Thursday, March 19, 2009

More Musing

I usually don't do this--respond to comments in an entry--but I feel like I have more to say on the subject of my most recent entry (could not get online again yesterday--so incredibly annoying) that I thought I'd just plunge in. 

For one thing, I'm not talking about assessing kids based on real things they do or are. Words such as "tall" or "brunette" or "right-handed" do not apply. And I guess in a way I'm not talking as much about labeling as I thought I was. Labels are tricky. As one commenter pointed out, "tomboy" or "daddy's girl" aren't often intended as negative labels, although I am often bothered by the way they are used: to pigeonhole. That's what I'm getting at, I think, is the need--the very real and natural need--we have to make sense of the world around us, and especially of the people who inhabit this world--by attempting to suss out who they are and apply labels that we hope make sense to other people as we communicate with them, and to ourselves, as we process information. 

I don't mean to suggest that we can even stop doing this; I just wish we could rein it in when it comes to small children. I don't think the people who look for signs of Lily in Annika are doing it in anything but a loving, human way, but as an older sister whose younger sister would probably cop to a certain amount of resentment at the constant comparisons, I'd love for Annika to be judged on her own terms--yes, even at the age of one.

Do I sound like I'm being extremist or overly sensitive? That example, of the older/younger siblings, is not the best one for what I am trying to talk about. I guess I just worry that the little boy I know who's always being described as "wild" or the little girl I know who is often referred to as a "little princess" won't have much of a chance of discovering that they're actually somebody else altogether when grown-ups keep pushing them into those boxes.

Clearly, I have more thinking to do on this subject. No fears: My internet connection is back, and I will be too. Any more thoughts from you? I want to write more about this, I think, in a more fruitful way. 

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is the “prophesy fulfillment” part of the equation that worries me. Sorry to say that there has been some labeling going on in our house and we are in the process of trying to reverse the consequences. In school, our daughter has had, let’s say, success at skill #1 and less success at skill #2. After years of telling her that her strengths were in skill #1, she now describes herself as not being good at skill #2. Had we kept our mouths shut, or better yet suggested that she was good in both things, just a little stronger in #1, would she have come to value her achievements at #2? When she has to work on a project related to skill #2 now, she mutters to herself “I am not good at this” and I wonder if she gives up easier because she feels destined to not be accomplished at it.

I grew up in a family that “was not good” in math. Challenging grades in math were rarely criticized, while difficult grades in any other subject were considered real issues. After loving arithmetic in elementary school, I struggled through the rest of school and never touched it again after high school. Then numbers became a big part of my professional life and I could no longer ignore them. When all is said and done, in my last position, I developed and managed a budget in excess of over $2M credibly. It wasn’t calculus, but surprise, surprise, I was good it.

Anonymous said...

I certainly agree with you and Liza that labels used to pigeonhole can be pernicious. Have read any of the studies about stereotype threat? I can't do them justice here, but it is related to the topic - when people's performance is impaired by the fear that their behavior will confirm a stereotype of a group they belong to. (e.g. Girls doing worse on math tests when told beforehand that girls don't do well on math tests).
But the flipside is that they can be a positive force - I never worried too much when I got a bad grade because I'd always been told I was smart. That label was such a part of my self-image that when I did get a bad grade, I just assumed it was because I didn't work hard enough, not that I wasn't smart enough.
I think what you're trying to rein in are labels that seem like they might limit the potential of a child.

Anonymous said...

I'd also add that I sometimes think that some kids are more resilient than we give them credit for. One of my dear friends was told repeatedly by assorted people that he shouldn't play sports because he wasn't coordinated or was too slow or short, and it just made him more determined to prove people wrong.