Book Discussion: Chapter 10 of Unconditional Parenting

The quotes in this post are all from the tenth (and last!!) chapter of Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn: The Child's Perspective.

It's important...that we don't spend more energy trying to get kids to be polite and well behaved than on trying to help them become genuinely compassionate and committed to doing the right thing. We need to focus on our children's moral development.

As I've mentioned before, my goal is not to have children who are quiet and respectful at Mass or when they are interacting with others. My goal is to raise children who understand how to love and serve others as Christ wills for them, which should then naturally lead to the former. According to Mr. Kohn, if I spend all my time telling them to be quiet at Mass (for example), they may learn to be quiet at Mass, but not why they should be quiet, or that they should be focusing on the love of God or the great gift of the Eucharist, or the lesson in the Gospel reading, or the joy in worshiping as the Body of Christ with others in our community, or all the other blessings and benefits of Mass.

But shouldn't our goal be for the children to refrain from doing certain things not because we've forbidden them, but just because they're wrong?

Absolutely.

Mr. Kohn gives four main recommendations for promoting moral growth, which he says follows closely the unconditional parenting principals outlined in chapter 7. (These are the recommendations as I understood them, not actual quotes.)

1. Care about your children and make sure they know it. Show your unconditional love, no matter their actions.
2. Act in a moral way in your own life and be courageous is speaking through difficult ethical decisions with your children, especially as they mature.
3. Let them practice. Give your children opportunities to behave in moral ways, which of course means giving them the real opportunity to make mistakes and help them in addressing those mistakes.
4. Talk with them. Take advantage of opportunities in daily life to explain why behavior is acceptable or unacceptable.

Mr. Kohn says:

For parents, there are two basic alternatives to the use of power: love and reason. The ideal is to provide some blend of the two, one drawing from the heart and the other from the head.

He dwells on this point.

To support moral development, our message can't be simply that hitting is bad--or that sharing is good. What counts is helping kids to understand why these things are true. When you don't explain why, the default reason not to hit is that you'll be punished if you do.

By patiently laying out reasons, we accomplish two things at once. First, we let kids know what's important to us and why. Second, we engage their mind, helping them to reflect on--indeed, to wrestle with--moral questions.

You don't have to be a theologian or ethicist to have these discussions with your children. I should know. We have a theologian in the house (who also teaches masters-level ethics courses), but our conversations are not full of complicated arguments, philosophy, or college-level vocabulary. They are conversations about their lives and those of the children in the books we read. (I was reminded of this post by Brandy.) One of the really nice things about having young children, those who will still be in our home for years to come, is that I can leave a conversation incomplete. I can ask, "What do you think about that?" and it's alright if my child is not sure what they think. I don't have to tell them the answer. We can leave it at wondering, because I know the same or a similar situation will come up again. (This lingering does not usually apply to an incident in which said child has done something in appropriate which needs to be immediately addressed.)

If we want them to become moral people, as opposed to people who merely do what they're told, then they have to be given the chance to construct such concepts as fairness or courage for themselves. They have to be able to reinvent them in light of their own experiences and questions, to figure out (with our help) what kind of person one ought to be.

I include the quote above because I think this is a dangerous line. I want my children to discover who they ought to be, but it's a matter of discovering who God wants them to be, not just inventing themselves. It's not clear to me if Mr. Kohn believes one person's idea of "fairness" might be different than another's, but I have a definite idea of "fairness" that I want my children to understand. In our case, therefore, I want them to develop an understanding of "fairness," but to do so toward a virtue as understood by the Church. God has blessed us with a Church that allows great flexibility in how we live virtuous lives, but there are heresies and immorality that cannot be included in a "reinvented" virtue.

Overall, I think this is the book's weakest chapter. When Mr. Kohn tries to place actions in context, he seems to be saying that we judge whether an action is wrong based on how it makes others feel rather than on natural law or the teachings of the Church (of course, because he's not Catholic, or even, I think, Christian). There are some things that are difficult to understand that we are taught by the Church are wrong. There are things God teaches we should not do because he knows what will cause harm to our souls in ways we may not understand. Not to say we should not reason through these kinds of teachings; I'm simply trying to establish that there are actions that are immoral because God, the Bible, or the Church teaches us that they are so even if we don't understand why and even if they don't seem to hurt anyone.

To look only for injury we can perceive when determining the morality of an action, we risk accommodating immoral acts simply because we cannot perceive harm. Thinking only of feelings might lead us astray in our moral development as we seek to ease discomfort or anger by acquiescing in morally inappropriate ways. A friend may be really sad that she doesn't have a doll, but the answer isn't to steal one for her.

I think that's all I want to say about Unconditional Parenting right now. I'm sure it's far more than most people cared to read!


Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting

Thoughts on the Introduction
Discussion of quotes from chapter 1
Discussion of quotes from chapter 2
Discussion of quotes from chapter 3
Discussion of quotes from chapter 4
Discussion of quotes from chapter 5
Discussion of quotes from chapter 6
Discussion of quotes from chapter 7
Discussion of quotes from chapter 8
Discussion of quotes from chapter 9

Book Discussion: Chapter 9 of Unconditional Parenting

The quotes in this post are all from the ninth chapter of Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn: Choices for Children.

In this chapter, Alfie Kohn discusses why and how children can participate in making decisions, real decisions that have an actual impact on their lives (not just whether they use a blue cup or a red one, though for the three-year-old this is an important and essential decision).

Mr. Kohn insists there are benefits to allowing choice for children (beyond avoiding the tantrum instigating by placing the wrong color cup in front of the three-year-old mentioned above). According to the author, when children feel they have helped shape the environment or the subject in their education, they tend to be more interested and delve more deeply into the topic.

The way kids learn to make good decisions is by making decisions, not by following directions.

He recommends leaving final decisions in child's hands as much as possible. So begin with a discussion and help the child reason through the consequences of a decision, but allow the child to make the final choice. I'm glad he admits this is more complicated in sibling conflicts.

In short, with each of the thousand-and-one problems that present themselves in family life, our choice is between controlling and teaching, between creating an atmosphere of distrust and one of trust, between setting an example of power and helping children to learn responsibility, between quick-fix parenting and the kind that's focused on long-term goals.

Importantly, Mr. Kohn is not arguing for a particular solution in any problem:

The process matters more than the product, and it should be a process that encourages children to reason and plan and participate in figuring something out. What counts is that kids know their needs matter to us and that we're willing to take their ideas seriously.

It makes sense to me that children who are given the opportunity to practice decision making in the home will be better prepared to make decisions as they grow older. This is definitely an area in which I need to provide more practice for my kids. I think I need to really seek out instances where they can make choices, especially in our school planning. It's very fun for me to just plan everything out (as I've already done for the upcoming year) without involving them. Perhaps I need to plan opportunities for them to make decisions. (That sounds kind of funny.)

In this chapter, Mr. Kohn talks about pseudo-choice, especially the idea that children "choose" to break a rule and therefore "choose" the consequences.

Adults who blithely insist that children choose to misbehave are rather like politicians who declare that people have only themselves to blame for being poor. In both cases, potentially relevant factors other than personal responsibility are ignored. A young child in particular may not have the fully developed capacity for rational decision-making or impulse control that is implicit in suggesting he made a choice.

This is an important part of the chapter, I think. There are so many parenting techniques that recommend "allowing" children to "suffer consequences" so that a parent does not feel like they are punishing a child. This is actually a deception, and it's important for parents to realize that children quickly recognize it as such.

Of course, there are times when a parent's requests are not negotiable. Mr. Kohn offers some guidelines and suggestions for those situations. First of all, we should be as kind and gentle as possible, which may require asking multiple times. We should also always explain the rationale. With young children, we can turn the demand into a game. We should continue to offer as many choices as possible.

Sometimes, more drastic measures are required. A child, for example, cannot be allowed to wander down the middle of the street. We may need to physically carry a struggling child out of danger.

When it is absolutely necessary, we should do everything possible to soften the blow and minimize the punitive impact of such a move. Our tone should be warm and regretful and also confident that we can eventually solve the problem together.

He talked a little bit, too, about how to handle a temper tantrum. Most importantly, I think, is that he says we should ignore everyone else:

This is not about what people think of you; it's about what your child needs.

It seems obvious, but every parent knows the first thought when there's a tantrum out in public is of the people watching, when it should be on the child and the relationship between the child and the parent. Secondly, always consider the child's point of view. (We've been listening to the Ramona Quimby books over the past few weeks and I've been amazed at how the books have reminded me of how a child thinks.) Finally, let the tantrum work itself out and address the underlying cause later, when everyone is calmer.

I think we'll all be happy after the next post, because it will be on the last chapter of this book.


Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting

Thoughts on the Introduction
Discussion of quotes from chapter 1
Discussion of quotes from chapter 2
Discussion of quotes from chapter 3
Discussion of quotes from chapter 4
Discussion of quotes from chapter 5
Discussion of quotes from chapter 6
Discussion of quotes from chapter 7
Discussion of quotes from chapter 8

Book Discussion: Chapter 8 of Unconditional Parenting

The quotes in this post are all from the eighth chapter of Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn: Love without Strings Attached.

It's important to remember what unconditional parenting is not:

[W]e're not talking about spoiling kids or taking a hands-off approach to raising them. Unconditional parents play an active role in the lives of their children, protecting them and helping them learn right from wrong.

This is a difficult distinction for me, at least. Unconditional parenting seems so different from what I expect parenting to be (though not from what I'd like it to be) that I have to remind myself that incorporating ideals of unconditional parenting does not mean we are letting the kids run wild.

[T]he recommendation to make that distinction [between who a person is and what that person does] is sometimes tossed around a little too casually. The fact is that it's often hard even for an adult, much less a child, to make sense of it. "We accept you, but not how you act" is particularly unpersuasive if very few of the child's actions find favor with us. "What is this elusive 'me' you claim to love," the child may wonder, "when all I hear from you is disapproval?"

When I read the quote above, I thought about the familiar saying: "Love the sinner. Hate the sin." It seems to me this is a difficult concept for adults to understanding and implement. How much more difficult must it be for a child to make that distinction when listening to the words of a parent, especially if the child is feeling upset or anxious or unloved.

An important way to incorporate unconditional parenting is to create an attitude of love. For me, the most obvious place to start is the way I first respond in a crisis, the kind of crisis that happens a hundred times a day with young children: someone won't put on her shoes, someone spills his water, someone has neglected to put forks on the table for dinner. Focusing on the ideals of unconditional parenting helps me to calm down and refrain from yelling over and over again to get my children to do something I think they should already have done. Getting shoes on feet is really not a crisis; it's just something that has to be done. At the end of the day, the shoes will be less important than how I spoke to my child.

Giving myself more time is imperative if I want to incorporate unconditional parenting. There will always be times when we are rushing out the door, but the more I can minimize them, the less I will feel stressed and find myself yelling about shoes. (Finding shoes when we're in a real crisis, like a run to the storm shelter under threat of tornado, never seems be to a problem for anyone.)

It may sound obvious, but we sometimes seem to forget that, even when kids do rotten things, our goal should not be to make them feel bad, nor to stamp a particular behavior out of existence. Rather, what we want is to influence the way they think and feel, to help them become the kind of people who wouldn't want to act cruelly. And, of course, our other goal is to avoid injuring our relationship with them in the process.

I'll be honest - the next quote is one of the reasons this book struck me so strongly.

The first question here is so obvious that many of us never stop to think about it: What is my mood usually like when I'm with my kids?

Do I act as though I love my children and love being with them? It seems obvious to me: I have cut back my work hours; when I do work, I do so from home; I rarely leave them with other people; and, perhaps most conclusively, we homeschool. But children don't think in logical ways like that. They don't have a wide range of experience and knowledge about mothers who work outside the home or even families where the children go to school every day. What they know is what they see and hear from me all day every day. Do I seem like I enjoy being with them? Do I seem eager to bake with them, paint with them, play with them outside? (Oh, I'm so terrible at that last one!)

Why should they believe I love them if I don't seem to want to spend time with them?

That doesn't mean I have to neglect everything just to snuggle on the couch every day (though I suppose that may be necessary on some days). It just means creating an environment and atmosphere in our house where as often as possible I respond with respect and patience and love to my children.

It seems so obvious when written like that, but I think we all know how incredibly difficult that can be on a daily basis with children, even ones we do love.

He talked a bit in this chapter about how to respond to our children when they show us pictures or sing us a song or show off a new skill.

Again, the most effective (and least destructive) way to help a child succeed--whether she's writing or skiing, playing a trumpet or a computer game--is to do everything possible to help her fall in love with what she's doing, to pay less attention to how successful she was (or is likely to be) and show more interest in the task. That's just another way of saying that we need to encourage more, judge less, and love always.

I think these sorts of things are especially important in homeschooling families. After all, the children need to know from me, their teacher, if they are making progress, but it's also important to me that they continue to make progress for just about any reasons except my praise. I personally try to focus a lot on pointing out to First Son how he has improved over the course of time because he has been practicing every day. I hope that way to both encourage him to be proud of his accomplishments for their own sake and to notice the slow growth over time that can be difficult to perceive.

Mr. Kohn talked a bit about teachers and parents and the traditional classroom. I believe his children attend a prestigious (and probably expensive) school that eschews grades.

School environments are often distinguished by an array of punishments and rewards, with elaborate behavior-management systems, "recognition" for those who are obedient, and sanctions for those who aren't. Children aren't helped to become caring members of a community, or ethical decision-makers, or critical thinkers, so much as they're simply trained to follow directions. In the worst-case scenario, the encouragement of learning takes a back seat to the enforcement of order.

There are a handful of pages on how to deal with a situation in which rewards and punishments are used in the school - talking to the teacher, working with the teacher, presenting evidence, and so on. It's hard to imagine how a single parent talking to a single teacher in a public school could make a difference in how rewards and punishments are used. Many of the schools around here have school-wide systems.

He doesn't even mention homeschooling, perhaps because it's not very prominent. It's hard for me to remember that homeschooling can still be unusual in some areas. Homeschoolers around here are certainly a minority, but we are a substantial one with many supports. Mr. Kohn's books are among those that have provided encouragement to me (and Kansas Dad, too, I think) in our commitment to homeschooling our children. I think you can implement unconditional parenting and still send your children to public or parochial school, but homeschooling gives us the opportunity to provide this environment of unconditional love for an even greater amount of time in our young children's lives.


Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting

Thoughts on the Introduction
Discussion of quotes from chapter 1
Discussion of quotes from chapter 2
Discussion of quotes from chapter 3
Discussion of quotes from chapter 4
Discussion of quotes from chapter 5
Discussion of quotes from chapter 6
Discussion of quotes from chapter 7

Book Discussion: Chapter 7 of Unconditional Parenting

The quotes in this post are all from the seventh chapter of Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn: Principles of Unconditional Parenting.

Finally, Mr. Kohn begins to focus on how someone uses unconditional parenting. So, if you've been convinced by earlier chapter (or at least intrigued), here's where he starts to talk about what it looks like in a family. 

What I will do, in this chapter and those that follow, is lay out some broad principles, some ways of thinking about how to create alternatives to traditional parenting. These are derived from research, from a synthesis of the work of other thoughtful advisors, from my own experience, and from my observations of other families. You'll have to decide whether each idea seems reasonable and, if so, how it may apply to raising your own children.

Did you notice how he said "broad principles"? He doesn't give a lot of straightforward strategies or rules. As I think about unconditional parenting, it seems more like an overall attitude, a general thought process.

The recommendations I'll be offering are, frankly, more challenging than those proposed in a lot of other books. It's harder to make sure children feel loved unconditionally than it is just to love them. I's harder to respond to them in all their complexity than it is to focus just on their behaviors. It's harder to try to solve problems with them, to give them reasons for doing the right thing (let alone to help them formulate their own reasons), than it is to control them with carrots and sticks. "Working with" asks more of us than does "doing to."

I agree completely. In the very small ways I've tried to incorporate unconditional parenting, I've discovered it takes a lot more time and patience. I can't just yell at my kids to do something and punish them if they don't comply right away. Instead, my reactions must depend on the situation. I have to consider my request, my child's reaction, and the reasons for both. I have to slow down to talk, really talk, with my child. "What are we supposed to be doing right now? Why aren't you doing that? Do you know why we need to do that right now? Tell me. What do you need so we can get moving?"

Mr. Kohn provides a baker's dozen of guiding principles, which I don't want to list entirely here on the blog. (It's a good list; I highly recommend finding a copy of the book just to look over it.) The most important aspects of the principles for me were to focus on my relationship with my children and to focus on the long-term goal.

For example, this past year I had intended for us to attend daily Mass once a week. As time went on, however, I discovered Second Daughter was consistently a problem on those mornings. She was slow to dress, reluctant to get out the door, and I was yelling at her a lot. When we made it to Mass (usually late), we were both upset. Thinking about unconditional parenting, I asked myself why I was taking her to Mass. I want her to love the Mass, to be eager for her time with Jesus. I wanted to feel refreshed myself by the Mass. Instead, we were both angry and frustrated with each other and she hated going to Mass. Neither of us was getting much benefit from the Mass and she certainly wasn't learning to love it.

So we stopped going. Kansas Dad would leave early with the two oldest. The two younger ones and I would come along later, after Mass and morning prayers. I know a lot of parents who would have preferred to dress their daughter, drag her to the car, and get her to Mass, and I can certainly see how there is greater benefit in being at Mass than not being at Mass. I decided instead to focus on other ways to help Second Daughter learn to understand the Mass and love it (like Catechesis of the Good Shepherd). We were all happier and I didn't feel like I was harming my relationship with her on a regular basis by yelling and losing my temper.

Considering long-term goals, Mr. Kohn writes:

It's too easy to get trapped in the minutiae of everyday life, all the squabbles and frustrations that upstage the important questions...Whether your child spills the chocolate milk today, or loses her temper, or forgets to do her homework doesn't matter nearly as much as the things you do that either help or don't help her to become a decent, responsible, compassionate person.

Being a homeschooling family, we've already thought about long-term goals for our children. Other families do this too, of course, but a homeschooling family might make very different curriculum selections (for example) depending on what they want their children to be able to do over the course of time. Translating this idea to all of parenting seemed natural, once Mr. Kohn suggested it. As any parenting crisis arises, then, we should consider not just what has immediately happened (say, the two year old has spit his food all over the floor), but how our response to the situation may shape the kind of person he is. How we respond in any given single situation probably doesn't matter that much, but over time, the way we respond most of the time will make a big impression.

Second Daughter is inconsistent in clearing her place from the table. It is one of her very few responsibilities and she seems to revel in flaunting it, dashing out of the kitchen laughing when she leaves her plate on the table. We could probably have stopped this behavior very quickly by instituting a punishment when she neglects her chore, but if I thought about my long-term goal, it wasn't that she clear her place. My long-term goal is that she consider others who clean up the meal and that she have an attitude of seeking out things that she can do to help keep our home clean and tidy. So instead of punishment, we talk. Every day. Many times a day. Every time she leaves her plate on the table, I bring her back into the kitchen and we talk about how she has a responsibility to help our family take care of our house and our belongings, how she can show she is thankful for the time her father spent making pancakes and eggs (or whatever), and how we all have more time to do fun things like read stories and play games after dinner if we all work together to clean up after meals.

It's a work in progress, of course, and probably will be for some time, because even when she clears her plate after every meal, we'll still be talking about responsibility and stewardship and thankfulness.

Mr. Kohn also says the default response to requests should be yes, or at the very least, a discussion.

When I say that we should make sure we're not saying no too often or unnecessarily, I don't mean that our convenience, our wants, don't count, too. They do. But they shouldn't count for so much that we're gratuitously restricting our children, prohibiting them from trying things out. When you come right down to it, the whole process of raising a kid is pretty damned inconvenient, particularly if you want to do it well. If you're unwilling to give up any of your free time, if you want your house to stay quiet and clean, you might consider raising tropical fish instead.

Reading this paragraph, I thought of all the times I said no to something my children wanted to do because I didn't feel like getting up and bringing out the materials, or cleaning up the mess, or listening to them talk about it. As he says, it's not that we have to always say yes, but I think it's worthwhile to consider saying yes more often, or even most of the time. It occurs to me that writing up a post for the blog is far less important (for example) than spending a few minutes reading a story with my children, especially if I haven't read one yet today.


Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting

Thoughts on the Introduction
Discussion of quotes from chapter 1
Discussion of quotes from chapter 2
Discussion of quotes from chapter 3
Discussion of quotes from chapter 4
Discussion of quotes from chapter 5
Discussion of quotes from chapter 6

Book Discussion: Chapter 6 of Unconditional Parenting

The quotes in this post are all from the sixth chapter of Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn: What Holds Us Back?. 

In this chapter, Mr. Kohn asks why people choose not to use unconditional parenting.

If conditional and control-based parenting are really as bad as I say they are--and, more important, if they're as bad as scientific research and real-world experience show they are--then why are they so popular? Or, to put it differently, what holds so many of us back from being better parents?

The tone of his question seems to imply we have all learned about unconditional parenting and dismissed it as a valid way to parent. I think it's more likely people have never heard a strong argument in favor of this method. I haven't read extensively in the "how to parent" genre, but like any parent I've read much in newspapers and magazines as well as talked a lot with other parents. Mr. Kohn's book is really the first to argue for this particular type of parenting.

I think a better question is why the so-called parenting experts have not been writing and talking more about unconditional parenting. This chapter focuses more on addresses the arguments of individuals against using unconditional parenting rather than those of doctors, researchers, and other experts, though it does talk a little bit about our American society.

[O]ur culture isn't especially supportive of children in general, nor is there a surfeit of fondness for particular children unless they're cute and well behaved. If there's any collective affection, it's conditional at best.

It's nice to see someone admit that in a book.

Here's the point: If children in general aren't held in great esteem, it becomes easier for parents, even basically good parents, to treat their own kids disrespectfully. And to the extent that we ourselves harbor a dim view of children, we may be less likely, as I suggested in chapter 1, to offer unconditional love to any child, even our own, since we fear they'll just take advantage and try to get away with as much as they can.

On a day-to-day basis, it's hard to argue with the results of typical parenting. First of all, it's easier than unconditional parenting: "doing to" and making demands is much simpler and faster than "working with" a young child. We haven't instituted unconditional parenting completely in our home, but even in the small things I've done, I've had other parents tell me they would "not put up with that kind of behavior." (In this case, we were talking about getting my four year old dressed and out the door for a class. Rather than telling Second Daughter what to wear or dressing her myself, I had talked with her about what she should wear for the weather that day and the class she was attending and then talked with her each time she selected something I thought was inappropriate. In the end, we both walked out the door happy with what she was wearing and in time for her class, but later than I had originally intended.)

Secondly, typical (conditional) parenting does seem to get results. In the short term, using rewards and punishments changes a child's behavior in the way a parent wants. I think it takes a brave parent (and I'm not sure I'm there yet) to go against popular opinion and use unconditional parenting when we fear our children are going to misbehave and therefore prove that unconditional parenting doesn't work and we, therefore, are not good parents.

I want to be brave, though, and trust that unconditional parenting is going to help my children be the people God wants them to be. The more I consider my interactions with my children, the more I see the beauty of unconditional parenting and how it allows me to treat my children with the respect they deserve and to model the unconditional love God the Father has for all of us.

I know my relationship a child is not the same as my relationship with another adult, but sometimes I cringe when I think what I might feel if another adult said to me some of the things I have said to my children (and that are encouraged by conditional parenting techniques). Many of them seem even worse if I imagine someone I loved and respected saying them to me. For example, some parenting books recommend using the silent treatment with your children if they have behaved in a way that displeased you. Yet, I doubt any good book on marriage would recommend employing the silent treatment on a spouse.

The answer, though, is not permissiveness. That's an important idea. When trying to break out of a conditional parenting mindset, it's difficult to imagine how something like unconditional parenting is not permissiveness, but we should not let kids run wild. That, actually, would be ignoring children more than employing unconditional parenting.

That's an argument not for more discipline, but for grown-ups to spend more time with kids, to give them more guidance, and to treat them with more respect.

Then he gave an interesting argument - that many parenting books and advice columns present parenting as an "adversarial" relationship. As I thought about this statement, I realized it is often true. Parenting advice is often about getting a child to do what the parent wants without regard to the child's thoughts or feelings, only his or her actions.

Do I really want parenting my children to be about "winning battles" or "outmaneuvering them?"

If we want to think about parenting as a "side-by-side" activity, as parents and children move through life together, learning and helping and guiding, rewards and punishments seem more clearly to work against our final goals.

Later, Mr. Kohn presents one of the arguments Kansas Dad found very compelling.

But in another, more important sense, those who rely on traditional discipline have a tendency to overestimate what children can manage on their own. Such parents don't understand--or else they just ignore--how kids below a certain age simply can't be expected to eat neatly or keep quiet in a public place. Young children don't yet possess the skills that would make it sensible to hold them accountable for their behavior in the same way that we hold an adult or even an older child accountable.

As a homeschooling mother, I find this thought particularly helpful. Just as I challenge and encourage my children as they move through a subject like math, I should challenge and encourage them in all their skills. It would not make sense for me to expect my third grade son to pass the AP exam in calculus and it may not make sense for me to expect my four year old daughter to pay attention to the homily at Mass. Rather than punishing her, I should make the accommodations she needs to help her through the Mass and to accept as much grace from her time in the church as she can. In this example, our help and guidance includes enrolling her in the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd program where she can learn about the Mass and how it shows God's great love for her, calling her attention back to the Mass when it wanders, quietly explaining how Father's homily applies to particular experiences she has had recently, marveling with her on the greatness of God's love, reading of our faith with her at home, practicing being still and reverent at home during family prayers, inviting her to share her thoughts with God, and so on.

I may not be right, of course, but the more I think of it, the more I believe my goal is not that Second Daughter be still at Mass, holding her hands in a prayerful way for 45 minutes, but that she come to love the Mass so when she is no longer living in our home, she will desire to attend on her own, that she will feel God's love and experience an overwhelming desire to want to praise and worship him. Not everyone feels that way every Sunday (or every day for daily Mass), but we experience it often enough to make the effort to attend and participate when we are struggling.

When Second Daughter is contemplating her confirmation or whether she will attend Mass when she's at college, will she look back at her childhood and remember Mass as a time when her parents faced her toward the altar with love and awe or will she remember Mass as a time of derision, anger, frustration, boredom, and punishment?

Then he gets to religion with a total of two paragraphs:

Further, while many religious people equate the idea of unconditionality with aspects of their faith, a case could be made, drawing on the holy books of Christianity and Judaism, that the deities in these religions offer the ultimate in conditional love. Both the Old and New Testaments repeatedly promise extravagant rewards for those who are properly reverent, and horrific punishments for those who aren't. God loves you if and only if you love Him--and, in some cases, if you meet various other criteria.

I've read a number of other reviews that rejected Mr. Kohn's entire book on the basis of these two paragraphs (quoted above only in part). Mr. Kohn's misunderstanding of the true love of God does not negate all of his arguments for unconditional parenting (and is, in fact, not that uncommon a belief about God). For me, the unconditional love of God is one of the strongest arguments in favor of unconditional parenting, that my actions as a parent should imitate his love for my children. 

I'll be honest here. One of the greatest hesitations I have in using unconditional parenting is how other parents, parents I know and respect, will respond. It's a difficult thing to go against the crowd.

As I've said, people in our culture are far more likely to fault parents for controlling too little rather than too much--and to approve of children because they're "well behaved" rather than because they're, say, curious. So when you combine the parent's anxiety about being judged with the likely direction of that judgment, you end up with this unsurprising fact: We're most likely to resort to coercive tactics, and to become preoccupied with the need to control our children, when we're out in public.

This was a good chapter. He addressed nearly everything I had running through my head when I thought of the reasons we shouldn't use unconditional parenting. I'm not sure I like all his answers, but at least he thought about and attempted to address many arguments against unconditional parenting.


Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting

Thoughts on the Introduction
Discussion of quotes from chapter 1
Discussion of quotes from chapter 2
Discussion of quotes from chapter 3
Discussion of quotes from chapter 4
Discussion of quotes from chapter 5

Book Discussion: Chapter 5 of Unconditional Parenting

The quotes in this post are all from the fifth chapter of Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn: Pushed to Succeed.

This was probably my least favorite chapter in the book. I think there are times when competition can be a good thing for anyone. (I read an article in the NY Times recently that even argued some people experience the brain chemistry changes when in competition or under stress in such a way that their performance improves. Fascinating.)

Mr. Kohn claims universally, that competition is detrimental.

[T]he effect isn't limited to "excessive" competition. Rather, it appears that anytime children are set against one another such that one can succeed only by making others fail, there is a psychological price to be paid.

But he doesn't have any end note for this statement - no studies whatsoever. As far as I can tell, this statement is merely his opinion.

I'm not a competitive person. (If Kansas Dad is still reading these posts about Unconditional Parenting, he just spit coffee all over his desk. My lack of competition is a bit of an understatement; I dread competition.) I think a race, for example, may encourage First Son to pump his legs just a bit faster than he might otherwise and, even if he doesn't win, he might be pleasantly surprised at how quickly he could run or (even better) how much fun it is to run.

Not that I'm certain.

This is the chapter where he talks about grades. These aren't really an issue for us since we homeschool. My kids don't even know what grades are. I could write a lot about grades, but I'll try to limit myself. Grades are not a measure of anything children have learned; they are the best the system could do to devise an "objective" measure by which children can be sorted, categorized, and compared by people who don't know the children in question. An interview and portfolio would be a far better way to assess people, even for college, but I suppose most universities would consider it too difficult.

What's troubling about this is not that kids may end up with lower grades. After all, I've been arguing that grades aren't terribly meaningful. Rather, what ought to concern us is the possibility that kids may fight back against the pressure to do better in school by investing less effort, with the result that they actually learn less. Never mind disappointing report cards: If we push children too hard, they may wind up doing less (or poorer quality) thinking.

He seems to see no way in which participating in sports is worthwhile. If there's someone losing, then any effort we as parents make to encourage our children to participate ("Just do your best." "We're only here to have fun.") is really just an attempt to cover up our true feelings: That you must win in order for me to love you. I'm not sure I believe that. I think it's completely possible to encourage participation in sports in order to foster a love of using our bodies, of being healthy and well, and of the benefits of perseverance and practice.

Simplicity Parenting claimed that the real benefit to sports and other competitive things came for adolescents, that it suited their particular needs to excel, to become an individual, to push themselves, to find their skills and preferences, and that pushing children to compete (even for fun) at earlier ages simply tired them out before they were able to reap the benefits. I found this argument convincing. It was interesting to note in the Times article linked above that providing opportunities to compete actually helps people become better at competing, or at least at performing in competitive or stressful situations, which we all must face at some time in our lives.

Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting

Thoughts on the Introduction
Discussion of quotes from chapter 1
Discussion of quotes from chapter 2
Discussion of quotes from chapter 3
Discussion of quotes from chapter 4

Book Discussion: Chapter 4 of Unconditional Parenting

The quotes in this post are all from the fourth chapter of Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn: Punitive Damages.

Announcing how we plan to punish children ("Remember, if you do x, then I'll do y to you") may salve our conscience because we gave them fair warning, but all we've really done is threaten them. We've told them in advance exactly how we'll make them suffer if they fail to obey.

Oh, my, this is exactly what I do when I'm trying to get my kids into the van after an excursion - almost word for word, "Remember, if you can't leave when it's time, then next time someone asks us to come to the zoo, I'll have to say no because you wouldn't leave when it was time." I thought I was being reasonable. Is it really just a threat? What's the unconditional parenting way to get them into the van when it's time to go? (The last time we went to the zoo, I ended up carrying Second Son kicking and screaming to the van but I didn't use this line. I wonder if that was an unconditional parenting success or failure?)

Then there are "natural consequences." Using natural consequences as a parenting method

invites parents to discipline by inaction--that is, by refusing to help. If a child is late for dinner, we're supposed to let her go hungry. If she leaves her raincoat at school, we're supposed to let her get wet the following day...the far more powerful lesson that she's likely to take away is that we could have helped--but didn't.

I used to think this is a great way for kids to learn about consequences of their actions. As children grow into teenagers and young adults, I believe they can take more responsibility for their own lives and, when they have everything they need to be successful and know that they are now the responsible party, I think there could be great benefit to allowing them to experience consequences. However, I do not think this is a good tactic for young children. If my four year old refuses to take her coat to the zoo (which she did), I do not think I should let her shiver in the winter chill all day long. She is simply not capable of rationally making a decision about leaving her coat.

As children age, they can take greater responsibility for their actions. A teenager may very well have to suffer consequence for something like missing the bus, but I think it's a far stronger position as a parent to sit down with him and say something like, "I'm sorry you have missed the bus. Let's think together about how to handle this situation. Do you have any suggestions?" In this way, we can help develop problem-solving skills in our children, modeling the thought process as necessary. Perhaps more importantly, (hopefully) they will understand that we will always be available for help if they do get in over their heads.

Mr. Kohn writes that people continue to punish when it doesn't seem to be working (in gaining compliance), but I didn't find that a compelling argument against punishment at all. His method probably isn't going to work on the first try, either. Parenting young children in particular will always seem to be a circular endeavor; we have to repeat ourselves every day or every hour for years. I'm not sure how long that lasts, but I know I say the some of the same things to my nine-year-old that I say to my two-year-old.

For him, all punishment is equal: corporal punishment, grounding, time-outs, "natural consequences." Everything. But it's not clear to me that is true.

He has six main theories explaining why punishment fails:

1. Punishment leads to anger.  Perhaps they'll think about how to get revenge. This seems particularly likely for kids who are grounded or sent to their rooms to "think about their actions." (I was thinking about this theory when I posted this Caddie Woodlawn quote.)
2. Using punishment teaches children that those who are powerful are able to make and enforce the rules, even if they are unfair or morally wrong.
3. Punishment becomes less effective over time. It's just not possible to exert the same control over a fifteen-year-old as a five-year-old. 
4. Punishing a child damages the trust and security children should have in their parents.
5. Punishment distracts children from the main point.
   

   [P]unishment doesn't lead children to focus on what they've done, much less on why they did it or what they should have done instead...it leads them to think about how mean their parents are and maybe how they're going to get their revenge...[and] on the punishment itself: how unfair it is and how to avoid it next time.

6. Finally, punishment encourages children to see only the effects on themselves rather than how their actions might have affected other people. Taken to the extreme, that line of thinking may lead them to believe they can do things that are immoral as long as they can avoid any external harm to themselves.

These theories make sense to me. I know I've been in these situations myself. Even as an adult, I find it extremely difficult to step back and recognize the truth when I feel like I'm being "punished." (I'm thinking of public policy, laws, or employee evaluations here, not that anyone is physically punishing me for anything). Young children are probably completely incapable of setting their feelings aside to calmly reflect on a situation.

It's hard for them to sort out why someone who clearly cares for them also makes them suffer from time to time. It creates the warped idea, which children may carry with them throughout their lives, that causing people pain is part of what it means to love them. Or else it may simply teach that love is necessarily conditional, that it lasts only as long as people do exactly what you want.

Just in case you thought you could explain why you are punishing your child and avoid the pitfalls theorized above:

The truth is that explanation doesn't minimize the bad effects of punishment so much as punishment minimizes the good effects of explanation.

When someone is anticipating or experiencing punishment, they are not thinking about an explanation. They are thinking only about how they feel and how it's all someone else's fault.

Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting

Thoughts on the Introduction
Discussion of quotes from chapter 1
Discussion of quotes from chapter 2
Discussion of quotes from chapter 3

Book Discussion: Chapter 3 of Unconditional Parenting

The quotes in this post are all from the third chapter of Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn: Too Much Control.

This is in italics in the original text:

The dominant problem with parenting in our society isn't permissiveness, but the fear of permissiveness. We're so worried about spoiling kids that we often end up overcontrolling them.

I don't know if I'd say this is the dominant problem with parenting in our society. It is, however, one of my largest blocks to using something like unconditional parenting in our family. I am afraid the kids would run wild and destroy the tiny bit of calm we attain every now and then.

According to Mr. Kohn:

On balance, the kids who do what they're told are likely to be those whose parents don't rely on power and instead have developed a warm and secure relationship with them. They have parents who treat them with respect, minimize the use of control, and make a point of offering reasons and explanations for what they ask.

I'm not sure this has always been my experience. I know some awesome parents who seem to have the whole respect, reasons, and explanations things nailed down, but their children do not necessarily do everything they're asked as soon as they're asked. I know other parents who seem much more controlling (at least to me) and their children seem to be wonderfully behaved, respectful, and helpful.

On the other hand, this thought makes sense to me. If a child has grown up hearing reasons for requests and understands, truly believes, that a parent would not request something unless it were for the good of the child and the family, then wouldn't he or she be more likely to respond favorably to requests?

In a second study, the two-year-olds who were most likely to comply with a specific request turned out to be those whose parents "were very clear about what they wanted, but in addition to listening to their children's objections, they also accommodated them in ways that conveyed respect for the children's autonomy and individuality."

I looked this study up in the endnotes and references. I was really tempted to read it, but it seems a copy of the paper would cost $12. My two-year-old's compliance seems based more on his mood than anything I do or say. Frankly, my four-year-old's compliance seems even more unpredictable.

One reason that a heavy-handed, do-what-I-say approach tends not to work very well is that, in the final analysis, we really can't control our kids--at least, not in the ways that matter....it's simply impossible to force a child to go to sleep, or stop crying, or listen, or respect us...Particularly with infants, and then again with adolescents, the goal of control ultimately proves to be an illusion.

We cannot control our children. I have very wise friends who taught their children that they can only control their own bodies, not those of their brothers. I have shared this insight with my own children often. I also admit that I cannot make them do something. In particular, I have honestly told First Daughter I cannot make First Son learn something. I can present material, give him the opportunity to make it his own, insist that he talk with me about it in a conversation or narration, but he must learn for himself. (On the worst days, I repeat this to myself.)

Of course, terms like excessive and too much raise the question of whether there's an ideal amount of control. My response is that the attempt to figure out what's good for kids is a qualitative inquiry more than a quantitative one. Depending on how we define control, it may make more sense to look for alternatives to it than just to offer less of it. Children need structure in their lives, for example--and some need more than others--but that's not the same as saying they just need a moderate amount of control. How can we tell the difference? There are certainly some gray areas here, but as a rule, reasonable structures are imposed only when necessary, in a flexible manner, without undue restrictiveness, and, when possible, with the participation of the child. (my emphasis)

I'm not sure I'm convinced no control is better than a little control. He seems to make the argument that a lot of control is bad, even a bit more than some control is bad, so it's probably best not to enforce any control at all.

The more I think about it, though, and the more I consider this book as I live our daily life, the more I see how we can alter our daily schedule and plans to avoid the need for me, as the parent, to be as controlling as I used to think a parent should be. When I find a situation unacceptable, instead of thinking it through myself and imposing a solution for the problem I see, I've started asking the children what they think we should do. We begin with the premise that what is happening can't continue and go from there. In some things we haven't been as successful as I might like, but overall I can see how this kind of parenting can create an atmosphere of working together as a family to create the life we want.

Does that mean First Son doesn't have to do his lessons? Absolutely not, but perhaps he has greater flexibility in what lessons we do and when we do them. This attitude is not all that different from what I've done in the past. After all, if a book caused great distress, it probably wasn't a living book and I would find a replacement, but there is a slight difference in that I'm attempting to involve First Son more, even though he's still young. As much as possible, perhaps, he should begin to shape his own education.

I've also started allowing the daily conversation of why we do lessons at all, and even why we're doing particular lessons. First Son already knows why, but talking about it whenever he brings it up helps me to focus on the long-term and short-term goals, helping him to think about discovering God's will for him rather than focusing only on what he wants to do all day. Battling our desires (whether it be playing video games, checking our friends on Facebook, or sneaking into the bathroom to finish the last three chapters of a book) is a lifelong process. I'm starting to wonder if the daily conversation is actually valuable, rather than viewing it as an attempt to avoid lessons.

The goal is empowerment rather than conformity, and the methods are respectful rather than coercive.

By talking about the reasons for a request, we can reveal a path to virtue in a way that's more flexible than merely focusing on obedience for its own sake. Obedience can be a virtue, of course, in the right circumstances, but there are other virtues as well: perseverance, fortitude, honesty, wisdom, just to name a few.

There may be times when some control, in the usual sense, is unavoidable, and here the trick is indeed to avoid overdoing it. But we need to think in terms of an approach to parenting that's fundamentally different from control, rather than just trying to find a happy medium between "too controlling" and "not controlling enough."

I think Mr. Kohn might address it in a later chapter, but one of the metaphors that has really stuck with me after finishing the book is the idea that parenting should not be a battle: us against them, and if they don't do what we say we are failing as parents. Rather, we should be working together, side by side with our children, to guide them into becoming the people God created them to be. We don't know exactly who that is. Only they can discover it. We can offer plenty of guidance, advice, knowledge, hope, and support, all of which is more powerful if our children perceive us beside them rather than against them.

Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting

Thoughts on the Introduction
Discussion of quotes from chapter 1
Discussion of quotes from chapter 2

Book Discussion: Chapter 2 of Unconditional Parenting

Here I am, thinking about Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn again. In this post, I have some quotes from the second chapter, "Giving and Withholding Love.

I think Mr. Kohn tackles time-outs right at the beginning of the chapter. In recent years, the time-out has come to be the accepted form of punishment, replacing spanking or other forms of physical punishment. According to Mr. Kohn, though, we've merely switched to a more insidious form of control.

According to him, "time-out" is an abbreviation for "time out from positive reinforcement" coined initially to describe an experimental technique used to change behavior in animals (experimental animals like rats). As he says, "We are talking about a technique, then, that began as a way of controlling animal behavior."

Even if its history and theoretical basis don't trouble you, look again at the original label time-out from positive reinforcement...what, exactly, is the positive reinforcement that's being suspended when a child is given a time-out?...When you send a child away, what's really being switched off or withdrawn is your presence, your attention, your love.

In my experience, time-outs have not been very effective in changing behavior so it's not difficult for me to decide to avoid them. I do think it's interesting to think about time-outs as love withdrawal. In a way, it is saying to a child, "I don't want to be around you right now. Go away until I say you can come back." (I can't remember if it was in this chapter or another one when Mr. Kohn clarified that it is not love withdrawal if you accompany your child somewhere while he or she cools off or if you allow the child to decide when to leave, where to go, and when to come back. It is also perfectly acceptable to say, "I need to go cool down for a few minutes. I'll be back when I am in control of myself.")

Taking punishments and rewards in general, I am convinced they don't work in education, parenting, or the workplace. (Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes by the same author covers this topic extensively.)

What I want to emphasize is that extrinsic motivation is likely to erode intrinsic motivation. As extrinsic goes up, intrinsic tends to come down. The more that people are rewarded for doing something, the more likely they are to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward. Of course, there are always qualifications and exceptions to any one-sentence summary of a psychological finding, but that basic proposition has been proven by literally scores of studies with people of different ages, genders, and cultural backgrounds--and with a variety of different tasks and rewards.

Unfortunately, it seems praise such as "Good job!" is just as destructive in this sense as offering a tangible reward. In these cases, the child is working for the reward of a parent's praise or affirmation rather than the intrinsic joy of sounding out a word or finding the answer to a math problem.

If I accept this premise, what am I supposed to say to my daughter when she successfully sounds out a difficult word? In trying to put this belief into practice, I find myself saying, "That's correct." or "That's right." all the time. It's hard to remember to direct the child to the accomplishment rather than to my reaction to it.

Actually, if we truly accept the tenets of unconditional parenting to its extreme, praise is even worse than you might think:

What's the mirror image of love withdrawal--that is, withholding affection when kids do things we don't like? It would have to be giving them affection when they do things we do like: providing it selectively, contingently, often in the explicit hope of reinforcing that behavior. Praise isn't just different from unconditional love; it's the polar opposite. Its' a way of saying to children: "You have to jump through my hoops in order for me to express support and delight."

I thought this quote was particularly interesting because so many parenting magazines and books recommend exactly this: when you see your child doing something you like (perhaps giving the larger piece of the pear to a sister or brother), you should give them a kiss or hug. Mr. Kohn would argue such a response would undermine the naturally good feeling that results from generous behavior (for example). Children would then think, "I feel good because Mom gave me a kiss, not because I did this good thing." In the future, they would be less likely to engage in positive social behavior unless they thought someone was watching them.

Kansas Dad and I decided long ago not to praise our kids all the time. But according to Mr. Kohn, avoiding most praise is not enough, and might even be worse.

Someone who announces that it's pointless to give kids a pat on the head for every little thing they do will typically add that we ought to be more selective, more discriminating about praising--which means that kids should have to do more to earn our approval. And of course that means that our parenting would become even more conditional that it already is. These critics are probably correct to observe that when kids are praised constantly, it turns into background noise and they barely even hear it anymore. To which we might reply: Good! It's when praise is timed and phrased for maximum impact that we really need to worry. That's when (at least from the child's point of view) the unconditionality of our love is most in doubt.

I think, though, that Mr. Kohn would agree that we can say something like, "It looks like you and your sister are having a great time playing together." or "Look at how happy your sister is since you decided to play a game with her." Children still need someone to tell them how they should behave and pointing out examples of the kind of behavior is appropriate. It seems like the key is to help think about how their behavior makes them and those around them feel, how their relationships are improving or being damaged. We don't want First Son to be nice to his sisters because we told him to be nice to them; we want him to be nice to them because it's the right thing to do, because it develops a relationship of trust and friendship between them, because they are smaller than he is and he has a responsibility to protect those that are less able to protect themselves...and for lots of other reasons. We can share all these reasons with him and point out to him when he is not following through, the kind of constructive criticism that helps people grow and improve. (But it so much easier to say, "Stop!" And it is so very difficult when you've talked and you've talked and their behavior just isn't changing!)

I have been thinking more and more about how God loves us. (Apparently, this statement is debated in the Christian communities, but I think "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son..." sums it up well enough for me.) I've always thought one of my jobs as a parent is to show my children the love of an earthly parent as a small glimpse of the greatness of the love of the Father for each of them. If that is true, then I should do all I can to not only love my children unconditionally but to show them that love. When I look at the Parable of the Prodigal Son, it seems like I should love them as abundantly - and show that love - even when they seem their most disobedient.

But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.”’ So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:17-24 NRSV)

Note that the father runs to his son and embraces him before he son has confessed or asked forgiveness. All he did was come to him. It's hard to tell from the text, but it almost seems as if the father is planning his feast before the son even apologizes.


Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting

Thoughts on the Introduction
Discussion of quotes from chapter 1

Book Discussion: Chapter 1 of Unconditional Parenting

Back in December, I wrote about the introduction of Unconditional Parenting and shared a few of my thoughts as I finished the book.

In the first chapter of Unconditional Parenting, Alfie Kohn talks about conditional parenting, his term for the type of parenting that focuses on the behavior of children.

This book looks at one such distinction--namely, between loving kids for what they do and loving them for who they are. The first sort of love is conditional, which means children must earn it by acting in ways we deem appropriate, or by performing up to our standards. The second sort of love is unconditional: It doesn't hinge on how they act, whether they're successful or well behaved or anything else.

Though we might argue with the name he's given it, the description he provides of what this kind of parenting looks like is pretty much the type of parenting I see all around me and the type I've always thought I should employ. There's a spectrum, of course, but this "conditional parenting" is what seems familiar and sensible. If a child does not obey, I, the parent, should use force or some other tactic to ensure obedience in the future (time-outs, loss of privileges, making the child return and redo a chore or task, additional chores, whatever it might be).

What Mr. Kohn argues is that, from the child's point of view, we as parents are only happy with them if they behave in a particular way - generally by doing whatever we say whenever we say regardless of how the child feels or what the child thinks is right. He spends the rest of the first half of the book expanding on what conditional parenting is and why it's detrimental to a child's development into the person we probably want them to be and to the relationship between a parent and child.

Most parents will say they do love their children unconditionally but does a parent's behavior show that? When my children are disobedient, do I act like I love them anyway?

How we feel about our kids isn't as important as how they experience those feelings and how they regard the way we treat them. Educators remind us that what counts in a classroom is not what the teacher teaches; it's what the learner learns. And so it is in families. What matters is the message our kids receive, not the one we think we're sending.

Acting like I love my children when I am rushing, frustrated, or angry is extremely difficult. Even months after reading this book and considering it as I am reacting to them, I find myself struggling to respond with love when they are misbehaving. I find it particularly difficult with the two year old because two year olds are irrational beings, very loud destructive irrational beings.

Do I spend as much time thinking about why my children are doing something as I do thinking about how I can get them to stop doing it? According to Mr. Kohn, knowing why a child is behaving a particular way may change how we react to that behavior.

Unconditional parenting assumes that behaviors are just the outward expression of feelings and thoughts, needs and intentions. In a nutshell, it's the child who engages in a behavior, not just the behavior itself, that matters...They act this way rather than that way for many different reasons, some of which may be hard to tease apart. But we can't just ignore those reasons and respond only to the effects (that is, the behaviors). Indeed, each of those reasons probably calls for a completely different course of action.

Notice this doesn't mean that all behaviors are permissible, or even that most behaviors are permissible. Mr. Kohn thinks the first step when a parent sees inappropriate behavior should be to think about why this is happening. (Of course, action should come immediately when there's danger involved.) With my little ones, the first example that comes to mind is thinking about how tired or hungry they might be when they start acting out. Remember that two year old I mentioned earlier? It is tremendously hard for a two year old to resist his impulses and is probably impossible if he is hungry or if it's time for a nap. If I could just remember that...

Some people would respond that children need to learn about the consequences of their actions. Punishments for misbehavior, then, are merely the first step in learning about bad things that will happen if they don't follow the rules when they're grown up. Mr. Kohn asks, though, if we need to teach our kids about consequences from a very early age.

When our kids grow up, there will be plenty of occasions for them to take their places as economic actors, as consumers and workers, where self-interest rules and the terms of each exchange can be precisely calculated. But unconditional parenting insists that the family ought to be a haven, a refuge, from such transactions. In particular, love from one's parents does not have to be paid for in any sense. It is purely and simply a gift. It is something to which all children are entitled.

We can't shield our children from all consequences, but perhaps we should shield young children as much as we can. As our children grow, Mr. Kohn would argue it's better to work with our children as they deal with consequences of their actions rather than simply subjecting them to an arbitrary (or a "natural") consequence.

I think this would probably fall along a spectrum. We would offer more assistance and buffers for a four year old than a sixteen year old, but even the sixteen year old would receive help rather than being left on his or her own to deal with "consequences." This makes sense to me. After all, if I want my sixteen year old daughter to come to me if (heaven forbid) she should find herself pregnant, than how should I respond if she oversleeps and misses the bus? If I refuse a ride in the latter situation, why should she trust me to respond with love and forgiveness in the first?

I'm just thinking my way through these chapters. I'm still not really sure where I'm going to find myself as a parent. Thoughts are welcome, especially if you've read the book.

Previous posts on Unconditional Parenting:
Thoughts on the Introduction

Book Discussion: Unconditional Parenting

Kansas Dad read Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason by Alfie Kohn first and suggested I read it. I'm not sure why it wasn't on my list already since I read Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes years ago and was intrigued. (You can read what I wrote about it here.)

I've read the whole book now but I'm still mulling it over in my head. I've made notes on each of the chapters and thought I would write a little bit about them on the blog to see if I can figure out what I think about it all. This post is just the beginning, with a few quotes from the introduction. There are ten chapters, but I'm not certain I'll post about all of them.

Essentially, Mr. Kohn is suggesting we consider seriously the use of rewards and punishments in our parenting. He uses the phrase unconditional parenting to describe a type of parenting vastly different from what you may encounter in typical parenting magazines or books. Frankly, it might be vastly different from anything you see in your neighborhood. Even after reading the book, I find it a little difficult to define this parenting style. It begins with the desire to fulfill a child's needs and a refusal to make those needs subservient to eliciting a particular behavior from the child.

In unconditional parenting, parents don't do things to a child (like send him to a time-out or physically move his hand to grab a toy and drop it into a toy box). Instead, it means working with a child to solve problems.

[C]onventional approaches to parenting such as punishments (including "time-outs"), rewards (including positive reinforcement), and other forms of control teach children that they are loved only when they please us or impress us.

After reading the whole book, I have to admit, I like the ideas. If I were to imagine myself as the perfect parent, this book has described exactly how I'd like to talk with my children and the way I'd like to build a relationship with them. Repeatedly, I found myself recalling Parenting with Grace and, though they don't mention this book at all, I think they'd agree with many of the suggestions.

Are my everyday practices likely to help my children grow into the kind of people I'd like them to be? Will the things I just said to my child at the supermarket contribute in some small way to her becoming happy and balanced and independent and fulfilled and so on--or is it possible (gulp) that the way I tend to handle such situations makes those outcomes less likely? If so, what should I be doing instead?

This quote is one of the reasons this book captured my attention. In the past, I've sometimes wondered if my behavior as we rush the kids out the door to go to Mass hindered my ability to receive the blessings of the Mass itself. Now I also wonder if it hinders the ability of the children to receive those blessings. Perhaps it's better to be a few minutes late and to arrive without having yelled at the older ones or physically wrestled a smaller one into clothes she doesn't want to wear. Is she in a state of mind to listen and learn, to feel loved by Jesus in the Eucharist? Or is she spending the entire Mass fretting about her clothes or wondering why Mama yelled?

I used to think I wanted my children to be quiet at church, for them to pay attention. Now I'm wondering if my real goes isn't that they learn to love the Mass. How should my behavior at Mass with them be different to address this loftier goal? How should my expectations of them change now and as they grow to meet that goal?

After relating an incident where a fellow passenger on an airplane complimented the parents of a child who was quiet by saying he was good:

Consider for a moment the key word in that sentence. Good is an adjective often laden with moral significance. It can be a synonym for ethical or honorable or compassionate. However, where children are concerned, the word is just as likely to mean nothing more than quiet--or, perhaps, not a pain in the butt to me. Overhearing that comment in the plane, I had a little ding! moment of my own. I realized that this is what many people in our society seem to want most from children: not that they are caring or creative or curious, but simply that they are well behaved. A "good" child--from infancy to adolescence--is one who isn't too much trouble to us grown-ups.

Alfie Kohn has no illusions that this kind of parenting is easy. One of my fears is that this kind of parenting is impossible. Thinking about it more, I am reminded again of Parenting with Grace. The "Grace" in the title doesn't mean parenting in a graceful way, calm and composed. It means parenting with the Grace of God. Though Mr. Kohn doesn't seem to be a religious person, I'm not sure I could possible succeed even a little in unconditional parenting without the grace of God.

There are times when my best strategies fall flat, when my patience runs out, when I just want my kids to do what I tell them. It's hard to keep the big picture in mind when one of my children is shrieking in a restaurant. For that matter, it's sometimes hard to remember the kind of people we want to be when we're in the middle of a hectic day, or when we feel the pull of less noble impulses. It's hard, but it's still worthwhile.

There is the great question this book has raised in my mind: Am I the kind of person I want to be when I am with my children? Am I the kind of person I want them to be?

Quote: Towards a Philosophy of Education

Charlotte Mason in Towards A Philosophy Of Education, Chapter 7:

That children like feeble and tedious oral lessons, feeble and tedious story books, does not at all prove that these are wholesome food; they like lollipops but cannot live upon them; yet there is a serious attempt in certain schools to supply the intellectual, moral, and religious needs of children by appropriate 'sweetmeats.'

My own children have only been homeschooled, so I don't have a lot of experience with what the schools are teaching, but I do know that my youngest sister (who is currently in ninth grade) has come home with some shocking books as assigned reading. The theory seems to be that they must provide something entertaining to entice the children to read. I have nothing against being entertained as we read per se, but our primary goal in education must be to educate. Sometimes, we are educating our souls and hearts to learn to be engrossed in that which is not entertaining. Sometimes, we are training our souls to be entertained by that which is wholesome.

Charlotte Mason quotes A. Paterson's Across the Bridges:

The teacher ready to use the powers that his training and experience have given him works too hard while the boy's share in the struggle is too light. It is possible to make education too easy for children and to rob learning of mental discipline which often wearies but in the end produces concentration and the capacity to work alone...He is rarely left to himself with the book in his hands, forced to concentrate all his mind on the dull words before him with no one at hand to explain or make the memory work easier by little tricks of repetition and association...

Exactly. 

Later in chapter 7, Charlotte Mason says:

Their implicit contention is, given a well-educated man with cultivated imagination, trained judgment, wide interests, and he is prepared to master the intricacies of any profession; while he knows at the same time how to make use of himself, of the powers with which nature and education have endowed him for his own happiness; the delightful employment of his leisure; for the increased happiness of his neighbours and the well-being of the community; that is, such a man is able, not only to earn his living, but to live. (emphasis the author's)

Again, exactly! It is our intention to educate our children in such a way as to prepare them adequately for success in competitive colleges and even graduate programs, but our goal is to educate them so they are eager and able to seek out their own growth in knowledge, skills and wisdom, regardless of their career.

Book Discussion: Chapter 8 in One Thousand Gifts

Brandy at Afterthoughts is blogging as she reads A Mother's Rule of Life. You can catch up on the series (so far) here. Her third post was still fresh in my mind when I read chapter ten of One Thousand Gifts, entitled empty to fill.

In this chapter, Ann Voskamp continues her exploration of eucharisteo:

At the last, this is what will determine a fulfilling, meaningful life, a life that, behind all the facades, every one of us longs to live: gratitude for the blessings that expresses itself by becoming the blessing. (emphasis the author's)

She realizes that each and every task is an opportunity for her to be a gift to others, that all of His gifts are in fact incomplete unless we reach out to others.

I scour pots and grin silly: I can wash feet here by washing dishes.

Later:

Scratching a stubborn pot furiously with a wire scrubby, I remember it again, what I once read of liturgy. That liturgy has its roots in the Greek word leitourgia, meaning "public work" or "public servant." The meaning! This life of washing dishes, of domestic routine, it can be something wholly different. This life of rote work, it is itself public work, a public serving--even this scrubbing of pans--and thus, if done unto God, the mundane work can become the living liturgy of the Last Supper. I could become the blessing, live the liturgy! I rinse pots and sing it softly, "This is my song of thanks to You..." (emphasis the author's)

There's more. We must not think only of the people we serve, the very real crying, moaning, whining, grumpy little people -- or even the homeless, the sick, the elderly.

When service is unto people, the bones can grow weary, the frustration deep.

When we concentrate on serving other people, even people we love deeply and who depend entirely on us as a newborn does, we dwell on ourselves. We think of our sacrifice, what we deserve.

But when Christ is at the center, when dishes, laundry, work, is my song of thanks to Him, joy rains. Passionately serving Christ alone makes us the loving servant to all. When the eyes of the heart focus on God, and the hands on always washing the feet of Jesus alone--the bones, they sing joy, and the work returns to its purest state: eucharisteo. The work becomes worship, a liturgy of thankfulness.

I haven't finished the book yet, but I think this is by far the best chapter with only one to go.

Quote: Home Education

From Part VI (The Will--The Conscience--The Divine Life in the Child) in Home Education (Charlotte Mason's Homeschooling Series):

There are those, no doubt, who have not even arrived at wishing, but most of us desire to do well; what we want to know is, how to make ourselves do what we desire. And here is the line which divides the effective from the non-effective people, the great from the small, the good from the well-intentioned and respectable; it is in proportion as a man has self-controlling, self-compelling power that he is able to do, even of his own pleasure; that he can depend upon himself, and be sure of his own action in emergencies.

Later:

It is by force of will that a man can 'change his thoughts,' transfer his attention from one subject of thought to another, and that, with a shock of mental force of which he is distinctly conscious. And this is enough to save a man and to make a man, this power of making himself think only of those things which he has beforehand decided that it is good to think upon.