Proposing Peaceful Parenting as By-Law at Intentional Community

[rsidab]

We live at an intentional community of around 80 people including 20 or so children. We are proposing an amendment to the community's by-laws around the treatment of children. Our goal is to create a mandate that children be treated peacefully by parents and others, and that aggression towards the community's children is unacceptable. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks so much.

 

 

ADDITION TO COMMUNITY'S BY-LAWS

We have a concern about the treatment of children in our culture. Our emotional well-being is a direct outcome of our experiences as children. Parenting styles are highly influential determinants of children's emotional wholeness. In highlighting parents' intentions with their children, we are actively working towards a peaceful world.

Living in community, we have the opportunity to choose consciously the environmental factors which we want our children to be exposed to – clean food, air and water, nature, alternative schooling, spirituality, healthcare and media. These are your choices. Yet just as there are restrictions around how adults may treat each other, certain behaviors towards children are equally unacceptable. Our community has the duty to uphold these 'common laws'.

We want to explicitly enumerate the rights of children due to their disadvantaged position in mainstream society - that their bodies, property and minds are not as equally protected as are adults'. In our culture, it is acceptable to aggress against one's children, and is often considered necessary and right. However, it is neither necessary nor right as children deserve at least the same rights as other humans. And since they are in an involuntary relationship with a large power differential, their rights should be even greater.

Children have less recourse to support routes than adults. They are less able to assert their right to protection let alone recognize and demand their right to it. It is therefore our duty to protect their rights for them.

We assert the following right for all children: to be protected under the principle of non-aggression – that the initiation of force towards their person or property is wrong.

We define force as physical violence, hitting, restraint, coercion, threats, confiscation of property, withdrawing provision of their needs, and verbal aggression.

As the use of such aggression with adults is not tolerated so should the use of force with children be reserved only for when an explicit, urgent need can be demonstrated, when it is absolutely necessary for the well-being of the child or others (e.g. when the child's safety is in immediate danger should an action not be taken).

Knowing that these principles are unusual in this culture, we will maintain support groups for families aimed at co-creating solutions and consequences that are peaceful and do not involve force.

 

 

[dsayers]

I only glanced over this, but see no denotation of penalties for violating this edict. The irony being that as soon as you give it teeth, it becomes the initiation of the use of force. As all prior restraint is. Assault is already immoral. You might be better served making the case for the personhood of children.

[csekavec]

Well written. But there is some missing context that makes me curious. 

 

How are the the by laws of your community enforced?

 

Obviously you wouldn't need to suggest your proposal if your community were already peaceful parenting.  If your purpose is to spread the word or persuade folks to adopt it, why propose a regulation?

[villagewisdom]

What defines "verbal aggression"? 

[dsayers]

What defines "verbal aggression"? 

Credible threats.

[shirgall]

What about shaming? 

 

Shaming and ostracism are not violent or aggressive. Bullying is backed up by force. We're not in High School where every social slight seems like armageddon.

[AccuTron]

What defines "verbal aggression"? 

Related:  provision of needs should include basic emotional, like the child feeling wanted.  I see a big loophole there.  Aggression can be acts of omission too.

[shirgall]

Yes, but we're talking about how adults treat children.

 

That doesn't change it to violent.

[dsayers]

What about shaming? 

Great point. My response was more of a generic answer. But you are correct that shaming should be included.

 

@shirgall: It is true that shaming isn't inherently violent. However, in the parent-child relationship, it does run contrary to the voluntarily created positive obligation to nurture and protect that child until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. It is a violation of that contract and therefore the initiation of the use of force.

[shirgall]

Great point. My response was more of a generic answer. But you are correct that shaming should be included.

 

@shirgall: It is true that shaming isn't inherently violent. However, in the parent-child relationship, it does run contrary to the voluntarily created positive obligation to nurture and protect that child until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. It is a violation of that contract and therefore the initiation of the use of force.

 

@dsayers, I agree that it's not a good thing, and is contrary to empathy with the child, but when a child tests boundaries by doing something wrong they know to be wrong, a gentle introduction the social consequences of such actions is a reasonable choice. Threat of abandonment is force. Telling a child that knowingly doing wrong is shameful? I don't think it rises to aggression.

[rsidab]

@dsayers & csekavec: re: penalties and enforcing the rule - Accountability is loose; it tends to work more on an honor system. We want to focus more here on simply legislating, leaving the question of enforcement open. We want to have a two-pronged engagement (top down through this regulation, and bottom-up through persistent discussion with neighbors). We're hoping that this change in by-laws, coinciding with a very open and advertised forum for discussion, will be a good wake-up call to the issue. Hopefully even the most resistant parents will at least hear about this and know that the rest of us are making changes towards peace and are looking out for aggression.

@dsayers: The suggestion to highlight the "personhood of children" is a great one, we'll add that, as long as we can keep the whole thing brief. Thank you.

@villagewisdom: re. verbal aggression - We deliberately left this open.  For example, screaming: it's the kind of thing we would hesitate to define, but we know it when we see it. We talk a bit about "as we would treat other adults" and I think that same somewhat loose standard applies here. Another example is the crazy guy on the subway muttering angrily to himself: at some point, as he gets louder and closer to you, it constitutes aggressive behavior. We are open to suggestions for a clearer way to write it.

@mellomama & shirgall: re. shaming - Yes, we are open to this. It might come under verbal aggression.

 

@accutron: Yes, we see acts of omission as with-holding provision of basic needs of child and therefore violent too.

[csekavec]

Does your intentional community have a site or literature you are willing to share? Are you comfortable saying where it is located?

[dsayers]

@dsayers & csekavec: re: penalties and enforcing the rule - Accountability is loose; it tends to work more on an honor system. We want to focus more here on simply legislating, leaving the question of enforcement open.

Legislation is commands backed by threats of violence. Without enumerated consequences and enforcement, there is no legislation. Also, what you're proposing is NOT working on the honor system. The honor system would be no legislation.

[jason_]

When it comes to "confiscation of property," what about materials such as pornography? Could parents forbid certain items and if a child independently obtains items and brings them into the house, could they then be confiscated?

[jason_]

I'm not OP, but from my own experience and perspective, no. If the property belongs to the child, then the parent must negotiate any change in the ownership of said property. They (parents) have rights to an opinion and position on what comes into their home, and can act (without initiating the use of force) to persuade their children. So, in my opinion, the parent in the scenario you pose should not "confiscate" the child's property, but should negotiate with the child to understand whether there is an underlying problem they (the parents) can help resolve.

 

The child has done nothing wrong by bringing home the pornography, but even if he had (done something wrong), taking away his possessions would do nothing to right that wrong. In fact, that would drive a wedge into the parent/child relationship, making it evermore difficult to connect with the child or influence his choices. Does that make sense?

 

Then the parent shall allow any and all items the child brings into the household?

[jason_]

With all due respect, please go back and read what I said.

 

And if negotiations fail? While I do think that negotiations can succeed, I've seen where with children, or anybody, it does not.

[dsayers]

And if negotiations fail? While I do think that negotiations can succeed, I've seen where with children, or anybody, it does not.

You can't derive a universal from an instance. Nor can you derive an ought from an is.

 

If a parent fails to negotiate with their child, it only serves to reveal a way in which the parent failed at an earlier point in the relationship. This is not an excuse to punish the child.

[jason_]

If a parent fails to negotiate with their child, it only serves to reveal a way in which the parent failed at an earlier point in the relationship. This is not an excuse to punish the child.

 

I believe the way the law is written, it could be argued that the child be free to keep anything they desire in the household -- households with inevitably varied compositions, unless they're laws I don't know about against that.

 

Therefore, I believe it's prudent to consider the situation where even a reasonable, yet not fully mature, child brings some unexpected thing into the household that conflicts with one of the others.

 

--edit--

What's the down vote for?

[dsayers]

the way the law is written

In other words, what one guy wrote down one time. I can't answer for other people. I was referring to that which is philosophically sound.

[jason_]

In other words, what one guy wrote down one time. I can't answer for other people. I was referring to that which is philosophically sound.

 

That's what we're discussing, a law.

 

One of the great things about being a parent is that there are usually many further opportunities to try again, on a daily basis.

 

I don't even understand what you're getting at here.

 

I'm not getting at anything. I'm providing my feedback as the poster requested.

 

To ignore the potentiality I've raised, and many times witnessed in both single-family households as well as households of mixed individuals and family. Remember, we're talking about 80 adults with 20 children. That presents ample opportunity for this situation to come about. Take those numbers a couple of generations forward and there's a lot more; also I'm assuming people will be allowed to join the community.

 

How were things at your house when you were a teenager? What about your friend's houses? Some kids can be very rebellious and defiant.

 

Remember this is a rule for how to behave in residence together. Others were asking how they thought these rules would be enforced. A good question. Suppose there is a problem child. Believe it or not they do exist. Should we not take that child and the members of their household into consideration as well? Perhaps you're assuming a child will always yield, or never break a prior agreement?

 

I think the root of the issue is, should this community have laws that govern what goes on inside of the household? Do you want people within the community to worry about or disallow taking in children who were not brought up within the community? Suppose a relative who is a parent dies and their children come to live in the community. It could happen a child is traumatized and acts out by bringing home items not allowed.

 

There are lots of potential instances were negotiating with a child or any person fails. Do we want to confound the parent/guardian-child relationship with what one guy wrote down one time?

[dsayers]

You can't derive a universal from an instance. Nor can you derive an ought from an is.

 

If a parent fails to negotiate with their child, it only serves to reveal a way in which the parent failed at an earlier point in the relationship. This is not an excuse to punish the child.

No references to man-made edicts here. But thank you, lakona, for letting me know that you have no intentions of providing/honoring a null hypothesis. I prefer to spend my time on people who express curiosity and accept their own capacity for error.

[jason_]

This is silly. I've done my best to find flaw with the by-law proposal (as I thought was the part of point of this thread) and defend it when challenged. So you don't like what I've posted? So we chat about it. There's no reason to take it personal, get snarky, and down-vote. I don't think I've been rude or insulting, and I don't think I've violated any other rule of this community.

 

While it's a nice thought that all children are flawless reflections of good parenting, it's not the truth. They are people too, and to think a scenario would not arise where they would take advantage of a rule that restricts the parent -- and who's enforcement could jeopardize the living arrangement -- seems naive.

[jason_]

Lakona, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I want to understand your position. Is it your contention that there are some circumstances in which the initiation of the use of force from parent to child is unavoidable or necessary (aside from when there is a credible threat of imminent danger)?

 

Hi mellomama,

 

Thank you for the reply. I'm just pointing out a scenario that I think most of us can easily imagine and many of us have witnessed. That being children not abiding by their parent's/guardian's rules about what materials are allowed inside of the household.

 

Reading the by-law again, I find that confiscation is allowable, "when it is absolutely necessary for the well-being of the child or others." But isn't that a slippery slope? Whom in the end will make the judgement about the well-being of the child or the others?

 

Attempting to clarify in the parenthetical we read, "when the child's safety is in immediate danger should an action not be taken". I think this means unless there is a clear and present danger to the child, an action (such as confiscation) should not be taken.

 

Again, people have used the excuse of safety to justify all sorts of actions. Whom will decide if the action is justified? And this doesn't clarify what well-being of others means; although that again would require somebody (presumably not the parent/guardian) tasked with enforcing the by-laws to make a judgement.

 

I would say these questions are best left to the parent/guardian to answer, and furthermore each individual household circumstance is unique and those with the full responsibility of heading it should be allowed full rights of how to head it. If neighbors, friends, or other family members are concerned with how those rights are exercised, there's no law restricting their participation, that I know of.

 

Does that make my position clearer?

[dsayers]

children not abiding by their parent's/guardian's rules

How do you know that they should? Did they consent? Were they consulted?

 

I would say these questions are best left to the parent/guardian to answer

Except that humans are raise and release. What a child is subjected to in the home, they will carry with them out into the world. You don't get to poison a well just because it's YOUR poison. Does that make sense?

[jason_]

I believe the point of the by-law is to establish peaceful parenting as the standard, and to work with parents to implement peaceful parenting in their homes. If the parents contend that there will be situations other than danger that they will see the initiation of the use of force against their children as justifiable, and will not be talked down from that position, then it seems to me that those parents would be incompatible with the community's goals and standards.

 

What would follow would be up to the community to determine, as the poster explained. It's not a matter of fleshing through all possible scenarios ahead of time, but rather to provide a framework with which to work with parents to implement peaceful parenting and if needed, to identify incompatible families and either reject them from the community or eventually take steps to have them leave. Not sure if that makes sense.

 

I believe in the promise of peaceful parenting, and think the by-law is well intentioned, but part of my point is that any community enforced rule for how individual families behave is bound to oppress those best suited to make judgments for the family.

 

Here's a quote from someone I consider wise that I think helps to illustrate my position:

 

 

All human effort tends towards herding together – Let Us Unite, etc. Naturally, this happens under all sorts of high-sounding names, love and sympathy and enthusiasm and the carrying out of some grand plan and the like. This is the usual hypocrisy of the scoundrels we are. But the truth is that in a herd, we are free from the standard of the individual.

How do you know that they should? Did they consent? Were they consulted?

 

 

Except that humans are raise and release. What a child is subjected to in the home, they will carry with them out into the world. You don't get to poison a well just because it's YOUR poison. Does that make sense?

 

Aloha dsayers,

 

I don't presume to know when children of others should or should not listen to their parents -- casting aside the obvious. But I think the closer, more involved, one is to a family the better suited they are to offer their advice and support.

 

I've got to run out to work, so please forgive any obtuseness, but could you explain, where I've poisoned the well -- not the fallacy, just the instance?

 

Thank you for the feedback,

[dsayers]

could you explain, where I've poisoned the well

Pardon my ambiguity. I wasn't referring to you specifically. I meant "One does not get to poison a well just because it's THEIR poison." It was meant to be an analogy to highlight the way in which I would disagree that how a child is raised is the business of that child's progenitors alone. Like the poison, that child will go on to influence and potentially harm many other people. As such, those many other people have a stake in how that child/poison is dispensed with. Does that clarify at all?

[AncapFTW]

I'm not OP, but from my own experience and perspective, no. If the property belongs to the child, then the parent must negotiate any change in the ownership of said property. They (parents) have rights to an opinion and position on what comes into their home, and can act (without initiating the use of force) to persuade their children. So, in my opinion, the parent in the scenario you pose should not "confiscate" the child's property, but should negotiate with the child to understand whether there is an underlying problem they (the parents) can help resolve.

 

The child has done nothing wrong by bringing home the pornography, but even if he had (done something wrong), taking away his possessions would do nothing to right that wrong. In fact, that would drive a wedge into the parent/child relationship, making it evermore difficult to connect with the child or influence his choices. Does that make sense?

So what about the fact that it's the parent's house, and they should be able to decide what is and isn't allowed in their home?