(Disclaimer #1: I am SO not an expert in this area. I am deep in the trenches. This is merely an observation and a revelation I had.)
(Disclaimer #2: I will be speaking in GENERALITIES. I know that not everyone is the same. I'm only speaking of the tendencies that I've witnessed.)
It seems that there are 2 extremes on the parenting spectrum. At one end you have the grace-based discipline camp, and at the other end you have the Pearl/Ezzo/Woodshed camp. As I was talking with a mom yesterday, it occured to me that often the difference between these 2 camps is due to the assumptions the parents make about a particular behavior.
The Pearl/Ezzo/Woodshed parents tend to look at the child doing xyz and assume that the child is being rebellious. The child, therefore, needs to be disciplined so that he won't do xyz anymore. I've heard moms ask how to train their 10-month-olds out of picking up things off the floor and putting them in their mouths - did they need to give them a swat for that? Toddlers are discplined for getting out of bed PERIOD during the night. Etc.
On the flip side, many (I know not all, TG ;-) ) GBD parents tend to look at the child doing xyz and assume that it's a developmental issue, something is wrong with the child, something is wrong with the relationship between the child and parent, etc. In other words, often excuses are made for the behavior. If the child stands up in a restaurant and starts running around, he's just being "spirited." If he colors on the walls he is showing his creativity. Etc.
Both of these approaches have their place. But the tendency to usually assume rebellion or the tendency to usually assume innocence can be dangerous. There must be a balance, and the parent must look to the WHY behind said behavior. Toddlers do need to be trained to stay in their beds, but the parent must realize that there are legitimate reasons for the toddler to get up (potty, sick, bad dream, etc.). A child in a restaurant must not be expected to just "sit there and wait" with nothing to do, but he also must not be allowed to just run around either.
There are also situations in which it could go either way. An older baby is screaming in his high chair. The Ezzo/Pearl/Woodshed parent might discipline the baby for the screaming ("discipline" could mean a myriad of things - I'm not talking specifically of spa*king). The GBD parent might completely ignore it in the name of development ("Oh, he's just expressing himself.") But what they all need to be looking at is WHY the baby is screaming. Is he screaming because he was told, "No," to something? Is he screaming because his food is too hot, and he burnt his finger? Is it because he's done and wants to get down? Is it because his belt is pinching him? Is it because he is not pleased with the food he's been given? Etc.
I think that many parents don't go to this extreme and do look at the situation to see just what is going on. But ya know, I have to be honest, I've seen/heard some things that make me wonder!
I knew that the 2 camps were pretty much polar opposites, but I've never been able to figure out WHY. So when it dawned on me yesterday (as I was thinking to myself, "Man, give the kid some grace! He might not be acting 'rebellious' as you think!") that the basic assumptions that are behind these 2 approaches are what is so different, it just really opened my eyes. We need to be aware of rebellion as a possibility, but we don't need to ASSUME it. We need to be aware of some legitimate reason behind some sort of behavior, but we don't need to ASSUME it and excuse the behavior right off. We need to approach each situation with fresh eyes, asking the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the real reason behind that situation. It may not be what we think.
(Disclaimer #2: I will be speaking in GENERALITIES. I know that not everyone is the same. I'm only speaking of the tendencies that I've witnessed.)
It seems that there are 2 extremes on the parenting spectrum. At one end you have the grace-based discipline camp, and at the other end you have the Pearl/Ezzo/Woodshed camp. As I was talking with a mom yesterday, it occured to me that often the difference between these 2 camps is due to the assumptions the parents make about a particular behavior.
The Pearl/Ezzo/Woodshed parents tend to look at the child doing xyz and assume that the child is being rebellious. The child, therefore, needs to be disciplined so that he won't do xyz anymore. I've heard moms ask how to train their 10-month-olds out of picking up things off the floor and putting them in their mouths - did they need to give them a swat for that? Toddlers are discplined for getting out of bed PERIOD during the night. Etc.
On the flip side, many (I know not all, TG ;-) ) GBD parents tend to look at the child doing xyz and assume that it's a developmental issue, something is wrong with the child, something is wrong with the relationship between the child and parent, etc. In other words, often excuses are made for the behavior. If the child stands up in a restaurant and starts running around, he's just being "spirited." If he colors on the walls he is showing his creativity. Etc.
Both of these approaches have their place. But the tendency to usually assume rebellion or the tendency to usually assume innocence can be dangerous. There must be a balance, and the parent must look to the WHY behind said behavior. Toddlers do need to be trained to stay in their beds, but the parent must realize that there are legitimate reasons for the toddler to get up (potty, sick, bad dream, etc.). A child in a restaurant must not be expected to just "sit there and wait" with nothing to do, but he also must not be allowed to just run around either.
There are also situations in which it could go either way. An older baby is screaming in his high chair. The Ezzo/Pearl/Woodshed parent might discipline the baby for the screaming ("discipline" could mean a myriad of things - I'm not talking specifically of spa*king). The GBD parent might completely ignore it in the name of development ("Oh, he's just expressing himself.") But what they all need to be looking at is WHY the baby is screaming. Is he screaming because he was told, "No," to something? Is he screaming because his food is too hot, and he burnt his finger? Is it because he's done and wants to get down? Is it because his belt is pinching him? Is it because he is not pleased with the food he's been given? Etc.
I think that many parents don't go to this extreme and do look at the situation to see just what is going on. But ya know, I have to be honest, I've seen/heard some things that make me wonder!
I knew that the 2 camps were pretty much polar opposites, but I've never been able to figure out WHY. So when it dawned on me yesterday (as I was thinking to myself, "Man, give the kid some grace! He might not be acting 'rebellious' as you think!") that the basic assumptions that are behind these 2 approaches are what is so different, it just really opened my eyes. We need to be aware of rebellion as a possibility, but we don't need to ASSUME it. We need to be aware of some legitimate reason behind some sort of behavior, but we don't need to ASSUME it and excuse the behavior right off. We need to approach each situation with fresh eyes, asking the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the real reason behind that situation. It may not be what we think.
