I can't help feeling that the current assault on childhood therapy here and elsewhere is rooted more in subjective philosophy and politics than in objective science. In particular, this trend seems to reflect an almost religious faith in the beneficial properties of suffering and the fatalism that attends the Biblical view that humans live in a fallen creation.
I am also justifiably wary of absolute statements like the following:
"The role of societal messaging and the mindfulness movement in perpetuating the idea that negative experiences can always be traced back to childhood trauma or parenting mistakes."
I would think that the hosts of this podcast would be sufficiently sophisticated to eschew assertions that employ words such as "always" because they're simply not credible.
Furthermore, since common sense and life experience support the notion that poor parenting (which is real) and childhood trauma (which is also real) can cause emotional and psychological harm that continues into adulthood, the burden is on the hosts of the podcast and/or their guests to make a convincing case for other causal factors. Rhetorical statements such as the foregoing passage have a harmful invalidating effect without giving people any other way of understanding their lives.
Did you know that the parenting shows actually started much earlier in the US in the early 1980s? There were parenting classes at the YMCA that had been intended for younger or marginalized parents that filled up with middle class parents who weren’t confident about what they were doing. This is when the “Love and Logic” parenting classes started. There were phone in radio programs (think Fraser Crane) and a hugely influential PBS series with T Barry Brazelton.
What happened as a result was that parents began to internalize much of advise and to take it further with a sort of over think. There were other things going on too, like the discovery of fMRi scans that led parents to believe they could shape their baby’s brains. The (mainly bogus) Bruce Perry idea that trauma could cause brain damage led parents to try to shield their kids from any negative, difficult emotions.
This evolved into what we see today.
I think that what Sasha is picking up on with over involved, over confident parents is that they have so internalized expert childrearing that they feel supremely confident because every thing in society and culture is backing them up.
Personally I think the answer has so be to knit up the wisdom of the past (which it’s rejects out of hand now) with the needs of families and children now. I also think it really has to involve families and not just parents and kids. You can’t raise children through the force of parent child relationship. It’s too intense.
Loved the preamble of this session, about how different you both are! I think celebrating and understanding difference of character is so important in significant relationships … business too I guess. Just takes away from unhelpful judgement 👏🏻
"And putting the child on medication is a lot harder than sitting down with the parent and addressing unhealed aspects of the parent and helping them regulate and resolve their ambivalence around setting limits or their ability to tolerate times when their child is distressed because, let's face it, there are going to be times when a child is in distress."
Did you mean to say "putting a child on medication is a lot easier than sitting down . . ."?
It seems to me that working with the parent would be orders of magnitude harder than giving Timmy a pill.
I can't help feeling that the current assault on childhood therapy here and elsewhere is rooted more in subjective philosophy and politics than in objective science. In particular, this trend seems to reflect an almost religious faith in the beneficial properties of suffering and the fatalism that attends the Biblical view that humans live in a fallen creation.
I am also justifiably wary of absolute statements like the following:
"The role of societal messaging and the mindfulness movement in perpetuating the idea that negative experiences can always be traced back to childhood trauma or parenting mistakes."
I would think that the hosts of this podcast would be sufficiently sophisticated to eschew assertions that employ words such as "always" because they're simply not credible.
Furthermore, since common sense and life experience support the notion that poor parenting (which is real) and childhood trauma (which is also real) can cause emotional and psychological harm that continues into adulthood, the burden is on the hosts of the podcast and/or their guests to make a convincing case for other causal factors. Rhetorical statements such as the foregoing passage have a harmful invalidating effect without giving people any other way of understanding their lives.
I have so much to say on this.
Did you know that the parenting shows actually started much earlier in the US in the early 1980s? There were parenting classes at the YMCA that had been intended for younger or marginalized parents that filled up with middle class parents who weren’t confident about what they were doing. This is when the “Love and Logic” parenting classes started. There were phone in radio programs (think Fraser Crane) and a hugely influential PBS series with T Barry Brazelton.
What happened as a result was that parents began to internalize much of advise and to take it further with a sort of over think. There were other things going on too, like the discovery of fMRi scans that led parents to believe they could shape their baby’s brains. The (mainly bogus) Bruce Perry idea that trauma could cause brain damage led parents to try to shield their kids from any negative, difficult emotions.
This evolved into what we see today.
I think that what Sasha is picking up on with over involved, over confident parents is that they have so internalized expert childrearing that they feel supremely confident because every thing in society and culture is backing them up.
Personally I think the answer has so be to knit up the wisdom of the past (which it’s rejects out of hand now) with the needs of families and children now. I also think it really has to involve families and not just parents and kids. You can’t raise children through the force of parent child relationship. It’s too intense.
Loved the preamble of this session, about how different you both are! I think celebrating and understanding difference of character is so important in significant relationships … business too I guess. Just takes away from unhelpful judgement 👏🏻
“The future is tidy” makes me soooo happy… probably would strike fear into my husband.
"And putting the child on medication is a lot harder than sitting down with the parent and addressing unhealed aspects of the parent and helping them regulate and resolve their ambivalence around setting limits or their ability to tolerate times when their child is distressed because, let's face it, there are going to be times when a child is in distress."
Did you mean to say "putting a child on medication is a lot easier than sitting down . . ."?
It seems to me that working with the parent would be orders of magnitude harder than giving Timmy a pill.