Originally Published 1891
After graduating from Concordia Wisconsin, Anna taught in Lutheran schools for several years and became so enthusiastic about Classical Education that she will talk about it to whomever will listen. She is a big fan of Jane Austen, dark chocolate, and the Oxford comma. Anna and her husband live in Pennsylvania with their three young children. Anna's work can also be found in The Federalist.
Review by Anna Mussmann
It
is incredibly helpful to read parenting advice from other eras. Often it’s wise
advice. Alternatively, sometimes it’s quaint or silly, and this is good too. We
need to remember that today’s parenting standards might be tomorrow’s chuckle
and stop getting stressed out if we aren’t doing all the things The Book of the
Year told us to do.
This particular volume is from the nineteenth century and was interesting in three
ways: 1. The thesis is a good one. 2. The author’s comments about “parents
today” demonstrate that the weaknesses of modern parenting aren’t as new as we
might think. 3. Some of the author’s concerns and emphases correspond with
ideas from Charlotte Mason’s writing.
Trumbull
says that we all recognize the need to provide our children with knowledge, but
we must also recognize the need to train their habits. The word “training” is
likely to trigger a certain reaction among some readers. During my childhood,
popular Christian authors and speakers used the word to emphasize training
children in obedience. However, the sense in which Trumbull uses the word
is not quite the same.
He
says that teaching causes someone to know, and training causes them to do.
“Teaching brings to the child that which he did not have before. Training
enables a child to make use of that which is already his possession.” The two
go together. We can teach a kid about the theoretical importance of good
nutrition but should also shape his eating habits. Telling a kid what is good
and right isn’t enough--it is our duty to actually make him do it while he is
under our care. Yet this should be done gently and kindly. Our goal is to win
him over and create love of what is good, not simply to enforce our own will.
I
appreciate the discussion. I see many modern parents act as if their job lies
primarily in issuing plaintive verbal statements, kind of like liability
disclaimers, without actually getting up and changing the behavior of their
kids. We moderns tend to think that we can’t do much to change children’s
preferences, demeanors, or desires. Perhaps this is because we confuse
“personality” with “habits.”
In
contrast, Trumbull urges parents to shape their children’s mental, moral,
physical, spiritual, social, and dietary habits. I’m inclined to think he may
swing a little far. He is rather fond of saying that “many a child has been
ruined for life” by this or that error of inattentive parents, as if a child
were a blank slate upon which parents shouldn’t misspell any words. Yet we must
remember he wrote in an era in which “mom-guilt” wasn’t the term de jour--he
clearly felt the need to prod parents to see their role as important.
He
wrote in an era in which control over one’s demeanor was highly prized
(remember how Ma Ingalls never raised her voice and showed emotion only in
rather subtle ways?). That influences his expectations of parents. He even
demands that the bedtime ritual should be all peace and sweetness (in fact,
that we should behave as we want our children to remember us when we are dead).
I can’t say I’ve always been an angel of gentle light at bedtime myself, but
again, this is a salutary reality check: we moderns swing the other way and
seem determined to believe that all moms nag and shout and we might as well
make jokes about it.
For
readers willing to translate Trumbull’s thesis into modern parlance and apply
it to parenting today, this is a thought-provoking read. I wish he provided
more practical illustrations of how he expects parents to achieve the goals he
suggests. However, I also gleamed a number of helpful ideas on shaping family
life in accordance with the beliefs and values I hope to teach my children.
Let
me leave you with a quotation from the book. The author recounts being asked
for his theory of child-training. He said, “I have no theory in that matter. I
had lots of theories before I had any children; but now I do, with fear and
trembling, in every case just that which seems to be the better thing for the
hour, whether it agrees with any of my old theories or not.”
***
After graduating from Concordia Wisconsin, Anna taught in Lutheran schools for several years and became so enthusiastic about Classical Education that she will talk about it to whomever will listen. She is a big fan of Jane Austen, dark chocolate, and the Oxford comma. Anna and her husband live in Pennsylvania with their three young children. Anna's work can also be found in The Federalist.
I have found that most parenting books I've read are light on the illustrations and heavy on the theory. I stopped reading them because of that; I often agree with the theory but have no idea how that looks practically.
ReplyDeleteTrue! Perhaps there's a difference between books that present truly useful principles--ones that lend themselves to actions--vs. platitudes or goals. A book that says, "Human beings should help those around them, and children are humans, so they should be expected to help around the house" is a principle that thoughtful parent can try out. "Children should feel loved" is a good goal, but doesn't in itself tell us what to do!
DeleteClay Clarkson has written a couple good modern takes on Trumbull, albeit from a Calvinist perspective (there's still a lot of good meat there!), complete with practical examples. These are The Lifegiving Parent and Wholehearted Discipline.
ReplyDeleteKatie Klinge
Thanks for the titles!
Delete