power, sharing & sense of self
Thad Martin
hi,
i think this is a very important issue. it seems, in general, that
'sharing' has not only become an issue of power for children but for
parents as well . it is a sad perversion of the parent/child
relationship. there is so much social pressure to 'civilize/socialize'
your children that children are being forced to exhibit behaviors that
have no essential meaning, turning them into 'trained animals' (diane's-
I have forced her to before and she did it).
deepak chopra wrote a book: the seven spiritual laws for parents. it's
a nice little book about a way
'to keep the innocence flowing. there's a lot in this world that can
destroy innocence and precious little that can keep it flowing. ' 'as
parents, then, what we teach our children is no different from what we
must keep teaching ourselves.'
the issue of self-esteem does not lay solely in the lap of children,
many parents have very low self-esteem making it difficult to love their
children because they struggle with loving themselves (this struggle is
often expressed by the use of control over ones environment; which often
children are seen as, instead of, equal contributing members of the
family).
in chopra book he talks about power and sharing in the context of the
spiritual development of the self.
'spirituality, the value of the preschool stage is that power is
spiritual - only the distortion of power leads to problems. so rather
than try to curb your child's rush to power, you need to channel it into
tasks and challenges that teach balance.' 'in our love for the child,
we allow the illusion (of power) to exist, because we want her to grow
up a strong, capable person who feels up to any challenge that comes
along. this sense of self-esteem won't develop if the feeling of being
powerful is shut down or repressed at this stage.'
it seems to me that we, as parents, balance the need to protect our
children from the world and to protect the world from our children
(grabbing, hitting - basic expressions of power <g>). this balance,
within today's 'politically correct' climate (not to say that
historically this hasn't also been the case, for example in the name of
religion many injustices have been perpetrated against children, new
face, old problem), has been forsaken. children's right to develop and
acquire the tools that will aid them in finding their own happiness and
contentment, is being sacrificed for the good of the group (again
another balance to be maintained, but given some time and some
suport/faith this balance will happen- the development of the self will
naturally be followed by a caring of others, provided the child does get
the opportunity to develop self).
chopra goes on to say that giving and sharing (among other attributes)
are really acquired around the ages of 5-8, not that children do not
experienced these before this time, but giving and sharing are
experienced more toward the child rather then from the child (much like
the example diane gave of the girl learning to say please because she
experienced it rather than was told that it was the 'right' thing to
do). chopra says:
'giving is how, at any age, we show that we empathize with needs outside
ourselves. if giving is seen as a loss - i have to give something up so
you can have it (illustrated by diane' example of the boy being forced
to give up his piece of pottery) - the spiritual lesson of this stage
has not been taught. giving, in spiritual terms, means " i give to you
without loss to me because you are part of me". a young child can not
fully grasp this idea, but he can feel it. children don't just want to
share - they love to share. they feel the warmth that comes from
reaching beyond ego boundaries to include another person in their world;
no act is more intimate, and therefore no act feels so blissful.'
carolyn's story of the 18 month old girl is sad for 2 main reasons:
first is because the girl is being asked to do something well beyond her
years and out of rhythm with her natural development; and second, and
equally sad, is that the mother, needing to control her daughter, lacks
faith in her child's ability to develop and grow. this lack of faith
undermines this most primary and critical relation. we are so lost to
our need to appear 'on top of it' and to be 'doing the right thing',
that we have forgotten that these things have no meaning if the
relationship is lost.
a personal example that i can give is the issue of 'where the child
should sleep'. our son has always slept with us though he has had his
own bed (giving him a choice and a the sense of power to exercise that
choice), which we bought when he was around 18 months old. at that
time he choose to sleep in it for about 2 months but then returned to
'the big bed' and still sleeps there (he was 4 in sept.). the commonly
accepted practice of, literally, no time in the 'parents', because the
child will become too attached and never individuate, has not been a
reality for us. rene' is extremely independent to the point that he
virtually potty trained himself, always introduces himself to new people
and does not hang on me (in public that is, though at home is another
story:) and has not experienced any overly dependent behavior, in fact
he is amazingly confident and has a strong sense of who he is. what he
has learned is that his needs will be met, his desires do matter and his
happiness is as important as every other member of the family. the joy
and satisfaction i personally experience because of this is more than i
could have imaged (or could have 'willed' into existence) and this is
why i feel great sorrow when parents literally stop themselves from
having an opportunity to experience this level of relating by trying to
force their children to conform to some pre-set/external concepts of
'right and wrong'.
-susan
austin,tx
i think this is a very important issue. it seems, in general, that
'sharing' has not only become an issue of power for children but for
parents as well . it is a sad perversion of the parent/child
relationship. there is so much social pressure to 'civilize/socialize'
your children that children are being forced to exhibit behaviors that
have no essential meaning, turning them into 'trained animals' (diane's-
I have forced her to before and she did it).
deepak chopra wrote a book: the seven spiritual laws for parents. it's
a nice little book about a way
'to keep the innocence flowing. there's a lot in this world that can
destroy innocence and precious little that can keep it flowing. ' 'as
parents, then, what we teach our children is no different from what we
must keep teaching ourselves.'
the issue of self-esteem does not lay solely in the lap of children,
many parents have very low self-esteem making it difficult to love their
children because they struggle with loving themselves (this struggle is
often expressed by the use of control over ones environment; which often
children are seen as, instead of, equal contributing members of the
family).
in chopra book he talks about power and sharing in the context of the
spiritual development of the self.
'spirituality, the value of the preschool stage is that power is
spiritual - only the distortion of power leads to problems. so rather
than try to curb your child's rush to power, you need to channel it into
tasks and challenges that teach balance.' 'in our love for the child,
we allow the illusion (of power) to exist, because we want her to grow
up a strong, capable person who feels up to any challenge that comes
along. this sense of self-esteem won't develop if the feeling of being
powerful is shut down or repressed at this stage.'
it seems to me that we, as parents, balance the need to protect our
children from the world and to protect the world from our children
(grabbing, hitting - basic expressions of power <g>). this balance,
within today's 'politically correct' climate (not to say that
historically this hasn't also been the case, for example in the name of
religion many injustices have been perpetrated against children, new
face, old problem), has been forsaken. children's right to develop and
acquire the tools that will aid them in finding their own happiness and
contentment, is being sacrificed for the good of the group (again
another balance to be maintained, but given some time and some
suport/faith this balance will happen- the development of the self will
naturally be followed by a caring of others, provided the child does get
the opportunity to develop self).
chopra goes on to say that giving and sharing (among other attributes)
are really acquired around the ages of 5-8, not that children do not
experienced these before this time, but giving and sharing are
experienced more toward the child rather then from the child (much like
the example diane gave of the girl learning to say please because she
experienced it rather than was told that it was the 'right' thing to
do). chopra says:
'giving is how, at any age, we show that we empathize with needs outside
ourselves. if giving is seen as a loss - i have to give something up so
you can have it (illustrated by diane' example of the boy being forced
to give up his piece of pottery) - the spiritual lesson of this stage
has not been taught. giving, in spiritual terms, means " i give to you
without loss to me because you are part of me". a young child can not
fully grasp this idea, but he can feel it. children don't just want to
share - they love to share. they feel the warmth that comes from
reaching beyond ego boundaries to include another person in their world;
no act is more intimate, and therefore no act feels so blissful.'
carolyn's story of the 18 month old girl is sad for 2 main reasons:
first is because the girl is being asked to do something well beyond her
years and out of rhythm with her natural development; and second, and
equally sad, is that the mother, needing to control her daughter, lacks
faith in her child's ability to develop and grow. this lack of faith
undermines this most primary and critical relation. we are so lost to
our need to appear 'on top of it' and to be 'doing the right thing',
that we have forgotten that these things have no meaning if the
relationship is lost.
a personal example that i can give is the issue of 'where the child
should sleep'. our son has always slept with us though he has had his
own bed (giving him a choice and a the sense of power to exercise that
choice), which we bought when he was around 18 months old. at that
time he choose to sleep in it for about 2 months but then returned to
'the big bed' and still sleeps there (he was 4 in sept.). the commonly
accepted practice of, literally, no time in the 'parents', because the
child will become too attached and never individuate, has not been a
reality for us. rene' is extremely independent to the point that he
virtually potty trained himself, always introduces himself to new people
and does not hang on me (in public that is, though at home is another
story:) and has not experienced any overly dependent behavior, in fact
he is amazingly confident and has a strong sense of who he is. what he
has learned is that his needs will be met, his desires do matter and his
happiness is as important as every other member of the family. the joy
and satisfaction i personally experience because of this is more than i
could have imaged (or could have 'willed' into existence) and this is
why i feel great sorrow when parents literally stop themselves from
having an opportunity to experience this level of relating by trying to
force their children to conform to some pre-set/external concepts of
'right and wrong'.
-susan
austin,tx
McBryan Alignan
Diane McBryan Alignan:
Of power, I would like to say - it's really about a solid sense
of self - of feeling right. This, unfirtunately becomes issue if power
when others/culture begin to destroy/change/shape a self. At a very
young age when a self is forming, focus shifts from being oneself -
*all of oneself* - to exerting power in order to retain and preserve
oneself. That's load of unjust work for anyone to have to do - each
and every day.
I would like to share something from Erich Fromm. This is getting
off the unschooling topic - but I thought it was very important and
I wanted to quickly throw it out there and bounce off of what Susan
had written in her excellent post.
Erich Fromm wrote:
Selfishness is one kind of greediness. (The German word Selbstsucht
(addiction to self) very adequately expresses this quality common to all
Sucht.) Like all greediness, it contains an insatiability, as a
consequence of which there is never any real satisfaction. Greed is a
bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy
the need without ever reaching satisfaction. This leads to the crucial
point: close observation shows that while the selfish person is always
anxiously concerned with himself, he is never satisfied, is always
restless, always driven by the fear of not getting enough, of missing
something, of being deprived of something. He is filled with burning
envy of anyone who might have more. If we observe still closer,
especially the unconscious dynamics, we find that this type of person is
basically not fond of himself but deeply dislikes himself. The puzzle in
this seeming contradiction is easy to solve. The selfishness is rooted
in this very lack of fondness for oneself. The person who is not fond of
himself, who does not approve of himself, is in a constant anxiety
concerning his own self. He has not the inner security which can exist
only on the basis of genuine fondness and affirmation. He must be
concerned about himself, greedy to get everything for himself, since
basically his own self lacks security and satisfaction. The same holds
true with the so-called narcissistic person, who is not so much
overconcerned with getting things for himself as with admiring himself.
While on the surface it seems that these persons are very much in love
with themselves, they actually are not fond of themselves, and
their narcissism - like selfishness - is an overcompensation for the
basic lack of self-love. Freud has pointed out that the narcissistic
person has withdrawn his love from others and turned it toward his own
person. While the first part of this statement is true, the second one
is a fallacy. He neither loves others nor himself.
Erich Fromm also wrote:
The criticism of democratic society should not be that people are too
selfish; this is true but it is only a consequence of something else.
What democracy has not succeeded in is to make the individual love
himself; that is, to have a deep sense of affirmation for his individual
self, with all his intellectual, emotional, and sensual potentialities.
A puritan-protestant inheritance of self-denial, the necessity of
subordinating the individual to the demands of production and profit
[the good of society], have made for conditions from which Fascism could
spring. The readiness for submission, the pervert courage which is
attracted by the image of war and self-annihilation, is only possible on
the basis of a - largely unconscious - desperation, stifled by martial
songs and shouts for the F�hrer. The individual who has ceased to love
himself is ready to die as well as to kill. The problem of our culture,
if it is not to become a fascist one, is not that there is too much
selfishness but that there is no self-love. [***>]The aim must be to
create those conditions which make it possible for the individual to
realize his freedom, not only in a formal sense, but by asserting his
total personality in his intellectual, emotional, sensual qualities.
This freedom is not the rule of one part of the personality over another
part - conscience over nature, Super-Ego over Id - but the integration
of the whole personality and the factual expression of all the
potentialities of this integrated personality.
He continues:
The problem of selfishness has a particular bearing on psychotherapy.
The neurotic individual often is selfish in the sense that
he is blocked in his relationship to others or overanxious about
himself. This is to be expected since to be neurotic means that
the integration of a strong self has not been achieved successfully. To
be normal certainly does not mean that it has. It means, for the
majority of well-adapted individuals that they have lost their own self
at an early age and replaced it completely by a social self offered to
them by society. They have no neurotic conflicts because they
themselves, and, therefore, the discrepancy between their selves and the
outside world has disappeared. Often the neurotic person is particularly
unselfish, lacking in self-assertion and blocked in following his own
aims. The reason for this unselfishness is essentially the same as for
the selfishness. What he is practically always lacking is self-love.
This is what he needs to become well. If the neurotic becomes well, he
does not become normal in the sense of the conforming social self. He
succeeds in realizing his self, which never had been completely lost and
for the preservation of which he was struggling by his neurotic
symptoms. A theory, therefore, as Freud's on narcissism which
rationalizes the cultural pattern of denouncing self-love by identifying
it with selfishness, can have but devastating effects therapeutically.
It increases the taboo on self-love. Its effects can only be called
positive if the aim of psychotherapy is not to help the individual to be
himself; that is, free, spontaneous and creative - qualities
conventionally reserved for artists - but to give up the fight for his
self and conform to the cultural pattern peacefully and without the
noise of a neurosis.
Writings from Erich Fromm
Of power, I would like to say - it's really about a solid sense
of self - of feeling right. This, unfirtunately becomes issue if power
when others/culture begin to destroy/change/shape a self. At a very
young age when a self is forming, focus shifts from being oneself -
*all of oneself* - to exerting power in order to retain and preserve
oneself. That's load of unjust work for anyone to have to do - each
and every day.
I would like to share something from Erich Fromm. This is getting
off the unschooling topic - but I thought it was very important and
I wanted to quickly throw it out there and bounce off of what Susan
had written in her excellent post.
Erich Fromm wrote:
Selfishness is one kind of greediness. (The German word Selbstsucht
(addiction to self) very adequately expresses this quality common to all
Sucht.) Like all greediness, it contains an insatiability, as a
consequence of which there is never any real satisfaction. Greed is a
bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy
the need without ever reaching satisfaction. This leads to the crucial
point: close observation shows that while the selfish person is always
anxiously concerned with himself, he is never satisfied, is always
restless, always driven by the fear of not getting enough, of missing
something, of being deprived of something. He is filled with burning
envy of anyone who might have more. If we observe still closer,
especially the unconscious dynamics, we find that this type of person is
basically not fond of himself but deeply dislikes himself. The puzzle in
this seeming contradiction is easy to solve. The selfishness is rooted
in this very lack of fondness for oneself. The person who is not fond of
himself, who does not approve of himself, is in a constant anxiety
concerning his own self. He has not the inner security which can exist
only on the basis of genuine fondness and affirmation. He must be
concerned about himself, greedy to get everything for himself, since
basically his own self lacks security and satisfaction. The same holds
true with the so-called narcissistic person, who is not so much
overconcerned with getting things for himself as with admiring himself.
While on the surface it seems that these persons are very much in love
with themselves, they actually are not fond of themselves, and
their narcissism - like selfishness - is an overcompensation for the
basic lack of self-love. Freud has pointed out that the narcissistic
person has withdrawn his love from others and turned it toward his own
person. While the first part of this statement is true, the second one
is a fallacy. He neither loves others nor himself.
Erich Fromm also wrote:
The criticism of democratic society should not be that people are too
selfish; this is true but it is only a consequence of something else.
What democracy has not succeeded in is to make the individual love
himself; that is, to have a deep sense of affirmation for his individual
self, with all his intellectual, emotional, and sensual potentialities.
A puritan-protestant inheritance of self-denial, the necessity of
subordinating the individual to the demands of production and profit
[the good of society], have made for conditions from which Fascism could
spring. The readiness for submission, the pervert courage which is
attracted by the image of war and self-annihilation, is only possible on
the basis of a - largely unconscious - desperation, stifled by martial
songs and shouts for the F�hrer. The individual who has ceased to love
himself is ready to die as well as to kill. The problem of our culture,
if it is not to become a fascist one, is not that there is too much
selfishness but that there is no self-love. [***>]The aim must be to
create those conditions which make it possible for the individual to
realize his freedom, not only in a formal sense, but by asserting his
total personality in his intellectual, emotional, sensual qualities.
This freedom is not the rule of one part of the personality over another
part - conscience over nature, Super-Ego over Id - but the integration
of the whole personality and the factual expression of all the
potentialities of this integrated personality.
He continues:
The problem of selfishness has a particular bearing on psychotherapy.
The neurotic individual often is selfish in the sense that
he is blocked in his relationship to others or overanxious about
himself. This is to be expected since to be neurotic means that
the integration of a strong self has not been achieved successfully. To
be normal certainly does not mean that it has. It means, for the
majority of well-adapted individuals that they have lost their own self
at an early age and replaced it completely by a social self offered to
them by society. They have no neurotic conflicts because they
themselves, and, therefore, the discrepancy between their selves and the
outside world has disappeared. Often the neurotic person is particularly
unselfish, lacking in self-assertion and blocked in following his own
aims. The reason for this unselfishness is essentially the same as for
the selfishness. What he is practically always lacking is self-love.
This is what he needs to become well. If the neurotic becomes well, he
does not become normal in the sense of the conforming social self. He
succeeds in realizing his self, which never had been completely lost and
for the preservation of which he was struggling by his neurotic
symptoms. A theory, therefore, as Freud's on narcissism which
rationalizes the cultural pattern of denouncing self-love by identifying
it with selfishness, can have but devastating effects therapeutically.
It increases the taboo on self-love. Its effects can only be called
positive if the aim of psychotherapy is not to help the individual to be
himself; that is, free, spontaneous and creative - qualities
conventionally reserved for artists - but to give up the fight for his
self and conform to the cultural pattern peacefully and without the
noise of a neurosis.
Writings from Erich Fromm
Joseph A. & Susan D. Fuerst
Just had to intejhect quickly here.....Our third duaghters first phrase was "thank you", which she began one morning as I got her out of her crib (She was about 12 or 13 mos. old) She so easily says 'please' and 'thank you' appropraitely -- and after thinking it over and observing things....I came to the strong conclusion that it was simply because she has heard that in our typical verbal exchanges as a family.
I'm not saying we're the Cleaver family here...and she is your typical rambunctious, not-always-willing-to-share, 'i do it myself', kind of toddler. We do try to give her room to 'own' her feelings, especially when they're intense. I agree also that it's something I as a parent try to continually learn for myself....especially in a society where we're often told intellect is more important than emotion.
Hopefully, my children and I will both learn to couple our intellects with our emotions...then we can truly live what we are passionate about.
Many Blessings to all & Happy Holidays!
Suz
Who is going the way of Joel and others and focusing on family until the New Year...Hope to be less of a 'lurker' then.....I do enjoy everyone's input and discussion!
-----Original Message-----
From: Thad Martin <tmartin@...>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, December 19, 1999 4:00 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] power, sharing & sense of self
hi,
i think this is a very important issue. it seems, in general, that 'sharing' has not only become an issue of power for children but for parents as well . it is a sad perversion of the parent/child relationship. there is so much social pressure to 'civilize/socialize' your children that children are being forced to exhibit behaviors that have no essential meaning, turning them into 'trained animals' (diane's- I have forced her to before and she did it).
deepak chopra wrote a book: the seven spiritual laws for parents. it's a nice little book about a way
'to keep the innocence flowing. there's a lot in this world that can destroy innocence and precious little that can keep it flowing. ' 'as parents, then, what we teach our children is no different from what we must keep teaching ourselves.'
the issue of self-esteem does not lay solely in the lap of children, many parents have very low self-esteem making it difficult to love their children because they struggle with loving themselves (this struggle is often expressed by the use of control over ones environment; which often children are seen as, instead of, equal contributing members of the family).
in chopra book he talks about power and sharing in the context of the spiritual development of the self.
'spirituality, the value of the preschool stage is that power is spiritual - only the distortion of power leads to problems. so rather than try to curb your child's rush to power, you need to channel it into tasks and challenges that teach balance.' 'in our love for the child, we allow the illusion (of power) to exist, because we want her to grow up a strong, capable person who feels up to any challenge that comes along. this sense of self-esteem won't develop if the feeling of being powerful is shut down or repressed at this stage.'
it seems to me that we, as parents, balance the need to protect our children from the world and to protect the world from our children (grabbing, hitting - basic expressions of power <g>). this balance, within today's 'politically correct' climate (not to say that historically this hasn't also been the case, for example in the name of religion many injustices have been perpetrated against children, new face, old problem), has been forsaken. children's right to develop and acquire the tools that will aid them in finding their own happiness and contentment, is being sacrificed for the good of the group (again another balance to be maintained, but given some time and some suport/faith this balance will happen- the development of the self will naturally be followed by a caring of others, provided the child does get the opportunity to develop self).
chopra goes on to say that giving and sharing (among other attributes) are really acquired around the ages of 5-8, not that children do not experienced these before this time, but giving and sharing are experienced more toward the child rather then from the child (much like the example diane gave of the girl learning to say please because she experienced it rather than was told that it was the 'right' thing to do). chopra says:
'giving is how, at any age, we show that we empathize with needs outside ourselves. if giving is seen as a loss - i have to give something up so you can have it (illustrated by diane' example of the boy being forced to give up his piece of pottery) - the spiritual lesson of this stage has not been taught. giving, in spiritual terms, means " i give to you without loss to me because you are part of me". a young child can not fully grasp this idea, but he can feel it. children don't just want to share - they love to share. they feel the warmth that comes from reaching beyond ego boundaries to include another person in their world; no act is more intimate, and therefore no act feels so blissful.'
carolyn's story of the 18 month old girl is sad for 2 main reasons: first is because the girl is being asked to do something well beyond her years and out of rhythm with her natural development; and second, and equally sad, is that the mother, needing to control her daughter, lacks faith in her child's ability to develop and grow. this lack of faith undermines this most primary and critical relation. we are so lost to our need to appear 'on top of it' and to be 'doing the right thing', that we have forgotten that these things have no meaning if the relationship is lost.
a personal example that i can give is the issue of 'where the child should sleep'. our son has always slept with us though he has had his own bed (giving him a choice and a the sense of power to exercise that choice), which we bought when he was around 18 months old. at that time he choose to sleep in it for about 2 months but then returned to 'the big bed' and still sleeps there (he was 4 in sept.). the commonly accepted practice of, literally, no time in the 'parents', because the child will become too attached and never individuate, has not been a reality for us. rene' is extremely independent to the point that he virtually potty trained himself, always introduces himself to new people and does not hang on me (in public that is, though at home is another story:) and has not experienced any overly dependent behavior, in fact he is amazingly confident and has a strong sense of who he is. what he has learned is that his needs will be met, his desires do matter and his happiness is as important as every other member of the family. the joy and satisfaction i personally experience because of this is more than i could have imaged (or could have 'willed' into existence) and this is why i feel great sorrow when parents literally stop themselves from having an opportunity to experience this level of relating by trying to force their children to conform to some pre-set/external concepts of 'right and wrong'.
-susan
austin,tx
I'm not saying we're the Cleaver family here...and she is your typical rambunctious, not-always-willing-to-share, 'i do it myself', kind of toddler. We do try to give her room to 'own' her feelings, especially when they're intense. I agree also that it's something I as a parent try to continually learn for myself....especially in a society where we're often told intellect is more important than emotion.
Hopefully, my children and I will both learn to couple our intellects with our emotions...then we can truly live what we are passionate about.
Many Blessings to all & Happy Holidays!
Suz
Who is going the way of Joel and others and focusing on family until the New Year...Hope to be less of a 'lurker' then.....I do enjoy everyone's input and discussion!
-----Original Message-----
From: Thad Martin <tmartin@...>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, December 19, 1999 4:00 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] power, sharing & sense of self
hi,
i think this is a very important issue. it seems, in general, that 'sharing' has not only become an issue of power for children but for parents as well . it is a sad perversion of the parent/child relationship. there is so much social pressure to 'civilize/socialize' your children that children are being forced to exhibit behaviors that have no essential meaning, turning them into 'trained animals' (diane's- I have forced her to before and she did it).
deepak chopra wrote a book: the seven spiritual laws for parents. it's a nice little book about a way
'to keep the innocence flowing. there's a lot in this world that can destroy innocence and precious little that can keep it flowing. ' 'as parents, then, what we teach our children is no different from what we must keep teaching ourselves.'
the issue of self-esteem does not lay solely in the lap of children, many parents have very low self-esteem making it difficult to love their children because they struggle with loving themselves (this struggle is often expressed by the use of control over ones environment; which often children are seen as, instead of, equal contributing members of the family).
in chopra book he talks about power and sharing in the context of the spiritual development of the self.
'spirituality, the value of the preschool stage is that power is spiritual - only the distortion of power leads to problems. so rather than try to curb your child's rush to power, you need to channel it into tasks and challenges that teach balance.' 'in our love for the child, we allow the illusion (of power) to exist, because we want her to grow up a strong, capable person who feels up to any challenge that comes along. this sense of self-esteem won't develop if the feeling of being powerful is shut down or repressed at this stage.'
it seems to me that we, as parents, balance the need to protect our children from the world and to protect the world from our children (grabbing, hitting - basic expressions of power <g>). this balance, within today's 'politically correct' climate (not to say that historically this hasn't also been the case, for example in the name of religion many injustices have been perpetrated against children, new face, old problem), has been forsaken. children's right to develop and acquire the tools that will aid them in finding their own happiness and contentment, is being sacrificed for the good of the group (again another balance to be maintained, but given some time and some suport/faith this balance will happen- the development of the self will naturally be followed by a caring of others, provided the child does get the opportunity to develop self).
chopra goes on to say that giving and sharing (among other attributes) are really acquired around the ages of 5-8, not that children do not experienced these before this time, but giving and sharing are experienced more toward the child rather then from the child (much like the example diane gave of the girl learning to say please because she experienced it rather than was told that it was the 'right' thing to do). chopra says:
'giving is how, at any age, we show that we empathize with needs outside ourselves. if giving is seen as a loss - i have to give something up so you can have it (illustrated by diane' example of the boy being forced to give up his piece of pottery) - the spiritual lesson of this stage has not been taught. giving, in spiritual terms, means " i give to you without loss to me because you are part of me". a young child can not fully grasp this idea, but he can feel it. children don't just want to share - they love to share. they feel the warmth that comes from reaching beyond ego boundaries to include another person in their world; no act is more intimate, and therefore no act feels so blissful.'
carolyn's story of the 18 month old girl is sad for 2 main reasons: first is because the girl is being asked to do something well beyond her years and out of rhythm with her natural development; and second, and equally sad, is that the mother, needing to control her daughter, lacks faith in her child's ability to develop and grow. this lack of faith undermines this most primary and critical relation. we are so lost to our need to appear 'on top of it' and to be 'doing the right thing', that we have forgotten that these things have no meaning if the relationship is lost.
a personal example that i can give is the issue of 'where the child should sleep'. our son has always slept with us though he has had his own bed (giving him a choice and a the sense of power to exercise that choice), which we bought when he was around 18 months old. at that time he choose to sleep in it for about 2 months but then returned to 'the big bed' and still sleeps there (he was 4 in sept.). the commonly accepted practice of, literally, no time in the 'parents', because the child will become too attached and never individuate, has not been a reality for us. rene' is extremely independent to the point that he virtually potty trained himself, always introduces himself to new people and does not hang on me (in public that is, though at home is another story:) and has not experienced any overly dependent behavior, in fact he is amazingly confident and has a strong sense of who he is. what he has learned is that his needs will be met, his desires do matter and his happiness is as important as every other member of the family. the joy and satisfaction i personally experience because of this is more than i could have imaged (or could have 'willed' into existence) and this is why i feel great sorrow when parents literally stop themselves from having an opportunity to experience this level of relating by trying to force their children to conform to some pre-set/external concepts of 'right and wrong'.
-susan
austin,tx