Generational trauma (Lyudmila Petranovskaya). Lyudmila petranovskaya about modern children Lj lyudmila petranovskaya latest articles

Probably, any of us interested in the topic of family, children, upbringing, more than once came across the name of Lyudmila Petranovskaya. Psychologist, teacher, publicist, author of many publications in various publications.

In her books and articles, Lyudmila Petranovskaya not only helps adults to understand their relationships in the family, find a common language with children, and do her best to ensure that all members of the family unit function harmoniously. Petranovskaya wrote several books for the smallest ones, for example, "The Star World in Pictures" and "What to Do If ..." for schoolchildren who, in this difficult transition period, face daily situations of choice and the problem of finding the right solution.

But, of course, mothers love Petranovskaya's books most of all. Lyudmila Vladimirovna is an adherent of the theory of attachments, which has been gaining immense popularity in recent years. When a theory becomes widespread, it acquires a number of readings that may be far from the original source and even distort the original idea in some way. Much the same has happened with attachment theory.

People liked the idea so much that many mothers without special education and, by the way, often without detailed acquaintance with the theory, began to interpret it in their own way, often confusing affection with permissiveness. This is where the hyperbolic memes about carrying a baby in a sling to the army and breastfeeding to first grade came from.

Lyudmila Petranovskaya in 2014 wrote two books in which she reveals in detail the theory of attachment, taking into account precisely Russian realities.

Books “Secret support. Affection in a Child's Life "and" If It's Difficult with a Child "almost immediately became bestsellers.

Petranovskaya has been dealing with psychological difficulties in adopting children for many years, and as a result of her work, the Institute for the Development of Family Arrangements, a public organization that trains adoptive parents, appeared in 2012.

The themes of childhood, parenting, family relationships are as relevant today as they were hundreds of years ago.

Petranovskaya constantly emphasizes that “the one to whom the child is attached, consoles and gives him strength simply by the fact of his presence. Whether the family lives in a luxurious mansion or in a slum, in a metropolis or in the jungle, whether it lives like all families around it, or is very different from the social norm, the child does not care. There are parents, they are nearby, they look at me with love, they respond to my crying - everything is in order. There may be an economic crisis, global warming, a flu epidemic, a flood or a war - if the parents themselves are okay, if they are not separated from the child for too long and look confident and calm enough - he is fine. Because the well-being of a child does not depend on the conditions in which he lives, but on the relationships in which he is. "

Interesting and in many ways innovative sounds Petranovskaya's idea that the guarantee of successful upbringing does not lie in the plane of fear or punishment, but, on the contrary, “a child's readiness to obey is determined not by lectures and teachings, not punishments and prizes, but by the quality of attachment. The more reliable the connection with the parents, the more they are “their own” for the child, the more natural it is for him to obey them, and there are no strangers, at least until their own people approve of their instructions ”.

Very curious are the articles by Petranovskaya, in which she analyzes the existing situation in Russian families and shares her opinion that we all, to one degree or another, bear on ourselves the legacy of the Soviet Union, where people were often denied the right to have problems, and it’s not a secret that suppression of fears and denial of existing problems leads to serious difficulties in the future, interferes with the full development of the individual, and, therefore, does not allow raising free children.

"All psychological problems like:" I am sad, I feel bad, I am afraid to ride in the elevator, anxiety attacks roll over, "- caused a reaction like:" What are you doing, pull yourself together! " The person had no right to have such problems.

Naturally, when you have no right to have a problem, it does not occur to you how it should be solved, where to go with it. In fact, we had both psychologists and psychotherapists, sometimes even in polyclinics, within walking distance. After all, many psychological problems - like anxiety disorders or light-dependent depression - could be handled just fine by a neurologist. But they simply did not go to these specialists, except perhaps with sciatica. Even now, people sometimes respond to advice to see a doctor: "How can I go to a neurologist and say that I am afraid of something unknown at night?"

In 2017, a new book by a talented author was published « #Selfmama. Life hacks for a working mom», where the author helps to solve the difficult dilemma of working mothers. How to combine earning money and at the same time not deprive the child of maternal warmth? How to do a lot and not get tired? How to do everything and even a little more and at the same time be calm and not be annoyed with the child? How to get rid of guilt when you need to provide for your own family? Every working mother asks herself such questions every day, and, finally, thanks to Lyudmila Petranovskaya, answers to many questions have been found, and those mothers who are forced or want to work have a chance not to put themselves in front of the most difficult choice, but with the help of those proposed by the author life hacks, to function effectively in both fields.

You can talk a lot about Lyudmila Petranovskaya and quote her even more, because not every author can boast of such tact, simplicity, irony and correctness in a conversation on such acute and sometimes painful topics.

“Psychologists are very harmful creatures. They all the time learn something about human nature that it becomes embarrassing. "

Lyudmila Petranovskaya willingly collaborates with publications, psychological portals, mothers' communities, participates in conferences and meetings.

The International Practical Conference "Challenges of Our Time: Psychology of Addiction" on February 9-12, 2018, at which Lyudmila Petranovskaya will speak and tell in simple language about the most important things in relations between children and parents, will not be an exception.

Today in our heading we will talk about one very popular child psychologist Lyudmila Petranovskaya... Now you rarely meet a mother who is not familiar with the publications of this psychologist. Petranovskaya is very popular even among Orthodox parents. However, few people know that Petranovskaya is hopelessly obsessed with hatred of Russia, Orthodoxy, the Russian people, and sees her main goal as the destruction in future generations of all the most exalted qualities of the soul inherent in the Russian person.

All her advice on upbringing boils down to the fact that in Russia, from time immemorial, children were raised incorrectly. According to her statements, the Russian people throughout history, up to the last decade, raised children in a barbaric way, suppressing them in every possible way, humiliating them, and everything in the same spirit. She finds obsolete and unnecessary barbarism in the words of Christ defining the core essence of Russian culture: “There is no more love than if someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Vsevolod Chaplin on the immutable relevance of the Holy Scriptures at all times: “By lofty words to drive your people into eternal non-life, to impose victimization on them, the will to suffer, the drive to death is an incredible meanness. Separately, the fantasy of a sadistic god who feeds on human troubles and carefully watches so that their number does not decrease is impressive. In the image and likeness, hmm "(read the full article https://spektr.press/missiya-lech-kostmi-nischeta-i-p ..). How can a person with such anti-Christian values ​​teach parenting? What will she teach? What kind of child will be raised by parents who listen to the advice of this psychologist?

At first glance, Petranovskaya's advice is very logical and seems to be full of love for children. However, reading her articles, one after another, we get that her main idea is that parents in difficult situations with a child need to adjust themselves, but in no case be engaged in correcting bad inclinations in the child. Based on her conclusions, we can conclude that the child is a priori sinless, that everything he does he does correctly and wisely, and if his actions in some way alarming his parents, then you just need to change the attitude towards this, but not in in no case to exert influence, not to "put pressure" on the child.

For clarity, let's analyze one of her publications. Link: https://mel.fm/detskaya_psikhologiya/3594876-curiosity From the very beginning of the article, the author places a sense of guilt on the parents for the demanding attitude to the child's studies, which, according to Petranovskaya, discourages him from learning (and not banal laziness, effeminacy and intemperance with which one can and should fight).

Further, she says that the child is initially interested in everything. Everything except doing the lessons. Throughout the article, Petranovskaya writes that lessons and, in general, studying at school for a child is boring and stressful, since the child does not understand the value of learning. It is better for a child to study worms. Of course, it is very important for a child to study the world around him through passive observation. However, the modern world does not exclude the importance for a person of mastering the skill of in-depth knowledge (which is unthinkable without the application of volitional efforts, no matter how talented a person has). Moreover, these two processes do not contradict each other at all, since you can do both.

However, Petranovskaya exposes the entire learning process in an exclusively unfavorable light: “ At school, the child is caught on the fact that he messed up, did not have time, did the wrong - this creates constant stress. And at home, mom and dad are scolded for the same mistakes. There are children who easily cope with this, for others it is too harsh conditions. We get a child who dreamed of school, and by the end of the second quarter he asks: “Is it really for ten years ?! Horrible". You need to show that you love him because he is your child, and not because he did something.". At school, a child is not caught on anything. They teach him there. And in order for the child and his parents to see the effectiveness of the learning process, there are evaluations.

Petranovskaya writes: “ In order for children to be interested in learning, they should not be afraid. Our educational system is built on fixing mistakes". As a rule, it is scary to get a bad mark on the excellent students. However, this does not negatively affect their academic performance. Losers, on the other hand, who do not care about grades at all, do not receive any knowledge at all in the learning process. Besides, why is it that only mistakes are recorded at school? On the contrary, the school has medalists, excellent students receive certificates of honor for excellent studies, receive prizes at Olympiads, etc. And no one fixes or highlights anyone's mistakes - there is no shame board at school, on which the names of poor students are listed. So in this regard, on the contrary, the school is built on fixing successes.

We read further: “ In the traditional teaching system, we give children answers to unasked questions. Children, sit down, we open paragraph number 14, the topic is such and such. They do not need this topic, they did not ask anything about it. And all that gives them such an approach is a deep and persistent aversion to the subject. Natural cognition proceeds in a completely different way. The child sees that he has done something and that this ball does not fall. "And why?" he thinks. If at this moment explain the reason in simple words, it will be much more useful than forcing the child to learn the laws of physics.". Therefore, why should children learn mathematics, geometry, history, geography? These are all boring paragraphs that deeply disgust the subject. Much better to go to the mountains or count the birds on the tree. Well, of course, this is all wonderful and wonderful. Only to get an education, and then an interesting and worthy profession, in this way of learning subjects will be almost impossible. Petranovskaya very often writes that a child must be loved. Nobody argues with this. But doesn't parental love include preparing a child for a dignified adulthood?

One conclusion can be drawn from this publication: there is no need to demand good studies from children. What for? They themselves know what they need. Let them learn what they like. You just love them, and do not ask anything from them. Because if you ask something from a child, then you do not love him as just a child, but you love him for something. As always, continuous manipulation and imposition of guilt on parents in any attempt to exercise proper and necessary parental authority.

But this, of course, is not the main thing. The main thing is what is read between the lines. And it reads that the child cannot be forced to anything - neither to work, nor to self-organization, nor to discipline. Classical Russophobia is a subcutaneous hatred of such manifestations of our cultural code as will and endurance, patience and resilience, courage and sacrifice, which can be formed in a person only through overcoming certain difficulties.

It is this hatred, this personal vicious addiction that dictates the entire creative impulse of Petranovskaya. And, of course, he has nothing to do with any child psychology. Petranovskaya does not work with children. Her “patient” and the object of psychological influence is the modern parent. It is in his subconscious that she juggles concepts and methodically leads away from the most important thing - from the manifestation of genuine parental love, which is nothing more than concern for preserving the purity of a child's heart and cultivating true virtues in his soul. True love has nothing to do with irresponsible connivance, indulgence of laziness, infantilism, cowardice and other base inclinations.

Dear Parents! Do not allow yourself to be confused by all kinds of manipulators, including very professional ones, who only do what they speculate with your love for children in order to push their senseless and perverted picture of the world. When Petranovskaya once again says: “ Love your child for being your child. Do not perceive the child as an object of struggle.”, Then just thoughtfully decompose this statement into specific meanings. First, no normal parent has a problem loving children. The psychologist deliberately presses on this in order to conveniently push through the subsequent false construction about your alleged struggle with the child, under which, according to her idea, the whole process of upbringing should be perceived. Always remember that your fight is not a fight with a child. Your fight is a fight FOR (!) The child, for his soul, for his future and for his destiny.

The other day in an online store, I decided to choose books for my two-year-old daughter - well, you know, all these jumping bunnies, two-word rhymes, bright pictures. In the section "The first books of the baby" I immediately felt uncomfortable: the colorful covers proudly flaunted headings in the spirit of "Development of memory, motor skills and sensory skills." Here I finally realized that modern pedagogy is sick with "developmental" in the terminal stage. Against this background, books that fight this tendency seem to me especially important. And parents are taught not to "develop", but to love the child. This is what the book of psychologist and publicist Lyudmila Petranovskaya "Secret support: attachment in the life of a child" is devoted to.

How to love and forbid at the same time?

Many people naively believe that loving a child is not difficult at all. That there is a magical "maternal instinct" that instantly turns on and immediately closes all questions on this part. However, the history of the homo sapiens species has developed in such a way that instincts do not play such a significant role in our life, and most importantly, the development of memory, motor skills and sensing…. ugh, the main thing is social behavior. Including parental behavior. Because people's lives are very complicated. The mother tigress does not need to force the lion cub to clean up the room, go to bed at a certain time, or discuss his problems with the girls with the teenage lion cub. The mother of a little man faces difficult problems every day, so the question "How to love a child, if at the same time needs to be brought up?" Is very important for her.

Quote from the book:

“Archaic living tribes that touch researchers with their almost always happy and calm babies have very little to prohibit or prescribe to young children. Will freeze-come to warm up, get hungry-stretches out his hand, wants to sleep-fall asleep. "

We live in a completely different world. We are forced to prohibit and not let go. For me personally, it's always a drama. Petranovskaya's recipe is a good and bad police officer rolled into one. This recipe helps a lot to smooth out the tension between love and parenting:

« You can also refuse from the position of caring, or you can from the position of violence. You can prohibit, but at the same time sympathize with the child, maintain friendly contact with him: “I understand how you want another cartoon, but it's time for us to sleep. Are you upset? Come to me, I will pity you "...".

Personally, this simple recipe has already helped me to communicate more calmly with my daughter.

In addition, I learned from the book a very important point: stress is not a time for parenting. A familiar situation: a child yells, do you yell back, and hate yourself for it? Or is the child all in tears - and you tell him with a stern face that you cannot behave like that, and in general, you will now close the door and leave? Because well, what else to do - not to succumb to hysteria? Petranovskaya has the following recipe for this: you don't need to give in (you don't need to buy that car if he rolls around on the store floor because of it), but you need to stay calm and not let yourself turn into a hissing fury. Loving a child unconditionally means giving love, even when the child is not behaving the way you would like. A child's tantrum is not a reason for raising a child. This is a reason to educate yourself.

“If the scandal has already flared up, there is nowhere to go-it is necessary to wait until the stress subsides and at least not add fuel to the fire with shouts, threats and unrealizable demands such as “stop yelling”, “calm down immediately,” “shut up now”. (You yourself would want to hear this when you cry-from your husband, for example?) We just stay close, if given-hug, stroke, say something. The meaning of the words is not very important, he still does not really understand, more important is intonation, presence, touch. Of course, your own condition is very important, if you are shaken, you will not calm the child down. Therefore, first of all ... we breathe, we calm ourselves-sometimes it’s enough for the child’s stress to go down. ”

Be the child's friend or leader?

Or maybe not to prohibit anything at all? Establish a family commune where everyone is equal? Unfortunately no. Goodbye utopia. Being a parent who doesn't prohibit or control anything is not an option. In our complex world, this is tantamount to leaving a child unprotected.

Although it seems to be in appearance - well, what could be more beautiful than a "parent-friend"! You call your mother by name, she does not prohibit anything and agrees with everything - you are the happiest child! According to Petranovskaya, things are not so simple. This liberal approach was born in the second half of the 20th century as a reaction to the pre-war authoritarian model of the family, where the child did not receive any warmth and understanding. But it turned out that children raised by “friend parents” feel anxious and insecure.

“The child will be equally scared and bad both with infantile, helpless parents and with severe ones, not sensitive to the child's needs.”

The family should have a hierarchy, and no matter how understanding the parent is, he should be the main one. This is normal - and most importantly, the parent must also understand that this is normal. Otherwise, inevitable aggressive breakdowns occur:

“If a parent does not feel entitled to prohibit, if he is not in a dominant responsible role, then he must, in order to prohibit,“ get hot ”, get angry: I do not just prohibit you, but because you are bad, you are to blame. “You just have to watch cartoons endlessly! You completely got out of hand! Aren't you ashamed to be capricious-such a big boy! "-and stuff like that. And immediately the prohibition ceases to be a behavior of protection and care, it is perceived by the child as an attack, causes offense. "

That is, the "parent-friend" is not able to calmly feel comfortable in a conflict situation - and the conflict inevitably turns into a battle of "friends" in the sandbox.

Children's tantrums: to regret or "not to be manipulated"?

Many are sure that children are scandalous because they are too pampered with attention. And therefore, in no case should you indulge them. Nothing of the kind, everything is just the opposite, says Petranovskaya. Tantrum is a way to somehow attract the attention of a busy parent.

"If a child is not confident in his adult, in his affection, he will seek a confirming connection, strive to maintain and strengthen it at any cost."

Therefore, the main prevention of hysterics is to love, hug, carry, praise. In general, do everything so that the child does not have to resort to extreme methods of attracting attention. A hysterical child is a disliked child, not a spoiled one.

« In many traditional cultures, babies spend the entire first year of life clinging to their mother, she holds the baby in her arms, or carries it strapped on her back. She feeds, without interrupting her work, she also sleeps with the child. If the fears about "being pampered, accustomed" were true, their children would have to insist on being worn almost until adulthood. However, observations say exactly the opposite: these babies are much more independent and independent by the age of two than their urban peers. They are not inclined to whine, whine, constantly jerk their mother and "hang on" her, they are full of joyful curiosity and do not look "spoiled" at all. And children from modern megalopolises, whom they were very afraid to "accustom to hands", or whose mothers could not be with them, insatiably demand the attention of adults, are capricious, exhaust their parents with their eternal discontent and stickiness. "

The child fights for the attention of the parents - which means that he is whining, naughty, hooligan and even sick. And all because he is experiencing "attachment hunger." And if he is not satisfied, it will get worse and worse. Affection is an organic, instinctive need for a child. Not satisfying her, so as not to spoil her, is like not giving food to a hungry child because he asks too loudly!

“According to this principle, stable capricious, dependent behavior is formed: if a child often feels that an adult is not up to him, he cannot relax, he must be on the alert all the time, check the strength of the connection. Parents get tired, irritated, those around them assure that the child is "too spoiled", they begin to show severity, "not to be led by"-and the matter gets even worse, because he is even more frightened and fights even more desperate. A vicious circle is formed in which everyone is unhappy and unhappy. "

In short, do you want to raise a naughty, nervous and embittered child? No problem. Just "don't spoil" him.

"A child's readiness to listen is determined not by lectures and lectures, not by punishments and prizes, but by the quality of attachment."

To praise or be strict?

And here we come to the main theme of the book - "attachment in the life of a child." Petranovskaya is sure that the main goal of your relationship with your child is not "education", not "education", but the formation of attachment. That is, to put it simply, your goal is to build a trusting relationship with your child. And although it would seem that it is natural for a child to love a mother, in our unnatural world, as always, everything is complicated. And parents sometimes manage with their "upbringing" to completely trample the affection in the soul of the child.

In Russia, this problem, according to Petranovskaya, is very acute. Our mothers and grandmothers were brought up in an atmosphere where it was impossible to spoil, "screaming developed the lungs", and carrying on the hands "worsened the child's posture." In general, we have a “territory with a deficit of positive attention to children”. At first, Russian women simply stopped galloping horses, then they extinguished the huts, and in the end they were also driven to factories for complete "liberation." You understand yourself: with a child around your neck, neither in a burning hut, nor in a factory. So in our country of "strong and independent" motherly love and tenderness is practically terra incognita. This should be learned from specialists.

For example, learn to "mirror positive" and "contain".

"Positive mirroring" - all these "uchi-ways", "how good I ate!" And also: “What is this? Ah, bunny ... What a beautiful zaaaaika! " - in response to the chaotic interweaving of pencil lines. In a word, sheer lisping and pampering in the understanding of women born in the USSR - that is why we are so surprised when we find ourselves in countries where all passers-by admire children, that is, where there is no deficit of positive attention to children, as in Russia.

If a child in childhood lacks positive mirroring, if he is only constantly assessed ("Trojak ?! And this is a shame for you, excellent pupils!" that at one time he did not receive confirmation of love from his mother. Who posts his every step on Instagram in search of likes - read, "in anticipation of positive mirroring." So that someone finally appreciates and loves him, since his parents did not do this in childhood.

So when a child does not succeed, and he runs to you for consolation, you do not need to "educate" him in the spirit of "Well, here it is again, you yourself are to blame, I told you" - just hug him, have pity and comfort. Even if he lied, he most likely did it to please his mother: hug him, explain your feelings, talk to him. Do not be afraid to "pamper": this is how we help the child cope with stress - this is called "containment" or returning to the "psychological womb". This is how we show that studying the world and making mistakes is normal and not scary, because a mistake is not immediately punished, and mom continues to love us. This behavior forms the very "secret support" of parental love, which is included in the title of the book. And it is hard for someone who does not have such support.

“It seems to us that someone who has been hardened by adversity from childhood will be better able to cope with them afterwards. This is not true. Studies show that those who have had a happy childhood and a happy family are better at coping with adversity. Their psyche has a margin of safety, in stress it retains the ability to be flexible and inventive, they seek help and are able to console themselves. "

By the way, the fact that men are "not emotional" and do not understand women is, according to Petranovskaya, a social skill. I suspected this for a long time, but here, at last, I found a scientific explanation. They were simply not “contained” in childhood: in response to their grief, they were told: “Don't cry like a girl!”. Nobody consoled them - and they did not learn to console. And then they learn only by reading books. However, like many young mothers, who in childhood were also not very much pampered with sympathy.

Understanding the role of "positive mirroring" in the development of the child, we can assess how important the psychological, emotional state of the mother at this time. Her illness, fatigue, conflicts with her husband, fear for the future can lead to the fact that she can take care of the child, and positively mirror-no. Therefore, the best that family members, close ones can do for a baby.-help his mother to be rested, calm, happy and spend more time in communication with the child. It is better not to sit with the child instead of her, but to take care of her herself: to free her from household chores, to feed her deliciously, to have a massage, to fill a fragrant bath. When the mother is feeling well herself, she will communicate with the child naturally and with pleasure.

Achieve results or let things take their course?

Petranovskaya considers kindergarten and school as an inevitable evil. She is sure not to overestimate their role in socialization or even learning. A child acquires the most important communication skills by communicating in a family. Developers in kindergarten are also nothing compared to mother's attention. It is impossible to learn anything in a general education school, because there is boring and constant stress (isn't it because after the test, and even more so after leaving school, all the "knowledge" so quickly disappears from the head?) If you are already sending your child to a general education school, you need to help him survive this period, treating with irony and skepticism to all these twos and parenting meetings. At least not to feed the relationship with your child to the "Moloch of compulsory education," says Petranovskaya.

It is not surprising that a child does not perform well in school - the school simply does not meet the child's learning needs. Do not be surprised at the "bad companies" where a teenager is looking for teachers of life, because "The adults put the stone of compulsory education in his hand instead of the bread of real learning."... In addition, if a child has fallen under a bad influence, it means that you have no influence on him - and he is looking for understanding, close relationships and acceptance on the side.

So what to do in order to still raise a child as an intelligent, successful, well-socialized person?

First of all, just love him. This will allow the child to grow up happy, satisfied, open - and, as a result, successful in life.

"Empathy and Reflection-important components of emotional and social intelligence, and they determine the quality of human life much more than academic performance. "

According to psychologists, a child has an organic need for “his” adult. Therefore, the utopian idea of ​​removing children from the family and bringing them up harmoniously and correctly in some institution will not work. These are the people we are - the owners. We need to learn to love specific people and learn to love ourselves, feeling that we are also loved and accepted. This experience of love is basic. And this is exactly what a parent should develop in a child in the first place. All other developments are secondary.

“Today, many 'developmental techniques' have been turned into brands with a rather aggressive marketing policy, parents are told in every possible way what needs to be invested in a child now, otherwise it will be too late, and he will be deprived of excellent prospects, his career will be ruined, he will only have to vegetate his whole life among the outsiders. To prevent this from happening to your child-urgently buy this book, this technique, pay for these lessons. "

That is, you understand, right? Nobody will teach you to give your child love, because it is free. Your love is free - in the sense that it will not give money to the producers of plastic "children's happiness". But your love is very dear to the child. This is exactly the case when it is clearly seen that spiritual wealth is much more important than material wealth. It is better to buy clothes in a second-hand shop and spend more time with your child than to disappear at work to buy all the coolest things for him and "make the baby happy." The most valuable thing you can give is your time, attention and love.

“A child of refugees who have been left without a stake and yard, have been under shelling and have experienced a shortage of food, live in a camp for displaced persons, not knowing what will happen to them next, can be serenely happy if the parents themselves do not lose their presence of mind with him. And, conversely, a child living in an expensive rich house, with the best material conditions, being in complete safety, may not be well at all, because dad has a business and a mistress, and he almost never happens at home, mom is depressed, and already once tried to drink a pack of sleeping pills, and constantly changing housekeepers and nannies are engaged in the baby. And it is he, and not his peer from a refugee family, who has every chance of neurosis, enuresis, neurodermatitis and other consequences of severe prolonged stress ".

So no elite tutors and expensive sections will be able to give a child what a mother can give.

It is not “developmental techniques” but relationships with parents that give children the best start in life.

Moreover, the abundance of "developmental techniques" gives a good chance to raise a child who is spiritually rich, but mentally ill. That is, very poorly socialized. For some reason, I immediately remembered stories about young geniuses who, having matured, do not become brilliant adults - they become sad social phobes, unable to communicate normally with people.

Petranovskaya, by the way, also says that love is important not only for the development of emotional intelligence, but also for the development of rational intelligence. It is impossible to study normally if you are not loved. The fact that abandoned children lag behind in development is often attributed to poor genetics and "alcoholic mothers." But it's not about the genes: these children are simply not loved. Stress blocks their ability to learn. Once in a loving family, most of them quickly get rid of the "diagnosis" (read - stigma) and become quite intelligent children.

For domestic children, the same principle applies: the more you yell at a child for poorly done math, the worse he understands math. Because all his energy goes into dealing with stress.

If you do your best to "develop" the child, not letting him play calmly, his intellect does not develop, but slows down. And in general, according to Petranovskaya, “The best we can do for the development of our children at a tender age,-do not interfere with their play. "

If you really want to develop an interest in something in your child, only your example will help, which he will happily follow. You shouldn't be surprised that a child doesn't read if he has never seen you with a book.

If you demand results from a child so that he is certainly "faster, higher, stronger" - get ready for the fact that he will grow up demotivated, heartless and nervous, because he was not allowed to be himself, he was not accepted and his needs were not interested. Despite the fact that "here and now" you have a wonderful child that you can brag to your friends.

« Some children generally come to the conclusion that "engaging"-this is the only possible pastime with the parents. Everything else is not interesting for parents, only to explain, develop, teach. Do you want to get mom for at least half an hour a day-pretend to be interested in your studies. Then the mother says that "her child is always happy to study, and even asks himself." Still would. You want mom-and not that you will fall in love. At a tender age, the child is usually not able to resist, he will try to please his parents. And at the same time to learn that you yourself, your desires, your needs are not important, what is important is the result, achievement, success, place in the competitive struggle. "

As you can see, being a loving mom is not easy. Really loving, and not giving out Jesuit maxims in the spirit: "I torment you, because well, I love you sooo and I only want the best for you!" Do you remember how you felt when you were told this as a child? In general - it is not necessary.

In a nutshell, Petranovskaya's recipe is less lecturing and more hugs. And the rest will follow.

Tags:

For example, is 50 rubles a month a lot or a little? A cup of coffee? Not much for the family budget. For Matrons - a lot.

If everyone who reads Matrona supports us with 50 rubles a month, they will make a huge contribution to the development of the publication and the emergence of new relevant and interesting materials about a woman's life in the modern world, family, raising children, creative self-realization and spiritual meanings.

about the author

Philologist and Master of Social Philosophy. Author of blogs nenadoada.ru and antilubov.ru. Journalist, PR specialist, teacher of Russian, literature and other humanitarian studies. Mother of a daughter, wife of a husband, owner of a dog and a cat. Of course, a bit of a poet, and I was even printed a little. Someday I'll write a novel :)

Who has not caught himself thinking: "But in our time ..."? Children read more, talked more, studied more ... And in general - they were different. Is it so? What is the reason for the constant conflict between fathers and children, generations of the past and present? Interesting opinion of Lyudmila Petranovskaya, family psychologist and specialist in family placement of orphans.

- Vivid portraits are formed after historical cataclysms. Imagine an alpine meadow where all kinds of flowers bloom. This is the normal state of society: families are different and children. When a powerful historical trauma occurs - war, mass repression, mass deportation - a lawn mower passes through this meadow, turns it into stubble: you no longer understand where the buttercup is, where is the poppy, where is the chamomile. The next generation has similar family situations: after the war, almost every family has an absent dad, an overworked mom with frostbitten feelings ... Starting from the third generation, this situation is eroded, and personal circumstances begin to play an important role. By the fourth generation, the effects of the trauma are generally erased. Grass grows again, flowers bloom.

The 90s were traumatic. They are incomparable with the war, nevertheless, the standard of living has fallen catastrophically, people are disoriented. And the generation of children in the early 90s, it seems to me, is most traumatized by the expression of helplessness on the faces of their parents, their uncertainty about the future. Hence, the children of this generation have insecurity and social passivity: I want everything to be, but I do not know what to do for this. And the deficit of the world: others have more, others have everything better ...

- Or maybe, on the contrary, they were spoiled by their parents, who worked hard like horses so that the child always had everything?

- I also had a time when I could not buy ice cream for the elder, and we cut snickers for the whole family. And in the life of the youngest, this did not happen at all - and, it would seem, she should be more spoiled. In fact, the opposite is true: now those who are 14-15 years old are already interested in charity, they are consumers to a much lesser extent. They are ready to give everything to everyone. It's not about being spoiled, but about being traumatized: the parents-earners themselves did not have psychological safety and could not give the children. Children and adolescents in the early 90s are much more insecure. The next generation is calmer, easier to relate to restrictions (not counting, of course, children in special circumstances: for example, foster parents tell something else). Now these experiences - who have what jeans, who have what phone - are very few.

- But there are other factors that affect this generation. The information environment has changed, stuck children to the TV and computer, distracted from the book.

- For us, the relationship of these children with the information environment is a black box. Here we are like a hen that has hatched ducklings and now rushes along the shore in panic. We don't really understand what they are doing there, how safe they are there. Recently, parents complained to me at a meeting that the children do not read. And I reminded them of Famusov, who was very concerned that his daughter was reading novels. Parents say: "Well, this is addiction!" And when you read Tolkien at the age of 12, and someone would take him away from you, would your reaction be different from withdrawal? The computer also makes it possible to live in a parallel reality.

We do not really understand the nature of their communication. It seems that they communicate less, but, on the other hand, they communicate continuously. In a sense, they and football watch together, and do not part for the holidays, although they may be in different countries. They exchange jokes and pictures anyway. This communication is of a different quality, but one cannot say whether it is better or worse.

There is a security issue. You can see a bunch of all sorts of rubbish by pressing a couple of buttons. On the other hand, in our childhood, someone also showed some pictures. The question is for the child to have an understanding adult. He will be able to explain that porn, for example, should not be watched, not because you will see something wrong, but because everything in life is not arranged like that: both relations between people and sex are not so arranged, but due to the limited experience you may not understand this.

- And yet these children do not listen to adults at all, teachers are not worth a penny.

- If children do not obey other people's adults (and not in general any adults) - this in itself is wonderful. This shows that a person has a normal attachment to his own, a normal orienting reaction: "I listen to my own, there are no strangers - at least until they show me that they can be trusted." The teacher must show the child that he is worthy of trust, then everything goes on normally. And if he shows that he is the source of violence, and not protection and care, then the children behave accordingly.

- Are the children stupefied? Let them look at themselves.

- University teachers complain that the quality of the training of applicants has fallen. Have the children become worse at school?

- There are a lot of factors. And the fact that the strongest leave does not reach these teachers. And the fact that education in front of our eyes has ceased to be a social lift, which greatly discredits it and reduces motivation. When we look at a parliament filled with female athletes and lovers, children realize that careers have nothing to do with education. And this does not cause a keen desire to learn. Education doesn't feel good. An acquaintance of mine, who returned from Germany, where she studied to become a lawyer after a Russian university, says: no one there believes that we need to know the text of the law by heart during the exam. Why teach him - here he is? You can know the law by heart, and then not understand how to deal with a specific case. And there are dozens of cases, ingenious, specially selected, stuffed with difficult contradictory situations. All education is built on working with specific cases and discussing them. It’s difficult for students, they work 14 hours a day, seven days a week, for months to get their diplomas, but they don’t have the feeling that they are doing nonsense, that this is bullying. Children are not stupid, they understand everything, and if they offer nonsense, this has a very negative effect on their motivation.

- How to treat all this?

- The revolution? I don’t know what else could be the answer when social elevators do not work. And from peaceful ways: teachers can't stand their brains, and they will arrange a lot. In general, education does not need such a degree of control and regulation. In Moscow, and beyond its borders - all the more so, it is now impossible to create a private school: not because there are no volunteers, but because there are so many regulating and controlling authorities that the mission is impossible. Why is this? The state must control security at the most basic level so that no one opens a private school in the basement with rats and does not teach heroin injections. Everything else can be different. Let the parents choose: after all, children have very different educational needs, let there be an opportunity for each need. In the end, people pay money for this in the form of taxes, which is why they cannot choose the right service for their child. It seems to me that if they lagged behind the school, it would be a huge plus.

- It turns out: leave the children alone, are they all right? Fixing your society?

- Well, yes. Conducted in America, where schools are very different, research, trying to distinguish good schools from bad. And they found out that it doesn't matter in what district the school is located, how rich it is, whether it is big or small, what kind of programs it has - classical, with Latin and Ancient Greek, or ultramodern. Another thing is important. First, the autonomy of schools - each with its own rules, boundaries, strategy. Second: active participation of parents in defining this strategy, cooperation with parents, but cooperation not as with customers of dry cleaning - here we brought you a dirty little one, and you will return a clean one to us - but their creative and material participation in the board of trustees. The third factor is the relationship of teachers with students: respect, attention, interest. These three factors make the school successful, whether it is a regular school in a residential area or an expensive private one.