— Is your son independent?
— Yes!
— And what is his independence?
He takes money from the refrigerator without being reminded and goes for bread!»
(Real dialogue at the consultation)
Of course, in this example we are talking about an obedient child, and not completely independent. And, in my opinion, the opposition between an obedient and an independent child (and then an adult) is justified.
Let’s agree on terms: perhaps you and I, as with the woman in the epigraph, by independence we simply mean different things.
I call obedient a person who believes that objectively (!) There is some correct morality and the proper norms of behavior following from it (it seems more accurate to call such a person not obedient, but moral. — Ed.). Therefore, in a situation of choice, he asks himself what he would do or advise someone authoritative (bearer of morality) to do. It can be mom, boss, “everyone”, “all decent people”, TV, guru.
If a child has not been taught independence, he can behave naughty, but not be independent! It’s just that he is obedient — not to you anymore. The second variant of disobedient behavior is protest. It is not independent, it is simply contrary to you.
To spite my enemies, I will remain a fool. To spite the conductor, I will buy a ticket and go on foot!
Obedient / naughty — dependent. It’s normal for a child to be addicted. But, perhaps, the first “laid” attempt at independence is the “crisis of three years”, which is actually 2,5. «Seven stars of symptoms» according to Vygotsky. There, it is precisely the child who seeks to avoid merging with the elders, but so far only knows how to do this through protest, non-obedience.
I call independent a person who has developed his own personal morality, ethics (perhaps, the concepts of “Individual morality” or “Morality” are more suitable for such a definition. — Ed.). Given that very different moral attitudes are possible, they are relative. And two different very good people can advise you on very different behavior. Even two priests from neighboring parishes can have very different views on how parishioners should behave. And the phrase “this is my life” is not only an excuse for a beer belly, family rudeness and the salt of the legend about Perls’ death. But also something else. And in a situation of choice, an independent person asks himself what he wants — more. Weighing the positive and negative consequences of your choice (since almost any choice has positive and negative consequences).
Autonomous — makes decisions freely (i.e. he can really make any choice, not just prescribed). And a mature independent person is responsible for his decisions: i.e. does not shift the negative consequences of his choice to anyone.
By the way, psychologist Mikhail Pokrass defines it as a “teenage complex”, when — usually a teenager — he believes that he does not owe anything to anyone … but his parents should take care of him. But I would not call this independence: it is also a variant of obedient / protest behavior.
As well as if a child (or not a child) uncritically accepted Sinton’s moral message, there will be an obedient person with the Author’s position.
In this place — so that there is no ambiguity. It is obvious to me that Nikolai Ivanovich constantly offers a critical discussion of his approaches. Emphasizing that they are changing, forming, and offering to take part in this. There are no questions here: I see a real psychological school and a Teacher … with whom it is a pleasure to argue.
Becoming independent is the middle of the journey of growing up. Since man is a social being, the next step is to learn how to build close personal and business interdependent relationships. Achieving your personal goals in cooperation through the ability to help other people achieve their goals turns out to be beneficial. Not always; but in general the strategy is very winning. Really difficult social skill… which is exactly what the Synthon program is dedicated to 🙂
Concepts — introduced. Now to our children.
So, «An obedient child is not independent.»
Obviously, if you expand this thesis as an instruction, it can sound:
“If you want your child to become independent, teach him to make decisions with his mind, not yours. And be responsible for their consequences.
A very clear consequence is the following thesis:
“Be prepared for the fact that, among other things, these will be decisions that you or other people authoritative for the child would not approve of in any case.”
Moreover, strictly speaking, the test criterion for the independence of the child is precisely the real ability, based on his desires, foreseeing the consequences, to make important decisions that would not be approved by people authoritative for him — and to bear responsibility for the consequences.
That is, an independent child and an obedient child are antonyms.
If a child and then an adult makes their own type of independent choices only to please their parents, then we can talk more about a well-indoctrinated person. «Well educated»? Now, if we understand culture, education as transplanting a number of ideological, ideological attitudes into a person’s head (oh! undoubtedly correct, but how!). Nothing that I polemically sharpen, right? – Then, look, “to educate” = “to raise a person with rooted correct attitudes towards himself, people, the world, etc.” Despite the fact that within the FRAMEWORK of these installations, he — yes, he will make some less significant decisions without every second looking back at the authorities. Well, I’ll call this a terrible word “indoctrination”.
Let’s clarify. One of the definitions of culture is that culture is limitation. The more cultured a person is, the more internal restrictions he has (do not blow your nose with your fingers in the street, do not shake hands with a scoundrel, etc.).
If a person is grown up within the framework of powerful cultural representations. then he may not be aware of these restrictions imposed by upbringing on his choices. In relation to himself, he does not consider behavior with going beyond these restrictions at all: it does not occur to him. It’s called «implicit beliefs» those. which are not recognized at all as beliefs, but simply — «the world is like that.» In Synthon, this is called «beliefs».
We went through this very brightly: okay, pioneers; At 19, in the army, I became a candidate for the CPSU absolutely sincerely. All doubts, criticality remain within the framework of the grafted (educated) ideology.
So, such an indoctrinated person (regardless of age) will be: independent in everyday trifles, and obedient in basic life ideas.
Wow! Here it is: obedient and independent at the same time!!
Yes Yes. A child can be, of course, dry and wet at the same time. In places.
In general, oxymorons are fruitful for creative understanding of the world.
But in this case, I would speak about an obedient person … with an obediently accepted author’s position (he does not shift responsibility to anyone …) And here is an «ambush».
Life is long. The personal ideology of such a person is a given given by parents. Parents, yes, they suffered and came consciously. The skill of creating your own personal ideology is only through a serious, real consideration of contrasting, opposing approaches. With a real opportunity and, it is possible, real attempts to view the world and behave in the world in a completely different way than parents. Without this skill, an uncle/aunt will appear who will be authoritative for you, and who, with clear eyes and very positively, will explain exactly how it is best to increase the amount of Good in the world! And this will not be at all what Nikolai Ivanovich had in mind.
What do you think, the same Nazis for the increase of evil? Of course, for the increase of good. For the deserving.
And when Stanislav and Nikolai Ivanovich talked at the webinar, Stanislav’s position was very close to me. He said: why consider a spherical parent in a vacuum?!
Indeed, well, this is an “ideal” situation when a parent can authoritarianly and totally control the process of growing up of their children. Being warm, interested, collected, included, strong-willed, etc. And to remain an “inner boss” in adolescence and after. Yes, it’s not unique, it’s reproducible. Although there is a strong suspicion that a lot will also depend on the personality of a particular child.
But it is the experience of conducting such conversations that Nikolai Ivanovich and Stanislav modeled that is much more universal, more reliable.
Of course, the condition for complete independence will be separate living and material independence of a grown child. But I consider it normal, positive, correct for the formation of the independence of a growing child, when he questions your views, the way to live. Not a petty heresy within the framework of the doctrine, but cardinally, for real. And you can openly discuss it!
Naturally, Stanislav had difficulties. And they really do happen! And you think, find arguments, metaphors, return to the dialogue after a while …
This does not contradict the hierarchy in the family. Parents are the source of all resources, they can demand and achieve fulfillment. But not because “it’s the right way to behave”, but because this is our (parental) family, and in your family you can introduce completely different, your own rules.