Relationship Between Parent and Child - Essay Example

?Part Relationship Between Parent and Child Child’s unique needs/ characteristics Julie, as known by her father, started out as a “warm, sensitive, sweet child and very easy going” child. She was a bubbly little girl who was curious and creative and had a very positive disposition. Her profile was painted by her father with loving words, projecting an ideal daughter that brought her parents much joy and pride. This kind of personality usually results from having a secure attachment with her parents while growing up. In the first few years of life, a child with a secure attachment can learn how to balance separation and reunion. She is unafraid when she gets separated from her parents, trusting that they will be back for her. On the other hand a child with an insecure attachment to his mother manifests panic, anger and a desperate search for her, thinking that she will never come back. When the mother returns, a host of responses may be observed of the child. Some children would be delighted and warmly embrace the parent; others would appear to be indifferent, withdrawn, hostile, uncertain or confused. The kind of response the child had led the psychological observers to develop the attachment categories of secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant and disorganized. Schore (2001) claim that infants’ attachment experiences are stored in the early maturing right hemisphere of their brain, which have long term effects on how they cope with stress in the future. Hence, it is suffice to say that attachment is crucial to the emotional development of the child, and this is reflected in Julie’s personality as a child. Parent’s responses to those needs Anthony, Julie’s father, relates that she has a sister, Michelle, and the two girls had very different personalities. He had to adjust to their differing temperaments. Julie was the sociable one while Michelle was more withdrawn. Adjusting to their temperaments supports the ‘goodness of fit’ theory, which respects individual temperaments and creates an environment that would still make differing personalities flourish. Anthony was a very responsive parent, taking the time to teach them and encouraging them in their interests. He was always on the lookout for activities that would stimulate their brains. He allowed them to make mistakes because from these, they learn too. He claims, “I never confronted the children directly when they made a mistake, I but always guided them until they got it right. I wanted to enrich their environment in order to boost their self-esteem and their confidence.” This reflects Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning where it is believed that children learn within a ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) or the distance between a child’s independent problem-solving level and that obtained under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Wertsch, 1985). It is the space between what a child can do by himself and a more challenging level that he can achieve with help from someone. In the case of Julie and her sister, their parents provided ‘scaffolds’ or temporary supports in the process of learning which are gradually taken away when the children are already capable of learning without them. Most common conflicts/disagreements/challenges between parent and child Anthony remembers Julie as a very well-behaved child so there weren’t much conflicts or disagreements between them. The only challenging thing that he remembers is her insistence to choose her own clothes every morning, careful not to repeat outfits within close periods of time. If she had no choice but to wear pants two days in a row due to laundry problems, she would throw a fit. “That is the only time that I can remember when Julie would get mad, scream and cry and go to her room”. Otherwise, it was smooth sailing with Julie because she was quite mature for her age. The misbehaviour that Julie displayed was a manifestation of her growing up into a young lady who wants to prove that she is capable of making her own decisions being her own person. Usually under the loving care of her parents, she has grown reliant on them for all her needs, however, selecting her own clothes may be the only expression she has of showing that she is a separate person from them and can stand alone as an individual. In Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development, Julie was in the Identity vs. Identity Diffusion stage. It was a challenging time of testing limits, gaining more independence and establishing a new identity. There surfaces the need to clarify self-identity, life goals and life’s meaning, and failure to achieve a sense of identity results in role confusion (Erikson, 1963) Parent’s responses to conflicts Anthony maintained his calmness as a father no matter how his children behaved. He never yelled or challenged them. He consistently praised them and was open to their explanations when their behaviors were challenging. For the few times that Julie misbehaved and banished herself to her room, Anthony just let her be. “I would wait for the cloud to pass”. And true enough, when she came out she would be her usual cheery self. For Anthony, it was important that his daughters knew how he felt and that he also understood how they felt during times of conflict. He tries to communicate openly to them, giving the opportunity to express themselves. This goes to show that Anthony was an authoritative father. He may seem to be permissive in his manner, but when it came to challenging situations with the children, he would remain firm in his stand regarding established rules. Overall parenting style From the interview, it would seem that Anthony was a committed and loving father whose world revolved around his family. His daughters were his source of pride as they were his favorite topic of conversation with others, even at work. He claimed that he and his ex-wife tried their best to do everything as a family for the sake of the girls. “Parenting is team work. I and the girls’ mother worked always together as one.” He admitted that he was firm as a father but not severe, as he never yelled or spanked his daughters. He wanted his daughters to grow up smart and guided them in their learning and development. Aside from encouraging them to read books, he also provided opportunities for them to have hands-on learning experiences. Believing that experience is the best teacher, he encouraged activities that stimulated concrete learning such as going on field trips, doing experiments, engaging in art, cooking, and performance activities that were fun for the children, yet they derived much learning from it. These were the sort of constructivist activities that Piaget endorsed for meaningful and relevant learning. Piaget believed that children create knowledge through interactions with the environment. Children are not passive receivers of knowledge; rather, they actively work at organizing their experience into more and more complex mental structures (Brewer, 2001, p.6). Overall, Anthony seemed confident that he was a good father to his children as he did everything he thought was best for them in order to grow up to be adults who have positive attitudes and behaviors and a healthy love for learning. Part 2: Family Subsystems and Ecological Context Family system As the children were growing up, Anthony’s family shared very close relationships with each other. There was a sense of wholeness and interdependence as the parents were very loving to each other as a couple, and the children felt much love and affection as well. The sisters shared a typical sibling relationship of being very close but also having spats once in a while. However, when they make up, they suddenly seem to be the best of friends again. Julie and Michelle were very protective of each other. Like in any other household there were rules in the house be they explicit or implicit. Some explicit rules the children grew up with were basic ones such as following routines during meal times, bed times, and coming home after school. For meal times, it was washing up before meals and taking turns doing the dishes and putting them away. For bed times, it was bathing, brushing teeth, choosing a storybook each to be read to by either mom or dad when the girls were younger, and reading their choice of book for 15 minutes before lights are turned off. Coming home after school, the girls were required to put away their things, sit down for a snack while resting then doing homework and studying for an hour, then they have a free choice of leisure activity after, like watching television, playing outside, playing with the computer, doing arts and crafts or gardening. The girls each had one day a week to cook a dish they want with their mother. Other explicit rules were times they needed to be home during school nights and weekends and calling their parents in case they will be late or need a ride coming home. Implicit rules were based on the values the parents wanted to impart to their children. Examples are apologizing when they done something wrong; spending wisely; keeping grades up; sending birthday cards to friends and relatives who live far away. As the children grew older and spent more time with friends, they became more open to the influence of peers. Whenever they broke a rule like coming home later than usual, there would be conflict in the house but they were given a chance to explain themselves. Should they have an issue with certain rules, they discussed it with their parents. Some rules were negotiable and some were not. Almost everything was negotiable except those that pertained to their health, safety and values. The parents were very fair in treating both daughters. There was never a good cop or bad cop syndrome in their house as both parents were always on the same side. They communicated well about how to handle their children. Although both girls were very intelligent, they each had their own strengths. Julie was very creative and artistic while Michelle was the family clown. The parents accepted them as they were and even encouraged them to pursue their interests. The ‘sibling niche picking’ theory explained why siblings adopted different roles in the family. Julie as the firstborn is expected to be the ideal daughter who will uphold the family values and traditions and take care of her younger sister. That is her expected specialization (Sulloway, 2010). The family communication style was verbal. Anthony emphasized how he valued his children’s opinions and ideas and allowed them to express themselves when they had questions or needed to discuss something. As a family, they worked together to find solutions to problems. Anthony said, “Our family was a team and we all worked towards the same goals”. Sometimes, though, it cannot be helped if conflict is within the family. When the girls fight, a parent joins the triangle in order to intervene and make the relationship of the girls stable again. This shows the Family System theory of Triangles working to resolve crises within the family (Bowen, 1976). The idyllic family picture began to crumble when the mother started to be an alcoholic who became abusive to the children. At that time, Julie was 11 years old. The marriage fell apart and the couple divorced with the mother taking full custody of the girls. She had a younger boyfriend and her husband was left all alone pining for his family. During this difficult period that Anthony could not understand what went wrong in his marriage, “I tried to always be a good father and be present in the background”. One possibility is that he doted too much on his daughters that his wife felt left out. Because he played his fatherly role to the hilt, the mother felt she was not good enough and questioned her own capabilities as a mother. This emotionality reflects ‘fusion’ of emotional and intellectual spheres, and highly fused individuals respond emotionally to life’s situations (Rabstejnek, n.d.). The mother dealt with her issues through alcohol. The Family System theory explains that too much fusion in the marriage may result in anxiety for one or both parties, in this case, Anthony’s wife. To deal with such stress, she may resort to emotional distance or emotional divorce (Bowen, 1976). To justify her changed behaviour and lifestyle, she maligned Anthony’s reputation to the girls, telling them that he beat her and that he was not a good husband and he abandoned them. Anthony did not have any right to see his children so he resorted to stalking them and when he had a chance to talk to them, they were cold to him. Julie was even rude to him and even cursed him one time. Anthony kept fighting for his children and two years later, he succeeded in gaining full custody of them because the mother was rendered unable to care for them because of her irresponsibility due to alcohol. She would party all the time and leaving the girls with no food and no clothes. She would spend all the money that she received from Mr. Anthony on herself. Julie’s bubbly personality has changed so much after the many tribulations she has experienced from the divorce, her mother’s alcoholism and abuse and the move back to her father’s custody. Being thirteen, she would endlessly sulk, make sarcastic comments and rarely smiled and manifest rebellious behaviour which was not foreseen when she enjoyed secure attachments with her parents in the past. The many stressful events that happened in her life have led to this change in her personality. When she and her sister moved back with Anthony, the tainted reputation of their father hindered them from regaining their former closeness. Bowen’s theory explains this as ‘emotional cut-off’. Julie practically cut-off Anthony from her life because getting close to him again gives him the power to hurt her. Bowen contends that Julie as the one who cut-off badly needs emotional contact but negatively reacts to it. Anthony’s perseverance in gaining their trust, respect and confidence back eventually paid off. The children found out about the truth that it was their mother who lied about their father’s abandonment. Now, the family is back on track towards healing. Anthony has settled back in being the head of his family minus his wife. Now, it is his daughters who continue on as members of his team. Ecological context Brofenbrenner’s Ecological Model (1979) explains that the behaviour and development of an individual is a result of the combination of the individual’s biological and personality factors with the influences of her environment and the society and culture she was born into. Brofenbrenner also claims that effects of interactions between the individual and her environment are two-directional or characterized by reciprocity. The individuals move through five systems that inter-relate and affect her development, namely, the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem. The most basic ecological level is the microsystem, where direct contacts between the child and her immediate surroundings result in behaviours such as dependence or independence and cooperation or competition. An example of this is the home base of the child and her relationship with her family. The pure culture of the society the family lives in greatly influences how the family lives and how the child imbibes the culture as she expresses it in her developing personality. Julie’s microsystem was obviously her happy home as a child. This is where she developed attachments to her parents. John Bowlby’s (1982) Attachment theory posit that attachment provides children with a sense of security, promotes communication and the expression of feelings and becomes a secure base for children to discover their world and eventually learn self-regulation and self-control. Julie’s secure attachment to her parents provided her with a solid foundation of her personality. The next level of Brofenbrenner’s Ecological model is the mesosystem, which comprises the linkages and processes that take place between two or more settings with the child in common. A perfect example is how learning in school is supported by follow up lessons in the home. At this level, Julie got to understand associations between people and things. Most likely, she was influenced by people outside her family such as her teachers and classmates and learn from them. Vygotsky’s (1978) Sociocultural perspective point to the need of young children to learn from socializing with others. It emphasizes the child’s cultural and social context of learning. Brofenbrenner’s third level comprises linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings is the exosystem. This includes at least one setting that does not directly involve the child, but still influences the processes within the immediate setting of the child. An example is the parent’s occupation. In the interview, Anthony talked of how he spent time talking about Julie and her sister at work. The responses of his workmates may influence his parenting style towards Julie. The community in which the child belongs to is a big part of his exosystem, as happenings around him may directly or indirectly affect his growth and development. Peace and order in the community, consistent provision of basic needs and services, clean surroundings, etc. all contribute to a child’s optimal development. The fourth system is the macrosystem which includes the customs, values and laws considered important in the child’s culture and upbringing. The last system in Brofenbrenner’s model is the chronosystem which refers to the time that transpires as the child relates in her various environments. An example is the change that happened to Julie in the period when her family life underwent drastic changes when her mother became an alcoholic. This ecological model implies that the interplay and quality of the various systems and environments of Julie will play different roles in influencing her development. Likewise, whatever comes out of that development will affect the various environments where she may belong to. For example, the different environments she moved into when her family problems began (her original home, her mother’s home and her father’s home) influenced her in different ways. She may be the secure little girl in her original home because of the stability of her family. Then when she moved with her alcoholic mother, she became a victim of abuse, making her struggle for survival and changing her personality and disposition. Moving with her father, she still carried resentment towards him, and because he provided her a loving home again, she slowly regained her positive attitude, behaviours and disposition. References Bowen, M. (1976) Theory in the practice of psychotherapy. In P.J. Guerin (Ed.). Family therapy, New York: Gardner. Bowlby, J. (1982, 2nd edn) Attachment and Loss (Volume 1), Harmondsworth, Penguin. Brewer, J.A. (2001) Introduction to Early Childhood Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969) The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books Rabstejnek, C.V. (n.d.) Family Systems & Murray Bowen Theory. Retrieved on March 8, 2012 from http://www.houd.info/bowenTheory.pdf Schore, A.N. (2001) Effects Of A Secure Attachment Relationship On Right Brain Development, Affect Regulation, And Infant Mental Health, Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 22(1–2), 7–66 Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Read More