can be a support system/advocate for child when child is learning to maneuver the world more and more as hir ventures (by hir own election) outside of that bubble.
Don't misunderstand...my thinking isn't about the need to immunize child (because I wouldn't elect to put child in a stressful situation so that child could 'learn about the hard, unfair world' or anything dumb like that.
However, I think if "avoidance" starts to impede on child's happiness and child's electing to try something fun or seeking of exposure...adult really needs to think about the bigger picture and the people involved. Parent can always advocate for child...and be clear that child can change hir mind at any point, if child makes a choice that maybe parent wouldn't make for child (such as in the extreme baseball hypothetical example). Make sense?
oh, just wanted to clarify that I think the baseball example is extreme in that a parent would have a problem with this activity...not that taking part in the activity is extreme. I wouldn't want to isolate my child from those types of activities or from other people in the world because of "good job" lol.
Misty said: "I see how spending more time thinking about this, and having more experience in this area, could bring clearer perspective as far as maybe what is really petty in the bigger picture (is that your meaning?)."
Yeah, that is what I was getting at. And also, the idea that BECAUSE child has both more experiences and more theories more opportunities arise for testing those "protective" theories. Success breeds success I think. And failures are more easily viewed as learning opportunities and "not a big deal-- we tried it" type of things so it just feels less intense and more flowing to me the more the child brings their theories and experiences to the table. Or maybe I feel less protective as I have more experience seeing him successfully navigate various experiences? I am not sure why it feels easier to let some theories go or be tested now than it used to, but I guess I like to see him be part of his world too.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense as far as why it can be less complex. Actually, your thoughts remind me of some things I've been thinking about along the lines of parenting and "identity." I'm thinking about posting on that subject at some point actually.
I think a lot of that maturity (for lack of a better word) you are describing and what might be viewed as opposing theories becoming less of a "big deal" is parent recognizing more fully that they don't view child as a reflection of how "good of a job" they are doing in parenting and parent's identity isn't so...well...parenting centered KWIM?
Not that parent isn't devoted to child...I'm not clarifying this for you, because I know you know what I'm talking about. I'm just thinking if someone else were to read this conversation, lol.
Parent is devoted to child in the way that one is devoted to a person they love and knows hir has a responsibility to child...but, to quote a TCSer whose thoughts I'm fond of reading...parent is mindful about questioning thinking that views child as "project in which parent is maybe overly invested in." I think that recognition and respect for individuality is so important and formulaic approaches can really be obstacles to that.
Post a Comment