*I started writing this post a couple of weeks ago, and have since read many more articles on the topic, and have started reading a new book that has also helped to expand my understanding of the situation. If anything feels a bit schizophrenic, it’s probably because it was written in pieces over a long period and I kept trying to go back and revise when I learned something new. Thanks for your patience!*
So this dichotomy has been bugging me for a while now. I’m a big fan of the Attachment Parenting philosophy, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned. Within this philosophy there’s a belief in allowing children to experience the effects of natural consequences. This also includes logical consequences imposed by parents. The idea here isn’t to break their spirit or to gain their obedience, it’s to help them learn about how the real world works. If you fail to put gas in your car, you will run out and be stuck on the side of the road somewhere. If you fail to pay your power bill, your electricity gets shut off. If you fail to treat your friends properly, you may find that you no longer have friends. These are natural consequences, unlike the consequences often meted out as punishments by well-meaning parents. If you don’t do your homework, you can’t have dessert. What has homework to do with food? So there’s that.
There’s also a contingent within AP (at least as far as I understand it, please correct me if I’m misstating something) that promotes allowing children natural development, and not rescuing them from frustration with learning gross motor skills. For example, if your baby is lying on his back and is trying to reach a toy, you don’t immediately just grab the toy and hand it to him. That frustration with being unable to reach his toy will likely inspire him to start working at moving his body around his environment, leading to the development of rolling over, scooting or crawling. Make sense? Here’s a good piece on that bit, if you’re interested: No Tummy Time Necessary
There are other pieces that talk about raising a self-disciplined child in the AP-sphere, like this one by Dr. Laura Markham: The Secret of Raising a Self-Disciplined Child. Note the focus on connection and relationship with the parents being the driving force behind developing self-discipline. It’s not about the parents forcing the child to do something, threatening punishment or offering rewards. You’re teaching them to give up what they want right now for what they want more, and that’s a huge skill for them to have as they get older. Here’s a piece from Janet Lansbury on how over-protective parenting can lead to a lack of self-confidence and how you can help your kids to learn that confidence: I Think I’ve Ruined My Child. Being overly responsive and not allowing her boy to struggle has his mother worried about how her boy will fare in the wider world when she can no longer rescue him. Janet recommends taking a different view on struggle: Struggles are inherent in life and essential to learning. She advises setting boundaries and allowing the children to experience their emotions, even the ones that seem overwhelming. If we don’t let our kids feel their feelings, they won’t learn how to deal with them. If we are calmly supportive while they struggle with big feelings, they’ll learn that we believe them capable of dealing with their emotions and that their emotion aren’t something to be scared or ashamed of. Another post from Janet on a similar topic called “A Lesson From Babies…It’s Okay to Struggle” talks about how feeling “stuck” isn’t a bad thing, and how kids learn more from working their way past a problem (with loving support from an adult) than if we just grab them and solve it for them.
So anyway, the general philosophy here is that by allowing children to experience failure and frustration, by letting them work through their feelings (with our help, if needed), they will learn to deal better with the inevitable failures that come later in life. Struggling through these tough times will teach them “grit” and self-confidence, and learning how to struggle through something hard to get what they want teaches self-discipline and self-motivation. It makes sense to me, and honestly, it’s something I have a hard time arguing with. And then I read this piece by Alfie Kohn: What Do Kids Really Learn From Failure?
In this article, Mr. Kohn dismantles the idea of using failure as a teaching method. He mentions a lack of evidence supporting the theory that more failure at a young age will lead to an increased ability o cope with failure later in life. Quite to the contrary, it appears that failure begets failure. How does this wash with the other understanding of struggle and failure as being good teachers? Well there’s some subtlety to these positions and to their authors that I missed at first glance, and I think that’s helping me to find the common thread in all of this. Here goes.
The difference, for one, is the setting. The initial examples come from children who are too young for traditional school, and are working through the problems of infancy and toddlerhood. Some of them come from young children in a free-form, play-based preschool. Failures in these environments are akin to this line from Kohn’s article: “Challenge — which carries with it a risk of failure — is a part of learning. That’s not something we’d want to eliminate.” The challenge of learning, where failure is simply informational and guides the next attempt, isn’t a bad thing. Trying to do something new and not succeeding isn’t bad in itself, I would contend, based on both of these perspectives. The badness arrives when we brand children as failures when they don’t live up to some artificial (and often arbitrary) expectation set up for them by adults. If the baby wants to roll from back to tummy, and can’t do it, he’s doing something of his own volition. He’s doing what he wants to do and his failure isn’t being held against him by anyone (hopefully). A pre-teen who doesn’t complete the math assignment he didn’t want to complete and is now being punished for his “failure” is in a much different situation. He’s being judged and punished by an adult for not doing something that he had no interest in doing in the first place. The failure isn’t in the boy, it’s in the expectation. He isn’t struggling and failing, he’s choosing not to participate. If he’s punished for that choice, he’s not learning anything at all. He’s not learning math, he’s not learning how to be a better student. At best, he’s learning that his decisions or values aren’t recognized by his teachers, and chances are very good he’ll withdraw even more and put forth less effort than before.
So does this make sense? One type of “failure” is an attempt that doesn’t go as planned. Another is a judgement made by an outside force, often accompanied by a punishment. One type, the type that isn’t judged, has the capacity to teach. When I try something new in my workshop, it may not go as planned, but I learn from my mistakes and do better the next time. I’ve often said that my first two attempts at anything will be total failures and the third will start getting me pretty close to what I’d pictured in my head. Those “failures” are just me learning, though. I don’t let it get to me, because I know that I’m going to take what I’ve learned and do better next time. Kids who are punished for failing, however, will learn to play it safe. They’ll learn to avoid failure. They’ll learn not to bother trying for fear that they can’t do it right, and the swift and merciless hand of their teacher (or parent) will come to slap them down. That’s when failure begets failure, and that’s how we fail to teach our children.
So, really, there’s no contradiction, though there appeared to be one at first. I like it when I can figure this stuff out, because I don’t think there are any contradictions in true wisdom. When you dig deep enough, you find the core principles and those, more often than not, agree with each other. In this case, it seems that the core principles are of adults respecting the values of the children in their lives, and of letting them work towards their own goals with support, but not interference. Does that sound fair? I hope I’m doing this right. If I’m not, I guess I’ll learn something.
So we’ve figured failure, but what about self-discipline, the supposed benefit of allowing kids to fail and to learn from those failures? Kohn, in his article, references another piece he wrote called “Why Self Discipline is Overrated“. Let’s dig into that and see what we can make of it.
First off, I think Kohn’s definition of self discipline differs significantly from my own. I don’t think of self-discipline as being the same as obedience. Discipline from parents and teachers comes from without, but as with all behavior, the response comes from within. That doesn’t make that response “self-discipline”. If a child is taught that he must do homework and is punished for refusing, his efforts to do homework aren’t a result or an example of self-discipline. They are an example of a learned response to external discipline. Kohn seems to think that actions motivated by external forces can still count as self-discipline, as long as the “disciplined person” continues working without someone holding a whip over his head. That doesn’t really jibe with my understanding of self discipline, but it seems key to most of his points. That might be why I don’t agree with this piece as much as I do with most of his other work, so keep that in mind.
I think that fundamental disagreement is why this piece rubbed me the wrong way. Kohn makes the case that it’s possible to overdo self discipline and become a compulsive, joyless robot. I don’t see that as a case again self discipline, I see that as a case against being extreme in pursuing any otherwise desirable quality. Self discipline within reason is difficult to argue against as a good goal, which is why Kohn attacks a bunch of strawmen in the vicinity but doesn’t actually take on the quality itself. Yes, overdoing it is bad. Yes, it’s possible for parents/teachers to push their own values onto the child, and then for him to work feverishly toward goals he honestly cares nothing about. Yes, it’s possible for people to advocate for self discipline for the wrong reasons, trying to use it as a way to grind the fun out of childhood. But these aren’t arguments against a person having the quality of self discipline, they’re arguments against the various reasons and methods that have been used to instill it in children, or against the ways that self-discipline can go wrong.
As that sort of argument, I think Kohn does a great job. Let kids figure out their own goals and work towards them. Definitely, many adults are asking the wrong questions about self discipline, and we need to be thinking more about how we can teach kids to grow up to be psychologically healthy adults instead of worrying so much about whether they’re doing the meaningless tasks we’ve set before them. Self discipline should be a tool for the child to reach his goals, not a way for adults to get a kid to do the adults’ bidding even while he’s on his own.
I think Kohn sells short the benefits of self discipline, at the (to my mind) inflated risk of being too rigidly self-controlled to enjoy life. I know many adults who are driven by impulses and can’t keep themselves from doing something they want to do, even if they know it isn’t good for them. Sometimes it’s fine to have that extra slice of cheesecake, or call in sick at work to stay home and play video games, but far too many adults don’t have the self control to do what they know is right in the face of temptation. Self control is something that’s built up over time and with practice, and I think it’s a bad idea to downplay how important it is for a successful life. Relationships work better when both parties can control their impulses, for example to avoid saying something hurtful in a heated moment. Physical health is easier to maintain with a measure of self discipline and self control, too. It’s certainly easier to be a good parent if you can do what you know needs to be done even you don’t want to, or avoid doing something that would make you feel better but would ultimately be harmful to the child. People who have the discipline to save some of their money certainly seem to have more secure lives where they aren’t as stressed about finances. I would rather see people err on the side of too much self control than on the side of too little, personally.
So where does that leave us? I think self discipline is definitely a worthy goal, and I think that people would generally be happier in the long run if they had more of it. Not too much, mind you, but I’m friends with some of those really driven people and they’re not all unhappy because of it. As long as they’re the ones deciding on their own goals, and as long as they can still let go and have fun sometimes, I think they’re generally much happier than my friends who suffer from too little self discipline. They have better health, better finances, and better relationships. We shouldn’t be afraid of hard work or of fun. A good life has a healthy measure of both, and that’s what I strike for in my own life, and what I’ll be teaching my kids to work towards. Thanks for reading.
Wow! I really appreciate how much effort and thought you have devoted to reading, understanding, and teasing apart the subtleties of a complex topic. I also appreciate you linking to my site. I think you may really enjoy reading Mind In The Making, by Ellen Galinsky. Here’s a link to an article that pertains to the discussion at hand: http://mindinthemaking.org/article/promoting_self_control_its_not_how_we_might_think/. I appreciate your description and understanding of RIE philosophy, which is what No Tummy Time Necessary (and Janet Lansbury’s posts) is about. One small correction is that RIE is not Attachment Parenting. The two philosophies share a commonality, in that they both promote gentle, respectful parenting practices, but there are some differences in the ways we seek to achieve the same end. Janet has written some really good posts exploring some of the subtle differences. Here’s one:http://www.janetlansbury.com/2010/02/attachment-parenting-debate-for-crying-out-loud/. There are others if you’d like to read! I don’t want to overload you with reading suggestions, but I get so excited when someone (like you!) is really interested and dedicated to reading, learning about, discussing and synthesizing theory. Of course, you’ve got the best best teacher right there at home, but I understand the desire to delve deep into the why and the how behind what you are observing/experiencing with your son! Happy reading and thinking! I’ll be interested to follow your path of discovery and thoughts as you progress in this endeavor.
Thanks! This is just my way, I guess. When I get interested in something, I get all the way interested and start devouring everything I can find on the subject. I appreciate the links, for sure. I’ve been wondering if and how RIE and AP are different and what the relationship is between them. I’ve been riding a very fuzzy line in my head between them, liking ideas from both philosophies without realizing that they were distinct, but it would definitely help to dig into the basics of RIE like I have with AP, so I can get some foundational knowledge. Is there one book you would recommend as the ideal place to start to understand the RIE philosophy? I’d love to put that next on my list. Thanks again for reading and I definitely appreciate the kind words.
I recently commented on your Facebook page regarding the “dog” article, but wanted to add something here. No lie, I’ve spent the past two weeks researching almost *exactly* what you’ve written about here, down to literally the same exact articles, and my takeaway is very similar.
I agree with Lisa, Mind in the Making is an awesome book that you should try to get a copy of if you haven’t already read it. Funny story – Lisa, I just today read that “For crying out loud article. Small world full of strange coincidences!
Anyway, OP (sorry, I haven’t caught your name yet on your site or FB page) I’ve actually got quite a library built up already (my boy is 9 months old, and I’ve already got more child psychology books than he has months on this planet!) and a wish-list a mile long. Drop me a line anytime if you ever want to bounce ideas off someone like-minded and please, please, keep writing things like this. It’s like reading myself thinking out loud and really helps me work things out. I’ve added you to my RSS feed and can’t wait to catch up on your archives.
Very interesting thought processes (first blog post, but not the last, of yours for me). However, please let me add a different (?) view. I do not see (in this one essay) any discussion or consideration of the basis for all life, which I hold to be: “actions have consequences.” (Sorry it’s long… you’re thought-provoking.)
You wrote: “A pre-teen who doesn’t complete the math assignment he didn’t want to complete and is now being punished for his “failure” is in a much different situation. He’s being judged and punished by an adult for not doing something that he had no interest in doing in the first place.”
If we — if humans — were only to “do things we had interest in,” the world would fall apart. Part of the growing-up process is (must be!) learning that there are external requirements, that those external requirements must be met, and that there ARE consequences (reward or punishment) for doing, or failing to do, so — whether or not you are “interested” in doing so. A preteen is absolutely old enough to recognize that *when* “the world” (in this case, his parents and teachers) places a legitimate “burden of performance” on him, then — interesting, or no — he is going to be motivated about it; either positively by the rewards of success, or negatively by the application of punishment.
That’s not cruelty to children, that’s not (necessarily) blunting the development of self-discipline. In fact, I’d say, rather, it helps develop it! It is a mere fact of Nature: if you don’t do something you are required (by whatever Force) to do, then you will have a consequence.
You wrote: “The failure isn’t in the boy, it’s in the expectation. He isn’t struggling and failing, he’s choosing not to participate. If he’s punished for that choice, he’s not learning anything at all.”
Oh, I strongly disagree! On the contrary, the failure is absolutely in the boy! He may not be “struggling and failing” at learning math (because he’s not interested), but he is absolutely learning that when a legitimate external requirement is laid on him, and he *fails at that* — the he must expect the Universe to respond, and NOT by coddling him!
You wrote: “He’s not learning math, he’s not learning how to be a better student. At best, he’’s learning that his decisions or values aren’t recognized by his teachers, and chances are very good he’ll withdraw even more and put forth less effort than before.”
This would be some sort of “hands off” (non-)parenting? “Well, yes, my son SHOULD have fulfilled the requirement laid on him as a part of becoming a member of this society in which he is expecting to live… but he didn’t, so I will protect him from the consequences of his actions”?! {shudder}
You wrote: “Kids who are punished for failing, however, will learn to play it safe.”
Maybe you just chose a bad example. Not being “interested in” fulfilling a legitimate requirement and CHOOSING to not participate as required by “society,” and therefore being punished for that non-performance, is NOT being punished for “failing at uninteresting math.”
You wrote: “They’ll learn to avoid failure. They’ll learn not to bother trying for fear that they can’t do it right, and the swift and merciless hand of their teacher (or parent) will come to slap them down. That’s when failure begets failure, and that’s how we fail to teach our children.”
“Fail to teach them”?! It sounds as if you’re saying the it’s a failure all-around if we punish non-compliance with legitimate requirements (or the consequences of Nature). It’s not punishment when a child who feels “uninterested in learning” how to avoid danger (the danger of punishment for failing an assignment, or) , if a parents says: “don’t touch fire” or “don’t climb down into that cave” and the child does so — is it some sort of “failure” or cruelty that the child gets hurt? No, it’s a *Nature*-al consequence of the child’s choices. (And a legitimate application of parental care to prevent such type of bad choices a child can make. Not doing homework in NOT such a choice!) Being “uninterested” in math is not an acceptable reason to not participate in the requirements of the society one intends to live in.
You wrote: “If a child is taught that he must do homework and is punished for refusing, his efforts to do homework aren’t a result or an example of self-discipline. … That doesn’t really jibe with my understanding of self discipline,…”
No, SELF discipline becomes inculcated in a human by the application of EXTERNAL discipline. You cannot expect a child to have (or grow) self-discipline in a vacuum. Self- discipline *begins* with the external learning that: “my daddy doesn’t like it when I do/don’t do this (or my daddy punishes me)” or “when I do this (touch fire, run with scissors, skip uninteresting homework), I get in trouble/punished.”
It is an *externally* applied consequence that must first exist (e.g., actual parenting, not (over-)protecting from consequences.). Then, over time, the young person begins to — aha! discipline himself! — by the internal application of the external discipline: “rather than not doing my homework and getting punished, which I don’t like, I’ll do my homework even though I’m uninterested, because I prefer the grind of the homework to the pain of the punishment.” Internally “motivated” by the external consequences. (Otherwise, where do you think “self” discipline comes from?)
After a time, the child/young adult/adult may come to realize that s/he prefers a Self that does not do “bad” things (or not: some people, alas, remain “motivated” by avoidance of punishment throughout their lives). Without that external application of discipline, there is no inculcation of SELF-discipline — and we end up with a society of whiny babies in adult bodies. (Welcome to Western societies today!)
You do (one does; I’m not slamming you) a child no favors by preventing the (judicious) occurrence of the consequences that follow *Nature-ally* on their choices. If they learn that not doing their homework results not in punishment for them, but in mommy and daddy rushing in to berate the teacher for trying to apply legitimate consequences for a less-than-optimal choice on the part of the child… then where does this child learn to perform as a member of a society? (To say nothing of not being able to do math as an adult?!)
Elenor, I read your comment and have thought a lot about it, but it’s taking me longer than I’d like to write up a proper response. I’m not ignoring you, I’m just busy with a baby! I’ll get to it as soon as i can, though. Thanks so much for reading and commenting.
Kohn is a complicated fella. I sat in on one of his lectures at an early childhood conference a few years ago, and I feel like his philosophies often make a lot more sense (at least for me) in the context of a formal school setting, as you said, the “setting.” I can really get behind his thoughts on praise, though, and the dreaded, empty “Good job!”
I’m delighted to have stumbled across your blog. Our babies are about the same age!
Thanks! I’m trying to figure out how much of his thinking I can incorporate into my own parenting style, and later into the way we teach our son, since we plan to homeschool. Should be an adventure, however it turns out!
I read this amazing post of yours the way I’m sure it was intended, with my two year old sprinting up and down the hallway as I cling to my all important cup of coffee. Well done sir, if only all of us new dads took the time to evaluate our parenting plans.
Thank you for reading! I just keep trying to figure it all out as best I can. Glad people are getting something out of it, because when I was writing I kept thinking it would end up as complete gibberish.