AlO O SEHESIR T MAGAZINE
6
With Superintendent Adams at Mooseheart
him to, but ask him if he won’t. It is the “give and take” method. When you give a favor, even if it is a small one, you don’t necessarily count on a return favor but still you stand in the position of being justified in asking one, if necessary.
A boy going heme from school says to his chum or companion, “Won’t you take my books home, I want to go shopping?” The friend does so unquestionably. There is really no feeling on his part that he is conferring a favor on his friend. He jcnows that his friend is ready at any time to do the same for him. This is true companionship.
Someone will inquire how the head of the family can retain his leadership if he is a chum or comrade to his children. Isn’t it better for him to win his leadership rather than take it by force, often saying, “I am older and know more than you children”? In dealing with adults he has to win his way to leadership. Why not with children ? Perhaps some of the youths in his charge will be leaders in athletics but the adult can lead in the council—just as of old. Each clan had the wise old man who led them. Each boy’s gang has a leader. Why not combine the two types—so that the head of the house is the recognized leader of the family unit because of his better judgment and gfeater experience in the world.
While beinga companion or chum to your boy or girl do not forget that he or she pays more attention to what you do, than to what you say. It is by action that we set the example, not so much by what we say. To see an adult ill-tempered or unfair has a bad influence on a child’s disposition. We cannot help but think back to the wisdom of Plato, “The best way to train the young, is to train yourself at the same time; not to admonish them, but to carry out your principles in practice.”
It is usually advisable to give the reason for commands. This is in opposition to the old idea of giving orders sharply, ouickly and without explaining. Leaders who reason about things are not developed through strict and unauestionable obedience at all times. The attitude of the child is so much better and its co-operation is so much more easily secured if the reasonableness of rules, regulations and sometimes commands are made plain to him.
If in certain situations it may not be possible to give the reason. The child will then detect from the speaker’s tone and the sharp, quick command, that no time can be taken for explanations. The best obedience comes through confidence in the one giving orders. Some people are always obeyed unquestionably. Sometimes this is through the fact that their personality wins the confidence of those with whom they come in contact, sometimes it is because of the manner in which they give commands, in that they speak slowly, softly, distinctly but with force and power.
One of the most important things for the head of the household to remember is that he must be constructive and positive; not destructive and negative. That is, he should praise the good points in the boys and girls to the very limit and be sorry for-their bad points. He should never “nag,” use sarcasm, tease, banter, “harp on” or “jaw” about the bad in children or over their failings. This is a type of bullying that always arouses resentment in a boy or girl of force. Did you ever stop to think that sometimes parents bully?
Instead of saying “Don’t pick the sore on your head,” say “Keep your fingers fir? from the sore on your head.” Instead of saying “Don’t make so much noise ” s־־y “Keep quiet,” and instead of saving “Don’t throw the (Continued on page IS)
One of the best ways of gaining the confidence of children is to treat them as “grown ups”—as chums. To do this you must see things from their point of view. You must agree with those things in their point of view, with which you can honestly agree. Emphasize your belief in these things, so as to make theirs all the stronger. This will tend to crowd out that portion of their belief with which you do not agree and do not approve.
In order to gain the confidence of children it is also a prime necessity that you be absolutely fair in your dealings with them. This means, that instead of setting up a despotic, autocratic relationship with them you must follow the companionship plan. Use the “give and take” method. This does not need to result in “familiarity breeding contempt.” Children can be familiar and yet be respectful.
If you are to play a chum or com-
panion to your boys or girls, it is of course necessary that there be an exchange of favors. Any adult “playing the game” with children should not order them about for his own convenience. He should not expect the children to wait on him, as children are usually trained to do under the autocratic form of control. This, in truth,׳ does away with what is dear to the heart of many elders and also with that which eases the steps of many tired adults; but isn’t it better to place yourself on an equal footing with the children and perhaps “run and carry” for them as you would have them “run and carry” for you? Can we have a true democracy and a true companionship, without this relationship? If it exists, it then becomes a pleasure for the children “to wait” on you.
An adult “playing the game” must exchange favors with the child just as a chum would. This is the secret of close friendship. In asking a friend to do something you don’t “command”
country life means; yet, their housing, care and school accommodations are that of the city child.
Attitude of the Head of the Household
While we admire the discipline that naturally resulted from the “give and take” method which was in vogue in large families, we all look back with doubt in our minds as to the׳ advantages derived from the usual attitude of the head of the household, which was most common in the “good old days.” This attitude usually was of the despotic kind, where the word of the head of the house was law; where there was no appeal from this law and where there could be no compromise, or change.
The popular conception at that time was that this was “discipline” and that through this, the children grew strong in morals and became better leaders and more patriotic citizens. Some people thought at that time
and most people who are interested in child welfare today, believe that good leaders and more patriotic citizens were produced or developed in SPITE of the autocratic head of the household; that such a development was due not to him but to the training of the large family group and the country environment.
What is there in despotism, in trampling down initiative, and the reckless disregard of individual rights and wishes to train for leadership and service ?
It would seem that where such developed■, it was in spite of, rather than because of the autocratic control.
Modern child welfare workers believe that the head of the household should first gain the children’s confidence. He should show a personal liking for, and interest in every child in his care. When a request is granted it should be in a whole hearted manner. The opportunity should be taken to show that the head of the family is friendly and interested.
(Note:—At the request of the Editor of the Mooseheart Magazine, Superintendent Adams will edit a page in the Magazine each month. The Superintendent of Mooseheart will write on problems having to do with children and their care. These will be valuable reading not only because they will show the ideals of those who have charge of our boys and girls at Mooseheart but will ׳ contain important suggestions as to the training and care of children in ones own family).
The Family
The best family is the “natural” in which there is a wise, fair, loving father and mother, with a large group of healthy, bright, and affectionate children. Such a family is better for children than any institution or school no matter how good. On the other hand a good school home is better for children than some unfortunate homes.
In the “good old days” of which we are so fond of talking, families consisted of nine or perhaps twelve, or even fifteen members. This approaches the standard family at MOOSEHEART, which is sixteen in number. We often say that the discipline in the “good old days” used to be so much better than now. Also that it is the child from these large families that made good in the world. Perhaps there is something in this. Surely there is better discipline, of necessity, in a large family group, than is usually the case in a small family of only two or three.
This discipline is partly the result of the large group where each has to ‘give and take” as far as relationship with the rest of the group is concerned. Of course it is true that each individual member of this group does not get the absorbing and exhaustive care from the mother that the child in a small family has. This is an- example of the fact that one cannot have everything in this world of ours. If we are given one thing or WILL to have it, the chances are we cannot have another.
In all probability most people would agree, that the training in the larger family group tends to produce better results then that in the smaller group, which unfortunately has the tendency to produce self-opinionated and selfish children.
In large family groups, the child is in the society of his equals. Each one in the group is “just as good” as the other. The family is a democracy. Each one in taking advantage of his individual needs and desires has to be watchful that^he does not interfere with the rights of others. No one can “over-run” the household. How much better an invironment to grow up in, than where the child, being an only one, is apt to be the “master” of the household.
Moreover, in such a large family group the older boys and girls of necessity develop the older brother and sister spirit of caring for the younger, training the younger to a certain extent, and also training themselves in adjusting their disposition, their likes and dislikes to that of those with whom they dwell. As a natural result there develops a generous spirit and selfishness finds no root-hold.
In such a group there grows up a spirit of family pride. The group becomes “family minded.” This means that whosoever in the group, through misbehavior, either abroad or at home brings discredit upon the group—becomes unpopular. The others hold aloof from him. The culprit knows that to get back his feeling of “belonging” to the family group he must mend his ways.
The self-discipline, therefore, of the large family group of former years, plus the training the members received from their country environment, usually produced an “all around” boy or girl. At MOOSEHEART the children have this advantage. Their standard groups are but little larger than the family of old; the children live in the country with all that a