“When children invent new ways of using food (as toys, for example), that is something to facilitate, not double-bind the child out of. There is no Law of Nature that food is only for eating.”
– Sarah Fitz-Claridge
From the archives: 24th February 2000
Hi Joanne! 😊
At 9:05 pm -0500 on 23/2/00, Joanne wrote:
“I usually have food out all day available to everyone in the house. It helps minimize food issues.”
True.
“But, DH and I do enjoy meals together. The kids are all invited to join us. They can come and go, eat as much or as little as they want. The baby does go in a (gasp) high chair.”
Great!
“Having said that, though, just as I would not allow or encourage a person (child) to hit or hurt me, I also don’t allow them to gross me out with something they can control (like spitting out food at 2).”
By this reasoning, you could justify not allowing all manner of things. You are placing the responsibility for your psychological response on your child, but that is not where the responsibility lies and it is wrong to suggest that it is. You don’t have to be grossed out. You could reinterpret the child’s behaviour as having fun, playing, or experimenting, and not feel disgusted by it. There is nothing wrong with spitting out food, is there? Sure, ok, maybe if my child were to do that in my face, I might feel a little shocked and want to move my chair out of the line of fire, but there is nothing wrong with it, is there? Would it not be more pleasant if you were to relax about this? The child won’t be spitting out food at twenty!
“I’ve also discovered that most 2 year olds can stop from deliberately dropping food on the floor. My response to dropping food would be “okay, I guess you are done eating.”
This makes the mistake of suggesting that there is a Law of Nature that what you deem food is for eating and for no other purpose. There is no such Law of Nature. Foodstuffs can be used for all manner of things. Foodstuffs often make very cheap and interesting toys. If a child is showing a bit of initiative in how he or she uses commonly available items including foodstuffs, I think that is something to smile about and facilitate, not double-bind the child out of. Putting children in double binds is a very bad idea indeed. It does violence to their minds. This sort of response to a child’s playing with food risks making food an issue, because you are using an ugly threat—the threat of withdrawal of food, which can be terrifying—to command compliance. This may “work” but at what cost?
“‘Where did we get the idea that in order for children to behave better, we need to make them feel worse?’ (Jane Nelson)”
I agree with that quotation, but the things you say above appear not to agree with it.🤭
See also:
- “What if they bring home objectionable literature?!”
- What sort of conflict is coercion? (Was: Bait for Sarah)
- Solutions are created at the time
Sarah Fitz-Claridge, 2000, ‘Unhealthy food ideas’, https://takingchildrenseriously.com/unhealthy-food-ideas