All My Children

Some children keep score on their ability to exercise this type of self- control, and they know very well that the issue is the ability of their mind, or will, consciously to dominate the spontaneous reactions of their body. These games are so common that one may assert that all children, at one time or another, engage in games whose main purpose is to test themselves and their performance. I knew one six-year-old, for example, who kept score through checking off one of two columns which he had labeled “Me” and “My mind,” indicating that for him the issue was not whether he or his partner won, but how well his mind could control his body.

Defining the Self

There is a world of difference between obeying the command of another and controlling oneself. Toilet training—because it is so fundamental a socializing experience—may be used to illustrate this point. On the surface it seems that a child becomes trained because his parent wants it but things don’t really operate that way. No matter how much the parent ma_y want his child to become toilet-trained, if the child refuses, then toilet training breaks down. Toilet training as the result of a pact with the parent—”I obey, and you will love me”—is highly problematic. Some children who give in to parental pressure then develop neurotic traits.

The most successful toilet training seems to be the result of a child’s pact with himself: “I will control myself, so that my parents will like me better and so that I can be proud of myself.” This attitude is the only one that is truly effective. The “do it for Mother” request, while a necessary starting point for such self-restraint, will lead to an ultimate failure in personality development if it does not culminate in the child’s pact with himself—”I want to train myself“—which ultimately results in self-esteem based on “I did it all by myself.” Thus while Piaget is correct in suggesting that the pact with oneself derives from others, from their wishes, and from a desire to please them, I believe this is only the starting point.

Psychoanalysis tends to see the development of the self as coming about from the continuing relationship to the mothering person, and this is undoubtedly true. Much more questionable, however, is the facile notion that a child becomes socialized primarily to please his mother. Normal human development requires an integration of two experiences: first, of pleasing oneself, and also of pleasing others. This can be observed in the behavior and experience of a very young infant. He drools, blows bubbles, sticks out his tongue to please himself and to gain information about what his mouth can do for him. The experience is filled with functional pleasure for him and, like all play, is directed toward gaining more control and mastery.

The enjoyment the mother derives from watching her infant’s pleasure and the way she responds to his gurgling noises with sounds of her own transforms his solitary play into a mutual activity in which each partner sparks a reaction in the other. In that sense, it mirrors the dynamics of most games. But in this one, as when the infant feeds his mother, nobody loses; rather, both win. As mother and child repeat the experience again and again, reaffirming the integration of pleasing oneself and pleasing others, the child grows strong in his conviction that such pleasing and being pleased are interrelated, not disparate facets of life.

Contest with the Self

The games a child plays with himself, in which he imposes strict rules on himself and rigorously obeys them, always precede his insistence that others obey the rules. Such games are of enormous importance in preparing the child for playing successfully with others. Not all games children play by themselves fall into this category, but many serve exactly this purpose. Thisis true of the games of not budging or flinching, mentioned earlier, or those which require conquering a sense of revulsion, etc. There are striking similarities between these and such ritual games as commanding oneself not to step on cracks, or to hop on one foot for some self-imposed distance, although these games center less on demonstrating self-mastery and more on providing the experience of triumph over an obstacle. The essence of these games is that the difficulty is self-imposed and the consequence of the play experience is an enhancement of the self.

A psychological comparison of games in which the rules or obstacles are self-imposed with others in which the rules are externally determined suggests a two-step process in personality development. The individual self develops in comparative isolation, while character, or social personality, can be achieved only through interaction with others. Obeying a self-imposed rule in a staring contest or meeting other such challenges enhances the development of self- respect and feeling of self-mastery. Obeying the preset rules of a formal, organized game leads to the development of the individual into a social human being. Goethe, in a saying which I have previously quoted in part, beautifully described this two-pronged development necessary for achieving full humanity: “Talent is best nurtured in solitude; character is best formed in the stormy billows of the world”

Learning both to control and to demonstrate aggression is the underlying purpose of many games, particularly those involving physical contact. All contact sports require that aggression be kept within the boundaries set by the rules of the game, although aggression has been kindled both by the competition inherent in the game and by having to withstand the aggression of the antagonist. He, in his turn, must also limit himself to what is permitted by the rules; nonetheless, his actions are experienced as threats to one’s body and to one’s feeling of competence; thus they increase one’s aggressive tendencies, which makes self-control both more difficult and more necessary.

There are many games that can be played alone or with others; but whether or not competition with others is involved, there is always competition with oneself, and one’s self-esteem is always at stake. Throwing a ball against a wall and catching it, or shooting baskets, whether engaged in for pleasure or to increase one’s skill, can still evoke quite angry and aggressive feelings when things do not go well. This aggression has to be kept under control, as children soon realize—or else they make even more errors. This is certainly true in golf, for instance. Such play is clearly designed to prove oneself, and perhaps to impress real or imagined spectators. This can be true even when children play with toys like yo-yos.

Many jumping-rope games are clearly ways to show off and improve one’s skills as well as compete with others. There are many active games in which no bodily contact is permitted which nevertheless are highly competitive, such as tennis or basketball, and of course physical-contact games such as football or wrestling are also very competitive. Still, even those games which clearly involve winning out over one’s competitors are frequently engaged in not so much to be victorious over others as to compete with and prove oneself to oneself, and to impress others (whether present or absent) whose admiration and approval enhance one’s self-esteem.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Play and Learn: Let your Kids Proving themselves through Contest continue…

• Safe Sleep: Reducing the Risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
• Play and Learn: Let your Kids Proving themselves through Contest
• Other people in your baby's life
• Children Caution: Using Medications to Lower Temperature
• Where should your baby sleep?
• Play as Problem-Solving
• Babble Language: Mastering the Mother Tongue
• Milestones and Memories
• Six Basic Principles of Discipline
• Kids need a chance to Win, Role Playing in Game, the Meaning of Victory

Trackback URI | Comments RSS