Parenting and Power

Post Reply New Topic

I'm very curious about how the dynamic of power fits into parenting. This is a touchy subject, so if you feel that you're going to be offended, please do not read past this point.

_______________________________________________________________________________

We all know that parenting is an all-encompassing responsibility. You are responsible for another human life, and not just the physical survival of it. A parent must make sure that the child has food, shelter, clothes, and emotional well-being. There are often many difficulties along the way, even if the child is healthy and well-behaved. But being a parent comes with something very pleasant: power. A parent has complete power over a child, and can demand that a child listens to his/her every word. In other words, with all-encompassing responsibility comes all-encompassing control, much like that of a corporate CEO. This leads me to my next paragraph.

Picture a good parent, however your image of a good parent may be. Here is what most adults would say: such a parent always makes sure that the child has adequate food, clothes, and shelter; gives plenty of love and affection, both physical and emotional; treats the child with respect; clearly enforces rules, rewards, and consequences that are fair; has reasonable expectations of the child; and is always there if the child needs to talk. Most importantly, a good parent enjoys doing all these things. Now, let's bring power into the equation. With all these responsibilities, parent also have power over children, complete power. They can tell a child to do something, and expect the order to be followed; if not, a punishment ensues, even it's a fair punishment. So, there is clearly a sense of control.

In the end, it all boils down to this. Would parents enjoy parenthood just the same if they didn't have power over their children? While you recover from the shock caused by this question, let me elaborate. Suppose that children had as much power as parents: they could choose what to eat and when to go to bed; they didn't have to do any chores they didn't feel like doing; they could watch TV or sit on the computer until 3:00am; and they saw something they liked, they could just buy it without having to beg for it. (Hey, a parent does have those choices, whether he/she realizes it or not.) In other words, they'd be equals or almost-equals to the parents, except the size and age difference. Would the same good parents still enjoy parenthood?

I guess this would be a good place to point out that I'm not a parent. (Hey wait, don't stop reading.) And I really can do all those things I mentioned in the last paragraph anytime I please. Sure, I have to limit them due to my work schedule and having to keep healthy, but they're also available to me whenever I want. And as a result, they lose much of their taboo appeal. So I just don't do them, except occasionally.

Now, I'm not trying to label all parents as power-crazy tyrants. But the social dynamic of parenting and power always intrigued me. How does it all fit together? Does power actually help parents enjoy parenthood more? Or is there something that I missed? Please post your answers. Unlike a lot of threads, this is not a rant against my parents or parents in general. I've been browsing this forum for quite a while, and I really do what to know.

I'm a parent of two teenagers and also a teacher so I probably have more experience of the adult-child power dynamic than most.

You're correct that there's a close relationship and balance between power and responsibility. A good parent or teacher relinquishes power as a child matures and starts assuming more responsibility for him/herself. The levels of power and responsibility involved in caring for a newborn are very different from those involved in looking after a teenager- hopefully, anyway.

It all boils down to this- as a parent, I want a peaceful life and harmonious relationships with my children and I want my children to be happy. However, some things just need to get done- rooms need to be tidied, kids need to get to bed early enough to get a decent amount of sleep, homework needs to be completed, other people's rights need to be respected. If these things don't happen, everyone ends up unhappy in the long run. If my teenagers are able to do these things without me having to exert any "power", that suits me. If not (and it's human nature to feel lazy sometimes) then it's my responsibility as a parent to make sure that necessary things get done. I don't claim to have all the answers on this, though.

It's not about power, for me, anyway- it's about responsibility and teaching my kids to become responsible adults themselves one day. I'd happily live in a democratic household. However, if that means living in a messy house with kids who are tired because they've gone to bed too late the night before, who are squabbling with each other and are stressed because their homework is overdue, then I'm prepared to act like a bit of a dictator. I think kids need to feel the security of knowing that that their parents are there to step in and help them to manage their lives when they can't yet do it for themselves.

As a teacher, I see plenty of teenagers whose parents DON'T take that sort of interest, and they're not happy kids. I've also sometimes met parents who've insisted on exerting power over their children just for the sake of it, and their kids always end up rebelling eventually, and who can blame them? My own children seem to like me most of the time, so hopefully I usually get the balance fairly right. I don't claim to have all of the answers on this, though.

Brilliant thread topic.

Parents have not always had the same amount of power over their children as they do in today's society in the developed/western countries. Until just 100 odd years ago children had the right to work and earn money, and they didn't have to go to school, ( or be educated ), for instance. In many societies children look(ed) after animals, ran serious errands, serve(d) in shops, contributed significantly to the finances of their family, help(ed) with childcare, etc. Children could run away from home and find work, of some kind, from as early as 8-10.

On the other hand parents could do whatever they wanted with/to their children, and there were no laws against it. Parental power was absolute in that sense. This is no longer the case in most developed countries; government has intervened, and now parents have to "answer to" certain authorities. This means that in a sense parents are now "servants of the state" in the business of childrearing/childcare. If they are deemed to not be doing their "job" correctly the child is taken away from them. The parents are "sacked".

As a parent, perhaps particularly as an Aspergers parent, I actually find what power I have over my son a burden; a heavy responsibility rather than a pleasure. I think that I would personally prefer him to be as free as the class of people known as adults. I would still care very much that he not come to harm, and would want there to be laws which would protect him, as much as any adult, from danger/abuse.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 16 Apr 2009, 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

But I think that the most fundamental power a parent has over their child, and which has the most effect on their development, is that of size and of motor-skills in earliest infancy. This power-dynamic is not something which could be easily legislated away, because it expresses itself in when and how a baby is fed, when and how a baby is held, how its needs are responded to, what its needs are perceived to be in the first place.

It is that kind of absolute power over a small creature which I find the most terrifying. It is almost unavoidable, and is the perfect vehicule for unconscious abuse; for acting-out one's own babyhood, for replaying the inadvertent, ignorant, misguided, socially-approved "neglect"/"torture" which passes as child"care" in our society. For instance what might seem to a parent, because of how they were raised, like a perfectly reasonable "weaning" process, might seem like a labyrinthine series of obstacles to the babe in arms.

The baby wants to suckle; that is its primary/basic need, experienced as its heart's desire. When the mother begins to introduce other food, as directed by the books/nurses, etc, before a feed, the baby, already trained in most cases to eat at certain times which have little or nothing to do with when they are actually hungry, is likely to see this as another hurdle on the path to its heart's desire, and oblige by eating whatever pap society thinks is better food than breastmilk.

Of course they will have less space, and therefore less appetite, for breastmilk, but the baby will carry on doing as its mother wants, swallowing more and more of these obstacles in order to get to suckle, but because they have less appetite their heart's desire will be curiously tarnished, the pleasure in it diminishing/receding the more they work to get to it. At the same time access to the breast becomes rarer the more of the pap-eating "hoops" they obediently jump through to get to it.

The baby may spend much time and energy, developing brain power, on trying to work out exactly what sequence of events results in getting to their heart's desire, a sequence which will become more and more dizzylingly complex as time passes, until one day the baby doesn't even get one suckle at all in a day. I wonder at what point the baby realises that however many hoops it jumps through it will never make that breast turn up again, ( and that in fact it was the obedient jumping through hoops which led to it disappearing ).
.

Last edited by ouinon on 16 Apr 2009, 5:35 am, edited 3 times in total.

Whereas in "primitive" societies the baby turns its head to suckle, because it is carried on its mother's body, or wriggles and stretches so its mother feels or sees its movement, ( it doesn't have to go so far as crying, nor wait and watch the sunlight moving along the cot to know that sometime soon it will be able to eat, except that this guide is not infallible either ... in a clockwork society ), and it suckles as often and for as long as it wants, until breastmilk is no longer enough, and it wants to eat other things, and reaches out for them.

.

this is an interesting thread, because in a lot of ways I have had my most power-LESS experiences as a parent. I get the long term power and influence I have over my kids, but especially when my kids run away from me, know something I don't know, are influenced by someone else (for good or bad) that's not me, or even get sick....I feel helpless and powerless.

If someone were getting into parenting with the idea of gaining power, I think they would have a rude awakening.

Me too, but feeling powerless is not the same thing as having no power.

It is indisputable that both in law, ( rights, etc ), life-skills, and financially, a parent has immense power over their child(ren).

And for the first few years you have absolute physical power over them, which is most dangerous when is most unacknowledged/unrecognised, as I said above.

.

Ounion is right. You may be feeling powerless in those situations, but you still have power over your kids. They might be copying latest trends in how they dress and talk, but you can still punish them however you want when they act in way you don't like. By the way, what did you mean by the phrase "run away from me"? I hope you meant going out for the whole evening, as opposed to running away from home. But even then, you can enforce a curfew with just a single "be home or else" phrase. I'm just trying to reassure you that even when you feel powerless, you still have complete control, whether or not you realize it.

Just for fun, check out this poster on Despair.com. http://www.despair.com/power.html

Or do you?

A parent does not have complete power. There are legal limits on it, and the kids figure out pretty quickly that there is a point at which the parent doesn't have any further tricks up the sleeve to enforce their will.

The preschool boy runs away from mom in the park to see how far she will go to bring him back into her circle of vision, and what she will do. Will she chase him? Will she carry him back? Will she insist they leave the park? At this age, he is small enough that she can do any of the above safely and effectively.

But a boy who is twelve? I have no physical control over him, and he knows it. I may hold privileges that he seeks to have, and that gives me some control, but the balance is clearly shifting and he is quite well aware of it. A child of that age is already figuring out ways to assert his will over his parent's will, and can do it quite effectively when it is important enough to him. Fortunately, it rarely is. A child like mine would rather negotiate. But the simple act of doing so means he has already learned that power is not an absolute.

A parent who tries to make their control into absolute power will be abusive. That is the definition of abuse, and the source of it: abuse is about the need for power.

Most parents recognize their children as independent beings from the start, and the goal is to serve their best interests. The things I ask of my children are mostly for them - even if they don't see it. I'm not going to enforce something that is selfish. If I did, it could easily become a situation of abuse.

Are there times I might wish to assert more power? Yes. But how many tools are there? It's limited. Not that I would want to push the boundaries on that - I don't - but there are limits to how much control the available consequences give one. Which is, actually, how it should be: discipline is about teaching a child SELF control, not about exerting YOUR control. When you find yourself desiring the later, you've failed on the more fundamental job of teaching.

Parent's don't hold all the power. No one does.

After thinking some more about this I would say that although "having power over one's child", ( whether absolute or not, DW_a_mom, a parent does have power over their child ), is a burden/ responsibility, which can be exhausting/frightening, that power, because it allows for the expression/acting out/re-enacting/replaying of the powerful parent from one's own childhood experience, is part of the unconscious appeal of having children for many/most people.

And yet I cannot see any social-structure which would put a stop to that, because it is acted out in the "smallest", least legislatable things.

Studies show that people who were abused, ( by society's definition ), in childhood have a higher probability of abusing their own children. People tend to re-enact their own parents when they have children. And if they think that the way their parents brought them up was "wrong" they will be horrified, as I was, to discover that the power relationship of parent-child allows, almost encourages, this re-enacting.

The baby is not only too helpless to protest effectively against "abuse" but is in fact unable to experience/categorise its parent's behaviour as abuse, ( because hostile reactions would risk alienating, and therefore losing, the parental care ). The feedback that a parent gets is so unlike any other, the baby's "gaze" so unconditionally loving/accepting, that it takes massive psychological change/emotional growth on the parent's part to not replay their own parent to some extent at least.

A parent's own conditioning, and deepest "sense of self", is reinforced/affirmed by that uncritical "gaze", unless, ( for one reason or another ), they are set on doing things differently in which case it is more confusing than anything, because the baby is so concerned with reassuring its mother that when you are on auto-pilot based on conditioning this almost seems to work better than trying a different way which goes against your own conditioning and which you are therefore anxious/less sure about.

I think parental power ( especially during the child's infancy ), is probably experienced as pleasurable/gratifying by those who relatively unquestioningly replay their own parent's behaviour, and as burdensome/terrifying by those who are not happy about how they were parented and want to do something different.

.

It's funny, I've never felt "powerful" over my kids. Perhaps that says something more about my own parents and how they raised me than anything, then?

What I've always felt is an incredible sense of responsibility.

I feel the burden, I don't feel the power. If it is true that I have it.

I am very live and let live; I don't like forcing my will on anyone, although I do have a strong sense of right and wrong. But I tend to see that so clearly that once explained, I assume that others will simply buy into it. Either that, or it wasn't as clearly right as I thought it was, in which case I have no right to force it onto anyone else. So my inner instinct tends to be that if what I want my kids to do is right, and for the right reasons, they'll buy into it. If it isn't, then I have no right to ask it.

Yes, there are times parents and kids engage in pure power play for the game of it. If it is something that I believe firmly they need to learn - for their own sake - I make sure I win the game. If I don't hold that level of conviction, it is likely they will win the game.

So does having theoretical power make me enjoy parenting more? Absolutely not. I don't enjoy excersing power over others, and I really avoid doing so. What I enjoy is winning by the power of persuasion, or by simply being the smartest in the room - winning by skill, not by the default of position.

And, actually, I enjoy seeing that power of persuasion develope in my kids. If they challenge me on something I want from them, but do it brilliantly, I end up all smiles. I'll hand them the point. If I can't let up on the task, I'll tell them that they've made a wonderful argument, that I am really impressed, but PLEASE we need this because of A or B.

Am I really that off? I think it's how it should be. Developing intelligence and reasoning. Not one person exerting their will over others. It must be that my parents taught that to me.

Not feeling as if you have any power over them is not the same thing as not having any. And as an adult and their parent you definitely do.

Would you agree that men had power over women when women did not have the right to vote, earn, or own property, among other things?

.

Sorry, I don't have time to read through all the responses just now.

I just wanted to say that it's an interesting topic. I'm the mother of a 7 year old boy, and I have to say I have never thought of my parental role as one which involves power.

My first response to the OP would be to say that I feel that parenting brings with it more responsibility than power.

Another quick comment - I don't know that power is necessarily something which is sought by everyone.

I'll come back when I've more time and can read through the other responses in detail. Meantime, I'll be mulling this over.

Thanks for a thought-provoking topic.

It seems like there is some confusion about what power refers to. For the purpose of this thread, parents' power refers to being able to tell the child what to do. Here are some examples. To avoid the awkwardness of using "he or she" each time or the incorrect usage of "they", the pronoun "he" will be used.

EXAMPLE 1: Your child wants to eat fried cheese sticks, pizza, and ice cream for dinner. You're serving rotisserie chicken, steamed broccoli, and fruit for dessert. He tells you that he doesn't like what you served. In the end, what does the child have to eat? The food you serve, not what he wants. If he protests or acts up, he gets a stern warning and/or a punishment, then is required to eat what's served. Bonus points if you get to choose something you like for yourself after you're done feeding your child.

EXAMPLE 2: Your child's bedtime is 9:00pm on weeknights. He, on the other hand, wants to watch a show that's on at 10:00pm. He asks if he can stay up. The answer? "No." He tells you how good the show is. Response? "You need to go bed at 9:00." Knowing the consequences, the child listens, retreats to his room at bedtime, and turns off the lights ten minutes later. The parents' power still holds. Bonus points if you stay up until midnight watching sitcoms after your child is asleep.

EXAMPLE 3: You're shopping for groceries with your child. On the way toward the cereal boxes, you walk past some fruit snacks. He asks if he can have a box of Gushers fruit snacks (I love those, and I'm an adult). Your answer is no. He asks you again. Your answer is still no. He's upset, but your choice of not buying Gushers prevails. You both continue toward the cereal section, with you being somewhat angry, and your child feeling deprived of something he desired. Bonus points if you buy something as a treat for yourself.

EXAMPLE 4: Your child's room got really messy over the past week: stuff all over the desk, toys on the floor, clothes draped over chairs, etc. You walk into his room, and tell him to clean everything up. He protests. You tell him what the consequence will be if he doesn't start cleaning everything now. So, your wish takes priority over your child's. Hours later, the room is spotless, but your child feels utterly defeated. Bonus points if your computer desk is cluttered with computer printouts, photos, envelopes, etc.

Now, before you start posting heated responses, perhaps I'm projecting my childhood perspective of my parents onto your guys. But then again, regardless of the perspective, the parental power is still there. A parent has the power to enforce what the child eats, when he goes to bed, whether he gets a treat at the grocery store, how to keep his room, and whether he gets a pet. You might not think of it as power, but it's power nonetheless. After all, you are making decisions for your child. Yeah, I know, "it's for his own good", but ultimately, your child has to listen to you. Also, I'm sure the "bonus points" statements harshly illustrate the freedoms that parents have and children will never have. So ranting aside, that's what I meant by the word "power". I hope I didn't step on any toes, but I think this all needed to be said.

Last edited by Aspie1 on 17 Apr 2009, 3:22 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Edit: Posted at same time as Aspie1. Similar questions about definition of power in this context.

Would you agree that whites had power over their black slaves in pre-abolition America, or that humans had power over most other animals?

The thing that I am finding very odd here is how three parents insist that they either have no power over their children, or very little, or that if they do it is not important because they don't feel as if they do.

Many men used to say, pre-women's rights, that it was nonsense that they had power over women/their wives; that women/wives twisted men around their little fingers etc. ...

But I don't think that women agreed with this analysis of the situation, and so they campaigned for, and got, the right to earn, own property, vote, etc.

Either women were wrong, and men had no power over them, and parents have little or no power over their children, or there is some major confusion here about what "power" means! Because by modern standards/ideas of power there is no doubt at all that parents have power over their children, and it is very interesting that three parents seem surprised by/unwilling or unable to see this.

.

I'm going to jump briefly in and out again.

I see where you're coming from, and I think it would be interesting to explore the notion of "power" - what it is and how it is exerted. It can be very overt and held by an individual by virtue of their being a parent with responsiblities for their child. But it can also be more subtle and exerted on the parent by the child.

One example of the power exerted by the child would be when I spend 2 hours in the swing park with my son before going for a walk along a pebbly beach. He likes the swing park, but doesn't like the pebbly beach. I like the pebbly beach and am less enthusiastic about the swing park. We spend only 10 minutes on the beach before heading home because he constantly complains that he isn't enjoying himself.

I would suggest that it is the child who holds the power on the beach, and the swing park for that matter!

Btw, I'm not being narky here. I think this is very interesting and I've been musing on this for the past wee while.