# TCS Discussions 1



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Hi everyone!

As I explained in TCS on the Mothering Boards we would like all discussions about TCS, whether of theory or practice to be limited to this thread. So please do post any discussions or questions you have related to TCS or that you would like TCS advice about within this thread. If you would like clarification or have any questions you may contact me by PM or at [email protected] or PM Ms. Mom, our GD moderator.

Thanks so much for your understanding and help in this matter.

~Cynthia


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

[Thanks, Cynthia, for providing this forum for TCS].

****I do not think that [that children learn by conjecture and refutation] is what Elkind is theorizing . In fact, I would propose that Elkind would say that excessive conjecture and discussion of theories would be, for lack of a better phrase, way over most children's heads. *****

This may be a misunderstanding caused by confusing the terms "reasoning" and "rational." What you are saying, above, is that reasoning with a child (i.e. providing them with *your* explanation of the reasons why s/he should or should not do something) must be appropriate to the knowledge and experience of the child. I agree. A toddler, for example, would not understand the reasoning behind remaining restrained in a carseat for the sake of safety. Demonstrations may help, but it's probably better for the child if the parent is able to find a good reason--by the child's lights--for sitting in a carseat. Ultimately, TCS parents strive to help their children *want* and *enjoy* the things that are best for them. If a parent is quite certain that a child must be in a carseat when the car is moving--and I happen to be one of those parents--then s/he is responsible for helping that child *enjoy* doing this or else of finding an alternate mode of transportation that the child prefers. The child would still be learning by the process of conjecture and refuation. Let's say for example, that the child has a theory (conjecture) that the carseat is uncomfortable and so does not want to ride in it. S/he is basing hir decision on a prior theory which s/he has formed through hir prior experience with the carseat. Parent adds foam padding to the belts and a sheepskin on the seat. Child sits in the carseat and is comfortable. Aha! The child then revises hir theory that carseats are not comfortable (refutation), now adopting the altered theory that carseats can be comfortable. This is how we all learn, whether we are 1 minute or 100 years old. Learning *is* this process. Learning *is* rationality.

When I say that children--even infants from the day they are born--are rational, I am saying that they learn by conjecture and refuation of theories (and by "theory," I do not mean a complex system of thought but merely an agent of action or inaction, such as a desire, an idea, an impulse, etc). One does not need a "reasoned argument" to go through a rational conjecture and refuation of theories. Children learn language (which, btw, is a symbolic/abstract form of thinking) through this process. They learn to walk, to see, to roll over, etc. through this process.

****I bring up the topic of miseducation mostly because so many of the TCS suggestions in this forum revolve around a lot of explanations to the child about why they should do what we want them to do. Most of the suggestions are simply not age - appropriate. *****

Yes, many of the suggestions are merely ways of getting the parent to begin thinking 'outside the box' of conventional solutions to problems. Some TCS suggestions involve explanation and some do not. The solution must be right for *you* and *your child,* two individuals whom I do not know and would never claim to know.

I think that many who disagree with TCS theory may do so based on a misunderstanding of what TCS advocates are, in fact, advocating. When I suggest possible solutions to problems, for example, I am not advocating *one* or really *any* of the solutions I offer, per se. I am advocating *non-coercion,* and striving to offer some examples of how situations may be dealt with non-coercively. Many, for example, think that all TCS parents love television and video games because they defend a child's right to have them. I happen to dislike both. I never watch television and I never play video games. *For me* they are a waste of time. I have *my own* reasons for not liking television and video games. But that does not give me the right to decide--for another person (and children are people, right?)--that television and video games are wrong or bad. Obviously, if my child is enjoying the television or the video game, they do not share the same theory as I do. I can, of course, share my theory with them. If I am really concerned that they are doing these things out of boredom, I can seek more interesting things for them to do. But I have no right to coerce someone into acting in accordance with my ideas. As my child's advocate and trusted advisor, my responsibility is to help hir act in accordance with *hir own* ideas. S/he will no doubt alter those theories with time, knowledge, and experience. But s/he will not be able to alter those theories rationally if s/he is subjected to ongoing coercion. If I am so sure that my theory is right, then I should feel assured that any rational person would adopt it. But then I also have to realize that I am *not* that other person and that I am a*fallible* human being. My ideas may not be right, and they may not be right for someone else.

For some interesting reading on rationality in infants, I recommend T.G.R. Bower's "The Rational Infant."

Netty


----------



## laelsweet (Dec 6, 2001)

thanks netty, that made a lot of terms clearer for me

i have a situation:
a parent and toddler head out for a walk in the rain, wearing waterproof gear. child gestures an interest in going down to the beach and so they do so. child eats the sand, parent talks about why parent doesn't eat sand. child steps into the ocean. parent suggested touching the water with bare fingers to feel its temperature, voices theories about how 'waterproof' child's clothing is, observes that no other clothing is available for the walk home, that it is january and while not very cold out, what can happen sometimes when one gets one's feet wet. child continues walking into the water and parent struggles with conflicting theories about safety/health of getting wet in wintertime, freedom to explore, etc. ideas?


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

****thanks netty, that made a lot of terms clearer for me ***

Glad I could help 

**** i have a situation:
a parent and toddler head out for a walk in the rain, wearing waterproof gear. child gestures an interest in going down to the beach and so they do so. child eats the sand, parent talks about why parent doesn't eat sand. ****

Sharing one's own theories is always helpful (no matter the child's age), but if the child is young it may help to suggest other things that s/he may do with the sand (throw it, build hills, run it through fingers, etc.). IME, telling children what *not* to do puts them in a state of coercion, but telling/showing children fun things they *can* do keeps them out of coercive states of mind ;-). If child really seems determined to eat the sand, the parent could be careful to examine it first (perhap create an "edible" pile of sand) to ensure that s/he is eating *only* sand.

****child steps into the ocean. parent suggested touching the water with bare fingers to feel its temperature, voices theories about how 'waterproof' child's clothing is, observes that no other clothing is available for the walk home, that it is january and while not very cold out, what can happen sometimes when one gets one's feet wet. child continues walking into the water and parent struggles with conflicting theories about safety/health of getting wet in wintertime, freedom to explore, etc. ideas?****

This is a tough situation. I think the idea of offering other options is a good one, and voicing theories is good as well. Let the child have as much information as possible for making hir decision. Again, I find distraction a good alternative if a child is very young. Something completely different can change a child's frame of mind and hir desires: start clowning around to entertain hir, tickle hir, play chase, etc.. Parent could also calculate the risks of helping the child do what s/he wants to do. How far is it home? Could the child be hurried home if s/he gets cold? The fact that it is raining suggests that it is not freezing weather. Could parent wrap child in parent's coat? Could parent suggest going home to play in water there or finding some other water games? If child insists on going in the water, help hir do so carefully. Perhaps remove hir shoes so s/he gets a real sense of the temperature (it can take time for the cold to seep through layers of clothers such as socks and shoes).

I find it helpful not to think, "Oh no, how can I stop hir from doing that?" but rather, "Hmmm. How can I help hir do that safely?" and then go from there. Finally, if parent can't think of any alternatives that the child prefers and ends up coercing hir (based on parents theories about cold water and sickness), then it would be important for the parent to apologize and make it clear that s/he is sorry s/he couldn't think of a way to help the child. But hopefully it wouldn't come to that.

Hope that helps,

Netty


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

So surprised to find this thread!

Before the boards went down we were having a TCS discussion, I think in the Parenting Issues forum. I had been looking forward to continuing it when the boards came back but never saw the thread there again. Now I discover, the GD board has been all about TCS discussion for months







:

Had no idea it was going on here! What the heck did I miss???

Heartmama


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

heartmama,

See:

A place for TCS

TCS on the Mothering Boards

and:

TCS Discussion Threads - Archived

Pat


----------



## laelsweet (Dec 6, 2001)

i have a question which might fit better in parenting issues, if so let me know and i'll move it, but since the tcs thread is here...

in searching for common preferences with other family members, what are some ways of speaking and working through conflict verbally, which have been successful for people? i wonder if people run up against years of winning and losing power struggles (rather than having found solutions that make everyone happy), and find that old habits, reactions, ways of speaking, are difficult to overcome? this is my experience. simultaneously, the revelation of an underlying lack of trust (fear of being coerced) and while each common preference found does build trust, nonetheless some communication tools would be helpful in showing that people sincerely wish to find common ground (are trustworthy).

to begin with, attempting to say " i want ____."

ideas?


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

laelsweet, about the beach situation... I think you are right about considering theories about wet feet in the winter and so on. I've heard theories about 'going out with wet hair' in the winter and about getting wet clothes and feet and getting really cold and that it can lead to getting sick. I have found that, for myself, I can go out with a wet head and end up getting really cold, but I can get warm again and suffer no ill effects. Same with, say, going out in the snow to play. No matter how well bundled I was/am, I end up with snow getting into places and melting and getting wet and cold. At times in history and some places, it might not be possible to get warm and dry after getting chilled, and the continued depletion of bodily resources- especially if a person is not well nourished and supporting a strong immune system- could lead to life-threatening illness. Or a person who is already fighting an infection might make it worse by getting a severe chill. But for a healthy kid to play and get wet and then be able to get warm again, I don't see a danger. YMMV

We spend a fair amount of time playing on beaches, at all times of the year. When it's cold in the winter, big rubber boots come in handy, though they are not necessarily foolproof. I have found that my expectations that kids will stay out of the water are completely unrealistic, when it comes to beaches, so I always assume that wet and sandy are the order of the day, and take along towels, blankets, extra clothes (if appropriate) or suggest swimsuits under clothes (in warmer weather). Beaches are such wonderful places to play







Every time I have gone, thinking 'this is going to be a quick trip', it ends up not being so and that's ok because there are a lot of wonderful things to do and see there, let alone the moment's revery for me as the kids are happily occupied beside the energy of the moving water.

Eating sand... I am fascinated with the fact that little kids want to eat the sand/dirt/leaves- but I suppose it should not be suprising, as they are trying out everything. I always want to ask them, do you like the way it tastes? Do you like the grit between your teeth? Well, and passing on the knowledge of Frank Zappa, 'watch out where the huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow', extrapolated to whatever medium child is eating. After trying it a time or two, I wonder that a kid would continue to prefer to eat sand. And if they are absolutely enamored with the texture, say, 'dirt' brought from home (crunched up chocolate cookie crumbs) or similarly manufactured 'sand' (crunched up graham crackers) maybe complete with a couple of gummie worms in it, might be a preferable consumable. Especially if child likes to use the rolling pin to make the 'sand' in the first place









Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by laelsweet_
*i have a question which might fit better in parenting issues, if so let me know and i'll move it, but since the tcs thread is here...

in searching for common preferences with other family members, what are some ways of speaking and working through conflict verbally, which have been successful for people? i wonder if people run up against years of winning and losing power struggles (rather than having found solutions that make everyone happy), and find that old habits, reactions, ways of speaking, are difficult to overcome? this is my experience. simultaneously, the revelation of an underlying lack of trust (fear of being coerced) and while each common preference found does build trust, nonetheless some communication tools would be helpful in showing that people sincerely wish to find common ground (are trustworthy).

to begin with, attempting to say " i want ____."

ideas?*
Breaking the cycle of coercion *IS* a long and trying process. I have been working on it for many, many years and I still fail and am learning constantly about it. I know this doesn't sound encouraging, but it can take literally years before true trust is regained.

Some things that helped me was to explain my new theory about the harms of coercion to all family members and what it is I am trying to strive for. I acknowledged and apologized for past coercion, which was an amazing cleansing process unto itself. I acknowledged that it is sometimes very difficult for me to recognize what is coercive because of the coercion in my past. And children are amazing barometers of coercion and have given me incredible insights about coercion that have applied to all relationships in my life.

However, even with this all said and done, it is not that simple. Children will be rightly skeptical. There have probably been similar attempts before that were really attempts at...for lack of a better term...Gentle Discipline, rather than attempts at throwing out the concept of discipline entirely. They are going to test the waters of your attempts at non-coercion to see if it really is for real, as I hope they would. I hope they use that amazing rational mind of theirs to determine for themselves whether or not I *really* mean it when I say that I will not make them do anything against their will.

And a big problem with non-coercive parenting (aka TCS), is that it is either all or none. You can not be partly non-coercive, any more than you can be partly pregnant. You either are coercive or you are non-coercive.

I have always liked the analogy of the Doctor/Patient relationship to the Parent/Child relationship with regard to coercion.

The kind of doctor that I want is a doctor who is my trusted advisor. They have more knowledge than I in the area of their expertise, but I have more knowledge about myself. I want a doctor that will inform me about my condition to the best of their knowledge and then let me decide. If my decision is counter to the doctor's advice, I might or I might not want to share my additional knowledge about myself with them to see if common preference can be found. It is not only my decision about what to do about my condition, it is also my decision to decide how much about myself I want to share with the doctor.

Imagine having to use a doctor that *in certain cases* will force a medical procedure upon you no matter what your decision is. Of course, they only do this under certain "non-negotiables", what *they* perceive is clearly a life threatening situation. They will force this procedure upon you, even if you decide to share with them all of your knowledge about yourself in an attempt to explain your line of reasoning.

Now image that this doctor gives you advice about some minor condition and since this situation is clearly non-life threatening, they "allow" you to make the final decision. Well, I know what I would do, I would purposely choose the opposite of whatever that doctor suggested, even if I thought it was the correct choice, just to show them that they can be wrong!

Some things to contemplate, I hope this is more encouraging than discouraging.

Pat


----------



## k'smami (Nov 20, 2001)

Wheat germ and oat bran might be helpful sand substitutes too.


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Cassidy wrote the following excellent post in the "dilemma (long)" thread:

Quote:

Icicle Spider, I don't want to discount your opinions without understanding how they fit into an overall parenting philosophy, but I see a difference between forcing/coerceing a child to do something against his/her will and wanting a child to learn/understand that he/she is part of something bigger (a family and a society) that includes other people with their own wants, desires, and expectations.
I admit that my suggestions taken out of context of an overall parenting philosophy sound exactly like permissive parenting, which I think is usually worse than authoritative parenting.

I also want the same for my children and it is possible for them to learn this without it being literally forced upon them within the family relationship.

Quote:

In friendships, we have the luxury of selecting the others, in families we don't. Either way, we have certain responsibilities to these others simply by virtue of being in relationship with them. I think I would be remiss in honoring my responsibilities as a parent if I were to allow my children to think it is okto do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, regardless of the consequences.
I agree most emphatically with this statement, but with a slight modification. I would say: "I think I would be remiss in honoring my responsibilities as a parent if I were to allow my children to think *that I think* it is ok to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, regardless of the consequences."

But I would still allow them to do it. If I were to force them to do something, I would be contradicting this very statement above. I would be doing whatever I want, to whomever I want, regardless of the consequences.

If there really are true consequences of whatever it is they are doing (and I keep reading that most people here think consequences are a good learning tool), they *will* learn from those consequences.

I think my responsibilities as a parent are to make sure that they are aware of my understanding of what the consequences really might be, but to then allow them to make their own decision on how to proceed. This is different from permissive parenting in that the parent is very involved with the child in sharing their theories about how the world works and their morals, but still "allows" the child to "do what they want".

Quote:

What I really want is what Iguanavere mentioned: for my daughter (all of my children, actually) do want to do the right thing without being coerced, reprimanded, rewarded, or punished; to want to do the good because it is the good.
So do I, but defining what is "good" has been a tough one for me. Be clear, I do think that there is such a thing as morality and that there is such a thing as "good" and "bad", but it is not a simple question. I have had a hard time coming up with what is a true, core attribute of "good", but I have determined what I think is a core attribute of "bad". So currently, what I define as what is "good" is simply what is not "bad".

What I think is "bad" is to force an individual to do something against their will, also known as coercion. So then, my best definition of what is "good" is non-coercion, or maybe to make it sound positive, voluntary cooperation (alright, this is redundant).

Attachment Parents know this is true for infants. As adults we know this is true for ourselves. I also think this is true for *all* people in between.

Quote:

How do we help our children to harness their will so that they may use it productively?
You must be very careful about examining your own "entrenched theories" about what is and is not "productive". What looks productive to one person looks like wasting time to another and vice-a-versa. This is really for an individual to decide for themselves. One of the better examples of this for me is the activity of fishing. A total waste of time to some, a life-long passion for others.

I would phrase the above to: "How do we help our children to harness their will so that they may use it to get what they want?"

Quote:

Not always for what we, as parents desire, but for what they truly want -not just as a reaction to our rules or requests? Compromise can be reached only when we let go of thinking that what we want at the moment is the only thing that will make us happy; we need to consider what someone else wants/needs as well. If everyone is happy enough with the compromise and the relationship is stronger, have you really been forced to do/accept something against your will?
I agree with the premise of this but with some clarification. First off, I do not like the term "compromise", a compromise to me is when nobody gets what they want. I prefer finding "common preferences", which is when everybody gets what they want. A common preference is when all parties involved share what they want, and after learning about what the other wants, change their preference in light of this new information. They do not "compromise", they truly change their preference in light of the new information. This really becomes what everybody now *wants*.

It is not easy at first to find these common preferences, it takes a lot of work and is a *more* involved parenting philosophy than using discipline. Also, a true common preference can only be found when everyone involved in the process knows in advanced that they will not be coerced.

I have just briefly touched on the subject of finding common preferences here, but it is one of the main differentiations of TCS from permissive parenting.

Quote:

We all know adults who are never happy because they don't appreciate what they have. They see only what the are missing and what they have given up--never what others have compromised for them.
Guilt trip alert!

Why should somebody appreciate something that somebody else did for them that they did not even ask them to do? Who ever did the compromising has the problem, not the other way around. The compromiser sounds like the unhappy one who is focused on "what they have given up".

*DO NOT COMPROMISE, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO WHAT YOU WANT!!!*

And I don't mean material wants, I am assuming your wants are more sophisticated than that.

Quote:

They drive others away by insisting on all-or-nothing. They are unhappy because they choose to be miserable. I don't want this for my daughter, but I'm afraid that's how she will end up if she doesn't come to terms with the fact that there are other people in the world who have their own issues. That doesn't make her any less important to herself, but she will not always be the first priority of everyone else.
It is impossible to live with other people in a family and not learn this from the true natural consequences of being in that group of people, it does not require coercion.

What she needs to see is people striving to get not only what they want, but people helping other people get they want.

Pat


----------



## amnesiac (Dec 28, 2001)

Quote:

...suggestions taken out of context of an overall parenting philosophy sound exactly like permissive parenting, which I think is usually worse than authoritative parenting.
As I'm not that familiar with the precice confines of TCS philosophy, how exactly is it that TCS is authoritative as opposed to permissive? I understand that there is no exact definition of "TCS", so is it a fair statement that some parents practicing what they perceive as TCS are indeed permissive while others may or may not be more authoritative?

Quote:

I think I would be remiss in honoring my responsibilities as a parent if I were to allow my children to think *that I think* it is ok to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, regardless of the consequences.
But I would still allow them to do it. If I were to force them to do something, I would be contradicting this very statement above.
Does this still hold true even if their actions are coercive or otherwise harmful to others?

Quote:

wanting a child to learn/understand that he/she is part of something bigger (a family and a society) that includes other people with their own wants, desires, and expectations.

I also want the same for my children and it is possible for them to learn this without it being literally forced upon them within the family relationship.
I disagree. I feel that the family is the primary setting for learning such skills--a training ground of sorts for learning to interact positively with others.

Quote:

Attachment Parents know this is true for infants. As adults we know this is true for ourselves. I also think this is true for *all* people in between.
As we have discussed before, this calls for an assumption of what all people perceive to be true or coercive or good. Clearly one cannot make such generalizations regarding other individuals' thoughts & feelings.

Quote:

I would phrase the above to: "How do we help our children to harness their will so that they may use it to get what they want?"
And I would add a modifying clause: "...so long as it is not harmful to themselves or others."

Quote:

Why should somebody appreciate something that somebody else did for them that they did not even ask them to do? Who ever did the compromising has the problem, not the other way around.
I believe that we should all appreciate all of the blessings in our lives, including the kindness & generosity of others. Rather than placing blame on others in their defense, I would be very saddened if any of my children failed to appreciate such blessings in life.

Quote:

It is impossible to live with other people in a family and not learn this from the true natural consequences of being in that group of people, it does not require coercion.
Although what some people perceive as "natural consequences" others may perceive as "coercion."


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by amnesiac_
As I'm not that familiar with the precice confines of TCS philosophy, how exactly is it that TCS is authoritative as opposed to permissive?
Oops, I didn't mean to imply TCS as being authorative, I meant to imply that as bad as I think authorative parenting is, permissive parenting is usually worse!

Quote:

I understand that there is no exact definition of "TCS", so is it a fair statement that some parents practicing what they perceive as TCS are indeed permissive while others may or may not be more authoritative?
While there is not a *precise* definition of TCS, there are certain attributes of TCS, which if those attributes are not present in the parenting style, they are not TCS.

The most distinctive attribute of TCS is non-coercive parenting. A parent encourages a child to do what *they, the child* think is best and never forces them to do anything against their will.

Quote:

Does this still hold true even if their actions are coercive or otherwise harmful to others?
This all depends on the situation at hand. I can think of cases where this is will be the case and others where it will not be the case.

If the other person involved was a complete stranger, and the option was either my child will be coerced, or the stranger will be coerced, and the level of coercion is essentially equal, then I will probably be on my child's side.

Pat


----------



## amnesiac (Dec 28, 2001)

I'm not really knowledgable of all of the labelling options, so if it isn't either permissive or authoritative, then what is it?

Quote:

The most distinctive attribute of TCS is non-coercive parenting.
The website says that TCS advocates, but is not characterized by the absence of coercion. So I repeat the question, I understand that there is no exact definition of "TCS", so is it a fair statement that some parents practicing what they perceive as TCS are indeed permissive while others may or may not be more authoritative?


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

I just reread your post and have clarified some statements.

Quote:

_Originally posted by amnesiac_
I'm not really knowledgable of all of the labelling options, so if it isn't either permissive or authoritative, then what is it?
While I am also not familar with all the labels, the closest label that I am aware of is "non-coercive".

Quote:

The website says that TCS advocates, but is not characterized by the absence of coercion. So I repeat the question, I understand that there is no exact definition of "TCS", so is it a fair statement that some parents practicing what they perceive as TCS are indeed permissive while others may or may not be more authoritative?
I am really not following you here.

I could not find the reference you mention above in the TCS site, but I do remember a similar statement somewhere that I believe said that TCS is not *uniquely* characterized by the absence of coercion.

Are you asking that if somebody practicing what *they* perceive or what they *claim* is TCS are indeed permissive while others may or may not be more authoritative, whether or not what they are actually are practicing really *is* TCS?

Pat


----------



## amnesiac (Dec 28, 2001)

I suppose I find myself going in circles in attempting to understand the details of TCS philosopy.
This page explains that "TCS is part of the rationalist tradition, holding that it possible for human beings, through conjecture, reason and criticism, to come to know (tentatively) and understand truths about the world. TCS is also part of the fallibilist tradition, holding that human beings make mistakes, and that fallibility has important implications for parenting and education. " I don't see anything about coercion or the lack thereof in any of that at all.

The portion about how TCS is different from other parenting styles states that "TCS advocates, but is not defined by, the absence of coercion. " but later says "TCS is characterised by a style of decision making that bypasses coercion in favour of finding common preferences (unanimous consent). With the TCS approach, children spend their childhoods without anyone making them do things against their will or anyone doing things to them against their will. " which sounds an awful lot like TCS is precicely defined by the absence of coercion.

I also see that it explains that ""Permissive parenting" is often associated with "neglect" and may sometimes be carried out in a way that really is neglectful , TCS is the opposite of neglect! "
This again calls for an assumption regarding what one perceives as neglect.
This seems to me to indicate that when parent A is practicing what they define as "TCS", parent B may perceive it as both permissive & neglectful. Meanwhile, parent B is practicing what they perceive as "TCS", and parent A sees it as authoritative.
http://www.tcs.ac/FAQ/FAQTheory.html

Given the TCS position that "there can be no official definition of what it means to take children seriously,"
( http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs/FAQ/FAQAbout.html )

it seems to me to be a fair statement that sometimes TCS may indeed be either permissive or authoritative.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I'm not that familiar with the precice confines of TCS philosophy, how exactly is it that TCS is authoritative as opposed to permissive?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's neither. TCS cannot be "permissive" because TCS parents do not feel they have a right to "allow" or "forbid" anything. It is not our place to grant "permission" to our children, just as it is not our place to grant "permission" to a spouse. It would be like saying that someone is in a "permissive" marriage. Of course, one may ask a spouse if s/he would be bothered by some action or other (and even base the decision on hir reasoning), but to ask "permission" would be considered ridiculous. The very idea of a relationship between two autonomous individuals being "permissive" or "authoritative" simply doesn't apply in a relationship of equals. An "authoritative" relationship is one is which one person is considered "superior" in some way to the other and, therefore, has the right to impose hir will on those within hir control. While parents certainly have more knowledge and experience than children, it's wrong to use this as a reason for coercion. Just as a doctor has more medical knowledge, parents often have more experiential knowledge. But just as a doctor should coerce a patient into accepting his advice, a parent should not coerce a child either. And just as a patient must gain trust in hir doctor's expertise, a child must gain trust in hir parent(s) expertise. And, of course, we must remember that both doctors and parents can be wrong. Just because someone may be an "authority" in a certain area of knowledge, it does not grant them the right to coerce others into acting in accordance with it.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that there is no exact definition of "TCS", so is it a fair statement that some parents practicing what they perceive as TCS are indeed permissive while others may or may not be more authoritative?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, certainly there are probably parents out there who claim to be TCS who are clearly *not* TCS at all. This often comes from a misunderstanding of TCS. This is why having a supportive TCS community is so important for those who are striving to be a TCS family.

original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I would be remiss in honoring my responsibilities as a parent if I were to allow my children to think *that I think* it is ok to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, regardless of the consequences.
But I would still allow them to do it. If I were to force them to do something, I would be contradicting this very statement above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

response:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this still hold true even if their actions are coercive or otherwise harmful to others?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would strive to help my child do what is best for hir. If harming someone else were the best solution, then I would support hir in it. If not, I would strive to find an alternative solution. Personally, I don't like coercing anyone in my life. But if someone were to try to grab my purse, I would not hand it to hir in an effort to be non-coercive. One can usually only find common preferences with those who are willing to enter into the process of doing so. And one only has a responsibility to do this with one's children.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I feel that the family is the primary setting for learning such skills--a training ground of sorts for learning to interact positively with others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you. I believe it is wrong to force people to do things against their will. I know that I do not like being forced to do things against my will. For this reason, I always strive to find/create common preferences within my family and in my other significant relationships. I live according to my beliefs. I hope my children will do the same.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have discussed before, this calls for an assumption of what all people perceive to be true or coercive or good. Clearly one cannot make such generalizations regarding other individuals' thoughts & feelings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precisely. I include children in the category of "other individuals' thoughts & feelings."

original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would phrase the above to: "How do we help our children to harness their will so that they may use it to get what they want?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

response:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I would add a modifying clause: "...so long as it is not harmful to themselves or others."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precisely again ...This can only be the case when one acts according to common preferences.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that we should all appreciate all of the blessings in our lives, including the kindness & generosity of others. Rather than placing blame on others in their defense, I would be very saddened if any of my children failed to appreciate such blessings in life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it is wrong for people to give praise and encouragement to others (especially those whom they claim to love) for choosing self-sacrifice over common preferences. I don't want my loved ones to sacrifice for me and I would never ask or expect them to. Despite the entrenched theories we are all raised (coercively) to believe and accept, I have come to see that self-sacrifice is seldom an act of genuine love.

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although what some people perceive as "natural consequences" others may perceive as "coercion."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If something cannot be avoided or controlled or altered, it is a natural consequence.

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The website says that TCS advocates, but is not characterized by the absence of coercion. So I repeat the question, I understand that there is no exact definition of "TCS", so is it a fair statement that some parents practicing what they perceive as TCS are indeed permissive while others may or may not be more authoritative?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TCS is not characterized by the absence of coercion because "permissive" and/or "neglectful" parents may not be actively coercing their children and yet are certainly not TCS. They may either be ignoring their children or self-sacrificing their own desires for the sake of their children's. Again, neither of these are TCS. TCS is concerned with taking children seriously by finding/creating common preferences with them rather than resorting to coercion or self-sacrifice.

Netty


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by amnesiac_
I suppose I find myself going in circles in attempting to understand the details of TCS philosopy.
This page explains that "TCS is part of the rationalist tradition, holding that it possible for human beings, through conjecture, reason and criticism, to come to know (tentatively) and understand truths about the world. TCS is also part of the fallibilist tradition, holding that human beings make mistakes, and that fallibility has important implications for parenting and education. " I don't see anything about coercion or the lack thereof in any of that at all.
Correct, because TCS is more than *just* non-coercion.

Quote:

The portion about how TCS is different from other parenting styles states that "TCS advocates, but is not defined by, the absence of coercion. " but later says "TCS is characterised by a style of decision making that bypasses coercion in favour of finding common preferences (unanimous consent). With the TCS approach, children spend their childhoods without anyone making them do things against their will or anyone doing things to them against their will. " which sounds an awful lot like TCS is precicely defined by the absence of coercion.
Again correct, one of the *precise* characteristics of TCS is the absence of coercion. Your first quote from the TCS site above is confusing and should read "TCS advocates, but is not uniquely defined by, the absence of coercion.".

Quote:

I also see that it explains that ""Permissive parenting" is often associated with "neglect" and may sometimes be carried out in a way that really is neglectful , TCS is the opposite of neglect! "
This again calls for an assumption regarding what one perceives as neglect.
This seems to me to indicate that when parent A is practicing what they define as "TCS", parent B may perceive it as both permissive & neglectful. Meanwhile, parent B is practicing what they perceive as "TCS", and parent A sees it as authoritative.
It is not TCS if it is coercive and it is not TCS if the parent is not actively involved with their children trying to help them get what they want. It is not TCS if conflicts are not being solved through a process of finding common preferences.

Quote:

Given the TCS position that "there can be no official definition of what it means to take children seriously,"
( http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs/FAQ/FAQAbout.html )

it seems to me to be a fair statement that sometimes TCS may indeed be either permissive or authoritative.
This quote is in response to the following question:

"Who is the "keeper" of the "TCS philosophy"? That is, if it is to evolve, who decides whether an evolved version is still TCS or not?"

and was answered by Sarah Lawrence with:

"I own the TCS list and the journal. But there can be no official definition of what it means to take children seriously, just as there can be no official definition of what it means to be a Conservative, a Liberal or a Socialist. No one "owns" such labels. Various thinkers and writers, who want to apply such labels to themselves, simply have to enter the fray in the field of ideas and try to persuade others that their version is true.
So to answer the question directly, "who is to decide whether an evolved version is still TCS or not?", the answer is no one. Or anyone who wants to."

So your quote above is not saying that *anything* can be TCS, but that anyone has the right to call something evolved from the current TCS, TCS. Whether or not anybody else goes along with this new version of TCS is for the public to decide.

Pat


----------



## amnesiac (Dec 28, 2001)

Quote:

TCS cannot be "permissive" because TCS parents do not feel they have a right to "allow" or "forbid" anything. It is not our place to grant "permission" to our children
So in keeping with the Merriam-Webster definition of "permissive" as "being deficient of control" doesn't that indicate a parenting style involving the absence of parental control over a child? Seems TCS is exactly permissive following that definition.

Quote:

certainly there are probably parents out there who claim to be TCS who are clearly *not* TCS at all.
And although it is stated on the TCS website that there can be no precise definition of what TCS is & no one has the right to determine whether new versions of TCS are indeed still TCS, who is the judge of what is *not* TCS at all? It seems that it can be interpreted quite differently from one individual to the next.

Quote:

I include children in the category of "other individuals' thoughts & feelings."
As do I.

Quote:

This can only be the case when one acts according to common preferences.
Suppose a child is not willing to find a common preference? According to what I read on the TCS website, in such a case the parent should give in to whatever the child wants. I'm sorry, but if it involved harm to the child or someone else, I would insist on coercion of the child.

Quote:

I think it is wrong for people to give praise and encouragement to others (especially those whom they claim to love) for choosing self-sacrifice over common preferences.
I am certainly not an advocate of self-sacrifice, however I am an advocate of appreciation of kindness & generosity. I am also an advocate of communicating one's emotions.

Quote:

TCS is more than *just* non-coercion.
You've listed lots of things it is not. What all is it?

Quote:

your quote above is not saying that *anything* can be TCS
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, that's exactly what it seems to be saying to me.


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by amnesiac_
*I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, that's exactly what it seems to be saying to me.







*
It is saying that anything can call itself "Taking Children Seriously". In fact, here is a web site that does just that. If you want to create a web site full of ideas and call it Taking Children Seriously, that is entirely within your rights.

What we are currently discussing however, is the version of Taking Children Seriously as described at www.tcs.ac.

Still not clear?
Pat


----------



## amnesiac (Dec 28, 2001)

Like I said, we just interpret the info presented at that site a bit differently that's all. It's perfectly fine to have different ideas about things. After all, we can't be certain that either of us is right in keeping with TCS philosophy!









I understood the second site you posted to be a research study & not a parenting philosophy, so I'm not sure I follow your intent.


----------



## k'smami (Nov 20, 2001)

To say something is "deficient" in something, implies that there should be more of it. TCS people may not consider TCS to be permissive because according to the definition, it implies that TCS is lacking (to a fault) firmness or control but I think that TCS people simply see it as "without control" instead of "deficient of control". Sure those that do believe in using firmness or control will probably see TCS as permissive but I wouldn't. But, I guess my post is really about semantics.


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by amnesiac_
*After all, we can't be certain that either of us is right in keeping with TCS philosophy!







*
Well, we can't be certain about anything.

But so far, I have yet to find any criticism that *I* think is valid of TCS as presented here www.tcs.ac.

I have noted your criticism about *this* specific point of the information presented there, the fact that TCS does not claim any right to prevent anybody else from claiming their version of TCS is the correct one.

However, I still agree with this TCS's statement about allowing others to claim they have the correct TCS. It would be coercive otherwise.

For your and anyone's else clarification, if you see me mention TCS, I am talking about this version.

If you have an alternative version, or know of an alternative version, I would really like to hear about it. In particular, I am interested in how it differs from this one.

Thanks!
Pat


----------



## amnesiac (Dec 28, 2001)

Quote:

But, I guess my post is really about semantics
LOL! I find myself thinking this very thing a lot when I'm reading about TCS!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

amnesiac so far I agree with just about everything you have said with regard to TCS and it's definitions.

I don't have much to add as you have done a very thorough job in your responding, and I have enjoyed reading it.

We had a great TCS discussion going before the boards went down. Unfortunately, it seems to be lost. For myself, I discovered that by defining TCS according to what it isn't, the results are pretty much what you describe. A TCS parent response could be both permissive, authoritarian, coercive, or non coercive, yet the parent will still find a way to view it as holding to TCS theory.

The highly elusive semantics you have discovered regarding the definition of TCS are certainly one of the greatest challenges when trying to discuss/debate this with someone.

Heartmama


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

JW,

I read your post carefully and I think it is amazing how devoted your are to your son and how lucky he is that his mother has such extensive medical knowledge. I'm not convinced that it contradicts my orignal statement that:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want my loved ones to sacrifice for me and I would never ask or expect them to. Despite the entrenched theories we are all raised (coercively) to believe and accept, I have come to see that self-sacrifice is seldom an act of genuine love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think that you self-sacrificed for your son, unless you resented doing what you did or feel that you shouldn't have had to do what you did for your son. You also may have self-sacrificed if you now expect your son to pay you back in some way for what you did (by being grateful, behaving better, etc.). If you acted out of genuine love for your child (as it seems to me you certainly did), you did not coerce yourself: you *chose* to do what you did despite the "costs" to yourself because you felt that those "costs" were well worth it for the desired results. That is an act of genuine love.

In the original message, the discussion centred on compromise vs. common preferences and the idea that a compromise usually involves one or both parties having to "give in" or "give up" some part of their preference. A common preference, on the other hand, is a solution that all parties are completely happy with. Some parents argue that compromise is a good thing which they strive to "teach" their children to do by forcing them to "give in" or "give up" a little). The ubiquitous "sharing" idea which is foisted on children is a good example of this. TCS parents do not agree that this is a good thing to learn. Far better, we think, is it for children and parents to learn how to find/create solutions where no one has to give up anything. If someone volunteers to "give up" something because it makes sense for them to do so (without any outside coercion), then there is no self-sacrifice. For example, if my child is playing with a friend and the friend asks to play with hir favourite toy, my child knows that s/he can say "no" with just cause and I will support hir in whatever way I can. But if s/he chooses to say "yes," because it makes sense to her to do so (i.e. she *wants* to), then s/he is not in a state of coercion (through self-sacrifice). *Giving* is not self-sacrifice. *Giving in*(against one's will) always involves some degree of self-coercion. It may be a subtle difference, but I think it is an extremely important one.

Netty


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

amnesiac wrote:
_________________________________________________
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, that's exactly what it seems to be saying to me.
__________________________________________________

Can you be specific concerning what you disagree with?

Thanks,
Netty


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Netty, I read Just Wondering's post and your reply, and I disagree with the point you made.

you said: "I don't think that you self-sacrificed for your son, unless you resented doing what you did or feel that you shouldn't have had to do what you did for your son. "

Also, You went on to say that what she did was actually an act of genuine love.

I would bet that JW did what she did because she loved her son, and had more than a few moments of resentment at him and the situation along the way, because after all, it was a ROTTEN situation to be in, and it is perfectly human to feel both devoted and frustrated to doing the right thing.

She certainly did sacrafice of herself for her son, I mean, good lord Netty, that ordeal likely took years off her life! It certainly *was* a sacrafice, it was the right thing to do, and no doubt the only reason she was willing to sacrafice was *because* she loves him so.

To call it an "act of love" meaning it was without resentment just makes me laugh. As if an act of love has no room for resentment or frustration.

It does, trust me. As the parent of a child who has logged countless hours hospitalized for a serious birth defect, I can *Assure* you that long scary days spent by the side of a sick child you love more than anyone are filled with nights of fear, anxiety, and even resentment. But you still get up and love and stay with that child the next morning (while your tired who sat up all night turns in for his break).

Sometimes parenting is a sacrafice, and an act of love, all at once.

Heartmama


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

Just Wondering wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....it comes down to how someone sees the meaning of the word "sacrifice".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. That's why I clarified what I meant by that word (and how, to my understanding, TCS theory uses the term). If you mean something different when you use the word "self-sacrifice," then I'm interested in hearing your definition of the word. And by working together, we might come to an agreement about how to use this term. But the "word" doesn't matter so much *as what we define it as meaning* when we are discussing it. So, I think it is wrong for one to do something for someone else that one does not want to do or feels coerced into doing. I use the term "self-sacrifice" or "self-coercion" for any action or inaction which one undertakes against one's will or judgment for the sake of someone else.

Netty


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Since TCS's most distinctive feature is that of non-coercion in education and family relationships, maybe disussing coercion and non-coercion would be helpful (based upon the definition at the TCS website) in understanding about TCS.

I think it can take years to understand what is on the TCS website. There is a paradigm shift necessary, imo. A person must decide whether or not it is right for parents to coerce their children. One's understanding of how learning happens needs to be examined and compared to the TCS theory of non-coercive education, as this is a basis for the understanding of how coercion can harm learning and the ability to think rationally and solve problems.

For those who are interested in learning more about autonomous learning and consent-based non-coercive parenting, I recommend Jan Fortune-Wood's books- 'doing it their way', 'without boundaries', and a new one out, 'bound to be free'.


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

laelsweet wrote:

"in searching for common preferences with other family members, what are some ways of speaking and working through conflict verbally, which have been successful for people?"

One of the suggestions I've heard that I like alot, is about talking out loud in the midst of conflict- say, two small children are having a conflict, and the parent starts talking " I'm sure there is a solution to this problem. What could it be? " and continuing with the thought process, including frustration and talking about the failure to find a common preference, if that is the case.

Talking honestly about what one is trying to do- finding common preferences- what everyone's preference is, really examining what each person wants (do I really want to go to the movie if it is going to make someone I love miserable? would I prefer to find something that we would like to do together? Or help that person find something that they really want to do, while I go to the movie?) can bring to light misunderstanding or assumptions or expectations that the people involved didn't realize existed. Such new knowledge can help create a common preference.

"i wonder if people run up against years of winning and losing power struggles (rather than having found solutions that make everyone happy), and find that old habits, reactions, ways of speaking, are difficult to overcome? this is my experience. "

Yes. It is a big shift to make in one's thinking, to go from 'someone has to win and someone has to lose, in the face of conflict' to 'everyone can get what they want', and to figure out how to make that happen. It can be a long and painful journey, confronting and dismantling entrenched ideas.

"simultaneously, the revelation of an underlying lack of trust (fear of being coerced) and while each common preference found does build trust, nonetheless some communication tools would be helpful in showing that people sincerely wish to find common ground (are trustworthy). "

It does take some time and experience to come to trust the process. A parent, at the same time they are learning to recognize coercion and avoid causing it for their children, is also learning to recognize how and when they coerce their own self. A parent has to come to trust their own self to not coerce, well, their own self. Trust, among family members, will come. The big shift is focusing on consent in problem solving (with one's self as well as with other intimate loved ones) , rather than coercion.

"to begin with, attempting to say " i want ____." "

Yes. Excellent beginning, to figure out what one wants, one's self. Not as easy as it seems it should be. It is also acknowledging one's own autonomy, and the other's too. Each person speaks for their self.

Language is very important. The difference between saying "I feel miserable" and " you make me feel miserable" is a huge one. When a person catches theirself using negative language, they can correct theirself immediately, out loud. Apologize and try not to do it again. One can ask others to point out when they are using negative language or coercing. Instead of 'I/you have to/must/need to' use 'I prefer'.


----------



## paula_bear (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_
*Dear Netty,

I guess this is where we are always going to have problems, because it comes down to how someone sees the meaning of the word "sacrifice". To me, I would do this again tomorrow. Well, hopefully not. But at the time, I was in the middle of a court case, and January is a very busy month for me, pickling, and making jam as well. So I knew that that would simply have to go by the board, because my son's needs were greater.*
Hi, JW, nice to see you're 'back.' LOL. What you did for your son was a sacrifice, no doubt, in that by being at his side 24/7 you were unable to do tasks that you had planned. But it doesn't sound from your description like a self-sacrifice. I didn't pick up on any resentment in your description of what happened. If anything, I heard a touch of pride that you did such a great job fighting for your son's rights, and possibly saving him from a medical (read: hospital-induced) disaster. It seems you didn't feel coerced into attending to your son. As a mother, you did what you knew you needed to do to ensure your son got the care he needed to get through this crisis.



> *
> So I chose to sacrifice those jobs as being meaningless in the sense that the BEST OUTCOME for my son was the most important thing to me. It was still a sacrifice to me. And I had to do double time after wards to catch up.
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## Tigeresse (Nov 19, 2001)

I would have to agree that parenting can and does involve sacrifices that are out of genuine love, and can also involve feelings of resentment, hurt, or a wish to be repayed, or none of these things at all.

I too was faced with choices when my 3rd son was born with a critical heart defect. My husband and I sacrificed entire days and evenings to be at his side, pump milk for him and nurse (when they let me), and be involved as much as possible with his care. This may seem like a no-brainer decision on my part, but we left 2 young children at home (with grandparents), one of which was not yet weaned and had never spent more than a few hours away from me. So.....at night we would leave our precious newborn in the hands of the NICU nurses (who were for the most part wonderful) so we could co-sleep with our older children. So we made sacrifices of ourselves for the benefit of one child at the expense of the others, and then the other way around. We did it all out of love and expected nothing in return. I don't even recall feeling resentful. After we brought our baby home we were confined to the house for a month, and therefore our older children we "coerced" into staying in more than they would have liked (unless I was able to arrange for a friend to come and pick them up). I truly believe however, that this experience has taught more to us as a family about sticking together through difficult times and about things not always being exactly the way you might want them to be for the benefit of someone else than any obscure discussion on what my best theories are. I would have been beyond my limit if my then 3yo and 7yo had an equal voice in decision making during that difficult time.

On a more mundane level, I'm not clear how this TCS concept would work with 5 different personalities always trying to come to a consensus. It seems to me that someone would always end up losing out at some level. Say for instance, we had plans in advance for a family outing. On the day of the outing, 6yo son decides he doesn't want to go. Does one parent stay home with the child under the TCS concept? Would everyone try to convince the child to go or would that qualify as coercion? What about everyone else's desire to perhaps have the whole family be together for the day? What if the event had been paid for in advance? What if the parent (drawing on years of experience and knowledge of his/her own child) knows that the child will probably enjoy the outing once there? Maybe this is a situation a TCS parent would never get into in the first place.

It just seems to me that for many issues, the parent being the final decision maker actually *liberates* the child from having to deal with things they should not have to worry about and just lets them be kids.

G'night.


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Netty_
*amnesiac wrote:
_________________________________________________
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, that's exactly what it seems to be saying to me.
__________________________________________________

Can you be specific concerning what you disagree with?
*
I think I finally understand what amnesiac is saying!

amnesiac is interpreting the TCS site's policy of allowing anyone to call another theory Taking Children Seriously as implicitly endorsing that alternate theory, or at least as implicitly saying that that alternate theory is just a valid of a theory as the one on www.tcs.ac. In other words, TCS would agree to disagree with that other theory.

This is wrong. If a theory was presented that claimed to be a better theory than TCS, regardless of the name, that theory would be examined, critiqued, criticized and debated to determine if in fact better ideas are being presented.

I strongly doubt that any of the current proponents of TCS would ever "agree to disagree" with another alternative TCS or rival theory, as evidenced on Gentle Parenting these last couple of weeks. I know that I would examine it until I either agreed with it or disagreed with it, period.

Pat


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

I agree that life does not always offer parents and children an easy framework within which to look for consent. I have shaken my fist at God a few times, and done what has needed to be done. A TCS family will advocate for their selves and do their best to support each other, striving to solve problems by consent, in the framework of situations that life throws their way.

In the case of a family that has plans to do something all together, and when the time comes one person decides they do not want to take part in the planned activity, a TCS family would brainstorm together to find a solution that everyone likes. What if it is that one of the members of the family does not feel well, needs to stay near a bathroom, say. A family would be likely to help that person out, find a solution for the problem, without recrimination. Why would it be different if a person changed their mind about an outing, for whatever reason?

In a TCS family, the person who changed their mind could be certain of being heard and supported, have their concerns and their wants addressed seriously. In the same way, the person with the mind change would listen to the concerns and wants of the other members of the family and together they can figure a solution that fits them all.

By assuming that there are solutions, the potential pool of solutions is huge. People change their minds, and it is ok for people to change their minds- in fact it is a good thing that people change their minds or they'd never learn and grow!- let alone find a common preference. By including as many people as possible in brainstorming for solutions, there is more input from which to figure a potential solution.

Discounting a person's input because of their age, or lack of experience, or because they are the wrong color or gender or religion or hold theories contrary to one's own, severely limits the potential pool of solutions. Some great seeds of solutions to problems parents encounter come from people who have no parenting experience themselves- kids! as well as others of all ages. Heck, the family dog might have some great input, at times.

Such a situation as the family with plans that one person has changed their mind about presents an opportunity to learn. Upon examination, more than one problem that needs solving might come to light. If the problem is that the family does not spend enough time together (and one or more of the family had pinned their hopes of togetherness upon this one occasion), they can look at more ways to spend more time together as a family. If that is the main goal of the day, to spend it together, then everyone staying home might be the best solution. If some of the family want to go ahead with the plans, and others are fine with staying home or doing something else, they could arrange that. It could turn into an opportunity for certain children to get more one-on-one time with a parent. If the parents want to spend time together, they can plan for more of that another time or many more times. There are as many solutions to be found in this situation as there are families finding them. It depends upon each person's preference. A TCS family will strive to find consentual solutions.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Larsy said:

"What if it is that one of the members of the family does not feel well, needs to stay near a bathroom, say. A family would be likely to help that person out, find a solution for the problem, without recrimination. Why would it be different if a person changed their mind about an outing, for whatever reason? "

What you are suggesting is that our reasons do not matter. If an action is excusable under any circumstances, then it is excusable under all circumstances.

Is this what you are saying Larsy?

Heartmama


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Larsy said:

"I think it can take years to understand what is on the TCS website. There is a paradigm shift necessary, imo. A person must decide whether or not it is right for parents to coerce their children. One's understanding of how learning happens needs to be examined and compared to the TCS theory of non-coercive education, as this is a basis for the understanding of how coercion can harm learning and the ability to think rationally and solve problems."

I respect this is a complex decision for some but it need not be for everyone. You said a person must decide whether or not it is right to coerce. No, that isn't true. You can ultimately decide coercion is acceptable in some instances but unacceptable in others.

Also, you can believe coercion is not acceptable in education, however, it is acceptable in another capacity.

You can decide that coercion is damaging in one capacity yet beneficial in another.

Heartmama


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Heartmama wrote:

"What you are suggesting is that our reasons do not matter. If an action is excusable under any circumstances, then it is excusable under all circumstances. "

I think that all reasons matter, to the person who has the reason (to do or not to do whatever), and that the person and their reason is to be respected.

If, as in this example of the family going on the outing, one person has the reason that they are sick, the rest of the family is sympathetic and wanting to help them out. If the person has the reason that they are tired and don't want to go, or that they would rather stay home because they are interested in doing something there, or maybe they get carsick in the car and don't want to go for a long ride, or they've just realized that they will miss a favorite tv show, or they'd rather play with their friend that day- they have a legitimate reason for wanting to do what they want to do.

I think each is entitled to have their reasons for action, which are as legitimate- by their lights- as the reasons for action of all the other people around them. This is the basis for respect for each person, in finding common preferences. Each person's preference holds equal weight.

A family member's voiced preference of not wanting to go on a family outing is the departure point for discussion, not an ultimatum.

In the family's discussion, each person can give their reasons for wanting what they want, and try to persuade others to thier point of view. New information can come to light- like, perhaps the child gets carsick- and solutions can be found. The mom could be the one wanting to stay home on her own, having not gotten enough time to herself recently and just needs to recoup. Taking someone along on an outing who does not want to be there is usually not a pleasant experience for anyone, and would be avoided in a TCS family.


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

hearmama wrote:

"I respect this is a complex decision for some but it need not be for everyone. You said a person must decide whether or not it is right to coerce. No, that isn't true. You can ultimately decide coercion is acceptable in some instances but unacceptable in others."

The thing about coercion- that is, the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind- is how coercion can harm learning and the ability to think rationally and solve problems.

It seems to me- YMMV- that avoiding this sort of harm is a good thing. I personally don't want to inflict it upon my self or anyone else, especially those I am in close relationship too, my children most of all. I don't think that it is right to coerce my children, ever. Note: this does not mean that TCS parents never coerce their selves or their children, being imperfect humans, but consent is what they aim for.

"Also, you can believe coercion is not acceptable in education, however, it is acceptable in another capacity. "

As autonomous learners, we believe and experience that people are learning all the time. I have yet to find an instance where coercion is a good idea, that is, causing this psychological state of coercion in my own or another person's mind, deliberately.

"You can decide that coercion is damaging in one capacity yet beneficial in another. "

For instance?


----------



## Tigeresse (Nov 19, 2001)

Thank you, JW for your words of support, and Larsey for your acknowledgement and well thought out reply.

As I read through these TCS discussions, I do get the feeling (like JW) that indeed this concept seems to fit into the ideals of parents who are at the relatively early stages of parenting, or perhaps only have one child. I read a book when my oldest was a toddler called Raising Your Child by Love, Not by Force (or something close to that, can't remember the author) and I thought the ideas were wonderful! From what I remember, it supported parenting in much the same way as TCS. However, I found it did not work in practicality, as my son did not seem to react to my giving into his desires all the time the way he was supposed to, according to the book. I found that some limits and guidance were necessary, and still find that to be true, especially as more children enter the picture and they become older and better able to understand why decisions are made and why one cannot always be perfectly happy (even adults) all the time. In fact, I don't think negative feelings need to be avoided and should be embraced as part of life's experiences and lessons. I think one's own parenting philosophies develop over a period of time and are always evolving as long as one is a parent. As a young mother I was always looking for info. for that one perfect way to raise the perfect child. As it turns out, I've drawn on many sources of info., the examples of other parents, and my own experience to come to the place I am today.

Larsy, your discussion on how a TCS family would handle consensus in the situation I described is very helpful. In fact, I know many opportunities present themselves like the one described in which we as a family can evaluate where we're at as a family and what things can be changed to better meet everyone's needs. I don't however, agree that every situation that arises is up for debate, discussion and ultimately consensus. I feel as a parent it is my job to feel out the framework in which my children can make their own choices. There are also situations in which there are no choices, except to co-operate or not. All will have a result, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, and we are all affected.

I also believe that children are not little adults, and rely on us as adults to protect their childhood. They do not make choices or learn about the world in the same way we do. We cannot compare how we would respond to an adult vs. a child in X-situation, as an adult would in most cases react quite differently.

Well I've been sitting here too long. This is an interesting discussion, but I must be off!


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Quote:

I would strive to help my child do what is best for hir. If harming someone else were the best solution, then I would support hir in it.
Please tell me you didn't mean this like it sounded.


----------



## laelsweet (Dec 6, 2001)

usually i would not want to hurt another person either, but it occurs to me that i've taken self-defense and assertiveness classes which have taught me how to hurt another person as a last resort to protect myself. i would encourage my child to develop assertiveness skills responsibly and be able to use them to avert a threatening situation and avoid harm. i feel more comfortable moving in the world knowing that there are some things i can do to protect myself. as i've been thinking about this thread i realize that i accept that i would hurt someone if i thought i would be protecting myself by doing so.


----------



## Iguanavere (Nov 26, 2001)

So if the family has planned an outing and child A decides on the day of the outing that they do not want to go, yet the entire family wants to go - discussions take place and still child A does not want to go - What would happen?

Certainly TCS would state that there is always a solution - but I would say that the solution is likely to be a compromise - not always a common preference.

For example, let's say you are a single mother of 3 children. You work all week long and don't have much time with your kids. As a family you all plan a special trip to the zoo, bought special tickets for a special animal show. On that day, Child A decides that he doesn't want to go. Discussion takes place and no health problems are present, so child A simple doesn't want to go.

TCS - would advocate leaving the child at home with another care giver - that is assuming the mother can even afford a babysitter, since she just broke the bank buying the special zoo tickets. Mother is still going to be disappointed and ultimately this is a compromise, because Mother had planned for this to be a special event for the whole of their family.

In my opinon, Mother would be self-sacraficing her happiness for her sons, in an effort to not coerce her son.

Or she could remind him of his committment to his family and advise him to get into the car.

Help me - am I missing something?

Also - as for self-sacrifice - it is easy if you are a middle-class, two-parent family of one child to spend a great deal of time and energy trying to find common preferences and working towards consent.

However, if you are a poverty-stricken, one parent family with 3 children all under the age of 4, including one special-needs child - some things go by the wayside.

Certainly I would advocate that we should all strive to work cooperatively with our children, but in a family dynamic, in which there are many children or children with special needs, sometimes compromise is the best alternative we can offer.

Tell me, does TCS have any recommendations about family size or child spacing?


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

part of my original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would strive to help my child do what is best for hir. If harming someone else were the best solution, then I would support hir in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jbcjmom responded:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please tell me you didn't mean this like it sounded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can tell me how it sounded to you, I will be better able to answer your question. In my original message, I qualified this statement with an example further on to illustrate that there are times when coercion (harm) of another is the best solution for a problem. Self-defense or defense of one's property are examples.

Netty


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Larsy wrote: "I think that all reasons matter, to the person who has the reason (to do or not to do whatever), and that the person and their reason is to be respected."

As your post further illustrated, Larsey, what you are saying is that, other than our own self interest, our reason's do not matter, it is our actions which matter. It does not matter *why* a the child changed their mind about the trip. It does not matter what prior agreement had been made.

All that matters is their action (to choose no to go). Larsey, you use reasons as ways to enhance our thinking about this situation (You wouldn't mind staying home if the child is sick, why mind if they just don't like the destination etc). Yet the reason *DOES NOT MATTER*, because you say one cannot qualify the child's decision due to their "reason".

Correct?

Heartmama


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Larsy wrote: "The thing about coercion- that is, the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind- is how coercion can harm learning and the ability to think rationally and solve problems. "

Coercion is essentially the use of force (check the dictionary). Period. What you have added on about it being a psychological state is *purely* a TCS related description. However, having pointed that out, I would also disagree that the human mind is at all harmed by the TCS definition of holding two conflicting idea's in place. In fact, I would suggest such a state (temporarily) could be a stimulus for creative thinking.

Larsy wrote:"As autonomous learners, we believe and experience that people are learning all the time. I have yet to find an instance where coercion is a good idea, that is, causing this psychological state of coercion in my own or another person's mind, deliberately."

Again, your feelings. For myself, I can imagine a number of ways coercion does not harm.

"You can decide that coercion is damaging in one capacity yet beneficial in another. "

Larsy responds :"For instance?"

I think it would be damaging to be coerced into hurting myself.

I think it would be beneficial to be coerced into survival.

Heartmama


----------



## paula_bear (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by heartmama_
*Coercion is essentially the use of force (check the dictionary). Period. What you have added on about it being a psychological state is *purely* a TCS related description.*
But this is a TCS thread, therefore it follows that we would be using TCS definitions of terms which TCS clearly defines on their website. Bringing a dictionary definition into play doesn't really make sense, as we know, and TCS has acknowledged, that it uses said words in an unconventional fashion.

Quote:

*Larsy wrote:"As autonomous learners, we believe and experience that people are learning all the time. I have yet to find an instance where coercion is a good idea, that is, causing this psychological state of coercion in my own or another person's mind, deliberately."

Again, your feelings. For myself, I can imagine a number of ways coercion does not harm.*
In the examples you give below, it is assumed that you did not put yourself in that situation deliberately. For example, no one plans to be mugged. But if a mugger comes along, they are expected to make an attempt to protect themselves.

Quote:

*"You can decide that coercion is damaging in one capacity yet beneficial in another. "

Larsy responds :"For instance?"

I think it would be damaging to be coerced into hurting myself.

I think it would be beneficial to be coerced into survival.*
Both of these are very valid and logical points, which, if you have been following this discussion closely, you would see that you and TCS are in complete agreement. TCS is very much for self-preservation.

Can you think of any other examples not involving self-preservation where you think coercion is necessary or not harmful?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Paula Bear said: "But this is a TCS thread, therefore it follows that we would be using TCS definitions of terms which TCS clearly defines on their website. Bringing a dictionary definition into play doesn't really make sense, as we know, and TCS has acknowledged, that it uses said words in an unconventional fashion."

Actually, there is quite a debate here already about how well TCS really does define coercion. Assuming that they did, however, define it to everyone's satisfaction, I think you have made a very valid point. I must admit that I doubt sometimes every person I debate TCS with *realizes* how liberally they apply "coercion" to situations that are, traditionally speaking, not coercive. But, I think I'm rambling if I take that farther...

Paula Bear said "In the examples you give below, it is assumed that you did not put yourself in that situation deliberately. "

Why assume that?

Paula Bear said "Both of these are very valid and logical points, which, if you have been following this discussion closely, you would see that you and TCS are in complete agreement. TCS is very much for self-preservation"

Really? You think TCS parents here are in complete agreement with the statement

"I think it would be beneficial to be coerced into survival"

Not '...a necessary evil to be coerced into survival"

Not "...sometimes unavoidable to be coerced into survival"

but..."BENEFICIAL"?

Because every TCS parent I have debated with, who finally conceded they would yank little Johnny out of the path of an oncoming car, or commit some other coercive act, was very clear in that they would apologize later for "having to do that". They would assume the coercion was the result of failing to find common preferences. I have never heard a TCS parent say coercion was actually beneficial.

Heartmama


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

Because every TCS parent I have debated with, who finally conceded they would yank little Johnny out of the path of an oncoming car, or commit some other coercive act, was very clear in that they would apologize later for "having to do that".
If I was walking along with an adult friend and I noticed this same crazy car bearing down on my adult friend and I decided that the only course of action is to push them so hard it knocks them down flat and they hit their head hard, I would apologize for having to do that course of action, but that I thought that could not think of any other course of action in the amount of time I had.

Same with your scenario with the child and the car.

And same with any other scenario when I find myself coercion another.

Pat


----------



## Cassidy (Nov 19, 2001)

I guess I just don't get it. Maybe it's just another semantics problem, but I'm not sure I see setting boundaries as being coercive; if the child knows the consequences, he is still free to follow his desire and accept the consequence. After all, I don't feel coerced by the fact that my freedom of speech is restricted by the fact that I can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I don't feel coerced because there are sppedlimits (well, not much). I reap the benefit of being able to attend the theater and drive on the roeadway by agreeing to abide by these rules. I think households require similar rules in order to function efficiently and to meet the needs of most of the members, most of the time.

Also, I'm sot sure I agree with the premise that the relationship between parents and minor children is, or should be, a relationship of equals. At least certainly not before a child has reached the age of reason. After all, my husband would never invite me to dinner and a movie, look forward to it all week, and then refuse to get dressed when it's time to leave...

It was mentioned by someone that it is silly to think about asking for "permission" from one's spouse before doing somethiing, although the spouse's preferences should be taken into consideration before making a decision. Well, I'd be the first one with "a hair across" if my husband ever *forbade* me from seeing friends, watching T.V., etc, but I guess if he forbade my having an affair or opening a brothel over the garage, I'd see his point. After all, those things would go against our marriage vows. Well, children, like it or not, by virtue of their birth, have been entered into the social contract.

So, even if I were willing to accept the whole TCS thing in theory, and I'm not sure I am, I don't get how it can actually survive the test of real life. When we are out of bread, milk, and cereal, we have to go to the market. If one of my three children simply refuses to go and is not old enough to stay alone, my allowing her to keep the rest of us from going means allowing her to decide that her siblings (and parents) will have no breakfast. How ell does that go over in a TCS home? 'Cause I can tell you everyone at my house (including the child who refused to go to the store) would be blqming Mom in the morning.

it seems to me that the problem lies in the fact that no matter how seriously we take our children and their desires, and no matter how kindly and respectfully we treat them, there are times when they act just like, well, children. And it is at those times that parents need to act most like adults.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Icicle Spider Wrote: "If I was walking along with an adult friend and I noticed this same crazy car bearing down on my adult friend and I decided that the only course of action is to push them so hard it knocks them down flat and they hit their head hard, I would apologize for having to do that course of action, but that I thought that could not think of any other course of action in the amount of time I had. "

So then you agree with my statement that being coerced into survival is beneficial?

I could see giving the token "Gosh sorry you hit you head. Did you see that car?!?".

I could not see "I'm very sorry that I had to save your life. I wish I could have done this another way, I know that must have hurt your feelings that I acted that way to you, and I want to apologize for what I just did... etc"

The difference is pretty clear. And in every TCS example I hear, the parent has the spirit of the latter not the former.

A necessary evil, not darn' good save.

Heartmama


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could see giving the token "Gosh sorry you hit you head. Did you see that car?!?".

I could not see "I'm very sorry that I had to save your life. I wish I could have done this another way, I know that must have hurt your feelings that I acted that way to you, and I want to apologize for what I just did... etc"

The difference is pretty clear. And in every TCS example I hear, the parent has the spirit of the latter not the former.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you please offer *one* example of where a TCS advocate has said this? or claimed that an apology for coercion should be given in the "spirit of the latter not the former" examples you have provided above?

I certainly don't speak like that to my children. I don't see anything wrong with doing so, btw (coercion is far worse), but it's not my particular style. I wouldn't, though, coerce my child (or my friend) without apology.

Netty


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

Just Wondering wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy to have theories. But sometimes when they are tested, experientially, the theories come up very short on reality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. This is--as we have often said--no doubt true. There are times when we find ourselves coercing (self or other) because we cannot find/create a common preference. But I think the theories behind the actions matter a great deal. If someone is acting on the theory that it is okay (even *good*) to coerce children, s/he will be far less likely to seek common preferences (after all, being forced to do things you dislike or don't understand is just part of being a child, right?) than someone who acts on the theory that it is wrong and harmful to coerce children (after all, if *I* were forced to do things I disliked or didn't understand I'd certainly protest and be supported as an adult). If I had my choice, I'd most certainly choose the latter rather than the former as my advocate. If you wouldn't, could you explain your reasons?

Netty


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Heartmama wrote:

"As your post further illustrated, Larsey, what you are saying is that, other than our own self interest, our reason's do not matter, it is our actions which matter. It does not matter *why* a the child changed their mind about the trip. It does not matter what prior agreement had been made. "

Our reasons why we do things, our theories about our actions, matter very much. I see people's theories/reasons as the basis for action. Unless a person gives up their autonomy, and does what others tell them to do, not knowing what their own theories/reasons are.

Prior agreements: my experience is that it is good to be flexible and to plan ahead and have contingency plans.

"All that matters is their action (to choose no to go)."

Their reason for not wanting to go is the crux of the matter, isn't it? That is part of any problem that needs to be solved. The theories behind the action are important.

"Larsey, you use reasons as ways to enhance our thinking about this situation (You wouldn't mind staying home if the child is sick, why mind if they just don't like the destination etc). Yet the reason *DOES NOT MATTER*, because you say one cannot qualify the child's decision due to their "reason". "

I don't understand what you mean by 'qualify the child's decision due to their "reason" '.

Understanding a person reason for doing what they want to do- like stay home- helps everyone meet their preferences. The person's reason might turn out to be a mistaken theory about what was going to happen that day, and by getting more information, that person might change their preference to 'let's get going!' If the others involved never took the time to listen to that person's reasons, they can't have the opportunity to supply more information and everyone misses the opportunity to learn and problem-solve non-coercively and effectively.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Netty wrote: "Could you please offer *one* example of where a TCS advocate has said this? or claimed that an apology for coercion should be given in the "spirit of the latter not the former" examples you have provided above? "

Before the boards were down, this was the spirit in which I was told by a TCS parent that they would apologize for coercion. Incidentally, my point with the former apology was to illustrate a token apology of no bearing on your attitude toward coercion. I added it to better illustrate the uniqueness of the TCS approach to apology after coercion.

Netty said: "I certainly don't speak like that to my children. I don't see anything wrong with doing so, btw (coercion is far worse), but it's not my particular style. I wouldn't, though, coerce my child (or my friend) without apology. "

In all honesty, I think you are splitting hairs.

You ask me to give an example of a TCS parent who would "talk like that". Then, you said in fact it doesn't sound wrong to do so, and further confirm that you would never coerce without apologizing for it.

Your making my point for me.

Additionally, can we address whether a TCS parent actually "could" coerce without a sincere apology, let alone share my belief that "it is beneficial to be coerced into survival". Paula Bear said TCS parents agree with that statement. I doubt it.

Heartmama


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Would a parent coerce their child into survival? don't children want to survive?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Larsy wrote "Our reasons why we do things, our theories about our actions, matter very much. I see people's theories/reasons as the basis for action. Unless a person gives up their autonomy, and does what others tell them to do, not knowing what their own theories/reasons are. "

You are re confirming what I already responded too, no? That our reasons matter to ourselves. Our actions are what matter to a TCS family.

Larsy wrote: "Prior agreements: my experience is that it is good to be flexible and to plan ahead and have contingency plans. "

And why is that necessary? Do TCS families have that tough a time following through with prior agreements?

Larsy wrote :Their reason for not wanting to go is the crux of the matter, isn't it? That is part of any problem that needs to be solved. The theories behind the action are important. "

Hold on







I'll respond to this below....

Larsy wrote: "I don't understand what you mean by 'qualify the child's decision due to their "reason" '. "

Read on...

"Understanding a person reason for doing what they want to do- like stay home- helps everyone meet their preferences. The person's reason might turn out to be a mistaken theory about what was going to happen that day, and by getting more information, that person might change their preference to 'let's get going!' If the others involved never took the time to listen to that person's reasons, they can't have the opportunity to supply more information and everyone misses the opportunity to learn and problem-solve non-coercively and effectively."

Larsy, your comments here illustrate the critical importance of communication to better understand one another. I agree this is vital, and in fact, one of the most important factors in family life.
We agree with that.

What I need to separate, so that we don't go in circles, is that our past posts to each other focused on the issue of a family making a prior agreement, and upon the hour of it's being followed through, a family member changes their mind. Especially where cohesiveness was critical to success in the agreed upon activity (in other words, without dad to drive, the trip would not happen, or with son being only 8, and no sitter to stay for the week, mom/dad must give up trip to stay home) the *reason* for that person to back out, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most people, can be fairly judged by the family as either acceptable or unacceptable. Generally speaking, an acceptable excuse would be one beyond the persons control (illness), and unacceptable would be something self centered reflecting their own desires (doesn't want to travel after all). If the excuse is unacceptable, that person is expected to hold to the prior agreement.

Our entire discussion up to now has centered on this:

With TCS, it does not matter *why* the person has gone back on their word, there is *no* reason that is "unacceptable". Any and all reasons validate the decision to ruin the trip for others, and stay home. Assuming the family fails to find a common preference, the solution is to cancel the trip, instead of forcing the reluctant traveler into the car.

This is where we are at Larsy. That is what I refer to when I say "the reason does not matter." Once a member of a TCS family makes a decision (action) there is no room to disqualify (or qualify) it. You have to take it as a fixed condition and re arrange your life accordingly.

That is all I am trying to debate with you, and we seem to be wandering back to where we started. What I am asking for is confirmation of this reality as acceptable for a TCS family. Others have asked about it, and we go in circles. Why? If this is how a TCS family works, then so be it. But don't make it so difficult to get a confirmation! Please? Because it is impossible for me to bring anything to this discussion if you continue to challenge the dynamics I assume of TCS family life in order to illustrate a criticism of TCS theory. If I assume something wildly off base, call me on it, but if I assume a scenario that is at all possible within TCS theory, could we just move forward with it and discuss what point I might be trying to debate within that scenario?

Heartmama


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

larsy wrote: "Would a parent coerce their child into survival? don't children want to survive?"

Larsy









*Your* the one who feels compelled to apologize if they do.

Heartmama


----------



## Tigeresse (Nov 19, 2001)

I agree totally, JW. It's a lot like discussing religion. I was compelled to come out of lurkdom though because I get just a tad miffed when TCSers imply (gently) that when children are "coerced" (not allowed a choice) in any given situation that their rights, desires, feelings, and ability to decide what's right for them is completely ignored. Just because we as a family will follow through on our commitments or accomplish X-errand when I (as parent) say it needs to be done does not mean my children cannot express their dissatisfaction or discuss alternatives for the future. They are free to discuss anything with me, but are not free to make *all* decisions in *all* areas of their lives. In fact, I think they come to me sometimes literally begging (in an indirect, child-like way) for limits in certain areas. As I said before, limits provide *freedom* for children to be children.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

JW wrote:

****That is always the problem in these discussions. There is no agreement, ever, about definitions, except amonst non-TCs people.****

That is because we are discussing TCS theory. If I were discussing opera singers, I would be using the word "tenor" very differently than I would be using it if I were discussing literary theory. When I discuss existentialism, I use the term "consciousness" differently than when I am discussing medicine. Definitions are *created* and language *evolves* according to how it is being used. If you want to discuss a different theory than TCS, I suggest you go to any other thread than the one designated for TCS theory.

*** To find common preference of definitions with TCS people is like trying to catch an eel in pouring rain...coz they only want their definitions, and can't see what anyone else is saying.****

I disagree. I think the TCS advocates strive to define their terms clearly and consistently. I don't see others doing the same when discussing their own theories. We may not agree with what others are saying, but that does not mean we do not understand it. And if you feel that there is a misunderstanding, please clarify your meaning for us.

***IMO they think that they are the ONLY right ones around....****

I disagree. I think that the TCS advocates are the ones who admit fallibility and act in accordance with the theory of fallibility. And we invite and reply to, as clearly as possible, any and all criticism. Of course we think we are right, just as you think you are right. We are both acting on theories which cannot be proven as true or false. Our arguments are either convincing or inot convincing. I don't find the arguments for coercion at all convincing. But I'm still willing to entertain the idea and respond, as clearly as possible,

****So I am wondering if it is even worth continuing these discussions, because as someone else said, they just go round, and round, and round, and round..................... in circles.****

Yes. I see the discussions continually coming round to the idea that coercion is wrong and unnecessary, no matter how often others try to assert that it is not. this is because the arguments for coercion are not convincing. I have yet to read a convincing argument *for* coercion as being the *best* solution under *any* circumstances. But, by all means, feel free to stop participating in the discussion. I'd personally prefer that this thread could be available for those who are genuinely interested in understanding, and perhaps applying, TCS theory in their lives. I'd also prefer that we not resort to meta-discussion (such as this). But if people want to spend time and energy discussing the attributes of the discussion rather than the actual theory itself, that is their choice. I'll answer when I can, but I honestly don't see the point in this sort of discussion. It is *precisely* this sort of discussion that gets us nowhere and can only go round and round in circles.

Netty


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Netty wrote to JW "I'd personally prefer that this thread could be available for those who are genuinely interested in understanding, and perhaps applying, TCS theory in their lives. I'd also prefer that we not resort to meta-discussion (such as this)."

I would like to respond. I realize you would prefer we not participate in debate, or *meta discussion*, of TCS theory. I think there are TCS sites that serve such a purpose.

However, that is (thankfully) not the only purpose of this thread. Being able to challenge one another and debate the validity/soundness of TCS theory to better illustrate the strength or weakness' of it's tenants is necessary to determine whether it is an effective approach for us to take as parents.

netty wrote: "I'll answer when I can, but I honestly don't see the point in this sort of discussion. It is *precisely* this sort of discussion that gets us nowhere and can only go round and round in circles. "

Netty, I respect that you don't see the point in what is being discussed here. You should know that I, however, am drumming my fingers on the computer table, still waiting for a TCS advocate to show up who *does* want to debate and discuss. I think once that occurs, we will move forward. The circles I am caught up in occur, IMO, because I am debating with someone who resists my effort *to* debate.

Your self admitted lack of interest in doing this has very much been a factor in the frustration and *circular discussion* non TCS advocates experience within these threads. I would *love* to discuss the validity of coercion, it's benefits and drawbacks, and the literal application of TCS theory in specific area's of life.

I find it interesting that you resist this, but so do many TCS parents. It reminds me of Ezzo related websites and Ezzo parents. A very different theory, but similiar in that meta discussion is not allowed and parents would much prefer to only encounter queries about being better Ezzo parents; they do not want to be asked to debate their parenting beliefs.

Does anyone *want* to debate and discuss TCS theory, respond to challenges/and or criticisms of it's tentants, or discuss the concept of coercion-it's potential benefits and drawbacks?

Heartmama


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

****Does anyone *want* to debate and discuss TCS theory, respond to challenges/and or criticisms of it's tentants, or discuss the concept of coercion-it's potential benefits and drawbacks? ****

Yes!! ***Please*** show me where I (or any TCS advocate) have failed to respond to comments or questions, challenges or criticisms concerning TCS theory? I have asked *again* and *again* for anyone to post reasons *why* coercion would be a good solution to a problem. I have yet to get a response to those questions. Meta-discussion is a way of *not* answering questions by referring, instead, to *how* a question is asked or *how* someone is posting. Why don't we concentrate on responding to *what* is being posted in terms of argument rather than argumentation? Where is this getting us??

So....Could someone who advocates coercion please give me a rational answer to the following questions?

When is coercion ever a better solution to a problem than non-coercion?? And is there ever a time when you, personally, like to be coerced into doing something you do not want to do? And if you *could* solve a problem non-coercively, would you choose the non-coercive solution over the coercive one? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance for any answers *to the question* above.

Netty


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Heartmama wrote:

"larsy wrote: "Would a parent coerce their child into survival? don't children want to survive?"

Larsy

*Your* the one who feels compelled to apologize if they do. "

I'm confused. A parent would apologize to their child for the child's wanting to survive?

My understanding is that people, in general, want to survive. If a person is in immiment danger, and another is able to protect them from that danger, where is the coercion in knocking them out of the way of the falling rock, or whatever that imminent danger is? A person might be disconcerted by being roughly pushed out of the way, but especially if the person doing the pushing has always been a trusted advisor, they might experience *no* coercion in their mind at being pushed out of the way, as they might consider that this person has not steered them wrong in the past, and there must be a good reason why they have acted in such a way, and goes on to the understanding that they were in the way of the falling rock and, wanting to survive, they agree with the action taken.


----------



## Cassidy (Nov 19, 2001)

Netty,

Please see my post at the bottom of page two. I think some of my questions and points may lead to the sort of discussion we are all looking for. On a related note, I think we all need to make every effort to be clear about what we mean by terms such as "coerce," "force," "will," against one's will," etc. Also, it would be helpful for me if someone who practices TCS could simply describe an average day at their home; based on what I have read here, I don't know anything gets accomplished or how you all are maintaining your sanity.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

Heartmama suggested:

****With TCS, it does not matter *why* the person has gone back on their word, there is *no* reason that is "unacceptable". Any and all reasons validate the decision to ruin the trip for others, and stay home. Assuming the family fails to find a common preference, the solution is to cancel the trip, instead of forcing the reluctant traveler into the car.****

No. That is not the best solution since it involves coercion of others for the sake of one. It's only the solution if everyone agrees that it makes sense to cancel the trip. It's not that reasons don't matter, it's that reasons should never stop one from finding/creating a common preference. If someone says s/he doesn't want to go on a trip "just because," then I agree that it's not a "good" reason by means of a convincing argument. That does not mean, however, that that person does not, therefore, have a right to hir choice. The other family members might certainly be able to convince the reluctant one that s/he is hurting people by hir choice and s/he might change hir mind. Or everyone might think of a way that the reluctant one can stay behind (go to a friend's?). Or they might be able to convince the reluctant one that s/he *wants* to go by offering hir an incentive that s/he didn't consider when making hir decision. But it is wrong to simply tell someone that hir reason is unconvincing and, therefore, force hir to comply with the more "reasonable" argument of the majority.

I realize that your question includes an important proviso which is, "Assuming the family fails to find a common preference." But this very proviso answers your own question. Of course if the family fails to find a common preference *someone* is going to be coerced. How can we argue against that? Coercion *is* the absence of a common preference. It is like saying that if someone's not alive, s/he is dead.

So, if you are saying that it is better for *one* person to be coerced rather than *more than one* (as in, the family forcing the reluctant child to go on the trip), then I would have to agree (though if I were that parent, I would be in a state of coercion by enforcing this). I stand by the argument, however, that it's *even better* if no one is coerced at all. Do you agree or disagree?

Netty


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Larsy wrote "Our reasons why we do things, our theories about our actions, matter very much. I see people's theories/reasons as the basis for action. Unless a person gives up their autonomy, and does what others tell them to do, not knowing what their own theories/reasons are. "

Heartmama wrote:

"You are re confirming what I already responded too, no?"

Er....no.

" That our reasons matter to ourselves. Our actions are what matter to a TCS family. "

Reasons for action matter to the person originating the reason, as well as those who are interested in finding common preferences with them, as in a TCS family.

Larsy wrote: "Prior agreements: my experience is that it is good to be flexible and to plan ahead and have contingency plans. "

"And why is that necessary? Do TCS families have that tough a time following through with prior agreements?"

If everyone in the family agrees with the prior agreement, there isn't a problem. If a problem comes up, a TCS family will look for a solution based upon consent rather than coercion. That might mean not following through with prior agreements, or not.

Heartmama again:

<snip>"...the *reason* for that person to back out, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most people, can be fairly judged by the family as either acceptable or unacceptable. Generally speaking, an acceptable excuse would be one beyond the persons control (illness), and unacceptable would be something self centered reflecting their own desires (doesn't want to travel after all). If the excuse is unacceptable, that person is expected to hold to the prior agreement. "

I think you've articulated a major point of departure.

"With TCS, it does not matter *why* the person has gone back on their word, there is *no* reason that is "unacceptable". "

That is correct, to my understanding of TCS theory, though I wouldn't look at it as 'going back on their word', but as changing their mind.

"Any and all reasons validate the decision to ruin the trip for others, and stay home."

I think a person's autonomy validates their reasons, whatever the reasons may be. If one of the family member's expressed reason is 'I want to ruin the trip for the rest of the family', I would be looking at the relationships in the family and working toward figuring out what is wrong there, that one (or more) of the members of the family would feel so bad towards the rest, that they would actively be trying to thwart their desires.

" Assuming the family fails to find a common preference,"

A TCS family would not be assuming they could not find a common preference; quite the opposite.

" the solution is to cancel the trip, instead of forcing the reluctant traveler into the car. "

Or any of an infinite universe of solutions.

"That is what I refer to when I say "the reason does not matter." Once a member of a TCS family makes a decision (action) there is no room to disqualify (or qualify) it. You have to take it as a fixed condition and re arrange your life accordingly. "

A member of a TCS family has a preference, that has changed from the preference they had a day or a week ago. They express that preference- 'I don't want to go do X today, even though we had all agreed on doing so. Here is why (stating hir reason for hir current preference)'. The members of the TCS family enter into the process known as 'finding common preferences'. This is where every member of the family is able to voice their reasons and theories and thoughts and ideas. Those who really want to do X are helped to find a way to make that happen. Those who don't want to do X are helped to find a way to make that happen.

There is nothing 'fixed' about finding common preferences, unless you want to call the attitude of solving problems non-coercively, 'fixed'. As to 're-arranging your life' to accomodate someone else's preference, this can be done in a way to suit everyone's preferences. Isn't that what we do, in life- find ways to be in relationship with other people, arranging our lives to accomodate what we want to accomplish? Knowing exactly what we want- what are the priorities- is essential to finding common preferences, imo. I think that TCS families place a high priority upon helping parents and children to get what they want in life, owning autonomy and finding good solutions that benefit everyone- including people outside of the family circle, when appropriate.

"What I am asking for is confirmation of this reality as acceptable for a TCS family."

No. What you describe is not TCS.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

Cassidy wrote:

****Please see my post at the bottom of page two. I think some of my questions and points may lead to the sort of discussion we are all looking for.****

Okay. I'll try to do that soon (I've been meaning to respond but more recent posts keep occupying my mind ;-))

****On a related note, I think we all need to make every effort to be clear about what we mean by terms such as "coerce," "force," "will," against one's will," etc.****

I think we've done that, but I'd be happy to do so again. To begin with, "coercion" is a psychological state where one acts on a theory while a conflicting theory is still active in one's mind. Therefore, to coerce someone is to put them into such a psychological state or to refuse to help them out of such a psychological state. I'd say that "force" would include any extrinsic rather than instrinsic motivation for the child to comply with someone else's desires. And I would equate "will" with desire or preference.

****Also, it would be helpful for me if someone who practices TCS could simply describe an average day at their home; based on what I have read here, I don't know anything gets accomplished or how you all are maintaining your sanity.****

....It's not as hard as you may think. As we have argued elsewhere, children are rational and *want* to find/create common preferences. I don't know if we have "average" days, but I'll describe a very recent one for you:

10:30 -- Mama gets up and lights the corn stove and puts coffee on.
11:00 -- child A gets up and come downstairs. Pulls rocking chair in front of the fire and asks for a cup of tea.
11:15 -- Mama gives child cup of tea.
11:20 -- Papa gets up (it's his day off) and gets the newspaper and his cereal. Child A asks for cereal. Papa gets hir some.
11:30 - 12: 30 -- Papa and Mama sit around drinking coffee and helping child A put together a map of Canada puzzle which s/he got for Christmas.
12:30 -- Mama remembers that child B had said s/he wanted to be awake when friends came over (who are due to arrive at 1:00) so she goes up to wake hir.
12:35 -- child B comes downstairs and get hirself some oatmeal cookies and juice. Asks to play with puzzle. Child A says "no" (s/he wants to play it with papa). Mama asks child B if s/he would like to read the new book s/he got for Christmas. Child B agrees and they read the book while Papa & child A finish puzzle.
1:15 -- friends arrive (two adults and two children).
1:15 to 4:30 -- child A and childfriend A go upstairs to play with train set. Child B sits with parents and friendchild B. Argument is heard between child A and childfriend A upstairs. Mama goes up to see if s/he can help. Both children say they don't want help so mama says that she's available if they want hir. After a bit more argument, childfriend A comes downstairs and asks for a drink of juice. Hir Mama gets it for hir. Mama makes up a plate of snacks for everyone (cheese, grapes, egg slices, chips, celery, & bowl of M&Ms). Mama takes a small selection up to child A who is now watching a movie. Mama tells childfriend A that child A is watching "Shrek" and childfriend A goes up to watch too. Child B falls asleep on Mama's lap so mama takes hir up to the bedroom and lays hir down. Friends leave at 4:30. Child A is upset that friend is leaving. Mama and Papa ask if friend would like to stay longer. Friends say they have to get home to prepare supper as they are having family over later. Childfriend A also says he wants to go home to watch a particular television show that comes on at 5:30. Papa suggests that he and child A walk friends a little way home to help with the transition and then stop at the store to get chocolate. Child A agrees.
4:30 - 5:30 - Mama cleans up and washes dishes. Puts in a load of laundry and then lays down with child B and reads. Child B wakes and asks to have a bath. Mama starts bath and child B gets undressed and climbs in.
5:30 - Papa and Child A come home. Child A asks Papa to set up the "Animals of the World" CD-rom. Papa does this and Child A plays on computer.
5:30 - 6:00 -- Papa tells Mama that Child A was still sad when childfriend B had to go when they had arrived at the store. Papa suggests that the departure of childfriend A may have been too abrupt and that letting hir know that childfriend A would be leaving in 15 minutes may have made the transition easier. Mama agrees and also suggests that when those friends come over, it may be a good idea to arrange the possibility of childfriend A staying for dinner or overnight if both children want that. Child B calls for Mama, saying s/he is finished in the bath. Mama goes up and gets hir. Child B asks to have poohbear pajamas on. Mama tells hir that those pajamas are in the washing machine and suggests s/he wear something else. Child B is upset and wants hir poohbear pajamas. Mama takes hir to the machine and shows hir that they are in there being washed and tells hir they will be dry and ready to wear by the time supper is over. Child B says s/he wants to wear them now. Mama explains that they are very wet but Child B wants them. Mama stops machine and gets pooh pajamas out and wrings them out. Child B starts putting them on and then says s/he'd rather wear hir green pajamas until the pooh pajamas are dry. This is done. Pooh pajamas are put in the dryer.
6:00 -- Papa prepares supper. Mama asks child A and child B if they are hungry. Child B wants pesto. Child A says s/he's not hungry but would like some chocolate milk. Mama asks if s/he could get it hirself as Mama is just about to sit down to supper and would like to eat it while it's hot. Child A says that s/he's busy with hir game. Mama suggests s/he put the game on hold and returns with the chocolate milk. Child A agrees that this is a good idea.
6:00 - 6:45 -- Papa and Mama eat supper. Child B has pesto in the livingroom on top of a large towel (s/he wanted to eat hir pesto on the floor "picnic-style").
6:45 -- Papa says he'd like to read for awhile. Mama offers to clear table and do dishes and then reminds Papa that s/he has to do a bit of work (preparing for the new term) before bed and will need about an hour to 2 hours. Papa says he'll come down at 8:00. Mama asks child B if s/he still wants to wear hir pooh pajamas as they are now probably dry. Child B says, "yes" and they do so.
7:00 -- 7: 30 -- Child B asks Mama if they can go to the playground. Mama says s/he would prefer to stay in because it's cold outside. Child B suggests that Papa take hir. Mama tells child B that Papa is reading right now. Mama suggests that s/he and child B create a playground in the livingroom. Child B agrees. Mama gets a toboggan and puts it upside down on the couch to act as a slide. Mama offers to "be the swing" by swinging child B back and forth. Then Mama suggests that child B puts hir doll on the slide. Child B gets other toys to ride the slide. Child B asks to read a book.
8:10 -- Papa comes downstairs. Child B asks Mama to read another book. Mama asks if it would be okay if Mama read one more and then Papa read others. Child B says s/he wants Mama to read the books only. Mama reads two more books during which Papa thinks of something else that Child B might enjoy doing. Papa suggests a movie. Child B says s/he wants to read more books with Mama. Papa suggests a shoulder ride and dancing to music. Child B says, "After I have read more stories with Mama, *then* I'll have a shoulder ride." Hmmm. Mama and Papa are stumped as Mama has to get work done. Mama tells child B that she wanted to go upstairs to work on the computer. Child B says that she doesn't want Mama to go. Mama asks child B if it would be okay if Mama got her notes to look at downstairs while they listen to music. Child B agrees. Mama reads over notes and makes a few changes and sings along with "Baby Songs" CD every once in a while ;-). Meanwhile, Child A has asked for something to eat so Papa and Child A go into kitchen to prepare something.
9:05 - 9:30: Mama goes into kitchen -- where Papa and Child A have begun playing a board game -- and asks if Papa can help her as she *really* wants to get these notes finished and Child B doesn't want her to leave the room. Papa says he'll "work on an idea" and Mama returns to the livingroom. Shortly, Papa and Child B come into the livingroom with board game and Papa asks child A if s/he'd like to roll the dice for him when it's his turn. Child A agrees. Once they are involved in the game, Mama says she's going upstairs for awhile and no one protests (sigh of relief).
9:05 - 11: 15: Mama works on lecture. Mama doesn't know what Papa and children did but everything seemed to go fairly smoothly.
11:15: Papa comes upstairs and says that Child B is looking very sleepy. Mama comes downstairs and asks Child B if s/he'd like to watch a movie in bed with hir while child B nurses. Child B asks to watch a particular movie and Mama agrees.
11:30: Mama and Child B are in bed watching movie.
11:35: Child B asleep & Mama turns off movie and gets up to change into pajamas and brush teeth.
11:45: Mama in bed reading. Papa comes up and gets ready for bed. Child A puts on a video in the other room (playroom/bedroom). Papa gets into bed and both parents read.
12:15 - Mama says she's going to go to sleep. Papa keeps reading.
12:45 - Child A climbs into bed beside Papa & Papa gets up to turn off the television and lights and then comes back to bed (so Mama was told the next day, as she was actually asleep ).

Whew! I'm sure I missed some things but that's one day in the life of one TCS family. Not everyday is like this, of course. Some are more challenging, some are less. Sorry this is so long -- it was a whole day after all! Hope this helps in some way.

Netty


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Netty:"Yes!! ***Please*** show me where I (or any TCS advocate) have failed to respond to comments or questions, challenges or criticisms concerning TCS theory? I have asked *again* and *again* for anyone to post reasons *why* coercion would be a good solution to a problem."

Netty, *you* just got done sharing your disinterest in doing this. You ignored my entire response to your statements regarding your wanting this to be "a forum for parents to understand and possibly apply TCS theory".

I think that *you* should go back, and read your posts. I have already read and responded to them. What I keep getting back *is* the "meta discussion" you dislike.

Heartmama


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

larsy wrote: "I'm confused. A parent would apologize to their child for the child's wanting to survive?"

No. What I was referring to was apologizing for taking action that promotes survival. This is what TCS parents seem to do. This *is* what we were discussing.

larsy wrote:"My understanding is that people, in general, want to survive. If a person is in immiment danger, and another is able to protect them from that danger, where is the coercion in knocking them out of the way of the falling rock, or whatever that imminent danger is? A person might be disconcerted by being roughly pushed out of the way, but especially if the person doing the pushing has always been a trusted advisor, they might experience *no* coercion in their mind at being pushed out of the way, as they might consider that this person has not steered them wrong in the past, and there must be a good reason why they have acted in such a way, and goes on to the understanding that they were in the way of the falling rock and, wanting to survive, they agree with the action taken."

This is perfectly sensible to me, and is the reason I would not apologize for yanking a child down from a falling structure they intended to climb. This certainly could cause a momentary feeling of coercion IMO. I would not feel it was harmful, for all the reasons you stated. Yet, TCS parents say they would feel the need to apologize.

Is this true or not?

Heartmama


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by heartmama_
*This is perfectly sensible to me, and is the reason I would not apologize for yanking a child down from a falling structure they intended to climb.*
Is is not clear to me how one goes about yanking a child down from a falling structure.

If the structure was in fact falling, my guess is that I would be catching said child, not yanking, which would not be coercive. In this case, I would however probably be apologizing for not preventing (via non-coercive means) such a scenario in the first place

If the structure is in fact not falling, then I would probably discuss it first with the child what we both think about their predicament. If I did in fact "yank" the child from this non-falling structure, then I probably would apologize.

Pat


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Netty, I would like to thank you for this excellent response. It was very much in keeping with the spirit of what I asked, and added valuable insight. I feel we can finally move forward if we keep in this direction! I feel I should cut and paste in increments, because there was much to respond to, and I will probably be ineffective lumping it all together:

Netty wrote:"No. That is not the best solution since it involves coercion of others for the sake of one. It's only the solution if everyone agrees that it makes sense to cancel the trip. "

I agree with your first sentence. In the second, in using the word "solution" did you mean "the best solution" or were you saying that *only* through agreement by everyone could cancelling the trip be an option?

Netty wrote: "It's not that reasons don't matter, it's that reasons should never stop one from finding/creating a common preference. "

I can see what you mean. That reasons in and of themselves should not negate the process of finding common preferences. In general I agree.

"If someone says s/he doesn't want to go on a trip "just because," then I agree that it's not a "good" reason by means of a convincing argument. That does not mean, however, that that person does not, therefore, have a right to hir choice. "

I am not sure what you mean. If a person wants something that cannot be given to them (the statue of liberty), then they do not in fact have a right their choice? Do you understand what I am trying to say? They certainly have a right to "wish" they could have it. But they can't, correct? If it is harmful to not get what they want, it is virtually irrelevant, because they decided to set their sites on something they should not have.

"The other family members might certainly be able to convince the reluctant one that s/he is hurting people by hir choice and s/he might change hir mind. Or everyone might think of a way that the reluctant one can stay behind (go to a friend's?). Or they might be able to convince the reluctant one that s/he *wants* to go by offering hir an incentive that s/he didn't consider when making hir decision."

Oh gosh, I would certainly hope so. And I agree, the first thing I would do, if dh for example announced he wasn't going on a planned trip, would be to talk about why he felt that way and then try to convince him to change his mind/resolve his concern/etc. The process would not *end* there, but it would be the first approach I would have.

"Or everyone might think of a way that the reluctant one can stay behind (go to a friend's?). Or they might be able to convince the reluctant one that s/he *wants* to go by offering hir an incentive that s/he didn't consider when making hir decision. But it is wrong to simply tell someone that hir reason is unconvincing and, therefore, force hir to comply with the more "reasonable" argument of the majority. "

Why is it wrong? If the reason is not convincing, and the action proposed would ruin a pre arranged trip for the entire family, and no compromise could be reached...I agree, this would be a terrible situation to be in, but in terms of what action, at that point, was most reasonable and fair, sticking to the original plan strikes me as the wisest choice. To compromise the integrity of an agreement so that one person can follow a different path for very unconvincing reasons, IMO, is unnecessary, and in fact harmful to the person who has breeched the agreement with others.

I would be comfortable judging my husband reason as unacceptable (wanting to stay home for an NFL game), and insist he stick to the orginal plan. In fact, letting him ruin our trip for a football game, IMO, would be damaging to him and especially to myself and ds. Having confidence that sticking to our agreement was better for all, I would expect that once we moved towards our goal, dh would almost certainly regain his sense of commitment and probably in hindsight, be relieved and grateful that I talked him out of such a selfish action.

Netty wrote:"I realize that your question includes an important proviso which is, "Assuming the family fails to find a common preference." But this very proviso answers your own question. Of course if the family fails to find a common preference *someone* is going to be coerced. How can we argue against that? Coercion *is* the absence of a common preference. It is like saying that if someone's not alive, s/he is dead. "

I agree completely. However, I really did not know whether you felt this way.

Netty wrote:"So, if you are saying that it is better for *one* person to be coerced rather than *more than one* (as in, the family forcing the reluctant child to go on the trip), then I would have to agree (though if I were that parent, I would be in a state of coercion by enforcing this). I stand by the argument, however, that it's *even better* if no one is coerced at all. Do you agree or disagree? "

I would certainly prefer not want to go on a trip with a very reluctant traveler in our midst. I completely agree it is far better for no one to need coercing in order to stick to the plan and go on the trip.

Heartmama


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by heartmama_
*Netty wrote:"So, if you are saying that it is better for *one* person to be coerced rather than *more than one* (as in, the family forcing the reluctant child to go on the trip), then I would have to agree (though if I were that parent, I would be in a state of coercion by enforcing this). I stand by the argument, however, that it's *even better* if no one is coerced at all. Do you agree or disagree? "

I would certainly prefer not want to go on a trip with a very reluctant traveler in our midst. I completely agree it is far better for no one to need coercing in order to stick to the plan and go on the trip.*
One of the hardest parts about non-coercive parenting is freeing ourselves from making assumptions and from our own entrenched theories. Everyone in fact does not have to go on this trip when finding a true common preference, what *everybody* thinks is the best thing to do.

This is also one of the most exciting parts about TCS, the realization that the boundaries and limits that we have created for ourselves are really of our own making. And one of the most amazing things about discovering this while raising children is that they do not yet have these limits ingrained into them. It has been my experience that more often than not it is the non-coerced child who manages to figure out a common preference in what appears to us to be an impossible situation.

Pat


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Larsy writes: "Er....no. "

Okay. It struck me as the same. Nevermind.

Larsy wrote: "Reasons for action matter to the person originating the reason, as well as those who are interested in finding common preferences with them, as in a TCS family. "

Acknowledged.

"And why is that necessary? Do TCS families have that tough a time following through with prior agreements?"

Larsy wrote: "If everyone in the family agrees with the prior agreement, there isn't a problem. If a problem comes up, a TCS family will look for a solution based upon consent rather than coercion. That might mean not following through with prior agreements, or not. "

Well, what you had said which prompted this question was that in your experience with prior agreements, it helps to be flexible and have alternatives etc. in mind. So, I don't think you answered this question. It is assumed with a prior agreement that everyone agreed. Thus as you said, there "isn't a problem". Then why feel compelled to plan carefully for one?

Larsy: "I think you've articulated a major point of departure."

I thought so.

"With TCS, it does not matter *why* the person has gone back on their word, there is *no* reason that is "unacceptable". "

Larsy wrote "That is correct, to my understanding of TCS theory, though I wouldn't look at it as 'going back on their word', but as changing their mind. "

Why not call it lying, being misleading, going back on their word, or being unreliable? If you made a promise, and changed your mind, that is a definitive quality of all of those descriptions.
"I think a person's autonomy validates their reasons, whatever the reasons may be. "

Autonomy is fine for adult hermits. We are talking about a family with prior agreements which affect everyone. Also, the dynamic of child dependence on adult supervision (you can't leave a 5 year old home for the week).

"If one of the family member's expressed reason is 'I want to ruin the trip for the rest of the family', I would be looking at the relationships in the family and working toward figuring out what is wrong there, that one (or more) of the members of the family would feel so bad towards the rest, that they would actively be trying to thwart their desires. "

Assuming they were being a jerk, and wouldn't listen to reason, and they were an indispensable adult (in terms of taking the trip) or a child with no one to stay home for a week with them:

*Would you make them go or cancel the trip?*

"A TCS family would not be assuming they could not find a common preference; quite the opposite. "

I know that, Larsy. I meant, assuming *in this example* (of the travelling family)that despite all attempts, they did not find a common preference.

Larsy: Or any of an infinite universe of solutions."

I can create a situation without an infinite universe of solutions readily available. Is that what you need, or could you just make the effort here to assume *this* family found no common preference, and had to choose *either* going on the trip with a reluctant traveler *or* cancelling the trip. Then tell me which you think is more amenable to TCS theory.

Larsy writes: "A member of a TCS family has a preference, that has changed from the preference they had a day or a week ago. They express that preference- 'I don't want to go do X today, even though we had all agreed on doing so. Here is why (stating hir reason for hir current preference)'. The members of the TCS family enter into the process known as 'finding common preferences'. This is where every member of the family is able to voice their reasons and theories and thoughts and ideas. Those who really want to do X are helped to find a way to make that happen. Those who don't want to do X are helped to find a way to make that happen."

I know. Now lets fast forward to the part where they found no way to make everyone happy. And tell me which would you prefer: To cancel the trip, or take a reluctant traveler.

Larsy wrote: "There is nothing 'fixed' about finding common preferences, unless you want to call the attitude of solving problems non-coercively, 'fixed'. As to 're-arranging your life' to accomodate someone else's preference, this can be done in a way to suit everyone's preferences. "

I disagree. My example is one in which a person is unwilling to be changed and unable to be accomodated. Are you saying *this* never happens in life?

Larsy writes:"Isn't that what we do, in life- find ways to be in relationship with other people, arranging our lives to accomodate what we want to accomplish? Knowing exactly what we want- what are the priorities- is essential to finding common preferences, imo. I think that TCS families place a high priority upon helping parents and children to get what they want in life, owning autonomy and finding good solutions that benefit everyone- including people outside of the family circle, when appropriate. "

Yes, I think lots of us do this without even having heard of TCS. I'm just trying to get a response to a specific situation from you. Take a reluctant traveler or cancel the trip.

"What I am asking for is confirmation of this reality as acceptable for a TCS family."

Larsy writes:"No. What you describe is not TCS."

*sighing* Could you paraphrase which part went against TCS? That was a rather long post.

Heartmama


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Icicle Spider writes:"Is is not clear to me how one goes about yanking a child down from a falling structure.

If the structure was in fact falling, my guess is that I would be catching said child, not yanking, which would not be coercive. In this case, I would however probably be apologizing for not preventing (via non-coercive means) such a scenario in the first place

If the structure is in fact not falling, then I would probably discuss it first with the child what we both think about their predicament. If I did in fact "yank" the child from this non-falling structure, then I probably would apologize."










Are you just yankin' my chain here Pat, or do you seriously think *the falling structure* was the most relevant point in my illustration.

ROTFLMAO...

Heartmama


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Netty wrote:

Quote:

I think the TCS advocates strive to define their terms clearly and consistently. I don't see others doing the same when discussing their own theories.
Look back at the locked thread and you will see that we were trying precisely to do just that. You must not have been paying attention. I don't consider my childrearing a "theory" so maybe this is what threw you off. Many of us tried to explain the reasoning for why we parent the way we parent, but we were simply dismissed as being coersive in our style and thus, wrong. I don't wake up in the morning and think of ways to coerse my child, contrary to what you might think. I simply think that children are children, and not little adults. IMO, I am my child's parent, not their co-family member, although we are all members of the family. I have taken too many psychology classes including educational psych and developmental psych to think that TCS meets all of my children's developmental and psychological needs. Children need and want limits and I don't feel that they necessarily always want to discuss things to come up with a common answer. Sometimes when my 3.5 year old son is having a melt down due to lack of sleep or what not, he needs me to make the decisions because he is no longer "rational" as you like to say. Children test limits because they want to know where the limits are and that they are firm and unwavering. What an unsure world it must be for children who have no real limits and are responsible for so many of their childhood decisions.

The real world has coersion whether you choose to admit it or not, and that is not going to change. I was a manager for a retail store in my "prior" life and I was responsible for every aspect of running the business. If I asked an employee to do something and they refused, there were consequences to their actions, up to and including termination. I was running a business and I was in charge. How are your children going to fare when they get their first job and their boss tells them to do something they don't want to do. That will certainly rock their world as they know it.

Look back and see that we have all been trying to explain our parenting to you, if you had been willing to open your mind and listen, so to speak.

Netty also wrote:

Quote:

Papa suggests that he and child A walk friends a little way home to help with the transition and then stop at the store to get chocolate. Child A agrees.
We call this bribery (coersion if you rather) in my house.


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by heartmama_
*Are you just yankin' my chain here Pat, or do you seriously think *the falling structure* was the most relevant point in my illustration.*
I take it then that it is not a falling structure, then yes, I would apologize.

Pat


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Icicle Spider writes: "One of the hardest parts about non-coercive parenting is freeing ourselves from making assumptions and from our own entrenched theories. Everyone in fact does not have to go on this trip when finding a true common preference, what *everybody* thinks is the best thing to do. "

I disagree. I think it is rational and healthy to be able to expect fellow travelers to stick to their word, go on a trip, and overcome a desire to stay home. I think it is good for all involved to be able to do this, and unhealthy to indulge last minute misgivings about following through.

Icicle Spider writes:"This is also one of the most exciting parts about TCS, the realization that the boundaries and limits that we have created for ourselves are really of our own making. "

It's funny, because this is the very reason I would expect a person to follow through and go on a trip. They have created the change of mind about taking the trip. I would expect them to stop doing that, and get back on track with our prior plan. I see that as a rational and healthy expectation for all involved.

Heartmama


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

icicle spider wrote: "I take it then that it is not a falling structure, then yes, I would apologize. "
























Ummm, I don't think you get my last post, or the one prior, at all.

Heartmama


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Heartmama wrote:

"Could you paraphrase which part went against TCS?"

IMO, the part where they assume that there is no solution that is a common preference. I think that closes lots of doors.

But since you've already made up your mind that there is no solution that is non-coercive, then the family would make a choice and someone would feel coercion.

Glad Netty's post made sense to you.


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Heartmama, also, for your 'what if' question, maybe the article at
http://www.tcs.ac/Articles/WhatIf.html might help?


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

Cassidy wrote:

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I just don't get it. Maybe it's just another semantics problem, but I'm not sure I see setting boundaries as being coercive; if the child knows the consequences, he is still free to follow his desire and accept the consequence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But if the consequences are imposed rather than completely natural (and cannot be avoided), then he is obviously not "free" to follow this desire. He is being thwarted by an imposed consequence. If he *agrees* with the consequence, then he is not being coerced. But children, ime, seldom agree with imposed consequences if given the choice.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After all, I don't feel coerced by the fact that my freedom of speech is restricted by the fact that I can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I don't feel coerced because there are sppedlimits (well, not much). I reap the benefit of being able to attend the theater and drive on the roeadway by agreeing to abide by these rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you disagree with the reason for not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Do you understand why there are speedlimits? Does it make sense to you that speed limits exist? If you don't feel coerced, then you aren't. But a child who is protesting against an imposed limit is, no doubt, feeling coerced.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think households require similar rules in order to function efficiently and to meet the needs of most of the members, most of the time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If everyone agrees that there should be rules, then it makes sense to have them (as long as the rules are open to change should anyone no longer agree with them, which seems to make the idea of "rules" rather unnecessary). But I would assume that most families have rules which are imposed by the parents. Sometimes the more "liberal" parents will ask for the children's input but will always reserve the right to have the final say and to enforce those rules. And most rules are for the benefit of the parents and are made according to the parents' agenda and personal needs/desires rather than the children's. IME, families function quite efficiently without rules when members are committed to solving problems by seeking common preferences.

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I'm sot sure I agree with the premise that the relationship between parents and minor children is, or should be, a relationship of equals. At least certainly not before a child has reached the age of reason. After all, my husband would never invite me to dinner and a movie, look forward to it all week, and then refuse to get dressed when it's time to leave...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If one thinks that children--no matter their age--are real people with real needs and desires then I don't see how one could claim that the relationship between them is not one of equals (aren't all "men" (read "people") born equal? By the "age of reason," do you mean the age when children can understand and agree with parental reasoning? What age would that be? Perhaps you are right to assume that your husband would never invite you to dinner and a movie and then refuse to go when it's time to leave, but then your husband has more knowledge and experience and ability to see ahead when making plans. What if your husband didn't feel well that day or was angry with you or had had a really hard day and wanted to go to bed early? Would you *force* him to go? What if your husband couldn't speak or express his needs, would you assume, then, that he wasn't being "reasonable" and carry him off to the restaurant. I suspect that manu parents coerce children not because they really believe it is right but because it is in their power to do so. If you couldn't force your husband into the car, why would you force your child? Why should the reason make any difference if you claim to love and support this person?

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was mentioned by someone that it is silly to think about asking for "permission" from one's spouse before doing somethiing, although the spouse's preferences should be taken into consideration before making a decision. Well, I'd be the first one with "a hair across" if my husband ever *forbade* me from seeing friends, watching T.V., etc, but I guess if he forbade my having an affair or opening a brothel over the garage, I'd see his point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that is the difference. You would *see his point* and agree *not* to do these things. Or, if you didn't see his point and *really* wanted to do them anyway, you would be free to leave and set up a brothel elsewhere run by the guy you're having the affair with ;-). Children do not have the option of getting new parents or setting off on their own....On the one hand, you seem to be arguing that children should be coerced because they cannot understand reason but then you also suggest that they should agree to do something if the reason is valid (according to the person who wants to impose it). If they cannot understand the reason, then how would one expect them to agree to it?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After all, those things would go against our marriage vows. Well, children, like it or not, by virtue of their birth, have been entered into the social contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You *chose* to make those vows. And you are *free* to leave your marriage at any time. And if you choose to leave, you can find plenty of support for doing so. This is not so for children. They have no choice in this respect. And they had no choice in being "entered into the social contract" either.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, even if I were willing to accept the whole TCS thing in theory, and I'm not sure I am, I don't get how it can actually survive the test of real life. When we are out of bread, milk, and cereal, we have to go to the market.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this really the case? If you are out of bread, milk, and cereal, could you not eat something else? Could you not ask someone to get it for you? Could you not get the order delivered from the grocery store? Could you not find a good incentive for the children to *want* to go to the market?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one of my three children simply refuses to go and is not old enough to stay alone, my allowing her to keep the rest of us from going means allowing her to decide that her siblings (and parents) will have no breakfast. How ell does that go over in a TCS home? 'Cause I can tell you everyone at my house (including the child who refused to go to the store) would be blqming Mom in the morning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This would be important information to provide for the child who doesn't want to go. You could also find somewhere for the child to stay while you and the other children went. Or you could wait until the child *did* want to go. Or you could ask a friend to get them for you. Or you could go next door and ask the neighbour if you could borrow some milk, bread, & cereal. Or ask the neighbour if he is going to the market at all and, if so, could he pick these up for you? And if, in the morning, the child complained that there was no breakfast (though surely there would be *something* for them to eat, no?), you could remind hir that you couldn't get to the market yesterday but that you could go later if she'd like. And so on.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it seems to me that the problem lies in the fact that no matter how seriously we take our children and their desires, and no matter how kindly and respectfully we treat them, there are times when they act just like, well, children. And it is at those times that parents need to act most like adults.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, there are those times. Children have less knowledge and experience and they depend on adults to help them exercise their autonomy. I "act like an adult" by seeking common preferences. I choose to do this *because* I am the adult and I have the knowledge, experience, and resources to do so (and I realize that my children often do not). I also realize that my children will no doubt benefit from my effort (as will I) because we will all learn better ways of solving problems. Coercion is simply not the "adult" way of solving problems as far as I'm concerned.

Netty


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Netty said:

Quote:

Could you not find a good incentive for the children to *want* to go to the market?
That statement sounds a bit coersive *to me*. Perhaps this is what people have been talking about when the bring up the semantics issue. What you see as negotiation to make everyone happy, I see as a form of bribery, or <gasp> coersion.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

Beth wrote:

****Netty said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you not find a good incentive for the children to *want* to go to the market?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That statement sounds a bit coersive to me. Perhaps this is what people have been talking about when the bring up the semantics issue. What you see as negotiation to make everyone happy, I see as a form of bribery, or <gasp> coersion.****

Can you expand on how this is coercive? Here is an example of what I mean when I say that parents can try to find a good incentive for children to do something that they may be reluctant to do at first: Let's say that I wanted to go to the store but you wanted to stay home and read. And let's say that I really wanted you to come along. One way to convince you to come would be to find a good reason (by your lights) for *you* to go to the store. So, let's say I remembered that you had a crush on one of the cashiers there and so I reminded you that he would be working at that time. With this information, you changed your mind and decided you *wanted* to come to the store with me. If the information I provided were in fact true, would you say that I had bribed you into coming? Did I trick you? Would you say that I had coerced you?

Netty


----------



## Iguanavere (Nov 26, 2001)

Netty,

"The other family members might certainly be able to convince the reluctant one that s/he is hurting people by hir choice and s/he might change hir mind. Or everyone might think of a way that the reluctant one can stay behind (go to a friend's?). Or they might be able to convince the reluctant one that s/he *wants* to go by offering hir an incentive that s/he didn't consider when making hir decision."

I have seen this kind of response in other TCS responses - offer the child to go get ice cream or some other thing that the child may want, but hadn't thought of....

Isn't offering incentives nothing more than a bribe? Isn't that extrinsic motivation? You could also punish the child, by taking something away. Same principle.

When this is the basis of the child/parent relationship - the child will grow up to think for solutions from the perspective or "what do I get for behaving right" or "What will I lose." As opposed to - "I will do this because it is right."

Using Extrinsic motivation in parenting does not help you get a child who is, for lack of a better discription (considering the TCS forum), self-disciplined.

And before any TCS'ers ask me why I would assume anyone wants or needs self-discipline or why I think it is a critical behavior to model, here is my answer: We are social creatures, living in a complex civilization. Without common rules, we would have chaos.

Also, much earlier in this thread, I posted a situation as well as a couple of question about TCS, that no one has responded to....I will try and cut and paste.


----------



## Iguanavere (Nov 26, 2001)

Netty says:

"Do you disagree with the reason for not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Do you understand why there are speedlimits? Does it make sense to you that speed limits exist? If you don't feel coerced, then you aren't. But a child who is protesting against an imposed limit is, no doubt, feeling coerced."

Let's say that your child (aged 4) has Type I diabetes. Child wants to eat a whole box of cookies, which Parent knows will throw child into a diabetic shock. Parent explains to child the complex theories about how a pancreas doesn't produce insulin, etc... child has no idea what the hell parent is talking about - parent, says that the cookes will make child sick, child maintains that child wants the whole box of cookies. Parents says no, child can have some sugar-free dessert. Child is sad, but takes the sugar-free dessert.

TCS would say this is coersion. I call it common sense. This was a compromise for the child and in the child's best interest.

Netty also says:

"You *chose* to make those vows. And you are *free* to leave your marriage at any time. And if you choose to leave, you can find plenty of support for doing so. This is not so for children. They have no choice in this respect. And they had no choice in being "entered into the social contract" either. "

Children wouldn't even exist if we didn't chose to have them. Of course children have no choice - that is a fact of nature. Unless someone has figured out a way to harness the immaculate conception.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Seems to me it's about time to close this thread and start a new one.

Feel free to continue your discussion in the new "TCS Discussions 2" that I have opened. For easy access I will place this thread in the Gentle Discipline Archives which is located at the top of the Gentle Discipline threads list page.

~Cynthia


----------

