Obedience as a virtue

[Pam in CT]

Language, fascinating.

 

I'd call following-traffic-signs and following-recycling-rules and that sort of adherence to civic rules "compliance,"  

 

Which -- back to definitions -- to me suggests a broad consent of the governed kind of buy-in to general societal / community systems at a 50,000 foot general level.  Closer to "cooperation" if you will.

[Bluegoat]

re different meanings / connotations with the word "obedience""

Yes, from the outset of the thread it's clear that people do define the term differently.

 

I was among the early posters who answered "I don't consider obedience per se to be a virtue... while discernment and self-restraint are..." and, to your point, I certainly do value simple cooperation / thoughtful cooperation within the family and in other contexts.  So I suspect the actual day-to-day goings-on between parents & children here looks pretty similar to what you describe in yours, semantics notwithstanding.

 

For me, the connotation with the word "obedience" that troubles me is not "blind" or "demand."  For me, the obstacle to the term is its association with power, something close to the idea regentrude expressed:

 

 

And it is that power context that for me limits the "virtue-ness" of obedience.  There are limited contexts (very small children, safety situations like the mountain-climbing scenario described upthread, many contexts in the military) where instant compliance to a hierarchical set of orders is warranted.

 

To my mind, though, those situations are pretty limited.  That informs my response to the OP question, is obedience ALWAYS a virtue.  To my mind, no.  A 17 year old should be well on the way to autonomy and discernment -- the parent-child relationship by then should look much closer to cooperation between adults towards a common end, than "obedience."  (This is a PITA in practice, I concede...  :laugh: )  A work environment based strictly on obedience, in which employees do not call attention to safety or efficiency issues or make suggestions on possible improvements, is not a healthy one -- a cooperative model is far better.

 

Even in the military there are situations, immensely difficult, when orders are illegitimate.

 

So while I greatly value what I called restraint (and another pp called self-control), as well as discernment and certainly cooperation -- and what those "look like" in practice may look in practice awfully similar to what some posters are defining as "obedience" looks in practice, for me that pairing of obedience - power differential limits the universal applicability of its virtuousness -- the OP question was "is obedience ALWAYS a virtue."

 

Of course when orders given are illegitimate, it means that that the person being ordered is subject to obedience to a different authority than the one giving the order.  In Canada the way it is put is that if an order id illegal or manifestly immoral it isn't to be obeyed.  It isn't that there is some kind of choice for the soldier just to do whatever he wants - he is in fact not allowed to follow such an order, because that order itself is not authoritative, it is not in line with the higher authority. 

 

THat can mean some significant ability to discern on the part of the person who is being asked to carry out the illegitimate order - it might be easy enough to see what is illegal, but what is manifestly immoral might not be so obvious.  To that end, soldiers receive some training in things like laws of war and conflict, ethical principles of the organization and so on, as well as being trained in the normal course of things to follow orders and understand their obligations within the system, both as being subject to, and wielding, authority.

 

 

 

[Guest]

But there are all kinds of authoritative relationships in society.

 

My municipality recently said that all garbage has to go in clear bags, except one bag a week. This is so that they can see whether people are separating their waste properly.

 

You can call following that direction "cooperation" if you want, and it wouldn't be wrong, but there is absolutely an element of authority there - if I disagree with the law and don't follow it, I will still not get my garbage collected or even end up with a fine. I am not, in this, equal to the city government, we are not some laterally equal team.

 

There are all kinds of other examples of authoritative relationships in most people's lives - bosses, professional organizations and unions, schools, teachers, all levels of government, parents, churches, as well as more abstract things like justice or good. Some of them we are subject to simply as a matter of being human beings or citizens, others because we choose to enter into that relationship.

Of course, if everyone were cooperating with the recycling goals of the city, clear bags would be unnecessary. The bags could all be black, but would be assumed not to contain things that should be separated.

[Bluegoat]

Language, fascinating.

 

I'd call following-traffic-signs and following-recycling-rules and that sort of adherence to civic rules "compliance,"  

 

Which -- back to definitions -- to me suggests a broad consent of the governed kind of buy-in to general societal / community systems at a 50,000 foot general level.  Closer to "cooperation" if you will.

 

Compliance seems like a synonym for obedience to me, and I suspect one many still would not like, for similar reasons.

 

I think I like it less, as it seems much more passive to me, whereas obedience is something one wills.

 

People do in many cases consent to situations where they are expected to be obedient, having given the consent.  I'm not sure I think that is generally true in terms of larger society though, but I've never entirely liked that model.  I think that we are kind of stuck in society wherher we like it or not, and have duties to it, whether we like it or not.  We might choose not to exersize obedience to it in every case, and might be right to do so, but that doesn't really let us escape the consequences of that choice.

[Bluegoat]

Of course, if everyone were cooperating with the recycling goals of the city, clear bags would be unnecessary. The bags could all be black, but would be assumed not to contain things that should be separated.

 

Yes - it seems like a bit of a catch-22.  If people really recognized and responded universally to the need to follow the waste rules, no need for clear bags.  Which is to say that if we know clear bags improve the situation, clearly not everyone considered they need to recognize or cooperate with that authority (even if it is just motivated by being lazy.). 

 

And if we think the clear bags are a good idea to combat that problem, it rather suggests that we think the city should enforce its authority on those people in this particular area.

[Pam in CT]

Compliance seems like a synonym for obedience to me, and I suspect one many still would not like, for similar reasons.

 

I think I like it less, as it seems much more passive to me, whereas obedience is something one wills.

 

People do in many cases consent to situations where they are expected to be obedient, having given the consent.  I'm not sure I think that is generally true in terms of larger society though, but I've never entirely liked that model.  I think that we are kind of stuck in society wherher we like it or not, and have duties to it, whether we like it or not.  We might choose not to exersize obedience to it in every case, and might be right to do so, but that doesn't really let us escape the consequences of that choice.

 

They are, certainly, very close!  

 

For me there is a wedge of difference: compliance to me connotes a sort of blanket upfront umbrella consent, however grudging -- I comply with traffic signs, as a general matter, even if there are no other cars in the intersection; whereas obedience is situational to more one-off situations -- the police officer stopped me and asked for my registration and I obeyed his instruction.

 

I take your point that in both cases there is an element of power.  And if the OP question had been, is compliance always a virtue, I would have answered no -- there are times when civil disobedience is warranted -- while I am pretty much a rule-follower and believe pretty deeply in the responsibilities of civic life, I actually at the same time believe that one of those responsibilities is discernment.

 

So whether compliance - obedience are *synonyms,* or merely *close but not identical* is a distraction from the OP question about the universality or situational specificity of either, as desirable.

[wendyroo]

You have to do it whether it is something you agree with based on common goals, or not. Maybe that's the VERY BEST WAY but my goodness, no one can expect to agree with every rule, goal, or value all the time.

 

Butcha still gotta go the thing that the people say ya gotta do. So many things lie between "I agree" and "I disagree to the level that I'm going to get some civil disobedience up in this piece."

 

This is kind of what it comes down to for me.  Training my children to be obedient (especially blindly, immediately, cheerfully, etc) isn't very important to me, but training them to NOT be incessantly argumentative is one of my main goals in life.  

 

The vast majority of the time when I ask one of them to put something in the hamper or take off their shoes or not touch something of mine or wipe up a spill, there is no reason for arguing or complaining or bargaining of explaining or fussing.  They know perfectly well why I want the task done; they simply don't want to do it.  While I understand their reluctance and accept their right to hold that opinion, I still require that they get off their tuchus and do what I told them to do.

 

I think it is incredibly important to learn to pick your battles and comply with requests and instructions (from superiors, peers and subordinates) as often as you reasonably can.  When you have shown yourself to be a generally cooperative, non-argumentative person, then others will normally respond respectfully when you do question/disagree/protest/refuse.

 

Wendy

[J-rap]

This is one of those occasions where I think most people here actually agree on the same thing, they just call it by different terms.  I think most people would agree that when children are younger, part of our protecting and teaching them how to live a healthy lifestyle in a community of other people involves following directions (which some may refer to as obedience).  Things like not touching a hot stove, not crossing the street without looking, bedtime routines, eating vegetables, paying attention in school, doing homework, driving within the speed limit, etc.  

 

Of course this also involves teaching them independent critical thinking skills and discernment, with an emphasis on not blindly doing or believing what someone is telling us.  

 

It also involves learning when it's okay to trust and follow the directions/advice from someone else and on what occasions is this okay (which again, some may define as obeying):  This might be our boss at work, our siblings, a good friend, a teacher, our pastor, even our spouse at times.  Learning to trust and follow the suggestions of someone else who has more expertise in an area is beneficial to everyone.  Many times, this is more of a situational type of thing:  if I have an expertise in some area and can offer good advice or insight, my dh would listen to me and follow my advice.  If he has an expertise in some area and I trust that he does, then I'll listen to him and follow his advice.  I may follow the advice of someone for certain things but not for other things.

 

I think it's funny when people try and blatantly say "never" when in reality I think most people actually see this the same way.  I think it's pretty much common sense.

 

 

 

[creekland]

I find it interesting, all the people in this thread saying they don't teach obedience, but they teach their kids how to cooperate in the family or society or whatever. It's the same thing! You're just using a different set of words to describe it.

 

I 100% disagree.

 

No, I do not find that "obedience" and "cooperation" are the same thing. I see a definite difference between them.

 

Obedience: compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority.

Cooperation: the process of working together to the same end.

 

Obedience is doing something because of the authority of the person giving the command/request. Which also means that, among equals, obedience cannot exist, by definition. Equals, however, can cooperate for the common good.

The people on my team at work are not "obedient" to me - heaven forbid! They cooperate make the team project function smoothly, because they think about what is necessary and how to achieve the goal. 

 

Regentrude explains it well.

 

I'm not really good at respecting authority.  Quite a few humans aren't actually.  I think whether we are or not is in our genetics.

 

But given the right situation, most will cooperate.  That cooperation comes best when it's NOT coming from a position of authority, but from the person themselves deciding it's what they want to do.

 

Many will try to skirt laws.  How many speed?  How many text and drive?  How many will toss recyclables into the trash if they can?

 

But internalize something (vs legalizing it) and you wouldn't even need laws.

 

We're human so we aren't always going to agree with each other about priorities in life (recycling or otherwise), but raising kids to value their planet and their fellow humans goes a LONG way toward raising good citizens.  "Obedience" (to authority) doesn't even enter the picture.  That said, as a society we tend to need laws because not everyone is willing to value their planet or their fellow human beings.

 

In any event, obedience isn't a virtue at all. It can certainly cause more harm than good.  Valuing others and our planet certainly is and I've never seen that cause harm.

[EmseB]

Of course cooperation is required for obedience.  It doesn't mean absolute control or power, as I cannot, ultimately force an action of obedience even from a small child.  Obedience in the home requires love, understanding, and thoughtfulness.  Again, this seems to be ascribing a negative adjective or synonym to the concept of obedience, and therefore throwing the baby out with the bathwater and insisting obedience doesn't exist.

 

Obedience in the workplace or society requires at least some modicum of respect and cooperation, even if it just to the idea that even though we think something is not necessary or valuable that we should do it because the person asking us has authority to put us in jail, or to determine our future or some such.  There is always some level of cooperation or respect involved in obedience, otherwise you'd have disobedience.

 

It doesn't follow, however, that when I ask my son to empty the dishwasher his cooperation is not obedience.  It is his attitude of cooperation which leads to him obeying family rules and norms and my requests/commands.

 

Those of you saying you simply have this spirit of cooperation and questioning in your home, that's the same thing that I have.  My kids want to know why all the time.  They still have to empty the dishwasher, and most of the time it's done relatively cheerfully because they understand that everyone in the house has to do jobs to make it work. That still doesn't take away from the fact that they are obeying my imperative to them to empty the dishwasher.

Edited August 30, 2016 by JodiSue

[SKL]

Also some personality types like my son do ask too many questions. For instance helping my Dh do a work project around the house. Chances are great Dh has a really good reason....from 30 plus years of construction and engineering experience....for what he is asking. But maybe not. Either way, doing it dhs way is not going to hurt ds and when he is in charge of a project he can do it his own way.

 

See, I would view your son's questions as a positive - wanting to understand the logic so he can apply it properly now and in the future.

 

Some people are not very verbal and they find it difficult to explain everything even though they understand it themselves.  But part of parenting is passing down our wisdom so our kids don't have to figure it all out themselves.  Yes, some of it can be learned by doing, but what's wrong with asking for a verbal explanation?  It's also good to model to our kids how to explain things to others, as that will be their job (paid and unpaid) eventually.

 

Granted, it can get old, but I wouldn't think of it as a behavior issue unless it was said with disrespectful tone or intent.

[foxbridgeacademy]

No not a virtue after age 3-ish.  When they were little DH and I were what we termed "hard" on the kids.  We expected them to do as they were told, we explained when the situation warranted it but in critical times if you are told to stop, you stop.  My kids were great because I followed up the "do as you are told" with constant care.  They were rarely left alone, I didn't entertain them but we shared space.  This meant a lot of interaction and feedback.  Around about 3 1/2 or so we started to lighten up, obedience (I hate that word) was strongly requested but not expected. Here's when the battles started happening. The push pull of who gets their way and who gives. Some things were non-negotiable most could always be adjusted. They learned what was important and we all learned how to pick our battles.  We are now at a point where except for school and emptying the dishwasher everything is negotiable.  It's a headache to be sure but they have turned into amazing free thinkers, capable of being in charge and independent while at the same time, usually, happy to listen to my advice.  I am proud of how well they argue and stand up for what they feel is right even when I know they're wrong.  I hope (and so far we're doing okay) that all of my kids have learned enough to go out in the world and make the right decisions for them even if I don't agree with those choices.

[Pam in CT]

...

Those of you saying you simply have this spirit of cooperation and questioning in your home, that's the same thing that I have.  My kids want to know why all the time.  They still have to empty the dishwasher, and most of the time it's done relatively cheerfully because they understand that everyone in the house has to do jobs to make it work. That still doesn't take away from the fact that they are obeying my imperative to them to empty the dishwasher.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how it goes around here as well; we're just using different words for carrying out that dishwasher imperative.  Which is fine.

 

 

 

The conversation around recycling got me thinking about another angle to this.  To those posters who DO use the word "obedience" in reference to grown people carrying out imperatives more or less cooperatively:  when there are civic rules that strike you as a bit goofy or rigid or unnecessary or whatever -- stuff like coming to a full stop when there's no one in the intersection, or paying for a dog permit, or separating newspaper from other paper, or *whatever* -- and you don't fully comply to the letter of the rule you think is a bit goofy, do you consider that "disobedience," or do you use some other word?

[Scarlett]

See, I would view your son's questions as a positive - wanting to understand the logic so he can apply it properly now and in the future.

 

Some people are not very verbal and they find it difficult to explain everything even though they understand it themselves. But part of parenting is passing down our wisdom so our kids don't have to figure it all out themselves. Yes, some of it can be learned by doing, but what's wrong with asking for a verbal explanation? It's also good to model to our kids how to explain things to others, as that will be their job (paid and unpaid) eventually.

 

Granted, it can get old, but I wouldn't think of it as a behavior issue unless it was said with disrespectful tone or intent.

I do,want him to ask questions, but there is a point where it turns to badgering. Seriously, I wish I could think of an example......my son can be exhausting.

[EmseB]

I do,want him to ask questions, but there is a point where it turns to badgering. Seriously, I wish I could think of an example......my son can be exhausting.

 

I have one of these.  There is a point where one can tell it is almost...argumentative rather than inquisitive.  It's a way that my son can almost try to insist that he must have thought of a better way to do something, which, I'll hear you out dude, but it becomes so exhausting to explain the motivation and reasons for every tiny aspect of one's driving or parking lot choice, or way of cooking dinner, or order in which we are running errands, or, or, or.  And when he is in this mode, often I will genuinely start explaining and he is not even listening, because he was asking just to badger, not to hear the real answer.

[SKL]

I have to admit that I found it really cute when my younger tot started saying "no."  It was like a whole rationalization in one plaintive word.  Maybe that's why I wasn't a harda$$ when they were little.  I did manage to keep them alive, though.  :P

 

Maybe it's because I'm old and single and don't have time to be perfect, but I learned early on to pick my battles.  I don't regret that.  Maybe someday I will, maybe not.

 

Well, mostly I tried not to have a lot of rules.  I remember telling people I had 4 rules (all related to safety or not destroying things).  My tots were actually surprisingly good about those rules, without any rewards or punishments.  But if I'd tried to make them come, sit, speak, etc. then our obedience rate would have been lower.  :P

[bolt.]

The word "obedience" has a wide range-of-meaning. It also some significant overlap with the meanings of other words, and some 'casual uses' that we say by habit when we might choose another word if we were thinking carefully about our wording. This is linguistically normal.

 

Within the full range-of-meaning for "obedience" I don't think *all* of it is a virtue, in either adults or children.

 

The ideas (that overlap the concept of obedience) of compliance, taking direction, accepting authority, following instructions, co-operating by following leadership within a team (etc) are much more of 'life skills' than virtues. They are often a good thing, and occasionally not so great when taken too far, or not suitable for specific occasions. Most life skills are like that... But moral elements if our character are not like that.

 

I think a lot of people take it too far in parenting, particularly if they follow the Bible in a literal fashion about this word -- defining all possible definitions of "obey" as good-and-manditory. However, the word in question is actually at least 3 different words in the originals, each with their *own* range-of-meaning in an their own settings. So I don't think they should adopt that whole-hog approach without significant study.

 

That said, there is a *part* of obedience that is a virtue. Obedience is a virtue when/if it means that: 1. In a relationship where trust has been established, 2. There arrises a situation where one must direct the other blindly and/or suddenly, 3. There is sufficient trust that no further info is required, and the person simply and quickly follows that direction. This ability/capacity to develop trust (with discernment!) and then rely on it in order to take actions beyond your comprehension at the moment -- yes, that's a virtue in the moral and personal-character sense. A person who can not do this lacks something important for healthy relationships and a good life.

 

It may be that this obedience-as-virtue exists in heathy friendships and peer relationships, but us rarely used except in emergencies -- it's not really a 'power' thing. In other situations with established power (such as parent-child, leader-follower, diety-human) it may be more habitual, because a lot of trust can be established, and obedience can become somewhat habitual. It can be called a healthy expectation of those relationships (as long as trust is maintained, and critical thinking is involved in an ongoing way).

[Pawz4me]

Every time one of these threads comes up I'm reminded of the Costa Concordia sinking.  IIRC some (many?) of the people who survived reportedly did so because they refused to obey the captain's/crew's order to return to their rooms and instead stayed on the decks.

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how it goes around here as well; we're just using different words for carrying out that dishwasher imperative.  Which is fine.

 

 

 

The conversation around recycling got me thinking about another angle to this.  To those posters who DO use the word "obedience" in reference to grown people carrying out imperatives more or less cooperatively:  when there are civic rules that strike you as a bit goofy or rigid or unnecessary or whatever -- stuff like coming to a full stop when there's no one in the intersection, or paying for a dog permit, or separating newspaper from other paper, or *whatever* -- and you don't fully comply to the letter of the rule you think is a bit goofy, do you consider that "disobedience," or do you use some other word?

 

I'd probably think of it as breaking the law, or in other contexts breaking the rules.  How negative that was would depend, it might not be that important, and in some situations it could even be good, say in the case of an unjust law. 

 

But if it was a situation where it was bad, I would say it was a matter of not submitting (cooperating, as an act of will rather than something we might choose as an individual) with legitimate authority, which is what obedience is.  I'd most likely use it if I was specifically talking about the individuals failure in some way, though I might break it down further - perhaps it is more a matter of the person not being able to discern legitimate and illegitimate authority (so, an issue of justice), or maybe it is a matter of lack of ability to will oneself to act in accordance with that justice.

 

(In the case of an unjust law, it would not a legitimate authority, so not disobedience properly speaking - the obedience would be to whatever the higher principle was.)

 

I'd also quite possibly use it in terms of someone having voluntarily submitted to a particular authority, or principle, or plan, of some kind.  Even something totally self-created like a diet - in that case presumably the person recognizes the reason for choosing to submit but is somehow unable to carry it out as an act of will.

[Bluegoat]

Every time one of these threads comes up I'm reminded of the Costa Concordia sinking.  IIRC some (many?) of the people who survived reportedly did so because they refused to obey the captain's/crew's order to return to their rooms and instead stayed on the decks.

 

I suspect you could find plenty of examples of the opposite though - there is a reason that drills are particularly useful in emergency situations - people panic and make poor decisions, or don't know enough to make a good decision.

 

Part of the reason his crime was so deplorable is that it was a misuse of authority.  Kind of the mirror image of the person who for selfish reasons doesn't follow rules and creates a disaster, but usually seen as even worse.

[Murphy101]

I do,want him to ask questions, but there is a point where it turns to badgering. Seriously, I wish I could think of an example......my son can be exhausting.

Lol. I have a couple of those.

 

Yes. Sometimes the best thing to do is shut up and learn from the process. All things will be made known in time with practice.

[Murphy101]

So you can make him obey, which would include not asking anymore questions.

 

But, his attitude about it is still seething inside. That's why I feel obedience is a relationship indicator instead of a virtue in and of itself.

Well in the case of JodiSue's example of which I've btdt many a time myself...

 

The point of the obedience is to set a boundary in the relationship of where my putting up with annoying BS limits are.

 

Again, though, I don't view obedience as a virtue either. Doesn't mean it isn't useful and necessary in life.

[ktgrok]

I agree. If you've ever told your kid to do something and expected them to do it - you've taught and expected obedience. Playing with words doesn't change that.

 

This exactly. 

 

I don't know that I'd call it a virtue, it's just a practical and necessary thing for smooth daily life. Like wearing pants in public. Also not a virtue, just a thing that keeps me from getting arrested. 

[Pam in CT]

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

Civil disobedience is a legal term.

 

But I frame it as respect vs disrespect.

 

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?

[Guest]

So you can make him obey, which would include not asking anymore questions.  

 

But, his attitude about it is still seething inside.  That's why I feel obedience is a relationship indicator instead of a virtue in and of itself.

 

Are you saying that a disobedient act indicates a poor parental relationship?

 

Cause: naw, man.

[Guest]

 

 

Personally I would not consider private acts like not-separating-the-newspaper-from-other-paper to be "civil disobedience." 

 

I am seriously lol'ing. hahahaha

 

be STICKIN' TO THE MAN, all day, every day.

 

I kind of like that, though. Think about how amazing you'd feel if you really thought you were actually sticking it to the man by doing so little.

[EmseB]

So you can make him obey, which would include not asking anymore questions.

 

But, his attitude about it is still seething inside. That's why I feel obedience is a relationship indicator instead of a virtue in and of itself.

Well, there's a lot more that goes into the relationship than that.

 

First, I don't let someone just go stomping off to do things while they are seething, because that's not the point. That's how dishes get broken, for one. Second, for that kid in particular he usually knows when he's being ridiculous, so by now a quick reminder about the fact that I've parked the car 11 billion more times than he has (or whatever it is) usually stems the interrogation.

 

Obedience (or cooperation within the family structure, if one prefers) comes from the heart, so we work very hard on making sure everyone knows it isn't just about doing something in anger to get it done. I'm not so arrogant to think that I will always have a good relationship with my kids, but that is my hope, and I don't foster that by demanding instant obedience with a side of resentment. I also try to let my kids know that I'm human and have to do certain things I don't like without a bunch of grumbling and sighing and complaining. That part is really tough.

Edited August 30, 2016 by JodiSue

[Guest]

Nope. I don't give a rat's patootie about God or religion, and it seems like obedience is always tied to that, at least here on these boards.

A virtue as in having high moral standards? Nope.

Obedient as in having a kid who does what I say by the count of three or else he gets punished? Nope.

Obedient as in blindly following an adult's order just because it's an adult? Nope.

I find those kind of people to be miserable to be around.

 

Without meaning to antagonize, may I ask a question?  

 

Do you think striving toward virtue is worth doing?  And maybe that will take a little defining of the word...I know how that goes.  Is there a greater good outside yourself, or is goodness defined (if it is) within/by yourself?

 

I don't quite know how to word this without getting in the weeds...  But I am interested in hearing your response.  

[Guest]

I find it interesting, all the people in this thread saying they don't teach obedience, but they teach their kids how to cooperate in the family or society or whatever. It's the same thing! You're just using a different set of words to describe it.

 

The assumption is that "obedience" goes along with the words "blind" or "demand" or whatever negative connotations, when often obedience is simple cooperation within a family or place of employment or society, and doesn't mean the person in question is not thinking or evaluating situations. As much as people seem to not like the word, if you've taught your kid to "thoughtfully cooperate" within your family structure or within society, you've taught them obedience.

 

The semantics remind me of a friend who once told me she didn't make New Year's resolutions, rather she just had a list of goals she wanted to accomplish in the New year. :D

They are not the same thing. Being cooperative has a very different word origin and explicit meaning than being obedient.

 

Obedient is defined as submitting to an authority. It is going along with the commands of one in authority.

 

Cooperate is defined as working together. That's why the prefix "co-" is in there. We operate together; we co-operate.

[Guest]

I have to admit that I found it really cute when my younger tot started saying "no." It was like a whole rationalization in one plaintive word. Maybe that's why I wasn't a harda$$ when they were little. I did manage to keep them alive, though. :P

 

Maybe it's because I'm old and single and don't have time to be perfect, but I learned early on to pick my battles. I don't regret that. Maybe someday I will, maybe not.

 

Well, mostly I tried not to have a lot of rules. I remember telling people I had 4 rules (all related to safety or not destroying things). My tots were actually surprisingly good about those rules, without any rewards or punishments. But if I'd tried to make them come, sit, speak, etc. then our obedience rate would have been lower. :P

I remember once at a playgroup, another mom was having a hard time with her kids. In my view, 99% of her hard time was because she was too bothered by every tiny thing they did. The topic turned to "discipline" and I said I wasn't big on spanking personally. She said, "well then what do you do when they don't obey?" I sat there thinking....Hmmm. What DO I do when they don't obey? I was on point of saying something about how "obedience" wasn't a prominent part of my parenting philosophy when one of her kids did some ghastly thing and she had to go intervene, ironically enough.

[EmseB]

They are not the same thing. Being cooperative has a very different word origin and explicit meaning than being obedient.

 

Obedient is defined as submitting to an authority. It is going along with the commands of one in authority.

 

Cooperate is defined as working together. That's why the prefix "co-" is in there. We operate together; we co-operate.

 

Right, but in the context of family and kids, there's authority and submission along with cooperation.  Again, cooperation must be there for obedience to occur, but it's not like every kid out there is super self-motivated to complete household chores.  Or, maybe I'm just doing it wrong and other people's kids are just doing those things in cooperation with the household instead of being asked and having it be a responsibility placed on them by their parents.

 

That's what I'm saying -- people are claiming that their kids are not taught obedience, yet I would bet those parents are asking their kids to do stuff and requiring it to be done before other fun stuff happens, or whatever approach is taken in that individual house.  But I know very few kids who work together and cooperate without it being required of them by their parents -- those kids were brought up to do so as a responsibility to the household, and that starts as simple obedience and hopefully grows into a sense of cooperation and responsibility to their fellow housemates.  Hopefully.

 

Obedience requires cooperation.  But even the most cooperative kid in the world does require some direction from parents on what to do and how to do it, or how to talk to people, or how not to talk to people.  Again, maybe I'm just doing it wrong, but my kids need specific direction often (ETA:  I think this is partly because of homeschooling -- okay, now we're doing page 7 in math, now we're going to read this chapter, now I need you to write a sentence).  Then they choose to cooperate (obey) or to not to (as Mater would say), but they do get a lot of direction from me.  Less as they get older, but they are still little yet.

 

ETA:  I would add, that like SKL, we have very few hard and fast rules around the house.  But there are chores and school and everything else, where I have to have their buy in and cooperation to actually follow my directions.  So, cooperation is not a foreign concept to me, I would just say that it is necessary for kids to do what is asked of them.

Edited August 31, 2016 by JodiSue

[PeacefulChaos]

Just something I'm musing on this morning.

 

I remember taking a test once where you had to rank a list of values to teach children from most to least important--it was supposed to identify which culture your parenting was most in line with. I don't remember what all the virtues were, but obedience was one of them--and on my list it fell very near the bottom. I mentioned this to a group of homechooling moms--mostly Protestant Christians--and they were shocked.

 

Do you consider obedience to be a major virtue? If so, obedience to who/what? Is obedience more important for children than for adults?

I haven't read other posts, and probably won't, as I am late coming in and I've seen obedience be a hot button issue lol... And I just don't have the time :lol:

 

Anyway, I can't say I consider obedience to be super important, especially not blind obedience, and not in the context of people ordering others around.

IMO obedience applies across the board in a loose sense, maybe more like 'respect' would be the word. Often all of this gets lost in translation because someone says 'I value obedience' and others project onto that person an image of a drill sergeant demanding quick, unquestioning response! :)

So here are the ways I think of obedience:

 

1. Obedience to a higher power/religious law, if applicable. For Christians, I'd assume the 10 commandments. Not a person, as I don't believe that religions are about people but about God - but that's my own personal take. But in the context of myself, I'd like to say I try to do the right thing - 'be obedient', if you will - according to what Jesus said (aka love God love people).

 

2. Obedience to the law of the land. Again, I can choose to break the law but I would prefer not to lol. And I have the understanding that breaking the law has consequences. That said, I'm also a proponent of knowing our rights and wouldn't unquestioningly follow orders from anyone, even an enforcer of the law, if I knew my rights were being violated in the situation.

 

3. "Obedience" to authority figures. THIS is the one that I wouldn't personally call obedience because of the connotations. As a parent, I try to teach my kids to be respectful to us and other adults and authority figures in most cases. When I call for Link, I prefer a word in response - 'yeah?', 'huh?' Etc are fine - but something to let me know he heard me and that he will hear me if I continue with a request. We would also like for them to follow through with what they've been asked to do, if it's possible. If someone (parents included!) is getting up and walking into the kitchen, I'd expect that anyone would respond to a request upon returning in a favorable way. 'Can you grab a bottle of water out of the fridge for me?' 'Sure.'

Stuff like that. I think respect for others transcends the idea of obedience and so don't really like the word.

I also, unlike some, believe that respect isn't earned. I think every human being on earth deserves to be treated with respect; that doesn't mean everyone should be blindly obeyed!!

I also don't like the idea of blind obedience because children should be taught from a young age that it's never okay for others to cross the line. My kids have all been told that should someone do something crazy (and highly unlikely!) like try to grab one of them in a public place or lure them, they are free to make as much of a scene as they can. If being physically grabbed, bite, kick, punch, scream - whatever! - and just because someone is a person of 'authority' doesn't mean they can't still do stuff like that.

 

Anyway. That's my long, complicated, drawn out thoughts on obedience lol!

[HomeschoolingHearts&Minds]

Right, but in the context of family and kids, there's authority and submission along with cooperation.  Again, cooperation must be there for obedience to occur, but it's not like every kid out there is super self-motivated to complete household chores.  Or, maybe I'm just doing it wrong and other people's kids are just doing those things in cooperation with the household instead of being asked and having it be a responsibility placed on them by their parents.

 

That's what I'm saying -- people are claiming that their kids are not taught obedience, yet I would bet those parents are asking their kids to do stuff and requiring it to be done before other fun stuff happens, or whatever approach is taken in that individual house.  But I know very few kids who work together and cooperate without it being required of them by their parents -- those kids were brought up to do so as a responsibility to the household, and that starts as simple obedience and hopefully grows into a sense of cooperation and responsibility to their fellow housemates.  Hopefully.

 

 

 

Really? Today I asked my 16-year-old to get the mail from the post office (we don't have door to door delivery in town).  He said, "sure, remind me after 2." The post office is closed for an hour for the workers' lunch break and he likes to go when they are there in case there are any packages.  It's a walk across town, not terribly far, but not very pleasant in the heat we are having here.

 

I reminded him.  He went.  That's cooperation.  He could have said, "no." He also could have forgotten. And there would not have been any repercussions.  I would not have forbidden him to do some fun thing.  I did not require it of him and yet he wanted to do it.  He gets the mail because he knows it is helpful to the family, just as his younger brother call himself "dishwasher man" and empties the dishwasher when asked.  

[Guest]

Right, but in the context of family and kids, there's authority and submission along with cooperation. Again, cooperation must be there for obedience to occur, but it's not like every kid out there is super self-motivated to complete household chores. Or, maybe I'm just doing it wrong and other people's kids are just doing those things in cooperation with the household instead of being asked and having it be a responsibility placed on them by their parents.

 

That's what I'm saying -- people are claiming that their kids are not taught obedience, yet I would bet those parents are asking their kids to do stuff and requiring it to be done before other fun stuff happens, or whatever approach is taken in that individual house. But I know very few kids who work together and cooperate without it being required of them by their parents -- those kids were brought up to do so as a responsibility to the household, and that starts as simple obedience and hopefully grows into a sense of cooperation and responsibility to their fellow housemates. Hopefully.

 

Obedience requires cooperation. But even the most cooperative kid in the world does require some direction from parents on what to do and how to do it, or how to talk to people, or how not to talk to people. Again, maybe I'm just doing it wrong, but my kids need specific direction often (ETA: I think this is partly because of homeschooling -- okay, now we're doing page 7 in math, now we're going to read this chapter, now I need you to write a sentence). Then they choose to cooperate (obey) or to not to (as Mater would say), but they do get a lot of direction from me. Less as they get older, but they are still little yet.

 

ETA: I would add, that like SKL, we have very few hard and fast rules around the house. But there are chores and school and everything else, where I have to have their buy in and cooperation to actually follow my directions. So, cooperation is not a foreign concept to me, I would just say that it is necessary for kids to do what is asked of them.

For my part, I am not saying I *never* taught my kids obedience; I'm sure more of our interactions when they were, say, age 3, looked that way because I am the obvious authority. What I am saying is "Obedience" is not a virtue or even much of a value in my family philosophy.

 

You keep interchanging cooperation and obedience, but those are not equivalent words. If you appear to "cooperate" with an edict that comes from authority, it isn't really cooperation at all, it is compliance, obedience. You have simply decided life is better/easier/less threatening if you comply with the authority and obey. (Nothing wrong with that of itself; I comply when I pay my property taxes because I don't want to be fined and I don't want to go to jail. But I'm not "cooperating" with the county government, I am obeying it. I do not want to pay property taxes but I more strongly don't want to suffer the punishment for tax evasion, so I pay it.)

 

It may be that I'm just lucky and have the most agreeable three kids ever bestowed on one mama, but however it did come about, I don't have to battle my kids to comply with the things I want or need them to do. Hardly ever. They do have responsibilities at home, but it's just something they do, it's not like a big Order/Command thing. It's just the way our family works.

 

So, for example, my kids have had a set of dinnertime jobs for years and years. I have a card with 31 days on it (to suit any month) and color-coded initials for who is supposed to do which jobs on that day of the month. Today, it was K- dishes, C - table, M - sweep and save food. (K is back at college now, so I or DH fill in for her or any absent kid.) There have never been rewards or punishments attached to these jobs. It's just what we do. When dinner is almost ready to be served, the table person is called to set the table and collect the family members. When dinner is over, each person moves to begin their jobs.

 

There have been once in a blue moon squabbles about some detail, but so far, no kid has flat-out refused to do his or her job. I mean, I guess it could happen, but it would be SOOO foreign to our family culture. If it did happen, I hope that I would try to understand what is going on with that kid. I would not treat it as "defiance" or disobedience. i would try to figure out what the problem is - maybe that kid has been criticized so much for doing his or her job poorly that he is lashing out from feeling disrespected, just to pick some hypothetical reason.

 

In homeschooling, of course we do have order and there are things I require them to do, but it's just not "bossy" in tone. It's just matter-or-fact. "Open your math book...we're doing Lesson 24 today...these two pages...yes, we're doing to back also..." Again, I try to be reasonable whenever I can; "Do you need to go jump on the trampoline for 15 minutes before we begin math, or would you rather just charge on?" But maybe because of this my kids beleive me when I can't afford the flexibility, "okay, we have to just charge on today because I have to go to the office at 12:30..."

[ktgrok]

In homeschooling, of course we do have order and there are things I require them to do, but it's just not "bossy" in tone. It's just matter-or-fact. "Open your math book...we're doing Lesson 24 today...these two pages...yes, we're doing to back also..." Again, I try to be reasonable whenever I can; "Do you need to go jump on the trampoline for 15 minutes before we begin math, or would you rather just charge on?" But maybe because of this my kids beleive me when I can't afford the flexibility, "okay, we have to just charge on today because I have to go to the office at 12:30..."

 

See, I'd call that obedience. You tell them what to do, and they do it. They obey. You don't call it that, but we're talking about the same things. Doesn't have to be about a big scary voice or bossy. It's just asking them to do something and expecting them to do it. 

[Murphy101]

See, I'd call that obedience. You tell them what to do, and they do it. They obey. You don't call it that, but we're talking about the same things. Doesn't have to be about a big scary voice or bossy. It's just asking them to do something and expecting them to do it.

I agree. Tone and attitude doesn't matter. It's the same thing. Telling them to do something and expecting them to do it = expecting obedience.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Murphy101

[Guest]

See, I'd call that obedience. You tell them what to do, and they do it. They obey. You don't call it that, but we're talking about the same things. Doesn't have to be about a big scary voice or bossy. It's just asking them to do something and expecting them to do it.

Bingo. It also isn't somehow distinct from a relationship, cooperation, or respect. It's all tied together in healthy parent and child interactions.

[Murphy101]

Deliberate willful disobedience is NOT usually an act against the parent.

 

Kids have free will.

 

Damn it.

 

It's not always about mom. Usually it's not about mom. Sometimes they do stuff because they decide that's what they are going to do. Often for reasons that don't have as much to do with mom as mom thinks. Sometimes I think that's a vicious cycle moms perpetuate.

 

If kids does X it's bc of mom.

Therefore if my kids doesn't do X it's bc of me, their mom.

And if my kids do X then bc I am Mom and it's bc of me, I can stop/change/fix X.

And therefore if kids have a problem it's bc of mom failure.

 

Alas. That's usually not quite how this parenting thing works.

 

Bc damn free will.

 

Kids do a lot of stuff for a lot of reasons that have little to nothing to do with mom. This is true at 2, 12, and 22 and 42.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Murphy101

[Guest]

See, I'd call that obedience. You tell them what to do, and they do it. They obey. You don't call it that, but we're talking about the same things. Doesn't have to be about a big scary voice or bossy. It's just asking them to do something and expecting them to do it.

Okay. I can accept that. Still isn't a virtue I care about.

[EmseB]

My quoter is broken! Anyway:

 

I wasn't equating cooperation with obedience. I said more than once that one is required for the other, so I'm not sure how to make it clearer that I agree -- they are not the same thing. Cooperation is, however, interwoven with any act of obedience. You have to cooperate with someone in order to obey them. That cooperation is going to look different if two people are working on the same task vs. one person directing another to do something.

 

What I do think, is that in the context of a parent-child relationship, if the parent tells a child to do something and the child cooperates and does it, then that is an example of obedience. Yes, cooperation is part of obedience because there is an interaction between two people where they end up working toward the same purpose or end goal. It happens, though, in a relationship where authority is involved that often one party is cooperating by completing a task assigned to them by another person. Or, they are not doing something because the authority figure has told them not to do it. They are cooperating with authority by complying or obeying. Cooperation doesn't have to look like two people doing the exact same job together, just that they are working toward the same goal -- even if one person submits to the authority of another.

 

But, as I said in my first post on the thread, the virtue involved in obedience is solely dependent on the situation, not obedience itself.

 

And, look, I can make things sound all rosy and non-authoritarian and say that DS and I cooperate while doing his math and we work together to promote a harmonious balance in our household. Because it generally is without conflict or strife. If I'm being honest though, he does the bulk of his math mostly on his own, and while he somewhat enjoys math, I'd be lying if I said that he would do it without being asked, or without the prospect of playing Minecraft only after his schoolwork is done looming prominently on the horizon. I don't know if it makes me a bad parent that I require obedience in getting math done before allowing video games, but it sure does make for a cooperative student during the school day and a pretty harmonious household. And it's always been my personality to get work done before play, so it's just how the ship sails around here. I suppose when they are older and move out they can switch it up if they want.

 

Oh, and for the previous poster who mentioned the 16yo getting the mail -- yes, when my oldest kid is double his current age, I don't expect to be ordering him to the mailbox under threat. We are gradually and intentionally working towards less parental authority in our kids' lives as they grow. As it stands now they all fight over who gets to go get the mail. :/

[Murphy101]

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.

[EmseB]

Bingo. It also isn't somehow distinct from a relationship, cooperation, or respect. It's all tied together in healthy parent and child interactions.

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. ;)

[8circles]

& while some may think that cooperation is part of their obedience, there is no obedience that is part of our cooperation.

 

I think that in some cases, it really is about relationship, but not the way it's been stated - that disobedience indicates poor relationship.  It can mean that.  But I also think that requiring obedience without caring about the why's of the person who isn't obeying is really disrespectful.  

[ktgrok]

I just think that we all probably ask our kids to do something, and want them to do it. Be that do their school work, turn the page to whatever page, stop licking us, lower their voice, put their cup in the sink, etc. Some of us term that as obedience. Some of us call it something else. But whichever we call it, it is often pretty much the same thing in practice. 

 

Again, leaving off the weird first time obedience with a smile outliers. 

[Guest]

My quoter is broken! Anyway:

 

I wasn't equating cooperation with obedience. I said more than once that one is required for the other, so I'm not sure how to make it clearer that I agree -- they are not the same thing. Cooperation is, however, interwoven with any act of obedience. You have to cooperate with someone in order to obey them. That cooperation is going to look different if two people are working on the same task vs. one person directing another to do something.

 

What I do think, is that in the context of a parent-child relationship, if the parent tells a child to do something and the child cooperates and does it, then that is an example of obedience. Yes, cooperation is part of obedience because there is an interaction between two people where they end up working toward the same purpose or end goal. It happens, though, in a relationship where authority is involved that often one party is cooperating by completing a task assigned to them by another person. Or, they are not doing something because the authority figure has told them not to do it. They are cooperating with authority by complying or obeying. Cooperation doesn't have to look like two people doing the exact same job together, just that they are working toward the same goal -- even if one person submits to the authority of another.

 

But, as I said in my first post on the thread, the virtue involved in obedience is solely dependent on the situation, not obedience itself.

 

And, look, I can make things sound all rosy and non-authoritarian and say that DS and I cooperate while doing his math and we work together to promote a harmonious balance in our household. Because it generally is without conflict or strife. If I'm being honest though, he does the bulk of his math mostly on his own, and while he somewhat enjoys math, I'd be lying if I said that he would do it without being asked, or without the prospect of playing Minecraft only after his schoolwork is done looming prominently on the horizon. I don't know if it makes me a bad parent that I require obedience in getting math done before allowing video games, but it sure does make for a cooperative student during the school day and a pretty harmonious household. And it's always been my personality to get work done before play, so it's just how the ship sails around here. I suppose when they are older and move out they can switch it up if they want.

 

Oh, and for the previous poster who mentioned the 16yo getting the mail -- yes, when my oldest kid is double his current age, I don't expect to be ordering him to the mailbox under threat. We are gradually and intentionally working towards less parental authority in our kids' lives as they grow. As it stands now they all fight over who gets to go get the mail. :/

Part of why I am uninterested in "obedience" as an objective is because if it is obedience I believe I am after, any failure to follow through is disobedience and there's a lot of Ick-residue in my past about what must be done about that.

 

I have some similar structure regarding schoolwork; screens are for after 3:00pm when we are actively doing school. So, sure, DS would not wake up in the morning, eat, dress and brush his teeth, then sit down at his desk and start on Math if I didn't require it. So, it is fair for Katie to point out that this is obedience. True. It's not a free-for-all wherein they do whatever they want all the day long and I am not an unschooler, radical or otherwise. BUT! (There had to be a but.) It does my outlook no favors if I think, "oh, but these kids must be obedient! How else would they ever do math?" That thinking (at least for me) too easily leads to an adversarial framework in which mama thinks the kids should toe every line laid down a thousand times a day and if not, there's hell to pay. I don't want to play cards with those ideas; they lead me nowhere good.

 

I aim for the cooperative model which, despite your usage and the usage of several posters here, does not equal obedience to me. When I cooperate with someone, I view them as my companion, not my authority. I think for me, a lot of it is in this idea that if we are cooperating, 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.

[EmseB]

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.

[8circles]

I just think that we all probably ask our kids to do something, and want them to do it. Be that do their school work, turn the page to whatever page, stop licking us, lower their voice, put their cup in the sink, etc. Some of us term that as obedience. Some of us call it something else. But whichever we call it, it is often pretty much the same thing in practice. 

 

Again, leaving off the weird first time obedience with a smile outliers. 

 

I want my kids to do a lot of things.  But I don't want them to do it because I've told them to.  I want them to do it because they've determined that it's the best course of action and they are capable of doing it.  When they haven't reached that point yet, they aren't being disobedient.

[Zinnia]

I want my kids to do a lot of things. But I don't want them to do it because I've told them to. I want them to do it because they've determined that it's the best course of action and they are capable of doing it. When they haven't reached that point yet, they aren't being disobedient.

I suppose at the end of the day, I want this too, more than anything. It *is* very frustrating to me to figure out that some people never are going to make the same choices Iwould make, are rarely going to choose peace and cooperation, make arguing and grumpiness into Olympic sports, and don't care if they are disruptive to the family as a whole. This is frustrating on many levels, and when it's my kid, it feels more so.

 

And part of me just hopes that if I teach some obedience, of how to get along in a family setting . ..that type of thing. That all those times of practicing obedience will get a kid to think....ah, this is pretty good. I like this. I will occasionally choose this myself.

[8circles]

I suppose at the end of the day, I want this too, more than anything. It *is* very frustrating to me to figure out that some people never are going to make the same choices Iwould make, are rarely going to choose peace and cooperation, make arguing and grumpiness into Olympic sports, and don't care if they are disruptive to the family as a whole. This is frustrating on many levels, and when it's my kid, it feels more so.

 

And part of me just hopes that if I teach some obedience, of how to get along in a family setting . ..that type of thing. That all those times of practicing obedience will get a kid to think....ah, this is pretty good. I like this. I will occasionally choose this myself.

 

a couple of my kids are way grumpier than average.  I've wondered at times if one isn't allergic to peace and cooperation.  I decided a while ago, that I would accept them as they are instead of wasting time wishing they were different.  Despite these quirks, they are lovely human beings who want to be kind and good and loving - they just haven't figured-out how to do that yet.  Teaching them to be obedient does nothing to help them figure it out and can actually be a hindrance.

 

Once I decided to make an extra effort to do that and be expressive about it, they started to actually be able to change.  Of their own accord. They still have a lot to learn, but I'm not going to be miserable with them until they figure it out - I'm going to enjoy the lovely people that they are all along the way.

[EmseB]

Part of why I am uninterested in "obedience" as an objective is because if it is obedience I believe I am after, any failure to follow through is disobedience and there's a lot of Ick-residue in my past about what must be done about that.

 

I have some similar structure regarding schoolwork; screens are for after 3:00pm when we are actively doing school. So, sure, DS would not wake up in the morning, eat, dress and brush his teeth, then sit down at his desk and start on Math if I didn't require it. So, it is fair for Katie to point out that this is obedience. True. It's not a free-for-all wherein they do whatever they want all the day long and I am not an unschooler, radical or otherwise. BUT! (There had to be a but.) It does my outlook no favors if I think, "oh, but these kids must be obedient! How else would they ever do math?" That thinking (at least for me) too easily leads to an adversarial framework in which mama thinks the kids should toe every line laid down a thousand times a day and if not, there's hell to pay. I don't want to play cards with those ideas; they lead me nowhere good.

 

I aim for the cooperative model which, despite your usage and the usage of several posters here, does not equal obedience to me. When I cooperate with someone, I view them as my companion, not my authority. I think for me, a lot of it is in this idea that if we are cooperating, 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.

I think demanding obedience for the sake of getting math (or anything) accomplished is asking for trouble. I dont't think that's what any of us are talking about. I think perhaps you and I simply have a different connotation of the word. It seems to carry a lot of baggage for you that I don't ascribe to it. None of what you're talking about is how I view my relationship with my kids. And yet I would say they obey me, mostly. And it is something I require from them. They do their school work, they clean up, they don't throw things off the railing or jump on the nice couch. I require them to obey these rules. Life is copacetic for us all when they do (which is it's own carrot I think) and there are consequnces if they don't. But the basic premise of obedience flows out of a relationship I have with them. I have to love them first before they would ever give me the time of day, much less do anything I ask.

 

I also think if you live with someone who is not and won't be cooperative with anything you ask of them, the situation becomes a bit different. If you live with someone who is willing to take the family car out with friends at the tender age of 13 and is willing to create situations where adults have to set firm lines and rules...then things become a bit more black and white. And stark. And disruptive for the whole family.

 

ETA: I just also wanted to say that right now with the ages of my kids, a lot of times I do assume it has to be my way. Because their way lies madness. :) I have to get you all to co-op at 9:00, so you have to get up and out of bed before 9:30. You have to meet basic hygiene requirements, so you have to get in the shower. We have to pick up your dad so you can't spend 10 more minutes with your legos. So maybe the not assuming it has to go your way comes with older kids where these little things aren't issues?

Edited August 31, 2016 by JodiSue