Obedience as a virtue

[Guest]

I just find it...interesting that so many seem to have a negative association with the word obedience, and then go on to insist that their kids just do their chores or their school when asked.

 

For me, the interesting thing is the word play involved. This is what I'm reading from multiple posters sort of smashed into a synopsis:

 

Obedience must mean blind, first-time compliance with bossy mom shouting to cowed kids who will then in turn obey the first person who tells them to take drugs and jump off a bridge. So, since we don't do that, there's no particular importance placed on obedience. But, yeah, my kids do chores and run errands for me and do their schoolwork. Because we're all just interested in keeping the household chugging along.

 

I'm not saying y'all are insisting on obedience, but a lot of the stuff described sounds sort of like asking kids to do stuff and then expecting that they actually do it because you have a relationship with them that lends itself to them wanting to do what you've asked. Unless you're talking about asking your kids to do zero things and leaving it totally up to them if they want to do school or chores or whatever -- I know this is the case in some families, and in that case we're not remotely on the same wavelength so I don't know how to discuss it.

I *do* have negative associations with the term obedience. Clearly. But the original question was, "is obedience a virtue." No.

 

I think to me, the largest difference lies in what I would think/do if they didn't do the thing I asked them to do. Under the obedience model, the parent is supposed to up the ante to make the child comply. Obviously, how this is done will vary.

 

I just try not to get too wrapped up in the whole Authority view, especially as the kids get older. I think we could see differences in the cooperative vs. Obedience model in the thread where we were talking about if your college kid does things you don't agree with, do you cut off money? This question seems to me to stem from this focus on obedience; i.e., I am still the Authority, right? I'm paying for this so don't I still get to say they can't sleep with the boyfriend? See, I don't ask this question with my college kid because I view her life as largely in her own hand now, even though we are still paying her way more than not. (caveat: she does largely what I hope, so I have no idea how this would play out if she were making very bad decisions.)

[creekland]

I *do* have negative associations with the term obedience. Clearly. But the original question was, "is obedience a virtue." No.

 

I think to me, the largest difference lies in what I would think/do if they didn't do the thing I asked them to do. Under the obedience model, the parent is supposed to up the ante to make the child comply. Obviously, how this is done will vary.

 

I just try not to get too wrapped up in the whole Authority view, especially as the kids get older. I think we could see differences in the cooperative vs. Obedience model in the thread where we were talking about if your college kid does things you don't agree with, do you cut off money? This question seems to me to stem from this focus on obedience; i.e., I am still the Authority, right? I'm paying for this so don't I still get to say they can't sleep with the boyfriend? See, I don't ask this question with my college kid because I view her life as largely in her own hand now, even though we are still paying her way more than not. (caveat: she does largely what I hope, so I have no idea how this would play out if she were making very bad decisions.)

 

:iagree:   And I really can't recall ever making my kids do something "before the fun stuff."  Their rooms?  Their decision how to keep them.  Two were messy.  One was naturally clean.  As they matured (college age), all three became clean.  We never once told them they had to clean their rooms, except if company was coming and using their room.  Then they naturally straightened it up.

 

Homeschooling?  I let them set their own schedules.  I didn't plan any schedule out for them.  They had books (or whatever our spine was).  They told me what they were learning.  We did discussions.  They told me when they were ready for tests and submitted papers when it was part of the program.  I graded tests/papers as needed.  All three did just fine in college.  (NOTE:  We only started homeschooling when my youngest started 5th grade, so they already had the basics down from ps.)

 

Household things?  Hubby or I might remark, "dishes need doing," and one of them would get up to do them ('cause when hubby and I did them we never said anything).  Since I have three boys close in age, they came up with a rotation schedule they liked and thought was fair.

 

Outside (farm) work?  That varies based upon weather, so I'll announce what's going on for any particular day and they'll just join in.  It's how our family operates.  There was never any punishment for not doing so - nor a thought on their part not to be part of the family except if they had other things going on that day (and that was ok).

 

Camping?  My boys could set our campsite up better than I could.  No one had to say a thing.  They learned how from a young age just by being part of our family.

 

My kids weren't perfect angels.  We went through a period of lying, porn watching, and similar things.  I recall being disappointed and voicing that, plus reminding them NOT to use Dad's computer EVER when viewing porn (due to viruses and his work/our income being on that computer), but I don't recall any actual punishments.  Everything righted itself given time and maturity.

 

I'm also among those who would continue to pay for my kid's room and board on that other thread.  They get to make their own decisions in life and have been able to for a long time.  I don't mind that at all and it certainly hasn't ruined them.  We get to enjoy sharing things with them.  Yesterday afternoon middle son called excitedly sharing that he has his first med school interview invite - and we're the first folks he's sharing the news with!  He also did the same with his first (and second) rejection earlier.

 

I'm content with how my guys turned out even if I missed the part where we're supposed to insist on things happening in our time frame the way we decide they should be - or else.  We started life as a team and are keeping it that way.

[EmseB]

I *do* have negative associations with the term obedience. Clearly. But the original question was, "is obedience a virtue." No.

 

I think to me, the largest difference lies in what I would think/do if they didn't do the thing I asked them to do. Under the obedience model, the parent is supposed to up the ante to make the child comply. Obviously, how this is done will vary.

 

I just try not to get too wrapped up in the whole Authority view, especially as the kids get older. I think we could see differences in the cooperative vs. Obedience model in the thread where we were talking about if your college kid does things you don't agree with, do you cut off money? This question seems to me to stem from this focus on obedience; i.e., I am still the Authority, right? I'm paying for this so don't I still get to say they can't sleep with the boyfriend? See, I don't ask this question with my college kid because I view her life as largely in her own hand now, even though we are still paying her way more than not. (caveat: she does largely what I hope, so I have no idea how this would play out if she were making very bad decisions.)

 

Right, and I answered the question in somewhat the same way.  Obedience isn't in and of itself a virtue.

 

But then the thread diverged to the idea that expecting a kid to obey is akin to setting them up for a life of mindless compliance, and it must be done with shouting or it must be done by upping an ante (?) or by drill sergeanting them or by (basically) being "mean" in some way.  Or teaching them not to think.

 

I think I just don't know what "the obedience model" is.  It's not like what you describe it to be, and I do require obedience from my kids, but it is largely to teach things like self-control, societal norms for behavior, and because they need to be educated and clean up after themselves.  All of this happens in the context of love, family, and I recognize that I cannot force it to happen by my own will and that setting up an adversarial relationship in order to get things done will come back to bite me in the end.

[ktgrok]

 I do not assume it has to be my way. We are working something out together. If something were not working and I view our relationship as cooperative, I'm going to seek to figure out where there is a problem. But if I view myself as the authority with the goal that you obey what I dictate, I'm not going to try and work out a problem, I'm just going to raise the stakes to make you want to avoid pain or gain pleasure by doing what I told you to do.

 

See, I use the word obedience, but of course if it isn't working out I sit down with them and try to figure out a new approach. I don't just raise the stakes, etc. But at the end of the day, if all else fails, yes, they probably will need to do it my way because I probably have a good reason. Is your kid cooperating with the rule about math before games truly because he feels he is an equal and he has agreed to said rule, or because he knows that you require it? I'm assuming it's a least a bit of both, and any working out of the problem will still be about you making sure the work gets done. So really, same thing.

 

I THINK the difference in terminology may be due to me NOT having any baggage with obedience. My parents did expect me to do what I was told, but I was probably "punished" 3 times in my life. Maybe. Maybe twice. Once for hitting my sister hard on the head with a book. (my only spanking in my life) and once being mean to her...I was not allowed to read for a day or a weekend or something, and had to play with her instead. That's it. I don't think I was ever grounded, etc. WE talked about issues, if I did the wrong thing they were disappointed, etc. I obeyed, but not out of some fear of punishment really. Just because I loved them and wanted to please them and knew they probably had my best interests at heart. Having no icky feelings around the word is probably why i'm okay using it, versus others that associate it with the "yes, ma'am!" or a spanking crowd, I imagine. 

[Joules]

:iagree:   And I really can't recall ever making my kids do something "before the fun stuff."  Their rooms?  Their decision how to keep them.  Two were messy.  One was naturally clean.  As they matured (college age), all three became clean.  We never once told them they had to clean their rooms, except if company was coming and using their room.  Then they naturally straightened it up.

 

Homeschooling?  I let them set their own schedules.  I didn't plan any schedule out for them.  They had books (or whatever our spine was).  They told me what they were learning.  We did discussions.  They told me when they were ready for tests and submitted papers when it was part of the program.  I graded tests/papers as needed.  All three did just fine in college.  (NOTE:  We only started homeschooling when my youngest started 5th grade, so they already had the basics down from ps.)

 

Household things?  Hubby or I might remark, "dishes need doing," and one of them would get up to do them ('cause when hubby and I did them we never said anything).  Since I have three boys close in age, they came up with a rotation schedule they liked and thought was fair.

 

Outside (farm) work?  That varies based upon weather, so I'll announce what's going on for any particular day and they'll just join in.  It's how our family operates.  There was never any punishment for not doing so - nor a thought on their part not to be part of the family except if they had other things going on that day (and that was ok).

 

Camping?  My boys could set our campsite up better than I could.  No one had to say a thing.  They learned how from a young age just by being part of our family.

 

My kids weren't perfect angels.  We went through a period of lying, porn watching, and similar things.  I recall being disappointed and voicing that, plus reminding them NOT to use Dad's computer EVER when viewing porn (due to viruses and his work/our income being on that computer), but I don't recall any actual punishments.  Everything righted itself given time and maturity.

 

I'm also among those who would continue to pay for my kid's room and board on that other thread.  They get to make their own decisions in life and have been able to for a long time.  I don't mind that at all and it certainly hasn't ruined them.  We get to enjoy sharing things with them.  Yesterday afternoon middle son called excitedly sharing that he has his first med school interview invite - and we're the first folks he's sharing the news with!  He also did the same with his first (and second) rejection earlier.

 

I'm content with how my guys turned out even if I missed the part where we're supposed to insist on things happening in our time frame the way we decide they should be - or else.  We started life as a team and are keeping it that way.

 

I wanted to post how we live, because it is so different from the obedience model, but Creekland has pretty much said it all.

 

Ds had a co-op English class a few years back.  I don't remember the book, but there was disobedience and punishment, and the discussion question was what happened last time you disobeyed your parents.  Ds could not come up with an example, but he knows he is far from perfect.  He's a good kid, so they joked that he has never disobeyed so couldn't relate.  I had a simple answer when he got home, "I never tell you what to do, I ask."  So there is no disobedience, since there are no orders.

 

I think our little world is so foreign to most people, it's hard to explain.  We all pitch in.  If we see something needs doing, we do it.  Sometimes one of us cares more about something, so takes over a specific task. I ask ds to do things just like I ask dh.  "Not right now, I'm studying/working" or "When the show is over" is a perfectly valid response from either.  If I care that much that it is done right that instant, I do it myself.  Neither one of them has ever failed me in a crisis (injury, emergency, trash truck is on the way and the bins aren't on the street ;-), etc.), but I have never created false emergencies and overall they are rare.  The panicked tone of my voice is plenty to get action with no prior training.

 

Sometimes I think our family is more communist in structure: to each according to needs, from each according to abilities.  Probably doesn't work for every family, but it's been good for us.

 

ETA: Ds moved into the dorms two weeks ago.  Because we don't have "jobs" or chore charts, I didn't realize quite how much he did here or how often I got his help.  I'm having to seriously adjust in a practical sense to not having him here.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Joules

[bolt.]

I used to know a man who is a member of a Catholic monastic order. (A fellow-student of mine at a non-Catholic seminary, which was pretty interesting.) He mentioned that his order takes a vow of obedience, but it 'really isn't a relevant thing any more.' I asked how that works: if it's a vow, how can it be ignored? He explained that anyone who moves to leadership in the order completely refrains from giving any direct instructions (in the imperative voice, even casually) to anyone, ever.

 

The leaders discipline themselves to use a different speech pattern where they 'invite' or 'suggest' or speak in other indirect ways -- so that the members are never faced with an obedience/disobedience dilemma. This is regarded as an act of humble service (by the leaders) so that by doing this, they remove a potential source of temptation within the monastic lifestyle. (Vow-breaking is a sin, therefore disobedience here would be a sin.)

 

That's an example of people who clearly think obedience a is a virtue, but also value autonomy enough to make obedience-events vanishingly rare among themselves.

 

In the same way, my family life has been a lot more peaceful since I adopted a speech pattern that avoids direct instructions and the imperative voice except when I actually mean to be dealing in an obedience/disobedience dichotomy. It turns out that I actually want that to be a very small component of my parenting.

 

It is surprising (from this perspective) how much 'useless imperative voice' I observe parents habitually using towards children. I think it actually erodes authority: through over-reliance, and casual familiarity with bring spoken to that way.

 

(Plus, anyone who believes every childish disobedience is 'a sin' -- should not be setting their kids up to be tempted to sin regularly over shoe laces and-the-like. Woe those who set stumbling blocks in front of the feet of little ones 45 times a day, just for their own daily convenience. You'd think they would do this rarely and attentively at least -- if they really think that they are opening an opportunity for kids to commit sins that kill their very souls: every single time the parent gives a direct instruction.)

Edited August 31, 2016 by bolt.

[Bluegoat]

re "civil disobedience" vs "disrespecting" rules we consider goofy (like rolling stops at an empty intersection)

 

I think of "civil disobedience" as an open, public act -- sitting at the Woolworth's counter, or taking the march beyond the permit grounds, or publicly burning the draft notice, specifically in order to court arrest or garner media attention to the cause... with an explicit objective of changing the law that's deemed to be unjust.  Sustained and acknowledged efforts toward an end-game of change is (for me) an essential element for an act to be "civil disobedience."  

 

Personally I would not consider private acts like not-separating-the-newspaper-from-other-paper to be "civil disobedience."  Just... non-compliance, or something.  Surreptitious non-compliance at that...  :lol:   Would you?

 

Yes, civil disobedience has to be public.  And also, typically people who are involved in civil disobedience expect to face legal consequences, that's often an important aspect of the strategy.

[Pam in CT]

We seem in this thread to have focuses down specifically on the relationship between parents and children (which, not surprising, given the demographics of the board).

 

Outside that one relationship, in what other contexts is "obedience" an across-the-board virtue?

 

 

I'll play first:

 

Combat situations within the military

High-risk sports (hang-gliding, mountain-climbing) in which a more experience leader is leading

[Bluegoat]

Every time someone mentions power struggles all I can think of is By the Power of Greyskull.

 

Control and power in most things in life is an illusion at best.

 

But if we are going to discuss it.

 

I have it. I'm mom. All the final decisions for most of their time living here are at my discretion in determining for their good. There is no struggle. There is no war. There isn't even a debate. By divine intervention and state authority and the mini social contract that holds our family together - I hold all the power jointly with their father.

 

And like all authority and social contract, abuse of power usually means loss of it.

 

And also like most authority, if I do the job right, they don't even notice or mind. *insert evil maniacal laughter*

 

And of course, picking battles matters in just authority too. That's why I don't visit the land of Mordor upstairs very often. It's scary and incites cleaning and decluttering and pleas unto the Lord and other more confessional worthy exclamations. But on the grand scale of battles, it's low on my list most days.

 

This made me laugh.

 

It also made me think of something else - I feel a bit like putting everything in my role as mom down to people willingly cooperating is passing the buck a little, or - I don't know quite how to put it.

 

I'm so not an authoritarian parent, I even struggle at times with authoritative - it is just not at all my personality.  I am pretty mellow and inclined to let people do things their own way.

 

But legally, practically, and by nature there are times, more or less frequent, when the buck stops with me and my husband. 

 

I'm not entirely comfortable with saying my kids need to, or should, want it that way.  If I really feel the need to make a decision and hand it down with a concrete expectation of behavior, my kids are still allowed to not like it.  They don't have to want to cooperate, they are allowed to think it is stupid, or not see the point.  It's even possible that I am wrong.

 

But to me, wearing that authority is part of my job, like any other leader or teacher.  It has consequences, which may include sometimes feeling like a bit of a jerk.  I know my eldest dd doesn't like math, that she is a procrastinator about it, she doesn't always see the point.  I know because I am the same in many ways and was just like that as a kid.  The difference now is that I do, in fact, see the point, whicle she, being a child, does not.  So - I tell her she has to do it, it is ok that we are a bit behind but that there are very good reasons not to get further behind if we can avoid it, and I also enforce it as well as I can when her self-control isn't up to doing it anyway.

 

But, I don't know what I would be doing, really, or accomplishing, if I somehow insisted that she agree with me, or had to see it my way.  I've explained it, she is bright and will likely get it and to some extent does.  But she lacks experience, some foresight, and she still feels like it is mean at times. 

 

That is my burden as a parent, not something I should avoid by avoiding exercising my authority when required.

 

[Guest]

We seem in this thread to have focuses down specifically on the relationship between parents and children (which, not surprising, given the demographics of the board).

 

Outside that one relationship, in what other contexts is "obedience" an across-the-board virtue?

 

 

I'll play first:

 

Combat situations within the military

High-risk sports (hang-gliding, mountain-climbing) in which a more experience leader is leading

I still don't know if I call it a virtue in those instances. Just a necessity. :)

[Bluegoat]

We seem in this thread to have focuses down specifically on the relationship between parents and children (which, not surprising, given the demographics of the board).

 

Outside that one relationship, in what other contexts is "obedience" an across-the-board virtue?

 

 

I'll play first:

 

Combat situations within the military

High-risk sports (hang-gliding, mountain-climbing) in which a more experience leader is leading

 

I'm not sure I would ever say it is across-the-board, unless maybe we also want to include obedience to things like principles. 

 

But I guess in those you have mentioned, you have a situation where people will have limited situational knowledge, there is real danger, and quick reactions are very important.

 

Another kind of situation might be where there is very strict control of information, so a lot depends on each person doing his part - this can happen outside of combat situations.  The downside is of course that it is ripe for manipulation, so typically it is meant to be reserved for really important things.  So, some kinds of intelligence work.

 

Maybe things like underground-resistance activities, or 5th column type stuff.

 

The thing is, I think, that obedience when done well is a two way relationship, and both sides can go wrong.  On the one hand the person under authority can be disobedient when they ought to be obedient.  And on the other, the person in authority can require obedience in all kinds of inappropriate ways or for the wrong reasons.

[Scarlett]

Do you require obedience of your husband? "Hey, Babe, can you stop by the store and get some bread on your way home?"

 

If he does it, has he been obedient?

 

Then he forgets, or chooses not to. Does that make him disobedient?

 

My husband doesn't do things like to be obedient or disobedient to me. He does them because we are a team, we love each other, and we work together. He does it because it's the nice thing to do.

 

Let's take it another step. When my neighbor says, "Let me know if I can get anything from the store for you," and I ask her to get some bread, am I being obedient because I asked her? Is she being obedient because she gets it for me?

 

I think the answer will be "of course not!" This is how my relationship with my children works. I don't have to turn off computers, or have work charts, or anything else. We work together because we work together. It isn't about obedience or not. My mom doesn't do the dishes when she is here because of obedience, she does them to help out. So do my kids. I frequently ask my eldest to unload and load the dishwasher, and she happily does most of the time. Sometimes, she says, "I was about to (Fill in the blank), can I do it later/can someone else do it?" Just like my dh would do in the same situation. "Oh, I'm sorry I can't help you now, I have to leave for work, but I could do them later/how about I clean the bathroom when I get home instead/whatever." No one is being obedient/disobedient, we are just being nice.

 

Obedience requires a relationship where one person is an authority over another. I have always viewed myself much more as a mentor, rather than an authority, over my children.

I don't see the logic at all in comparing a parent/child relationship to one with another adult. Even if you view yourself as a mentor it is still a different relationship than you have with your husband or neighbor.

[Guest]

I don't see the logic at all in comparing a parent/child relationship to one with another adult. Even if you view yourself as a mentor it is still a different relationship than you have with your husband or neighbor.

And this is *always* what someone says in these discussions. It becomes a circuitous argument. My relationship with my kids is different because I don't hold "obedience" in esteem, and I don't hold "obedience" in esteem, so my relationship with my kids is different.

[Scarlett]

I wanted to post how we live, because it is so different from the obedience model, but Creekland has pretty much said it all.

 

Ds had a co-op English class a few years back. I don't remember the book, but there was disobedience and punishment, and the discussion question was what happened last time you disobeyed your parents. Ds could not come up with an example, but he knows he is far from perfect. He's a good kid, so they joked that he has never disobeyed so couldn't relate. I had a simple answer when he got home, "I never tell you what to do, I ask." So there is no disobedience, since there are no orders.

 

I think our little world is so foreign to most people, it's hard to explain. We all pitch in. If we see something needs doing, we do it. Sometimes one of us cares more about something, so takes over a specific task. I ask ds to do things just like I ask dh. "Not right now, I'm studying/working" or "When the show is over" is a perfectly valid response from either. If I care that much that it is done right that instant, I do it myself. Neither one of them has ever failed me in a crisis (injury, emergency, trash truck is on the way and the bins aren't on the street ;-), etc.), but I have never created false emergencies and overall they are rare. The panicked tone of my voice is plenty to get action with no prior training.

 

Sometimes I think our family is more communist in structure: to each according to needs, from each according to abilities. Probably doesn't work for every family, but it's been good for us.

 

ETA: Ds moved into the dorms two weeks ago. Because we don't have "jobs" or chore charts, I didn't realize quite how much he did here or how often I got his help. I'm having to seriously adjust in a practical sense to not having him here.

My son and dss are a year apart in age. If we were all sitting in a room and I said 'dishes need doing', dss15 would get up immediately and do them. Ds16-not so much. As in never. It is just their personalities. I don't prefer the personality of dss over my son.....except when the dishes need done. ;). But in your example above in your house.....how would that work if you had two kids near the same age like mine?

[Scarlett]

And this is *always* what someone says in these discussions. It becomes a circuitous argument. My relationship with my kids is different because I don't hold "obedience" in esteem, and I don't hold "obedience" in esteem, so my relationship with my kids is different.

And this is what someone always says in these discussions.

 

Honestly, you and I probably parent very much the same. As these discussions have gone on these last few days I have realized I don't even use the word obey. But I don't hate the word. I don't get some image of a 'model' of parenting when I hear the word, I have teenagers now and I still need them to do certain things but they aren't punished.

 

I do remember when ds was under age ten or so he was not doing something I had asked and I said son you are not being obedient. It was like I poked him he jumped up so fast. Maybe I should try that now when he doesn't follow through on what I've asked. Lol....

 

Seriously though by the time they are 16.5 the discussions are more along the lines of, 'you are close to being an adult....you have got to work on being more aware of the things around you that need attention' .

 

His actions now are leaning more toward his responsibility to other authority figures....God ( since he made a vow to serve God), the law ( since he drives now) his vo tech teacher ( who he admires greatly) older men in our congregation who give him responsibilities. He is very serious about all of his responsibilities in these areas......so I guess I have guided him somewhat ok.

 

In the end we all have to do what we think is best as parents/spouses/adult children/friend. I have learned a lot from all of you guys over the years and I hope I have had something to offer in return.

[wendyroo]

But legally, practically, and by nature there are times, more or less frequent, when the buck stops with me and my husband. 

 

I'm not entirely comfortable with saying my kids need to, or should, want it that way.  If I really feel the need to make a decision and hand it down with a concrete expectation of behavior, my kids are still allowed to not like it.  They don't have to want to cooperate, they are allowed to think it is stupid, or not see the point.  It's even possible that I am wrong.

 

But to me, wearing that authority is part of my job, like any other leader or teacher.  It has consequences, which may include sometimes feeling like a bit of a jerk.  I know my eldest dd doesn't like math, that she is a procrastinator about it, she doesn't always see the point.  I know because I am the same in many ways and was just like that as a kid.  The difference now is that I do, in fact, see the point, whicle she, being a child, does not.  So - I tell her she has to do it, it is ok that we are a bit behind but that there are very good reasons not to get further behind if we can avoid it, and I also enforce it as well as I can when her self-control isn't up to doing it anyway.

 

But, I don't know what I would be doing, really, or accomplishing, if I somehow insisted that she agree with me, or had to see it my way.  I've explained it, she is bright and will likely get it and to some extent does.  But she lacks experience, some foresight, and she still feels like it is mean at times. 

 

That is my burden as a parent, not something I should avoid by avoiding exercising my authority when required.

 

I agree completely.

 

For the last 2+ years, my 5 year old has been getting weekly allergy shots to help control his severe allergies and asthma, which, if left unchecked, could negatively impact his life in many ways up to and including death.  He never wants to get his shots.  Occasionally he can be reasoned with/bribed and he will grudgingly troop in there pseudo-willingly, but just as often DH or I have to carrying him in there sobbing and flailing and hold him still long enough for the nurse to give him the shots.

 

How could I look myself in the mirror if I decided to let him make the choice on his own and not "force" him there if he was not cooperative, and down the road that meant that his lung function was so compromised that he no longer could play sports that he loved or had an asthma attack that killed him?

 

It is my job to stop my 7 year old's hand every single time he goes to hit someone.  It is my job to ensure my children are buckled in their car seats/wearing life jackets/not wrapping cords around their necks.  It is my job to protect them by being in control of medications and cleaning products and sharp implements and internet access.  It is my job to see that they get an education either by insisting they do school work at home or by hauling their butts to school.  It is my job to maintain a sanitary living environment and insist on, at least, minimal personal hygiene.

 

Those things are all my job, and while I would LOVE the children to be logical and reasonable and cooperative...that is not their job.  They are well within their rights to rail against the necessity of those jobs, and, in fact, two of my children spend much of their time figuratively and literally spitting in my face all day as I attempt to accomplish the things that absolutely must be done.  But, as Bluegoat said, that is my burden, not theirs, so I try to cheerfully go about my duties only occasionally fantasizing about sending them to live in Darfur until they realize that having their favorite foods served on a blue plate, because the orange one is in the dishwasher, is no reason to throw a fit.

 

Wendy

[wendyroo]

And this is *always* what someone says in these discussions. It becomes a circuitous argument. My relationship with my kids is different because I don't hold "obedience" in esteem, and I don't hold "obedience" in esteem, so my relationship with my kids is different.

 

My relationship with my kids is different than my relationship with my husband because my husband and I have approximately the same amounts of life experience, critical thinking skills, self-control and ownership of consequences.  Plus, we both chose a spouse who values cooperation because that was important to us.  None of that is true of my children.

 

Ideally, I would not have to order anyone to buckle up in the car.  But realistically, DH's life experience, critical thinking skills, self-control and ownership of consequences leads him to do it on his own, and together we force the kids to do it whether they want to or not.

 

On the other hand, there are instances of "obedience" between DH and I in particular situations when we do not have the same amount of life experience, critical thinking skills, self-control or ownership of consequences.  We both agree that DH is tech support in this house, so if he tells me that it is important to install a security patch on my computer ASAP, then I would feel very ashamed and like I had disobeyed a legitimate authority if I chose not to do as he said.  

 

Similarly, I think DH felt very guilty and rightfully chastised when I had to leave the house for a bit last weekend and he decided to "disobey" my request/instruction to give DS3 pain medication at a specific time.  DH said DS, who had broken his arm a couple days before, seemed fine, but by the time I got home DS was in A LOT of pain and it was hard to get back on top of it.  I had explained that that had been my experience to DH, but he decided to disregard my advice and DS ended up paying for it.  I hope that in the future DH will be more willing to submit to my authority on very specific matters when we both agree that I have a lot more experience to draw from.

 

Wendy

[shawthorne44]

Thank you for saying this in much fewer words than I could!

 

No, obedience doesn't mean I'm barking out orders all day. Although sometimes, yes, I do want them to just put their dang shoes on so we can GET GOING SOMETIME TODAY. ;)

 

If they put their shoes on because you are telling them to put their shoes on, that is obedience.  

If they put their shoes on because they know that otherwise they will have to leave without shoes and they will be cold and uncomfortable, that isn't obedience but the result is the same.  

I'd rather have a kid that thinks through the consequences of actions and then chooses, even if it means a child without shoes for a little while.  

[Guest]

I would be very curious to know the mbti of those of us who fall on opposite sides of the obedience is necessary/no it is not divide.

 

I think it is a way of looking at the world that is very different. Some of us value order and structure and hierarchy as a necessary thing. Some of us see it as a means to an end, and therefore to be submitted to at will as it fits the end. The latter values personal autonomy and responsibility far higher than social norms for the sake of social norms.

I come out as on the cusp between INTJ/INFJ. In parent/child relationship, my style apparently tends towards the INFJ side.

 

INFJ people enjoy finding a shared vision for everyone, inspiring others and devising new ways to achieve the vision.

From the OPP website.

[ktgrok]

Do you require obedience of your husband?  "Hey, Babe, can you stop by the store and get some bread on your way home?"  

 

If he does it, has he been obedient?  

 

Then he forgets, or chooses not to.  Does that make him disobedient?  

 

My husband doesn't do things like to be obedient or disobedient to me.  He does them because we are a team, we love each other, and we work together.  He does it because it's the nice thing to do.  

 

 

And that's great. But my kid isn't going to stop running in the house because he loves me and and wants to be nice. Because in his mind running in the house is a great thing to do. Despite having already broken his arm once doing it. But you know, I don't want to deal with a 3 yr old in a cast. And I don't have the free money to be shelling out for orthopedists when he could just stop running when I ask him. 

 

DH is a grown adult and if he chooses to do something dangerous that's his business. I will express disappointment, but I do not feel it is my responsibility to keep him safe. I DO feel that responsibility with my children. If DH doesn't keep up with his online course that's his business. If my 6 yr old doesn't do her math, that's my business as much as it is hers, as it is my responsibility to make sure she is educated. That's where the authority comes from. At the end of the day, those kids are my responsibility, and that means I need to make sure they get done what they should, and not done what shouldn't be done, and if that means having rules, that is what it means. 

 

If there are homes with children that do math and don't do dangerous things and such without needing any rules about any of it, that's great. I just think the majority of people saying there is no obedience in their homes probably still have rules to be followed. And following rules = obedience to me. 

[Joules]

My son and dss are a year apart in age. If we were all sitting in a room and I said 'dishes need doing', dss15 would get up immediately and do them. Ds16-not so much. As in never. It is just their personalities. I don't prefer the personality of dss over my son.....except when the dishes need done. ;). But in your example above in your house.....how would that work if you had two kids near the same age like mine?

Having only one, I can't speak from personal experience, but only from others' with a similar philosophy. Every person is different in when they like to work and what they like to do. So one might take on daily tasks like dishes; another might do bigger tasks that are done less often like bathing the pets. Over time everyone takes on the tasks that are least onerous to them and most everything gets done.

 

One problem with using the idea with your sons is that I think it is easier when kids are raised in this culture from the start. If they have a lifetime of extrinsic motivation, it is very hard to switch to intrinsic.

[ktgrok]

If they put their shoes on because you are telling them to put their shoes on, that is obedience.  

If they put their shoes on because they know that otherwise they will have to leave without shoes and they will be cold and uncomfortable, that isn't obedience but the result is the same.  

I'd rather have a kid that thinks through the consequences of actions and then chooses, even if it means a child without shoes for a little while.  

 

LOL, we live in Florida. If cold feet was what it took to get shoes on them, we'd never go anywhere with shoes. But, the stores have rules about wearing shoes, so we have to obey the rules if we want to go in the store. Not sure why obeying the store rule is any better/different/etc than obeying mom's rule that we wear shoes when we leave. More to the point, half the time they may not want to leave. They have zero interest in going to the bank or whatever, but I need to go, they are too young to stay home alone, and they have to wear shoes to go. So I ask them to put their shoes on, and explain why, and then insist if I must, to the point of putting the shoes on their feet myself. 

[Murphy101]

If they put their shoes on because you are telling them to put their shoes on, that is obedience.

If they put their shoes on because they know that otherwise they will have to leave without shoes and they will be cold and uncomfortable, that isn't obedience but the result is the same.

I'd rather have a kid that thinks through the consequences of actions and then chooses, even if it means a child without shoes for a little while.

🙄 It's possible to both have a child who thinks through consequences without screwing around all day waiting for them to get their shoes on.

 

Either get the shoes on or miss going to wherever.

Either put the shoes on or suck it up when we leave and your feet hurt.

Either out the shoes on or I'll put them on for you bc we have things we have to go do and I'm not going to let their irrational behavior hold the rest of us hostage.

 

And yet, none of my children over the age of 2 have ever not eventually comprehended that wearing their shoes when I ask is not some crazy insane request.

 

I don't have to be a tyrant or yell at them (usually). It's just the natural statement of how this is going to work. Either do A or B is going to be the natural result.

 

As for adults obeying.

 

Just today I told my dad to buckle up. He didn't. My vehicle didn't move. He still didn't and gave me some long rant about being a grown man and stupid laws and respect for elders. Told him to quit being an ass and buckle up or stay in the hotel.

 

He is staying in his hotel. He can think and feel anything he wants about buckling up. I'm under exactly zero obligation to indulge him or agree with him or put up with it.

 

I don't think obedience is a virtue.

But that doesn't mean it has no value or relative importance to getting through daily life.

We all expect reasonable obedience every single day, whether we call it the spade it is or not.

 

Just because someone agrees with why or does it happily doesn't change they are obeying something or someone.

[LucyStoner]

I don't consider obedience a virtue.  I consider living well and making moral choices a virtue.  If you need to obey an external order not to do something terrible or to do something that you should, how does that merit as a virtue?  Also how is it is virtue to consider that I have the right to control other people?  

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

I would be very curious to know the mbti of those of us who fall on opposite sides of the obedience is necessary/no it is not divide.  

 

I think it is a way of looking at the world that is very different.  Some of us value order and structure and hierarchy as a necessary thing.  Some of us see it as a means to an end, and therefore to be submitted to at will as it fits the end.  The latter values personal autonomy and responsibility far higher than social norms for the sake of social norms.  

 

 

Well, I am an INTP, which is a group that does tend to see and be interested in complex structures and patterns of all kinds. 

 

I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who thinks every situation is one where obeying is the most appropriate action, without any reference to the nature of the situation.  Even the most far out weird parenting techniques that insist on obedience don't seem to take that view, they have limits at least on who one is meant to obey.

 

Structure and hierarchy do exist to serve ends, but are also inherent in social structures of all kinds - no one really exists only as an individual.  And radical individualism gives us things like free market libertarianism and objectivism - not really very great recommendations for seeing individualism as appropriate in all situations, or as the whole story.

 

I value a social structure that is honest and transparent in its power structures - and all societies have them - some appear naturally on their own, others are created for specific purposes.  People should know when and how power is working, and where they stand in relation to it.  When those workings of power are hidden, it is not usually a good thing - it becomes difficult to oppose power and easy to consolidate or increase it without anyone realizing what is going on - an apparent democracy where power is invisible can subdue opposition in many cases much more easily than a hard tyranny, because people never wake up to see what is happening - there is never anything apparently to oppose. 

 

When a relationship with an inherent power dynamic presents itself otherwise, the power dynamic still exists, but underground, and it will in may cases still be felt - but the pressure will manifest itself differently.

[ktgrok]

Right, as much as I say my kids need to do what I ask of them (in other words, obey) I don't see it as a virtue or character trait, just a means to an ends. 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

This comes up for us since obedience is a rule in scouting.  I have explained that for us, that means listening to the people around you, especially the leaders and trying to think of the group's needs, norms and wants.  Scouts is more fun when everyone is listening and working together.  My son is as "obedient" as any of the others, if not more so because he's been taught to remember the norms rather than wait for the leader to call for quiet.  

 

It's like this.  I don't need anyone to tell me to cook dinner.  It's not something my husband orders me to do or that my sons order me to do (and if anyone thought they could order me to cook them dinner, they'd better be ready to fend for themselves in the snack bin or order pizza at their own expense, lol).  But I do it.  Day in and day out because we need to eat.  They do their chores, day in and day out, because we need to have a comfortable and sanitary place to live.  If I forget to start dinner, someone might remind me.  Or ask if they can order pizza.  But have I been a "bad mom" or a "bad wife" because, one night in a hundred, it slipped my mind to start dinner?  No.  If my sons need a reminder to set the table or unload the dishwasher, it's because they are learning.  And I am helping them.  I am not ordering them to do it.  Nor are they doing it because they are compelled to do so.  I'm not going to yell at them, rebuke them or hit them because perhaps they got too invested in their game or book to remember.  I'm going to remind me.  "Yeah dudes, it's time to set the table unless we wanna eat outta this here pot."  Much the same way my husband might say "what time are we going to eat?  Those potatoes you got out for supper are on the counter sweetie."  Or my older son, last pizza night "we need to get the dough started or pizza night is going to be at midnight mom!"
 

Edited August 31, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Scarlett]

Having only one, I can't speak from personal experience, but only from others' with a similar philosophy. Every person is different in when they like to work and what they like to do. So one might take on daily tasks like dishes; another might do bigger tasks that are done less often like bathing the pets. Over time everyone takes on the tasks that are least onerous to them and most everything gets done.

 

One problem with using the idea with your sons is that I think it is easier when kids are raised in this culture from the start. If they have a lifetime of extrinsic motivation, it is very hard to switch to intrinsic.

 

 

The boys have been step brothers for 6 years.  But true they haven't lived together except for EOW and holidays and 6 weeks in summer.....

 

Still....I noticed my ds's behavior early on independent of having step kids.   It is so different from how I was as a child....and even how I am now.  He is not going to be one who jumps up to do work that needs to be done or is hinted at.  He will do what I ask when I ask generally.  Not always.  And sometimes that is a big problem.  

[Bluegoat]

I don't consider obedience a virtue.  I consider living well and making moral choices a virtue.  If you need to obey an external order not to do something terrible or to do something that you should, how does that merit as a virtue?  Also how is it is virtue to consider that I have the right to control other people?  

 

What about, say, collective action problems?  People can have very reasonable disagreements about such things, and yet they require collective solutions to adress them at all.

 

What about situations where you have a responsibility for other people who are not in a position to do so themselves - which is not so much a right as an obligation.

[LucyStoner]

What about, say, collective action problems?  People can have very reasonable disagreements about such things, and yet they require collective solutions to adress them at all.

 

What about situations where you have a responsibility for other people who are not in a position to do so themselves - which is not so much a right as an obligation.

 

Since I am responding to generalities here we may not be on the same page but here goes.  

 

Problems that require collective solutions, can as you say have equally moral and reasonable people disagreeing on that solution.  In those situations where people don't agree, groups usually have a way of working out the disagreements.  Perhaps they vote and agree to go with the majority.  Perhaps there are sub group leaders who everyone else influences but cedes the final decision to.  Perhaps they have to talk it out until they reach consensus or form of consensus (consensus minus one was the model of decision making at my high school and I became quite adept at navigating those waters.  Consensus was also the model I was subject to when serving on a small church leadership/service committee).  The group collectively establishes those rules.  In households, organizations, governments etc.  Obedience belongs to an era of kings and queens and lords (as opposed to modern figure head/flag type aristocracy and monarchs) with an "absolute right" to bend some assemblage of others to their will.  I don't claim that right...not over my kids, my husband, (in the past) my employees and direct reports etc.  I don't recognize that right in others (in my husband, my clients, organizations to which I belong, my government etc.) 

 

If I have a responsibility to do for others who can't do for themselves (ie my children or indigent relatives or from my working life, helping poor people who might be able to do for themselves but need resource help), I do so not out a need to obey but because I personally believe that it's the right thing to do. 

 

There are laws that say we can't beat, abandon, neglect or starve our children. This has not always been the case and I don't have to go that far back to find a time where I wouldn't face legal penalty for doing at least some of those things. Is merely following those laws obedient?  Does following those laws ensure that I am a moral and ethical and kind person and mother?  If I *needed* a set of laws to not abandon, beat, neglect or starve my children, then I can hardly consider myself a moral, ethical or kind person because, in the face of the law, I apparently behave better than I otherwise would.  

 

If I need an external order to not be an asshole, I'm still an asshole even if my actions, obeying whatever authority I am subjecting myself to, are not asshole-esque.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Pam in CT]

I would be very curious to know the mbti of those of us who fall on opposite sides of the obedience is necessary/no it is not divide.  

 

I think it is a way of looking at the world that is very different.  Some of us value order and structure and hierarchy as a necessary thing.  Some of us see it as a means to an end, and therefore to be submitted to at will as it fits the end.  The latter values personal autonomy and responsibility far higher than social norms for the sake of social norms.  

 

 

That sounds plausible, although thus far in the discussion, overwhelmingly these differences have been limited to the realm of parenting... so there's a bit of a mash-up between "valuing order and... hierarchy" within that specific relationship, versus "valuing order... and hierarchy" as a general value.

 

Obedience as a General Value:

Is there value to order and structure in following traffic laws?  Is "obedience" here "virtuous?"  

Is there value to following the laws when the intersection is clearly empty?  

What about recycling rules?  Is it "disobedience" to blow these off, or cut corners a little bit?

How about income tax laws?  "Obedience?"  "Virtuous?"

How about that weird state sales tax thing that we're supposed to self-report and self-submit when we purchase products across state lines?  Obedience?  Disobedience?  

 

Obedience within Employment Relations:

Is it "obedient" always to follow instructions precisely?  Is it "virtuous" to keep on keeping on according to instructions when the employee can see a more efficient way to get the job done?  Is it "disobedient" to do it the better/more efficient way?  To call the better way to the attention of management?

Is it "disobedient" to speak up about safety problems? "Virtuous"?  Should employees who recognize a safety issue find a way to bring it to the attention of management?  Virtuous?  

If the safety problem is left unresolved, is it "disobedient" to make an OSHA claim?  Virtuous?

In collaborative/team contexts, is it "obedient" to do the assigned task, precisely, no more and no less?  Is that level of compartmentalism "virtuous"?

 

 

 

It's interesting that our discussion of the word is overwhelmingly associated with parenting.... and as many posters drill down to the details of what day-to-day family life looks like, it doesn't sound so terribly different between families that do or don't use the word.  

 

Maybe our different use of the word isn't really based on a general difference in values assigned to order and hierarchy; just the selection ofdifferent words to label family dynamics that sound in practice pretty similar.  If the word is rarely used outside the parent/child relationship, i's both a narrow-application, and also finite in time, concept.

[Bluegoat]

Since I am responding to generalities here we may not be on the same page but here goes.  

 

Problems that require collective solutions, can as you say have equally moral and reasonable people disagreeing on that solution.  In those situations where people don't agree, groups usually have a way of working out the disagreements.  Perhaps they vote and agree to go with the majority.  Perhaps there are sub group leaders who everyone else influences but cedes the final decision to.  Perhaps they have to talk it could until they reach consensus (consensus minus one was the model of decision making at my high school and I became quite adept at navigating those waters).  The group collectively establishes those rules.  In households, organizations, governments etc.  Obedience belongs to an era of kings and queens and lords (as opposed to modern figure head/flag type aristocracy and monarchs) with an "absolute right" to bend some assemblage of others to their will.  I don't claim that right...not over my kids, my husband, (in the past) my employees and direct reports etc.  I don't recognize that right in others (in my husband, my clients, organizations to which I belong, my government etc.) 

 

If I have a responsibility to do for others who can't do for themselves (ie my children or indigent relatives or from my working life, helping poor people (who might be able to do for themselves but need resource help), I do so not out a need to obey but because I personally believe that it's the right thing to do. 

 

There are laws that say we can't beat, abandon, neglect or starve our children. This has not always been the case and I don't have to go that far back to find a time where I wouldn't face legal penalty for doing any of those things. Is merely following those laws obedient?  Does following those laws ensure that I am a moral and ethical and kind person and mother?  If I *needed* a set of laws to not abandon, beat, neglect or starve my children, then I can hardly consider myself a moral, ethical or kind person because, in the face of the law, I apparently behave better than I otherwise would.  

 

If I need an external order to not be an asshole, I'm still an asshole even if my actions, obeying whatever authority I am subjecting myself to, are not asshole-esque.

 

So, if I don't agree with the mechanisms my state has established to deal with collective action problems, am I then justified in ignoring them and doing my own thing?  If I do that, does the state have any authority to do something about it?  Because it sounds like you are saying people are only subject to these social structures if they choose to be, but that isn't what actually seems to happen even in the most enlightened, cooperative states.  In fact it's those places where people often seem to feel most keenly the need to submit to the authority of the institutions.

[LucyStoner]

So, if I don't agree with the mechanisms my state has established to deal with collective action problems, am I then justified in ignoring them and doing my own thing?  If I do that, does the state have any authority to do something about it?  Because it sounds like you are saying people are only subject to these social structures if they choose to be, but that isn't what actually seems to happen even in the most enlightened, cooperative states.  In fact it's those places where people often seem to feel most keenly the need to submit to the authority of the institutions.

 

No, we are inherently subject to the system we live in.  It might be immoral or not to adhere to the strictures around us or to violate them.  We can "opt out" but may face very limited success in doing so.  I am part of the state I live in unless it's a dictatorship.  I didn't personally write the laws of my land (locally or otherwise) but I can (and have) been a part of changing them.  

 

There are definitely times and places where the systems change, break or are reformed.  There are also times where the law is immoral and to be obedient to it would be morally indefensible and ignoring the law is moral and right.  

 

Even in scouting they teach times when you need to use your own moral compass and not obey without mind just any adult or leader.  

Edited August 31, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

No, we are inherently subject to the system we live in.  It might be immoral or not to adhere to the strictures around us or to violate them.  We can "opt out" but may face very limited success in doing so.  I am part of the state I live in unless it's a dictatorship.  I didn't personally write the laws of my land (locally or otherwise) but I can (and have) been a part of changing them.  

 

There are definitely times and places where the systems change, break or are reformed.  There are also times where the law is immoral and to be obedient to it would be morally indefensible and ignoring the law is moral and right.  

 

Even in scouting they teach times when you need to use your own moral compass and not obey without mind just any adult or leader.  

 

Well, that is what I would also say, and I would say that is in fact the essence of obedience - deferring to rightful authority, especially when we don't particularly want to of our own accord.  Rightful, in that the authority is acting in it's proper capacity, but not necessarily that it is making the best decision.  So - it involves some sense of knowing when authority is rightful (no, being asked to pay taxes is not the state stealing your money,) it involves the ability to subdue our ego or self-will when required, and also an understanding of ourselves in term of society and not just as an individual.

 

I've found it interesting in this discussion how many people, in explaining what they don't like about the idea of obedience, feel the need to add descriptive words like "unthinking" or "blind" - well, to me that only tells us why inappropriate obedience is bad.  Almost any virtue can be a vice if it is used in an inappropriate way, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, even with the wrong motivation. 

[LucyStoner]

It's not that I don't like the idea of obedience.  It's that I reject it as a paradigm in my time, location and life.  I could imagine living where, when or in circumstances where obedience is necessary or accepted by most to be necessary.  I don't think it is in and of itself a virtue.  

Edited August 31, 2016 by LucyStoner