As a good Objectivist parent, I want my kids to grow up knowing for certain that it is morally right for them to pursue their goals. I do not want them to learn that self-sacrifice is desirable, nor do I want them to feel guilty about pursuing their own selfish ends. I think that children have as much right to be selfish as adults--while recognizing that they will need guidance from loving adults. (If you are curious about why Objectivists think selfishness is moral, I refer you to ARI and, of course, the many works of Ayn Rand. I use "rational self-interest" in this post because it helps me demonstrate my point better, but many Objectivists use both terms interchangeably. By the way, any philosophical errors in this post--or any of my posts--are mine and mine alone.)
Kids have absolutely no trouble being selfish, self-interested! It takes a while for the brain to mature to the point where the kid can even begin to understand that others have feelings and ideas. They start out very selfish. So what's the issue? The parenting issue for an Objectivist parent is not driving the selfishness out of the child, but rather, helping the child develop rational self-interest.
There are two main issues we've encountered here at our house. The first one is getting the child to understand and respect that other people (and that includes Mom) also get to have self-interests. The second is helping the child develop that faculty of reason--in other words, putting the rational into rational self-interest.
The techniques suggested by PD authors are excellent ways to guide a child toward appropriate behavior while respecting their right to their own rational self-interest. One of the recommendations many PD proponents make to parents is "Assume Positive Intent." This means that the parent should err on the side of thinking that the child is trying to fulfill some positive need or desire of his own, rather than intentionally trying to do something undesirable to Mom (like drive her insane).
I like this advice because it makes me focus on the question: "What self-interest is he trying to fulfill?" Then I try to help the child find ways to satisfy that need in an appropriate way, which shows him that I'm respectful of his self-interest, and also models to him what the appropriate behavior is and why.
In the previous post, I wrote about Ryan's need to sometimes spontaneously scream at the dinner table. Actually, he needs to do that all the time. Obviously, shouting loudly in the presence of others is inappropriate. An Old School (OS) discipline method might work, in that it gets the kid to hush. But a PD approach acknowledges that this shouting might be an actual need or desire for the kid. AND the other people in the family get to have the peace they desire.
So instead of saying, "Stop that shouting or you're going to be punished!" and then following through on the punishment, I might say "That shouting needs to stop. It hurts my ears and makes it hard for me to talk to everyone else. If you need to shout, then go do it outside or up in your room." With PD, I acknowledge the child's need to shout (his self-interest) and I also can talk to the child about what I want (my self-interest). I present him with a way that both of our needs can be fulfilled--he can do his shouting away from me. Many times, I will engage the kids in brainstorming plans in which everyone's needs are met (more on that in another post).
As an aside--I don't need to agree that the kid's self-interest is rational or even makes sense. I personally don't feel the need to shout randomly in large groups of people. However, I recognize that Ryan often needs to do that. It may not be rational--but here it's important that I remind myself that he is a child and not fully rational yet. And yes, I often need to remind myself of this fact! I also refrain from judging his desire, so I wouldn't say "It's ridiculous that you feel like shouting right now. What's wrong with you?" That would be damaging in many ways and have negative long-term consequences (again, a topic for another post). I do use the sentence, "I'm confused about why you want to do XYZ." I use that sentence a lot. Because sometimes these people do not make sense to me.
- Child throws trucks or other inappropriate toys. Mom says: "You seem like you're in the mood for throwing things. Trucks aren't for throwing--something might get broken. Can you help me find a toy that is good for throwing?" And guides the child to the basket of soft balls.
- Child is writing her name on
her grandmother'sthe wall. Mom says: "Crayons are for paper. Nonnie wants her walls to stay white. After you help me clean this up, you can use this paper to write on."
- Child is pulling the cat's tail. Mom says: "Stop! Pulling the cat's tail is ouchy for kitty! Let me show you how to give the kitty a gentle pat. If you pull her tail, she might bite and I don't want you OR the kitty to have an ouch."
In all of those examples, Mom acknowledges the kid's need/want and helps the kid identify someone else's need/want as a way to show why the action is undesirable. Then Mom offers another outlet for the kid's need/want. Rational. Self-Interest.
I can't even think of a counter-example. If I'm in PD-mode, then there's no way I can discipline without acknowledging someone's self-interest! There are better or different ways I can phrase what I'm trying to say, but somebody's self-interest is always part of what I say.
The examples above handle issues in which the child is being exposed to the self-interests of others, while having their right to their own interests acknowledged. But what about the other issue? Putting the rational in rational self-interest?
Part of using PD means that I let the child make his/her own decisions, and then stand aside and let the kid experience the consequences without my interference. This is also known in our house as "Mr. Reality Never Takes A Day Off."
Mostly, what this requires is that I do nothing. Or at most, offer a suggestion or opinion about what the consequence might be. Because my goal here is to not interfere with Mr. Reality. I've learned that if I do, then I'm more likely to be blamed for any adverse outcomes! What I do is try to decide whether it's terribly likely that any permanent or deep damage to life, limb, property or self-esteem is going to happen. If the answer is "no," then I'll let them go ahead. (Obviously, if the answer is "yes"--playing in traffic on roller skates with razor blades--then I'll put a stop to it--I reserve the right to substitute my better judgment in many situations. It's an obligation, actually!)
- Child builds a LEGO city and decides to walk on it. What I might do: I might say "It's likely that your city will get broken if you walk on it." Or I might not--depends . Next step--soothe sad child.
- Child wants to slide down carpeted stairs head first on her back. What I do: Assume semi-non-chalant facial expression, note location of phone in case 911 call is necessary, take deep breath.
- Child wants to pull up the flowers she's just planted. (The flowers belong to her.) What I do: Nothing.
Eventually, they will figure out not to do something if they experience something bad as a result. Or, maybe they didn't experience something negative. When Morgan is pulling up her flowers, she imagines she's checking on them, touches the roots, and replants them. There is something she is learning then, something she needs to know, and because I didn't interfere, she got to experience it.
That's all I have to say about PD and rational self-interest for now. I really like the PD technique, because when I'm parenting this way, I am very aware and reinforcing aspects of Objectivism, too.
Hmmm....I thought this post would be much shorter than the other one! If you've made it this far, I'd like to know what you think!
Also: Edited for typos and because I accidentally published this before I was ready. Hopefully your feed-reader picked up my alterations.