不！反对成人至上（第9卷）
本人外语能力实在有限，机翻为主校准为辅，有不通顺或翻译错误地方感谢指正
年龄歧视：残疾歧视的支柱 作者：Kathleen Nicole O’Neal
几年前，我开始阅读和学习有关残疾人权利的问题。正如我对LGBT、女性、有色人种、社会正义、青年和其他问题的兴趣一样，我特别被许多残疾权利活动家自二十世纪末以来所做的高度理论批判性的工作所吸引。我在这部工作中发现了一个反复出现的观点（我也多次听到我的残疾朋友表达了这一观点），对残疾人歧视性压迫之一就是无论残疾人的年龄大小，他们都被视为永久的孩子。我的青年朋友以及残疾人权利倡导者同事马特·斯塔福德（Matt Stafford）写了一些关于父母和其他人利用监护制度对已过成年的残疾人的生活施加不当影响的文章。另一位年轻人的残疾人权利倡导者朋友告诉我，尽管我的朋友没有认知障碍，甚至最近刚从法学院毕业，但他们的同事如何拒绝恭敬和直接地与他们谈论他们的医学问题。
残疾人权利倡导者长期以来一直在为所有残疾人寻求更大的权利和自主权，包括那些有认知和交流障碍的个人。他们与我们整个社会做挑战，特别是非残疾人为管理残疾人而建立的机构，他们认为残疾人与其他人一样，无论他们可能有什么样的身心限制或差异，都应该享有自主权和尊严。通过这样做，不仅大大改善了残疾人的生活，还可以有力为捍卫青年解放奠定了理论基础。
残疾是一个复杂的问题。有各种类型的残疾，同样也有各种框架来理解残疾人的权利，甚至残疾本身。然而，每一位认真倡导残疾人权利的人都会同意，以残疾人的自主权为中心是很重要的，残疾人不能按照非残疾人的标准发挥作用，以此证明他们终身处于婴儿期是正当的。当然，许多人对基于这些理由而剥夺残疾人的权利和自主权感到满意的原因是，我们社会已经有了一个广泛的先例，即以此为借口剥夺儿童的权利和自主权。
每一位法官的行为和看法体系背后都隐含着这样的假设，即把一个认知障碍者的监护权移交给另一位成年人，每一位家长都认为自己有权为一个成年残疾的儿子或女儿做出医学决定而每一个为把残疾人关进压迫甚至虐待的制度环境而辩护的立法者，他们不仅是残疾歧视者(尽管他们确实是)。他们还有深刻的年龄歧视。
我们的社会对待未成年人的方式为我们所认为的与那些我们认为(正确或错误地)缺乏一般成年人能力的人建立关系的理想方式树立了先例。我们拒绝他们对身体的自主权。我们忽视了他们在教育中的需求和爱好。我们将他们隔离在不同的机构（institutions，可以解释为大学或者风俗传统）中，在那里他们很少被允许以有意义的方式与世界其他地区互动。我们也剥夺了他们的性权力，包括单独的或者合作的（。。。）。我们将他们的决策权移交给各个机构和家庭成员，而不询问他们在对他们影响最大的事务中喜欢什么。我们将他们的决策权移交给各个机构和家庭成员，而不去询问他们在对他们影响的大事中喜欢什么。我们拒绝给他们有意义的工作机会。最后，我们希望他们对他们所生活中的几乎无休止的压迫感到感激，因为首先并且及其重要的是他们应当感到幸运，我们视他们为应该负责的负担而任何人想要愚弄他们。难怪这么多人认为以这种方式与残疾人联系是对他们最好的办法。这是我们社会认为我们能够与未成年人建立关系的唯一方式。因此，几乎普遍接受对青年的压迫，打开了宽容甚至钦佩对所有年龄段残疾人的压迫的大门。当然，没有人把它称为压迫，即使用任何合理的定义来定义它。
残疾权利倡导者必须认识到未成年人与残疾人压迫之间的联系。年龄歧视在很大程度上加重了残疾人的负担，必须认识到，为了消除残疾人生活中的残疾人歧视所带来的有害影响。青年权利倡导者也必须认识到，支持青年解放从逻辑上讲必须支持残疾人权利运动。允许我们社会中任何被剥夺自由、正义和平等的人，开创一个先例，这样对待任何其他群体的个人就会被更好地接受。当我们保护青年和残疾人的权利时，我们最好保护他们而不是当我们假装保护他们不受到他们自身伤害时。
儿童及其敌人 作者：Emma Goldman
孩子们应该是被视为一个个体，还是一个可以被周围人心血来潮的想象和幻想而随意捏造的对象？在我看来，这是父母和教育工作者要回答的最重要的问题。这个孩子是否会心灵成长，是否所渴望表达的东西都会被允许在阳光下表达出来;或者它是否会像面团一样被外力揉捏，取决于对这个关键问题的正确答案。
我们这个时代对最优秀、最高尚事物的渴望造就了最坚强的个性。每一个灵敏的人都讨厌被当作纯粹的机器或被当作传统和名胜的学舌人，人们渴望得到其他人的认可。
必须记住，正是通过儿童的教育方式，成熟的人的发展才得以实现，而目前在学校和家庭中对儿童进行教育或培训的观念，甚至是自由派或激进派的家庭，都会扼杀儿童的自然成长。
我们时代的每一个制度、家庭、国家、道德准则，都把每一个坚强、美丽、毫不妥协的人格视为致命的敌人；因此，人们正尽一切努力将人类的情感和个人思想的独创性从婴儿时期就束缚在一件笔直的夹克里；或者根据单一模式塑造每个人；不是成为一个全面的个人，而是成为一个耐心的工作奴隶、职业机器人、纳税公民或正直的道德家。然而，如果一个人遇到了真正的自发性（顺便说一句，这是一种罕见的待遇），那并不是因为我们养育或教育孩子的方法：不管官方和家庭的障碍，个性往往会自我彰显。这样一个发现应该被视为一个不寻常的事件，因为阻碍性格成长和发展的障碍是如此之多，如果它能保持它的力量和美丽，并能经受住各种破坏它最重要的东西的尝试，它一定会被视为奇迹。
事实上，他已经摆脱了愚蠢的平凡和无知的束缚；弗里德里希·尼采（Friedrich Nietzsche）称，如果没有道德依赖，没有公众舆论的认可，个人懒惰，那么他很可能会唱出一首关于独立和自由的高亢而宏大的歌；他通过激烈而激烈的战斗获得了这一权利。这些战斗已经在最幼小的年龄开始了。
孩子在游戏中，在提问中，在与人和事物的交往中，表现出了自己个人性情。但它必须与思想和情感世界中永恒的外部干扰作斗争，不能与它的本性和不断增长的个性和谐地表达自己。它必须成为一个东西，一个物体（thing和object实在不知道怎么翻译）。它的问题得到了狭隘的、传统的、荒谬的回答，并且大多是基于谎言；当它用一双充满好奇和天真的大眼睛想要看到世界的奇迹时，周围的人迅速锁上门窗，把这株娇嫩的人类植物放在温室里，在那里它既不能呼吸也不能自由生长。
佐拉在他的小说《繁殖》中坚持认为，大部分人已经宣布孩子死亡，密谋反对孩子的出生，这确实是一幅非常可怕的画面，但在我看来，文明对性格成长和塑造的阴谋似乎更可怕和灾难性，因为它的潜在品质和特征被缓慢而逐渐地破坏，对它的社会幸福产生了令人震惊和破坏般的影响。
由于我们教育生活中的每一项努力似乎都是为了使孩子成为一个与自己本身格格不入的人，因此它必然会产生个人间彼此的格格不入，并使他们彼此永远对立。
普通教师（pedagogist ）的理想并不是去塑造一个完美，丰满，原创的存在；相反，他寻求的是的教育艺术的结果是塑造一个血肉之躯的机器人，以此来最好适应我们单调无趣的世界和空洞乏味的生活。每个家庭、学校、学院和大学都代表着枯燥、冷酷的功利主义，大量祖祖辈辈传下来的思想充斥着学生的大脑。所谓的“事实和数据”构成了大量信息可能足以维持各种形式的权威，并对个人财产的重要性产生极大的敬畏。但这实际上对真正理解人类的灵魂及其在世界上的地位形成了一个极大的障碍。
早已死去和被遗忘的真理，甚至在我们祖母时代就已蒙尘的关于世界和人民的观念，正在硬塞进我们年轻一代的头脑里。永恒的变化，千变万化，不断的创新是生命的本质。专业的教育学对此一无所知，教育系统被整理成文件，分类和编号。他们缺乏强壮肥沃的种子，这种种子落在肥沃的土地上，可以使他们长到很高的高度，他们疲惫不堪，不能唤醒自发性的性格。教师和教师的灵魂是死的，他们的价值观是死的。数量被迫取代了质量。其后果是不可避免的。
无论你转向哪个方向，急切地寻找那些不以权宜之计的尺度来衡量思想和情感的人，你所面对的都是产物，是羊群般的操练，而不是自发的和天生的特性在自由中发挥出来的结果。
“我所见的只有空无，无论灵魂有起什么作用（agency），这里只有不断的训练，仅此而已”
浮士德的这些话完全符合我们的教学方法。例如，以我们学校教授历史的方式为例。看看世界上的大事是如何变得像一场场廉价的木偶戏，在那里，人类历史的发展仅仅是由几个拉钢丝的操纵者所引导的。
还有我们国家的历史！难道不是上帝选择我们国家去领导其他国家吗？难道我们的国家不比其他国家更加高大？难道它不是大洋中的宝石，兼具着善良，勇敢与理想吗？这种荒谬的教育结果就是肤浅的，令人生厌的爱国主义。无视自身的局限性，固执如牛，完全无法判断其他国家的能力。这就是当今年轻人精神被阉割的方式，过度高估一个人的价值而麻木。难怪舆论会如此容易的被捏造。
每一个学习的殿堂上都被刻上了“简陋的食物”，以警告所有不想失去自己的个性和独有判断力的人，像反的，他们会满足于大量虚伪空洞的外壳（奶头乐）。这可以让人认识到那些会对孩子们独立心理发展的障碍。
同样重要的是，孩子们的内心健康也面临困难。难道没人认为父母应当用温柔细腻的声音去团结教导孩子吗？人们应当那么想；但可悲的是，事实上父母是第一个破坏孩子们内心财富的人。
圣经告诉我们，上帝用自己的形象创造了人类，但结果却十分失败。而现在家长们却用上帝最失败的例子：竭尽全力用他们自己的形象来塑造教育孩子。他们固执的认为孩子是属于自己的——这种错误又有害的想法，只会增加孩子们灵魂上的误解，对奴役与服从必要的误解。
当意识的第一缕曙光照进了孩子们的心灵与脑海时，他们便本能地开始将自己的个性与周围人的个性进行比较。有多少坚硬冰冷的石崖会遇到他们好奇的目光呢？很快，他们就不得不面对一个残酷的事实，即他们作为父母与监护人的附属物品，在他们权威下塑造了孩子们的形式和形态。
有思维的人们在政治，社会与道德上的艰难斗争都源自于家庭。在家庭中，孩子总是被迫对内部和外部进行暴力对抗。绝对的命令：你应该！你必须！这是对的！这是错的！这是真的！那是假的！这些话语像暴雨一样倾泻在青年人纯洁的脑海里，并在他们情感上留下深刻的印记，确保他们向长期确立且顽固的思想与情感观念低头。然而在孩子们潜在的品质和本能作用下他们坚持用自我的方式去来寻找事物的基础，区分通常所说的错误、正确或虚假。他们决心走自己的路，因为它同样是由神经、肌肉和血液组成的，正如那些认为要主宰自己命运的人。我不明白家长们是如何期望他们的孩子成长为拥有独立且自立的精神的，当他们竭尽全力去减少或限制孩子们的各项活动。品质和性格上的优势，使他们的后代与自己不同，凭借这一优势，他们成为新的、令人振奋的思想的杰出载体。一棵幼嫩的树，如果被园丁去人为的修剪和切割，赋予它人为的样子，那么它永远也达不到在自然与自由手中塑造的雄伟高度和美丽。
当孩子们步入青春期时，他们不仅仅要家庭与学校的限制，还要承受大量社会道德传统的捏造。大多数的父母对爱与性的渴望是无知的，他们认为这些渴望应当像疾病一样去压抑与斗争，它们是下流且不道德的，甚至是不光彩的，如同犯了罪一样。幼小植物所蕴含的爱与温柔的情感因为周围人的愚蠢变得粗糙且庸俗，因此一切美好的要么被完全粉碎，要么被隐藏在深处，成为一种见不得光的大罪。
更令人惊讶的是，父母们同样会剥夺自己的一切，会牺牲一切来保障孩子们的身体健康，会在他们所爱的人得病之前，在夜里被恐惧与痛苦所包裹。但同时他们在灵魂和孩子的渴望面前会冷漠并且对他们没有丝毫理解。既听不到也不希望听到任何能直击青年人心灵的认可声。相反，它们会扼杀春天里美丽的声音，扼杀爱的美丽和灿烂的新生活；他们会将威权这细长的大手放在温柔的喉咙上，将个性的成长、性格的美、爱的力量和人际关系这些真正让生活有价值的悦耳之歌掐灭。
而且这些家长认为他们对孩子最好（为了你好）；据我所知，有些人真的这么认为。但他们的好对于萌芽状态（的孩子们）意味着绝对的死亡和腐烂。毕竟，他们只是在模仿自己在州、商业、社会和道德事务中的主人，强行压制每一次分析社会弊病的独立尝试，以及那些为消除这些弊病所作的每一次真诚努力；他们永远无法把握的一个永恒的真理，即他们使用的每一种方法都是激发对自由的更大渴望和为自由而战的更深热情的巨大动力。
每一位家长和老师都应该知道，这种强迫必然会激起反抗。但令人惊讶的是，激进父母的大多数孩子要么完全反对后者的想法，其中许多人走上了陈旧的道路，要么对社会新生的思想和学说漠不关心。但这其实并不意外。激进的父母，虽然从人类灵魂的所有权信仰中解放出来，但他们仍然固执的坚持孩子属于自己的观念，他们有权对孩子行使权力。所以他们用自身的是非观念来塑造孩子，将自己的想法来强加于孩子，就像普通天主教家长一样激烈。对于后者，他们在青年人面前提出了“听我说的做而不是照着我做”，但即使是孩子们易受影响的思想也能很快意识到他们父母的生活和他们所代表的思想背道而驰。就像一个善良的基督徒在周日热切祈祷，但在本周剩下的时间里继续违背上帝的命令一样，这些激进的父母会控诉上帝、牧师、教会、政府和国内权威，但依然在自己所厌恶的现状里调整自己去适应。正因为如此，这些思想自由的父母可以自豪地吹嘘，他四个孩子的儿子会认出托马斯·潘恩或英格索尔的照片，或者他知道上帝的想法是愚蠢的。或者社会民主党的父亲可以指着他六岁的小女儿说:“谁写的《资本论》，亲爱的?”“卡尔·马克思，爸爸!”或者，无政府主义的母亲可以让别人知道她的女儿叫路易丝·米歇尔，索菲亚·佩洛夫斯卡娅，或者她可以背诵赫维、弗雷里格拉斯或雪莱的革命诗歌，她可以在几乎任何地方指出斯宾塞、巴枯宁或摩西·哈蒙的面孔。
这并非夸大其词，而且我与这些激进的父母相处中发现的可悲事实。这种偏见思想会造成什么结果呢？以下便是结果，孩子被片面的、固定的和固定的想法所饲养，很快孩子们厌倦了对父母的信仰并进行重新思考，寻求新的感觉，无论新的体验多么自卑和肤浅，人类的头脑都无法忍受千篇一律和单调，这种结果并不少见。因此，当孩子们碰巧受到了托马斯.佩恩的深刻影响会落入教会的怀抱，或者他们会投票支持帝国主义，只是为了摆脱经济决定论和科学社会主义的拖累，或者他们开了一家衬衫腰工厂，坚持自己积累财产的权利，只是为了从父亲的老式共产主义中解脱出来。或者这个女孩会嫁给下一个伴郎，只要他能谋生，仅仅是为了逃离那些多样且持续不断的话题。
这种情况可能会让那些希望孩子走自己道路的父母感到非常痛苦，但我认为他们是非常令人耳目一新和鼓舞的心理力量。它们是最大的保证，至少独立的头脑将永远抵抗人类内心和头脑中的每一股外部和外来力量。
有人会问，软弱的本性怎么办？难道他们不应该受到保护吗？是的，但要做到这一点，就必须认识到，对孩子的教育不是像羊群一样去训练或者培训。如果教育真的有意义的话，它必须确保儿童内在力量与倾向的自由成长和发展。只有这样，我们才能希望有自由的个人，并最终希望有一个自由的社会，这将使对人类成长的干涉和强制成为不可能。
剥削与道德管理 Jeremy Weiland
对孩子们的剥削一直是在历史上困扰人类的罪恶，社会对儿童福利的认识和对其定义的共识相对较新，但依然在上升。遵循这一趋势，国会中的许多人不断努力解决这一问题，为国家创造了新的立法特权，以阻止剥削者和保护儿童。
那么，我们如何将这些目标与最近被抓到与未成年人进行露骨的性对话的国会议员马克·福利的案件情况相一致呢？也许那些试图保护我们不受无名罪犯伤害的人完全误解了这个问题。这个被授权颁布全国性法律、制定惩罚标准和指导国家充分行使权力的机构被它所尝试根除的腐败包含着。
这让人怀疑：我们能信任谁？
作为一个推动废除国家机构的安主义者，在我看来，国会和我们任何人一样容易受到邪恶且不足的经验主义错误所影响。这正是他们不值得统治我和这个国家的任何人的原因。我们都容易犯错，同样会被欺骗或者腐化，但也具有高尚和谨慎的能力。我们不是通过高层的命令，而是通过建立关系来学习信任谁，避免谁。
社会是我们问题的答案：在自愿原则的基础上形成市场、社区、网络和组织，让人们可以自由地根据自己的兴趣和判断进行实验、创新、团结和分道扬镳。我们通过与邻居结盟来保护我们的家庭，在经过验证的公开竞争对手中雇佣代理人，分享信息和建议。保护儿童的最佳方式是由了解其中利害关系的人来完成:父母和社区。这就引出了一个无政府主义者经常被问到的问题：如果没有国家，我们如何防止x、y或z的发生？有哪些方法可以保证所有人都能接受的结果？在没有授权和管理机构的情况下，我们如何“平衡”世界上相互竞争的利益？在剥削儿童的情况下：我们如何确保我们的孩子免受堕落者的伤害？
这些都是好问题，普通人都在寻求答案。但不幸的是，相比于他们在政治上被诚实地问到，这些问题常常被当作对社会施加某种新控制的修辞前奏。相对于把这个问题看作是一个复杂的人际和社区动态，有很多原因和可能的解决方案，他们更多鼓励我们把这个问题看成是一个一维的、简单的遗漏：邪恶源于缺乏充分的治理。
政府的答案总是让我们为了自己的利益而削弱我们自己。通过降低社会的复杂性、适应性和权力，我们更容易自上而下的进行管理，因此也更容易预测和同质化。通过国会颁布的更严格的监督和禁令，我们可以开始重新挖掘我们的美德，至少正如国会所定义的那样。
但讽刺的是，国会也没有找到美德。
福利丑闻表明，当局无力对社会进行道德管理。那些代表我们制定法律的人和我们一样有缺陷。他们的官僚机构没有赋予他们对人性的特殊见解。他们的权力并没有表现出约束社会或他们自己的能力。当我们要求上级领导，要求安全和秩序的保障时，我们会把良心交给不值得托付的人。政府永远试图通过对我们实施更多的控制来实现无法实现的安全和道德健康保障。
事实上，据报告所言，两党的政客们都知道问题的存在却没有一人采取措施去制止它。想想看：这个国家最强大的机构，无视了自己能够立即解决的案件，而无需诉诸政治策略或商议。然后让我们问问自己：这些都是关于孩子的吗？
当下一项“为了我们自己的利益”或者“保护我们的孩子”的法案出现时，想一想马克·福利的案子吧。他证明了政治的真理：美德不是靠强制性法律和开明治理。我们必须对自己抱有信心和信任，合作制定我们寻求的解决方案，而不是渴求他人强加给我们。
职场母亲与娱乐之战 Aya de Leon
最近，我读到了些非小说类文集关于过度劳累的母亲。的确，当我在做劳累母亲的事-例如家务并且接送孩子们上下学的时候，我会听电子版。首先，我读了卡特里娜·阿尔库恩（ Katrina Alcorn）的《Maxed Out: American Moms on the Brink》并且现在正在读布里吉德·舒尔特（Brigid Schulte）的《Overwhelmed: Work, Love and Play When No One Has the Time 》他们列举了妈妈们是如何淹没在我们对完美工作者和完美母亲的要求中的。
在《Overwhelmed...》中我对关于不堪重负（overwhelm ）和不平等（inequality）的章节深有认同。我感觉文章与我对于在业余科研人员中性别歧视的条例的观点相同。她的信息很明确：作为职场妈妈，我们正受到美国社会的挤压，这个社会要求职工和母亲都做到完美。职业母亲处于社会中各种压迫结构的交叉点。几十年来，反女权主义的反弹造就了这样一个谎言:如果我们外出工作，我们的孩子会受到影响。从有缺陷的研究到商业广告，再到来自“直升机妈妈”（指一直围着孩子转的母亲，氰化欢乐秀有一集就讽刺了这样的母亲）的同伴压力，无数的日常信息强化了母亲们的焦虑，即只有我们全天候的完美陪伴才能确保孩子的健康。但同时生活成本的上涨让家庭的经济必须靠两个人共同努力才能维持。经济上的不安全感和对职工的虐待让每个人都感到焦虑，并决心成为一名完美的工人，以保住自己的工作，确保自己的经济生存。这种基于恐惧的压力在经济衰退时期加剧了父母的压力。而且（与许多欧洲社会不同）美国拒绝组织机构来支持一般家庭，尤其是工薪家庭。因此，我们这些职业母亲生活在这种双重压力的中心，利用我们的意志和过度工作来确保我们的经济生存和孩子的福祉。
我喜欢这些书！但当讲到剧本的那一章时，很难继续听下去。在剧本的一章中，她敦促读者关注那些地方，作为职场妈妈，我们经常与压迫合作，并在其他两个领域否认自己追求完美的快乐。
我并不喜欢关注那些。我降低了快乐的门槛来满足成就所带来的快乐和从待办事项列表中划掉的满足。我已经决定在女儿的眼睛里制造一点喜悦的火花。这些天来，我自己的火花只是一些（女儿喜悦的）反射。在这种情况下，想想我自己的快乐、玩耍和高兴，真是太痛苦了。因为这感觉就像是又一件事要做。我无法想象我是如何做到的。
但对我来说幸运的是，当我在红木森林露营时，我明白了书的核心章节。不知怎的，周围都是几百英尺高的树，一切似乎都有可能。一些最大的树有严重的烧伤疤痕，但它们仍然在继续生长和茁壮成长，它们的顶部在远处郁郁葱葱。烧伤是一场大火留下的疤痕，它们幸存下来并不断生长。
所以我说，在我孩子早期的养育过程中，我经历了一段火热（暴躁-fiery）的时期，但现在我准备好了茁壮成长。为此，我今年夏天最大的项目是康复游戏。迷你高尔夫。水滑道。卡拉ok。我有一个完整的清单。这并不容易。我回家五天了，只完成了清单上的一件事:从网上订购厚底鞋。
优先考虑娱乐是困难的。当母亲们去上班，我们年幼的孩子会哭着不想让我们离开时，我们中的许多人都安慰自己，让孩子们看到母亲参与这个世界很重要。许多研究证明了这一点，即有工作妈妈是有好处的。尤其是如果我们有女儿，职场妈妈可以成为女性在更大世界中的参与度和影响力的典范。
作为一名教师、演员和作家，我很容易为我的女儿树立了榜样。游戏区是我生活中最大的不足。这是我想为我女儿做模特的地方，成年女性也可以在这里玩得开心。尤其是作为一名黑人女性，这一目标与我们作为这个国家的主力军的历史遗产是一个关键的矛盾。前几代黑人妇女竭尽全力，确保我们的孩子过上更好的生活。他们不得不这样做。当时的条件很艰苦。但我有机会以不同的方式做这件事，所以我计划这样做。我的目标不仅是像疯子一样到处乱跑，确保我的女儿过上美好的生活，而且是让我的生活成为我为她塑造美好生活的榜样。这需要包括娱乐。
12个对护理人员有用的想法 Benjamin Fife
加州大学旧金山分校儿童创伤研究项目的Alicia Lieberman和Patricia Van Horn撰写了大量关于心理治疗的文章，以支持受早期创伤和损失影响的幼儿的发展。他们为2009年第三版《婴儿心理健康手册》贡献了一个非常深思熟虑的章节，在该手册中，他们描述了一种与幼儿及其父母合作的模式，他们称之为儿童-父母心理治疗。CPP是一种基于关系的模式，结合了一系列其他与幼儿及其父母合作的方法。与20世纪80年代以后开发的早期模型一样，CPP使用儿童-父母联合治疗来促进儿童的健康发展。Lieberman和Van Horn组织他们的治疗模式的前提是，当依恋关系能够满足婴儿、幼儿和学龄前儿童对“关怀、保护和文化认可的情感调节模式、人际关系和学习”的基本需求时，长期的心理健康和恢复力就会得到支持。“我喜欢这个模型的一点是，它为理解和解释幼儿在依恋关系中的行为提供了12个易于理解的有用指南。
虽然作者在描述这些指导方针时使用了“父母”一词，但我在这里转述了他们的指导方针，并使用了“照顾者”一词。我之所以在语言上做出这样的改变，是因为我认为照顾者更准确地反映了儿童通常与非亲生父母或合法父母的人有着重要的依恋关系，这些关系可以产生痛苦和适应。我希望这里的照顾者是一个包括父母的术语，同时也包括幼儿与家庭内外非父母成年人的依恋关系，这对这个发展至关重要。
幼儿的哭泣和依恋是为了传达他们的照顾者迫切需要亲近和关心
幼儿在分离时的痛苦是对失去照顾他们的人的恐惧的一种表达。
小孩子害怕看护者的反对，常常想要取悦他们的看护者。
小孩子害怕受伤，害怕失去身体的某些部位。
幼儿模仿照顾者的行为是因为他们a)想要像照顾者一样，b)认为照顾者的行为是一个可以模仿的榜样。
当照顾者不高兴时，年幼的孩子会感到有责任，并责怪自己，不管他们不高兴的“真正”原因是什么。
年幼的孩子相信他们的照顾者无所不知，永远是对的。
为了让幼儿感到安全和对他们的保护，需要对危险或文化上不恰当的行为进行明确一致的限制。
幼儿用“不”这个词来建立他们的自主性，并练习自己的存在和感觉自主。
记忆从婴儿出生时就开始了。婴儿和幼儿在会说之前就会记住经历。
孩子们需要照顾者的支持和帮助，以便学会表达强烈的情绪而不伤害自己或他人。
儿童和照顾者之间的冲突是不可避免的，因为儿童和照顾者可以而且应该有不同的发展需求。儿童与其照料者之间的冲突可以通过促进信任和支持发展的方式加以解决。
Ageism: A Pillar of AbleismKathleen Nicole O’Neal
Several years back I began reading and learning about disability rights issues. As is the case with my interest in LGBT, women’s, people of color, social justice, youth, and other issues, I was particularly drawn to the highly theoretical critical work that many disability rights theorists have been producing since the late twentieth century. One viewpoint I found repeatedly represented in this body of work (and which I have also heard expressed multiple times by my friends with disabilities) is that one of the primary pillars of disability oppression is the way in which people with disabilities, regardless of age, are treated as if they were forever children. My friend and fellow youth and disability rights advocate Matt Stafford has written about the ways in which parents and others use the institution of guardianship in order to exert undue influence in the lives of people with disabilities who have passed the age of majority. Another friend who is a youth and disability rights advocate has spoken with me about how the doctors they work with will refuse to talk respectfully and directly to them about their medical issues despite the fact that my friend has no cognitive impairments and even recently graduated from law school.
Disability rights advocates have long sought greater rights and autonomy for all people with disabilities, including individuals with cognitive and communication impairments. They have challenged our entire society, especially the institutions set up by the non-disabled to manage people with disabilities, to view disabled persons as being as deserving of autonomy and dignity as everyone else no matter what mental or physical limitations or differences they may possess. In doing so they have not only greatly improved the lives of disabled people, they have also laid the theoretical groundwork for a compelling defense of youth liberation.
Disability is a complicated issue. There are various types of disabilities and there are various frameworks for understanding the rights of disabled people and even disability itself. However, every serious advocate of disability rights will agree that centering the autonomy of disabled people is important and that all too many people believe that an inability on the part of disabled people to function according to the standards of non-disabled individuals justifies their lifelong infantilization. Of course, the reason that many people feel comfortable with denying rights and autonomy to persons with disabilities on these grounds is that we already have a widespread precedent within our society of using this as a pretense to deny rights and autonomy to children.
The implicit assumption behind the actions and belief system of every judge that casually turns over guardianship of a person with cognitive disabilities to another adult, of every parent who believes they have an undisputed right to make medical decisions for a disabled adult son or daughter, and of every legislator who defends the corralling of disabled individuals into oppressive and even abusive institutional settings are not only ableist (although they are that). They are also profoundly ageist.
The way our society treats minors has set the precedent for what we believe is the ideal way to relate to those whom we perceive (rightly or wrongly) as lacking the capacities of the average adult human being. We deny them bodily autonomy. We ignore their needs and preferences in the realm of education. We segregate them in various institutions where they are rarely permitted to interact in a meaningful way with the rest of the world. We deny them the right to their sexuality, either alone or partnered. We turn their decision-making authority over to various institutions and family members without asking them what they prefer in the matters which affect them most. We deny them opportunities for meaningful work. Finally, we expect them to react with gratitude for the nearly endless oppression they live under because first and foremost we view them as a burden who should feel fortunate that anyone wishes to fool with them at all. No wonder so many people believe that relating to disabled individuals this way is the best that can be done for them. It is the only way our society believes that we can relate to minors. Thus nearly universal acceptance of the oppression of youth opens the door to tolerance and even admiration of the oppression of disabled people of all ages. Of course, no one calls it oppression even though by any reasonable definition it is.
It is important for disability rights advocates to recognize the link between youth and disability oppression. Ageism does much of ableism’s heavy lifting and it is important to recognize that in order to combat the pernicious influence that ableism plays in the lives of disabled individuals. It is also important for youth rights advocates to recognize that support for youth liberation logically necessitates support for the disability rights movement. Allowing anyone in our society to be denied liberty, justice, and equality sets a precedent whereby doing this to any other group of individuals becomes much more widely accepted. We best protect youth and people with disabilities when we protect their rights and not when we pretend to protect them from themselves.
The Child and Its EnemiesEmma Goldman
Is the child to be considered as an individuality, or as an object to be moulded according to the whims and fancies of those about it? This seems to me to be the most important question to be answered by parents and educators. And whether the child is to grow from within, whether all that craves expression will be permitted to come forth toward the light of day; or whether it is to be kneaded like dough through external forces, depends upon the proper answer to this vital question.
The longing of the best and noblest of our times makes for the strongest individualities. Every sensitive being abhors the idea of being treated as a mere machine or as a mere parrot of conventionality and respectability, the human being craves recognition of his kind.
It must be borne in mind that it is through the channel of the child that the development of the mature man must go, and that the present ideas of the educating or training of the latter in the school and the family—even the family of the liberal or radical—are such as to stifle the natural growth of the child.
Every institution of our day, the family, the State, our moral codes, sees in every strong, beautiful, uncompromising personality a deadly enemy; therefore every effort is being made to cramp human emotion and originality of thought in the individual into a straight-jacket from its earliest infancy; or to shape every human being according to one pattern; not into a well-rounded individuality, but into a patient work slave, professional automaton, tax-paying citizen, or righteous moralist. If one, nevertheless, meets with real spontaneity (which, by the way, is a rare treat,) it is not due to our method of rearing or educating the child: the personality often asserts itself, regardless of official and family barriers. Such a discovery should be celebrated as an unusual event, since the obstacles placed in the way of growth and development of character are so numerous that it must be considered a miracle if it retains its strength and beauty and survives the various attempts at crippling that which is most essential to it.
Indeed, he who has freed himself from the fetters of the thoughtlessness and stupidity of the commonplace; he who can stand without moral crutches, without the approval of public opinion—private laziness, Friedrich Nietzsche called it—may well intone a high and voluminous song of independence and freedom; he has gained the right to it through fierce and fiery battles. These battles already begin at the most delicate age.
The child shows its individual tendencies in its plays, in its questions, in its association with people and things. But it has to struggle with everlasting external interference in its world of thought and emotion. It must not express itself in harmony with its nature, with its growing personality. It must become a thing, an object. Its questions are met with narrow, conventional, ridiculous replies, mostly based on falsehoods; and, when, with large, wondering, innocent eyes, it wishes to behold the wonders of the world, those about it quickly lock the windows and doors, and keep the delicate human plant in a hothouse atmosphere, where it can neither breathe nor grow freely.
Zola, in his novel “Fecundity,” maintains that large sections of people have declared death to the child, have conspired against the birth of the child,—a very horrible picture indeed, yet the conspiracy entered into by civilization against the growth and making of character seems to me far more terrible and disastrous, because of the slow and gradual destruction of its latent qualities and traits and the stupefying and crippling effect thereof upon its social well-being.
Since every effort in our educational life seems to be directed toward making of the child a being foreign to itself, it must of necessity produce individuals foreign to one another, and in everlasting antagonism with each other.
The ideal of the average pedagogist is not a complete, well-rounded, original being; rather does he seek that the result of his art of pedagogy shall be automatons of flesh and blood, to best fit into the treadmill of society and the emptiness and dulness of our lives. Every home, school, college and university stands for dry, cold utilitarianism, overflooding the brain of the pupil with a tremendous amount of ideas, handed down from generations past. “Facts and data,” as they are called, constitute a lot of information, well enough perhaps to maintain every form of authority and to create much awe for the importance of possession, but only a great handicap to a true understanding of the human soul and its place in the world.
Truths dead and forgotten long ago, conceptions of the world and its people, covered with mould, even during the times of our grandmothers, are being hammered into the heads of our young generation. Eternal change, thousandfold variations, continual innovation are the essence of life. Professional pedagogy knows nothing of it, the systems of education are being arranged into files, classified and numbered. They lack the strong fertile seed which, falling on rich soil, enables them to grow to great heights, they are worn and incapable of awakening spontaneity of character. Instructors and teachers, with dead souls, operate with dead values. Quantity is forced to take the place of quality. The consequences thereof are inevitable.
In whatever direction one turns, eagerly searching for human beings who
do not measure ideas and emotions with the yardstick of expediency, one
is confronted with the products, the herdlike drilling instead of the
result of spontaneous and innate characteristics working themselves out
in freedom.
“No traces now I see
Whatever of a spirit’s agency.
‘Tis drilling, nothing more.”
These words of Faust fit our methods of pedagogy perfectly. Take, for instance, the way history is being taught in our schools. See how the events of the world become like a cheap puppet show, where a few wire-pullers are supposed to have directed the course of development of the entire human race.
And the history of our own nation! Was it not chosen by Providence to become the leading nation on earth? And does it not tower mountain high over other nations? Is it not the gem of the ocean? Is it not incomparably virtuous, ideal and brave? The result of such ridiculous teaching is a dull, shallow patriotism, blind to its own limitations, with bull-like stubbornness, utterly incapable of judging of the capacities of other nations. This is the way the spirit of youth is emasculated, deadened through an over-estimation of one’s own value. No wonder public opinion can be so easily manufactured.
“Predigested food” should be inscribed over every hall of learning as a warning to all who do not wish to lose their own personalities and their original sense of judgment, who, instead, would be content with a large amount of empty and shallow shells. This may suffice as a recognition of the manifold hindrances placed in the way of an independent mental development of the child.
Equally numerous, and not less important, are the difficulties that confront the emotional life of the young. Must not one suppose that parents should be united to children by the most tender and delicate chords? One should suppose it; yet, sad as it may be, it is, nevertheless, true, that parents are the first to destroy the inner riches of their children.
The Scriptures tell us that God created Man in His own image, which has by no means proven a success. Parents follow the bad example of their heavenly master; they use every effort to shape and mould the child according to their image. They tenaciously cling to the idea that the child is merely part of themselves—an idea as false as it is injurious, and which only increases the misunderstanding of the soul of the child, of the necessary consequences of enslavement and subordination thereof.
As soon as the first rays of consciousness illuminate the mind and heart of the child, it instinctively begins to compare its own personality with the personality of those about it. How many hard and cold stone cliffs meet its large wondering gaze? Soon enough it is confronted with the painful reality that it is here only to serve as inanimate matter for parents and guardians, whose authority alone gives it shape and form.
The terrible struggle of the thinking man and woman against political, social and moral conventions owes its origin to the family, where the child is ever compelled to battle against the internal and external use of force. The categorical imperatives: You shall! you must! this is right! that is wrong! this is true! that is false! shower like a violent rain upon the unsophisticated head of the young being and impress upon its sensibilities that it has to bow before the long established and hard notions of thoughts and emotions. Yet the latent qualities and instincts seek to assert their own peculiar methods of seeking the foundation of things, of distinguishing between what is commonly called wrong, true or false. It is bent upon going its own way, since it is composed of the same nerves, muscles and blood, even as those who assume to direct its destiny. I fail to understand how parents hope that their children will ever grow up into independent, self-reliant spirits, when they strain every effort to abridge and curtail the various activities of their children, the plus in quality and character, which differentiates their offspring from themselves, and by the virtue of which they are eminently equipped carriers of new, invigorating ideas. A young delicate tree, that is being clipped and cut by the gardener in order to give it an artificial form, will never reach the majestic height and the beauty as when allowed to grow in nature and freedom.
When the child reaches adolescence, it meets, added to the home and school restrictions, with a vast amount of hard traditions of social morality. The cravings of love and sex are met with absolute ignorance by the majority of parents, who consider it as something indecent and improper, something disgraceful, almost criminal, to be suppressed and fought like some terrible disease. The love and tender feelings in the young plant are turned into vulgarity and coarseness through the stupidity of those surrounding it, so that everything fine and beautiful is either crushed altogether or hidden in the innermost depths, as a great sin, that dares not face the light.
What is more astonishing is the fact that parents will strip themselves of everything, will sacrifice everything for the physical well-being of their child, will wake nights and stand in fear and agony before some physical ailment of their beloved one; but will remain cold and indifferent, without the slightest understanding before the soul cravings and the yearnings of their child, neither hearing nor wishing to hear the loud knocking of the young spirit that demands recognition. On the contrary, they will stifle the beautiful voice of spring, of a new life of beauty and splendor of love; they will put the long lean finger of authority upon the tender throat and not allow vent to the silvery song of the individual growth, of the beauty of character, of the strength of love and human relation, which alone make life worth living.
And yet these parents imagine that they mean best for the child, and for aught I know, some really do; but their best means absolute death and decay to the bud in the making. After all, they are but imitating their own masters in State, commercial, social and moral affairs, by forcibly suppressing every independent attempt to analyze the ills of society and every sincere effort toward the abolition of these ills; never able to grasp the eternal truth that every method they employ serves as the greatest impetus to bring forth a greater longing for freedom and a deeper zeal to fight for it.
That compulsion is bound to awaken resistance, every parent and teacher ought to know. Great surprise is being expressed over the fact that the majority of children of radical parents are either altogether opposed to the ideas of the latter, many of them moving along the old antiquated paths, or that they are indifferent to the new thoughts and teachings of social regeneration. And yet there is nothing unusual in that. Radical parents, though emancipated from the belief of ownership in the human soul, still cling tenaciously to the notion that they own the child, and that they have the right to exercise their authority over it. So they set out to mould and form the child according to their own conception of what is right and wrong, forcing their ideas upon it with the same vehemence that the average Catholic parent uses. And, with the latter, they hold out the necessity before the young “to do as I tell you and not as I do.” But the impressionable mind of the child realizes early enough that the lives of their parents are in contradiction to the ideas they represent; that, like the good Christian who fervently prays on Sunday, yet continues to break the Lord’s commands the rest of the week, the radical parent arraigns God, priesthood, church, government, domestic authority, yet continues to adjust himself to the condition he abhors. Just so, the Freethought parent can proudly boast that his son of four will recognize the picture of Thomas Paine or Ingersoll, or that he knows that the idea of God is stupid. Or that the Social Democratic father can point to his little girl of six and say, “Who wrote the Capital, dearie?” “Karl Marx, pa!” Or that the Anarchistic mother can make it known that her daughter’s name is Louise Michel, Sophia Perovskaya, or that she can recite the revolutionary poems of Herwegh, Freiligrath, or Shelley, and that she will point out the faces of Spencer, Bakunin or Moses Harmon almost anywhere.
These are by no means exaggerations; they are sad facts that I have met with in my experience with radical parents. What are the results of such methods of biasing the mind? The following is the consequence, and not very infrequent, either. The child, being fed on one-sided, set and fixed ideas, soon grows weary of re-hashing the beliefs of its parents, and it sets out in quest of new sensations, no matter how inferior and shallow the new experience may be, the human mind cannot endure sameness and monotony. So it happens that that boy or girl, over-fed on Thomas Paine, will land in the arms of the Church, or they will vote for imperialism only to escape the drag of economic determinism and scientific socialism, or that they open a shirt-waist factory and cling to their right of accumulating property, only to find relief from the old-fashioned communism of their father. Or that the girl will marry the next best man, provided he can make a living, only to run away from the everlasting talk on variety.
Such a condition of affairs may be very painful to the parents who wish their children to follow in their path, yet I look upon them as very refreshing and encouraging psychological forces. They are the greatest guarantee that the independent mind, at least, will always resist every external and foreign force exercised over the human heart and head.
Some will ask, what about weak natures, must they not be protected? Yes, but to be able to do that, it will be necessary to realize that education of children is not synonymous with herdlike drilling and training. If education should really mean anything at all, it must insist upon the free growth and development of the innate forces and tendencies of the child. In this way alone can we hope for the free individual and eventually also for a free community, which shall make interference and coercion of human growth impossible.
Exploitation and Moral ManagementJeremy Weiland
Child exploitation is an evil that has plagued humanity throughout its history. Social awareness of child welfare and consensus on its definition is relatively recent but on the rise. Following this trend, many in Congress work continuously to address this issue, creating new legislative prerogatives for the State to interdict predators and protect children.
How, then, do we reconcile these goals with the case of Mark Foley, a Congressman recently caught engaging in sexually explicit conversations with a minor? Perhaps those who seek to protect us from the nameless, faceless criminals out there have completely misunderstood the problem. The body empowered with enacting nationwide laws, creating criteria for punishing people, and directing the full power of the State contains the very corruption it seeks to root out among us.
It makes one wonder: whom can we trust?
As an anarchist promoting the abolition of this governmental body, it seems reasonable to me that Congress would be as prone to the evils and weaknesses of human experience as any of us. That is precisely the reason they are worthy of ruling neither me nor anybody in this country. We are all fallible, equally capable of deceit and depravity — but also nobility and prudence. We learn whom to trust and whom to avoid not by decrees from on high but by building relationships.
Society is the answer to our problems: the fashioning of markets, communities, networks, and organizations on a voluntary basis, allowing people the freedom to experiment, innovate, band together, and part ways based on their own interests and judgment. We defend our families by allying ourselves with our neighbors, hiring agents among a proven pool of open competitors, and sharing information and advice. Protecting children is best accomplished by the people who understand the stakes: parents and communities.
Of course, bad things happen — whether or not you have the power to pass laws. This brings us to a question anarchists are often asked: how would we prevent x, y, or z from happening without the state? What mechanisms exist to guarantee outcomes acceptable to all? How do we “balance” the sheer volume of competing interests in the world without some empowered and managing body? And in the case of child exploitation: how do we ensure our children’s safety from depraved individuals?
These are all good questions whose answers normal people seek. Unfortunately, they’re rarely asked honestly in politics. Rather, they are posed as rhetorical preludes to some new control placed on society. Instead of looking at the problem as one of complex interpersonal and community dynamics, with a host of causes and possible solutions, we are encouraged to see the problem as a one-dimensional, simple omission: evil originates from a lack of sufficient governance.
The answer from government is always to cripple ourselves for our own good. By making society less complex, less adaptive, and less empowered, we are easier to manage in a top-down fashion and, therefore, more predictable and homogeneous. Through stricter oversight and prohibitions handed down by Congress we can start to rediscover our virtue, at least as Congress defines it.
But the irony is that Congress doesn’t have virtue figured out, either.
The Foley scandal demonstrates the impotence of authority to effect moral management of society. Those who make laws on our behalf are just as flawed as we are. Their officialdom grants them no special insight into human nature. Their power doesn’t convey the ability to discipline society — or themselves. When we ask for leadership from above, a guarantee of safety and order, we surrender our consciences to the unworthy. Government will forever attempt to deliver on unreachable guarantees of safety and moral health by instituting more controls on us.
Indeed, reports indicate that politicians from both parties may have known of the problem and yet did nothing to stop it. Think about it: the most powerful body in the Nation, ignoring a case of exploitation they can address immediately without resorting to political maneuvering or deliberation. Then ask yourself: is any of this about the children?
Think about Foley the next time a law is passed that takes away more of our liberty and freedom “for our own good” or to “protect the children”. He demonstrates the truth of politics: virtue is not a matter of coercive laws and enlightened governance. We must place our faith and trust in ourselves, cooperatively building the solutions we seek rather than hoping they will be forced upon us.
Working Moms & the Battle for PlayAya de Leon
Lately, I’ve been reading non-fiction books about overworked moms. Really, I listen to them in audio format as I do overworked mom things like housework and schlepping my kid to and from preschool. First I read Maxed Out: American Moms on the Brink by Katrina Alcorn and now it’s Overwhelmed: Work, Love and Play When No One Has the Time by Brigid Schulte. They catalog how moms are drowning in the demands that we be perfect workers and perfect mothers.
In Overwhelmed, I felt validated by the chapters on overwhelm and inequality. I felt vindicated by the section where she reveals the gender bias in the leisure researchers’ methods. Her message is clear: we, as working moms, are being squeezed by a US society that demands perfection from both workers and mothers. Working motherhood sits at the intersection of various oppressive structures in the society. Decades of anti-feminist backlash have engineered the myth that our children will suffer if we work outside the home. From flawed studies to commercials to peer pressure from “helicopter moms,” countless daily messages reinforce mothers’ anxiety that only our perfectly attentive presence 24/7 will ensure our children’s well-being. Yet meanwhile the economy demands two incomes for families to keep up with rising cost of living. Economic insecurity and mistreatment of workers keeps everyone anxious and determined to be the perfect worker in order to keep their jobs and ensure their economic survival. This fear-based pressure intensifies for parents and in times of economic recession. And (unlike many European societies) the US refuses to organize structures to support families in general and working families in particular. So we working mothers live in the center of this dual pressure, using our sheer will and overwork to ensure our economic survival and our children’s well-being.
I loved these books! But when Schulte got to the chapter on play, it got hard to keep listening. In the play chapter, she pushed her readers to look at the places where we, as working moms, routinely collaborate with the oppression and deny ourselves joy in the pursuit of perfection in these other two areas.
I didn’t want to look at that. I have lowered the joy bar to be satisfied the joy of accomplishment and the satisfaction of crossing something off the to-do list. I have settled for creating a spark of delight in my daughter’s eyes. My own spark is only reflected light these days. In this context, it was downright painful to think about my own joy and play and delight. Because it feels like one more thing to do. And I couldn’t imagine how I can make it happen.
But fortunately for me, I hit the heart of the play chapter while I was camping in the redwood forest. Somehow, surrounded by trees that are a few hundred feet high, anything seems possible. Some of the biggest trees have serious burn scars, but they have continued to grow and thrive anyway, their tops are lush and green in the far above distance. The burns are scars from a fire they survived and kept growing.
So I claim parenting through my kid’s early years has been a fiery time I survived but now I’m ready to thrive. To that end, my biggest project this summer is reclaiming play. Miniature golf. Waterslides. Karaoke. I have a whole list. And it’s not gonna be easy. I’ve been home five days and have only managed to do one thing on my list: order the platform shoes off the internet.
It’s hard to prioritize play. As mothers go to work, and our small children cry and don’t want us to leave, many of us comfort ourselves with the notion that it’s important for kids to see their moms engaged in the world. And many studies bear this out, that there are advantages to having working moms. Particularly if we have daughters, working moms can model women’s engagement and influence in the larger world.
As a teacher and performer and writer, I have modeled this easily for my daughter. The area of play is the biggest place where my life is lacking. This is the place where I want to model for my daughter that adult women get to have fun, too. Particularly as a black woman, this goal is a crucial contradiction to the historical legacy that we are workhorses in this country. Previous generations of black women have worked ourselves ragged to ensure our children could have a better life. They had to. The conditions were that hard. But I have a chance to do it differently, so I plan to. My goal is not only to run around like a crazy person to make sure my daughter has a good life, but to set up my life that I’m modeling a good life for her. And that needs to include play.
12 Helpful Ideas for CaregiversBenjamin Fife
Alicia Lieberman and Patricia Van Horn of the UCSF Child Trauma Research program have written extensively on the topic of psychotherapeutic treatments that support development in young children impacted by early trauma and loss. They contributed a very thoughtful chapter to the 2009 third edition of the Handbook of Infant Mental Health, where they described a model of working with young children and their parents which they called Child Parent Psychotherapy. CPP is a relationship based model that combines an array of other approaches to work with young children and their parents. Like earlier models developed from the 1980s onward CPP uses joint child-parent therapy sessions to promote healthy child development. Lieberman and Van Horn organize their treatment model on the premise that long term mental health and resilience is supported when attachment relationships can meet infants’, toddlers’ and preschoolers’ basic needs for “care, protection, and culturally sanctioned patterns of affect modulation, interpersonal relatedness and learning.” One thing I love about this model is that it provides 12 easy to understand, and useful guidelines for understanding and interpreting young children’s behaviors in the context of their attachment relationship.
While the authors use the term parents when describing these guidelines, I’ve paraphrased their guidelines here and use the term caregivers instead. I make this change in language this because I think that caregivers more accurately reflects that children often have significant attachment relationships with people who are not their biological or legal parents and that both distress and resilience can be born of these relationships. I intend caregivers here to be a term that includes parents while also including the attachment relationships young children have with non-parental adults in and outside of the family that can be so key to development.
Young children’s crying and clinging are attempts to communicate an immediate need for their caregivers to be close and to be caring.
Young children’s distress at separations is an expression of the fear of losing their caregiver or caregivers.
Young children fear their caregiver’s disapproval and want to please their caregivers.
Young children fear being hurt and fear losing parts of their bodies.
Young children imitate their caregiver’s behaviors because they a) want to be like their caregivers and b) assume that their caregiver’s behavior is a model to emulate.
Young children feel responsible and blame themselves when their caregivers are upset, whatever the ‘real’ reason is for the upset.
Young children are convinced that their caregivers know everything and are always right.
Young children need clear consistent limits put on dangerous or culturally inappropriate behaviors in order to feel safe and protected.
Young children use the word “no” to establish their autonomy and to practice being and feeling autonomous.
Memory starts when babies are born. Babies and young children remember experiences before they can speak about them.
Children need their caregiver’s support and help in order to learn to express strong emotions without harming themselves or others.
Conflicts between children and their caregivers are inevitable because children and caregivers can and should have different developmental needs. Conflicts between children and their caregivers can be resolved in ways that promote trust and support development.
关于文章中出现的人
