our compassion the most when they
seem to deserve it the least.
The core difference between the
two styles of discipline is the ‘use of
consequences’, which is a euphemism
for punishment. If we believe that
events outside of us determine our
wellbeing, we are said to have an
external locus of causality, and if we
believe that we determine our own
wellbeing we are said to have an
internal locus of causality.
Choosing rewards and punishments
reflects a belief in an external locus of
causality and that either the desired
behaviours are not being rewarded
enough or undesired behaviours are
accidentally receiving rewards (e.g.
attention), or are not being punished
enough.
Demand language
In Dr Louise Porter’s book
Children are
People Too
she states that 75 per cent
of disruptive behaviour is a reaction
to power being used on someone. In
Dr Thomas Gordon’s book
Parent
Effectiveness Training
he calls it the
3Rs – retaliation, resentment and
rebellion. Regardless of age, if you
use demand language it invokes a 3R
response or escape. The more people
hear demands, the less they like being
around us because they feel controlled.
When people hear demand language
they feel pressured, instead of feeling
that they have an opportunity to help
meet our needs out of consideration for
us. The resulting dance of the reactive,
recursive cycle is then instigated by the
original act of having used demand
language in the first place.
According to Dr Marshall
Rosenberg, founder of the Center
for Non-Violent Communication,
“Punishments may seem to work,
but two questions that reveal the
limitations of punishment are: (1)What
do I want this person to do? (2) What
do I want this person’s reasons to be
for doing it?”
Dr Rosenberg continues,
“Punishment and reward interfere
with people’s ability to do the things
motivated by the reasons we would
like them to have. So what are the
reasons they have for behaving as
we request?” Dr Rosenberg says
the reasons include: “Avoidance of
punishment; fear of being rejected
by parents; fear of upsetting parents;
threats – fear that a hoped-for reward
will be withheld; to avoid shame and
guilt.”
An inside job
An internal locus of causality believes
that no one else can make us think,
feel, or do anything. Also, we can’t
make anyone else think, feel or do
anything. So when children are falling
apart it’s an inside job – they need to
connect how they are feeling within
themselves to what they are needing,
or you could say what needs of theirs
are not being met that gives rise to the
how they are presenting. Address the
underlying feelings and needs rather
than judge the way they are presenting
themselves when they can’t meet their
needs, and you coach your child to
break the cycle of blaming outside
factors as the reasons or justification
for their responses. This also teaches
them to have self control (rather than
to conjure up more outer control).
The goal of a controlling form
of discipline (with rewards and
punishments) is obedience and
compliance. This goal is dangerous.
It teaches children to be selfish and
to focus on what they will get or
what will happen to them instead of
what others’ experience of them is.
It’s also dangerous because children
can’t differentiate which outer voices
are safe to follow and which aren’t.
The largest study on child sexual
abuse determines that children will
do as they are told when taught to be
obedient and compliant, even to their
own detriment.
We want children cooperating with
us because it is the thoughtful thing
to do, not because they’re afraid of
what you are going to do to them if
they don’t! The goal of the guidance
approach to discipline is to teach
considerate behaviour, self-discipline,
(independent ethics), emotional
regulation, cooperation, potency and
self-efficacy.
Teaching consideration,
expecting children to think about
others, is far more demanding than
simply requiring them to do as
they are told. Obedience requires
no thinking whatsoever, whereas
guidance demands consideration of
other people. Children’s repeated
experience with having to surrender
their own interests in the service
of arbitrary compliance increases
their oppositional tendencies and
exacerbates hostility towards – and
conflicts with – parents.
Katherine Sellery is a Parent Effective
Training Instructor. She has been teaching
parenting courses in Hong Kong for 12
years. She is certified by Gordon Training
Institute as a Parent Effectiveness
Training (PET) instructor and Leadership
Effectiveness Training (LET) instructor
offering communication training to parents
and businesses. She trained with Marshall
Rosenberg in non-violent communication at
the Center for Non-violent Communication.
She co-wrote with Dr. Louise Porter, author
and psychologist, and Claryss Jamieson
The Guidance Approach to Parenting.
For more details about Katherine’s work
and classes check her website:
www.
effectiveparenting.com.cn
.
February 2016
25
