That's exactly what it is: my mommy mantra. This too shall pass. The reality is, motherhood is hard. Don't get me wrong. It's enriching, amazing, thrilling, and beautiful. But it's also hard.
For a while there, the Mommy is everything. Especially if you are breastfeeding, because then you are a food source and pacifier. And then attachment comes, and it's all-mommy-all-the-time for many of us. It's hard not to lose yourself. There's the gamut of developmental phases and mother-child experiences: breastfeeding, attachment, colic, teething, diapering, etc. We all know that list can go on and on. I doubt there is not one of us that hasn't broken down, wondering what to do and for how much longer (if you haven't, how lucky you are!). The sleep deprivation alone will get you.
I had my moments in the beginning where I wondered, how much more?? Breastfeeding pain in the beginning. Colicky crying and my sons constant need for movement was challenging, to say the least. People would tell me: "it'll get better." I remember feeling like better was an eternity away.
But, it wasn't. It did get better. It passed. It always does. They go through phases and they grow up fast. And while one phase inevitably leads to another that has it's own challenges, it helps me most to remember, especially when the only way out is through: this too shall pass. Then you realize, this little person is creating himself in front of your eyes, and that's a complicated, challenging thing. And it's amazing. And it's worth all of it.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
We Aren't Born With Empathy
I've been noticing that when I yawn, my eight month old son does not yawn in response. I tested it. I yawned over and over, but nothing. Even writing this I've yawned (have you yawned yet?), but nothing from my little guy. And so, it got me thinking about empathy.
I wasn't sure how I knew yawning was related to empathy so I went and did a little research to confirm. We don't really know why people yawn, other than scientists agree that it is a form of reflex on the part of the respiratory system. It is not something that we control. But, what we do know is that the desire to yawn when others do is triggered by empathetic mechanisms. Yawning, in general, is involuntary, but yawning when others yawn is empathy.
This post isn't about yawning though. Yawning only triggered my realization. What I really began to think about: empathy. And my son doesn't have a lick of it.
He's not alone. People just aren't born with it. We're all little mini sociopaths when we start out, focused on our selves and having little regard of others. The difference between babies and sociopaths, however, is that babies just really haven't developed the concept of others just yet. They have an inherent need to focus on themselves given all that they have to learn. And while we are born with specific temperaments and genetics, we are born as social blank slates. Empathy has to be developed.
While babies have to develop empathy, the foundation for it exists as they grow. They develop abilities that put them on the path to empathy. They attain these foundational abilities without teaching, but through social interaction. First, to develop empathy, babies must develop a sense that other people exist and also have emotions, just as they do. They learn to recognize facial expressions and associate emotions with those expressions. They first learn that everyone is the same as them.
But, then, babies must come to the realization that these other people have feelings that can be different from theirs. Only then can they begin to develop empathetic responses. But this takes quite a bit of time. A two month old may respond to a smile, but that isn't empathy, it's more of an understanding, a knowledge of emotions that is developing. I read a post once where a mother reported that her nine month old would cry out and get upset when she screamed in pain. She wondered if it was empathy, but I think it was more likely her child getting upset at a sudden loud noise. My son gets very upset when I sneeze or cough, but I think he's more upset at the noise than concerned for my health. Children respond to emotions at a very young age, but the response is not empathy. Empathy, rather, is the ability to understand someone else's emotions and, in a sense, vicariously experience them yourself.
It's a process that comes with understanding the social nature of people and it takes time. A friend of mine once expressed to me her frustration when her daughter (barely two years of age) hits another child and the other child's parent reacts angrily, taking their child away. I can understand her frustration.
Empathy is essential to the concept of hitting. We don't hit because we don't want to hurt others. Empathy allows us to feel another person's pain and ultimately choose not to inflict it. People (babies and adults alike) who hit lack a certain empathy for the person they are hitting. With young children, this is because they haven't developed it (and I'd argue those adults failed to develop empathy properly as well). With very young children, couple lack of empathy with a lack of impulse control and a limited ability to communicate (which also take time to develop) and it's not surprising that they hit when frustrated or upset. It's something to remember before choosing to punish your own child or express anger toward's someone else's.
I'm not saying that hitting is excused by this lack of empathy development. What I am saying is that when we consider children's behaviors, we must consider where they are developmentally. It is our job to aid in this development. It is our job to assist in the development of empathy and social awareness, as well as provide examples of how to communicate and resolve problems.
Punishment is never an effective route for combatting these kinds of behaviors. For starters, very young children fail to understand their social interactions. The nine month old that hit my son a few months back was not trying to hurt him because in no way could she understand that he would be caused pain. A two year old is not in much different of a boat, although is getting closer to empathetic responses. So the reaction must be in the form of explanation. First, we recognize the child's problem or frustration and give them the necessary language for the response (eg. give me that toy back, please). We can also consequence the action. Perhaps have the child return the toy and explain that hitting hurts and we use our words.
If your child cannot stop hitting, removal from the situation with the statement "you may not play if you are going to hit and hurt people" may become necessary. This final consequence is for the sake of safety and teaching social parameters. But it must come along with all the other explanations. The problem with punishment rather than education is that it teaches children to omit a behavior out of fear of parental reaction rather than develop a social, empathetic conscience. The latter is far more beneficial to the child and society.
Your child may not understand everything you say, but over time, the message will sink in. It is the combination of the natural social development coupled with social education from the parent that allows a child to develop empathy and respond accordingly. And it's a process during which a child may not always get it right.
So, I'm aware that my little guy has no empathy. And I'm aware that the development of everything from gentle touch to sharing to playing with others to problem solving will require my assistance. I'm up for the challenge, but it reminds me of one more thing. Because I am able and have developed the ability, I must empathize with him and all children through these phases of their development.
I wasn't sure how I knew yawning was related to empathy so I went and did a little research to confirm. We don't really know why people yawn, other than scientists agree that it is a form of reflex on the part of the respiratory system. It is not something that we control. But, what we do know is that the desire to yawn when others do is triggered by empathetic mechanisms. Yawning, in general, is involuntary, but yawning when others yawn is empathy.
This post isn't about yawning though. Yawning only triggered my realization. What I really began to think about: empathy. And my son doesn't have a lick of it.
He's not alone. People just aren't born with it. We're all little mini sociopaths when we start out, focused on our selves and having little regard of others. The difference between babies and sociopaths, however, is that babies just really haven't developed the concept of others just yet. They have an inherent need to focus on themselves given all that they have to learn. And while we are born with specific temperaments and genetics, we are born as social blank slates. Empathy has to be developed.
While babies have to develop empathy, the foundation for it exists as they grow. They develop abilities that put them on the path to empathy. They attain these foundational abilities without teaching, but through social interaction. First, to develop empathy, babies must develop a sense that other people exist and also have emotions, just as they do. They learn to recognize facial expressions and associate emotions with those expressions. They first learn that everyone is the same as them.
But, then, babies must come to the realization that these other people have feelings that can be different from theirs. Only then can they begin to develop empathetic responses. But this takes quite a bit of time. A two month old may respond to a smile, but that isn't empathy, it's more of an understanding, a knowledge of emotions that is developing. I read a post once where a mother reported that her nine month old would cry out and get upset when she screamed in pain. She wondered if it was empathy, but I think it was more likely her child getting upset at a sudden loud noise. My son gets very upset when I sneeze or cough, but I think he's more upset at the noise than concerned for my health. Children respond to emotions at a very young age, but the response is not empathy. Empathy, rather, is the ability to understand someone else's emotions and, in a sense, vicariously experience them yourself.
It's a process that comes with understanding the social nature of people and it takes time. A friend of mine once expressed to me her frustration when her daughter (barely two years of age) hits another child and the other child's parent reacts angrily, taking their child away. I can understand her frustration.
Empathy is essential to the concept of hitting. We don't hit because we don't want to hurt others. Empathy allows us to feel another person's pain and ultimately choose not to inflict it. People (babies and adults alike) who hit lack a certain empathy for the person they are hitting. With young children, this is because they haven't developed it (and I'd argue those adults failed to develop empathy properly as well). With very young children, couple lack of empathy with a lack of impulse control and a limited ability to communicate (which also take time to develop) and it's not surprising that they hit when frustrated or upset. It's something to remember before choosing to punish your own child or express anger toward's someone else's.
I'm not saying that hitting is excused by this lack of empathy development. What I am saying is that when we consider children's behaviors, we must consider where they are developmentally. It is our job to aid in this development. It is our job to assist in the development of empathy and social awareness, as well as provide examples of how to communicate and resolve problems.
Punishment is never an effective route for combatting these kinds of behaviors. For starters, very young children fail to understand their social interactions. The nine month old that hit my son a few months back was not trying to hurt him because in no way could she understand that he would be caused pain. A two year old is not in much different of a boat, although is getting closer to empathetic responses. So the reaction must be in the form of explanation. First, we recognize the child's problem or frustration and give them the necessary language for the response (eg. give me that toy back, please). We can also consequence the action. Perhaps have the child return the toy and explain that hitting hurts and we use our words.
If your child cannot stop hitting, removal from the situation with the statement "you may not play if you are going to hit and hurt people" may become necessary. This final consequence is for the sake of safety and teaching social parameters. But it must come along with all the other explanations. The problem with punishment rather than education is that it teaches children to omit a behavior out of fear of parental reaction rather than develop a social, empathetic conscience. The latter is far more beneficial to the child and society.
Your child may not understand everything you say, but over time, the message will sink in. It is the combination of the natural social development coupled with social education from the parent that allows a child to develop empathy and respond accordingly. And it's a process during which a child may not always get it right.
So, I'm aware that my little guy has no empathy. And I'm aware that the development of everything from gentle touch to sharing to playing with others to problem solving will require my assistance. I'm up for the challenge, but it reminds me of one more thing. Because I am able and have developed the ability, I must empathize with him and all children through these phases of their development.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Pizza? A Vegetable? Really, Congress?
I must say, I was extremely disappointed by what I learned this morning. I'm sure it's everywhere now, all over blogs and the news, but if you haven't heard, Congress has declared pizza a vegetable. More specifically, they are allowing the two tablespoons of tomato paste smeared on a pizza to be constituted as a vegetable, allowing it to be counted as a serving of vegetable in a school lunch.
I was really impressed when Jamie Oliver took on the public school lunches, trying to convince Americans that we need to be encouraging our children to eat healthier. I remember watching his television program, Food Revolution, in which he challenged the notion that children will not eat vegetables. Disturbed by the amount of french fries being consumed at a high school, Jamie decided to change things up by making a wonderful veggie stir fry to serve for school lunch that day. I was shocked along with him when the food services director determined he did not have enough vegetables (the required one and a half cups serving) to fit requirements and decided to put french fries back on the menu to fix the situation. French fries are a vegetable??
Ok, I get that potatoes fall under the category of vegetable, but let's get real here. School food directors are considering a cup of french fries to be of more nutritional value than a healthy veggie stir fry based on volume? Are we even using our brains anymore? I thought things couldn't get worse, until the United States Congress decided that pizza is now a vegetable! Never mind that a tomato is technically a fruit.
Jamie Oliver and the Obama Administration have been working hard to change the quality of the school lunch. No, not by bringing in high end food. They aren't even trying to make it organic. It's really just about getting kids to eat more vegetables and less french fries. Simple. Should we really be feeding our kids nothing but chicken nuggets, pizza, french fries, and tacos? The USDA no longer thinks so. They wanted to make a real change in the direction the Obama Administration has been pushing: limiting the amount of starchy vegetables and tomato paste in children's lunches and branching out to other vegetables. The USDA's proposal would have limited starchy vegetable options to one cup per week for students and required that an food item be required to have one half a cup of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable.
Congress' response? That would just be too taxing on school systems' budgets. Instead, we should continue to allow two tablespoons of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable serving, thus allowing the food industry to market frozen pizza as a vegetable. In fact, they scrapped the whole starchy vegetable (which includes peas and carrots but was targeted at french fries which many schools serve daily) and tomato paste plan from the USDA's proposal to increase the health of school lunches. Additionally, Congress' provisions will require further study on long-term sodium reduction requirements set forth by the USDA guidelines and require USDA to define "whole grains" before they regulate them. Republican House Appropriations Committee members argued that these restrictions were overly burdensome on local school districts.
At the end of the day, I know this all has to do with lobbying and money. These issues always have. Our children's futures always have, whether it be about music education, art education, or their health. American policy continually seems to value the dollar over health and development. I've watched programs about families desperate to save the almighty dollar so they eat burger king every week and never consider the impact of that on their health...which will one day affect their dollars. It doesn't matter how much information you spread about the dangers of fast food, the dollar is always more important. It doesn't matter how much people want regulation, the dollar always wins out.
My sister always says that the only way to change, given this mentality, is to fight the dollar with the dollar. It's our choices as consumers that affect the outcome. If we don't buy it, they won't sell it. I think that if we, as parents, want change, then we have to do it by not buying school lunches. If what they care about is the dollar, then we have to show our concerns with the dollar.
I don't know how much that will really help, though, considering most of us that care about this stuff probably don't let our kids eat school lunches already. But maybe that's not true...maybe there are plenty of parents out there who didn't know how to affect a change, so they haven't pulled their dollars. Then, again, it's not really a fair fight, considering the government subsidizes the lunch programs and there are plenty of unfortunate children who get their main meals (and need to) from these school funded food programs.
We have to start caring about food in this country: where it comes from, how we get it, and what we are eating. I could sit here and list many issues I have with the food industry and regulations, but sadly, we're not even talking about all those things when it comes to school lunches. All we are talking about is a balanced diet, and even that can't get passed.
So, I'm feeling sad for the state of American health today. And I don't know how teachers can continue to teach nutrition and standards (kids are always learning about the food pyramid) when that information is being undermined under their very own roofs. How can we have a healthy population if we aren't teaching our kids to eat healthy? And mark my words, an unhealthy population will affect the almighty dollar in more ways than Congress can imagine. But then, Congress has never had the foresight to be preventative.
So, you're looking at one parent who will be helping her child pack his lunch when the day comes. But, then again, she'll be sending him and that lunch to a Montessori school. That's where I'm putting my dollars.
I was really impressed when Jamie Oliver took on the public school lunches, trying to convince Americans that we need to be encouraging our children to eat healthier. I remember watching his television program, Food Revolution, in which he challenged the notion that children will not eat vegetables. Disturbed by the amount of french fries being consumed at a high school, Jamie decided to change things up by making a wonderful veggie stir fry to serve for school lunch that day. I was shocked along with him when the food services director determined he did not have enough vegetables (the required one and a half cups serving) to fit requirements and decided to put french fries back on the menu to fix the situation. French fries are a vegetable??
Ok, I get that potatoes fall under the category of vegetable, but let's get real here. School food directors are considering a cup of french fries to be of more nutritional value than a healthy veggie stir fry based on volume? Are we even using our brains anymore? I thought things couldn't get worse, until the United States Congress decided that pizza is now a vegetable! Never mind that a tomato is technically a fruit.
Jamie Oliver and the Obama Administration have been working hard to change the quality of the school lunch. No, not by bringing in high end food. They aren't even trying to make it organic. It's really just about getting kids to eat more vegetables and less french fries. Simple. Should we really be feeding our kids nothing but chicken nuggets, pizza, french fries, and tacos? The USDA no longer thinks so. They wanted to make a real change in the direction the Obama Administration has been pushing: limiting the amount of starchy vegetables and tomato paste in children's lunches and branching out to other vegetables. The USDA's proposal would have limited starchy vegetable options to one cup per week for students and required that an food item be required to have one half a cup of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable.
Congress' response? That would just be too taxing on school systems' budgets. Instead, we should continue to allow two tablespoons of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable serving, thus allowing the food industry to market frozen pizza as a vegetable. In fact, they scrapped the whole starchy vegetable (which includes peas and carrots but was targeted at french fries which many schools serve daily) and tomato paste plan from the USDA's proposal to increase the health of school lunches. Additionally, Congress' provisions will require further study on long-term sodium reduction requirements set forth by the USDA guidelines and require USDA to define "whole grains" before they regulate them. Republican House Appropriations Committee members argued that these restrictions were overly burdensome on local school districts.
At the end of the day, I know this all has to do with lobbying and money. These issues always have. Our children's futures always have, whether it be about music education, art education, or their health. American policy continually seems to value the dollar over health and development. I've watched programs about families desperate to save the almighty dollar so they eat burger king every week and never consider the impact of that on their health...which will one day affect their dollars. It doesn't matter how much information you spread about the dangers of fast food, the dollar is always more important. It doesn't matter how much people want regulation, the dollar always wins out.
My sister always says that the only way to change, given this mentality, is to fight the dollar with the dollar. It's our choices as consumers that affect the outcome. If we don't buy it, they won't sell it. I think that if we, as parents, want change, then we have to do it by not buying school lunches. If what they care about is the dollar, then we have to show our concerns with the dollar.
I don't know how much that will really help, though, considering most of us that care about this stuff probably don't let our kids eat school lunches already. But maybe that's not true...maybe there are plenty of parents out there who didn't know how to affect a change, so they haven't pulled their dollars. Then, again, it's not really a fair fight, considering the government subsidizes the lunch programs and there are plenty of unfortunate children who get their main meals (and need to) from these school funded food programs.
We have to start caring about food in this country: where it comes from, how we get it, and what we are eating. I could sit here and list many issues I have with the food industry and regulations, but sadly, we're not even talking about all those things when it comes to school lunches. All we are talking about is a balanced diet, and even that can't get passed.
So, I'm feeling sad for the state of American health today. And I don't know how teachers can continue to teach nutrition and standards (kids are always learning about the food pyramid) when that information is being undermined under their very own roofs. How can we have a healthy population if we aren't teaching our kids to eat healthy? And mark my words, an unhealthy population will affect the almighty dollar in more ways than Congress can imagine. But then, Congress has never had the foresight to be preventative.
So, you're looking at one parent who will be helping her child pack his lunch when the day comes. But, then again, she'll be sending him and that lunch to a Montessori school. That's where I'm putting my dollars.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
What is Santa Really Telling Our Kids?
As I contemplated fantasy in my last post, Montessori, Fantasy, Reality, and The Younger Child, I became continually aware of the topic and its relevance with the upcoming holiday season: my son's first Christmas. When it comes to fantasy and fairy tale, I believe that it is important to help children become clear on what is real and not real, while still enjoying the wonderful enrichment of these stories. If one of the goals we have for our children is honesty, then it is equally important that we always be honest with them.
So then, what do we do about Santa?
At first, I thought, Santa is a lie. While my son has no idea this current holiday of what I am talking about, I figure now is the time to set the tone. But, for the sake of honesty, do I want to tell my child that Santa doesn't exist? Or, if I do tell him and then he one day learns the truth, do I want him to think that I am a liar?
In the end, I decided that with those things that are about faith and a little bit of magic, I think it's okay to let our children believe in what may or may not be real. I don't think it really is a lie. Because, even though I know now that there is no man who flies around on roof tops and gives gifts to all the children of the world, I still very much hope to believe that the spirit of what he represents is a very real thing and will always exist. He is a personification of the idea of giving, and that idea will always be real. If it is something that, even as an adult, you still hold onto, then it is just as important for your little one to be a part of it. Because, at the end of the day, don't we all believe in Santa? If Santa and his magic are those of goodness and joy, then can they damage a child? How many of us adults still hold onto their existence and wish it to be true?
But, I will be careful. I will focus on the beauty of what Santa represents rather than all the little details that have turned him into a product mover and behavior monitor. I think to tell our children that if they are bad they won't get a gift is just a set-up for all sorts of unfortunate priorities. Children's behavior needs to be a reflection of self-discipline. They should be following rules because they learn to believe those rules are important and need to be there, not because some arbitrary person won't give them something (which no parent follows through with anyways). Santa shouldn't exist so that parents have a "bad-cop" for a month. And the point of Santa shouldn't be getting; the point of Santa should be giving. If anything, I wish that the Santa story would change from giving children gifts who are good, to giving to children who give to others. Pay it forward so to speak. And if my son one day asks me about these parts of the Santa story that I have not shared with him, I will tell him very honestly that, as with all stories of things wonderful, sometimes people get confused and change the story or add to it in ways that are not about the true spirit of the story.
So, I will teach my child about the original and very real St. Nicholas who taught others how to give. And I will use the beauty of Santa to teach my child about giving. Because that fantasy and that magic is worth passing on. I will show him ways to give during the holiday season, so that he will also be a part of that magic. And yes, we will still make cookies for santa, but he will get to help me make them, and learn and share in that experience as well.
Still, what is important is the child's trust. If we tell the child something unreal, will he ever trust us with what is real? If we tell our children stories of magic, will they believe us when they learn that what we've told them may not exist? But then, I thought about religion and the belief in a God. And I thought, sometimes faith is based on the not knowing. Sometimes, what it's really about, is what that thing represents. And so, as we grow up and learn that some of the details may be imaginative, the real details, the spirit of it all, are as tangible as the day we wrote our first letter to Santa.
In our house, we believe.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Montessori, Fantasy, Reality, and the Younger Child
Recently, I've been thinking a lot about fantasy in the lives of children. As a Montessorian, I had to take a deep look at what Dr. Montessori wrote on fantasy. But, as I went back through her books and Internet pieces on what others have written about it, I came to a dilemma I don't often come to when contemplating Dr. Montessori's work. How much do I really agree with her on this point?
I wanted to start by outlining her take on fantasy with her own words. However, even though I own seven books written by Dr. Montessori, I could find very little on the subject. I believe she has talked extensively on the subject, but that information is lacking from my library of her major works. She does touch on the subject in the Absorbent Mind by defining spending too much time in the world of fantasy as a disorder in the child, specifically, the "child's difficulty, or inability, to concentrate his attention on real objects" and instead turning everything into fantasy. She felt that this constant disconnection from reality hindered the spiritual life rather than fostered it for, she believed, "the spiritual life is really built upon the fundamental basis of a unified personality, well attuned to the outer world." "The wandering mind that breaks away from reality, breaks away from...healthy normality," she wrote, and "attention to real things, with all the future applications that derive from this, become impossible."
Many people who have not deeply studied the Montessori philosophy, or (in my opinion) misinterpret her, believe that Dr. Montessori was against imagination. But, what she was really saying is that while we all see and observe that imagination is the natural inclination of the child, it stems from what is real. Giving the child something unreal and made up is not his imagination or creativity, but someone else's. In that fact, it thus has less value to the child than had he used his own creativity and imagined something. This is ultimately the difference between imagination and fantasy. To stimulate the child's imagination, therefore, you must give him real things and a real understanding of the world from which he can extrapolate and use creatively. While the child is drawn to fantasy, it is the knowledge from the real world that can enrich his ability to imagine and create.
Dr. Montessori wrote: "Yet, when all are agreed that the child loves to imagine, why do we give him only fairy tales and toys on which to practice this gift? If a child can imagine a fairy and fairyland, it will not be difficult for him to imagine America. Instead of hearing it referred to vaguely in conversation, he can help to clarify his own ideas of it by looking at the globe on which it is shown." In To Educate The Human Potential she wrote: "Educationalists in general agree that imagination is important, but the would have it cultivated as separate from intelligence, just as they would separate the latter from the activity of the hand. They are vivisectionsists of the human personality. In the school they want children to learn dry facts of reality, while their imagination is cultivated by fairy tales, concerned with a world that is certainly full of marvels, but not the world around them in which they live. Certainly these tales have impressive factors which move the childish mind to pity and horror, for they are full of woe and tragedy, of children who are starved, ill-treated, abandoned, and betrayed. Just as adults find pleasure in tragic drama and literature, these tales of goblins and monsters give pleasure and stir the child’s imagination, but they have no connection with reality."
In my opinion, part of what I think Dr. Montessori was critiquing adults' misunderstanding of the child, always trying to occupy his time with fake things or toys that serve the purpose of making the child "busy" so that he does not interfere with adult things. Sometimes this stems from not understanding what the child really needs or is capable of, and sometime it stems from sheer self-absorption (we don't want to clean something up, we don't want to include the child who will take too long, we want it done perfectly). For example, instead of letting a child explore the things we have in the kitchen or let them assist us in preparing dinner, we buy them plastic kitchens and tell them to "play." This act of play is devoid in meaning because it robs the child of the ability to learn something or develop skills by working with real objects.
While wooden or fabric toys (I hate plastic ones) that focus a child's grasping or sensorial skills can be good, it is just as important to let our children explore what is real. Now that he has developed the powers of grasping and holding, I let my son entertain himself with real objects to explore: a spoon from the kitchen, a brush, a sock, etc. Rather than buy him a toy piano with light up noises, we let him explore a real piano. When he showed fascination in his father's guitar but my husband was worried about him damaging it, we bought him a cheap Ukelele to manipulate until he's old enough to respect the guitar (rather than a fake plastic toy one). I try to find ways to involve him in the world rather than simply occupy him. I think it is most important for our children to explore, to enter the world of real things and make genuine discoveries that will have value to them.
The same goes for the things we tell our children. What is real is what fuels the imagination. Before the age of five, children do not have a clear understanding about the concept of real and unreal, things that are untrue and fantastical. It's important to think of that when we consider what we show our children in movies or what stories we tell them. When Dr. Montessori talked about fairy-tales, I don't think she was thinking of a full ban on them. Maybe she was, but I cannot ask her, so I must go with my instincts. Fairy-tales have their place as representations of culture; they are full of thoughts on morality, history, and mystery. But, in the same breath, to the very young child, they can be danger. Dr. Montessori also said, in The Advanced Montessori Method: "But how can the imagination of children be developed by what is, on the contrary, the fruit of our imagination? It is we who imagine, not they; they believe, they do not imagine. Credulity is, indeed, a characteristic of immature minds which lack experience and knowledge of realities, and are as yet devoid of that intelligence which distinguishes the true from the false, the beautiful from the ugly, and the possible from the impossible." She makes a good point to all of those who think that showing a child fantasy teaches him to use his imagination. These stories are the products of an adult's imagination. They do not teach the child how to imagine, but instead fill his stories with unreal ideas that stem from the minds of others.
I'm not saying that fantasy has no place in a child's life. I don't think Dr. Montessori was either. I think the point is that we need to be very careful with fantasy, and we need to be realistic when we think about a child's needs with regard to it. Before we expose our children to things they may not understand, we need to remember that they might take what is unreal as real. This is of importance when you think about exposing a child to Star Wars or you tell him there are monsters. So many times, as a teacher, I saw children on the playground attacking each other with light sabers without any real understanding of the implications of such a thing. When children don't understand what is real and it enters into their play, they can become desensitized to things like violence without every full understanding what it means. They can also develop very real fears because they don't have the ability to separate the unreal from the real. How many of us have seen a child terrified of something that made no sense...and how often has that stemmed from fantastical stories he may have heard?
Some people might argue with me here that the value of a fairytale likes within its moral structure, its tale of the human condition or human social structure. Fairytales can tell us how things should be or make us think about the nature of good and evil. But, fairytales were not written for young children. Because, children below a certain age do not understand the complexities of these ideas. As they turn five or six and their ability to understand more abstract social concepts develops, then these moral tales have some value. Before this age, however, children are too concrete to see anything more than the superficial storyline.
I think, when it comes to fantasy, we must strike a balance with our young children under the age of five. I think that when we hope to occupy them, we should look to engage them in what is real, because that is what will benefit them the most. Helping them learn about the world and what exists is always more valuable than what doesn't exist. At the same time, however, it is an enriching experience to expose children to stories that are timeless and classic to the culture in which we live. But, we should be careful and think about what those stories tell our children. We should not hesitate to talk to them about the story and let them know that it is not real. When we read a story about a talking cow, it is important to point out to the child that cows don't talk and so that this story is pretend. We should be careful before we share ideas with young children that may cause them fear because they cannot detach the fantasy from the reality. I don't think that means we should sugarcoat everything. Rather, we should be honest about what is fantasy and what is not. What behaviors are acceptable in the stories we see, and what are not. What is possible in the real world, and what is not. We should talk about the ideas brought up by the story with regard to what is real and what is not.
Fantasy has it's place, but we should remember that, with all things, moderation is key. Before we come to the belief that children should live in an endless world of fairytale and make believe, we should consider what they are missing by not being in the real world, developing real skills, and interacting with real things. And when we do engage the world of fantasy, we should remember that the young child takes everything as fact, so it is our job to help them differentiate.
I wanted to start by outlining her take on fantasy with her own words. However, even though I own seven books written by Dr. Montessori, I could find very little on the subject. I believe she has talked extensively on the subject, but that information is lacking from my library of her major works. She does touch on the subject in the Absorbent Mind by defining spending too much time in the world of fantasy as a disorder in the child, specifically, the "child's difficulty, or inability, to concentrate his attention on real objects" and instead turning everything into fantasy. She felt that this constant disconnection from reality hindered the spiritual life rather than fostered it for, she believed, "the spiritual life is really built upon the fundamental basis of a unified personality, well attuned to the outer world." "The wandering mind that breaks away from reality, breaks away from...healthy normality," she wrote, and "attention to real things, with all the future applications that derive from this, become impossible."
Many people who have not deeply studied the Montessori philosophy, or (in my opinion) misinterpret her, believe that Dr. Montessori was against imagination. But, what she was really saying is that while we all see and observe that imagination is the natural inclination of the child, it stems from what is real. Giving the child something unreal and made up is not his imagination or creativity, but someone else's. In that fact, it thus has less value to the child than had he used his own creativity and imagined something. This is ultimately the difference between imagination and fantasy. To stimulate the child's imagination, therefore, you must give him real things and a real understanding of the world from which he can extrapolate and use creatively. While the child is drawn to fantasy, it is the knowledge from the real world that can enrich his ability to imagine and create.
Dr. Montessori wrote: "Yet, when all are agreed that the child loves to imagine, why do we give him only fairy tales and toys on which to practice this gift? If a child can imagine a fairy and fairyland, it will not be difficult for him to imagine America. Instead of hearing it referred to vaguely in conversation, he can help to clarify his own ideas of it by looking at the globe on which it is shown." In To Educate The Human Potential she wrote: "Educationalists in general agree that imagination is important, but the would have it cultivated as separate from intelligence, just as they would separate the latter from the activity of the hand. They are vivisectionsists of the human personality. In the school they want children to learn dry facts of reality, while their imagination is cultivated by fairy tales, concerned with a world that is certainly full of marvels, but not the world around them in which they live. Certainly these tales have impressive factors which move the childish mind to pity and horror, for they are full of woe and tragedy, of children who are starved, ill-treated, abandoned, and betrayed. Just as adults find pleasure in tragic drama and literature, these tales of goblins and monsters give pleasure and stir the child’s imagination, but they have no connection with reality."
In my opinion, part of what I think Dr. Montessori was critiquing adults' misunderstanding of the child, always trying to occupy his time with fake things or toys that serve the purpose of making the child "busy" so that he does not interfere with adult things. Sometimes this stems from not understanding what the child really needs or is capable of, and sometime it stems from sheer self-absorption (we don't want to clean something up, we don't want to include the child who will take too long, we want it done perfectly). For example, instead of letting a child explore the things we have in the kitchen or let them assist us in preparing dinner, we buy them plastic kitchens and tell them to "play." This act of play is devoid in meaning because it robs the child of the ability to learn something or develop skills by working with real objects.
While wooden or fabric toys (I hate plastic ones) that focus a child's grasping or sensorial skills can be good, it is just as important to let our children explore what is real. Now that he has developed the powers of grasping and holding, I let my son entertain himself with real objects to explore: a spoon from the kitchen, a brush, a sock, etc. Rather than buy him a toy piano with light up noises, we let him explore a real piano. When he showed fascination in his father's guitar but my husband was worried about him damaging it, we bought him a cheap Ukelele to manipulate until he's old enough to respect the guitar (rather than a fake plastic toy one). I try to find ways to involve him in the world rather than simply occupy him. I think it is most important for our children to explore, to enter the world of real things and make genuine discoveries that will have value to them.
The same goes for the things we tell our children. What is real is what fuels the imagination. Before the age of five, children do not have a clear understanding about the concept of real and unreal, things that are untrue and fantastical. It's important to think of that when we consider what we show our children in movies or what stories we tell them. When Dr. Montessori talked about fairy-tales, I don't think she was thinking of a full ban on them. Maybe she was, but I cannot ask her, so I must go with my instincts. Fairy-tales have their place as representations of culture; they are full of thoughts on morality, history, and mystery. But, in the same breath, to the very young child, they can be danger. Dr. Montessori also said, in The Advanced Montessori Method: "But how can the imagination of children be developed by what is, on the contrary, the fruit of our imagination? It is we who imagine, not they; they believe, they do not imagine. Credulity is, indeed, a characteristic of immature minds which lack experience and knowledge of realities, and are as yet devoid of that intelligence which distinguishes the true from the false, the beautiful from the ugly, and the possible from the impossible." She makes a good point to all of those who think that showing a child fantasy teaches him to use his imagination. These stories are the products of an adult's imagination. They do not teach the child how to imagine, but instead fill his stories with unreal ideas that stem from the minds of others.
I'm not saying that fantasy has no place in a child's life. I don't think Dr. Montessori was either. I think the point is that we need to be very careful with fantasy, and we need to be realistic when we think about a child's needs with regard to it. Before we expose our children to things they may not understand, we need to remember that they might take what is unreal as real. This is of importance when you think about exposing a child to Star Wars or you tell him there are monsters. So many times, as a teacher, I saw children on the playground attacking each other with light sabers without any real understanding of the implications of such a thing. When children don't understand what is real and it enters into their play, they can become desensitized to things like violence without every full understanding what it means. They can also develop very real fears because they don't have the ability to separate the unreal from the real. How many of us have seen a child terrified of something that made no sense...and how often has that stemmed from fantastical stories he may have heard?
Some people might argue with me here that the value of a fairytale likes within its moral structure, its tale of the human condition or human social structure. Fairytales can tell us how things should be or make us think about the nature of good and evil. But, fairytales were not written for young children. Because, children below a certain age do not understand the complexities of these ideas. As they turn five or six and their ability to understand more abstract social concepts develops, then these moral tales have some value. Before this age, however, children are too concrete to see anything more than the superficial storyline.
I think, when it comes to fantasy, we must strike a balance with our young children under the age of five. I think that when we hope to occupy them, we should look to engage them in what is real, because that is what will benefit them the most. Helping them learn about the world and what exists is always more valuable than what doesn't exist. At the same time, however, it is an enriching experience to expose children to stories that are timeless and classic to the culture in which we live. But, we should be careful and think about what those stories tell our children. We should not hesitate to talk to them about the story and let them know that it is not real. When we read a story about a talking cow, it is important to point out to the child that cows don't talk and so that this story is pretend. We should be careful before we share ideas with young children that may cause them fear because they cannot detach the fantasy from the reality. I don't think that means we should sugarcoat everything. Rather, we should be honest about what is fantasy and what is not. What behaviors are acceptable in the stories we see, and what are not. What is possible in the real world, and what is not. We should talk about the ideas brought up by the story with regard to what is real and what is not.
Fantasy has it's place, but we should remember that, with all things, moderation is key. Before we come to the belief that children should live in an endless world of fairytale and make believe, we should consider what they are missing by not being in the real world, developing real skills, and interacting with real things. And when we do engage the world of fantasy, we should remember that the young child takes everything as fact, so it is our job to help them differentiate.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
A Little Dirt a Day Keeps the Doctor Away!
As part of my son's exploration of the world, we often go outside so that he can take in the wonders of nature. But, as he develops the abilities to be more hands-on, he has begun to "take in" nature in a whole new way. The other day, I let him sit in the grass so he could feel it on his feet and pull at it with his hands. Being Autumn, he is surrounded by leaves. Previously, when he was little and just starting to learn to grasp, I would take him up to plants to touch the leaves. But now, here they were all around him to touch and to hold...and to put in his mouth.
Unlike most mothers I see, I laughed. "That's not food, silly," I said. But he kept right on sucking on the leaf. Eventually, he got bored with it and picked up something else. On with his exploration. I plucked a blade of grass. He tried it and tossed it. I smiled. My husband came home from work to find us playing, and I boasted to him, "so many mothers would rip these leaves away from him, but I know better." "Aren't you worried about botulism?" he asked. I made some weird scoffing sound and laughed him off. But, wait, I thought, do I really know everything I need to know about dirt? Off I went to prove him wrong...hopefully. My little guy did put a number of leaves in his mouth.
And luckily, as I suspected but only now have the factual knowledge to support, dirt is good for our kids! As many of us know and have witnessed, babies explore the world with their mouths. Their sense of touch his strongest here, and it helps them explore shape, texture, and so much more about the objects they come into contact with. However, it's also nature's own built in way of creating a strong and tolerant immune system. When it comes to the immune system, the maxim use it or lose it definitely applies. Studies forming the hygiene hypothesis, believe that exposure to bacteria and viruses in dirt is what helps use develop our immune system in order to fight off a host of diseases. Too much cleanliness leaves young children's immune systems weak and unable to fight things they come into contact with. Additionally, contact with these kinds of things teaches the immune system what to pay attention to and what to ignore. For more scientifically collected information, Mary Ruebush, a microbiology and immunology instructor, wrote her book Why Dirt Is Good: 5 Ways to Make Germs Your Friends
about this very thing.
What I found most interesting, however, was that worms are a big part of training and developing our immune system. Studies have used worms (and I don't mean earthworms but rather parasites) to attack autoimmune diseases. There is evidence that these parasites help our bodies avoid autoimmune disorders like allergies, asthma, multiple sclerosis, Crone's disease, and others. Autoimmune disorders are our bodies working against itself, and many scientists are finding that this is because the body doesn't know what it should be fighting. The study of parasites is offering a lot of information on how our immune system develops.
Now, the hygiene hypothesis is still just that: a hypothesis. And it's not accepted amongst the entire medical community. However, if you google it, you will find a number of studies that do support it. The FDA states that "the “hygiene hypothesis” is supported by epidemiologic studies demonstrating that allergic diseases and asthma are more likely to occur when the incidence and levels of endotoxin (bacterial lipopolysaccharide, or LPS) in the home are low." The general conclusion seems to be that our over-cleanliness is not helping our bodies or our children at all.
This is not to say that cleanliness is a bad thing. Washing our hands after using the bathroom and a healthy sanitation system are still incredible ways that our society keeps healthy. The hygiene hypothesis in no way says to swing from one way to the other. Rather, it says that too much cleanliness is the problem; we've swung too far the other way from a completely unsanitary society. Those parents bleaching their houses to death trying to eradicate every germ aren't doing their children any favors. Washing everything with antibacterial soap is even worse, because not only does it kill the germs that help build the immune system, but those same bacteria become resistant to the antibacterial solutions. So while we are weakening immune systems, we are building stronger germs!
I'm not saying we should start serving dirt for dinner. When I let my son eat leaves, I knew they were ones that had recently fallen to the grass and were not yet peed on by some creature. What I am saying is that children need freedom to explore the world with their hands and mouths, without us constantly batting everything away from them out of fear of germs. Yes, animal poop is bad to eat, but a stick in the mouth or a little sand...not so bad. Nature designed our bodies to fight, but they need practice and training. And, even more importantly, our babies need opportunities to explore nature the way they were designed to.
Unlike most mothers I see, I laughed. "That's not food, silly," I said. But he kept right on sucking on the leaf. Eventually, he got bored with it and picked up something else. On with his exploration. I plucked a blade of grass. He tried it and tossed it. I smiled. My husband came home from work to find us playing, and I boasted to him, "so many mothers would rip these leaves away from him, but I know better." "Aren't you worried about botulism?" he asked. I made some weird scoffing sound and laughed him off. But, wait, I thought, do I really know everything I need to know about dirt? Off I went to prove him wrong...hopefully. My little guy did put a number of leaves in his mouth.
And luckily, as I suspected but only now have the factual knowledge to support, dirt is good for our kids! As many of us know and have witnessed, babies explore the world with their mouths. Their sense of touch his strongest here, and it helps them explore shape, texture, and so much more about the objects they come into contact with. However, it's also nature's own built in way of creating a strong and tolerant immune system. When it comes to the immune system, the maxim use it or lose it definitely applies. Studies forming the hygiene hypothesis, believe that exposure to bacteria and viruses in dirt is what helps use develop our immune system in order to fight off a host of diseases. Too much cleanliness leaves young children's immune systems weak and unable to fight things they come into contact with. Additionally, contact with these kinds of things teaches the immune system what to pay attention to and what to ignore. For more scientifically collected information, Mary Ruebush, a microbiology and immunology instructor, wrote her book Why Dirt Is Good: 5 Ways to Make Germs Your Friends
about this very thing.What I found most interesting, however, was that worms are a big part of training and developing our immune system. Studies have used worms (and I don't mean earthworms but rather parasites) to attack autoimmune diseases. There is evidence that these parasites help our bodies avoid autoimmune disorders like allergies, asthma, multiple sclerosis, Crone's disease, and others. Autoimmune disorders are our bodies working against itself, and many scientists are finding that this is because the body doesn't know what it should be fighting. The study of parasites is offering a lot of information on how our immune system develops.
Now, the hygiene hypothesis is still just that: a hypothesis. And it's not accepted amongst the entire medical community. However, if you google it, you will find a number of studies that do support it. The FDA states that "the “hygiene hypothesis” is supported by epidemiologic studies demonstrating that allergic diseases and asthma are more likely to occur when the incidence and levels of endotoxin (bacterial lipopolysaccharide, or LPS) in the home are low." The general conclusion seems to be that our over-cleanliness is not helping our bodies or our children at all.
This is not to say that cleanliness is a bad thing. Washing our hands after using the bathroom and a healthy sanitation system are still incredible ways that our society keeps healthy. The hygiene hypothesis in no way says to swing from one way to the other. Rather, it says that too much cleanliness is the problem; we've swung too far the other way from a completely unsanitary society. Those parents bleaching their houses to death trying to eradicate every germ aren't doing their children any favors. Washing everything with antibacterial soap is even worse, because not only does it kill the germs that help build the immune system, but those same bacteria become resistant to the antibacterial solutions. So while we are weakening immune systems, we are building stronger germs!
I'm not saying we should start serving dirt for dinner. When I let my son eat leaves, I knew they were ones that had recently fallen to the grass and were not yet peed on by some creature. What I am saying is that children need freedom to explore the world with their hands and mouths, without us constantly batting everything away from them out of fear of germs. Yes, animal poop is bad to eat, but a stick in the mouth or a little sand...not so bad. Nature designed our bodies to fight, but they need practice and training. And, even more importantly, our babies need opportunities to explore nature the way they were designed to.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
A Baby Cold: Natural Remedies
My little guy officially has his first cold. Poor thing, he's all stuffy and can't breathe. It started last Thursday night; towards the morning he seemed a little congested. But then, he was fine all the following day. That night, however, he woke up all night long, maybe every half hour, and I could tell that he just couldn't breathe. It was an exhausting night, so I spent the next day trying to naturally combat the common cold (he has no fever). Another night followed of barely sleeping (on my part, he slept but need to be rocked back to sleep every time he woke from not being able to breathe). After that, the congestion has begun to slow and I continue to monitor him for a cough.
It's hard when your little one gets like this, because there's nothing you can do to just make it go away. Cough and cold medicines are unsafe for children under two years of age, and the American Academy of Pediatricians strongly advises against the use of these over-the-counter medicines for this age group due to the possibility of severe or life-threatening side effects. However, there are many holistic and natural remedies out there for fighting the common cold and are safe for young babies. Now, if your child has a high fever or is under three months of age, a trip to the doctor is essential. But, if it's just your run of the mill cold, there are a few things you can do to hopefully shorten the duration and severity of the virus.
It's hard when your little one gets like this, because there's nothing you can do to just make it go away. Cough and cold medicines are unsafe for children under two years of age, and the American Academy of Pediatricians strongly advises against the use of these over-the-counter medicines for this age group due to the possibility of severe or life-threatening side effects. However, there are many holistic and natural remedies out there for fighting the common cold and are safe for young babies. Now, if your child has a high fever or is under three months of age, a trip to the doctor is essential. But, if it's just your run of the mill cold, there are a few things you can do to hopefully shorten the duration and severity of the virus.
Here's the natural and safe remedies we are working with:
Wild Oregano Oil. This oil, procured from oregano that grows wild, has both antibiotic and antiviral properties. And the great thing, from an antibiotic standpoint, is that the body does not develop a resistance. Also, you don't have to worry about overdosing. Wild Oregano Oil contains carvacrol, a natural active ingredient that works against a host of different health problems. It has been scientifically studied, and researchers have found that it can help with strep and other infections. It has antibiotic, antiviral, and antifungal properties. You can buy Wild Oregano Oil
online or at Whole Foods. It has no side effects, except that it is spicy if not diluted so can be rough on your stomach. To combat that, I dilute it (50/50 with olive oil) and take it after I have eaten. For babies, never put it undiluted on their skin and it's too strong for ingestion. Instead, rub some 50/50 mixture on the bottom of their feet. Wild Oregano Oil works best when taken throughout the day. The first day of symptoms I applied it to my son every two hours. As the symptoms recede, I do it two to three times a day. I will continue until all the symptoms are gone. This way, as long as the mucus is being produced, I can hope to help him fight off any infections in his nose or chest that mucus can cause.
NOTE: You will find many websites that do not recommend Wild Oregano Oil for breastfeeding or pregnant women, and some for children. Most people who use it and many sites (including the book The Cure is in the Cupboard by Dr. Cass Ingram) say that it is okay for children, mostly as long as it is diluted and only put on the soles of the feet. With pregnancy, most supplements are not recommended and I am not certain whether or not it is or is not safe. With breastfeeding, I have found that it is not recommended as it may possibly reduce milk supply, although there is no research to substantiate that. So, be cautious when using it yourself if you are breastfeeding or pregnant. According to Oreganol's FAQ's use of the oil (not pills or anything else) is ok for breastfeeding up to 5-10 drops a day, pregnancy (ONLY after the first trimester) 1-2 drops a day, and for children 2-3 drops administered and diluted on the bottom of the feet for no more than ten days in a row.
Hydrogen Peroxide. I discovered this remedy from Natural Baby and Childcare
written by Dr. Lauren Feder, MD. In the thirties, a doctor believed that viruses entered the body through the ear canal and could be combatted there. Later researchers found positive effects of this remedy on shortening the duration of a cold, but it's been largely ignored by the medical community and not well substantiated. We now know that the virus enters through the nasal passages, but the sinuses and ear canal are linked. I used this when my son got sick, and my husband did not. I fought it off and he didn't. For adults, put four drops hydrogen peroxide in one ear, let it sit for a few minutes with your head turned to keep it from pouring out. Then, turn your head and let it drip out. Do the other side. For babies, put three or four drops in each ear. It will drain out naturally. Use this remedy in the first 12-24 hours when symptoms appear a few times during the day. It has no side effects and, even if it doesn't kill your cold, can help with earwax buildup. For me, this was worth a shot.
Breastfeed Frequently. If you are breastfeeding, this is one of the best things you can do for baby. Human milk does not increase mucus and so you don't have to worry about reducing feeding. Instead, your milk contains antibodies that can help baby fight the cold. Plus, baby may take less when its hard to breathe while drinking, so breastfeed more frequently.
Humidifier with Vapor. At night we use a steam humidifier/vaporizer. In all my researching, I found that menthol can cause babies to have more breathing problems, whereas the use of eucalyptus oil seems less problematic, so we poured eucalyptus oil into the liquid inhalant part of the vaporizer to help open up his airway. It helped us too.
Vapor Rub. While Vicks Vapor Rub contains menthol and shouldn't be used on babies, they do make a baby rub that only uses Eucalptus which we used and rubbed on his chest. I also dabbed a little on his nose, but you want to be really careful that they cannot ingest it. There are other companies that make more natural vapor rubs for babies which I will look for next time (we had to get something fast as we were unprepared, and so CVS it was).
Bulb Syringe. Because a baby can't blow his nose, a bulb syringe to suction out the mucus works extremely well. My son screams when we do this, but he does breathe a whole lot easier afterwards. Just be careful not to do it too often, otherwise you risk inflaming the nasal passages and creating more mucus. I try to do it only before he is going to nap or sleep at night, otherwise I let it run out naturally and just gently wipe the mucus away. You can also try saline drops in the nose, but my son was already so upset about the syringe, we decided not to push it. The same applies there too; too much saline can end up drying out the nose causing more mucus production. When it comes to noses, less is more, for all of us.
Hopefully these remedies will help your little one the way they did mine. Please remember, I am not a doctor. See a doctor if there is a high fever, or the cold/cough is persistent for more than two weeks, or if there are signs of ear pain. Good luck to your little one...and please feel free to share any remedies you have with me!
online or at Whole Foods. It has no side effects, except that it is spicy if not diluted so can be rough on your stomach. To combat that, I dilute it (50/50 with olive oil) and take it after I have eaten. For babies, never put it undiluted on their skin and it's too strong for ingestion. Instead, rub some 50/50 mixture on the bottom of their feet. Wild Oregano Oil works best when taken throughout the day. The first day of symptoms I applied it to my son every two hours. As the symptoms recede, I do it two to three times a day. I will continue until all the symptoms are gone. This way, as long as the mucus is being produced, I can hope to help him fight off any infections in his nose or chest that mucus can cause.NOTE: You will find many websites that do not recommend Wild Oregano Oil for breastfeeding or pregnant women, and some for children. Most people who use it and many sites (including the book The Cure is in the Cupboard by Dr. Cass Ingram) say that it is okay for children, mostly as long as it is diluted and only put on the soles of the feet. With pregnancy, most supplements are not recommended and I am not certain whether or not it is or is not safe. With breastfeeding, I have found that it is not recommended as it may possibly reduce milk supply, although there is no research to substantiate that. So, be cautious when using it yourself if you are breastfeeding or pregnant. According to Oreganol's FAQ's use of the oil (not pills or anything else) is ok for breastfeeding up to 5-10 drops a day, pregnancy (ONLY after the first trimester) 1-2 drops a day, and for children 2-3 drops administered and diluted on the bottom of the feet for no more than ten days in a row.
Hydrogen Peroxide. I discovered this remedy from Natural Baby and Childcare
written by Dr. Lauren Feder, MD. In the thirties, a doctor believed that viruses entered the body through the ear canal and could be combatted there. Later researchers found positive effects of this remedy on shortening the duration of a cold, but it's been largely ignored by the medical community and not well substantiated. We now know that the virus enters through the nasal passages, but the sinuses and ear canal are linked. I used this when my son got sick, and my husband did not. I fought it off and he didn't. For adults, put four drops hydrogen peroxide in one ear, let it sit for a few minutes with your head turned to keep it from pouring out. Then, turn your head and let it drip out. Do the other side. For babies, put three or four drops in each ear. It will drain out naturally. Use this remedy in the first 12-24 hours when symptoms appear a few times during the day. It has no side effects and, even if it doesn't kill your cold, can help with earwax buildup. For me, this was worth a shot.Breastfeed Frequently. If you are breastfeeding, this is one of the best things you can do for baby. Human milk does not increase mucus and so you don't have to worry about reducing feeding. Instead, your milk contains antibodies that can help baby fight the cold. Plus, baby may take less when its hard to breathe while drinking, so breastfeed more frequently.
Humidifier with Vapor. At night we use a steam humidifier/vaporizer. In all my researching, I found that menthol can cause babies to have more breathing problems, whereas the use of eucalyptus oil seems less problematic, so we poured eucalyptus oil into the liquid inhalant part of the vaporizer to help open up his airway. It helped us too.
Vapor Rub. While Vicks Vapor Rub contains menthol and shouldn't be used on babies, they do make a baby rub that only uses Eucalptus which we used and rubbed on his chest. I also dabbed a little on his nose, but you want to be really careful that they cannot ingest it. There are other companies that make more natural vapor rubs for babies which I will look for next time (we had to get something fast as we were unprepared, and so CVS it was).
Bulb Syringe. Because a baby can't blow his nose, a bulb syringe to suction out the mucus works extremely well. My son screams when we do this, but he does breathe a whole lot easier afterwards. Just be careful not to do it too often, otherwise you risk inflaming the nasal passages and creating more mucus. I try to do it only before he is going to nap or sleep at night, otherwise I let it run out naturally and just gently wipe the mucus away. You can also try saline drops in the nose, but my son was already so upset about the syringe, we decided not to push it. The same applies there too; too much saline can end up drying out the nose causing more mucus production. When it comes to noses, less is more, for all of us.
Hopefully these remedies will help your little one the way they did mine. Please remember, I am not a doctor. See a doctor if there is a high fever, or the cold/cough is persistent for more than two weeks, or if there are signs of ear pain. Good luck to your little one...and please feel free to share any remedies you have with me!
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Spiritual Embryo: Creating the Self
Every time I look at my son, I am reminded of what Dr. Montessori called the "spiritual embryo." I think to myself that she had it right, he is certainly creating himself. Everything he does has a purpose and a sense of self. So remarkable that, from birth, we are makers of our own creation. It is not me who makes him think, he does that all on his own. Instead, my role is to enrich his environment with the things he can use in his creation. What I do and do not put into his world is my affect on his soul. But what he does with that is all his own.
When Dr. Montessori first coined the phrase, “spiritual embryo,” she was considering the intellectual development of the child. From birth, the human child is completely dependent upon his caregivers; a phase of dependency that is unusually long and unique to our species. While other mammals walk or communicate within hours of delivery, the human child is helpless. The delay in maturation of physical development allows the human brain to make connections and develop pathways that ultimately lead to our ability to excel as a species. A more intelligent brain takes more time, essentially.
Dr. Montessori observed that this period of time was more than physical and intellectual development. She found it to be one of great spiritual development. During this time the child is dramatically able to absorb information and begin to categorize it. Children are hard-wired to learn, both in design and desire. This predisposition to learning comes out of our species' need for survival. We were not given tough shells to protect us or rapier claws. We do not have speed or the ability to fly. Our senses of sight, hearing, and smell are far inferior to those of other species. Our special skill, what makes us so amazing a species when we have no natural defenses, lies in our amazing intellect. Our ability to think makes us the dominant species and amazing survivors. It only makes sense that we would be wired to do what it takes to develop such an intellect: learn.
So, from birth, children have a very specific job. They are creators; creators of themselves. The brain allows for this creation through learning. It triggers what Dr. Montessori called sensitive periods that allow the child to focus on specific areas of development. This focus, observed and marked by interest on the part of the child, creates neuro-pathways in the brain dedicated to the abilities the child focuses on. A child may be working on moving by crawling, or categorizing by showing interest in the order of things. A child working on and absorbing language shows an interest when people speak or when people move their lips. Then the child attempts to replicate those sounds. If you think about how many things children learn to do without you every really showing them, it illustrates the very point that I am making. Children learn to walk and talk without you really teaching them, they learn because it is what they were meant to do.
But, the spiritual embryo is more than development of movement or ability, it is the development of a psychological self. The experiences, sensations, and impressions taken in from the outer environment, along with a child's own biological temperament and chemistry, help the child bring together a psychological sense of self. They develop interests, ideas, and desires unique to their own being. Their learning experience becomes unique, despite the fact that they start out developing abilities all human develop. How they do it, when they do it, and to what degree all stems from their own unique self.
The child’s reality is that he must learn; rather than be given information, he needs the support to explore his environment in order to actively acquire information and practice his skills. Our only job is to enrich that environment with things from which he can absorb information, and give him access to those things. Our protection from inappropriate or unsafe experiences and our support of positive experiences is our role as parents in shaping our children. But, we can't forget that they are still unique individuals. Though they be derived from us and given care by us, they are still their own selves. They are still responsible for that creation.
Every time I look at my son, I see him become a person: his own person. And I am continually amazed at how he is driven to become someone. And every day, I love getting to know who that person is. And every day, I wonder who he will be and I look forward to loving whoever he becomes.
So, from birth, children have a very specific job. They are creators; creators of themselves. The brain allows for this creation through learning. It triggers what Dr. Montessori called sensitive periods that allow the child to focus on specific areas of development. This focus, observed and marked by interest on the part of the child, creates neuro-pathways in the brain dedicated to the abilities the child focuses on. A child may be working on moving by crawling, or categorizing by showing interest in the order of things. A child working on and absorbing language shows an interest when people speak or when people move their lips. Then the child attempts to replicate those sounds. If you think about how many things children learn to do without you every really showing them, it illustrates the very point that I am making. Children learn to walk and talk without you really teaching them, they learn because it is what they were meant to do.
But, the spiritual embryo is more than development of movement or ability, it is the development of a psychological self. The experiences, sensations, and impressions taken in from the outer environment, along with a child's own biological temperament and chemistry, help the child bring together a psychological sense of self. They develop interests, ideas, and desires unique to their own being. Their learning experience becomes unique, despite the fact that they start out developing abilities all human develop. How they do it, when they do it, and to what degree all stems from their own unique self.
The child’s reality is that he must learn; rather than be given information, he needs the support to explore his environment in order to actively acquire information and practice his skills. Our only job is to enrich that environment with things from which he can absorb information, and give him access to those things. Our protection from inappropriate or unsafe experiences and our support of positive experiences is our role as parents in shaping our children. But, we can't forget that they are still unique individuals. Though they be derived from us and given care by us, they are still their own selves. They are still responsible for that creation.
Every time I look at my son, I see him become a person: his own person. And I am continually amazed at how he is driven to become someone. And every day, I love getting to know who that person is. And every day, I wonder who he will be and I look forward to loving whoever he becomes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)