Today I'll be focusing on Principle number one:
Children are born persons.This realization had such a huge effect on my parenting very early on. If you've been following this blog from it's beginnings you will remember that I often felt so completely frustrated by the ultimate Mommy War in Christian circles: the question of parenting "style."
In one corner we have well intentioned so-called "gentle parents," followers of a parenting style called Attachment Parenting which you've heard me rail on time and again. I watched them cosleep and affirm their children and ignore temper tantrums for years and thought to myself..... that's not for me.
It seemed to me that Attachment parenting did great harm to a child, allowing them freedoms children should have to act up or express wishes and seemed to me a breeding ground for selfishness and later problems.I based this not on the methods-- which I liked (extended breastfeeding, cosleeping, expression of affection, babywearing, etc.) but on the results. Quite frankly, most of the children I met whose parents considered themselves fervent adherents of this method were wild.
In the other corner we have well-intentioned opposite of AP parents (what do we call those? Ezzo/Pearl people?) where I have sat firmly and happily for many many years. This camp advocates putting marriage and the good of the family before the desires of the child (highly agree!) and also advocates training and discipline (if needed) to rectify personality problems and bad habits. (agree!)
However, it seemed to me that many of the moms I met who were very verbal about this method of parenting still had children I found questionable in their behavior.And it didn't allow for things which felt natural to me: holding babies. gentle, affirming words (well, maybe not natural, but right!) etc.
I was looking for a parenting style that I felt fulfilled my biblical objectives to train my child in righteousness, but which was a tried-and-true technique.
And while many of ezzo/pearlized children I met who were grown turned out wonderfully, there were some parents who appeared to have used every technique recommended in those books and who really, truly were mystified as to why their children had grown up and walked away from the behaviors they had been trained in.
In other words, the AP families I knew tended to have an abundance of love but little discipline, and the Ezzo/Pearl families I knew tended to have an abundance of discipline but were often lacking in tenderness. There are many exceptions that come to mind, but those were the norms as I saw them.
I'm a very black and white person, so armed with this knowledge I opted for the Ezzo aproach and it worked quite nicely. People constantly marveled that my children were well behaved and enjoyable.
I tried to always remain firm in my resolve to keep them from selfish behaviors and to squash their wills. And I thought I had it made!
Until my child turned five or so and STILL had not outgrown some of her problematic behaviors, like veering towards a meltdown when we had to leave a place she wanted to stay at. What what what?? You mean I had painstakingly done EVERYTHING right according to all my go-to parenting books and my child STILL demonstrated willfulness from time to time? I had not completely squashed that willfulness??
Yes.
It became apparent to me that even though I had all the answers.... I didn't have all the answers.
Which lead me to this idea, this snippet, really, of Charlotte's. Children are born persons. Around the same time as I first discovered it, my husband and I were con/reverting back to Catholicism. And studying the Catechism, which specifies that human dignity -- treating the person, made in God's image--with respect-- was not optional. This greatly affected our marriage. We were persons. We should treat each other as such.
In Charlotte's philosophy, a child was not a thing, but a person, and as such worthy of every human dignity, respect, kindness, etc.
This was so beneficial to me, because instead of thinking of my child as a machine which I just needed to figure out, I began to think of my child as a person that I needed to enjoy discovering. And also to begin affording them a respect that I had only heard AP people (and my husband, if only I had listened!) preach.
I loved this middle-ground approach, full of tenderness and compassion but also firm and guiding. I think this is part of Charlotte's universal appeal-- that she is both gentle and firm, and also one of the reasons it is so important to read her own work and not just what others have said about her: it's easy to take some of her quotes out of context or to misunderstand her greater meaning. (One of my biggest peeves in life is hearing Unschoolers rave about how they love using Charlotte Mason, who was a very very far cry from advocating unschooling.)
To take it further, the idea that children are born persons is the answer to the greatest evils which we in the Catholic Church daily battle here on planet earth.
Chief among them is objectification-- objectification which leads to abuse, neglect, pornography, abortion, euthanasia, sex-selection, gender confusion and a host of other issues which relate to the Culture of Death.
Yes, you read that right. Charlotte Mason's first principle is the CURE to the majority of the ills of this world.
And it isn't something she came up with on her own. It came to her because of her deep faith. Reading scripture daily and nourished by it she would have often meditated on this maxim:
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?I leave you with the thoughts of Charlotte herself with regards to the personhood of Children... thoughts which have provided much meditation and delight for me over the last few years. It is because of this principle that I can say I finally walk that peaceful middle ground, finding a healthful tension between love and affection and order and discipline. Giving children their natural rights as persons creates an atmosphere of education. It frees the children to grow in security and confidence, but also in gratitude and good will. It further enables us to honor that personhood in ALL people around us, because if we see it in children, who are often most trying, we will surely see it in our difficult neighbor, or that challenging family member. Most importantly, it is a foundation for the House of Education which we desire to build over these little persons in our care.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV)
We do not recognise 'Child-Nature.'––We endeavour that all our teaching and treatment of children shall be on the lines of nature, their nature and ours, for we do not recognise what is called 'Child-nature.' We believe that children are human beings at their best and sweetest, but also at their weakest and least wise. We are careful not to dilute life for them, but to present such portions to them in such quantities as they can readily receive.
We are Tenacious of Individuality: we consider Proportion––In a word, we are very tenacious of the dignity and individuality of our children. We recognise steady, regular growth with no transition stage. This teaching is up to date, but it is as old as common sense. Our claim is that our common sense rests on a basis of Physiology, that we show a reason for all that we do, and that we recognise 'the science of the proportion of things,' put the first thing foremost, do not take too much upon ourselves, but leave time and scope for the workings of Nature and of a higher Power than Nature herself.
We think that Children have a Right to Knowledge––Much guidance and stimulation are afforded by another principle. We are not anxious to contend with Kant that the mind possesses certain a priori knowledge; nor with Hume that it holds innate ideas. The more satisfying proposition seems to be that the mind has, as it were, prehensile adaptations to each department of universal knowledge. We find that children lay hold of all knowledge which is fitly presented to them with avidity, and therefore we maintain that a wide and generous curriculum is due to them.
--Charlotte Mason, Vol II ch 21
Loved your thoughts here! I too have found a parenting "middle ground" I'm comfortable with based on CM's principles, though it seems like most of the mothers using CM tend to err on the side of AP. I have never considered myself AP (though, as you said, I do like to wear my babies, hold them often, speak gently, etc.) and I have never considered myself Pearl/Ezzo (though I do believe in strong and firm discipline starting in the toddler years)--CM feels like something in between, like you said. She acknowledges the dignity of the child and encourages families to walk as pilgrims, adults and children together...but she also acknowledges that the child has a weak will that needs to be trained in virtue, and that it is the parents' responsibility to help the child to know what is right and exert the will to do it. I'm finding her suggestions more and more helpful as my children reach the age of reason.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the principle of training in what is right and how to use the will to do what is right that is wrong with ezzo/pearl, it is how they advocate it being done. Gentle Christian/ attached Christian parents also focus on training and using the will, only the methods they use are far more in line with cm. They guide gently because they respect the child as a person. Just as we would not hit our parents and friends if they were veering off of the right path, we also would not hit our children because they are people and deserve the same respect as all people. This is why ezzo/pearl is a far cry from cm... there is no place for the child as a person or respect of the child in those methods. As a gentle parent, we do train our children in what is right and the strengthening of the will, only we do it with respect for the child as a person at the forefront, per cm.
ReplyDelete