“Positive” education, which consists of rethinking parenthood from a win-win perspective, is everywhere. It’s flooded with parent coverage, entire blogs and thousands of forum pages devoted to it, and the referenced book is sold by Whole Stroller –i have tried everything, For example, psychotherapist Isabelle Filliozat has sold over 62,000 copies. Ten years ago it was still classified, but now it has become so important that the Council of Europe saw it as the educational approach most likely to respect children’s rights and distributed pamphlets to disseminate it. I promised to…
From its educational alternative status, it appears to have risen to the rank of standard. “dogma”.
In general opinion, the term “positive” is quite intuitive. It’s pretty good to say you practice “positive” parenting (much better than claiming negative parenting anyway)!
It’s an invitation to joyful parenthood, a glass half full of hot chocolate strewn across the kitchen floor, a wall penciled with an indelible pen, and a night to wash away the horrors of the night. prize. And with constant creativity, he responded to the hustle and bustle of everyday life, improvising a meal bath, repurposing the painful storage of 4,534 LEGO pieces for play, and organizing a minicourt to make this early It solves the troublesome story of too much sibling bite.
But sticking to this intuitive meaning can be reductive, especially given the difficulty of experts in formulating a simple definition of positive parenting. The term refers to many other meanings in French. It can be understood against “nature” (as in evoking “positive laws”). Laws of nature, new forms of more conscious, structured, standardized “positive” parenthood?
The term can also be understood in the scientific positivist sense of Auguste Comte. For him, if wiping out beliefs for the benefit of scientific knowledge is a problem, is the project scientifically constructing standards for “good” parents?
These meanings seem to make sense through the three main ideological influences of positive parenting.
The main influence, Nonviolent Communication (CNV), is a communication method developed in the 70s by psychologist Marshall B. Rosenberg. It is intended to allow the needs and feelings of the interlocutor to be expressed. Minimize violence towards the interlocutor and thus conflict. Many other authors, including psychologist Thomas Gordon, who devised the win-win method of communication, and teacher and psychologist Chaim Ginnot, argued that empathy must be the cornerstone of parent-child communication, and Elaine Faber and inspired the work of Adele Mazurish.bestselling author happy parents, happy childrenor the therapist Thomas d’Ansembourg, who helped popularize NVC in a wider context than parenthood, is more or less explicitly relevant today.
The second impact is that of neuroscience, which has developed exponentially since the democratization of MRI in the 1990s. As a result, it became possible to scientifically fix the psychological hypotheses of CNV regarding brain function. Authors such as Olivier Morel, who campaigns against conventional educational violence, Catherine Dumontile Kraemer, founder of Positive Education Reviews PEPS, pediatrician Catherine Gegen, and therapist Isabel Filiosa expresses this trend in particular.
Finally, a third influence is the child-centered influence, an influence that has long existed in France through the New Pedagogy and was established at the very heart of the educational system by the Josping Education Act of 1989.
Thus armed by psychology, justified by science, consistent with fashionable educational models, and even promising to resolve generational conflicts against traditionalist authoritarianism to the post-60s child kings. A positive education was destined for success.
Is positive education dogmatic?
Psychoanalysis throughout XXe A major influence of educational theory of the century has very often been accused of dogmatism. Today, positive parenting seems to be successful.
Questioning positive parenting is like saying we’re against peace, friendship sucks, and honesty should be banned.
Positive parenting seems beyond doubt because it promotes the “best” for the child. Questioning positive parenting is like saying you’re against peace, that friendship sucks, and that honesty should be banned. Someone who respects their own feelings and deepest aspirations but can sanely refuse to work for their children to grow and thrive without violence. So that he can peacefully find his place in his family and society? In fact, positive parenting cannot be questioned because it sets the perfect parent as a role model.
Most parents have experienced this. In the race for the perfect parent, everyone loses. We are never “good enough”.How often do you hear these parents (often these mothers) blaming themselves “null”, “cardboard”, “under everything”because I made too much noise “I’m Marley about your messed up room” Instead of being more polite:
“It is upsetting and discouraging to see your floor littered with toys because your need for order is not being met. A solution that honors your desire to play.” Can we discuss to find out?”.
Positive parenting promotes a half-glass-full view of the challenges you face every day with your child, but often provides a half-glass-empty view of your parenting abilities. Even better, you’re just causing your crying baby to release an unnecessarily large amount of stress her hormone cortisol. “I don’t have time, I have work”who facilitated a reliance on adult validation “It’s beautiful, it’s nice.” Upon receipt of drawings. In short, if you are not a 100% positive parent, you are very often a 100% bad parent.
Toward social change
One of the assumptions of positive parenthood is that we inherit harmful educational habits from previous generations. Getting rid of this allows children to pass on new “positive” educational habits to their children. So questioning positive parenting is just a sign of our denial in the face of the toxic behaviors we incarnate against ourselves because of this legacy.
If our educational heritage should undoubtedly be criticized for its ageism (adults’ dominance over children), sexism, or its attachment to punishment and reward, then this vision is, in fact, the psychoanalysis of the time. Similarly, another element in the composition of dogma.
Because positive parenting is so deeply rooted in the knowledge of psychology, pedagogy, and neuroscience, parents may not feel well-prepared to increase the bias in research on, for example, cortisol secretion and mechanisms in babies. not (not always). building self-esteem.
Needless to say, most books on “positive parenting” do not cite sources and simply move forward “What American Studies Say Here”Also “Researchers found this” That this study was based on an absurdly small sample, that other studies were inconsistent years later, and that another investigator was trying to extrapolate the results from the MRI tube to ‘real’ social situations. I didn’t take the time to say what I did. Of all the best-selling authors of Positive Education, only Catherine Guéguin provides readers with a complete bibliography of the scientific studies she references.
don’t throw baby out with hot water
Parent education is a very old issue. For nearly 150 years, when the extent of infant mortality was discovered, public authorities have always wondered how they would act to assimilate the latest scientific findings to parents.
It’s a question of how much to support, support, and resource parents, and when to control them.
150 years later, societal concerns have changed (in the West, child survival was a largely solved problem, but now there is more concern about future potential delinquents), One central problem remains. It’s a question of helping parents, supporting them, giving them resources, starting when to control them and impose educational standards.
On the one hand, public institutions are trying to optimize parent education (because it is costly and in the best interest of the child), but on the other hand, poor parents need simple, ready-to-use educational tools, instructional I am looking for a book. All the ingredients are there for transforming a psychological theory that is utopian, respectful of the individual, and wealthy into an educational norm that drives hordes of exhausted parents into feelings of guilt and incompetence.
Nonviolent communication is a complex psychological and philosophical proposition, fed by many influences (from the psychology of Carl Rogers to the Indian philosophy of Krishnamurti), and the potential to build a kinder world for all. It tries to reflect on sex (and everyone can have their own place, respect themselves, have their needs and deep desires acknowledged, and be free from judgment and offense.
Likewise, neuroscience is a dynamic, interdisciplinary set of sciences that has revolutionized the expression of our thoughts in recent decades, and that is immeasurable every day in fields as diverse as medicine, psychology, education, and physiology. We offer no service. As science, they critique themselves, work on their own limitations, and try to model reality without saying “truth” so that we can change it.
The hasty and dogmatic prevalence that “positive parenthood” currently offers has more nuances than most parents can comprehend. It’s time for a new look at this generation of parents.The majority of parents are concerned about their children’s well-being, and the majority of parents are looking for information, questioning themselves and ready to evolve. empowerment.