Midterm project - Family Communication
From our text, “Family Communication” by Galvin, Bylund & Brommel, we learn that “Meaning arises out of the process of interaction between people,” (69) and “In ongoing relationships, [we] develop the ability to recognize shared meanings and negotiate joint understandings through [our] interactions.” (68)
In the investigation of discipline techniques, I started with the premise that “communication involves the negotiation of shared meanings,” (26) and the premise that if our disciplinary messages don’t mean the same thing every time, then they are essentially meaningless.
I interviewed and observed several families in an effort to find patterns in discipline messages and their meanings. I chose four individuals to focus on, although many of the responses were similar. I made an effort to look for patterns of “good communication”; situations where the families appeared to be well-adjusted, and functioning with good relationships; as well as those who were willing to openly discuss this topic. Adults who reported that they had been physically abused as children are not included in this discussion because I am focusing on the patterns that seem to display “good communication”; that is, patterns where the meaning intended by the parent was similar to the meaning accepted by the child who was being disciplined.
The four interview subjects that are featured here, include: (fake names)
Maw-Maw, 77 year old female with 4 grown children, 7 grandchildren and 3 great grandchildren. Her father “paddled” her and her siblings, her mother never disciplined her that she can remember. She chose to repeat this pattern with her children; she never disciplined her children, but expected her husband to spank them, which he did. Her children, who were also interviewed, although not as extensively, reported this to be accurate according to their memories. Maw-Maw’s children voiced some resentment that they felt “a paddling was effective,” the message sent and received was “Don’t ever do that again,” however, they believed that they were forced to raise their children in a “don’t spank era” and so their “options for effective discipline were limited.”
Shelley, 55 year old female with 2 grown children and 5 grandchildren. Her father had spanked her and her siblings with his belt, which she felt was excessive. Shelley does not label her father’s discipline as abusive, but did feel that it was a discipline technique that she would not use. As a single mother, she felt that she had not been taught any other techniques and ended up being overly permissive with her children, sending a message of “Do whatever you want, there are no punishments here.” Shelley’s grown children agreed that this was the message that they received. Her adult children, who are now both parents themselves, have struggled to figure out how to discipline their own children and claim they jump from one theory to another depending on what books they read or what they see other families doing.
William, 60 year old male with seven children, 5 of them grown and 2 still at home. William explains that he and his wife had the opportunity to raise 2 families. They had five children when they were young and when the youngest of that crew was 16 years old, they were blessed with two more. He believes that he is a more effective disciplinarian the second time around. With the first family, they spanked their children when they were toddlers and used “time outs” when the children were older. They found both of these methods “were ineffective in the teen years and, by default, we turned to natural consequences.” With the 2nd family, William and his wife had learned about a discipline method called “switch training,” promoted in a book titled “To Train up a Child” by Michael Pearl. The method relies on diligence and persistence on the part of the parent to overcome the diligence and persistence on the part of the child. The primary concept is that every offense is punished immediately, with a switch (this could be a tap on the hand of a grabby toddler or a snap to the legs of a insistent stair climber). They found this to be an effective method of discipline as it taught their children a message of “disobedience equals pain.” He believes that this message is one that will carry into their older years and make disciplining them as teenagers easier, although he expects that he and his wife will return to using “natural consequences when the children are teens.”
David, a 41 year old male with 6 children, all still at home, has used the method found in a book titled “1-2-3 Magic” by Thomas W. Phelan with his children. This technique involves “warning a children with a count of three” to let the child know that their behavior is undesirable and that it will be punished at the “3” if it continues. David and his wife claim that it is effective, although they are often unsure of how to handle things when they get to 3. They currently employ a combination of spanking, time outs and natural consequences, “depending on the child’s age and the offense.”
Other parents that I interviewed responded in similar ways. The four discipline methods that were most prevalent are:
1. Switch training. The primary message is “disobedience = pain” Parents who used this method found it to be the most effective when initiated in the early years. They also pointed out that, like many forms of discipline, “it is a waste of time, if you aren’t going to follow through.”
2. 1-2-3 Magic. This is not so much a disciplinary technique as it is a method of warning. But, proponents argue that its effectiveness comes from giving a child a choice. If they “straighten up on their own” then, there is no punishment. The proponents of this method repeated the mantra that “it doesn’t work if you don’t follow through.”
3. Time-outs. These are often used as a “break” for both the parent and the child. Parents who prefer this method said that often times “the problem was solved by simply removing [the child] from the situation.” I did not find any adults who had experienced this type of discipline and so I was not able to evaluate completely whether or not the intended message is received by the child.
4. Natural consequences. While this sounds somewhat vague, it is a specific method of discipline and parents with grown children and/or teenagers claimed this to be the most effective means of “communicating their point” with this age group. A simple example is “if you don’t finish your chores and schoolwork, then you don’t go out with your friends.” The message being that responsibility comes before play. The teenagers who I spoke with seemed to agree that while they often “hate it”; they do understand the message that their parents are trying to send when they use natural consequences.
In our text, the authors claim that “families repeat themselves within and across generations. Members become caught up in predictable and often unexamined life patterns.” (23) With some exceptions (Shelley who did the opposite of her parents and William who got a second chance to raise a family); it appears to generally be true that as parents, we discipline our children in the same way that we were disciplined and unless the method isn’t working, we don’t make a lot of effort to change it.
There is one pattern that stood out to me. It is encouraging as a parent, but I find it concerning at the same time. In all forms of discipline, the parents and even some of the children stated that it only works if you do it consistently. This is encouraging to me as a parent to know that consistency and persistence will guide the success of whatever discipline method I use with my family. What I find worrisome about this pattern is that “working mothers are commonplace,” (15) and “the pressures of work, long hours, and downsizing have created enormous stressors for families.” (16) This separation of parents from their children and the commonness of children spending the majority of their waking hours in the care of school teachers and day care providers, seems to make it impossible for children to experience any kind of consistency in discipline.
A consistent message that tells a child, “When I do this, this happens,” is healthy. It is the natural law that teaches them to crawl and to walk. When they do it right, they experience success, and when they do it wrong, they experience a face-plant on the floor. Eventually, they figure it out. Have you ever seen a 3-year-old running excitedly and trip over his own two feet? He’s still getting it, but the consistency of gravity and his own muscle functions will provide him with a foundation to learn to be successful at running - eventually.
MY OPINION?
This is not part of my project, but just a final thought for my readers. As a mother of 6, ages 16-3, I have had a bit of experience with discipline. I have to say, all children are different. Switch training is very effective, but it is NOT for lazy mamas! Time-outs work for children are obedient enough to actually stay in the place you tell them to have their time-out at - I really think a time-out loses its effectiveness if you have to sit on the child to make him stay there-that child needs some other kind of training (In case you're worried, I've never sat on any of my children-I've considered duct tape though...)
Sometimes, toddlers need a swat on the butt to get their attention when they think they are faster than the car that almost ran them over; especially when they actually are faster than Mom. And, finally, the teenagers; as much as I would like to spank them sometimes, they are too big and too fast for that nonsense; they like time-outs too much; so natural consequences are all that's left. But, it takes a mama with a strong will to follow through sometimes.
How about you?
What has experience taught you about discipline?
Do you think that your kids 'get the message' you are trying to send?
No comments:
Post a Comment