Hi,
I’ve been mostly reading around here (tough to type with baby in lap). This is an excerpt from an article I wrote on my blog. I think it may be of interest here. If you would like to read the whole thing, its not immediately relevant to this question, but you can find it here: http://www.nisargak.com/proud-mama/how-much-teaching-is-too-much/
I’ve noticed that there is a lot of attention paid to teaching babies second and third languages, etc. It makes sense if you speak those. For example, English, Marathi, Hindi and Kannada are spoken in our home, so baby will eventually end up understanding and communicating in them all. Or I can understand a family not speaking English at home making efforts to speak it around their child and supplementing it with lessons or other exposure. But why would I make such huge efforts to teach a language I don’t even know myself? What’s the point? How is it functional for communication?
The way I imagine things panning out is that as long as I can sustain exposure to the sources of the alien language, the baby will acclimatize to it. Once he is older and the exposure stops or fades when other more relevant and immediate learning and time needs come in, the “use it or lose it” will happen anyway. I don’t think that teaching for the first couple of years a language the child doesn’t get anything done from using (considering how daily contact is not in it, making it dysfunctional for communication most of the time) is going to keep the language alive in his mind for life. So then why?
Also, I’m looking at the impact of our overambition on our children. Whether we make it play or not, it is a constant bombardment of stimulation. If I have to expose my child to language, maths, sign language, creative activities, physical play, … when is the time to stand and stare?
I’m a very laid back person and do a huge amount of stuff naturally with my child. But I get the jitters thinking of exposing a child to a “learning environment”, labeling it fun and making him accept all these alien things. And I hate the word exposing - you expose objects. People should have the respect of being offered a choice - you introduce, suggest… Give respect, get respect. Youd child is learning more from how you are with him than he is from what you do with him.
But then, my idea of parenting is very attachment not only in the advertised manner, but emotionally too. I am perfectly okay with the baby clinging to me all the time, not being friendly with new people he meets, developing in his initial years with constants shared with his most trusted people. I find it a strange world where we make our kids independent when they are dependent; outgoing when instinct directs clinging and then when they are exerting their independence as they grow up (teens onwards), we wish they would be closer to us. Plain unnatural. Ever heard of a baby needing to be taught to want closeness and safety of its mother/other close people? It is the “teaching to be social” and forced entry to the unfamiliar that breaks those bonds before they are ready to stretch. Once the child is vulnerable in a new situation and grows up fast to cope, what do they need the emotional side of their parent for?
You objectify the child, and the child slowly starts seeing you as a facility rather than person.
I’m aware a lot of my personal value judgments influence how I see this issue, but I find it remarkably like training a circus lion to jump through a flaming loop. Sure, a good trainer will make it fun, but a child needs to absorb the familarity of the “trusted” and the okayness of shying away from the “other” to be emotionally anchored in his own self-worth.
I don’t know if it makes sense out of context (or even in context for that matter)
Though I don’t agree about them being too young to know. In my experience, I never was too young to know what was good for me. It was the grown ups that kept meddling