Gordon Neufeld: "E tatau i fanau ona pipii atu i o latou matua"

Psychologies: Can your view of parenting today be considered non-traditional?

Gordon Neufeld, Canadian psychologist, author of Watch Out for Your Children: Maybe. But in fact, this is just the traditional view. And the problems that both teachers and parents face today are a consequence of the destruction of traditions that has been going on over the past century.

What problems do you mean?

Lack of contact between parents and children, for example. It is enough to look at the statistics of the treatment of parents with children to psychotherapists. Or a decrease in academic performance and even the very ability of children to learn at school.

The point, apparently, is that today’s school is not able to establish emotional relationships with students. And without this, it is useless to “load” the child with information, it will be poorly absorbed.

About 100-150 years ago, the school fit into the circle of affections of the child, which arise at the very beginning of his life. Parents talked about the school where their son or daughter will study, and about the teachers who taught them themselves.

Today the school has fallen out of the circle of attachments. There are many teachers, each subject has its own, and it is more difficult to build emotional relationships with them. Parents quarrel with the school for any reason, and their stories also do not contribute to a positive attitude. In general, the traditional model fell apart.

Yet the responsibility for emotional well-being lies with the family. Your idea that it is good for children to depend emotionally on their parents sounds bold …

The word “addiction” has acquired many negative connotations. But I’m talking about simple and, it seems to me, obvious things. The child needs emotional attachment to his parents. It is in it that the guarantee of his psychological well-being and future success.

In this sense, attachment is more important than discipline. If a child values ​​​​the opinion of his father and mother, he does not need to be forced once again. He will do it himself if he feels how important it is for parents.

Do you think that relationships with parents should remain paramount. But until when? Living in your 30s and 40s with your parents is also not the best option.

What you are talking about is a matter of separation, the separation of the child from the parents. It just passes the more successfully, the more prosperous the relationship in the family, the healthier the emotional attachment.

It does not hinder independence in any way. A child at two years of age can learn to tie his own shoelaces or fasten buttons, but at the same time be emotionally dependent on his parents.

I have five children, the eldest is 45 years old, I already have grandchildren. And it’s wonderful that my children still need me and my wife. But this does not mean that they are not independent.

If a child is sincerely attached to his parents, and they encourage his independence, then he will strive for it with all his might. Of course, I am not saying that parents should replace the whole world for their child. I am talking about the fact that parents and peers do not need to be opposed, realizing that friendship with peers cannot replace affection for parents.

Forming such an attachment takes time and effort. And parents, as a rule, are forced to work. It’s a vicious circle. You might as well say that the air used to be cleaner because there were no chemical plants.

I am not calling, relatively speaking, to blow up all chemical plants. I’m not trying to change society. I just want to draw his attention to the most basic, fundamental issues.

The well-being and development of the child depends on his attachments, on his emotional relationships with adults. Not only with parents, by the way. And with other relatives, and with nannies, and with teachers at school or coaches in the sports section.

It doesn’t matter which adults take care of the child. These may be biological or adoptive parents. What matters is that the child must form an attachment to them. Otherwise, he will not be able to develop successfully.

What about those who come home from work when their child is already sleeping?

First of all, they must understand how important this is. When there is understanding, problems are solved. In a traditional family, grandparents have always played a huge role. One of the main problems of post-industrial society is the reduction of the nuclear family to the mom-dad-child model.

But you can often invite those same grandparents, uncles and aunts, just friends to help. Even with a nanny, you can build relationships meaningfully so that the child perceives her not as a function, but as a significant and authoritative adult.

If both parents and the school fully understand the importance of attachment, then the means will be found one way or another. You know, for example, how important food is for a child. Therefore, even if you come home from work tired and the refrigerator is empty, you will still find the opportunity to feed the child. Order something at home, go to a store or cafe, but feed. It’s the same here.

Man is an inventive creature, he will certainly find a way to solve a problem. The main thing is to realize its importance.

How does the Internet affect children? Social networks have taken on the main roles today — it seems that this is just about emotional attachment.

Yes, the Internet and gadgets are increasingly serving not to inform, but to connect people. The upside here is that it allows us to partly satisfy our need for affection and emotional relationships. For example, with those who are far from us, whom we physically cannot see and hear.

But the downside is that the Internet is becoming a surrogate for relationships. You don’t have to sit next to me, don’t hold your hand, don’t look into your eyes – just put a “like”. This leads to an atrophy of our ability to form psychological, emotional intimacy. And in this sense, digital relationships become empty.

An adult, too carried away by pornography, eventually loses interest in real sexual relationships. Similarly, a child who is too involved in digital relationships loses the ability to establish real emotional closeness.

This does not mean that children must be protected by a high fence from computers and mobile phones. But we must ensure that they first form an attachment and learn how to maintain relationships in real life.

In one remarkable study, a group of children were given an important exam. Some children were allowed to send SMS to their mothers, while others were allowed to call. Then they measured the level of cortisol, the stress hormone. And it turned out that for those who wrote messages, this level did not change at all. And for those who spoke, it decreased noticeably. Because they heard their mother’s voice, you know? What can be added to this? I think nothing.

You have already visited Russia. What can you say about the Russian audience?

Yes, I came here for the third time. Those with whom I communicate here are obviously interested in my performances. They are not too lazy to think, they make an effort to understand scientific concepts. I perform in different countries, and believe me, this is not the case everywhere.

It also seems to me that Russian ideas about the family are closer to traditional ones than in many developed countries. I think that is why people in Russia understand better what I am talking about, it is closer to them than where the material side comes first.

Perhaps I could compare the Russian audience with the Mexican audience — in Mexico, traditional ideas about the family are also strong. And there is also a great reluctance to become too much like the United States. A reluctance that I can only welcome.