The Power of Prime

There is a difference between love and disapproval.

As a father, I can tell you that there will be no time now or ever that I will not love my daughter. It is, I believe, for me, at least, impossible. There are undoubtedly people that will not fall into this category, but they would be a minority, I think.

There are times when I can be disappointed or disapproving of my daughter, but to ever tease the idea that my love for her ebbs and flows is utterly ridiculous. If anything, it grows stronger by the second (and if this sounds odd to you at all, change some poopy panties after a particularly heinous nose surgery and not wonder why you are ever doing it. it's called 'unconditional love'.)

I think the point you are trying to make is that we, as parents, are not just supposed to 'accept' the kids for 'who they are', and I couldn't agree more. No less can a farmer just stand by and abide his crops to grow unattended, can we do the same to our children. Who they are is cobbled together from the lessons we teach them, the experiences we have with one another and the time we spend together. Some of it sticks, they make some up, and there they are. Knowing right and wrong, how to treat people and how to be a good person aren't things that they will just 'come up with' on their own, or, if they did, it may be more difficult than just teaching them. We send them to school to learn math and physics... why don't we just let them figure that out alone, too?

Anyways, the point you are making is sounds, but as we all know in our language driven society, where words mean more than intentions sometimes, I feel you must choose your words a bit more carefully.

You do not withhold your love. That will destroy a child's mind and remove from them the one stability they need - a loving home with (a) loving parent(s).

Withhold your approval. Children all want to make their parents happy - honestly, I think all humans just want to make each other happy, but that's my romantic side. Withholding approval, I think, is what you were really going for. There's never any reason to withhold love from your child.

With all due respect Dr. Jim, your argument seems based on a conflicting sort of subjective opinions rather than a reliable set of facts and current science.

This is could potentially mislead parents who are looking for new ways of interacting with their children.

Conditional love, as you mentioned "was a way to maintain control, foster conformity, and instill certain values and beliefs held by parents and society at large."

As a parent, this is not the goal for my child and for the many parents I meet each day, this is not what they are seeking. The qualities that I hope that my child grows up to emulate are qualities that I strive to practice every day.

Through modeling - she will learn. Fear-based parenting promotes an antiquated view of children. Change happens through relationship. Parenting is not something that is "done" to a child. It is about learning how to be in a relationship with a child.

Humans are social beings and we learn through our relationships with others. My child is more likely to be influenced by me if I show her that we have an unbreakable bond, that I will not judge her actions but gently guide her toward better choices with compassion and understanding.

"If you look at unconditional love carefully you see why this grand experiment failed. By taking away conditional love, parents lost their ability to influence their children."

I do not know which experiment you are referring to as I have not yet seen a generation of children raised without violence let alone unconditional love. Perhaps you are referring to a misguided movement of permissive parenting, where parents let their children grow without guidance, support or limits. This is not a fair or accurate definition of unconditional parenting.

"you probably do not act lovingly when your children are disobedient, selfish, whiny, or are cruel to their siblings."

Yes, because this is when she most needs my love. I would not dream of removing my emotional support from any child who was acting in any of those ways because I know that those behaviors are acts of communication coming from a place of unmet needs, fear or stress. I know this because I know how I want to behave in those situations when my own needs are unmet and I am stressed out.

"Your child's perception is that love has been temporarily suspended. To your child, it feels like, "I did something wrong and my parents don't love me now."

This is exactly why "conditional love" is detrimental to the emotional intelligence of children, to their ability to form and maintain relationships with peers, to maintain a sense of internal motivation and to know that they can successfully navigate the ups and downs of life.

Behavior modification is ineffective and possibly damaging to the long term emotional health of families everywhere. Supernanny might be the current fad in parenting but the research clearly supports another view of children.

I hope that you would consider the works of John Gottman, Daniel Siegel, Marshall Rosenberg and the many others supporting love-based parenting models, empathy in communication and the most current research in brain science.

Unconditional love is good. Undconditional BEHAVIOR is bad.

First of all, thanks to all for your thoughtful responses to my post. I figured my position would cause some strong reactions.

Let me clarify my thoughts.

@Chris Skinner: As the father of two little girls, I totally know what you mean and love for them. At the same time, I'm not talking about what we as parents feel, but rather what children perceive, and I believe that they do perceive loss of love. They don't know the difference between withholding love and approval. I think love can be used as a tool or a weapon. Too often, as I mentioned, it is used as a weapon to control rather than as a tool to teach. "Withholding love" (what you call disapproval, but what kids perceive as withholding love) can be a great tool for teaching children essential values as long as it is only withheld briefly and love is heaped back on them in short order.

@Lori: Yes, modeling is a powerful tool, but not the only tool. Early in a child's life, they will do anything get your love (approval). I believe that tool can be used in a very positive and healthy way, not to control, but to teach, after which they will hopefully internalize the messages.

I agree that "My child is more likely to be influenced by me if I show her that we have an unbreakable bond, that I will not judge her actions but gently guide her toward better choices with compassion and understanding." But there are other ways to influence children in healthy ways. Your perspective is very nice, but it's also not the way things often work in the real world of parenting. Parents get frustrated and angry, and kids need to learn that their actions have all kinds of consequences. It would be disingenuous (and downright impossible) for parents not to express those feelings to their children (in a healthy way, meaning not abusive). Such reactions are part of being human and will actually help children learn about emotions.

Sometimes, parents need to be "tough" on their children, by which I don't mean angry, controlling, or mean-spirited, but rather knowing what is best for them and doing what is best for them in a firm, yet calm way. Compassion and understanding are nice, but don't always work when your child won't bring her dishes to the sink or act in a safe way on a busy street.

Also, I think we do and should judge our children all of the time. The problem is that many parents today judge their children based on their grades, results, and appearance, rather than on essential values. Of course, we may be judging their behavior, not who they are, but I stand by my view that children up to a certain age can't make that distinction.

I agree with most of what you say. At the same time, I haven't found, both in my work and as a parent, that your approach always works. Kids don't always act out for some unmet needs, instead, they're just being kids testing their world. And if we allow them to go too far, they learn that they can.

Children are resilient little beings and they can take a lot of bad stuff and be just fine. The key for me in developing healthy children isn't what parents do in any given situation (unless it's abuse or trauma), but rather what the preponderous of messages are over time. If the messages are mostly good, kids turn out fine. Yes, lots of love, compassion, and empathy, but also a good dose of toughness (as I defined above) to prepare them for the real world (which they will find isn't full of love, compassion, and empathy).

Sorry for being long winded.

Hope that helps clarify things.

Jim,

Now that you clarify, I believe we are both on the same side of the aisle, merely using different terms.

I cannot agree more that it is imperative to teach children in a manner that can be understood and help them mold into the wonderful little individuals they can be. My hangup was on the word 'love' vs. 'approval', and, with your making the distinction that, even though we will feel very differently about what we are doing (not loving vs disapproving), the child can not make that distinction, therefore, in their mind, no matter what you do, if you are disapproving, you don't love them.

You were not suggesting to stop loving them at all, but to, instead of falling prey to guilt over one of the most heart wrenching sentences I've ever heard in my life, "Daddy doesn't love me", to instead use that as a tool to shape and change them in a positive manner.

@Lori: I agree with almost everything you are saying, except for the one simple caveat that we need to show our children there are consequences for wrong actions. I may have misunderstood your post, but from what I get, if you show them how to act, they will shadow you and act in the manner that is appropriate.

In one example, you can show your child a hundred times not to cross the street without looking, but without some understanding of the consequences, they will not only not take that warning seriously, but they will attempt to ~test~ that warning. I know on my street, a simple test like that can involve serious injury. I would rather punish my daughter a hundred times with time outs and stern words than have her be hit by a car because she didn't grasp the warning.

Sometimes fear is a good tool, too. I want her to fear the street, right now, in limited terms: when she is alone - the street is scary. It makes me sad that she has to fear anything, but that's the horrid, dispassionate world we live in. I would rather her learn later a lesson of her father's simple minded failings on discipline than a permanent lesson about how dangerous vehicles are.

Again, I may have misread you. Love, I believe, is the greatest and most powerful tool for learning and growing. There are other, less palatable tools, though, that need to be in the mix there, too. :(

Thanks for both of your responses! I enjoy learning to be a dad every day, and posts like these, I think, help me on my journey.

Well said, Chris! Some additional thoughts.

Some lessons involving children can't be taught with love and compassion. BTW, I see being "tough" (as I defined it above) is an incredible form of love because it is totally in their best interests.

I have found that kids know the difference between my kind of tough and other kinds of tough (angry, mean, controlling). If they sense the former, they understand it because they feel the love behind it. If they sense the latter, they feel the negative stuff and that is where the harm comes from.

Kids are incredibly intuitive and will accept what you describe related to your street because they know it comes from your deep love for them and it actually builds them because they feel more secure in a potentially dangerous world.

Speaking of security, I don't believe in parent-child partnerships (just as I don't believe in parent-child friendships) because children need parents to maintain healthy power over them. The belief that there is someone in their world who is more powerful than they and can protect them from a scary world gives them the feelings of safety and security that enables them to feel confident and comfortable exploring their world, knowing that there is a safe harbor to which they can return when they have explored too far. That power is not malevalent, but the highest form of love because it is truly unselfish (as parents, we all want to be liked by our children, but that's not part of the job description, at least until our children grow up).

I have been reading these articles that Jim and Chris have been discussing and when I came to the last one about there should not be a friendship or partnership in the parenting relationship then that is when I thought, WHOA wait a minute.

I don't know how many times I have read on the internet as well in magazines and other places how people have had these types of relationships with their parents and still love their parents and how they have become a stronger person because of their special relationship with their parent(s).

I am going to say what I feel here, so forgive me if you don't agree.

I as a parent of two grown children (that were raised in the 80's & 90's) I believe that "unconditional love" is the only way to raise a child. Yes, I believe children should be taught right from wrong and what the consequences( not abuse) are for not behaving properly but don't withhold your love not even for a moment!!

You can "study" all you want on how to raise a child and you will someday have to admit that there is no right or wrong way to raise a loving child and still not have to withhold love or abuse them.

Every child, woman, man, and animal deserves to be loved unconditionaly!!

Maybe, I have ranted and not made much sense but I do love my children and grandchildren unconditonaly and they are just as loved (if not more than) as the conditional loved children in this world.

@Diana: Absolutely not a rant on your part, just your heart-felt perspective.

As Chris suggested, my vocabulary and what perspective I am taking seems to cause most of the disagreements with my ideas.

As noted in a previous post, of course, from our perspective as parents, we love our children unconditionally. But I'm talking about love from the children's perspective and they do, in my view, feel conditional love.

I stand by my position that parents and children should not be partners or friends (at least not until the children grow up; case in point, my wife has an amazing friendship with her mother). That doesn't mean that the relationship isn't friendly and supportive and very close and special. Or that they don't work together in their roles as parents and children (some degree of partnership). I equate friendship and partnership with equal power and that is, in my view, simply unhealthy for children. As I noted in a previous post, children need their parents to be more powerful than them. Not in any controlling or tyrannical way, but in being there to protect children when necessary.

Finally, I thoroughly agree that there is no single right way to raise children and certainly don't think I have all of the answers. At the same time, I sure believe that there are a lot of wrong ways to raise kids and I see many parents in my practice and in my own parenting world doing some things that are not best for their children. And there are a lot of bad messages from our culture about how to raise kids.

My goal is not to convince people that my ideas are right, but rather to challenge people's thinking and encourage them to think critically about how they are raising their children and perhaps motivate them to make changes.

It really sounded to me like the author must be joking. I can't imagine any relationship grounded in intimacy and respect having at it's core anything other than unconditional love. I certainly wouldn't be in my marriage if it wasn't clear that my husband and I love each other without conditions and the same is true for our children. Love without conditions means a person doesn't have to be anything or prove anything in order to be loved. Having a marriage and parenting relationship based on this is the best feeling in the world. If you look to all great wisdom traditions they are all predicated on unconditional love and teach that this is the way to human happiness and fulfillment.

Does this mean we never are angry at the ones we love? I don't think so. Does it mean we let them treat us unfairly without letting them know this isn't ok? No. Does it mean we don't set limits with them? Absolutely not. I have told my children on many occasions things like, "I love you very much but I do not like seeing you do X and I won't allow it." In that moment it is absolutely possible for them to both feel loved and know that their actions have been a transgression.

Compassion is not a nicey nice idea - compassion can take many forms including telling someone in no uncertain terms that what they are doing is not ok. This is very different than telling them that they are not ok and not lovable. Compassion and empathy are simply the ability to see another person without clouding by our own agendas and conditioning. Not always possible but always something to aspire to. Actions that arise from compassion and empathy can be gentle and they can be tough - but whatever they are I believe that the same action arising from compassion or arising from a withdrawal of love is experienced differently even by small children.

But perhaps we are beginning from different premises. I have no desire to get my children to be obedient and to conform. I want children who can resource themselves, think for themselves, feel and sense others, be authentic, be kind and generous and make wise decisions. I see these qualities in the adult children of parents who I truly admired. I don't believe this is possible within the context of my approval or disapproval and conditions put on whether I love them.

Hi Jim, I think you are confusing 'unconditional love' with 'permissiveness'. Children who receive only 'conditional' love ("I love you when you do this, I don't love you when you do that") are left confused and with damaged self-esteem.

So it is important that we give children unconditional love all the time. But that does not mean we don't set limits, or that we indulge them every time they want something they can't have, or allow them to do things they may not do. It helps them feel safe when we create safe boundaries.

In Aithoritative parenting we limit behaviour but we don't limit feelings. So if a child wants to grab a sweet or toy in the store, we may have to remove it and tell them, "Sorry Honey, but you can't have that."

The child will probably burst into tears, and this is were the tricky bit comes. An Authoritarian parent may slap the child or get angry, a Permissive parent may start bargaining with the child. Both are bad for the child.

In Authoritative parenting we can hold the child and affirm the child's feelings, "I know you wanted that very badly", and then we hold the child lovingly and let them cry out their disappointment in our arms, receiving our love, acceptance and understanding.

Children get over disappointments very quickly if their feelings are understood and "mirrored back" accurately. The child has learned, "I can't always have what I want, but Mommy understands my feelings. She loves me and makes a safe place for me to get my sad feelings out."

This is unconditional love, with firm boundaries, and acceptance of the child's feelings. It creates secure children who will later treat other with respect and compassion, because when they were little, we treated their feelings with respect and compassion.