I always have trouble understanding the TCS philosophy. I can't tell the difference between that and consensual living. Or radical unschooling, for that matter.
Of the three, I've read the most about radical unschooling, and it's how I would like to raise my future kids. I don't currently know much about the practical applications of non-coercive parenting, but less coercion definitely makes sense. My own mother is easily one of the most lenient parents I know, but she'd pretty much impugn your character for wearing clothes with what she considered to be poor color coordination.
On the topic of food (and anything else under the umbrella of teaching the kids responsibility or good habits), I don't think it makes much sense that controlling your kid's food intake will make them more likely to grow up with good eating habits than explaining what good habits are, setting a good example, and then letting them have all the candy you have the capacity to give if that's what they decide on. If anything, the latter approach seems like it'd be more effective.
(Never mind that parental food control seems to be incredibly common, while every adult I know is fat.)
Part of the source of the objections is a religious thing. There's at least one branch of Christianity (I forget which) that teaches that children are born evil. They become good through habit as their parents coerce them into being good. And the Bible teaches you to use physical discipline on your kids. (Some proponents of gentle discipline argue this point, but I think they aren't looking at enough verses.) Racism and sexism are also built into religion, so if we can get over those (well, we've made progress), I have hope that we can get over ageism too.
But mostly I think a lot of the objection just stem from a horribly sick and twisted view of what adult life should be like. (I suppose this is also a religious thing?) You frequently see the "If these kids are used to getting their own way in EVERYthing, they'll soon be unpleasantly surprised by... college and adult life" thing in response to unschooling, where it looks especially absurd. The whole point of unschooling is that you don't have to force your kid through education because he will do everything he needs to do either because he wants to or because he wants the consequences that come with doing it, which is how any healthy person would handle adult life. You go to college, get a job, and do your housework either because you want to (e.g. curiosity, fun) or because you want the consequences of having done so (e.g. more career opportunities, money, a clean house), NOT because you need to fill a certain misery quota in your life and getting a job is an efficient way to do so. Argh.
Speaking of twisted views of adult life, my mom lets all the other adults in her like treat her the way the pro-coercion people think non-coerced kids will treat their parents. The idea behind non-coercive parenting is that the family can sit down and have a mature discussion about everyone's preferences and get creative to find a solution that makes everyone reasonably satisfied. But my mom can't do that with anybody, even other adults! She just lets most people steamroll right over her until the rare occasion where she finally feels justified to treat them badly. I don't like the way she treats my little brother and sister, but I believe it's the lesser of evils compared to what she'd be like if she tried to be a non-coercive parent. I wonder if a lot of people have that problem. I think I do to a smaller extent just because I find it easier to deal with small annoyances than to confront someone about it.
And any time you talk about a parenting philosophy, you have to explain it in excruciating detail, because people will fill in the blanks with their own philosophy, which creates something everyone would agree is pretty absurd. For example, if you just say you don't force your kid to clean his room, coercion advocates are going to imagine a scene like this happening in your home:
Parent: "Your room is messy. Clean it."
Kid: "I'll do it later."
Parent: "...It's now later. Clean your room."
Kid: "I don't feel like it."
Parent: "Clean your room OR ELSE!!!" (temper tantrum)
Kid: "No."
Parent: "Fine. BUT I'VE DONE SO MUCH FOR YOU WHY DON'T YOU APPRECIATE ME!?!?"
(The parent goes off and sulks like a child. Two nights later, there's a fire, and the kid dies because he tripped over a toy. The parents curse their leniency.)
Whereas I suppose it'd actually go something like this:
Parent: "Your room is messy to the point of being unsafe. Please clear a route to escape in an emergency.... Or I could do it for you, but I'm worried I might accidentally damage one of your toys pushing it out of the way."
(The kid picks an option and the escape route is secured. If there's a fire, he lives, and everyone is happy.)
But a big point of avoiding coercion is to just accept that your kid will sometimes choose differently than you would if you were making the choice for him and that's not necessarily a horrible, horrible thing. His room won't look like a picture in a bedroom furniture advertisement. He occassionally will eat cupcakes for dinner. He will have what you deem to be a ridiculous hairstyle. And that's okay.
|