From Raising Children Nonviolently by Pat Patfoort (forthcoming) Introduction In this book, I expand ideas introduced in "Uprooting Violence, Building Nonviolence" (Patfoort, 1995) Here, I write for those who wish to apply specifically in child-rearing the models of nonviolence I presented in that earlier work. For those who have not read "Uprooting Violence," I begin with a summary of the theory upon which I have built the practice of nonviolent childhood education. Many responses to "Uprooting Violence" , particularly from parents and teachers, have led me to write this book. Some readers wanted more clarity on specifically what nonviolence is and what nonviolent solutions to problems contain. Others wanted to apply the nonviolent system but didn't know exactly how they would use my models in everyday situations. Still others hesitated to use the system without concrete examples of possible consequences the methods might have. Thus, I felt it necessary to illustrate more concretely the nonviolent approach and its results in everyday life. In conversations with people at my lectures and workshops, I often encounter deeply rooted prejudices and habits harmful for children. For instance, in the usual practice of child-rearing much more importance is given to children's studies (their intellectual performance at school and at home), to their being "on time" (in bed, at school), and to their eating habits (eating certain things and in certain amounts) than is given to dealing with their emotions and values. Of course, the first are important. But the second are equally so. The two emphases in the lives of children should be more in balance with one another. In rearing our children, caring much more to give space and time for communication within the family, being together, sharing with one another, listening to one another, and to what is often disparagingly called "chatting" or "wasting time." "Chatting" with our children often goes last on our everyday agenda, after everything else. It is the first to go when time is short, or when Father assumes child-rearing responsibilities from Mother working outside the home. This has important consequences. not only for our children but our society as well, especially for antisocial and even criminal behavior. Childhood education, especially its early phases, and particularly the "chatting" time with children is too often undervalued in our society. Therefore, parents and educators are, as a rule, not conscious enough of the importance of their roles for the well-being of child and society. In these pages, I hope to contribute to changing this, so that our child-rearers would feel more supported and rewarded in their work. I hope also to help those who undervalue child-rearing become more conscious of its importance, thus supporting those doing it full-time, playing a more active role in it themselves, relating more completely and constructively with their own and others' children, and working to adjust social institutions so to facilitate professional child-raisers. Everyone who interacts with children should have basic knowledge of nonviolent child-rearing. Many elemental mistakes with important consequences for the child and society could thus be avoided. It is a pity that many fathers see no reason to reflect on or question what they believe they know about raising children, though they regularly interact with them. I would hope that this book may find and stimulate the interest of male readers. The examples I use in the following pages are drawn from personal experience, either that with my own children or that of participants in my workshops. For the privacy of those participants and so their stories read better, I have modified them slightly, taking care not to weaken their authenticity. This book could facilitate nonviolent child-rearing in several ways. For instance, parents and their children could read together one of the problem situations it describes between a parent and a child. In a classroom setting, a story about a playground situation could be discussed. After reading the story, the different viewpoints about it could be shared, first with one another, then possibly using the review which follows the story in the text. Too often, children are born to parents who are quite unprepared for the enormous responsibility parenting involves. I would like this book to contribute to helping future parents with that preparation so that fewer children would grow up in situations harmful, first for them, and later for the society in which they must live. This book concerns itself with building happier and more harmonious relationships between parents and children, between teachers and pupils, and among children themselves and thereby a more healthy society. The way of thinking which opens the path toward nonviolent child-rearing is to stop thinking it is impossible or even wondering if it is possible, but rather ask oneself how one does it. This book is the first in a series on nonviolent child-rearing. In subsequent works I will go more deeply into the connections between how children are raised and their behavior as adults which leads to serious social problems. A. Theoretical background 1. What is nonviolence? There are many ways to define nonviolence. The most useful one for the concrete, everyday situations of child-rearing is one that I illustrate in Figure 1. (Figure 1 about here) Nonviolence and violence both originate in an inevitable human condition which in itself is not problematic at all: with two or more people there will inevitably be differences between or among them of characteristics, behavior, beliefs, points of view. The most common way humans deal with these differences is to use what I call the Major-minor or M-m model: each tries to present their own attribute, behavior or point of view as better than the other's. Each tries to be in the right, to score highest, to win. In other words, each seeks to gain the M-position while putting the other in the m-position. This Major/minor dynamic has three possible violent consequences. - internalization, as the one placed in the m-position does violence to self - escalation, as we attack the person who puts us in the m-position - displaced aggression, as the person in the m-position does violence to a third person, thereby creating a chain of violence The M-m approach to human differences seems so normal, so common to us that we tend to assume it is the only one...simply "human nature." We assume that approach is a natural response to "the way we humans are." Nonviolence in both theory and practice challenges this assumption. I believe that while the M-m dynamic is not "natural" to human relations, what is inherent in us is an "instinct" or need rather, for self conservation. This need naturally leads each of us to avoid the m-position, a position that is harmful to us. It is indeed humanly natural to want to protect oneself, to survive. The M-m dynamic is one, but only one, of the possible ways to defend oneself and at first sight seems to be the easiest. It is therefore, in most human societies, taught to children and is thereafter reinforced and encouraged in all possible ways in adult life. Another way to deal with the inevitability of human diversity is with the model of Equivalence, the E model. This is the model on which nonviolence is based. This model also responds to the essential human need for self conservation, permitting us to avoid the m-position. The E model permits us to defend ourselves but not at the expense of the Other, not in an aggressive way as does the M-m model. The E model also produces defensive results every bit as real as the M-m model. The M-m model, however, offers no way out. It locks us into an escalatory dynamic. Every time we defend ourselves with it, we must do so in an offensive way with the Other feeling compelled to defend themselves likewise, once more provoking us or someone else to aggressive response, and on and on it goes. How the M-m and E models work First, we will look at the case where the different positions two (or more) parties occupy in an interaction are points of view. Their opinions diverge, they disagree. When the M-m model is used, that situation is known as "conflict." We will focus on disagreement since it is more obvious and accessible, easier to resolve than are conflicts at deeper levels which involve differing characteristics rather than opinions. In the M-m model, arguments are stated by the parties in conflict, each using them to put oneself in the right. Three important kinds of arguments are used: 1) positive arguments: one presents positive aspects of one's point of view to strengthen it and move one toward the M-position. 2) negative arguments: one mentions negative aspects of the point of view of the Other to devalue it, moving Other toward the m-position. 3) destructive arguments: one cites negative characteristics of Other to disempower them and their point of view, moving both toward the m-position. Among the disempowering devices used are racist, ageist and sexist remarks. A way in which Other differs...skin color, youth or age, gender...will be presented as negative and used to devalue the other's point of view, a view usually unrelated to the attribute referred to. Arguments stimulate an escalation of the conflict, feeding the fire so to speak. Both parties use whatever they can find to strengthen their point of view in opposition to that of Other and to surmount it. One simply expands the conflict from above, feeding fuel to the fire. By contrast, the E model works with foundations, not arguments. Foundations are the reasons why both parties have the points of view they do: the motivations, needs, feelings, interests, objectives, values. These elements can be either rational or emotional. They are revealed through "Why" questions. "Why do I have this point of view?" "Why does the other have theirs?" Through exploring foundations, one understands the conflict in depth rather than simply feeding it at the surface. Foundations of differences are often unexpressed. People may not be conscious of them. Nevertheless they are present and identifying them is essential. How arguments and foundations are related. 1) One transforms one's foundations into positive arguments by presenting them attractively as "the good ones." This is done with words, tone of voice, glance, sarcasm, or by using the presence of a third person. 2) The foundations of one's opponent can be converted into negative arguments by coloring them negatively. They are presented as wrong, stupid, unworthy of reasonable consideration. Again, this is communicated in all manner of ways. 3) The third type of argument, the destructive one, is completely unrelated to foundations. Those are directed at the opponent with no reference to the disagreement itself. Their only purpose is to weaken the other person, thereby putting oneself in the right. How divergence of opinion is resolved. Disagreement is handled in totally different ways by the M-m and E models of resolving conflict. With the M-m model,there are only two possibilities. Either I am right or you are. We are in a two-dimensional system and each solution proposed or arrived at stimulates the same response: "You see? I was right." By contrast, the E model leads us to 1001 solutions. They emerge from a way of thinking which transcends the two-dimensional restriction. They are created by understanding all of the foundations of both parties involved in the conflict. While with the M-m model, finding a solution is predominant, with the E model, the process is most important. Those in conflict enter that process by revealing all foundations of both sides, acknowledging and respecting those of the opponent as much as one's own, then following a series of steps toward solution. The three steps toward a nonviolent solution 1) To adopt an Equivalent approach toward others we must understand the foundations of both parties. That requires that we sharpen certain personal capacities. We must learn how to use our power, those means we have to influence others. While we must take care not to misuse that power, neither must we leave it unused. We have to use it skillfully, in its various forms. Therefore, we have to work on self-knowledge, recognizing what those forms of power are, why we take certain points of view, what motivates us, and who we are. To be able to accept who we really are, it is often useful to build a more positive self-image of ourselves. We need affirmation from others that will help us develop our self-knowledge and accurately assess our own power. Affirmation of us by others will also help others to do this for themselves, building their self-confidence and inner strength. This inner strength will enable us to show humility and peace of mind, to take the time necessary for others, to control our emotions, to consider facts and problems not in a narrow, self-centered way, but with a wider perspective as part of a relationship, a social group, a society. As our inner strength grows, we can give space to Other, to accept Other as he or she is, to avoid putting and pushing Other down. 1) The first step in the Equivalence process involves our putting ourselves in an Equivalent position vis a vis the other person, using those skills just mentioned. We will need to identify as much as possible our own foundations and make space for those of Other. 2) Secondly, we identify, communicating with Other, the foundations of both parties. Therefore, we must express our own foundations as clearly as possible, neither from an M-position nor an m-position. We must take care for how we communicate, our intonation, gestures, facial expressions, and where we do it, he setting, the presence of a third person, and so on. We must also open ourselves to the foundations of Other, listening, accepting, tuning in to all the ways that person is communicating. In this second step, we must hone our skill in communication, in all its modalities, both for the sending of messages and for receiving them. After the second step, a break from the process is helpful: taking some time to reflect, to absorb the foundations of Other, to meditate on them, to "sleep on it." 3) The third step focuses on the foundations themselves. Having identified all the foundations of both parties, solutions must be found which satisfy both and to which neither object. If the first two steps have been properly done, often a solution will appear naturally. But sometimes, the solution must be, so to speak, "conjured up," created. Therefore, we must develop the skill of creativity as well. The solution emerging from this process should never be compared with the original opposing points of view. That would shift us from the in-depth Equivalence process back to the superficial M-m process. Should that shift occur, one or the other party would try to present the solution as theirs. Ownership of the solution must be fully a joint one. Unilateral nonviolence Can one apply the E model of conflict resolution when the Other does not understand it, does not cooperate in it , or even works against it? Is it possible to introduce the E model into a relationship unilaterally? If the E model is accepted by both sides in a disagreement, the process will surely run more easily and agreeably. Still, it can be implemented by one side. There is much one can do on one's own. Regardless of Other's behavior, we can: - avoid transforming our foundations into positive arguments to achieve the M-position, or threatening Other with an m-position; - refuse to convert Other's foundations into negative arguments to threaten them with an m-position; - build up our inner strength, our self-confidence, our positive self-image, thus better defending ourselves against attack, criticism, threat, and m-status. In this way, while we do not offer an M-position to Other, neither do we seek one ourselves. - avoid hurling destructive arguments at Other, who will thereby not feel pushed into an m-position. We can control our own behavior in these four ways regardless of Other's responses. If we try this out, we will notice that what one would in theory expect to happen actually does. Because we force Other into the m-position less or not at all, they are less or unlikely to raise themselves to M-status. But we do not permit Other to achieve an M-position either. We progressively shift Other into the E-position. We radiate Equivalence. As we motivate another toward the M-position by trying to achieve it ourselves, so do we radiate Equivalence when we practice it ourselves. The natural reciprocity of social relations is brought into play.