I just love this book so much and "reading" along with you has been beneficial. Thank you!
Re: Montessori and this book/attachment-oriented parenting in general. I find it interesting that Maria Montessori's primary work (as I understand it) was with children who were generally *lacking* in secure attachment with their parents. So much of her work was about cultivating the child's self, apart from the home, because these children came from homes where that kind of work was not possible. I also think that because she was not a mother herself, she did not understand biologically normal infant sleep, breastfeeding, etc--which is where the idea of a baby being on a separate sleeping space from the get-go, having "boundaries" around nursing so that the baby learns that the mother is a separate person, etc comes from. I think if she had been doing her work at a different time in history, when these things were "givens" as part of biologically normal parenting, she may not have proposed them. But she did the bulk of her work during a time when mother-baby separation was generally encouraged and many women bottle fed anyway.
This is not to say that Montessori's educational philosophy is not helpful or good, just that it is incomplete (as all educational philosophies are) and very much "of its time." I have not been drawn to go full-on Montessori in my parenting or education because I find that I can't get past some of these deficits, but I know many parents who have beautiful relationships with their kiddos AND who love and embrace Montessori's educational methods.
This book has been on my to read list for a while so I'll be sure to revisit your posts once I've read it! This is interesting what you're writing about peers/socialization, etc, as I am in the midst of Jonathan Haidt's new book which (in addition to being all about the dangers of social media for kids) is really all about child development. He really emphasizes the essential role peers play for children, and have always played for children, historically. And this makes sense to me - in the village you describe, the children would be with each other primarily, while the adults did the necessary work on the farm/homestead/village, etc. Of course as you say there also would be a network of trust in place with many caring adults the child would feel safe with, there in the background and always available. That shouldn't be underestimated. But I do intuitively think unrestricted (and non-parent involved) peer interaction is absolutely vital for kids. Though my 3 year old (oldest child) goes to nature school three mornings a week we're now leaning toward at least hybrid homeschooling once she's school age and so I'm very interested in this peer/socializing element! I don't think it should be dismissed, but I do also think it probably *is* a bit overemphasized. Anyway, interested in any thoughts!
Yes this is an interesting rub! I haven't read his work but am aware of it... is his work more focused on older kids? Age matters right when we're talking about parenting - the needs of a three-year-old are different from those of a 13-year-old. I'm definintely curious to hear more about his ideas of peers being important to child development. I love his idea that we've underprotected kids in the virtual world and overprotected them in the real, physical world (I assume he's talking there mostly about physical risk but also maybe too about social risk as well?).
I totally agree that unrestricted and non-parent-directed peer interaction is important - I'm actually working on a freelance article right now on free outdoor neighbhorhood play. I just think, like you said, that it has to happen in a context of loving, connected adult relationships for it to really have that positive impact (and not veer them toward peer orientation). I'm excited for you to read the book - I think you'll love it.
I just love this book so much and "reading" along with you has been beneficial. Thank you!
Re: Montessori and this book/attachment-oriented parenting in general. I find it interesting that Maria Montessori's primary work (as I understand it) was with children who were generally *lacking* in secure attachment with their parents. So much of her work was about cultivating the child's self, apart from the home, because these children came from homes where that kind of work was not possible. I also think that because she was not a mother herself, she did not understand biologically normal infant sleep, breastfeeding, etc--which is where the idea of a baby being on a separate sleeping space from the get-go, having "boundaries" around nursing so that the baby learns that the mother is a separate person, etc comes from. I think if she had been doing her work at a different time in history, when these things were "givens" as part of biologically normal parenting, she may not have proposed them. But she did the bulk of her work during a time when mother-baby separation was generally encouraged and many women bottle fed anyway.
This is not to say that Montessori's educational philosophy is not helpful or good, just that it is incomplete (as all educational philosophies are) and very much "of its time." I have not been drawn to go full-on Montessori in my parenting or education because I find that I can't get past some of these deficits, but I know many parents who have beautiful relationships with their kiddos AND who love and embrace Montessori's educational methods.
This book has been on my to read list for a while so I'll be sure to revisit your posts once I've read it! This is interesting what you're writing about peers/socialization, etc, as I am in the midst of Jonathan Haidt's new book which (in addition to being all about the dangers of social media for kids) is really all about child development. He really emphasizes the essential role peers play for children, and have always played for children, historically. And this makes sense to me - in the village you describe, the children would be with each other primarily, while the adults did the necessary work on the farm/homestead/village, etc. Of course as you say there also would be a network of trust in place with many caring adults the child would feel safe with, there in the background and always available. That shouldn't be underestimated. But I do intuitively think unrestricted (and non-parent involved) peer interaction is absolutely vital for kids. Though my 3 year old (oldest child) goes to nature school three mornings a week we're now leaning toward at least hybrid homeschooling once she's school age and so I'm very interested in this peer/socializing element! I don't think it should be dismissed, but I do also think it probably *is* a bit overemphasized. Anyway, interested in any thoughts!
Yes this is an interesting rub! I haven't read his work but am aware of it... is his work more focused on older kids? Age matters right when we're talking about parenting - the needs of a three-year-old are different from those of a 13-year-old. I'm definintely curious to hear more about his ideas of peers being important to child development. I love his idea that we've underprotected kids in the virtual world and overprotected them in the real, physical world (I assume he's talking there mostly about physical risk but also maybe too about social risk as well?).
I totally agree that unrestricted and non-parent-directed peer interaction is important - I'm actually working on a freelance article right now on free outdoor neighbhorhood play. I just think, like you said, that it has to happen in a context of loving, connected adult relationships for it to really have that positive impact (and not veer them toward peer orientation). I'm excited for you to read the book - I think you'll love it.
Somehow missed these posts (?) and am currently adding this book to my Amazon cart. This summary sounds incredible. Thanks for the introduction!
All good! We started a while back and then haven’t been very consistent or predictable w it😂 Happy to introduce you!! Just an incredible book