Katherine

Well, this is probably going to be anti-climatic then... b/c it's been said before and it's pretty simplistic. I've even said similar things before, and Joanne has a very eloquent sticky that hits on it... I just hadn't really understood how to superimpose this idea onto the nature vs. logical consequences discussions.

I think the summary is:

Good parenting isn't about using the "right" tool. It's about how you wield your chosen tools, and which goals/intentions are driving your actions.

The "how" must be done in a way that respects, models, protects and enables... a way that reflects the likeness of Christ, that honors the image of God in both parent and child, that accounts for the child's developmental abilities and maturity and factors in special circumstances or inherent limitations.

The goals and intentions should be centered around discipling, nurturing, comforting, teaching age appropriate lessons (when possible), and building connected, trusting relationships. (Controlling outward behaviors or gaining approval from others are goals that will inevitably, IMO, require us to depart from the description of "how" that I listed above)

You could take out the word "Good..." and substitute many other descriptors, and it would still hold true.


Gentle/positive/attached parenting isn't about using the "right" tools. It's about how you wield your chosen tools and which goals/intentions are driving your actions. There are certain tools that *cannot* be used in a way that supports the goals of this paradigm, and those are disqualified based on their failure to fit in with the big picture.

Punitive/controlling/detached parenting isn't about using the "wrong" tools. It's about how you wield your chosen tools and which goals/intentions are driving your actions. Even the most wonderful ideas and techniques can be contaminated by the goals and motivations of the parent using them, and can do great harm.

With specific reference to the cause-and-effect versus logical consequence discussion:

A pre-logic child can internalize and respond to what *is* based on a parent's consistent response to particular stimuli. This is why punitive parenting produces the desired behavorial results for many families. Using cause-and-effect responses with a pre-logic child is appropriate when it is used as a way to define the child's reality, and applied with the age-appropriate level of expectation (e.g. knowledge that repetition and consistency are necessary and normal.... no expectationis that the child will absorb a principle and apply it to future situations or different circumstances) Or in other words.... THey are appropriate when the goal is to aclimate a child to what will be reality in a certain family or situation, or when they flow from a principle that is taught alongside the cause-and-effect AND when the "how" respects, models, protects, and enables.

Using cause-and-effect responses with a pre-logic child is not appropriate when it is used to drive home a point, to make the child feel "sorry" or the parent feel "in charge". They are not appropriate when unrealistic expectations are attached to them. They are not appropriate when they are used as a tool to elicit behavior modification.

or as I said earlier:

Is that about it? Anything I'm still missing... ?