# The difference between Consensual Living and Taking Children Seriously



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

If there is an old thread that addresses this directly, please point me to it, but I couldn't find one.

These two parenting philosophies seem very similar to me...is the difference that TCS is more child-led?


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Do any CL'ers want to jump in on this?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I completely forget who said this, I believe Irinam? Forgive me if I am wrong, but anyway....someone said the main difference is that with consensual living, _everyone_ is taken seriously. Also, while I do like many of the TCS examples and such, some of them seem to ask that parents ignore their own opinions/boundaries/better judgment in order to *take their child seriously* ...when in consensual living as we understand it in our family, the goal is mutually agreeable solutions that meet the needs/wants/comfort level of everyone involved.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I could be Way off here, but I was thinking that TCS had more to do with how kids learn, than CL. CL has to do with a basic way that people ought to be treated.
TCS kinda says (according to this page almost at the bottom) that kids learn better without coersion. Something about how knowledge "works" and how coersion "destroys" the learning process.
It also says that coersion is harmful, not necessarily immoral. "Sometimes coersion is the only moral course."

HTH!


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I guess I kinda of feel TCS is a moral mandate on how children are "supposed" to be treated by their parents in order to maximize their learning. ("educational philosophy") And there seems to be a "doing it right" or "doing it wrong" judgement based upon someone's "best theory". Whichever "it" is being solved for. I don't feel that any theory or philosophy is the authority over my actions. I feel much more autonomy to determine my own actions based upon my own observations, rationale, beliefs, perceptions and values. I *choose* to interact with all people based upon their consent (to the best of my awareness and ability) when my actions affect (or will affect) them. Personally, I find that this process melds with my awareness of Taoism and "wu wei". http://www.hku.hk/philodep/ch/wuwei.htm http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/loy3.htm

I read through some of the posted link and some of that I agree with, some of it I don't. A main aspect in my own practice of living consensually is that I don't believe that my perspective on a situation is the "best theory" for others. Nor does my perspective have to concure with someone else's. If someone doesn't agree with my perpective, that doesn't mean "doing it wrong". Whatever "wrong" is. So, I am striving to have no judgement paradigm in my observations of other's actions except as they affect me. However, I feel a strong sense of 'sharing one's values as the "right" ones' in many philosophies; but I don't find that fits with everyone's needs and beliefs being valid for himself. I am more of a relativist than any TCS theory "allows". http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/relativi.htm

I find that living consensually provides the space for individuals to have alternative perspectives and still seek mutually agreeable solutions. No one needs to convince the other person that their way is the "best way". As long as everyone is in agreement about the solution, it doesn't matter *why* someone wants to do something. Living consensually has more to do with interactions (process), than age.

Does that help?

Pat


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Pat, Becky, Captain Crunchy...yes, that helps!









GREAT explanations. I think I get it. It has been a while since I read some of the TCS stuff and Pat's post reminded me of some things I had forgotten about it.

Thanks again.


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
.........A main aspect in my own practice of living consensually is that I don't believe that my perspective on a situation is the "best theory" for others. Nor does my perspective have to concure with someone else's. If someone doesn't agree with my perpective, that doesn't mean "doing it wrong". Whatever "wrong" is. So, I am striving to have no judgement paradigm in my observations of other's actions except as they affect me. However, I feel a strong sense of 'sharing one's values as the "right" ones' in many philosophies; but I don't find that fits with everyone's needs and beliefs being valid for himself. I am more of a relativist than any TCS theory "allows"......

Pat


Uhhhh. wow. Non-judgemental??? Your practice of consensual living seems very different than how I've been experiencing it lately.

Faith


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
Uhhhh. wow. Non-judgemental??? Your practice of consensual living seems very different than how I've been experiencing it lately.

Faith

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I am open to understanding how/where you have felt judgement.

Pat


----------



## Delacroix (Aug 4, 2005)

Personally, I see the value in judging as little as possible, but I wouldn't want to dispense with it entirely. What's important to me is to know that I am judging, and to CHOOSE to judge.

I want my children to use good judgement. That concept implies that some judgement is bad, and I think it is. How can I expect my children to know good from bad when I've neutralized those concepts in my dealings with them?

Just my perspective.


----------



## lilylove (Apr 10, 2003)

Just a reminder to keep this thread on track and stay on topic








Please take any personal issues to pm.
Thanks


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Delacroix*
Personally, I see the value in judging as little as possible, but I wouldn't want to dispense with it entirely. What's important to me is to know that I am judging, and to CHOOSE to judge.

I want my children to use good judgement. That concept implies that some judgement is bad, and I think it is. How can I expect my children to know good from bad when I've neutralized those concepts in my dealings with them?

Just my perspective.

Yes, I do value judging what is best for my Self and my mind/body/spirit. However, I don't feel that anyone else can do that for another person, even a child. The act of judging for oneself occurs through awareness, opportunity and practice, imo. I work to support our son's self-determination in his process of judging what is best for his Self and his mind/body/spirit. I don't see a place for me judging him or his choices though. I do share my experience, opinions, concerns and knowledge when he indicates that he desires it.

Pat


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Delacroix*

I want my children to use good judgement. That concept implies that some judgement is bad, and I think it is. How can I expect my children to know good from bad when I've neutralized those concepts in my dealings with them?

Just my perspective.

I believe we all want our kids to use "good" everything and anything. But I am curious at who defines "good"? What IS good and what IS bad?

I believe in figuring out those questions for oneself.

Because if I try to just *tell* my kids that goods and bads are the ones that *I* think are goods and bads, how will they learn to do it on their own? When I will not be there to tell them?

Thought provoking discussion


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

One example of differences in judgement I can think of recently:

My mother did something that really angered DS - and me, of course. DS was really upset and grumpy for a little while until he was able to tell me that what she had done had hurt his feelings. I suggested that he tell her about why he was angry.

Now, I know damn well that my mother would never acknowledge her roll in it, and absolutely would never apologize. This angers _me_ about her. I didn't know how DS would take having a conversation about why he was angry that didn't end with any acknoledgement of his feelings. But I was a little worried for him.

When we got home, he made a bee line to her, eyebrows knitted, determined to talk about it. He told her all about his feelings. She prevaricated, of course. I was livid. DS was just so happy to tell her and made up all with her on his own, regardless of what she did to help him.

I was very proud of him that he could handle it in his way that was different than mine. I didn't add to his thoughts that I would have continued to be upset at her prevarication. He judged the issue to be resolved and doesn't hold ill feelings. I would have felt more hurt. To me, her defensive lying is a huge issue. To DS, it seems that the expression of his feelings is what matters most.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I thought TCS was a banned topic?

Apparently not: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ghlight=banned

Then again, maybe it was: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...060#post814060










From what I can glean, if an individual poster felt censored, they felt that their opinions were banned. That seems to happen to TCS advocates on a lot of lists. But, I imagine that corporal punishment advocates feel similarly on MDC. I guess it depends on the moderator's perception. And the poster's perception may be different.

And perception makes it so, depending on who has the power, unless a mutually agreeable solution can be reached.









Pat


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I completely forget who said this, I believe Irinam? Forgive me if I am wrong, but anyway....someone said the main difference is that with consensual living, _everyone_ is taken seriously. Also, while I do like many of the TCS examples and such, some of them seem to ask that parents ignore their own opinions/boundaries/better judgment in order to *take their child seriously* ...when in consensual living as we understand it in our family, the goal is mutually agreeable solutions that meet the needs/wants/comfort level of everyone involved.

My understanding of TCS (I was on the email list for many years) is that a parent should not self-sacrifice. Mutually agreeable solutions are always what you strive for. From what I have seen of consensual living (the examples, descriptions, and advice given here and in the Yahoo group) and TCS, I honestly don't see a practical difference.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
My understanding of TCS (I was on the email list for many years) is that a parent should not self-sacrifice. Mutually agreeable solutions are always what you strive for. From what I have seen of consensual living (the examples, descriptions, and advice given here and in the Yahoo group) and TCS, I honestly don't see a practical difference.









I believe it depends on whose perspective of the practical application one is experiencing. Many parents feel judged against a moral mandate in TCS, from my experience. The experience of *choosing* to seek mutually agreeable solutions, vs. "obligated", "responsible", "duty" or "failure" to find a solution to which the child is agreeable *feels* very different, imo. The difference between being *coerced* (moral pressure) to find a solution and *choice*, is huge, imo.

I guess it is similar to the difference in _asking_ a child to pick up their toys and _telling_ them they are "bad" if they don't. Granted, perception of this judgement is in the mind of the beholder, and is not necessarily the intent of TCS. However, judgement at the TCS site is not just everyone's imagination. Perception makes it so. The dissidence between being told not to judge and feeling judged is pretty strong, for me.









IMO, the child's experience would be different also, if the parent is feeling obligated to find a solution rather than if the parent is freely choosing to seek a mutually agreeable solution. Although, I do find that it is easier to create solutions if we don't default to "making" or "giving in". The act of halting the effort to find a mutually agreeable solution pretty much assures that we won't find one. So, we have found more solutions by *trusting* that we will find one, not feeling like we *must*.

I think these are pretty big differences practically, emotionally and experientially due to a sense of autonomy vs. a sense of "have to".









Pat


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
The experience of *choosing* to seek mutually agreeable solutions, vs. "obligated", "responsible", "duty" or "failure" to find a solution to which the child is agreeable feels very different, imo.

I think most TCS parents want to find mutually agreeable solutions with their children, just like the CL parents.

Quote:

However, judgement at the TCS site is not just everyone's imagination. Perception makes it so.
But, lots of people feel judged at MDC. I see that claim a lot, especially on the GD forum. Does that mean judgement is a part of GD? or NFL?

It seems to me like there is a tone to the TCS List that people react against, more than huge differences in the philosophies.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I think most TCS parents want to find mutually agreeable solutions with their children, just like the CL parents.

I agree.

Quote:

But, lots of people feel judged at MDC. I see that claim a lot, especially on the GD forum.
I agree.

Quote:

Does that mean judgement is a part of GD? or NFL?

Apparently so for a lot of individuals embracing GD and NFL. But, there isn't a list of what GD is and what GD isn't. There is a list of "What TCS is and What it is not': http://www.takingchildrenseriously.c...what_it_is_not

We can't seem to find any agreement about GD and NFL. And there isn't someone mandating what it "is".

Quote:

It seems to me like there is a tone to the TCS List that people react against, more than huge differences in the philosophies.
I agree. Could be the absolutist moralizing. Kinda like religion.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

bumping.

Pat


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I agree with sunnysideup. I also think the difference is that TCS is a philosophy, not a parenting technique. Many people are put-off by the discussion of ideas rather than practical techniques on the TCS list (or were when I was on it, which admittedly was 8+ years ago), but the philosophy was the point. I actually like it when there's a clear consensus on what words mean, because I like talking about ideas, and when GD or unschooling seem to mean different things to different people, it makes it hard to really discuss them as ideas

I also really don't care about living "consentually" with everyone, to be honest. I feel strongly about not coercing the people I love, but really, I feel perfectly fine about coercing many other people. I'm pretty okay with judging, too... and sometimes I judge my child's choices and actions, and that's fine with us. Actually, it's a very essential bit of parenting for me. If I see her, for example, getting ready to go dance for 6 hours with no food, I'll usually suggest it, and then if she still demurs, I'll tell her that I think it's a bad idea to go that long without eating, and why. Honest feedback - judgement - from people whose opinions I trust is valuable to me. Rain's criteria for a ballet teacher include being judged - she wants to know what's good and what's bad about how she dances.

Rain still has the freedom to decide to not eat for 6 hours, or to let her thumbs show when she dances. Judgement does not equal coercion. If CL requires not judging the actions of others, then that's a difference, because judging is fine in TCS.

dar


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Dar, I agree with your experience of TCS including and embracing judging others. The Consensual Living process experiences judgment as an obstacle to creating solutions, when someone is judging another's actions, preferences or choices.

I agree that TCS is an "educational philosophy". Its specific focus is children. CL is broader in that it involves our relationships with others, even outside of our families. It expands on the belief that adversarial relationships don't create harmony and peace in our lives, even with relationships outside of family.

Here are two statements from their website:

*"TCS parents take the view that there is objective truth in all spheres, including morality, etc. as well as in physics, etc."

"TCS is THE most involved parenting there is...TCS is the only way of interacting that doesn't involve devoting one's ingenuity to hurting and thwarting one's loved ones."*

It is the absolutism that didn't work for us. Our view is that judging things as "right/wrong", "good/bad" doesn't get us closer to finding solutions, understanding the other person and their needs without judgment does, in my experience.

I hope that helps to clarify the differences in practical and philosophical terms.

Pat


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

This is very interesting to me. I think TCSers and CLers overlap in the desire (and the belief that it's possible) to parent without coercion -- also in the desire to resolve conflicts by working together to find common preferences.

But I can see now that there are some differences, too -- maybe related to the beliefs of the individual founders of the two philosophies. I know Sarah Fitz-Claridge founded Taking Children Seriously: who founded the Consensual Living philosophy?

I know TCS philosophy is very much intertwined with the writings of Karl Popper. I'm reading his book _Objective Knowledge_ right now and am learning a lot. The posters are right that TCS is very much concerned with how people learn. TCSers believe that people essentially start life as scientists (but coercive education tends to ruin this), thus Popper's theories about how scientific knowlege is acquired are very much related to how we learn in general. Popper believes all learning begins within the learner, with a problem/question the learner is trying to solve/answer. The learner makes a bunch of bold conjectures (hypotheses/theories) about what the answer might be, then tests these conjectures. As theories are falsified, that helps to narrow things down a bit, but Popper didn't believe it was possible to know absolutely FOR SURE that you'd found the right answer: you could only know for sure what was false, NOT what was true. Popper believed in the existence of absolute truth: he just didn't believe we could know for sure if we'd found it.

So, from my understanding, TCS embraces non-coercion from two perspectives: the perspective that no one, not even a parent, is infallible (knowing absolute truth) -- therefore we can reduce our risk of error by listening to our children and honouring their ideas just as we honour our own; and the perspective that children know their own interests/problem situations better than anyone else -- therefore they will learn better if they are free to pursue knowledge in their own unique ways, rather than being subject to someone else's curriculum.

I haven't really found writings on Consensual Living, but I've learned a lot from Pat (WuWei).

Oh, another difference is that TCSers like to avoid any sharing of personal information, whereas with CL it seems to be more acceptable to talk about our families. I don't use my real name, and don't anticipate ever being famous enough that fans (or enemies) would try to track down every post I've ever written -- but then again, my kids might be famous one day and maybe people would be interested in knowing personal stuff about their childhoods. So I'm starting to think more carefully about how and what I share.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
another difference is that TCSers like to avoid any sharing of personal information, whereas with CL it seems to be more acceptable to talk about our families. I don't use my real name, and don't anticipate ever being famous enough that fans (or enemies) would try to track down every post I've ever written -- but then again, my kids might be famous one day and maybe people would be interested in knowing personal stuff about their childhoods. So I'm starting to think more carefully about how and what I share.

My understanding was that TCSers think it is disrespectful to talk about someone without their permission. So, it's not really about not sharing personal information, you could talk about yourself if you want, but they anonymize situations about others out of respect.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I used to talk about Rain by name on the TCS list... I asked her what name she wanted me to use and she wanted her real one... no one fussed, back then anyway, because I had permission. Things might be different now there, I don't know (and she has a totally different name now, too, if anyone ever checks the archives).

Most people used the same psuedonym for their kids back then, and I can't remember it... was it Fred? And Fredette? Hmmmm....

dar


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
But I can see now that there are some differences, too -- maybe related to the beliefs of the individual founders of the two philosophies. I know Sarah Fitz-Claridge founded Taking Children Seriously: who founded the Consensual Living philosophy?

I've assumed it was WuWei/Pat and her friend Anna? The concept occurs in many different sources, but as far as the actual expression used to describe the lifetyle as it's known here on MDC, I've googled it and it doesn't come up much, other than here and on a couple of other sites, it appears to be very new, at least as it's known on here.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

*Consensual living--who coined this term?*
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...=ncunschoolers

If you would like more information about Consensual Living or would like to sign up for the Consensual Living Newsletter, please visit our web site: http://www.consensual-living.com

Pat


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Thanks for the link, Pat! I just went there for a bit and look forward to spending more time there.

What's really interesting to me is that so many people, from so many different backgrounds, are drawn to consent-based parenting. Right now I'm finding CL and TCS each have aspects that are intriguing and thought-provoking to me.

In a way, the views of good and bad -- in each philosophy -- are somewhat hard for me to wrap myself around. With TCS/Karl Popper, there ARE absolutes: humans just can't ever know for sure that they've found them. As a Christian, I'm finding I agree and disagree. I mean, I agree that we humans never have the WHOLE picture, we're always learning and realizing we had misconceptions about something so it stands to reason that we STILL have some misconceptions, right? But there are some basics of my faith that I'll always believe regardless, and I think TCSers would call my faith an "entrenched" idea.

Then with CL, there are no such things as good and evil? Am I understanding this right? I understand that a small child who's behaving aggressively isn't "evil" -- there's an underlying need the child needs help meeting; maybe the child is frustrated because of an inability to communicate the need. But I believe intentionally harming others IS evil. Some behaviors are morally better than others. While I don't believe in forcing my children to accept my value judgements, I think I'd be irresponsible if I didn't SHARE what I believe about how other people should and shouldn't be treated. Is what I'm expressing incompatible with CL? Do CLers really believe all judgment is wrong (which essentially seems to be a judgement)?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

This is an old post of mine discussing the obstacle that judgment places in the conflict resolution process.

Quote:

*Help doesn't judge. Judgement doesn't help.*
I totally believe people mean well and are doing what they think is best for their survival. Sometimes, their survival is based upon some psychological or physiological needs that transpire to cause them to disregard other's needs, without intent to harm, or without awareness of harm, or even through emotional denial/oblivion of the obvious. How else could one hit their own child?

Since, I believe people mean well and are doing what they think is best for their survival, when I observe another person suffering as a result of anyone's actions, I choose to help increase their awareness of the other *person's* suffering (their impact), not place any judgment on their actions. Also, I actively attempt to advocate for the person who is apparently voicing dissent at how they are being treated. (Not advocate for any "right" way.) I do these things not as judgment, but with full expectation that people do not mean to cause harm to others in the course of meeting their own needs. I try to inform without creating defensiveness, in order, to affect change for the benefit of the one suffering.

Attacking in the manner of judging, only leads to defensiveness, not openness to listen and consider another person as an adviser/advocate/partner. From my experience, judgment is counter productive to meeting the goal of changing a behavior (ie. helping someone who is suffering), unless there is a concurrent threat of forced compliance or punishment. One needs to _want_ to change.

Just as children are more receptive to a partnership of efforts to meet their underlying needs without judgment of the validity of their needs, adults (larger children; adulthood really is an arbitrary point in time) also need help to meet their underlying needs of survival. And sometimes adults need to be helped to see *the impact* of their actions on others (just like young children do). Any _presumption of malice_ is imbued by the external judgment (right/wrong matrix) applied upon the actions of an individual without regard to the underlying *purpose* or *reason* for their actions in the first place. Instead, by actively seeking to *understand* the underlying needs of the person impacting another, we can help them to meet their needs in a non-imposing manner to the best of their developmental ability/maturity/situational alternatives.

But, judging their actions as "right" or "wrong" is a destructive action which provides no benefit of altering their development, their maturity or their situation, in my experience. Judgment merely paralyzes one due to the threat on their ability to meet their survival needs in the manner to which they thought essential. Thus a fight or flight response results. And this is not an opportune situation in which to consider growth and change in the direction of he who is _threatening you with judgment_ and consequences, no matter how "logical".

Help doesn't judge. Judgment doesn't help.
Pat


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Pat, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I, like you, don't believe in attacking my children (or others) by making judgemental remarks about their behavior. However, just the mere fact that I IMMEDIATELY intervene to stop someone from being harmed (be it the cat or a sibling) -- doesn't that communicate my judgement that it's WRONG to cause others suffering? I agree that attacking the person who caused the suffering accomplishes nothing: it's much better to listen/respond to this person and help hir find ways to meet hir needs that aren't harmful. (Yet even my assessment that it's BETTER to listen and help, not attack, is a judgement -- is it not?)

And, I repeat, the mere fact that I'm intervening to help the person find unharmful ways to meet needs -- this says I find something UNacceptable about the methods the person is currently using. If I wasn't judging hir current actions as harmful -- and making the judgement that it's WRONG to harm others -- I certainly wouldn't see any need to intervene; I'd just let the person carry on.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

You might find this loooonnnngggg thread about the cultural construct of "rights" and "human rights" as absolutes intriguing, PM me for the link. It is at the CL yahoogroup. We'd love to discuss this more on the CL tribe, or CL yahoogroup, or at the Peace Activism message board: ai makoto.

Or this one: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...t=human+rights

Pat


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I see a lot of ways to judge besides simply saying that someone is morally wrong or evil, and I don't think judging has to be an attack. In between that last sentence and this one, I actually just ran out to solve a minor kitchen emergency and wound up telling Rain that I thought the pan she was using to cook eggs was too small, thus judging her choice of egg-pan. She didn't feel attacked or defensive, as far as I could tell... she said, "Oh, okay... would this one be big enough?" I think judging her actions and choices is very different from judging her, and I don't see how one can get honest feedback on one's actions and efforts without judgement. I see that all the time here - people posting asking if they handled a situation well, or if a letter to someone sounds right - they want to be judged. It's only when judgement becomes a judgement of the person's value as a human being that it becomes problematic, and at least with people raised without coercion, that's never a question.

Judgement doesn't have to be black and white - in my mind, it's just about assessing a situation and having opinions. I can't imagine not sharing that sort of information with people I care about.

dar


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 

Judgment doesn't have to be black and white - in my mind, it's just about assessing a situation and having opinions. I can't imagine not sharing that sort of information with people I care about.

dar

We just had a thought provoking discussion "Re: "discussions" of Principles and living them with Trust" on the Always Unschooled yahoogroup. The main issue was providing information that is *related* and due to an *expressed* interest.

Pat


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

See, that sounds too much like walking on eggshells to me. If Rain hasn't expressed an interest in my opinion about, say, her choice of outfit to some event... but I have more knowledge about what should be worn there than she does and believe that her outfit would be inappropriate for some reason... then not sharing my judgement of her outfit with her would feel really wrong to me. Or would it be different if I said, "You know, the air conditioning in that room is really strong.... it's usually about 58 in there" rather than "I think that outfit is too lightweight for a lecture in Wescoe, because it's usually really cold in those room." In the former the judgement isn't stated, but it is implied... and I'm not sure I'd always make the connection that maybe I should wear long pants if someone said that to me, especially if I wasn't very focused.

I'm not sure what you mean by "related"...

dar


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 

I'm not sure what you mean by "related"...

dar

Related to their own agenda and desires, rather than imposing our own.

Pat


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Related to their own agenda and desires, rather than imposing our own.

How about offering our own? The word "imposing" implies coercion, which isn't how we work... although I suppose you could define "agenda and desires" broadly, something like "to live a happy, interesting, fulfilled life", and then I could offer lots of stuff that I believed was related to that agenda.

But really, even that seems limiting... like, the other day I had to leave and had bread rising, so I asked explained to Rain what need to be done with it next and asked if she'd do it... even though she had no bread-beating desire or agenda; it was my agenda all the way. On the other hand, she probably desires a harmonious living situation and a happy mother, and so for those reasons punching down the bread could be part of her agenda... it just depends on how far you take the line of logic.

dar


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I certainly make requests of others to help me address my needs, such as the bread making. Of course, others can decline to participate.







We continue to seek solutions which address each of our needs to mutual satisfaction.

Pat


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Update: I've recently begun reading Karl Popper's book _Objective Knowledge_ (The ideas of Taking Children Seriously are based on Popper's epistemology) and I now think a distinctive difference between Taking Children Seriously and Consensual Living is that TCS is based on belief in the existence of a reality/truth that's independent of us and our individual or cultural perceptions. Therefore TCS advocates believe there IS such a thing as a moral realilty (including right and wrong): they just don't believe in being dogmatic, but believe in always criticising their theories, because as humans we're fallible and we can always be wrong.

I just read online about Popper's brief interlude with communism as a teen; he abruptly left communism after a protest he'd helped organize resulted in some workers being killed by police. When he discovered that his fellow party members saw the sacrifice of some workers as necessary to further their cause (because the shootings would make the workers more hostile toward police and incite them to more intense rebellion and speed the process of revolution), he realized he'd accepted a theory without criticism. This firsthand experience of the dangers of dogmatism had a profound impact on his life and thinking.

I'm actually thinking TCS may be more compatible with Christianity (even though its founder, Sarah Fitz-Claridge, is an atheist) because of this belief in an objective reality -- including the actual existence of right and wrong. Am I right in thinking that Consensual Living advocates believe in moral relativism? I read a little about the meaning of WuWei, and it seems to mean the absence of purpose. Am I accurate in my understanding?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Mammal_mama, I am delighted at your inquiry. However, I don't know that this discussion will allow us to get closer to GD, the purpose of this forum.







May I respectfully invite you to copy/repost your inquiry for the CL yahoogroup? You will receive a broader source of opinions than merely my own. Your interest is most welcome.









Pat


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Thanks, Pat; I think I'll do that very soon.

I'm sorry I kind of lost track of where I was posting -- but I think at least one aspect of my questioning actually does apply to gentle discipline.

There's a big difference between believing there IS such a thing as objective moral truth (truth existing regardless of our personal beliefs) -- and believing there's no such thing as moral truth. This difference is bound to affect our communications with our children.

From my understanding, TCS parents share their personal theories -- including their theories about right and wrong -- with their children: they just let their children decide for themselves which theories ring true to them and which don't.

TCS is, from my understanding, a method of error correction: parents are continuously aware that they may be wrong and their children may be right. Listening to everyone's ideas and finding a common preference is a way to avoid error and come nearer to the truth, as well as a way to live respectfully and joyfully together, and free themselves and their children to explore the world (in ways meaningful to the individual) and keep continuously creating new knowledge.

From my understanding, a Consensual Living parent doesn't share her beliefs about moral truth with her children because her truth may not be their truth? Am I understanding this right? Maybe part of the religious aspect I mentioned earlier would be better discussed elsewhere -- but I really believe this particular post IS relevant to a discussion on gentle discipline, especially as this is a thread comparing and contrasting CL and TCS.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Since the specific overall subject matter doesn't directly deal with supporting, learning and applying _Gentle Discipline_, I'm moving over to Parenting Issues. Thanks for your understanding


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Thanks for moving it...

I certainly think there are moral truths... it's interesting that this comes up now, because I've been talking with others about cultural relativism and dealing with some of the same issues. Maybe that's why I have had a hard time wrapping my head around CL. I don't necessarily believe that all ideas are equally valuable or equally right - in some cases, sure, but not always. I'm open to being disproved (and my daughter has disproved a whole lot of my ideas over the past 14 years) but I'm not willing to simply accept a idea's validity without examining it...

dar


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

That's kind of where I'm at, too, Dar.

Also, I agree with someone who said, on the TCS website, that relationships of mutual caring are necessary for people to be able to find common preferences -- which is why consent-based living can work with family and friends, but not necessarily ALWAYS with the world at large.

If you and I care about each other and we're spending the day together, our companionship is (hopefully) AS important as, or MORE important than, where we go and what we do. Therefore we'll conider one another's likes and dislikes, energy levels and moods, in deciding how we spend the day. If I'd LOVE to spend four hours trecking around the mall (not likely!), but know you're exhausted and are having a hard time even getting up off the couch, I'm no longer going to prefer the mall trek as it would be no fun for me if you were miserable.

But if we don't even enjoy one another's company, why would we look for a common preference? You'd go your way and I'd go mine; we probably wouldn't be spending the day together in the first place.

In the same way, some of our relationships with the world at large lack the bond of mutual caring that would enable us to find common preferences with all and sundry. Though I DO want to model compassion and empathy to my children through attempting to see the underlying needs of seemingly "difficult" (and even outright mean and rude) people, I ALSO want to model a willingness to recognize, confront, and fight evil and oppression when I see it.

And I'm not saying I just want to outwardly "model" compassion and boldness for my kids: that's the kind of person I want to be on the inside, too.

I think both skills are important. I DO believe there's such a thing as evil, though I don't assume everyone caught up in evil practices is just bad bad bad -- people who intentionally hurt others have lots of unmet needs which have caused them to perceive and relate to others in really sick ways; you can fight evil, and protect yourself and others, while still having compassion for the ones who would like to inflict harm.

It's true that if ALL were raised with AP and TCS/CL principles, we probably COULD live consensually with every single person (or government) we meet. But since we're not living in that kind of world, I find it easier to find common ground with TCS, as it allows for an attidute of readiness to fight for personal rights and freedom.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I believe that there are reasons underlying behavior and that I want to be the change I wish to see. I do not believe in the construct of Evil. I guess that I am more optimistic that mutually agreeable solutions CAN be created, even with complete strangers.

Pat


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I believe that there are reasons underlying behavior and that I want to be the change I wish to see. I do not believe in the construct of Evil. I guess that I am more optimistic that mutually agreeable solutions CAN be created, even with complete strangers.

Pat

Pat, I'm TOTALLY on board with you in your first two statements:

1) There are reasons underlying behavior, and
2)I want to be the change I wish to see.

Where we differ is that I DO believe in the construct of evil. And I believe people who've severely suffered with unmet needs are vulnerable to getting involved with evil movements that promise to help them get what they feel they need/deserve by force.

I'm learning so much from you and I'm really, really glad you're still participating in this thread.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I think the construct of evil is separate from "evil people", if that makes sense.There are evil ideas, evil movements, evil systems, evil deeds... I don't know about evil people, though.

And leaving aside the idea of evil, I think there are good, wise ideas and poor, unwise ideas... and that people cling to the latter either because of lack of knowledge or prior coercion. In parenting (bringing this back on-topic), if Rain and I have differing and conflicting ideas, generally one of us is acting unreasonably due to one of those two factors.

dar


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Pat, I'm TOTALLY on board with you in your first two statements:

1) There are reasons underlying behavior, and
2)I want to be the change I wish to see.

Where we differ is that I DO believe in the construct of evil. And I believe people who've severely suffered with unmet needs are vulnerable to getting involved with evil movements that promise to help them get what they feel they need/deserve by force.

I'm learning so much from you and I'm really, really glad you're still participating in this thread.

You have made my point.







If we can *meet* the underlying needs, then force won't be needed.

The construct of "us" and "them" creates separation and distance. I believe this underlies all conflicts. When we perceive "us" as "right", and "them" as "wrong", we are not focused on needs and feelings. The choice to focus on behaviors obstructs creating solutions which are mutually agreeable, in my experience. By facilitating the needs of "people who've severely suffered with unmet needs", we break the cycle of violence and force. If we meet force with force, we self-perpetuate force! *We each have the power to be the change we wish to see, in EVERY conflict or interaction*. Creating solutions which address everyone's underlying needs benefits "us", as there is no separate "them". When one is suffering, the "other" suffers, just as you elucidated. We are interdependent beings. "No man is an island" as they say.

Did you read the "Human Rights" thread? The construct of "rights" obstructs creating solutions, in my experience. The thread about "Rights" that I referenced, on the Consensual Living yahoogroup, discussed this also. There is only one "us", we are all people.

I *trust* that we can *all* have our needs met without the use of force or violence. We just need to seek solutions to find the way. It is the act of working to find solutions which is the first step of creating them.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I think the construct of evil is separate from "evil people", if that makes sense.There are evil ideas, evil movements, evil systems, evil deeds... I don't know about evil people, though.

And leaving aside the idea of evil, I think there are good, wise ideas and poor, unwise ideas... and that people cling to the latter either because of lack of knowledge or prior coercion. In parenting (bringing this back on-topic), if Rain and I have differing and conflicting ideas, generally one of us is acting unreasonably due to one of those two factors.

dar

One thing that has helped me is that when I judge something as "not good", to question 'How do I know?' Here is an old Chinese story that helps depict this Awareness, Trust and Not-knowing:

http://karve.wordpress.com/tag/blogroll/

http://www.pediatricservices.com/parents/pc-11.htm

Quote:

The Taoist prefers to look at life events without judgment or interpretation. According to Taoism, the true significance of events can never be understood as they are occurring, for in every event there are elements of both good and bad. Furthermore, each event has no specific beginning or end and may influence events for years, or even centuries, to come. An excellent example of the Taoist view of life is found in the following parable of the Taoist farmer.

<snip>

As they stood there, each one said, "Oh what good luck!" The Taoist farmer replied, "Maybe."
There is an old Taoist saying: The difference between "certain" and "perhaps" isn't much after all.

Pat


----------



## LauraLoo (Oct 9, 2006)

Subbing.....I like what I'm reading and need this to ponder.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

OMG, Pat, I just heard that story last night for the first time and LOVED it. Told it to my husband today, and now read it here this afternoon! WILD!


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Psst, Pat... 100 words or fewer... copyright...

If there are no moral absolutes, what are your criteria for making decisions? If any act might have beneficial results or deleterious results (or both), how do you choose? If a group of people mutually agree to, say, torture a dog, is that acceptable from a CL perspective?

The TCS perspective would be that one judges ideas by examining them rationally, and judging them. If the group decides to torture a dog rather than driving straight home after a party and thus the driver has time to sober up a bit and doesn't hit a van full of kids while driving home, torturing the dog was still wrong, from my perspective...

dar


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

*I* make decisions based upon that which is consensual to he who is potentially impacted, to the best of my ability and awareness. Consent is my criteria for making decisions. So, I seek to find alternatives which are mutually satisfying to all involved. This seems less culturally myopic, and more individually responsive of those affected. Otherwise, **Who* is to decide the morality of "right" and "wrong"* for other's lives? Consideration of the personal judgment and consent of he who is impacted by my actions, is the morality that I choose to embrace and model. *I* am the moral judge of what is *ok* or *not ok* to happen to my body. I honor others with the same moral authority over their body, even children.

Animal "torture" is a bit OT, but I imagine that *isn't* a moral absolute. Just ask vegans, medical researchers, product testing, the pork industry, etc. There certainly seems to be a lot of ambiguity in some of the "moral absolutes" that some people embrace. Thus, there is a whole list of morals which opposing political lobbyists are attempting to legislate.

Pat


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I think that saying that certain actions are morally wrong in one context and not morally wrong in another, even if it's the same action, doesn't negate the idea of moral absolutes. Cutting someone with a knife is usually wrong, unless you're a surgeon performing a life-saving operation). Intent does matter in regards to morality, IMO.

I think there are cultural variations in "right" and "wrong", but I also think there are moral absolutes as well. Certain actions are better than others. We decide this through rationally examining ideas and criticizing them logically

Do you see doing something to someone without his consent as morally wrong? If not, why do you choose to live that way?

How does a power disparity influence the ability to consent? In many countries in the world, poor people sell their body parts (organs) for a thousand dollars or so, in order to feed their families for a while. They do it "voluntarily" - at least, according to law - but the real reason they agree is the poverty they're enduring due to oppression by the group in power. I think consent is often not a simple yes or no question, with people who are living in a coercive system. Mammal_mama brought up the difficulty of finding common preferences with people when you don't have a bond of mutual caring, but I think it would also be difficult when people are not able to make free choices in other aspects of their lives...

dar


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Yes, Pat, if everyone's underlying needs were met, there would be no need, EVER, to use coercion to protect anyone's rights and freedoms.

Sadly, there are abuses going on in the world that I, personally, don't have the power to set right. These abuses can cause some (though not all) to grow into people with no respect for others. Like you, I believe in being the change I wish to see -- mainly I do this through modeling my faith, attachment parenting, and respect for children's autonomy -- and through respecting the autonomy of ALL as long as it doesn't interfere with personal freedoms --

BUT, for example, some adults decide, without a child's permission, that they'd like to pick the child up, or play with her hair, or tickle her: if someone wants to interact in this way with my child and she's not consenting, I certainly DON'T respect that individual's autonomous desire to invade my child's space.

I think it's WRONG for one person to disrespect another person's space. Yes, there are cultural differences in how we perceive personal space. I'm not talking about cultural misunderstandings: those are situations where people can explain their need for more space (maybe with the help of an interpreter), and correct the problem.

But where a child and adult speak the same language, and the child is saying, "Leave me alone!" and crying,and the adult acts like it's a joke and keeps trying to tickle the child --

Well, someone needs to stop that adult. I don't know, I guess you can tell her, "I'll be glad to help you figure out ways to meet your underlying need that don't involve upsetting my child."

She might feel slightly patronized by this, but maybe it'll do some good. In my case, I'd probably be too angry on my child's behalf to really care much about her needs at that moment.

I just think CL is based on the assumption that everyone is really WILLING to respect everyone else's autonomy. I find TCS more workable, because the focus is on creating respectful relationships on a small scale, in my personal family life -- and extending that respect into the larger society as much as possible. TCS doesn't require me to suspend my belief in an objective reality...

it doesn't require me to act like I live in a totally autonomy-respecting world, as if my pretending would make it so.

I've been learning so much from you, Pat. I don't want to sound like I'm making fun of CL ideas: they just seem out-of-touch with the world as I see it.


----------

