Our educational Inconsistencies

“When my 8 year old son said to me that if its Master heard my coarseness when I lead, I would have at least three days of exclusion, I thought “Well done! ”, because I prohibit the least coarse word at the house to him. But, at the time, I laughed to drown fish and I did not know what to say”, testifies Nathalie, 39 years. In a few words, the children put at the day contradictions of which the parents inevitably make proof in education with the daily newspaper. And often, surprised by their perspicacity, those are diverted and remain without voice. “The child stores all information which relates to it directly. He is also invested in the defense of the pleasure principle, notices the psychotherapist Stephan Clerget. Nothing astonishing so that, as soon as he sees a breach in the parental system, he engulfs himself there to defend his interests. ”

Punishments given and withdrawn without apparent logic, lessons of morals which do not apply to the prescribers, dissensions between the father and the mother to such or such educational point…, the list of the “weaknesses” of the parents is not exhaustive. And the children can use them to put them in difficulty. Not only to draw from it benefit, but also because “the inconsistency is while oneself distressing for young people, because it subjects them to the arbitrary one, which is “insécurisant”, underlines Stephan Clerget. They need to anticipate to feel safe, to be based on stable reference marks. ” This is why they would never have to be left without answer. Neither silence nor tender, recommends the psychotherapist. He advises with the parents who have the feeling to be misled to recognize it, but without exaggerating the mea culpa: “That would give to the child an authority which it does not have, that it should not have. One must remain that which is supposed to know what is best for his/her child. ” Thus can one say to him: “They are not false, even if it is exaggerated”, or “I a little quickly admit having decided that…”

“In all the cases, he insists, one should not put the child in position of judge. ” It should not feel guilty nor taken in fault when criticisms relate to the differences between him and his/her mother or her father: “You, you… while me, I…” an example: “Yes I smoke, and I know that they is very bad for health, but I am guaranteeing of your health, and therefore I prohibit to you to smoke! ” In the same spirit: “I have the right, but not you. ” Whereas one requires them it truth, the children flush out sometimes parental lies which revolt them. According to Stephan Clerget, is justified those the purpose of which are to save to them, at least temporarily, a too violent shock. Less legitimate, on the other hand, all those which aim at dissimulating capital information, on their origin or their becoming, for example. As for the small lies of comfort, even if they are not very reluisants, better is worth to assume them, by recognizing that one undoubtedly acted by idleness or fear. These weaknesses teach them that the things are seldom white or black.

Certain sentences assassinate on the treatment differences in the phratry can sometimes cause a catch. “One can benefit from it to speak about the differences in age, of the rights and duties which they imply, continues Stephan Clerget. One can as explain as that does not mean less love or of confidence. Without justifying itself nor to excuse itself, the parents can benefit from all the questions to open the discussion. To develop arguments is advantageous for the two parts. ”