Almost complete lack of will is shown by those who reach their decisions--by not reaching them. That is, there are those doubting, hesitating souls who postpone making a decision until action is forced upon them by some accidental event. These let other persons or the course of events make their decisions for them. There is such a delicate balancing of the desires--usually because all desires are equally weak--that none stands out to dominate the choice of a line of action. George wanted to go to the circus, and had saved enough from his weekly allowance; but he was saving up to buy a rifle, and he was undecided now as to whether he would go to the circus or add to his savings and get the rifle so much the sooner. The sight of some other boys on the way to the circus made the decision for him.
This decision was not a reasoned one, but an accidental one.
Similar in its weakness is the will that reaches no decisions except as the balance is upset by later impulses from within. The girl or boy who allows a slight headache or a tired feeling to make important decisions cannot be said to have much strength of character. On Sat.u.r.day Mabel was to have gone on a steamboat excursion--or on a visit to a friend, to stay over night. When she went to sleep Friday night she had not yet made up her mind; but she finally went to visit her friend because she had over-slept and was too late to join the excursion party.
Children that have not acquired habits of making definite decisions will find themselves badly adrift when they reach the adolescent period, with its rapid changes of mood and the ma.s.ses of frequently conflicting impulses. To be able to restrain each impulse to action as it arises, and to hold it in abeyance until all the alternatives have been canva.s.sed, is a power that comes only after years of thought and practice.
However, it is not enough to be able to refrain from doing what one is impelled to do. Many mothers think that they are training the child"s will when they prohibit the taking or handling of various things about the house. It is true that the child should learn when quite young to avoid certain objects. But if the prohibitions are too general the child will be frequently tempted to break the rules, and then he will fall in his own esteem; or he will observe the rule and have too little outlet for his activity and initiative. The will does not thrive on what the child is _prevented_ from doing, but on what the child _actually does do_.
The child"s need is for practice in doing and in choosing what he will do. When activities or games are suggested to a younger child, it is best to give him a choice of two or three. When the children are older they can be consulted about the purchase of their clothes, and they ought gradually to a.s.sume their share--a small one at first--of the responsibility of the household. As early as possible they should have their own money to spend, as in no other way can they learn the use of judgment and decision in the spending of money. In the households wherein children do not have such opportunities, but in which the parents rule everything with a high hand, the children grow up very inefficient in managing their time and their money; they have become accustomed to being ruled and flounder helplessly when called upon to decide for themselves.
The will, which is at the heart of moral conduct and which is so much in need of training, cannot, as we have seen, be trained as a thing by itself. All training and all education must contribute to the training of the will. Still, there are some definite points that we can profitably keep in mind when we are concerned with the child"s will:
First of all comes sound bodily health.
Then there must be sound habits for most of the everyday activities, that the will may not be dissipated upon trivial matters, and that the common duties and virtues may be a.s.sured.
There must be constant practice in sustained effort and concentration upon useful tasks, in order to fix the habit of holding the attention upon the chosen purpose.
We must not confuse wilfulness with strength of will; and, finally,
There must be constant opportunity for making decisions that the child may feel responsibility in making of decisions as the highest type of conduct.
VIII.
HOW CHILDREN REASON
"Those children will not listen to reason," said a friend whom I discovered in an agitated state of mind one afternoon, when I came to make a call; and she was by no means the first to make this observation. Indeed, it is one of the characteristics of children that they will not listen to reason,--that is, _our_ reason.
Which is not, however, saying anything against the children"s good sense, for people with much more experience have refused to listen to reason--the children"s reason.
Margaret told me her troubles. Her sister had rented a farm near the city for the summer and had offered to let Walter spend his vacation with her in exchange for such bits of help as he was able to render.
But Walter had made up his mind to go to work in an office that summer, and, although he loved the country and had always wanted to drive a horse and go fishing, his mother"s attempts to convince him of the wisdom of her choice were without avail. He would not listen to her reasons. She pointed to the health argument, to the opportunities for play, the free time, the driving, the fishing, and the fruit without limit. Knowing Walter as I did, I could not understand why it was so hard to convince him.
But every story has at least two sides to it, and of this story I had heard only one. The mother was so concerned with giving her son her good reasons for going to the country that she never even thought of finding out his equally good reasons for going to the office. Presently, however, Walter came in, and my first leading question brought out the true secret of the disagreement.
"What is there about working in an office," I asked the boy, "that you care so much about?"
"Oh, it isn"t working in an office that I care about; I just want to earn some money. I never did make any money myself, and now I have a good chance and mother won"t let me."
This was really too simple; here two sane persons had spent several days on the problem without coming to any solution. By placing Walter"s services on the farm on a financial basis and making him pay for his board he managed to spend his vacation, healthfully and happily and profitably in every sense; and everybody was satisfied.
Over and over again we are impressed with the fact that most disagreements between people--whether between adults or between children, or between children and adults--are due to misunderstandings.
As soon as parents resolve not to treat their children arbitrarily,-- that is, on the basis of their superior strength and authority,--they adopt a plan of "reasoning" with them. This plan might work very well, if the parents only understood the children"s way of reasoning, if they but realized that the child does not reason as do adults, that he reasons differently in each stage of his development.
Our manner of reasoning depends very closely upon our language. But every significant word that we use has a distinct meaning in the mind of the individual, depending altogether upon his experience. As the experience of the child is very meagre, compared to that of the grown-up person, it is no wonder that our everyday remarks are constant sources of misunderstanding to children.
The little girl who had been frequently reproved for not using her _right_ hand came to have a positive dislike for her other hand, which she naturally understood to be _wrong_ hand, and she did not wish to have anything wrong about her person. A boy was trying to tell his sister the meaning of "homesick." "You know how it feels to be seasick, don"t you? Well, it"s the same way, only it"s at home."
Children are apt to attach to a word the first meaning that they learn in connection with it. Only with the increase of experience can a word come to have more than one meaning. Moreover, the child will apply what he hears with fatal exactness and literalness.
Two little girls were at a party and the older one found occasion to slap her sister"s hand. The hostess reproved her for this, whereupon the little girl asked, "Isn"t she my own sister?" The hostess had to admit that she was. "Well, I heard papa say that he can do what he likes with his own."
Doing what we like with our own meant to the child exactly what the words said, without those qualifications which we naturally put in because of our greater experience.
Children learn with wonder that mother was once a baby, and that father was once a baby, and so on. Dr. Sully tells of the little girl who asked her mother, "When everybody was a baby, then who could be the nurse if they were all babies?" Thus shows real reasoning power; it was not the child"s fault that she had no historical perspective, and so could not see the babyhoods of different people in their proper relations in time.
A little boy who was beginning to read deciphered a sign in a grocery store, "Families supplied." He asked his mother whether they could not get a new baby there.
When Herbert was pa.s.sing through the scissors stage he cut a hole in his father"s coat. The father scolded him for spoiling his suit; Herbert calmly replied, "I did not cut your suit; I only cut the coat." He resented this accusation, which in his mind was not merely an exaggeration, but entirely false, since a suit is a suit and a coat is a coat.
A little girl, while out with her nurse and brother, got lost by separating herself from the nurse"s side. When she was at last found she was reprimanded for running away from the nurse. She felt that she was being unjustly treated, for she said, "I did not run away; I only _stood_ away," meaning, she had stepped around the corner to look in a window. If she had been scolded for getting out of sight of the nurse, she would have felt justly reproved; but, accused of doing something she never did and never thought of doing,--that is, running away,--she naturally resented this.
Those who have to deal with children in an intimate way cannot be too scrupulous about how they use their words.
The logic of children often appears to us all wrong until we take the trouble to see how they come to their queer conclusions.
The story is told of a boy who was sent to the circus in the neighboring town by his uncle, who gave him an additional quarter "so you can ride back in case it rains." Well, it did rain, and Howard came back riding on the top seat, next to the driver, wet to the skin. Now, any grown-up person knows why he was to ride back "in case it rains"; but to Howard the a.s.sociation of ideas was directly between raining and riding, and not between riding and coming home dry.
This ill.u.s.trates a very common difference between the reasoning of children and that of adults. We _select_ ideas from a situation and combine them and come to conclusions. The child combines ideas, but he does not make any selection, and the simple explanation for this lies in the fact that the child has not enough experience to enable him to select what is significant. Thus a little girl, who had been too boisterous in her play, was called in by her mother and made to sit quietly in a chair for about ten minutes. At the end of this time her mother asked her whether she would "be good now." The child promised that she would, and was told that she might then go out to play again. As she arose she affectionately turned to the chair and said, "Thank you, dear chair, for making me so good."
Having been declared "good" after sitting in the chair, she attributed the beneficent change in her behavior to the chair; and, being a polite little girl, she thanked the chair.
Very often these simple types of reasoning have their humorous aspects and we do not take them seriously. One winter a little boy who had always gone to bed regularly (he was four and a half years old then) began to call for some one to come to him after he was supposed to be asleep. He wanted to sit up and play, he wanted to get dressed, and he wanted something more to eat. This continued for several evenings, and it seemed impossible to get him back into his good habits. At last he was asked, "_Why_ do you want to get up now?" and he answered at once, "Because it is winter now."
"Yes, it is winter now, but it is time for you to be asleep," he was told.
"But it says in the book that I must get up," he insisted.
"Which book?"
"I will show you," and he took from his shelf a copy of Stevenson"s "Garden of Verses," and turned to the picture opposite the poem that begins:
In winter I get up at night And dress by yellow candle light.
To him this meant that in winter, after going to bed, _at night_, one must get up and dress. It is very likely many children who have had this delightful poem read to them have interpreted it in the same way, but probably very few parents have taken the pains to trace their children"s unaccountable "misbehavior" at bedtime to such a source.
This same poem produced in another child quite a different train of reasoning, for "Why did the little girl get up at night and sleep in the daytime?" he asked, "Was she a trained nurse?" It then became necessary to recall that an aunt of the child"s, who _was_ a trained nurse, often slept at home during the day, after having worked with some patient at night.
There is no doubt that many of the crotchets and "perversities" of a child have their origin in chains of reasoning that are perfectly legitimate, in view of the past experiences of the young mind, although not in harmony with the reasoning of more mature minds. The parent spends much time and energy, and much heartburning, sometimes, to overcome these whims. What is needed is a patient and sympathetic attempt to discover how the child has come to his queer ideas and desires.
The annoyance that children cause us with their questionings is due very largely to the fact that we cannot answer their questions, since the reasoning that prompts them is too searching. A little boy shocked and vexed his grandmother, who was trying to teach him the elements of theology, by asking "Who made G.o.d?" It is very likely that every normal child has asked the same question in one form or another. This attempt to reach back to the very beginning of causes resembles in many ways the speculations of the mediaeval metaphysicians, and should certainly not be discouraged. We need not, on the other hand, make the effort to answer every question a child may ask, for at a certain stage in his development he will get the habit of asking questions without really caring for the answers.
But the questions are worth hearing, in most cases, just to help us understand how the child _does_ reason. Some of the questions indicate a great deal of reasoning of a very valuable kind. When the little boy asks, "Why don"t I see two things with my two eyes?" or when the little girl looks up from her dolls and asks, "Am I real, or just pretend, like my doll?" they show that they have been thinking. When a child has pa.s.sed through the metaphysical stage of reasoning, he will be more interested in animals and other objects of Nature; and his questions will have to do more with the operation of processes--how he grows, and how fishes breathe in the water, and how birds fly. Later, he wants to know how things work, what makes the locomotive go, how the noise goes through the telephone, how the incubator makes chickens come out of eggs. The reasoning of the child may lead to weird conclusions, but it is real reasoning, and can be improved not by being ridiculed, nor by being suppressed, but by being sympathetically understood and encouraged.
Perhaps the most serious phase of the peculiarities of children"s reasoning appears with older children when it comes to reasoning about right and wrong conduct. Professor Swift, of Washington University, has made a careful study of this subject, from replies given by many men to questions about their ideas as boys. It seems that men who are irreproachable in their moral standards pa.s.s through a stage in which they consider it legitimate fun to rob orchards or to commit petty thefts.
Children draw fine distinctions between _wrong_ acts and acts that are _not very wrong_, though they may not be _quite right_. One man says, "I distinguished between _taking money_, _real stealing_, and _taking fruit_." Another says of fruit taking, "I only partly regarded it as stealing." One man writes, "When a close-fisted employer refused to let me have my clothes at cost, I pocketed enough of his change to bring my clothes down to the cost mark." Few regarded taking money from their parents as "very bad," and distinguished between such stealing and taking money from strangers.