“”
– Sarah Lawrence
From the archives: The original post was posted on 25th January, 1998
At 8:52 pm +0000 on 98/01/18, in a message entitled, “Re: Decoercing food”, Laurie Clark wrote:
“I don’t believe that common preferences are called for here in terms of what they put into their bodies. They do need our theories though … but unfortunately it is very easy to express these theories in ways that are felt as coercive by children who have been coerced in this area (in my experience anyway).”
I think what Laurie means here is not that common preferences have no place here, but that since everyone has a right to put whatever they like into their own body, parents who try to get a say in what their children eat, and try to get their children to prefer this to autonomous eating, are simply in the wrong. In this case the right path to a common preference is for the parent to understand that they have no business meddling here.
It seems likely that what parents might be doing in such cases is inadvertently coercing their children into pseudo-agreements about what they eat and when, and that if that is what happens, it will be very harmful.
In conventional thinking, life is divided into two types of area: those which are none of anyone else’s business; and those which are. For example, people do not think that they have a right to determine what their friends eat or when. Generally, issues in the areas of taste or aesthetic preferences, choice of friends and partners, life styles, political and religious beliefs, life goals, personal habits, what one does with one’s own private property, and so on, are regarded as being nobody’s business but the individual. In conventional thinking, the individual has a right to do whatever he or she likes as long as it does not infringe the rights of another person. Dietary choices fall into the category of not affecting any other person’s rights, so, other things being equal, the food issue is viewed as being the business only of the individual. This is the conventional view, as applied to adults only, of course.
In Taking Children Seriously relationships, there is no such rights-based distinction. There is no un-crossable line around what is one person’s business, no absolute distinction between areas in which the issue is none of anyone else’s business and those which are other people’s business. Finding common preferences applies to all areas of life.
At first sight, this sounds very like the idea in conventional parenting—that everything about children is their parents’ business, from what colour socks the children wear to what they should want to do with their lives.
Therefore, sometimes people new to Taking Children Seriously complain that their children “won’t find common preferences” when it comes to their dietary choices or choice of clothes or what exams to take. Typically, they have given their children their best theories and arguments for their position, but their children have shown no sign of wanting to change their minds. The parents then conclude that their children are being unreasonable, and think that Taking Children Seriously “won’t work” for their family. But why should they draw that conclusion rather than the conclusion that they (the parents) are being unreasonable? What is the difference between the child’s unchanging wishes here, and the parents’ unchanging wishes?
In conventional thinking, where the discussion is between two adults in a close relationship, rather than between parent and child, the question would be: “Why should the friend set aside the right to eat whatever she likes?, or “Why should Susan adopt her girlfriend’s theory about clothes when it is none of her girlfriend’s business what Susan wears?”
When parents find themselves engaging in a discussion and the child appears intransigent, the parents might consider first how the issue would look in terms of conventional rights-based thinking about disagreements between adults. Were this a friend rather than a child, would the issue be any of their business? If the answer is no, the parents could then consider whether they have a good answer to the question of what makes this situation different? What is it about this situation that makes it their business even though it wouldn’t be were the other person a friend rather than their own child? They should ask themselves the question of why the child’s rights (in conventional thinking) should be set aside on this occasion. If they can think of a good answer to that question, then they should give that answer to their child, who may not have thought of it. A discussion can then ensue with a view to finding a common preference.
But often, if the parents were to consider the question “What business is this of mine?”, they would find only the embarrassingly lame answer “because I want it to be”—which would not—or at least should not—persuade anyone to give up their autonomy. Why then, should the child be persuaded? And why should the parents take that as evidence that the child is being unreasonable?
In fact, if there is no good answer to the question of why the issue is any of their business, but they still feel compelled to get the child to change his or her mind, that is, at least on first sight, a sign that the parents themselves are being irrational; a sign that their desire to get their child to adopt their theory on the issue is a figment of their own irrationality rather than anything else. In other words, it is the parents’ hangups which are causing the failure to find common preferences in these cases, not the children’s unreasonableness.
Suppose you are a parent who is worried about your children’s dietary choices. You are worried that your child is getting fat, or that your child is eating foods which may be physically harmful in the long run. You have explained your dietary theories to your children but they don’t seem to be taking any notice. They stuff themselves with “junk”, and even though you “tried non-coercion” for a month, and have “spent a fortune on junk food” for them, they show no sign of letting up and becoming sensible eaters. You are worried sick about their health, and want to “find a common preference” with them about their eating habits.
Well, perhaps you can see that on the face of it at least, this does not look like a search for common preferences, because you have given no reason that in conventional rights-based thinking would justify your having any say in what they eat. If you think of it in terms of a discussion between you and a friend, you can perhaps see that it would be “out of line” in terms of conventional thinking. Yes, it would be right to tell your friend your theories (to the extent he or she wanted to listen) but no, it would not be right to put any pressure on him or her to adopt your ideas about what he or she should eat.
It might help in these cases to think of yourself as a consultant—someone to whom your children might turn for advice, and to whom they might feel grateful for unsolicited advice where it is likely that they would want the advice. For example, an investment consultant might mention that it would be a very bad idea to add to your portfolio such-and-such a share you that you had been intending to buy, because of such-and-such reasons you had been unaware of. You’d be glad of the advice, not coerced, wouldn’t you? You’d have found a common preference.
Now suppose you had known about the information the consultant was giving you, and had already taken that into account when deciding to buy the shares. You would say, “Oh yes, I know about that actually, but XYZ.” The consultant might say, “Ah yes, but were you aware that XYZ is just a rumour put about by the company for ABC reasons, [and that therefore it is a bad idea to buy the shares]?” You might still be very glad the consultant was giving you this unsolicited advice, and decide not to buy the shares. Again, you have found a common preference there. And so on.
But suppose that you had been aware of all those reasons not to buy the shares but had another reason for buying them, which the consultant seemed not to take into account. Suppose that the consultant just kept repeating the same reasons not to buy the shares as he had given before. That would start to get annoying wouldn’t it? And suppose he started trying to put pressure on you to follow his advice, for your own good of course. You’d fire him, wouldn’t you? You’d find a consultant who would not overstep the line between giving information and advice, and giving you a hard time about your choices. Or worse, giving you sulky disapproving or disappointed looks every time the matter of those shares came up. Or even worse (criminally, in this case) taking the decision out of your hands!
The next question is—what can one do when one finds oneself in the position of wanting not to coerce one’s children but also not wanting them to ruin their lives by eating the wrong things or whatever. We all have hangups which make it difficult to find common preferences in certain areas. What now? I shall give a general answer to this question in another message.
Sarah Lawrence
See also:
Sarah Fitz-Claridge, 1998, ‘None of my business?’,
Taking Children Seriously