Posts Tagged my “unrealistic” idealism

This post was originally written as a response to a question on a mailing list, hence the references to “your child”. Only my answer is presented here.

Although I hate it when others apply the label to me, I’ll secretly cop to being one of the biggest idealists around (I prefer the term, “ambitious realist”). When I buy into a philosophy like consensual parenting, I tend to want to do it whole-hog. I think that’s desirable even if, in reality, I don’t fully achieve to the standards of my ideals. “Shoot for the stars and hit the moon,” as they say. I guess what I’m saying is that I can really identify with your desire to apply consensuality to all of your interactions with your child.

As much of an idealist as I might be, I have found that there are times when I just don’t have any answers that are totally consistent with my ideals, or perhaps it would be better to say that I hold different values that seem to be in conflict, and I don’t want to or I don’t feel like I am able to take the time to find a solution that is consistent with all of my values. In those situations, I sometimes choose to compromise one value in favor of another. This sounds like it might be what’s going on with your child and the “eating out of the honey jar” situation. You have a set of values that is fulfilled by interacting consensually with your child. You have another set of values that is fulfilled by stopping him from eating out of the honey jar. When those two sets of values appear to be in conflict, one of them has a much stronger and more immediate emotional impact, which leads you to prioritize it over the other.

And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. None of us can be absolutely perfect in the moment, every time. Fortunately, human relationships usually have enough elasticity that, when we regret the way that we acted in the moment, we can usually take some time to think about the situation, maybe journal if that’s the kind of thing we’re into, maybe talk about it with a friend, etc… and then come back to the person with whom we had a situation and try for a better resolution.

Heck, I think that human relationships have enough elasticity that sometimes we can “get away with” not even trying for a better resolution–just saying, “I absolutely cannot stand it when you put your hands in the honey jar and I am completely uninterested in trying to find a consensual solution to that problem, and I hope that’s okay with you.” Well, you probably wouldn’t out-and-out say that to your toddler (what was he, 3.5 yrs?), but he’ll get the message loud and clear. It’s my perception that when a relationship has a built-up “bank balance” of good interactions (conensuality, love, respect, compassion), it can sustain a small amount of “bad interactions” without any real damage.

I think that this is just as true for children as it is for lovers, spouses, friends, and relatives. One of my partners is a nanny by profession, and I have been impressed by how little trouble her toddlers (from multiple families, over the years) give her when she tells them “no”. I can’t say for sure why this is, and I realize that interactions with nannies are different than interactions with parents, but I believe that one reason is that, as much as possible, she tells the kids “yes” and facilitates them doing what they want to do. This doesn’t mean that she’s “permissive,” just that she tries to take their desires seriously and to facilitate them when possible. I speculate that this builds up a “bank balance” of good interactions so that when she does choose to be coercive with the child, the child is willing to accept it and move on, instead of throwing a tantrum.

I guess what I’m saying is that it’s probably just fine if there is a particular thing that is just a hard line for you, as long as there aren’t too many of those things. Really, for most people, I think that there are probably relatively few things that are absolutely non-negotiable, “just-not-okay-with-me-ever.” In coercive parenting styles, the parent is expected to exert his or her will over the child as a form of discipline, so nearly everything is treated as non-negotiable; consensual parents don’t agree with that, but that doesn’t mean they’re required to be okay with every single thing their child wants to do. Parents are still people!

To get more directly to your question: “What if something is never going to be okay with you, but your child wants to do it?” One thought that I have is, “Could you find someone else to do it with them?” Of course, this only works if the thing goes against your personal desires, and not your more general perception of what is required for your child’s well-being. I, personally, am not interested in caving, but if, hypothetically speaking, my child wanted to go caving, perhaps I could find a trusted friend who would take him or her. On the other hand, if my (again hypothetically speaking) child wanted to try crack cocaine, I wouldn’t say, “Well, I’m not interested, but your aunt Sally does crack, maybe she can help you out!”

To apply this idea directly to the honey issue: If I were friends with you and your child and I were aware of the problem, I might say, “Well, I’ve got some honey in my cupboard. Next time I’m babysitting for you, is it okay if he plays with my honey?” On the other hand, the youtube question is probably a lot more like crack cocaine than it is like caving: it’s probably never okay with you, no matter who is supervising. In that case, perhaps you can eventually find a consensual solution, but in the moment, I think you just pull the plug and then rely on your “bank balance” of consensual interactions to sustain your relationship. At the same time, I think that you remain aware that each non-consensual interaction is a withdrawal from that “bank balance,” and that withdrawals are subject to heavy penalty, so you have to put in much more than you take out.

I was out walking Thistle, Troy’s dog, the other day. We passed a man who was bending down to spray weed killer on some plants that were growing up through the seam in his driveway. We greeted each other, and then he said, “I can’t get flowers to grow in my yard to save my life, but weeds grow in my driveway like crazy.”

“Maybe you should change your priorities,” I said. “I love weeds, and my yard is full of them—no effort at all!”

“I just wish I didn’t have to spray them all the time,” he said.

I answered, “You could always change your mind.”

You don’t have to spray your driveway for weeds. If you don’t like doing it, stop doing it. Have weeds. Every time you look out your window at your weeds, thrill to the thought of how much time you’re saving by letting them grow. Or don’t. It’s up to you.

Issa has explored this issue in this post on her blog:

How often do you say that you “have to” do something? You have to go to work. You have to pay the bills. You have to call your mother. You have to clean the house. We use this little phrase constantly. It’s such a tiny phrase, but it has great, big implications!

The message behind “have to” is that you don’t have a choice. The choice has already been made for you, and your actions are inevitable. What a sad dismissal of our ability to choose the direction of our own lives!

For each of our actions, we make choices about what we want and what we think will benefit us. You don’t have to clean the house. You may want to clean the house, so that the house will look the way you like. You choose to clean the house, in order to get what you want. Shifting our thoughts from have to into want to and choose to, can turn a previously cumbersome action into one of satisfaction. On one hand might be the drudgery of having to pay the bills. But a tiny shift in the language brings about the delight of choosing to have electricity. It’s a little thing, but the way we talk to ourselves matters in the way we think about ourselves and our situations.