First of all let me say that I know not every child is the same. I know not everything works on every child. I know that each interaction between a parent and a child is unique. I do know these things. I however maintain that there are certain Great Truths Of The Universe, and this is one of them:
"NO" is a complete sentence. "NO" is a good word. "NO" is not harsh, mean, evil, dirty or bad. "NO" teaches, and children need to learn. "NO" teaches boundaries and children need boundaries. NO is GOOD.
We all know the parent(s) who can't say no to their child. We see their kids, ripping the windowshades, pouring lemonade on the good carpet, screaming, throwing things at people... while Mom or Dad chuckles and says "Oh, little Bubba is so full of energy." They watch, unruffled, as Bubba draws on the new wallpaper with permanent markers, saying "Oh, little Bubba is so talented! He'll be an artist someday." We've all heard them say "Oh, don't say no! It will stifle their creativity, harm their self esteem, make them sad and anxious." I beg to differ. "No" is a staple word in this household, and I couldn't ask for a child with more self-esteem, more independence, more confidence in himself than my Bundle. He's never self-comforted, he sleeps without a sacred stuffy, arms spread wide open, on his back most of the time. He bounces around the house like a happy little cricket, chirping and laughing and playing. He doesn't *like* the word "No" (who does?) but he deals with it. Sometimes he deals with it badly, and he gets punished. When he deals with it well he gets praised and petted. I have faith that the latter will win out.
I know that a well-placed "No!" teaches Bundle that there are limits to his world, boundaries to what he's able to get into or take away. I need him to know that That Box isn't something he can get into, because if he goes to a playgroup or club at some point there will be lots of Those Boxes that he can't get into, and the punishments will be more public and more severe than my relatively nice "No!". When he has a job in an office he has to know that there are things that are off limits - what happens to the guy in the next cube who goes through the bosses desk drawers? They don't end up too happy, or too employed. I'm teaching him "No" for now, and for later. It's my gift to him.
When my Bundle learned to crawl I discovered something exciting, something I'd always suspected: children understand what "No" means right from the start. I began to employ the twofold strategy of "No" and "redirect". You tell them no, then you move them, or hand them something different and take the offending article away. It works miracles for the littles, although it isn't quite as easy to make work as they get older - the older they are the fancier your footwork has to be. Three is a wasteland in between blithely dealing with pretty much anything you hand them, and fixating on one item that they *have* to have right now right now RIGHT NOW! They're still a little to little for reasoning with, and bribes only have so much use at this point. I've had a reasonable amount of success with "If you are good when we go into the store, X will happen later" - but "later" is so far away for a tyke, that isn't the easiest thing to employ.
I've learned that the strategy really does need to be twofold, though. "No" without redirection is empty - while I know that they understand the word to a certain extent, their brains are still developing, so it isn't as full an understanding as it will be in a few years. The word "no" gives them a frame of reference for the redirection: "Mom is moving me away from that, and she said no to that... so that must be off limits. She gave me this, this must be okay." Likewise, redirection alone is nothing... just moving a child away from "that" doesn't help them associate "that" with danger or wrongness. That word "no" needs to be part of the equation, so does redirection. It's a package deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment