coersion/tcs
Lyla Wolfenstein
well, i looked up tcs, wondering what is said there specifically about coersion and i found this:
"Another possible misinterpretation of TCS is the idea that coercion is always wrong - that if one child is attacking another with a cricket bat, it is wrong to intervene. On the contrary, it is vital to protect the victim, and that might well involve stopping the attacking child against his or her will, i.e., coercively. That there would have been a way to avoid this in the first place is, at such a moment, irrelevant for all practical purposes. But in the bigger picture, it is reassuring: if the good things in life could be obtained by mechanically following a rule, then only a wicked and unworthy parent would ever fail to find a common preference with their beloved child. But TCS is not a rule. When we say that it is possible and desirable to raise children without intentionally coercing them, we don't mean that if everything goes wrong sometimes, you must be an evil shit unworthy of life, what we mean is: hey, there's hope - things need not be like this for ever!"
seemed relevant to recent discussions....
warmly, Lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"Another possible misinterpretation of TCS is the idea that coercion is always wrong - that if one child is attacking another with a cricket bat, it is wrong to intervene. On the contrary, it is vital to protect the victim, and that might well involve stopping the attacking child against his or her will, i.e., coercively. That there would have been a way to avoid this in the first place is, at such a moment, irrelevant for all practical purposes. But in the bigger picture, it is reassuring: if the good things in life could be obtained by mechanically following a rule, then only a wicked and unworthy parent would ever fail to find a common preference with their beloved child. But TCS is not a rule. When we say that it is possible and desirable to raise children without intentionally coercing them, we don't mean that if everything goes wrong sometimes, you must be an evil shit unworthy of life, what we mean is: hey, there's hope - things need not be like this for ever!"
seemed relevant to recent discussions....
warmly, Lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-On the contrary, it is vital to protect the victim, and that might
well involve stopping the attacking child against his or her will,
i.e., coercively.-=-
That's still not the dictionary definition of "coercively."
If my husband is pointing a gun at someone and I knock the gun out of
his hand (not that he would, not that I could, but "if"), that's not
coercion.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
well involve stopping the attacking child against his or her will,
i.e., coercively.-=-
That's still not the dictionary definition of "coercively."
If my husband is pointing a gun at someone and I knock the gun out of
his hand (not that he would, not that I could, but "if"), that's not
coercion.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lyla Wolfenstein
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandra Dodd
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:30 AM
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [AlwaysLearning] coersion/tcs
-=-On the contrary, it is vital to protect the victim, and that might
well involve stopping the attacking child against his or her will,
i.e., coercively.-=-
That's still not the dictionary definition of "coercively."
If my husband is pointing a gun at someone and I knock the gun out of
his hand (not that he would, not that I could, but "if"), that's not
coercion.>>>
funny, because i looked up "coerscion" yesterday on dictionary.com- i had the same interpretation as you - that it was manipulative use of power - but the dictionary says this:
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
but merriam webster says this (online at dict.com) - which is more what you were saying...:
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: co·er·cion
Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under coercion
Recent Activity
a.. 20New Members
Visit Your Group
Need traffic?
Drive customers
With search ads
on Yahoo!
Sell Online
Start selling with
our award-winning
e-commerce tools.
Yahoo! Groups
Join people over 40
who are finding ways
to stay in shape.
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
When "not coercing" is the top priority, the only thing that really
matters, life is different than when the priority is creating a rich
and stimulating learning environment or developing strong and happy
relationships.
It isn't so much that I disagree with them about working toward not
coercing, but that I don't find their focus to be useful in creating
the kind of family life that I want. My observation and opinion is
that those who focus on not coercing are neglecting other important
aspects of parenting. If they are in a restaurant and their child is
being disruptive, they wouldn't carry him outside, to avoid bothering
other people. Not coercing is a higher priority than being
considerate. If they are late trying to catch a plane and the child is
busy playing and doesn't want to go, they would miss their flight, pay
the penalty, go later, or not go at all, rather than coerce the child.
Yes, when it is a matter of life and death safety issues, they say
that coercion might be necessary (blame the parent for their poor
planning), but otherwise, the child's judgment and parent's judgment
are considered equally valid, ignoring the reality that parents may
have much more information and more understanding of consequences,
Plus, the parent is expected to be the one to give in when mutually
agreeable solutions can't be found.
I was influenced, for the better, by reading all the discussion about
how to find mutually agreeable solutions - as I was reading about how
far people were willing to go to get to that point, I practiced and
learned, myself, how possible it was to work together, not against
each other.
I think, in practice, it goes too far - it ignores the reality that
parents are more knowledgeable and more able to anticipate
consequences in ways that children cannot. And, I don't think it is
conducive to a congenial social life and I don't think it is fair to
the children when they are allowed to be rude and inconsiderate and
cause difficulties for other people. Yes, parents will give them the
benefit of their own "theories" about what might happen if they walk
around on grandma's coffee table or hit dad's boss's car with a
baseball bat, but the parents will readily admit that they might be
wrong and the child might be right that it is okay to do. Maybe the
other person won't care. Maybe the parent will have to pay to have the
damage repaired. Maybe it is worth it to the child. Maybe, though, the
parent should take the child OFF the coffee table or take the bat out
of the child's hands (against the child's will - meaning "coercively")
because the parent does have the experience and judgment to know why
these are not good things for the child to be doing.
-pam
matters, life is different than when the priority is creating a rich
and stimulating learning environment or developing strong and happy
relationships.
It isn't so much that I disagree with them about working toward not
coercing, but that I don't find their focus to be useful in creating
the kind of family life that I want. My observation and opinion is
that those who focus on not coercing are neglecting other important
aspects of parenting. If they are in a restaurant and their child is
being disruptive, they wouldn't carry him outside, to avoid bothering
other people. Not coercing is a higher priority than being
considerate. If they are late trying to catch a plane and the child is
busy playing and doesn't want to go, they would miss their flight, pay
the penalty, go later, or not go at all, rather than coerce the child.
Yes, when it is a matter of life and death safety issues, they say
that coercion might be necessary (blame the parent for their poor
planning), but otherwise, the child's judgment and parent's judgment
are considered equally valid, ignoring the reality that parents may
have much more information and more understanding of consequences,
Plus, the parent is expected to be the one to give in when mutually
agreeable solutions can't be found.
I was influenced, for the better, by reading all the discussion about
how to find mutually agreeable solutions - as I was reading about how
far people were willing to go to get to that point, I practiced and
learned, myself, how possible it was to work together, not against
each other.
I think, in practice, it goes too far - it ignores the reality that
parents are more knowledgeable and more able to anticipate
consequences in ways that children cannot. And, I don't think it is
conducive to a congenial social life and I don't think it is fair to
the children when they are allowed to be rude and inconsiderate and
cause difficulties for other people. Yes, parents will give them the
benefit of their own "theories" about what might happen if they walk
around on grandma's coffee table or hit dad's boss's car with a
baseball bat, but the parents will readily admit that they might be
wrong and the child might be right that it is okay to do. Maybe the
other person won't care. Maybe the parent will have to pay to have the
damage repaired. Maybe it is worth it to the child. Maybe, though, the
parent should take the child OFF the coffee table or take the bat out
of the child's hands (against the child's will - meaning "coercively")
because the parent does have the experience and judgment to know why
these are not good things for the child to be doing.
-pam
Sandra Dodd
-=-1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain
compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a
government or police force. -=-
But "to gain compliance." That means first I would've had to say
"Put the gun down," and wait. And then "Put the gun down or I will
disarm you," and then wait. <g>
If you suddenly disarm someone (a kid with a cricket bat, or a
toddler with a tree branch), that's not manipulation.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a
government or police force. -=-
But "to gain compliance." That means first I would've had to say
"Put the gun down," and wait. And then "Put the gun down or I will
disarm you," and then wait. <g>
If you suddenly disarm someone (a kid with a cricket bat, or a
toddler with a tree branch), that's not manipulation.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=but otherwise, the child's judgment and parent's judgment
are considered equally valid, ignoring the reality that parents may
have much more information and more understanding of consequences, -=-
Not very good teamwork!
-=-I was influenced, for the better, by reading all the discussion
about how to find mutually agreeable solutions - as I was reading
about how far people were willing to go to get to that point, I
practiced and learned, myself, how possible it was to work together,
not against each other.-=-
Very good teamwork.
I'm on my kids' side and they're on my side, and it works very well.
Keith is on my side AND on Holly's side, when I call and ask his
advice, from the grocery store, where I can't find anything we
actually need at home and am just walking around there talking to
Keith. (What a day, and mostly good, but long.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
are considered equally valid, ignoring the reality that parents may
have much more information and more understanding of consequences, -=-
Not very good teamwork!
-=-I was influenced, for the better, by reading all the discussion
about how to find mutually agreeable solutions - as I was reading
about how far people were willing to go to get to that point, I
practiced and learned, myself, how possible it was to work together,
not against each other.-=-
Very good teamwork.
I'm on my kids' side and they're on my side, and it works very well.
Keith is on my side AND on Holly's side, when I call and ask his
advice, from the grocery store, where I can't find anything we
actually need at home and am just walking around there talking to
Keith. (What a day, and mostly good, but long.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lyla Wolfenstein
>>Maybe theother person won't care. Maybe the parent will have to pay to have the
damage repaired. Maybe it is worth it to the child. Maybe, though, the
parent should take the child OFF the coffee table or take the bat out
of the child's hands (against the child's will - meaning "coercively")
because the parent does have the experience and judgment to know why
these are not good things for the child to be doing.>>
iagree with this - i just also think that the problems arise when parents send a message that there is something WRONG with their child for even WANTING to climb on the coffee table, because they have been told, and they no better, and blah blah blah. or for having the impulse and not stopping themselves.
i think this scenario (the lecturing, shaming, etc.) is wayyy more common than the parent that leaves it up to the child about whether to hit dad's bosse's car with a baseball bat.
Lyla
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
On Nov 10, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Lyla Wolfenstein wrote:
child that way - quite the opposite.
family's real life, because they absolutely will not ever talk about
their real children - it isn't allowed.
So - yeah - isn't very likely we'll run into many TCS/NCP people at
the soccer field or in the grocery store or at our family's
Thanksgiving dinner!
But, they've had an influence in the online homeschooling world and
they are very often unschoolers, so their ideas get confused with
unschooling.
And there are people who think that IS exactly what we're promoting -
letting kids "run wild" with no adult intervention even when kids are
negatively impacting others.
-pam
> iagree with this - i just also think that the problems arise whenRight - but nobody here has ever implied or recommended treating a
> parents send a message that there is something WRONG with their
> child for even WANTING to climb on the coffee table, because they
> have been told, and they no better, and blah blah blah. or for
> having the impulse and not stopping themselves.
>
child that way - quite the opposite.
> i think this scenario (the lecturing, shaming, etc.) is wayyy moreWell, you'll never know whether this is a real situation in any TCS
> common than the parent that leaves it up to the child about whether
> to hit dad's bosse's car with a baseball bat.
family's real life, because they absolutely will not ever talk about
their real children - it isn't allowed.
So - yeah - isn't very likely we'll run into many TCS/NCP people at
the soccer field or in the grocery store or at our family's
Thanksgiving dinner!
But, they've had an influence in the online homeschooling world and
they are very often unschoolers, so their ideas get confused with
unschooling.
And there are people who think that IS exactly what we're promoting -
letting kids "run wild" with no adult intervention even when kids are
negatively impacting others.
-pam
Sandra Dodd
-=-i think this scenario (the lecturing, shaming, etc.) is wayyy more
common than the parent that leaves it up to the child about whether
to hit dad's bosse's car with a baseball bat. -=-
But what they're both lacking is respect and compassion.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
common than the parent that leaves it up to the child about whether
to hit dad's bosse's car with a baseball bat. -=-
But what they're both lacking is respect and compassion.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]