What is Christianity Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

3. There must Be Authority

Back to Gentle Child Training


The first duty which devolves upon the mother in the training of her child—is the establishment of her authority over him—that is, the forming in him the habit of immediate, implicit, and unquestioning obedience to all her commands. And the first step to be taken, or, rather, perhaps the first essential condition required for the performance of this duty—is the fixing of the conviction in her own mind that this is her God-given duty. Unfortunately, however, there are not only vast numbers of mothers who do not in any degree perform this duty—but a large proportion of them have not even a theoretical idea of the obligation of it!

An Objection. "I wish my child to be governed by reason and reflection," says one. "I wish him to see the necessity and propriety of what I require of him, so that he may render a ready and willing compliance with my wishes, instead of being obliged blindly to submit to arbitrary and despotic power." She forgets that the faculties of reason and reflection, and the power of appreciating "the necessity and propriety of things," and of bringing considerations of future, remote, and perhaps contingent good and evil to restrain and subdue the impetuousness of appetites and passions eager for present pleasure—are qualities that appear late, and are very slowly developed, in the childish mind; that no real reliance whatever, can be placed upon them in the early years of life; and that, moreover, one of the chief and expressly intended objects of the establishment of the parental relation is to provide, in the mature reason and reflection of the father and mother, the means of guidance which the youthful reason and reflection of the child do not possess during the period of his immaturity.

The elements of parental duty and obligation. Indeed, the chief end and aim of the parental relation, as designed by the Author of nature, may be considered as comprised, it would seem, in these two objects, namely: First, the physical sustenance of the child by his parents, during the period necessary for the development of his strength. Secondly, the guidance and direction of the child's mind, during the development of his reason. The second of these obligations is no less a duty than the first. To expect him to provide the means of his physical sustenance from the resources of his own childish strength—would imply no greater misapprehension on the part of his father and mother, than to expect him to provide the means of his mental sustenance by his childish reason. The expectation in the two cases would be equally vain. The only difference would be that, in the failure which would inevitably result from the trial, it would be in the one case the body that would suffer, and in the other the mind.

The judgment and mental capacity, are more slowly developed than the body. Indeed, the necessity that the mind and conduct of the child should be controlled by the reason of the parents—is in one point of view greater, or at least more protracted, than that his physical needs should be supplied by their power; for the development of the thinking and reasoning powers is late and slow, in comparison with the advancement toward maturity of the physical powers. It is considered that a boy attains, in this country, to a sufficient degree ofphysical strength at the age of from seven to ten years, to earn his living; but his reason is not sufficiently mature to make it safe to entrust him with the care of himself and of his affairs—until he is of more than twice that age. The parents can actually thus sooner look to the physical strength of the child for his support, than they can to his reason for his guidance.

To aid in the development and cultivation of the child's thinking and reasoning powers, is doubtless a very important part of a parent's duty. But to cultivate these faculties is one thing, while to make any control which may be procured for them over the mind of the child the basis of government, is another. To explain the reasons of our commands is excellent—if it is done in the right time and manner. The wrong time is when the question of obedience is pending; and the wrong manner is to offer them inducements to obey. We may offer reasons for recommendations, when we leave the child to judge of their force, and to act according to our recommendations or not, as his judgment shall dictate. But reasons should never be given as inducements to obey a command. The more completely the obedience to a command rests on the principle of simple submission to parental authority—the easier and better it will be both for parent and child.

MANNER of exercising authority. Let no reader fall into the error of supposing that the mother's making her authority the basis of her government, renders it necessary for her to assume a stern and severe demeanor towards her children, in her interactions with them; or to issue her commands in a harsh, abrupt, and imperious manner; or always to refrain from explaining, at the time, the reasons for a command or a prohibition. The more gentle the manner, and the more kind and courteous the tones in which the mother's wishes are expressed, the better; provided only that the wishes, however expressed, are really the mandates of an authority which is to be yielded to at once, without question or delay. Regardless of the manner of the parents' commands, the children are to be trained to understand, that they are immediately to obey.

A second objection. Another large class of mothers are deterred from making any efficient effort to establish their authority over their children— for fear of thereby alienating their affections. "I wish my child to love me," says a mother of this class. "That is the supreme and never-ceasing wish of my heart; and if I am continually thwarting and constraining her by my authority, she will soon learn to consider me an obstacle to her happiness, and I shall become an object of her aversion and dislike." There is some truth, no doubt, in this statement thus expressed—but it is not applicable to the case, for the reason that there is no need whatever for a mother's "continually thwarting and constraining" her children in her efforts to establish her authority over them. The love which they will feel for her, will depend in a great measure upon the degree in which she sympathizes and takes part with them in their occupations, their enjoyments; their disappointments, and their sorrows, and in which she indulges their child-like desires. The love, however, awakened by these means will be not weakened nor endangered—but immensely strengthened and confirmed—by the exercise on her part, of a just and equitable—but firm and absolute, authority. The mother who does not govern her children, is bringing them up not to love her—but to despise her!

EFFECT of authority. If, besides being their playmate, their companion, and friend—indulgent in respect to all their harmless fancies, and patient and forbearing with their childish faults and foolishness—she also exercises in cases requiring it, an authority over them which, though just and gentle—is yet absolute and supreme—she rises to a very exalted position in their view. Their affection for her has infused into it an element which greatly aggrandizes and ennobles it—an element somewhat analogous to that sentiment of lofty devotion, which a loyal subject feels for his queen.

Effect of the LACK of authority.

On the other hand, if she is inconsiderate enough to attempt to win a place in her children's hearts by the sacrifice of her maternal authority—she will never succeed in securing a place there, which is worth possessing. The children will all, girls and boys alike, see and understand her weakness—and they will soon learn to look down upon her, instead of looking up to her, as they ought. As they grow older they will all become more and more unmanageable. The insubordination of the boys will in time grow to be intolerable, and it will become necessary to send them away to school, or to adopt some other plan for ridding the house of their turbulence, and relieving the poor mother's heart of the insupportable burden she has to bear in finding herself despised and trampled upon by her own children.

In the earlier years of life, the feeling entertained for their mother in such a case by the children is simply that of contempt; for the sentiment of gratitude which will modify it in time, is very late to be developed, and has not yet begun to act. In later years, however, when the boys have become young men, this sentiment of gratitude begins to come in—but it only changes the contempt into pity. And when years have passed away, and the mother is perhaps in her grave, her sons think of her with a mingled feeling excited by the conjoined remembrance of her helpless imbecility and of her true maternal love, and say to each other, with a smile, "Poor dear mother! what a time she had of it trying to govern us boys!"

If a mother is willing to have her children thus regard her with pure and simple contempt while they are children; and with contempt transformed into pity, by the infusion of a tardy sentiment of gratitude, when they are grown—she may try the plan of endeavoring to secure their love by 'indulging' them without 'governing' them. But if she sets her heart on being the object through life of their respectful love—she she 'must govern' them.

'Indulgence'.

A great deal is said sometimes about the evils of indulgence in the management of children; and so far as the condemnation refers only to indulgence in what is injurious or evil, it is doubtless very just. But the harm is not in the indulgence itself—that is, in the act of affording gratification to the child—but in the injurious or dangerous nature of the things indulged in. It seems to me that children are not generally indulged enough. They are thwarted and restrained in respect to the gratification of their harmless wishes a great deal too much. Indeed, as a general rule, the more that children are gratified in respect to their childish fancies and impulses, and even their caprices, when no evil or danger is to be apprehended, the better.

When, therefore, a child asks, "May I do this?" or, "May I do that?" the question for the mother to consider is not whether the thing proposed is a wise or a foolish thing to do—that is, whether it would be wise or foolish for 'her', if she, with her ideas and feelings, were in the place of the child—but only whether there is any harm or danger in it; and if not, she should give her ready and cordial consent.

'Antagonism between Free Indulgence and Absolute Control'.

There is no necessary antagonism, nor even any inconsistency, between the freest indulgence of children—and the maintenance of the most absolute authority over them. Indeed, the authority can be most easily established in connection with great liberality of indulgence. At any rate, it will be very evident, on reflection, that the two principles do not stand at all in opposition to each other, as is often vaguely supposed. Children may be greatly indulged—and yet perfectly governed. On the other hand, they may be continually checked and thwarted—and their lives made miserable by a continued succession of vexations, restrictions and refusals—and yet not be governed at all. An example will, however, best illustrate this.

'Mode of Management with Louisa'.

A mother, going to the village by a path across the fields, proposed to her little daughter Louisa to go with her for a walk.

Louisa asked if she might invite her cousin Mary to go too. "Yes," said her mother; "I think she is not at home; but you can go and see, if you like."

Louisa went to see—and returned in a few minutes, saying that Mary was not at home.

"Never mind," replied her mother; "it was polite in you to wish to invite her."

They set out upon the walk. Louisa runs hither and thither over the grass, returning continually to her mother to bring her flowers and curiosities. Her mother looks at them all, seems to approve of—and to sympathize in, Louisa's wonder and delight—and even points out new charms in the objects which she brings to her, that Louisa had not observed.

At length Louisa spied a butterfly.

"Mother," said she, "here's a butterfly. May I run and catch him?"

"You may try," said her mother.

Louisa ran till she was tired—and then came back to her mother, looking a little disappointed.

"I could not catch him, mother."

"Never mind," said her mother, "you had a good time trying, at any rate. Perhaps you will see another by-and-by. You may possibly see a bird—and you can try and see if you can catch him."

So Louisa ran off to play again, satisfied and happy.

A little farther on a pretty tree was growing, not far from the path on one side. A short, half-decayed log lay at the foot of the tree, overtopped and nearly concealed by a growth of raspberry-bushes, grass—and wild flowers.

"Louisa," said the mother, "do you see that tree with the pretty flowers at the foot of it?"

"Yes, mother."

"I would rather not have you go near that tree. Come over to this side of the path—and keep on this side till you get by."

Louisa began immediately to obey—but as she was crossing the path she looked up to her mother and asked why she must not go near the tree.

"I am glad you would like to know why," replied her mother, "and I will tell you the reason as soon as we get past."

Louisa kept on the other side of the path until the tree was left well behind—and then came back to her mother to ask for the promised reason.

"It was because I heard that there was a wasp's nest under that tree," said her mother.

"A wasp's nest!" repeated Louisa, with a look of alarm.

"Yes," rejoined her mother, "and I was afraid that the wasps might sting you."

Louisa paused a moment—and then, looking back towards the tree, said, "I am glad I did not go near it."

"And I am glad that you obeyed me so readily," said her mother. "I knew you would obey me at once, without my giving any reason. I did not wish to tell you the reason, for fear of frightening you while you were passing by the tree. But I knew that you would obey me without any reason. You always do—and that is why I always like to have you go with me when I take a walk."

Louisa is much gratified by this commendation—and the effect of it—and of the whole incident, in confirming and strengthening the principle of obedience in her heart, is very much greater than rebukes or punishments for any overt act of disobedience could possibly be.

These and similar incidents marked the whole progress of the walk.

We see that in such a case as this, firm government and free indulgence are conjoined; and that, far from there being any antagonism between them, they may work together in perfect harmony.

'Mode of Management with Hannah'.

On the other hand, there may be an extreme limitation in respect to a mother's indulgence of her children, while yet she has no government over them at all. We shall see how this might be by the case of little Hannah.

Hannah was asked by her mother to go with her across the fields to the village under circumstances similar to those of Louisa's invitation, except that the real motive of Hannah's mother, in proposing that Hannah should accompany her, was to have the child's help in bringing home her parcels.

"Yes, mother," said Hannah, in reply to her mother's invitation, "I would like to go; and I will go and ask cousin Sarah to go too."

"Oh no!" rejoined her mother, "why do you wish Sarah to go? She will only be a trouble to us."

"She won't be any trouble at all, mother—and I mean to go and ask her," said Hannah; and, putting on her bonnet, she set off towards the gate.

"No, Hannah!" insisted her mother, "you must not go. I don't wish to have Sarah go with us today."

Hannah paid no attention to this prohibition—but ran off to find Sarah. After a few minutes she returned, saying that Sarah was not at home.

"I am glad of it," said her mother; "I told you not to go to ask her—and you did very wrong to disobey me. I have a great mind not to let you go yourself."

Hannah ran off in the direction of the path, not caring for the censure or for the threat, knowing well that they would not result in any punishment.

Her mother followed. When they reached the pastures, Hannah began running here and there over the grass.

"Hannah!" said her mother, speaking in a stern and reproachful tone; "why do you keep running about all the time, Hannah? You'll get tired out before we get to the village—and then you'll be pestering me to let you stop and rest. Come and walk along quietly with me."

But Hannah paid no attention whatever to this command. She ran to and fro among the rocks and clumps of bushes—and once or twice she brought to her mother flowers or other curious things that she found.

"Those things are not good for anything, child," said her mother. "They are nothing but common weeds and trash. Besides, I told you not to run about so much. Why can't you come and walk quietly along the path, like a sensible person?"

Hannah paid no attention to this reiteration of her mother's command—but continued to run about as before.

"Hannah," repeated her mother, "come back into the path. I have told you again and again that you must come and walk with me—and you don't pay the least heed to what I say. By-and-by you will fall into some hole, or tear your clothes against the bushes, or get pricked with the briers. You must not, at any rate, go a step farther from the path than you are now."

Hannah walked on, looking for flowers and curiosities—and receding farther and farther from the path, for a time—and then returning towards it again, according to her own fancy or caprice, without paying any regard to her mother's directions.

"Hannah," said her mother, "you must not go so far away from the path. Then, besides, you are coming to a tree where there is a wasps' nest. You must not go near that tree; if you do, you will get stung."

Hannah went on, looking for flowers—and gradually drawing nearer to the tree.

"Hannah!" exclaimed her mother, "I tell you that you must not go near that tree. You will certainly get stung."

Hannah went on—somewhat hesitatingly and cautiously, it is true—towards the foot of the tree—and, seeing no signs of wasps there, she began gathering the flowers that grew at the foot of it.

"Hannah! Hannah!" exclaimed her mother; "I told you not to go near that tree! Get your flowers quick, if you must get them—and come away."

Hannah went on gathering the flowers at her leisure.

"You will certainly get stung," said her mother.

"I don't believe there is any hornets' nest here," replied Hannah.

"Wasps' nest," said her mother; "it was a wasps' nest."

"Or wasps' nest either," said Hannah.

"Yes," rejoined her mother, "the boys said there was."

"That's nothing," said Hannah; "the boys think there are wasps' nests in a great many places where there are not any."

After a time Hannah, having gathered all the flowers she wished for, came back at her leisure towards her mother.

"I told you not to go to that tree," said her mother, reproachfully.

"You told me I would certainly get stung if I went there," rejoined Hannah, "and I didn't."

"Well, you might have got stung," said her mother—and so walked on.

Pretty soon after this Hannah said that she was tired of walking so far—and wished to stop and rest.

"No," replied her mother, "I told you that you would get tired if you ran about so much; but you would do it—and so now I shall not stop for you at all."

Hannah said that she would stop, at any rate; so she sat down upon a log by the way-side. Her mother said that she would go on and leave her. So her mother walked on, looking back now and then—and calling Hannah to come. But finding that Hannah did not come, she finally found a place to sit down herself and wait for her.

'The principle illustrated by this case'.

Many a mother will see the image of her own management of her children reflected without exaggeration or distortion, in this looking-glass; and, as the former story shows how the freest indulgence is compatible with the maintenance of the most absolute authority, this story enables us to see how a perpetual resistance to the impulses and desires of children may co-exist with no government over them at all.

Let no mother fear, then, that the measures necessary to establish for her the most absolute authority over her children, will at all curtail her power to promote their happiness. The maintenance of the best possible government over them will not in any way prevent her yielding to them all the harmless gratifications they may desire. She may indulge them in all their childish impulses, fancies—and even caprices, to their heart's content, without at all weakening her authority over them. Indeed, she may make these very indulgences the means of strengthening her authority. But without this parental authority, she can never develop in the hearts of her children the only kind of love that is worth possessing—namely, that in which the feeling of affection is dignified and ennobled, by the sentiment of respect.

'One more consideration'.

There is one consideration which, if properly appreciated, would have an overpowering influence on the mind of every mother in inducing her to establish and maintain a firm authority over her child during the early years of his life—and that is the possibility that he may not live to reach maturity. Should the terrible calamity befall her of being compelled to follow her boy, yet young, to his grave, the character of her grief—and the degree of distress and anguish which it will occasion her, will depend very much upon the memories which his life and his relations to her have left in her soul. When she returns to her home, bowed down by the terrible burden of her bereavement—and wanders over the now desolated rooms which were the scenes of his childish occupations and joys—and sees the now useless playthings and books—and the various objects of curiosity and interest with which he was so often and so busily engaged, there can, of course, be nothing which can really assuage her overwhelming grief. But it will make a vital difference in the character of this grief, whether the image of her boy, as it takes its fixed and final position in her memory and in her heart—is associated with recollections of docility, respectful regard for his mother's wishes—and of ready and unquestioning submission to her authority and obedience to her commands; or whether, on the other hand, the picture of his past life, which is to remain forever in her heart, is to be distorted and marred by memories of outbreaks, acts of ungovernable impulse and insubordination, habitual disregard of all authority—and disrespectful, if not contemptuous, treatment of his mother.

There is a sweetness as well as a bitterness of grief; and something like a feeling of joy and gladness will spring up in the mother's heart—and mingle with and soothe her sorrow, if she can think of her boy, when he is gone, as always docile, responsive, submissive to her authority—and obedient to her commands. Such recollections, it is true, cannot avail to remove her grief—perhaps not even to diminish its intensity; but they will greatly assuage the bitterness of it—and wholly take away its 'sting'.


Back to Gentle Child Training