But that sort of thing is routine—that’s how a parent communicates in cases where a child already knows the rules. If your child already knows that we clean up before bed, or dinner, or nap—if they already know they need to take a bit of everything on their plate, and eat their vegetables before desert—if they already know not to hit their sibling, or take their toys—they don’t need a lengthy explanation—at most, they might need a reminder.
But of course, there are always new situations. I mean, little Gianna didn’t know that stuffing Kleenex in the toaster oven* was wrong—she may have suspected that her parents would not be pleased—but she doesn’t know enough about electricity and fire and paper to understand why her actions with the tissue were an issue.
It’s tempting here to roll out “Sweetheart, I love you, but you can’t do that; you see, the toaster gets very hot sometimes, and it could burn the tissues and that would hurt you.”
And that’s fine; explaining in a context like this is fine—a good idea, even. This is how preschoolers learn science.** But there’s a major problem with that phrasing.
I love you, BUT …
That’s not right, is it? Isn’t the correct formulation, I love you, AND …?
* As they used to say on Dragnet: “Ladies and gentlemen: the story you have heard is true. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.”
** Another true story.
2 comments:
Here a child first learns about phlogiston as the burnt tissue flies into the air.
Oh no, yes, one cannot learn about phlogiston too early.
Post a Comment