From the moment of birth, the child becomes the center of family life. Parents and grandparents take care of the baby, worry about whether he ate well, slept, and try to please him in every possible way. Day after day, the child receives information that he is accepted in the world, he forms the confidence that "everything is fine with me, I am here by right." Children who have this feeling have a charge of confidence, they can calmly and constructively respond to criticism, find ways out of difficult situations.
If the child was deprived of his family or his parents were engaged in anything, but not him, if he did not have the conviction that he exists in the world by right, even having matured, he will perceive any problem as a catastrophe that cannot be survived. It is difficult for such a person to learn from his mistakes, he becomes very vulnerable, anxious, aggressive.
For an adult, the amount of frustration a child experiences seems out of the ordinary. But the child is coping
We come into the world completely helpless, we cannot take care of ourselves. Our survival, the ability to become an independent and responsible person completely depends on whether we will have “our own adult”, one who is ready to take care, protect, sacrifice his interests for us. He doesn't have to be over-hasty, smart, or strong. He should only consider the child his own, take care of him, protect him.
Ideally, each of us should have “our own adult”, with whom it is calm and safe, who is with the child in relation to attachment - an attitude of protection and care. This attitude of attachment to “their adult” becomes a bridge to life for children, through which they will develop and gradually become independent.
Having learned to walk, the child begins to actively explore the world: he constantly touches something, studies, climbs somewhere. And, naturally, when he is so actively learning everything, he very often experiences frustration - a negative experience associated with failure, the inability to get what he wants.
I climbed onto the sofa - fell, played with the door - pinched my fingers, reached for the cup - the cup broke, wanted to eat candy - my mother did not allow it ... And so every day! For an adult, the amount of frustration a child experiences seems out of the ordinary. But the child is coping. And first of all, this is possible due to the fact that in any difficult life situation, to overcome frustration, he turns to “his adult”. If he is a little upset, it is enough for him to stand next to his mother, if the frustration is strong, then he needs to be taken on the arms, hugged, consoled.
We are social beings, we receive support and protection in relationships with loved ones. When we are faced with something that causes too strong, intolerable negative emotions that we cannot deal with, it is important for us to get support.
It is necessary for some person to provide himself as a container, a psychological womb, to create a safe cocoon between us and the world, so that in this cocoon we can safely experience any strong feelings. Thanks to this mechanism - containment (from the English word container - "container") - a person comes out of the state of stress mobilization. The universal way to contain is hugs.
For an adult, conversation and attention may be enough. It is important for him to receive a signal: "I am not alone, they will take care of me, I need not worry about my safety." This is especially important for a child, since it is impossible to experience frustration and at the same time take care of safety. And the feeling of insecurity prevents him from developing.
In general, a child has two main states: “I want to see my mother” and “my mother is nearby, how interesting everything is around”. When a child is around his parents, for example on a walk in the park, he is busy exploring the world. But if suddenly the parents are not around, he stops the research until the parents are found and contact with them is restored.
When a person experiences stress, all the body's resources are mobilized
The same applies to all childhood in general. As soon as the child is "saturated" with the relationship with his adult, he goes into an independent life. The parent's goal is to become unnecessary to the child. So that the child learns to cope with difficulties without an adult and, over time, can build relationships with his children himself.
When a person experiences stress, all the body's resources are mobilized. To increase the chances of success, all systems start to run at higher rpm. But a long stay in such a state is impossible, therefore, after each mobilization, demobilization and relaxation are necessary for stress hormones to leave the blood.
If successful, demobilization occurs through joyful experiences that induce relaxation. If it was not possible to get what was planned, the child experiences frustration, and in this case, demobilization is possible only through containment: aggression is transformed into sadness through crying. We fall into the arms of a loved one, through tears and sadness we accept the situation. The body relaxes, there is a feeling of fatigue, calmness.
Only close relationships provide an opportunity to cope with frustration without loss.
Without containment, the child is deprived of the opportunity to demobilize, he gets stuck in a state of stress, becomes tense, distrustful, his level of anxiety and aggressiveness increases. To withstand the constant pressure of negative emotions, he can either go down the path of reducing emotional sensitivity, or not mobilize at all.
By building up a protective "shell" so as not to feel pain and resentment, he also loses positive experiences, but this still does not bring comfort, because only containment, only close relationships make it possible to cope with frustration without loss. And refusal to mobilize makes a person apathetic, weak-willed, irresponsible. A child who has chosen this path does not even try to achieve the goal, the smallest difficulty on the way plunges him into despair.
If the child receives the support of an adult, he can experience severe stress without collapsing, without acquiring pathological character traits, accumulates a positive experience of experiencing failures and learns to learn from his own mistakes.
How is it still transmitted, trauma? It is clear that you can always explain everything by “flow”, “interweaving”, “ancestral memory”, etc., and it is quite possible that you cannot do without mysticism at all, but if you try? Take only the most understandable, purely family aspect, parent-child relations, without politics and ideology. About them later somehow.
A family lives for itself. Young at all, just got married, expecting a baby. Or just gave birth. Or maybe even two were in time. They love, they are happy, they are full of hope. And then disaster strikes. The flywheels of history moved from their place and went to grind the people. Most often, men are the first to fall into the millstones. Revolutions, wars, repressions are the first blow to them.
And now the young mother was left alone. Her destiny is constant anxiety, backbreaking work (you need to work and raise a child), no special joys. A funeral, "ten years without the right to correspond," or just a long absence without news, such that hope is melting. Maybe this is not about the husband, but about the brother, father, and other relatives. What is the mother's condition? She is forced to control herself, she cannot really surrender to grief. There is a child (children) on it, and much more. Pain is tearing up from within, but it is impossible to express it, you cannot cry, you cannot become limp. And she turns to stone. Freezes in stoic tension, turns off feelings, lives, gritting his teeth and gathering will into a fist, does everything automatically. Or, even worse, plunges into a latent depression, walks, does what is supposed to, although she herself wants only one thing - to lie down and die. Her face is a frozen mask, her arms are heavy and not bend. She physically hurts to respond to a child's smile, she minimizes communication with him, does not respond to his babble. The child woke up at night, called out to her - and she howls dully into the pillow. Sometimes anger breaks out. He crawled or approached, tugs at her, wants attention and affection, when she can, she answers through force, but sometimes she suddenly growls: "Yes, leave me alone," as she pushes her away, that he will fly off. No, she is not angry with him - at fate, at her broken life, at the one who left and left and will no longer help.
Only now the child does not know all the ins and outs of what is happening. He is not told what happened (especially if he is small). Or he even knows but cannot understand. The only explanation that, in principle, can come to his mind: my mother does not love me, I interfere with her, it would be better if I were not. His personality cannot be fully formed without constant emotional contact with his mother, without exchanging looks, smiles, sounds, affection with her, without reading her face, recognizing shades of feelings in her voice. This is necessary, laid down by nature, this is the main task of infancy. But what if the mother has a depressive mask on her face? If her voice is monotonously dull with grief, or tensely ringing with anxiety?
While the mother is tearing the veins so that the child can survive elementarily, not die of hunger or illness, he grows up to himself, already traumatized. Not sure that he is loved, not sure that he is needed, with poorly developed empathy. Even intelligence is impaired under conditions of deprivation. Remember the painting "Deuce Again"? It was written at 51. The main character is 11 years old in appearance. A child of war, more traumatized than an older sister, who captured the first years of a normal family life, and a younger brother, a beloved child of post-war joy - the father returned alive. There is a trophy clock on the wall. And it is difficult for a boy to learn.
Of course, everything is different for everyone. The reserve of mental strength for different women is different. The severity of grief is different. The character is different. It is good if the mother has sources of support - family, friends, older children. And if not? What if the family found itself in isolation, as “enemies of the people,” or in evacuation in an unfamiliar place? Here, or die, or stones, but how else to survive?
Years go by, very difficult years, and the woman learns to live without her husband. "I am a horse, I am a bull, I am a woman and a man." A horse in a skirt. Woman with eggs. Call it what you want, the essence is the same. This is a person who carried an unbearable burden, and was used to it. Adapted. And in another way, he simply does not know how. Many people probably remember grandmothers who simply physically could not sit around. Already quite old, everyone was busy, everyone was carrying bags, everyone was trying to chop wood. It has become a way of dealing with life. By the way, many of them became so steel - yes, this is such a sound - that they lived for a very long time, they were not taken by illness, and old age. And now they are still alive, God bless them.
In its most extreme expression, at the most terrible coincidence of events, such a woman turned into a monster capable of killing with her care. And she continued to be iron, even if there was no longer such a need, even if later she lived with her husband again, and nothing threatened the children. As if she was fulfilling a vow.
The brightest image is described in the book by Pavel Sanaev "Bury Me Behind the Skirting Board."
The worst thing about this pathologically changed woman is not rudeness, and not imperiousness. The worst thing is love. When, reading Sanaev, you understand that this is a story about love, about such a disfigured love, that's when the frost breaks through. I had a girlfriend as a child, the late child of a blockade survivor mother. She described how she was fed with her head between her legs and pouring broth into her mouth. Because the child did not want and could no longer, and the mother and grandmother thought that it was necessary. Their hunger experienced so much from the inside gnawed that the cry of a living girl, dear, beloved, the voice of this hunger could not block.
And my mother took my other girlfriend with her when she performed clandestine abortions. And she showed her little daughter a toilet full of blood with the words: look, guys, what are they doing to us. Here it is, our female share. Did she want to hurt her daughter? No, just keep it safe. It was love.
And the worst thing is that our entire child protection system still carries the features of the "Scary Woman". Medicine, school, guardianship authorities. The main thing is for the child to be “okay”. To keep the body safe. Soul, feelings, attachments - not before. Save at any cost. Feed and heal. Very, very slowly it wears off, but we got it in full in childhood, the nanny who beat in the face with a doormat, who did not sleep during the day, I remember very well.
But let's leave aside extreme cases. Just a woman, just a mom. Just grief. It's just a child who grew up with a suspicion that he is not needed and unloved, although this is not true and for his sake only the mother survived and endured everything. And he grows, trying to earn love, since it is not given to him for nothing. Helps. Requires nothing. Busy himself. He looks after the younger ones. Achieves success. Tries to be helpful. Only useful people love. Only comfortable and correct. Those who will do their homework themselves, wash the floor in the house, and put the younger ones to bed, will prepare supper for mother's arrival. Have you heard, probably, more than once this kind of stories about post-war childhood? "It never occurred to us to talk to my mother like that!" - it's about today's youth. Still would. Still would. First, the iron woman has a heavy hand. And secondly, who will risk crumbs of warmth and intimacy? It's a luxury, you know, to be rude to parents.
The injury went to the next round.
The time will come when this child himself will create a family, give birth to children. Something like this in the 60s. Someone was so "rolled" by an iron mother that he was only able to reproduce her style of behavior. We must also remember that many children did not see their mothers very much, at two months - a nursery, then five days, all summer - with a garden in the country, etc. That is, not only the family, but also institutions , in which "Scary women" were always enough.
But consider a more favorable option. The child was traumatized by his mother's grief, but his soul was not frozen at all. And here, in general, the world and the thaw, and flew into space, and so I want to live, and love, and be loved. For the first time picking up her own, small and warm child, the young mother suddenly realizes: here he is. Here is the one who will finally love her for real, who is she reallyneeded. From that moment on, her life takes on a new meaning. She lives for the children. Or for the sake of one child, whom she loves so passionately that she cannot even think of sharing this love for someone else. She quarrels with her own mother, who is trying to lash her grandson with nettles - this is not possible. She hugs and kisses her child, and sleeps with him, and will not breathe on him, and only now, in hindsight, realizes how much she herself was deprived of in childhood. She is completely absorbed in this new feeling, all her hopes and aspirations are all in this child. She "lives his life", his feelings, interests, worries. They have no secrets about each other. She's better with him than with anyone else.
And only one thing is bad - it grows. Growing rapidly, and then what? Is loneliness again? Is it an empty bed again? Psychoanalysts would have said a lot about shifted eroticism and all that, but it seems to me that there is no particular eroticism here. Only a child who has endured lonely nights and no longer wants. He does not want so much that his mind kicks off. "I can't sleep until you come." It seems to me that in the 60s and 70s this phrase was often said by mothers to children, and not vice versa.
What happens to the child? He cannot help but respond to his mother's passionate request for love. It took his strength out. He merges happily with her, he cares, he fears for her health. The worst thing is when mom cries, or when her heart hurts. Not that. “Okay, I'll stay, Mom. Of course, Mom, I don't want to go to these dances at all. " But in fact, you want it, because there is love, independent life, freedom, and usually the child still breaks the connection, tears painfully, harshly, with blood, because no one will voluntarily let go. And he leaves, taking the guilt with him, and leaving the insult to the mother. After all, she "gave all her life, did not sleep nights." She invested all of herself, without a remainder, and now she presents a bill, and the child does not want to pay. Where's the justice? Here, and the legacy of the "iron" woman comes in handy, scandals, threats, pressure are used. Oddly enough, this is not the worst option. Violence breeds resistance and allows you to secede, albeit with losses.
Some lead their role so skillfully that the child simply cannot leave. Addiction, guilt, fear for the mother's health are tied with thousands of strongest threads, about this there is a play by Ptushkina "While she was dying", based on which a much easier film was made, where Vasilyeva plays the mother, and Yankovsky plays the candidate for the daughter. Every New Year's show is probably seen by everyone. And the best - from the point of view of the mother - is the option if the daughter nevertheless marries for a short time and stays with the child. And then the sweet unity can be transferred to the grandson and last further, and, if you're lucky, it will be enough until death.
And often enough, because this generation of women is much less healthy, they often die much earlier than their war-mongers. Because there is no steel armor, and the blows of resentment destroy the heart, weaken the defense against the most terrible diseases. Often they begin to use their health problems as an unconscious manipulation, and then it is difficult not to play too much, and suddenly everything turns out to be really bad. At the same time, they themselves grew up without maternal attentive tender care, which means that they are not used to taking care of themselves and do not know how, do not get treatment, do not know how to pamper themselves, and, by and large, do not consider themselves such a great value, especially if they get sick and become "Useless."
But we are all about women, but where are the men? Where are the fathers? Was it necessary to give birth to children from someone?
This is difficult. A girl and a boy who grew up without fathers create a family. They are both hungry for love and care. She both hope to receive them from a partner. But the only family model they know is a self-sufficient "woman with eggs" who, by and large, does not need a man. That is cool, if there is, she loves him and all that. But he really didn't need anything, he didn't sew the mare's tail, the rose on the cake. “Sit, dear, on the sidelines, watch football, otherwise you interfere with the washing of the floors. Do not play with the child, you walk him around, then you will not fall asleep. Don't touch, you'll ruin everything. Get away, I myself ”And stuff like that. And the boys are also raised by mothers. Used to obey. Psychoanalysts would also note that they did not compete with their father for their mother and therefore did not feel like men. Well, and purely physically in the same house, the mother of the wife or husband, or even both, was often present. Where to go? Go here and be a man ...
Some men found a way out, becoming a “second mother”. And even the only one, because the mother herself, as we remember, “with eggs” and iron rattles. In the best version, it turned out to be something like Uncle Fyodor's dad: soft, caring, sensitive, permissive. In between, he is a workaholic who just ran away to work from it all. In a bad one - an alcoholic. Because a man who is not needed for nothing by his woman, who all the time hears only "step away, do not interfere", and separated by commas "what kind of father are you, you absolutely do not take care of children" (read "do not do as I see fit." ), remains or change a woman - and for whom, if everyone around is about the same? - or go into oblivion.
On the other hand, the man himself has no coherent model of responsible parenting. Before their eyes or in the stories of their elders, many fathers simply got up one morning and left - and never returned. It's as simple as that. And nothing is fine. Therefore, many men considered it completely natural that, leaving the family, they ceased to have anything to do with it, did not communicate with the children, and did not help. They sincerely believed that they owed nothing to “this hysterical woman” who stayed with their child, and at some deep level, maybe they were right, because often women just used them as inseminators, and they needed children more than men. So the question is, who owes whom. The resentment that the man felt made it easy to come to terms with his conscience and score, and if that was not enough, vodka is sold everywhere.
Oh, these divorces of the seventies are painful, cruel, with a ban on seeing children, with a break in all relationships, with insults and accusations. The agonizing disappointment of two disliked children, who so wanted love and happiness, pinned so many hopes on each other, and he / she deceived, everything is not so, bastard, bitch, scum ... They did not know how to establish a cycle of love in the family, each was hungry and wanted to receive, or only wanted to give, but for this - the authorities. They were terribly afraid of loneliness, but it was to him that they went, simply because, except for loneliness, they had never seen anything.
As a result, grievances, mental wounds, even more ruined health, women are even more fixated on children, men are drinking even more.
For men, all this was superimposed on identification with the dead and disappeared fathers. Because the boy needs, it is vitally important to be like his father. And what if the only thing that is known about him is that he died? Was he very brave, fought with enemies - and died? Or worse, is it only known that he died? And they don't talk about him in the house, because he disappeared, or was repressed? Gone - that's all the information? What is left for a young guy besides suicidal behavior? Booze, fights, three packs of cigarettes a day, motorcycle racing, work until a heart attack. My father was a high-altitude assembler in his youth. My favorite trick was to work at height without insurance. Well, everything else too, booze, smoking, ulcer. Divorce, of course, and not one. At 50 years of age, heart attack and death. His father went missing, went to the front even before the birth of his son. Nothing is known except the name, not a single photograph, nothing.
It is in this kind of environment that children grow up, the third generation already.
In my class, more than half of the children had divorced parents, and of those who lived together, perhaps only two or three families looked like marital happiness. I remember how my college friend told me that her parents were watching TV hugging and kissing at the same time. She was 18, she was born early, that is, her parents were 36-37. We were all amazed. Abnormal, or what? It doesn't work that way!
Naturally, the corresponding set of slogans: "All men are bastards", "All women are bitches", "A good deed is not called a marriage." And that, life has confirmed. Wherever you look ...
But good things happened. In the late 60s, mothers were given the opportunity to sit with children under one year old. They were no longer considered parasites. So who would put a monument, so the author of this innovation. I just don't know who he is. Of course, I still had to give up a year, and it hurt, but this is already incomparable, and about this injury next time. And so the children happily passed the most terrible threat of deprivation, the most crippling one - up to a year. Well, and usually the people were still spinning, then my mother would take a vacation, then the grandmothers took turns, they won a little more. Such was the constant game - the family against the "approaching night", against the "Terrible woman", against the iron heel of the Motherland. Such cat and mouse.
And a good thing happened - separate housing began to appear. The notorious Khrushchevs. We will also erect a monument someday to these flimsy concrete walls, which played a huge role - they finally covered the family from the all-seeing eye of the state and society. Even though you could hear everything through them, there was still some kind of autonomy. Border. Protection. Den. Recovery chance.
The third generation begins their adult life with their own set of traumas, but also with their rather large resources. We were loved. Let not the way psychologists say, but sincerely and a lot. We had fathers. Let the drinkers and / or "henpecked" and / or "goats who abandoned their mother" are in the majority, but they had a name, a face and they also loved us in their own way. Our parents weren't cruel. We had a home, native walls.
Not everyone is the same, of course, the family was more and less happy and prosperous.
But in general.
In short, we owe it.
So the third generation. I will not be rigidly attached here to the years of birth, because someone was born at 18, someone at 34, the further, the more the distinct "banks" of the stream are blurred. The transmission of the script is important here, and the age can be from 50 to 30. In short, the grandchildren of the military generation, the children of the children of war.
"We are due" is, in general, the motto of the third generation. Generations of children forced to become parents of their own parents. In psychologists, this is called "parentification."
What was to be done? The disliked children of war spread around such powerful vibes of helplessness that it was impossible not to respond. Therefore, children of the third generation were not independent for years and felt constant responsibility for their parents. Childhood with a key around its neck, from the first grade on its own to school - to the music room - to the store, if through a vacant lot or garages - nothing too. Lessons ourselves, heat the soup ourselves, we know how. The main thing is that mom does not get upset. Memories of childhood are very revealing: “I didn’t ask my parents for anything, I always understood that there was not enough money, I tried to sew it up somehow, get along”, “I once hit my head very hard at school, it was bad, I felt sick, but I didn’t tell my mother - I was afraid to upset. Apparently, there was a concussion, and there are still consequences ”,“ A neighbor pestered me, tried to paw, then showed me his farm. But I didn’t tell my mother, I was afraid that her heart would become bad ”,“ I missed my father very much, I even cried slowly. But he told my mother that I was fine and did not need him at all. She was very angry with him after the divorce. " Dina Rubinna has such a poignant story called "Thorns". The classic: a divorced mother, a six-year-old son, selflessly portraying indifference to a father whom he passionately loves. Together with my mother, curled up in a little den against the alien winter world. And these are all quite prosperous families, it also happened that the children looked for drunken fathers in the ditches and dragged them home on themselves, and they pulled their mother out of the loop with their own hands or hid pills from her. About eight years old.
And also divorces, as we remember, or life in the style of a cat and a dog ”(for the sake of children, of course). And children are intermediaries, peacemakers who are ready to sell their souls in order to reconcile their parents, to glue together the fragile family well-being again. Do not complain, do not exacerbate, do not shine, otherwise dad will get angry, and mom will cry and say that “it would be better for her to die than to live like this,” and this is very scary. Learn to anticipate, smooth corners, defuse the situation. Always be vigilant, look after your family. For there is no one else.
The symbol of the generation can be considered the boy Uncle Fyodor from a funny cartoon. Funny, funny, but not very funny. The boy is the oldest of the whole family. And he still doesn't go to school, which means it's not seven. He left for the village, lives there himself, but worries about his parents. They only faint, they drink heart drops and helplessly spread them with their hands.
Or remember the boy Roma from the movie "You never dreamed of it"? He is 16, and he is the only adult of all the characters in the film. His parents are typical “children of war”, the girl’s parents are “eternal adolescents”, a teacher, a grandmother ... To comfort them, here to support, to make peace, to help there, to wipe away tears here. And all this against the background of the lamentations of adults, they say, it's too early for love. Yeah, and babysitting them all is just right.
So all childhood. And when the time has come to grow up and leave home - the torment of impossible separation, and wine, wine, wine, half with anger, and the choice is very funny: separate and it will kill mommy, or stay and die as a person yourself.
However, if you stay, you will be told all the time that you need to arrange your own life, and that you are doing everything wrong, bad and wrong, otherwise you would have had your own family for a long time. If any candidate appeared, he would naturally turn out to be worthless, and a long latent war would begin against him to a victorious end. There are so many films and books about this that I will not even list.
Interestingly, with all this, they themselves and their parents perceived their childhood as quite good. Indeed: children are beloved, parents are alive, life is quite prosperous. For the first time in many years - a happy childhood without hunger, epidemics, war and all that.
Well, almost happy. Because there was still a kindergarten, often with a five-day day, and a school, and camps and other delights of Soviet childhood, which were in good color to some, and to some not very much. And there was a lot of violence, and humiliation, and the parents were helpless, they could not protect. Or even in fact they could, but the children did not turn to them, they took care. I've never once told my mother that they hit the kindergarten in the face with a rag and push pearl barley through vomiting spasms into the mouth. Although now, in hindsight, I understand that she would probably have smashed this garden by stone. But then it seemed to me - it is impossible.
This is an eternal problem - the child is not critical, he cannot reasonably assess the real state of affairs. He always takes everything personally and greatly exaggerates. And he is always ready to sacrifice himself. Just as the children of war mistook ordinary weariness and grief for dislike, their children mistook a certain lack of maturity from fathers and mothers for complete vulnerability and helplessness. Although this was not the case in most cases, and parents could stand up for the children, and would not crumble, would not moderate from a heart attack. And the neighbor would be shortened, and the nanny, and they would buy what they need, and they would be allowed to see my dad. But - the children were afraid. Exaggerated, reinsured. Sometimes later, when everything was revealed, the parents asked in horror: “Well, why did you tell me? Yes, I would, of course ... ”No answer. Because - you can't. It felt so, that's all.
The third generation has become the generation of anxiety, guilt, hyperresponsibility. All this had its advantages, it is these people who are now successful in various fields, they are the ones who know how to negotiate and take into account different points of view. Foreseeing, being vigilant, making decisions on your own, not waiting for outside help are strengths. Protect, take care, patronize.
But hyperresponsibility, like any “hyper,” has another side. If the inner child of military children lacked love and security, then the inner child of “Uncle Fyodor's generation” lacked childishness and carelessness. And the inner child - he will take his own in any way, he is. Well, he takes it. It is in people of this generation that such a thing as "aggressive-passive behavior" is often observed. This means that in a situation “it is necessary, but I don’t want to” the person does not openly protest: “I don’t want to and I will not!”, But he doesn’t resign himself to “well, it is necessary, it is necessary.” He arranges sabotage in all sorts of different, sometimes very inventive ways. Forgets, postpones until later, does not have time, promises and does not, is late everywhere and everywhere, etc. Oh, the bosses howl straight out of this: well, such a good specialist, pro, clever, talented, but so disorganized ...
Often, people of this generation note in themselves the feeling that they are older than those around them, even the elderly. And at the same time, they themselves do not feel "quite mature", there is no "sense of maturity." Youth somehow leaps into old age. And vice versa, sometimes several times a day.
The consequences of "merging" with parents, all this "living the life of a child" are also noticeably affected. Many people remember that in childhood, parents and / or grandmothers did not tolerate closed doors: "Are you hiding something?" And pushing the latch into your door was tantamount to "spitting in the mother's face." Well, about the fact that it's okay to check pockets, a desk, a briefcase and read a personal diary ... Rarely did any parents consider this unacceptable. I generally keep quiet about the kindergarten and school, some toilets were worth what, what nafig borders ... As a result, children who grew up in a situation of constant violation of borders then observe these borders with extreme zeal. They rarely visit and rarely invite them to their place. Stressing spending the night at a party (although it used to be commonplace). They do not know their neighbors and do not want to know - what if they start to be friends? They painfully endure any forced neighborhood (for example, in a compartment, in a hotel room), because they do not know, they do not know how to set boundaries easily and naturally, while enjoying communication, and they put “anti-tank hedgehogs” on distant approaches.
What about your family? The majority are still in difficult relations with their parents (or their memory), many did not succeed with a lasting marriage, or did not succeed on the first attempt, but only after separation (internal) from their parents.
Of course, the attitudes received and assimilated in childhood about the fact that men are just waiting to "dabble and quit", and women only strive to "crush under themselves", do not contribute to happiness in their personal lives. But there was an ability to "sort things out", to hear each other, to negotiate. Divorces have become more frequent, since they have ceased to be perceived as a disaster and a ruin of the whole life, but they are usually less bloody, more and more often divorced spouses can then communicate quite constructively and deal with children together.
Often the first child appeared in a fleeting "inseminating" marriage, the parental model was reproduced. Then the child was given in whole or in part to the grandmother in the form of a “buy-off”, and the mother got a chance to separate and start living her own life. In addition to the idea of \u200b\u200bcomforting the grandmother, the “I put my life on you”, heard many times in childhood, also plays a role. That is, people grew up with the attitude that raising a child, even one, is something incredibly difficult and heroic. We often hear memories of how hard it was with the first child. Even those who gave birth already in the era of diapers, food in cans, washing machines and other bells and whistles. Not to mention central heating, hot water and other benefits of civilization. “I spent the first summer with my child in the country, my husband came only for the weekend. How hard it was! I just cried from fatigue. ”A dacha with amenities, no chickens, no cow, no vegetable garden, the child is quite healthy, my husband brings food and diapers by car. But how hard it is!
And how difficult it is, if the conditions of the problem are known in advance: “to put your life to death, not to sleep at night, to ruin your health”. Here you want - you do not want ... This attitude makes the child afraid and avoid. As a result, the mother, even sitting with the child, hardly communicates with him and he frankly yearns. Babysitters are hired, they change when the child begins to become attached to them - jealousy! - and now we get a new circle - a deprived, disliked child, something very similar to the military one, only there is no war. Prize race. Look at the kids in some expensive full-service boarding house. Tics, enuresis, outbursts of aggression, hysteria, manipulation. Orphanage, only with English and tennis. And those who do not have money for a boarding house, those on the playground in the sleeping area can be seen. "Where did you go, idiot, now you will get it, I have to do the washing later, right?" Well, and so on, "I have no strength for you, my eyes would not see you," with genuine hatred in his voice. Why hate? So he's an executioner! He came to take life, health, youth, so my mother herself said!
Another variation of the scenario unfolds when another insidious attitude of the hyperresponsible takes over: everything must be RIGHT! The best way! And this is a separate song. Early adopters of the parental role of "Uncle Fedora" are often obsessed with conscious parenting. Lord, if at one time they mastered the parental role in relation to their own dad and mom, will they really not be able to educate their children at the highest level? Balanced nutrition, gymnastics for babies, developmental classes from one year, English from three. Literature for parents, we read, think, try. Be consistent, find a common language, do not lose your temper, explain everything, HAVE A CHILD.
And the eternal anxiety, habitual since childhood - what if what is wrong? What if something was not taken into account? and if it could have been better? And why am I lacking patience? And what kind of mother (father) am I?
In general, if the generation of children of the war lived in the confidence that they are wonderful parents, which ones to look for, and their children have a happy childhood, then the generation of hyperresponsible people is almost without exception affected by "parental neurosis." They (we) are sure that they didn’t take into account something, didn’t finish it, “didn’t take care of the child much (they also dared to work and build a career, mothers are vipers), they (we) are totally not confident in ourselves as in parents, always dissatisfied with school, doctors, society, they always want more and better for their children.
A few days ago an acquaintance called me - from Canada! - with an alarming question: daughter at 4 years old does not read, what to do? These anxious eyes of moms when meeting with a teacher - my columns do not work! “A-ah-ah, we will all die!”, As my son likes to say, the representative of the next, unimportant, generation. And he is still not the brightest, since he was saved by the impenetrable laziness of his parents and the fact that at one time I came across a book by the Nikitins, which said in plain text: mothers, do not worry, do as pleasant and convenient for you and everything will be fine with the child. There was still a lot of stuff that said that it was necessary to play with special cubes and develop all sorts of things, but I safely missed it. It itself developed to a fairly decent scale.
Unfortunately, many of them turned out to be rather weak with laziness. And they gave birth to parents with terrible force and in full. The result is not cheerful, now there is a wave of requests with the text “He wants nothing. Lies on the couch, does not work and does not study. Sits staring at the computer. He doesn't want to answer for anything. She snaps at all attempts to talk. " And what should he want if everyone already wanted him for him? For what should he be responsible, if there are parents nearby who are not fed with bread - let him be responsible for someone? It's good if he just lies on the couch and does not take drugs. Not feeding a week, so maybe it will get up. If he already accepts, everything is worse.
But this generation is just entering life, let's not hang labels on it yet. Life will show.
The further, the more the “shores” are eroded, multiply, split, and the consequences of the experience are bizarrely refracted. I think by the fourth generation, the specific family context is much more important than the global past trauma. But one cannot fail to see that much of today is still growing from the past.
Article by Lyudmila Petranovskaya, psychologist.
The other day in an online store, I decided to choose books for my two-year-old daughter - you know, all these jumping bunnies, two-word rhymes, bright pictures. In the section "The first books of the baby" I immediately felt uncomfortable: the colorful covers proudly adorned with headings in the spirit of "Development of memory, motor skills and sensory skills." Here I finally realized that modern pedagogy is sick with "developmental" in the terminal stage. Against this background, books that fight this trend seem to me especially important. And parents are taught not to "develop", but to love the child. This is what the book of psychologist and publicist Lyudmila Petranovskaya "Secret support: attachment in a child's life" is devoted to.
How to love and forbid at the same time?
Many people naively believe that loving a child is not difficult at all. That there is a magical "maternal instinct" that instantly turns on and immediately closes all questions on this part. However, the history of the homo sapiens species has developed in such a way that instincts do not play such a significant role in our life, and most importantly, the development of memory, motor skills and sensing…. ugh, the main thing is social behavior. Including parental behavior. Because people's lives are very complicated. There is no need for a mother tigress to force the lion cub to clean up the room, go to bed at a certain time, or discuss his problems with the girls with the teenage lion cub. The mother of a little man faces difficult problems every day, so the question "How to love a child, if at the same time needs to be brought up?" Is very important for her.
Quote from the book:
“Archaic living tribes that touch researchers with their almost always happy and calm babies have very little to forbid or prescribe to young children. Will freeze- come to warm up, get hungry- stretches out his hand, wants to sleep- fall asleep. "
We live in a completely different world. We are forced to prohibit and not let go. For me personally, it's always a drama. Petranovskaya's recipe is a good and bad police officer rolled into one. This recipe helps a lot to smooth out the tension between love and parenting:
« You can also refuse from the position of caring, or you can from the position of violence. You can forbid, but at the same time sympathize with the child, maintain friendly contact with him: “I understand how much you want another cartoon, but it's time for us to sleep. Are you sad? Come to me, I will pity you "...".
Personally, this simple recipe has already helped me to communicate more calmly with my daughter.
In addition, I learned from the book a very important point: stress is not a time for parenting. A familiar situation: the child yells, you yell back, and hate yourself for it? Or is the child all in tears - and you tell him with a stern face that you cannot behave like that, and in general, you will now close the door and leave? Because well, what else to do - not to succumb to hysteria? Petranovskaya has the following recipe for this: you don't need to give in (you don't need to buy that car if it rolls around on the store floor because of it), but you need to stay calm and not let yourself turn into a hissing fury. Loving a child unconditionally means giving love, even when the child is not behaving the way you would like. A child's tantrum is not a reason for raising a child. This is a reason to educate yourself.
“If the scandal has already erupted, there is nowhere to go- you have to wait until the stress subsides and at least not add fuel to the fire with shouts, threats and unfulfillable demands such as “stop yelling”, “calm down immediately,” “shut up now”. (You yourself would want to hear this when you cry- from your husband, for example?) We just stay close, if given- hug, stroke, say something. The meaning of words is not very important, he still does not really understand, intonation, presence, touch are more important. Of course, your own condition is very important, if you are shaken, you will not calm the child down. Therefore, first of all ... we breathe, we calm ourselves- sometimes it’s enough for the child’s stress to go down. ”
Be the child's friend or leader?
Or maybe not prohibit anything at all? Organize a family commune where everyone is equal? Unfortunately no. Goodbye utopia. Being a parent who doesn't prohibit or control anything is not an option. In our complex world, this is tantamount to leaving a child unprotected.
Although it looks like - well, what could be more beautiful than a "parent-friend"! You call your mother by name, she does not forbid anything and agrees with everything - you are the happiest child! According to Petranovskaya, it's not that simple. This liberal approach was born in the second half of the 20th century as a reaction to the pre-war authoritarian family model, where the child did not receive any warmth and understanding. But it turned out that children raised by “friend parents” feel anxious and insecure.
“The child will be equally scared and bad both with infantile, helpless parents and with severe ones, not sensitive to the child's needs.”
The family should have a hierarchy, and no matter how understanding the parent is, he should be the main one. This is normal - and most importantly, the parent must also understand that this is normal. Otherwise, inevitable aggressive breakdowns occur:
“If a parent does not feel entitled to prohibit, if he is not in a dominant and responsible role, then in order to prohibit,“ get hot ”, get angry: I’m not just prohibiting you, but because you’re bad, you’re to blame. “You just have to watch cartoons endlessly! You completely got out of hand! Aren't you ashamed to be capricious- such a big boy! "- and stuff like that. And immediately the prohibition ceases to be a behavior of protection and care, it is perceived by the child as an attack, causes offense. "
That is, the "parent-friend" is not able to calmly feel comfortable in a conflict situation - and the conflict inevitably turns into a battle of "friends" in the sandbox.
Children's tantrums: to regret or "not to be manipulated"?
Many are sure that children are scandalous because they are too pampered with attention. And therefore, in no case should you indulge them. Nothing of the kind, everything is just the opposite, says Petranovskaya. A tantrum is a way to somehow attract the attention of a busy parent.
"If a child is not confident in his adult, in his affection, he will seek a reaffirming connection, strive to maintain and strengthen it at any cost."
Therefore, the main prevention of hysterics is to love, hug, carry, and praise. In general, do everything so that the child does not have to resort to extreme methods of attracting attention. A hysterical child is an unloved child, not a spoiled one.
« In many traditional cultures, babies spend the entire first year of life clinging to their mother, she holds the baby in her arms, or carries it strapped on her back. She feeds, not interrupting her work, she also sleeps with the child. If the fears about "being pampered, accustomed" were true, their children would have to insist on being worn almost until adulthood. However, observations say exactly the opposite: these babies are much more independent and independent by the age of two than their urban peers. They are not inclined to whine, moan, constantly jerk their mother and "hang on" her, they are full of joyful curiosity and do not look "spoiled" at all. And children from modern megalopolises, whom they were very afraid to “accustom to hands”, or whose mothers could not be with them, insatiably demand the attention of adults, are capricious, exhaust their parents with their eternal discontent and stickiness. "
The child fights for the attention of the parents - which means that he is whining, naughty, hooligan and even sick. And all because he is experiencing "attachment hunger." And if he is not satisfied, it will get worse and worse. Affection is an organic, instinctive need for a child. Not satisfying her, so as not to spoil her, is like not giving food to a hungry child because he asks too loudly!
“According to this principle, stable capricious, dependent behavior is formed: if a child often feels that an adult is not up to him, he cannot relax, he must be on the alert all the time, check the strength of the connection. Parents get tired, irritated, those around them assure that the child is "too spoiled", they begin to show severity, "do not follow the lead"- and the matter gets even worse, because he is even more frightened and fights even more desperate. A vicious circle is formed in which everyone is unhappy and unhappy. "
In short, do you want to raise a naughty, nervous and embittered child? No problem. Just "don't spoil" him.
"A child's readiness to listen is determined not by lectures and lectures, not by punishments and prizes, but by the quality of attachment."
Praise or be stricter?
And here we come to the main theme of the book - "attachment in the life of a child." Petranovskaya is sure that the main goal of your relationship with your child is not "education", not "education", but the formation of attachment. That is, in other words, your goal is to build a trusting relationship with your child. And although it would seem that it is natural for a child to love a mother, in our unnatural world, as always, everything is complicated. And parents sometimes manage with their "upbringing" to completely trample the affection in the soul of the child.
In Russia, this problem, according to Petranovskaya, is very acute. Our mothers and grandmothers were brought up in an atmosphere where it was impossible to spoil, "screaming developed the lungs", and carrying on hands "worsened the child's posture." In general, we have a “territory with a deficit of positive attention to children”. At first, Russian women simply stopped galloping horses, then they extinguished the huts, and in the end they were also driven to factories for complete "liberation." You understand yourself: with a child around your neck, neither in a burning hut, nor in a factory. So in our country of "strong and independent" motherly love and tenderness is practically terra incognita. This should be learned from specialists.
For example, learn to "mirror positive" and "contain".
“Positive mirroring” - all these “uchi-ways”, “how good I ate!”, “What a fine fellow, he drank himself!”, “You are my best!”. And also: “What is this? Ah, bunny ... What a beautiful zaaaaika! " - in response to the chaotic interweaving of pencil lines. In a word, sheer lisping and pampering in the understanding of women born in the USSR - that is why we are so surprised when we find ourselves in countries where all passers-by admire children, that is, where there is no deficit of positive attention to children, as in Russia.
If a child in childhood lacks positive mirroring, if he is only constantly assessed ("Trojak ?! And this is a shame for you, excellent pupils!") - then the child grows into a depressed and insecure adult who depends on the opinions of other people, therefore that at one time he did not receive confirmation of love from his mother. Who posts every step on Instagram in search of likes - read, "in anticipation of positive mirroring." So that someone finally appreciates and loves him, since his parents did not do this in childhood.
So when a child does not succeed, and he runs to you for consolation, there is no need to "educate" him in the spirit of "Well, here it is again, you are to blame, I told you" - just hug him, have pity and comfort. Even if he lied, he most likely did it to please his mother: hug him, explain your feelings, talk to him. Do not be afraid to "pamper": this is how we help the child cope with stress - this is called "containment" or returning to the "psychological womb". This is how we show that studying the world and making mistakes is normal and not scary, because a mistake is not followed by immediate punishment, and mom continues to love us. This behavior forms the very "secret support" of parental love, which is included in the title of the book. And it is hard for someone who has no such support.
“It seems to us that someone who has been hardened by adversity since childhood will be better able to cope with it afterwards. This is not true. Research shows that those who have had a happy childhood and a happy family are better at coping with difficulties. Their psyche has a margin of safety, in stress it retains the ability to be flexible and inventive, they seek help and are able to console themselves. "
By the way, the fact that men are "not emotional" and do not understand women is, according to Petranovskaya, a social skill. I suspected this for a long time, but here, at last, I found a scientific explanation. It's just that they were not “contained” in childhood: in response to their grief, they were told: “Don't cry like a girl!”. Nobody consoled them - and they did not learn to console. And then they learn only by reading books. However, like many young mothers, who in childhood were also not very much pampered with sympathy.
Understanding the role of "positive mirroring" in the development of the child, we can assess how important the psychological, emotional state of the mother at this time. Her illness, fatigue, conflicts with her husband, fear for the future can lead to the fact that she can take care of the child, and positively mirror- not. Therefore, the best thing that family members, loved ones can do for a baby.- help his mother to be rested, calm, happy and spend more time in communication with the child. It is better not to sit with the child instead of her, but to take care of her herself: to free her from household chores, to give tasty food, to have a massage, to fill a fragrant bath. When the mother feels good herself, she will communicate with the child naturally and with pleasure.
Achieve results or let things take their course?
Petranovskaya considers kindergarten and school as a necessary evil. She is sure that one should not overestimate their role in socialization or even in learning. The most important communication skills are acquired by a child in a family. Developers in kindergarten are also nothing compared to mother's attention. It is impossible to learn anything in a general education school, because there is boring and constant stress (isn't it because after the test, and even more so after leaving school, all the "knowledge" disappears from the head so quickly?) If you are sending your child to a general education school, you need to help him survive this period, treating with irony and skepticism to all these twos and parenting meetings. At least not to feed the relationship with your child to the "Moloch of compulsory education," says Petranovskaya.
It is not surprising that a child does not perform well in school - the school simply does not meet the child's learning needs. Do not be surprised at the "bad companies" where a teenager is looking for teachers of life, because "The adults put the stone of compulsory education in his hand instead of the bread of real learning"... In addition, if a child has fallen under a bad influence, it means that you have no influence on him - and he is looking for understanding, close relationships and acceptance on the side.
So what to do in order to still raise a child as an intelligent, successful, well-socialized person?
First of all, just love him. This will allow the child to grow up happy, satisfied, open - and, as a result, successful in life.
"Empathy and Reflection- important components of emotional and social intelligence, and they determine the quality of human life much more than academic performance. "
According to psychologists, a child has an organic need for “his” adult. Therefore, the utopian idea of \u200b\u200bremoving children from the family and bringing them up harmoniously and correctly in some institution will not work. These are the people we are - the owners. We need to learn to love specific people and learn to love ourselves, feeling that we are also loved and accepted. This experience of love is basic. And this is exactly what the parent should develop in the child in the first place. All other developments are secondary.
“Today, many 'developmental techniques' have been turned into brands with a rather aggressive marketing policy, parents are taught in every possible way what needs to be invested in a child now, otherwise it will be too late, and he will be deprived of excellent prospects, his career will be ruined, he will only have to vegetate his whole life among the outsiders. To prevent this from happening to your child- urgently buy this book, this technique, pay for these lessons. "
That is, you understand, right? Nobody will teach you to give your child love, because it is free. Your love is free - in the sense that it will not give money to the producers of plastic "children's happiness". But your love is very dear to the child. This is just the case when it is clearly seen that spiritual wealth is much more important than material wealth. It is better to buy clothes in second-hand stores and spend more time with your child than to disappear at work to buy him all the coolest things and "make the baby happy." The most valuable thing you can give is your time, attention and love.
“A child of refugees who have been left without a stake and yard, have been under shelling and have experienced a shortage of food, live in a camp for displaced persons, not knowing what will happen to them next, can be serenely happy if their parents themselves do not lose their presence of mind. And, conversely, a child living in an expensive rich house, with the best material conditions, being completely safe, may not be well at all, because dad has a business and a mistress, and he almost never happens at home, mom is depressed, and already once tried to drink a package of sleeping pills, and constantly changing housekeepers and nannies are engaged in the baby. And it is he, and not his peer from a refugee family who has every chance of neurosis, enuresis, neurodermatitis and other consequences of severe prolonged stress..
So no elite tutors and expensive sections will be able to give a child what a mother can give.
It is not “developmental techniques” but relationships with parents that give children the best start in life.
Moreover, the abundance of "developmental techniques" gives a good chance to raise a child who is spiritually rich, but mentally ill. That is, very poorly socialized. For some reason, I immediately remembered stories about young geniuses who, having matured, do not become genius adults - they become dull social phobes, unable to communicate normally with people.
Petranovskaya, by the way, also says that love is important not only for the development of emotional intelligence, but also for the development of rational intelligence. It is impossible to study normally if you are not loved. The fact that abandoned children are lagging behind in development is often attributed to bad genetics and "alcoholic mothers." But it's not about the genes: just no one loves these children. Stress blocks their ability to learn. Once in a loving family, most of them quickly get rid of the "diagnosis" (read - stigma) and become quite intelligent children.
For domestic children, the same principle applies: the more you yell at a child for poorly done math, the worse he understands math. Because all his energy goes into dealing with stress.
If you do your best to "develop" the child, not allowing him to play calmly, his intellect does not develop, but slows down. And in general, according to Petranovskaya, “The best we can do for the development of our children at a tender age,- do not interfere with their play. "
If you really want to develop an interest in something in your child, only your example will help, which he will happily follow. Don't be surprised if your child doesn't read if he has never seen you with a book.
If you demand results from a child so that he will certainly be “faster, higher, stronger” - get ready for the fact that he will grow up demotivated, heartless and nervous, because he was not allowed to be himself, he was not accepted and his needs were not interested. Despite the fact that "here and now" you have a wonderful child who can be bragged to your friends.
« Some children generally come to the conclusion that "engaging"- this is the only possible pastime with the parents. Everything else is not interesting for parents, only to explain, develop, teach. Do you want to get mom for at least half an hour a day- pretend to be interested in your studies. Then the mother says that "her child is always happy to study, and even asks himself." Still would. You want mom- and not that you will love. At a tender age, the child is usually not able to resist, he will try to please his parents. And at the same time to learn that you yourself, your desires, your needs are not important, the result, achievement, success, place in the competition is important.
As you can see, being a loving mom is not easy. Really loving, and not giving out Jesuit maxims in the spirit: "I am torturing you, because well, I love you sooo much and I only want the best for you!" Do you remember how you felt when you were told this in childhood? In general, it is not necessary.
In a nutshell, Petranovskaya's recipe is less lecture and more hugs. And the rest will follow.
Tags:
For example, is 50 rubles a month a lot or a little? A cup of coffee? Not much for the family budget. For Matrons - a lot.
If everyone who reads Matrona supports us with 50 rubles a month, they will make a huge contribution to the development of the publication and the emergence of new relevant and interesting materials about a woman's life in the modern world, family, raising children, creative self-realization and spiritual meanings.
about the author
Philologist and Master of Social Philosophy. Author of blogs nenadoada.ru and antilubov.ru. Journalist, PR specialist, teacher of Russian, literature and other humanitarian studies. Mother of a daughter, wife of a husband, owner of a dog and a cat. Of course, a bit of a poet, and I was even printed a little. I'll write a novel someday :)
Who has not caught himself thinking: "But in our time ..."? Children read more, communicated more, studied more ... And in general - they were different. Is it so? What is the reason for the constant conflict between fathers and children, generations of the past and present? Interesting opinion of Lyudmila Petranovskaya, family psychologist and specialist in family placement of orphans.
- Vivid portraits are formed after historical cataclysms. Imagine an alpine meadow where all kinds of flowers bloom. This is the normal state of society: different families and children. When a powerful historical trauma occurs - war, mass repression, mass deportation - a lawn mower passes through this meadow, turns it into stubble: you no longer understand where the buttercup is, where is the poppy, where is the chamomile. The next generation has similar family situations: after the war, almost every family has an absent dad, an overworked mother with frostbitten feelings ... Starting from the third generation, this situation is eroded, and personal circumstances begin to play an important role. By the fourth generation, the effects of the trauma are generally erased. Grass grows again, flowers bloom.
The 90s were traumatic. They are incomparable with the war, nevertheless, the standard of living has fallen catastrophically, people are disoriented. And the generation of children in the early 90s, it seems to me, is most traumatized by the expression of helplessness on the faces of their parents, their uncertainty about the future. Hence, the children of this generation have insecurity and social passivity: I want everything to be, but I don't know what to do for this. And the deficit of the world: others have more, others have everything better ...
- Or maybe, on the contrary, they were spoiled by their parents, who worked hard like horses so that the child always had everything?
- I also had a time when I could not buy ice cream for the elder, and we cut snickers for the whole family. And in the life of the youngest, this was not at all - and, it would seem, she should be more spoiled. In fact, the opposite is true: now those who are 14-15 years old are already interested in charity, they are consumers to a much lesser extent. They are ready to give everything to everyone. It's not about being spoiled, but about being traumatized: the earning parents themselves did not have psychological safety and could not give the children. Children and teenagers of the early 90s are much more insecure. The next generation is calmer, easier to deal with restrictions (not counting, of course, children in special circumstances: for example, foster parents say something else). Now these experiences - who has what jeans, who has what phone - are very few.
- But there are other factors that affect this generation. The information environment has changed, stuck children to the TV and computer, distracted from the book.
- For us, the relationship of these children with the information environment is a black box. Here we are like a hen that has hatched ducklings and now rushes along the shore in panic. We don't really understand what they are doing there, how safe they are there. Recently, parents complained to me at a meeting that the children do not read. And I reminded them of Famusov, who was very concerned that his daughter was reading novels. Parents say: "Well, this is addiction!" And when you read Tolkien at the age of 12, and someone would take him away from you, would your reaction be different from withdrawal? The computer also makes it possible to live in a parallel reality.
We do not really understand the nature of their communication. It seems that they communicate less, but, on the other hand, they communicate continuously. In a sense, they and football watch together, and do not part for the holidays, although they may be in different countries. They still exchange jokes and pictures. This communication is of a different quality, but one cannot say whether it is better or worse.
There is a security issue. You can see a bunch of all sorts of rubbish by pressing a couple of buttons. On the other hand, in our childhood, someone also showed some pictures. The question is for the child to have an understanding adult. He will be able to explain that porn, for example, should not be watched, not because you will see something wrong, but because everything in life is not arranged like that: both relations between people and sex are not so arranged, but due to the limited experience you may not understand this.
“And yet these children do not listen to adults at all, they don’t give a penny to teachers.
- If children do not obey other people's adults (and not in general any adults) - this is wonderful in itself. This shows that a person has a normal attachment to his own, a normal orienting reaction: "I listen to my own, there are no strangers - at least until they show me that they can be trusted." The teacher must show the child that he is worthy of trust, then everything goes on normally. And if he shows that he is the source of violence, and not protection and care, then children behave accordingly.
- Are the children dull? Let them look at themselves.
- University teachers complain that the quality of the training of applicants has fallen. Children learn worse?
- There are a lot of factors. And the fact that the strongest are leaving does not reach these teachers. And the fact that education in front of our eyes has ceased to be a social lift, which greatly discredits it and reduces motivation. When we look at a parliament filled with female athletes and lovers, children realize that careers have nothing to do with education. And this does not cause an acute desire to learn. Education doesn't feel good. An acquaintance of mine, who returned from Germany, where she studied law after a Russian university, says: no one there believes that in our exam you need to know the text of the law by heart. Why teach him - here he is? You can know the law by heart, and then not understand how to deal with a specific case. And there are dozens of cases, cunning, specially selected, stuffed with difficult contradictory situations. All education is built on working with specific cases and discussing them. It’s difficult for students, they work 14 hours a day, seven days a week, for months to get their diplomas, but they don’t have the feeling that they are doing nonsense, that this is bullying. Children are not stupid, they understand everything, and if they offer nonsense, this has a very negative effect on their motivation.
- How to treat all this?
- The revolution? I don't know what else the answer might be when social elevators don't work. And from peaceful ways: teachers can't stand their brains, and they will arrange a lot. In general, education does not need such a degree of control and regulation. In Moscow, and beyond its borders, even more so, it is now impossible to create a private school: not because there are no volunteers, but because there are so many regulatory and supervising authorities that the mission is impossible. Why is this? The state must monitor security at the most basic level so that no one opens a private school in the basement with rats and does not teach heroin injections. Everything else can be different. Let the parents choose: after all, children have very different educational needs, let there be an opportunity for each need. After all, people pay money for this in the form of taxes, which is why they cannot choose the right service for their child. It seems to me that if they were left behind from school, it would be a huge plus.
- It turns out: leave the children alone, are they all right? Fixing your society?
- Well yes. Conducted in America, where schools are very different, research, trying to distinguish good schools from bad. And they found out that it doesn't matter in what district the school is located, how rich it is, whether it is big or small, what kind of programs it has - classical, with Latin and Ancient Greek, or ultramodern. Another thing is important. First, the autonomy of schools - each with its own rules, boundaries, strategy. Second: active participation of parents in defining this strategy, cooperation with parents, but cooperation not as with customers of dry cleaning - here we brought you a dirty little one, and you will return a clean one to us - but their creative and material participation in the board of trustees. The third factor is the relationship of teachers with students: respect, attention, interest. These three factors make the school successful, whether it is a regular school in a residential area or an expensive private one.
