(800) 655-5843 / 1 (941) 729-9565 | Fax 1-941-745-3111 info@montessori.org
Peace and Punishment

Peace and Punishment

by | Communication, Discipline, Family Resources, MFA, Montessori Family Life, Montessori Grandparenting, Montessori Parenting, Montessori Teachers, Parent Education

An article on Discipline without Violence

There are many instances in Dr. Montessori’s work where she explains why she “eventually…gave up either punishing or rewarding the children”.(1) She explains that this method is “always a form of repression”(2), and is based upon our – in her opinion tragically erroneous – belief that children “come into the world bad and full of naughtiness.”(3) She found, after careful observation, that both punishment and reward were equally ineffective tools for supporting the type of development that she felt was important (i.e. the normalization of the individual and the valorization of mankind). In fact she observed that children were disinterested in both of these methods and often could not even tell the difference between them (4). For many of us our experiences of being punished, and – in some instances – administering punishment, have proven this to be an accurate assessment. And the overwhelming and ever growing body of scientific evidence (for instance that collected by Alfie Kohn in his comprehensive work, Punished by Rewards) has served to put a final nail in the coffin of “pop-behaviorism”.

So how is it possible that many parents – sometimes even parents who appear to be making so-called holistic or alternative parenting choices – still choose to use punishment and reward strategies? And, even more alarmingly, choose instead of some of the sophisticated control mechanisms at their disposal the blunt, archaic approach of physical punishment (i.e. pain-based negative reinforcement)?

My contention is that the core issue here is to do with an understanding of the role and function of the human will. Women and men can be easily dominated when their will is destroyed. History has born witness that although we may imprison, torture, or manipulate the minds and bodies of people they will remain free, for as long as their will is their own. Conversely when people hand over their wills their bodies and minds become the captives of foolish desires and suggestions. Knowing this, many powerful organizations or ideologies have sought to break or ensnare the wills of individuals. As Simone de Beauvoir would have it, oppression is most effectively enforced by “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them”(5).

The construction of man as evil and in need of control is a pervasive one; if we want someone to behave in a particular way there can be few more effective methods than labeling the obedient as good and the disobedient as evil. When we succeed in doing this we are able to more easily create self-justifications for our acts of violence, and – ideally – as the will is progressively obliterated the acts of punishment will become less frequently necessary. This notion is put forward by the psychologist and popular parenting guru Dr. James Dobson in his book, The Strong-Willed Child. He writes,

“…take charge of your baby now, hold tightly to the reins of authority, and quickly begin building into her an attitude of respect and obedience. You will need every ounce of awe you can muster in coming years. Once you have established your right to lead, begin to let go of the reins systematically, year by year.”(6)

This is a trend in modern discipline, surveillance, and punishment which the Parisian social historian, Michel Foucault, documented in his work, particularly Discipline and Punish. He explains how the emergence of the panopticon prison (and the work of Jeremy Bentham) in the late 19th century lead to a gradual loosening of restrictions as prisoners became the “principles of their own subjection” and increasingly “docile bodies” who “internalized the gaze” of their captors, whilst unwittingly submitting themselves to a variety of techniques of testing, scrutiny, and control.(7)

So what was Dr. Montessori’s perspective on the child’s will? Dr. Montessori points out that there is no lack of obedience in the world today, people all over the place are blindly accepting and following those authorities whose threats are most apparent. Terrorism and despotism in all of its guises from apartheid, to the “war on terror”, to the Third Reich are fueled not by strong wills, but by weak and broken ones who follow blindly even to their own demise. Dr. Montessori writes,

“This kind of obedience (breaking the will) is the real reason why vast masses of human beings can be hurled so easily to destruction. It is an uncontrolled form of obedience which brings whole nations to ruin. There is no lack of obedience in our world: quite the contrary! What, unhappily, is absent, is the control of obedience.”(8)

Dr. Montessori believed that a different type of obedience was necessary for the development of mankind. Her biographer and protégé E.M. Standing clearly identifies obedience as an act of will (i.e. acceptance of adult guidance) as well as the ability to act from a place of true choice (as opposed to idle curiosity) as chief characteristics of normalization.(9)

So, in a nutshell, Montessori holds that in order for a person to choose to be obedient it makes sense for her will to be allowed to develop to its full potential rather than being systematically suppressed. She writes,

“Conscious will is a power which develops with use and activity. We must aim at cultivating the will, not at breaking it. The will can be broken in a moments. Its development is a slow process that evolves through a continuous activity in relationship with the environment.”(10)

A few pages later she continues with the following convincing and amusing argument:

“The basic error is to suppose that a person’s will must necessarily be broken before it can obey, meaning before it can accept and follow another person’s directions. Were this reasoning to be applied to intellectual education, we should have to destroy a person’s mind before we could give him any knowledge”.(11)

Dr. Montessori was able to see, quite clearly, that treated the human will as a kind of pathology formed an integral part of the schooling system. She noted that,

“… the ordinary school not only denies the child every opportunity for using his will, but it directly obstructs and inhibits its expression. Every protest on the child’s part is treated as rebellion, and one may truly say that the educator does everything possible to destroy the child’s will.”(12)

When one is able to take on this perspective it becomes clear that the active subject in most classroom power struggles is not a child who wishes not to obey, but an adult hell-bent on the notion that she should. In her – often under utilized – book, The Child in the Family, Dr. Montessori states the following,

“Now we can see that the so-called problems of education, especially those relative to individuality, character and intellectual development, have as their origin the permanent conflict between the child and the adult. The obstacles that the adult places in the way of the child are numerous and grave, and the degree of their danger is dependent upon the consistency with which the adult resorts to them – armed against the child, as it were, with moral law, science and the will to direct him according to his own convictions. It is therefore the adult closest to the child, the mother or the teacher, who presents the greatest danger to the formation of the child’s personality. … The question takes on, therefore, universal proportions of a cyclical nature in that the problem passes from adult to child and from child to adult”.(13)

The cyclical nature of systems of intimate violence are particularly important because of the ways which the simple act of spanking or slapping not only perpetuates itself, but can in fact mushroom out of all proportion. This is explored more in the work of – among others – Riane Eisler(14) and Alice Miller(15). The time is now right for adults to take responsibility for their own wills, attitudes, and actions rather than capitalizing upon our human propensity to shift blame on to the most vulnerable in our communities. I think Dr. Montessori puts it beautifully when she writes,

“When I see how the numbers of naughty and difficult children are increasing today, I see it is not a question of the morality of the children, of something wrong inside individual children. It is a question of a lack in the parents more than in the children and attention should be directed to them rather than to the little children. If we are to make better conditions for the children we must consider the parents…. First change these grown-up people who are so anxious to give little children a moral education. Grown-ups must adapt themselves to the needs of the times. The central point for little children is their need to go in a certain direction towards the adult. Adults are ignorant and see the children in only one aspect. They see only the naughtiness of the children. So the conclusion is that if we are to have a better humanity the grown-ups must be better. They must be less proud, think less of themselves, be less dictatorial. The adults must look at themselves and say “Yes, I understand this problem.””(16)

And elsewhere,

“The first step in the integral resolution of the problem of education must not, therefore, be taken toward the child, but toward the adult educator: he must clarify his understanding and divest himself of many preconceptions; finally, he must change his moral attitudes”.(17)

Particularly in Western society, and especially since the onset of the Christian era, we have developed an addiction to dualism. This causes us to perceive many false dilemmas and the area of parenting and education is no different. We are told by supposed authorities that we must either punish our children or adopt an entirely permissive and laissez faire approach to child-rearing. I don’t perceive that either of these are viable options, and neither did Montessori. She was emphatically clear that “…the liberty of the children should have as its limit the collective interest”. However, she clearly outlined a method of partnering with children in developing their own path to full choice with regards to their behavior, rather than by punishing them and robbing them of choice. For instance, she proposes that,

“It is true that we have said and repeated often enough, that when a child is absorbed in his work, one must refrain from interfering, so as not to interrupt his cycle of activity or prevent its free expansion; nevertheless, the right technique now (for misbehavior) is exactly the opposite; it is to break the flow of disturbing activity. The interruption may take the form of any kind of exclamation, or in showing a special and affectionate interest in the troublesome child. These distracting demonstrations of affection, which grow more numerous with the disturbing activities of the child, act on him like a series of electric shocks and they have their affect in time. Often a question will serve, such as, “How are you Johnny? Come with me, I have something for you to do.” Probably, he won’t want to be shown and the teacher will say “All right. It doesn’t matter. Lets go into the garden” and either she will go with him or send her assistant. In this way… the other children will cease to be disturbed by him”.(18)

I think that the argument in favour of nonviolent approaches to dealing with children is both cogent and convincing. What remains is for us to turn. It starts with us each taking a stand and then sharing our practice and beliefs with those parents and educators who surround us. Our method supplies us with many tools. Each voice is important if we are to help families, communities, churches, schools, and nations to turn. Every moment that we walk with a child who is growing in their own will and power is spent manifesting peace on earth. What could we ever do that might be more noble?

Published in Montessori Leadership, June 2009.

 

1. Maria Montessori. (1966) The Secret of Childhood. New York, New York: Ballantine Books. 123.

2. Maria Montessori. (1912) The Montessori Method. New York, New York. Stokes Books. 25.

3. Maria Montessori. (1995). The Child, Society and the World. Oxford, England: CLIO Press. 77. See also Education for Human Development. 26.

4. Maria Montessori, 1966. Op cit. 122-123.

5. Quoted by Paulo Freire (2000) Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition. New York, New York: Continuum Books. 74

6. James Dobson, The Strong-Willed Child, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/effective_biblical_discipline/the_strongwilled_child.aspx

7. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, particularly from 195 onward.

8. Maria Montessori. (1988) The Absorbent Mind. Oxford, England: CLIO Press. 234.

9. Edwin Mortimer Standing, Maria Montessori: her life and work, 175 onward.

10. Maria Montessori, 1988. Op cit. p. 231.

11. Maria Montessori, 1988. Op cit. p. 234.

12. Maria Montessori, 1988. Op cit. p. 232.

13. Maria Montessori (1999) The Child in the Family. Oxford, England: CLIO Press. 70.

14. Riane Eisler (1995) The Chalice and the Blade. or Tomorrow’s Children

15. Alice Miller. (2002) For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence – 4th edition. New York, New York: Farrar – Straus – Giroux.

16. Maria Montessori, 1995. Op cit. 75.

17. Maria Montessori, 1999. Op cit. 68.

18. Maria Montessori, 1988. Op cit. 279.

The Flow of Montessori

The Flow of Montessori

by | Discipline, MFA, Montessori Education, Montessori Teachers, Psychology

The pre-eminent psychologist, Mihaly Csikszenthihalyi’s, famous inquiries into the psychology of ‘optimal experience’ have reshaped the way in which many disciplines – from sport to business management – look at concentration. His theory has explored a deeply satisfying state of consciousness, which he calls flow. I believe that this theory has much to offer to our understanding of Montessori’s developmental theory and classroom practice. I will not attempt a comprehensive comparison of these two wide-ranging theories here (those interested in other research comparing these two theories are directed to the work of Rathunde listed in the bibliography of this article), but will rather concentrate on four central ideas in Csikszentmihalyi’s thought, namely, (1) attention as psychic energy, (2) disorder in consciousness (psychic entropy), (3) order in consciousness (flow), and (4) the autotelic experience. With each of these ideas I will begin by explaining Csikszentmihalyi’s concept as succinctly as possible, I will then go on to draw comparisons to similar ideas in Dr. Montessori’s work, and then finally share some ideas around the applications of these ideas in the prepared environment.

Attention as psychic energy

Csikszentmihalyi begins by pointing out that there are limits to our consciousness (i.e. there is a finite amount of information which our consciousness can hold at one time) (1990: 28ff). He argues that we often under-utilize this capacity and that is often dispersed among many different tasks. By way of example he says, that if following a conversation requires that we process 40 bits of information per second and we are – for instance – able to process 126 bits of information per second we should be able to cover 3 conversations simultaneously, but only if we were to have all of our psychic energy concentrated on that task (1990: 29).

He proposes that we can understand the concentration of attention as the focusing of psychic energy. We are able to describe others by representing them in terms of a sort of psychic energy profile[1], e.g. focused energy, dispersed energy, imposing energy, stretched energy, a deep well of energy (cf. 1990: 32). This in turns leads us to further judgments (such as paranoid, achiever, etc.) (1990:33).

I would liken this to normalization. Normalization is a state of highly focused attention (psychic energy). Dr. Montessori taught that normalization’s “…principle feature never changes. It is “application to work”. An interesting piece of work, freely chosen, which has the virtue of inducing concentration rather than fatigue, adds to the child’s energies and mental capacities, and leads him to self-mastery” (Montessori 1988: 188). When we observe the traits of normalization – or deviation – in a child’s behavior we are seeing the way in which they concentrate on a piece of work. We are – through making concrete observations – creating a sort of psychic energy profile. This realization creates – at least for me – an entirely different level of clarity with regards to the role of the directress. I like the idea of thinking of different ways that we might represent this in terms of our record keeping and understanding, for instance by representing a child’s energy as it registers in our own bodies, or through artistic expressions.

Disorder in consciousness: Psychic entropy

Csikszentmihalyi writes (1990: 36), “One of the main forces that affects consciousness adversely is psychic disorder – that is, information that conflicts with existing intention, or distracts us from carrying them out. We give this condition many names depending on how we experience it: pain, fear, rage, anxiety, or jealously. All these varieties of disorder force attention to be diverted to undesirable objects, leaving us no longer free to use it according to our preferences. Psychic energy becomes unwieldy and ineffective”. This is the phenomenon that Csikszentmihalyi refers to as psychic entropy.

Likewise Dr. Montessori recognized that the child’s concentration can become dispersed with dire behavioral consequences. This is what Montessori refers to as deviation. On the contrary when a child enters the phase which Montessori calls normalization, through a focus of psychic energy, we can observe these behaviors disappearing almost miraculously. Montessori observed that when normalization took place, “The disorderly became orderly, the passive became active, and the troublesome disturbing child became a help in the classroom. This result made us understand that their former defects had been acquired and were not innate” (Montessori 1988: 182).

Csikszentmihalyi also notes that this disorder may result from external stresses, and that it may have a cumulative (or even permanent) effect on our psychic profile (1990: 37ff). I think that we should bear this in mind as we attempt to observe the psychic development of the child.

Order in consciousness: Flow

Csikszentmihalyi also identifies the opposite state to psychic entropy. He calls this state “optimal experience” or “flow”. This is a high state of order in which psychic energy flows freely. In this state the flow of psychic energy is in harmony with the goals of what we are doing, this is pleasurable to us and is thus repeated resulting in a cycle or flow of such optimal experience (1990: 39ff).

In my opinion this harmonizes with Montessori’s concept of normalization. She taught that, “Normalization is achieved through purposeful activities carried out with exactness giving rise to interest. This leads to repetition resulting into concentration. A sort of transformation takes place within the child and what you witness is an individual who is respectful not only to others but also to everything else in the environment. There is the individual who is at peace within and without. A phenomenon yet to be comprehended and put into practice even by the Montessorians let alone the rest of the educators” (Kripilani 2002: chapter 28). This is the way to happiness, growth, and effective work.

On another occasion she taught, ““When we took the personality of the child into account in and of itself and offered it full scope to develop in our schools – where we constructed an environment that answered the needs of his spiritual development – he revealed to us a personality entirely different from the one we had previously taken into consideration … With his passionate love of order and work, the child gave evidence of intellectual powers vastly superior to what they were presumed to be. It is obvious that in traditional systems of education the child instinctively resorts to dissembling in order to conceal his capabilities and conform to the expectations of the adults who suppress him” (Montessori in Epstein).

Our role is basically to identify this state and to protect it, and to avoid doing much else. Or, as Montessori said, “The work of the teacher is to guide the children to normalization, to concentration. She is like the sheepdog who goes after the sheep when they stray, who conducts all the sheep inside. The teacher has two tasks: to lead the children to concentration and to help them in their development afterwards. The fundamental help in development, especially with little children of three years of age, is not to interfere. Interference stops activity and stops concentration” (1998: 12).

The autotelic experience

Csikszentmihalyi (1990: 67) describes an experience which he calls autotelic. This word comes from the Greek roots: autos (meaning ‘self’) and telos (meaning ‘goal’). This is an experience in which an activity is its own goal, i.e. in which motivation is the reward which the experience itself provides.

This is in harmony with the characteristics of normalization, for instance the joy which comes from acting in accordance with nature and spontaneous repetition (Standing 1984: 178). In short it appears to me that the autotelic level of experience is far more important than the nature of the activity itself.

Clearly Prof. Csikszentmihalyi’s thought has much to offer to us in developing a clearer understanding of Montessori’s developmental theory and our classroom practice. I hope that you, the reader, will be inspired to explore this relationship further, and continue to allow our appreciation of Montessori’s theory to grow through understanding recent theoretical contributions.

Selected Bibliography

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, (Harper & Row, New York, NY) 1990.

Epstein, Paul “Montessori’s Education Vision”, http://www.highdesertmontessori.org/HTM/General%20Info%20Pages/montessori-vision.htm accessed March 2005

Kripalani, Lakshmi, Maria Montessori, 1946 Lectures – Karachi, India, Mammolina Press, 2002. www.mammolina.org

Montessori, Maria, The Absorbent Mind (Clio Press, Oxford) 1988.

Montessori, Maria, The Child Society And The World: Unpublished speeches and writings, (CLIO Press, Oxford, England) 1998.

Rathunde, Kevin, “A Comparison Of Montessori And Traditional Middle Schools: Motivation, Quality Of Experience, And Social Context” in The NAMTA Journal . Volume 28, No. 3, Summer 2003.

Standing, Edwin Mortimer, Maria Montessori, Her Life and Work (Penguin, Harmondsworth) 1984.

 

The Games We Play

The Games We Play

by | MFA, Montessori Education, Montessori Parenting, Montessori Teachers

Schools are strange places, don’t you think? We gather children together in this homogenous group, which in no way represents the diversity of real life (we divide them by age, and sometimes even by ability or gender), and then require an adult to make them do things that they don’t want to do “for their own good.”

The principles of freedom of choice and purposeful activity, and the protection of non-graded vertical groupings in a prepared environment, which exist in schools that adhere to the philosophy of Dr. Montessori, certainly help to mitigate the extent of the absurdity of a schooling system; however, the marked imbalance in access to resources and power that children experience will continue to be a problem for as long as it remains un-interrogated. So let’s look a little more closely at the way that we interact with the children with whom we share our lives.

There are essentially two ways in which we might choose to connect with ourselves and with those around us. The American psychologist Marshall Rosenberg refers to these as being two games that we can choose to play in any moment. The first game is one that most of us have been educated to play as a matter of habit. It is the game of “Who’s right?”

This game is characterized by an ethic of domination and submission and is fueled by moralistic judgments. In this game, someone has to be right and, as a result of the dualistic nature of the game, that means that someone also has to be wrong. As a result, we are either right (and have the right to punish others in order to compel them to agree with us) or we are wrong (and, therefore, deserving of punishment and deprecation).

Obviously, those with more access to structural power and resources tend to be more frequently right than others. The major currencies that are used to compel compliance in this game are fear, guilt, and shame. Only two responses are considered possible: submission or rebellion. Is any of this sounding familiar? The reality is that most classrooms in which I have observed, even in Montessori schools, seem to be playing this game most of the time.

Our other option is a game that Rosenberg calls “Making Life Wonderful.” When we play this game, we are not so concerned with who (or even what) is right and wrong. Instead, we choose to focus our energy on cultivating a sense of deep connection with ourselves, others, and the world around us, and we look for ways that we can contribute to making life wonderful.

For most of us, this means radically reassessing the ways in which we relate to the world, because we have been raised using a habitual language of judgment. Imagine if we were able to contribute towards living in a world where playing this game was our normal way of being together. Perhaps beginning with the children in our care is a good place to start.

Tomorrow’s Child / April 2013 / p. 19