Gordon Neufeld and Easy Parenting

Let me tell you where I'm coming from.  I was raised as a protestant, told in confirmation class that one of the important ways we were different from Catholics is that we might speak directly to god, with no intermediary.  I am no theologist; this is merely what I was told.  Culturally, this stuck.  I come from long, deep lines of farmers-- stalwart emigrants from England and Germany who were protestant, if not literally puritanical.  The cultural message I was raised with is this: what we do in this world, we will do ourselves.  We will overcome adversity by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps and soldiering on. We will rely on our native abilities and sense alone. We will speak with god directly and independently.

Thus, I am a cultural protestant, and while life and experience have taught me the necessity of interdependency and the risks and rewards of vulnerability, I confess to you, oh Internet: I remain a protestant when it comes to parenting.

This is to say: gurus, philosophers, self-help books and parenting fads are deeply suspect to me.  The community I tend to surround myself with is made up of wildly independent, difficult people, who, like myself, are leery of bandwagons.  It upsets me to witness flocks of people gathering around a parenting ideology, quite possibly to the detriment of the real, actual child in their home.

Gordon Neufeld is revered around here. His book "Hold On To Your Kids" is regularly cited in homeschool circles.  Neufeld argues that children need to have their primary attachment be to their parents and not to their peers-- an excellent fit with homeschooling parents, and for all parents, perhaps.  That's not at all a bad argument, but he goes so much further than this.

I have read many times that Neufeld begins his talks with the stated goal of making children "easier to parent".  Let's be honest about this.  Making children easier to parent is a nice goal, I guess, but should that be the goal?  Not to make their lives more authentic or fulfilling-- but to make parenting easier?

Underneath all the parenting advice, there is a tacit message about what the perfect, healthy, "properly" attached child is like.  Cooperative, they look up to the parent with wondering eyes, palms spread wide, saying "Teach me, wise parent!  Fill me with your wisdom and show me the way with your example!"  In touch with her "Alpha Instincts,"  the mother leads her children forward confidently, with no argument or contrariness.  All the problems children have today with anxiety, arguing, contrariness, bullying, bossiness-- all can be traced to not being in "right relationship" with their authority figures.  Parents must be in touch with their "Alpha Instincts," and be confident enough in leading that children can feel safe enough to follow. Like magic, all will be well.

You can attend intensives and advanced training in "making sense of children."  You can listen to Neufeld earnestly discuss his ideas all you like.  There's even an Institute! 

"We cannot parent children whose hearts we do not have."  He says this repeatedly.  The idea is this: first you get the child to fall in love with you, to want to please you (this happens naturally in the properly attached child) and then you lead them confidently in the direction of their (your) dreams, like little ducks.

I disagree with this approach.  Some children tend to want to please, others do not.  That's natural variation.  It's not an inherently desirable or undesirable quality.  Why not meet the child wherever they are?  Why not have an authentic relationship that doesn't involve manipulating the child?   Instead of a natural tendency to want to please their parents, I think any person has a natural desire to get their needs met.  Maybe sometimes getting a need met (such as contribution, belonging, or acceptance) can look like pleasing. 

Neufeld talks about taking a year off to study all the attachment theory he could find, putting it all together-- that sounds to me like a fine intellectual exercise; he is clearly gifted in the realm of synthesizing ideas.  I understand.  It's fun to do!  But if one wants to help actual children, one would be better off just spending a year with actual children,  just paying attention.  Believe it or not,  your relationship with your child doesn't have to be based around power dynamics at all.   It's pretty clear that Neufeld isn't in this for the kids, though.  He's in it for the parents, and the parents want their kids to cooperate. 

Instead of treating your child like an ideological problem to be solved-- a heart to be won and manipulated into what someone else tells you is "right relationship"-- I suggest you stop.  Stop seeking cooperation, stop seeking easy parenting, stop seeking peace above all else, stop seeking control.  Begin the uncomfortable process of giving up control, of responding to your child's needs, even if they conflict with your desires.  Respond to the actual person in front of you, who has their own actual thoughts and feelings and schedule for "unfolding" that may not follow the expected  schedule, and respond genuinely, from the heart, without strategizing.  Take them seriously; don't assume you know better what your child needs than they do.  You don't.  Allow them to prove you wrong.  Instead of trying to get in touch with your "Alpha Instincts," try being your child's partner.  Try trusting them more.  If they have needs and opinions that differ from yours, it's okay; if conflict should arise, that's okay, too.  It is possible to work together to find solutions that meet everybody's needs to the greatest degree possible without trying to enact a particular power dynamic between parent and child.  Sometimes the best solutions for everyone turn out to be damn inconvenient for the parent.  Sometimes it isn't easy, and that's okay.

I'm not sure an obedient, "well-behaved" child is a particularly worthwhile goal.  I value authenticity, trust, honesty, clear thinking and communication skills far above cooperation.  It is very difficult, for instance, to be genuinely compassionate toward others without being able to think clearly.  Does our country really need more people who follow authority figures?  Why not nurture a generation of children who have well-developed critical thinking skills, who can question authority, who can connect with some of the independent spirit that makes America unique?  Why not nurture children to develop their own sense of self, instead of feeling safe under the umbrella of their "Alpha" authority figure?  Why not help them to feel safe walking beside us, as equals, but with different levels of experience?  It's a foreign thought for those of us who were the attachment mothers of babies, but maybe attachment theory isn't really all that useful after the first few years of life.  Perhaps there is a natural transition in the years between "school-age" and adulthood, from dependency to partnership.

I really find Neufeld's stance unfortunate.  As far as I can tell, it encourages manipulation for the sake of convenience.   Perhaps it's helped some families stop being so mean to each other, and that's really good.  I'm glad.  But instead of working through the fog of ideology and massive amounts of theory, families would be better off communicating directly, taking one another quite seriously, even if some of the people involved are mere children.

The most popular parenting approaches tend to be about ways to control children, masked as compassion.  It can be very alluring; Neufeld is just the most recent iteration.  I support the idea of working towards co-existence, rather than control.  My role with my children is not that of a leader; my role is that of a more experienced tour guide, resource, and passionate advocate.

If you are a recovering control freak, like me, you might try reading something by John Holt, who was not at all interested in control.  You may find yourself less focused on controlling your kids, and more curious about them, and what you can learn together.