Boundaries

from Ben's mom

Toddlerhood is most definitely upon us and with it a whole added dimension of parenting. We had to work through much of our parenting philosophy when Ben was an infant but as all parents probably learn, reality tempers philosophy. Parenting was much easier before I had a child.

We are currently working on boundaries. Breaching boundaries must have a corresponding consequence that is swift and associable to the mind of a toddler. A short-lived attention span means that it is useless to correct behavior that happened more than 30 seconds ago because the lesson will be lost. Getting Ben's attention is more difficult these days too. As a baby, he was very focused on his parents. Now, the fascination of the things and people around him makes us invisible to him at times. We regain his attention when he runs into a need he can't meet on his own.

I have had to recognize that discipline must be swift and immediate when it is used to prevent injury to himself or others. Breaching a boundary that causes ill effects (e.g. running out in front of a car or hurling large rocks at people) both are serious and the repercussions of such actions must be memorable in the best interest of the child.

Slightly less serious, is teaching Ben to prevent property damage. While, he needs to learn not to rip up his dad's work papers or twist his mother's photos, this is not as serious and therefore our response is important. As parents, we have the delicate task of teaching our son that doing damage to property is wrong but to balance that with the understanding that people are more important than things. Since Ben doesn't keep up his end of philosophical discussions well at this point, we have to rely on the degree of punishment. This is the area where I am willing to give three warnings before meting out consequences.

The last one is a little harder for me. It is recognizing that as the mother, my personality likes order and has an adult understanding of objects and their uses. However, my son doesn't yet have it all figured out and he is still exploring his universe. And while I know some that believe that children must only play with "toys" and only in a designated spot, I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with letting my son explore the kitchen cupboards or play with his dad's alarm clock. He is not "damaging" another's property, he is merely inconveniencing me. I will have a little more work and my view of the order of things is temporarily upset. The challenge is that when we are out visiting, it is difficult to explain to Ben that the rules have changed. He can't start the CD player, play in the cupboards or pull all the books out of bookshelfs to read one-by-one.

It would be much simpler for me to create boundaries that included these things so that I had one of those children who went to visit other houses and stayed in one place playing with "toys." But I am not so sure that this is in his best interest. I want to raise him to explore, seek answers, and to see if things have others uses than what is prescribed. So exploration is important. And going to other people's houses involves a lot of close monitoring. Soon I hope Ben will help with the cooking and be enthused with the utensils and the process that started when he was really young. Disciplining an action that is inconvenient to me is ultimately selfish. Parenting is often making the tough choice to do the more difficult thing, not the easy one.

Recognizing the distinctions between these three categories is helping me respond more quickly to Ben's actions so that the appropriate response comes immediately and has a better effect. Does this potentially hurt him or others, damage property, or is it merely an inconvenience?