The Paradigm Shift

From Goddammit-Don't-You-Ever-Do-That-Again to Curiosity

Hi friends,

Here’s a question:

“What do I do when my eldest hits my youngest? What are the consequences? It’s not okay to just let it go. My youngest has rights too. I don’t see how there cannot be consequences.”

Oye. This is hard. This is a situation that I know very well. It’s a question that I was trying to help answer for another struggling mother. But we can answer it here.

Let’s break this down. And in doing so we are going to shift from a punitive paradigm to a needs-based one.

Eldest has hit youngest.

In the language that I use, the consequence is that the youngest may be hurt.

Society has given us the idea that a punishment that is labelled a “consequence” is somehow better. But it’s still just a punishment. So let’s call it what it is. Let’s keep it real. A punishment is designed to supposedly “teach a child that what they did was wrong” and get them to not do it again. It’s a manipulative tool. Ack! Did I just use the word manipulative? Do you have pearls to clutch?

There are logical consequences that, as long as they are enacted with love and openness, are not punishments, but perhaps steps towards safety. E.g. removing hard projectile objects from the vicinity of a tantruming five year old. Totally reasonable, and safety oriented. Another example, removing a kicking six year old from the trampoline because kicking other people on the trampoline is not okay. Same for a spitting eight year old. (In these cases, kicking and spitting are clearly not going to stop.) The agreements we have about trampoline use does not make room for kicking other users or spitting on them, so I help them off.

Okay, are we clear on the difference between a natural consequence, a logical consequence (adult imposed but necessary measure), and a punishment?

Natural consequence = effect following cause.

Logical consequence = adult imposed, often for safety. With openness and curiosity.

Punishment = designed to alter later behaviour.

So why wouldn’t we do something that is designed to alter later behaviour? Seems like a no-brainer right?

Well we will, but it won’t be a punishment.

Punishments, often don’t work. Punishments leave a child’s senses of being seen, heard and understood unmet. Punishments result in shame. For more on punishments read my post here.

So what do we do when our oldest hurts our youngest?

Step one: we calm ourselves. See my post on the pause. Also see my link above for what a head-based running commentary of calming ourselves might look like.

Step two: we tend to our youngest.

In tending to our youngest, we let them know that they are seen and heard. We understand that it may (or may not) have hurt. By doing that we are signaling to them that it is not okay for them to be hit. We understand that. We don’t have to say it out loud.

Step three: We get curious with our oldest. “What’s going on, buddy?”

Ack! Why don’t we lay down the law? Tell them it’s not okay? Lecture, bribe etc?

Well, they already know it’s not okay. Pointless to tell them again. Instead we see them as struggling in this moment.

Here, I want to take Dr. Ross Green’s assumption: Children do well when they can, not when they want to.

He expands that they really want to do well. Their behaviors are adaptive to help them manage a moment that to them is unmanageable, though to us seems perfectly normal.

So we ask, “What’s going on?” and then we observe and reflect. Was there a frustration somewhere that they couldn’t tolerate? Where did that come from and how do we help them navigate that frustration in the future?

Step four: We help them navigate it in the future by talking openly and curiously about what happened and offering alternatives. (Note: do this when everyone is totally calmed down. If calm isn’t present, and bodies aren’t feeling safe, this can elevate the lack of safety in a small body.)

So, for example, here’s what I said to my six and eight year olds: What do you two think about this agreement? When one of you is on the trampoline and the other wants to get on, they ask first: is it okay if I jump with you or do you want some space now?

They agreed that they would like that and both practiced asking it.

This is forming alternatives in their brains that lead to behaviors that bypass the frustration they can’t, yet, tolerate. It gives them a frustration they can tolerate more by coming to me for, “Mummy! Aubrey won’t let me on the trampoline yet! I hate her!”

Then I can attune to that, and work through that, knowing that Aubrey is not going to want to jump by herself for very long.

So we’ve dealt with it right?

We calmed ourself to approach with openness and curiosity. We tended to our youngest. We asked, observed and reflected with the oldest. And in a calm moment, later, we offered alternatives strategies for heading off a frustration or for potentially dealing with the same frustration in a new way.

Do I expect this to magically resolve? No. The habit is to get on the trampoline without asking. But we are on the way to more respectful behaviors that are less likely to erupt in one child smacking the other. And I can be vigilant, knowing what situations are likely to bring these behaviors up.

And I would argue that this is more effective that a time out or a well no ice cream for you since you behaved like this punishment.

In particular, it really doesn’t work when using these “tools” to change behaviour whilst remaining in the punitive paradigm. These tools don’t “work” when you’re looking for a quick fix. This is a long game. Not a quick control solution.

But this long game leaves our children seen, heard and understood which makes their brains more open to forming the neural pathways that allows them to handle frustration with thought rather than impulse, something that is far less likely to happen when swimming in the shame of a punishment.

How was all this to hear? Did it make sense? Do you have “but what about when…” questions? Hit me up.

Much love,

Want more? Take a look at Other Aspects of the Paradigm Shift. Or subscribe!