5. Be careful with the prohibitions: sometimes they can be enforced at too high a cost, and a ban, the observance of which cannot be controlled, provokes lies and destroys trust.
Here we must immediately clarify – what is meant by the ban. In a family where there is mutual trust and respect between children and adults, parental restrictions are clear and justified: they explain to children that there are some things that are absolutely unacceptable, nasty, mean. What can not be done in any case! Not out of fear of punishment, but on the basis of our ideas about good and evil.
First of all, these are biblical commandments, the violation of which (not only in Christian culture, by the way!) Is perceived as an absolute evil. You can not steal. Envy (do not covet ox, donkey, and so on), anger (including ill will, aggression) are unacceptable. This categorical imperative is brought up with examples of literature, biblical parables, films and biographies of heroes. And, of course, not in adolescence, but barely a child begins to speak.
The philistine understanding of prohibitions is the departure of adults from responsibility. I, just in case, forbid to hang out with these children, go to this park, ride a skateboard, swim in deep places. I disclaimed responsibility for what will happen to my child when he grows up. I do not care that he will not be able to build relationships with people, that he will remain awkward, cowardly and, ultimately, unsuccessful.
The main thing, while he is under my care, nothing will happen to him. Bans (understood in such a narrow-minded sense) are the external skeleton, and you need to raise an internal skeleton in a child, that is, his beliefs. And, of course, the child must be taught to comply with these prohibitions.
It is stupid to say “I forbid you to envy! I forbid you to be angry! ”How can you ban emotions and desire? Inadmissible should not be considered in themselves such feelings, but their manifestation. And the child should calmly, respectfully explain this, and you need to begin such explanations with the words “I understand”, because by this you show him that you do not rise above him, that all these his motivations are familiar to you.
“I understand that you really want an iPhone, that Vanya has it, but you don’t have it, and it torments you. It is terrible that envy is insatiable. Having received such an iPhone, you will see someone else’s gadget more expensive, even better, and you will suffer that you do not have it. And it is infinite. The commandment “Thou shalt not covet” for your good. Your envy is ruining you! A person is imperfect, sometimes subject to unrighteous or evil emotions, but do not need to give in to them. Resist! ”
And another important principle for parents: the past matters only for the future. That is, the teenager has done something. You discuss with him his motivations and the consequences of his action: you did it, you see, nothing good happened. All forgotten, we don’t raise this topic anymore, just for the future this is a lesson for you Indeed, one should not recall his misdemeanor anymore. All this infinite is unacceptable: “But you did something then … but then this … remember, remember!” Not a single teenager will endure such a thing, and even if he doesn’t say anything, it explodes – the parental words will no longer be significant.
In addition, prohibitions should not be too much, otherwise they depreciate. Attempting to regulate and control the adolescent’s whole life, make him comply with dozens or even hundreds of specific prohibitions (don’t you dare wear these pants, don’t you dare read this site, don’t you come home later than 20:00, dare not be friends with Vasya, don’t you dare look this tv program ends badly. He will begin to lie, to try to violate all your bans, even those that are reasonable and justified.
If we talk about external prohibitions, then it is worth banning only what is dangerous for the adolescent or those around him, or something that is certainly immoral: meanness, humiliation of others, denunciations, cruelty. The motivation of these prohibitions should be quite obvious for children, and up to a certain age is not discussed. “It’s impossible — for this reason and for this reason. That’s the point, accept it as a fact. ” But this is suitable for young children who can not yet understand the deep meaning of many prohibitions.
For example, when it came to specifics, I forbade my children to read other people’s letters, to take other people’s things without asking, to touch people without their permission, to show aggression. Perhaps this is all. The rest of the restrictions themselves, naturally flowed from the ethical principles of our family. I myself was so raised. For example, there was no prohibition to come home late – but I knew that if I came very late, my parents would be worried, and it was all the same to me. I was not afraid of their anger, but I was afraid of causing them suffering.
That’s exactly the way to build a relationship with a child – so that he would care.
With a teenager it will not work. If in early childhood he was not taught to respect the basic principles of life in society, it would be necessary to convincingly and painstakingly explain to him the need for social prohibitions. It is very difficult. But then explicit bans will not be necessary, especially in adolescence, when a person is already taught to think.
Leave a Reply