Freedom. What power this word is filled with, what attraction and power it has! In the name of freedom, they killed and went to their death, raised uprisings and burned themselves alive. They erected monuments to freedom and sang it in verse, made it a banner of struggle and the meaning of life. It was strangled, it was forbidden, it was declared an illusion and a harmful philosophy.

As punishment for crimes, they are deprived of liberty, as the most precious thing that a person has, except for life itself. Those who are deprived of freedom dream of nothing as passionately as they dream of it.

And at the same time, people very easily give their freedom to tyrants and dictators of all stripes and ranks, exchanging it for a relatively well-fed and safe existence. Nothing in the world requires so much responsibility, maturity and strength as freedom.

What is freedom?

Nothing in the world is defined so varied and contradictory as freedom. Moreover, in different eras people understand different things by freedom.

Once a European traveler visited African country on the eve of its liberation from colonial rule. Everyone looked forward to a quick freedom and was very happy about it. When he asked one person what freedom means to him, he heard in response that this is when it will be possible to forget about stupid rules traffic and not pay in public transport.

When the child reaches adolescence, it almost always seems to him that his parents give him too little freedom, and raises a revolt in various forms. But, if he gets what he wants, get rid of the guardianship of his parents, what will happen to him? Will he be able to earn his living, will he be able to study? We know that children who grow up uncontrollably and freely on the street, in most cases, begin to lead asocial image life.

A person cannot exist outside the society of his own kind. And this means that he is subject to various laws, rules and conventions. He is dependent on people, and people are dependent on him. Robinson Crusoe became free from social boundaries, and how he dreamed of being in them again! But this literary hero, but in reality a person desert island just going crazy. So what does it mean to be free?

Freedom of the spirit

Christianity is perhaps the only religion that claims to grant freedom. However, a person who is far from Christianity believes that being a Christian means enslaving oneself, obeying outdated commandments and the whims of priests.

Nothing is so far from the truth as such a representation! Christianity is a creed of freedom, since this concept is one of the fundamental ones in it. This is repeatedly stated on the pages of the New Testament: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17). But the freedom that the Lord gives is very different from the freedom in the understanding of revolutionaries, hippies, conservatives, in general, people who do not believe.
Like almost everything in the world, freedom is a paired concept, implying its opposite - slavery. We cannot understand what kind of freedom God offers until we find out what its opposite is.

There is much in Scripture about slavery. It is worth noting that New Testament was written in antiquity, when slavery was the norm! No one then doubted that this was the only possible way the existence of society. And Scripture teaches that slaves must obey their masters from pure heart out of conscience, not out of fear. Nowhere in the Bible do we find a call for rebellion.

But even free people at that time, according to our standards, they were not free. The society was very structured. In the Roman Empire, a person from birth was part of a family, clan, policy, state, and was always in a relationship of rigid submission: to the eldest in the family, clan, village, city, and so on. A rigid hierarchy reigned everywhere, beyond which it was impossible to go. A person could not survive in that world on his own, as now, and therefore did not think of himself separately from his own. social group. One of the most terrible punishments was expulsion from the social cell to which the person belonged. If he failed to join another family, clan, workshop or guild, the person was doomed. The freedom of man as an individual began to be thought about only in the Renaissance.

From what slavery does the Bible call for freedom? What freedom does Christ give? This freedom has nothing to do with social and political position person in society. God delivers from the slavery of sin: “Thanks be to God that, having been previously slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to that image of doctrine to which you have given yourself over. Having been freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18). The freedom that Christ offers is spiritual freedom.

Freedom in Christ

Spiritual freedom is not easy to understand because man, being a bodily being, tends to mix the spiritual and the carnal. Moreover, any relationship, any connection has a spiritual background. However, let's try to figure it out.

Only God can be called the only truly free being and the beginning of all freedom. He alone is not dependent on anyone and has a source of freedom in Himself. The Lord partially transferred His qualities to creation, in particular, to man, created in the image and likeness of God. One of these qualities is freedom. But the freedom of man has essential differences from the freedom of God.

It necessarily implies a choice, otherwise there can be no talk of freedom. What choice has man had since his creation? He could choose between God and non-God, because there is no other choice in spiritual world does not exist. Man made this choice by choosing not-God, that is, evil, when he disobeyed God's command in the Garden of Eden. As a result, he lost his freedom, became a slave to sin, knew coercion, suffering and death. Having exercised his freedom in practice, man lost it because he made the wrong choice. The fact is that only conscious and voluntary submission to the One Who is truly and unconditionally free is true freedom! Everything else is the slavery of sin. And sin really enslaves a person, it is a very cruel master who hates his slave and dreams of destroying it.

Since man fell into this slavery, he has lost the possibility of choice, because the new master - sin - has changed the nature of man, so that no matter how much he wants to do what is right, it does not work out. “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for they do not obey the law of God, nor can they” (Rom. 8:7).

Christ changed everything. He opened the Way to Heaven, re-introduced man into direct communication with God and gave the opportunity to choose. Because every person who repents of sins and believes in Christ as the Savior, who has entered into a covenant with God through water baptism, receives as a result of spiritual rebirth a new spiritual nature that is not subject to the slavery of sin, and therefore has the opportunity to choose, and therefore freedom.

How to keep freedom

However, gaining spiritual freedom is only the beginning. Then begins a hard struggle to keep this freedom. After all, a free-spirited Christian has to live in an unfree sinful world, who want to enslave him again. But even this is not the worst. It is much harder to fight with your own flesh, which seeks to take over the spirit. But now it is possible to win! After all, the spirit is free, and man is no longer a slave to sin!

The Apostle Paul fully experienced all the hardships of the struggle with temptations and sin. He wrote lines that resemble a cry for help: “For according to the inward man I delight in the law of God; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin that is in my members. Poor man I am! who will deliver me from this body of death? (Rom. 7:22-24). And he himself answers this question: “So, brethren, we are not debtors to the flesh in order to live according to the flesh; For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:9-15).

This is an example of spiritual freedom in action. The freedom of a Christian lies in the fact that he has the right to choose: either to subordinate the flesh to the spirit, or vice versa.

Here it is necessary to make a clarification and explain what the New Testament means by the flesh. By no means should it be assumed that this is only physical body or natural needs organism, carried out in a way permitted by God. The flesh is the whole complex of sinful aspirations, habits and desires that are characteristic of the old nature of a fallen human being.

The New Testament repeatedly warns that spiritual freedom must be properly managed. “You were called to freedom, brethren, so that your freedom would not be an occasion for [pleasing] the flesh, but serve one another through love” (Gal. 5:13). And then the Apostle Paul lists what the works of the flesh are: “Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, magic, enmity, strife, envy, anger, strife, disagreements, (temptations), heresies, hatred, murders, drunkenness, disorderliness etc".

Freedom is not permissiveness

How can freedom be the reason for all these listed sins? Maybe, if it is understood as permissiveness, if authorities are not recognized, if a person sets himself as a measure of righteousness, ignoring the hierarchy established by God in the Church, her teaching.

A Christian can fall into the temptation of thinking himself strong enough and free to do things that at first glance are not sinful, but stand on the edge of what is permitted. For example, the Bible nowhere categorically forbids the use of alcohol, but a Christian who considers himself free enough to drink a little wine during the holiday comes very close to sin. And it may well fall or, even worse, become a temptation for others. His freedom in this case will become a reason for sin, because the line between the right and the permitted, the permitted and the undesirable, the undesirable and the forbidden is very thin and you should not try to determine how much.

God respects human freedom and will never force anything. But the abuse of freedom is fatal. God punishes the sinner by not hindering the chosen path, on which suffering awaits him as a result of right choice. The reward of the righteous and the right choice will be eternal life. True freedom always makes the right choice.

Stanislav BULANOV

Permissiveness is the behavior of a person who does not consider the rights of other people and feels his impunity that goes beyond the established socio-political norms. These are actions that are beneficial only for the person who commits them, the consequences of which are the intentional or thoughtless infliction of offense and damage to others.

Freedom is permissiveness?

Sometimes freedom is understood as permissiveness. In fact, these concepts, similar in sound, carry a completely different semantic load.

Freedom is a necessary element full life, is an integral part of the happiness of every person and the unshakable foundation of any state, the management of which is based on freedom of religion, speech, love, conscience, movement - these are the criteria that underlie the full realization of the individual in society. Freedom, which is fought for and won, begins with small personal victories of a person and ends with defending the independence of entire states.

The concept of freedom is closely combined with the responsibility (before oneself and society), which each person assumes in the process of committing certain actions, understanding the commensurability of the fulfillment of what was conceived within the framework of existing restrictions. Life in society leads to a clash of freedoms of different people, which requires correct, without prejudice to others, adaptation. It is important to understand that there can be no absolute freedom, since a person constantly depends on some circumstances (law, rights and freedoms of other people, social values, mutual respect).

Examples of permissiveness

Freedom ends at the moment when the actions taken affect the interests of other people in negative aspect. That is, the individual hears only himself, does not consider the freedom of other citizens and acts solely to benefit his own interests.

It is at this moment that his freedom develops into permissiveness, which is terrible because it leads to anarchy. Everyone should clearly understand and understand the dangers of permissiveness. A prime example this can serve French revolution when the natural idea of ​​rights was perceived by a person in the wrong context, which ultimately led to a complete dictatorship.

Permissiveness is an exclusively negative category that brings destruction, pain and death, found its manifestation in the minds of certain political figures and led to terrible events in the world as a whole. The 20th century was remembered for the monstrous ideas of Hitler and Stalin, which claimed the lives of many millions of people.

Permissiveness is laid in childhood?

Often, permissiveness (synonyms - “permissiveness”, “lawlessness”, “limitlessness”, “overwhelming”) is laid in a person from childhood, when a child, not knowing the denial of anything, gets what he wants easily and in in full. It is this ease of fulfillment of desires that causes their thoughtless growth as the person grows older.

Often at school family practice where free education is proclaimed, there is also permissiveness, as the principle of self-expression of the child and non-interference in natural process his adjustment to society. Allowed as a one-time experiment, permissiveness is a tactical move of the teacher in the process of education and training; but most often teachers and parents follow the lead of children, allowing them liberties that harm the children themselves, giving rise to their conflict with the outside world and developing in them a special kind of egoism - despotism.

The child quite quickly understands how he can achieve what he wants, the tool for the implementation of which is crying, tears, hysteria.

Don't let permissiveness show

At the origins of permissiveness is the unreasonable fear of the whole world around us and of oneself, which forces a person not only to defend himself, but also to attack.

A strong and self-confident personality will never interfere with the freedom of another person. The most dangerous permissiveness is moral, undermining the personality from the inside and not so clearly manifested. Never better human life characterizes the Christian essence and 10 commandments that underlie any right and law:

Not to allow permissiveness to manifest themselves are capable of:

• conscience;
• morality instilled in the family from birth;
• traditions passed down from century to century by generations;
• parents who set an example in their lives and actions.

Self-regulation means the child's right to live freely, without external pressure - physical or psychological. Therefore, the child eats when he is hungry, acquires habits of cleanliness when he wants to, never shouts at him or raises his hands, he is always loved and protected. This sounds easy, natural and beautiful, but it is amazing how many young parents who zealously defend this idea manage to misunderstand it.

For example, four-year-old Tommy hits the keys of a neighbor's piano with a wooden mallet. Loving parents look around with a triumphant smile, which means: Isn't this child's self-regulation amazing?

Other parents believe that their one and a half year old child should never be put to bed, as this would be a violation of nature. Let him stay awake as long as he wants, and when he collapses, his mother will carry him to bed. In fact, the child is getting more and more tired and excited. He cannot say that he wants to sleep, because he still does not know how to express his need in words. In the end, the tired and disappointed mother grabs him in her arms and drags him to bed, crying. A young couple who consider themselves adepts in my teachings came to me asking if it would be good if they installed a fire alarm in a child's room. The examples given show that any idea, whether old or new, is dangerous if not combined with common sense.

Only a complete idiot, if he is entrusted with small children, will leave the windows in the bedroom unbarred or the fire in the nursery open. And yet, quite often, young self-regulatory advocates who attend my school resent our lack of freedom because we lock toxic substances in closets or we prohibit playing with fire. The whole children's freedom movement is being overshadowed and discredited by the fact that too many champions of freedom have their heads in the clouds.

One such adept recently expressed to me his indignation at the fact that I had yelled at a difficult seven-year-old boy who was knocking on the door of my office. According to the indignant, I should smile and endure the noise until the child has outlived his desire to bang on doors. I really spent many years patiently enduring destructive behavior difficult children, but did it as their psychotherapist, and not just a person. If a young mother thinks that her three-year-old child should be allowed to paint the front door in red ink on the grounds that he is free to express himself in this way, then she is not able to grasp the very meaning of self-regulation.

I remember my friend and I were at the Covent Garden Theatre. During the first part, the girl sitting in front of us loudly said something to her father. During the intermission I found other places. A friend asked me, “What would you do if one of the students at Summerhill behaved like this?” "Tell him to shut up," I replied. "You wouldn't have to do that," my friend said, "because they wouldn't behave like that." And I don't think any of them would really act like that.

Once a woman brought her seven-year-old daughter to me. “Mr. Neill,” she said, “I read every line you wrote, and even before Daphne was born, I decided to raise her exactly according to your ideas.” I glanced at Daphne, who was standing on my piano in dirty shoes. From there, she jumped onto the sofa and nearly pierced it through. “You see how natural she is,” the mother commented admiringly. - real baby, brought up by Neill. I'm afraid I blushed.

It is the difference between freedom and permissiveness that many parents fail to grasp. In a strict, harsh family, children have no rights; in a spoiled family, they have rights to everything. A good family is one in which children and adults equal rights. This is true for schools as well. Again and again it should be emphasized that giving a child freedom and spoiling a child are two different things. If a three year old wants to walk around the dinner table, you just tell him that he shouldn't be doing it. He is obligated to obey, that is true, but you should also obey him when necessary. I leave the baby rooms if asked to do so.

So that children can live in harmony with their inner nature adults require a certain amount of self-sacrifice. Healthy parents find some kind of compromise. Nonsensical parents either rage or spoil their children, giving them all the rights. In practice, the divergence of interests between parents and children can be mitigated, if not completely resolved, by fair exchange. Zoya respected my table and showed no inclination to play with my typewriter or papers. In return, I respected her nursery and toys.

Children are very wise and accept early social rules. They should not be exploited, as is often done when a parent yells, "Jimmy, get me a glass of water!" - at the moment when the child is in full swing exciting game. Disobedience is largely due to the fact that parents themselves mistreat children.

Zoya, when she was just over a year old, went through a period great interest to my glasses - she constantly pulled them off my nose to see what they were. I didn't mind, neither in my eyes nor in my voice did I show any concern. She soon lost all interest in my glasses and never touched them again. Undoubtedly, if I ordered not to touch the glasses, or, even worse, hit her little hand, her interest in glasses would be preserved, mixed with fear of me and protest against me. My wife allowed her fragile jewelry to be taken. The girl played with them carefully and rarely broke anything. She gradually figured out on her own how to handle things. Of course, self-regulation has limits. We can't let a six month old baby find out on own experience that a burning cigarette burns painfully. No need to shout a warning such a case. Soundly - to eliminate the danger without noise.

A common argument against freedom for children is this: life is harsh, and we are obliged to educate children in such a way that they later adapt to it - therefore, we must educate them. If we let them do whatever they want, how will children ever be able to work under someone else? Will they be able to compete with those who are accustomed to discipline, will they ever be able to develop self-discipline?

Those who object to giving children freedom use this argument and do not realize that they are starting from an unsubstantiated and unproven assumption: that a child will neither grow nor develop unless it is forced to do so. At the same time, all 39 years of my experience at Summerhill refute this assumption.

Freedom is necessary for the child because only then can he grow naturally, that is, well. I see the fruits of unfreedom and repression in those new students who are transferred to me from preparatory and monastic schools. These kids are a mixture of insincerity with incredible politeness and fake manners.

Their reaction to freedom is swift and predictable. For the first couple of weeks, they open the door to the teachers, call me "sir" and wash themselves thoroughly. They look at me with "respect", in which fear is read. After a few weeks of freedom, they show themselves true: they become rude, unwashed, they lose all their manners. They do everything that was previously forbidden to them: swearing, smoking, breaking things, while maintaining insincere politeness in their eyes and in their voice.

In order to part with insincerity, it takes them at least, six months. After this period, they also lose the feigned respectfulness of addressing those whom they considered to be in power. In just 6 months, they become naturally healthy babies who say what they mean without embarrassment or rudeness. When a child gains freedom early enough, he does not have to go through this stage of insincerity or pretense. It is the absolute sincerity of the students that most strikes visitors to Summerhill.

Perhaps the most big discovery that we did in Summerhill - a child is born a sincere being. We decided in our school to leave the children to themselves to find out what they really are - this is the only possible way to deal with children. The innovative school of the future will have to move in this way if it wants to contribute to the knowledge of children and, more importantly, to the happiness of children.

I understand and take for granted that sincerity sometimes creates awkward situations. For example, recently a three-year-old girl, looking at our bearded visitor, said: “I don’t like something your face". The visitor was on top. “And I like yours,” he retorted, and Mary smiled.

I will not agitate for freedom for children. Half an hour spent with a free child convinces better than whole book arguments. To see is to believe.

To give freedom means to allow a child to live his own own life. Only and everything! But the deadly habit of lecturing, shaping, lecturing, and rebuking robs us of the ability to realize the simplicity of true freedom.

How does the child react to freedom? Both smart and not-so-smart kids acquire something almost elusive that they didn't have before. This is expressed in the fact that they become more sincere and friendly and less and less aggressive. When there is no pressure of fear and discipline, children do not show aggression. Only once in 39 years have I seen a fight in Summerhill that ended in broken noses. But we always have some little bully, because no matter how free the school is, it cannot completely overcome the influence of a bad family. The character acquired in the first months or years of life can be softened in freedom, but it will never change to the opposite. Main enemy freedom is fear. If we teach children about sex, will they grow up promiscuous? If we don't censor plays, will immorality prevail?

Adults who are afraid that children will become spoiled are actually spoiled themselves, similar to the fact that it is people with dirty thoughts who demand closed swimwear. If a person is constantly shocked by something, then it is this that interests him most of all. A hypocrite is a libertine who does not have the courage to face his naked soul.

The students of Summerhill should not be shocked, not because they are mired in sin. They have outlived their interest in shocking things and no longer need them either as subjects for conversation or as occasions for humor.

About parenting: answers to questions from parents

Why do you talk so much about the fact that the child should be happy? Is anyone even happy?

This is not an easy question, because everyone understands happiness in their own way! Of course, no one is always happy. Everyone happens toothache, unsuccessful novels, Boring job.

If the word "happiness" means anything at all, then most likely it is an inner feeling of well-being, balance, satisfaction with life. All of them can exist only if a person feels free. Children who are being punished look scared, unhappy.

Happiness could be defined as the absence of depression. In the house where he lives happy family love rules, and unhappy family lives in constant tension.

I give happiness the first place, because in the same first place I put personal growth. It's better not to have any idea what it is. decimal but to be free and content than to successfully pass school exams and walk around with pimples on your face. I have never seen acne on the face of a happy and free teenager.

Do you really sincerely think it is right to let a boy who is naturally lazy walk along easy way- to do what he wants, while wasting time in vain? How do you get him to work if he doesn't like it?

Leni doesn't exist at all. A lazy boy is either physically ill or has no interest in what adults think he should be doing.

Among the children who entered Summerhill at the age of 12, I did not see a single lazy child. Many supposedly lazy guys were sent to Summerhill from strict schools. Such a boy remains "lazy" rather long time until he is cured of his previous education. And I don't force him to do a job he doesn't like because he's not ready for it yet. Like you and me, later in life he will have to do many things that he hates, but he will be ready to face any difficulty if you leave him alone now and let him live his game period. To my knowledge, no former Summerhiller has ever been accused of being lazy.

What do you think about corporal punishment?

Corporal punishment is evil because it is cruel and driven by hatred. They cause hatred in both: both the punisher and the punished.

Corporal punishment always an act of projection: the punisher hates himself and projects his attitude towards himself onto the child. A mother who spanks a child hates herself and, as a consequence, hates her child.

The other day I saw how a mother let a little boy of three years old go for a walk in the yard own house. His outfit was impeccable. He started fiddling with the clay and slightly soiled his clothes. Mother flew out of the house, spanked him, dragged him inside and a little later sent him back to the yard, crying, but in new clean clothes. After 10 minutes, he also soiled this suit, and everything repeated again. I thought about telling this woman that her son would hate her all his life and, worse than that to hate life as such. But I knew that no matter what I said, she would not hear me.

Almost every time I have to be in the city, I watch some kid of three years old stumble and fall, and I shudder when I see how the mother spanks the kid for falling.

What would you do with a child who is not seriously interested in anything? So he briefly became interested in music, then dancing, etc.

I wouldn't do anything. That is life. At one time, I moved from photography to bookbinding, then to woodwork, then to embossing. Life is full of fragments of former interests. I have been drawing with a pen for many years. When I realized that the artist of me - unimportant, I gave it up.

The tastes of a child are always eclectic. He tries everything - that's how he learns. Our boys spend whole days making boats, but if it happens that a pilot comes to visit us, these same boys will abandon their half-finished boats and start working on planes. We never believe that a child is obligated to finish what he started. If his interest has waned, you should not force him to finish the job without fail.

Is it okay to be sarcastic towards children? Do you think this would help develop a child's sense of humor?

No. Sarcasm and humor are not related. Humor is a manifestation of love, and sarcasm is a manifestation of hatred. Being sarcastic with a child means making him feel inferior and humiliated. Only a bad teacher or parent allows himself to be sarcastic towards a child.

My child asks me all the time what to do and what to play. How should I answer? Is it right to give a child game ideas?

It is helpful for a child to be around someone who can advise him on what to do, but it is not necessary at all. Those activities that the child finds for himself are best for him. So no teacher in Summerhill would ever advise a child what to do. The teacher will only help the child find the necessary technical information about how to do something.

My son skips school. What can I do about it?

I dare say school is boring and your boy is active.

Generally speaking, skipping means the school is not good enough. If possible, try to transfer your boy to a school where more freedom, creativity, love.

Should I start teaching my daughter to be frugal by giving her a piggy bank?

Let me reiterate that the child should be given the opportunity to grow with his own speed. Many parents make terrible mistakes when trying to speed up the growth process.

Never help a child if he can do something on his own. When a child tries to climb onto a chair, loving parents help him, thereby poisoning the greatest joy of childhood - the victory over difficulty.

What do you do with a child who is always stubborn and sullen?

Don't know. I don't think I've ever seen such children in Summerhill. When a child is free, he simply has no reason to be stubborn. Challenging Behavior child - always the fault of adults. If you treat your child with love, you won't do anything to make him stubborn. A stubborn child has some sadness. My job is to find out what lies at the root of this sadness. I would guess that behind her lies a feeling that he was treated unfairly.

What should I do about my six year old who draws obscene pictures?

Encourage him, of course. But at the same time look back at yourself, because every obscenity in the family comes from you, a six-year-old child has no natural obscenity.

You see obscenity in his drawings, because you yourself have such an attitude to life. I believe that the obscenity of his drawings is connected with the toilet and the genitals. Treat these things naturally, without any ideas of good and evil, and the child will outlive his temporary childish interest in them just as he will eventually grow out of other childish interests.

Why is my little son lie so much?

Perhaps he imitates his parents.

If two children, a 5 and 7 year old brother and sister, are constantly fighting, what method can I use to get them to stop it? They love each other so much.

Is it? Is one of them getting more? maternal love than the other? Are they imitating mom and dad? Have they been made to feel guilty about the body? Are they punished? If the answer to all these questions is "no", then their quarrels are just a normal desire to exercise dominance.

However, a brother and sister must definitely communicate with other children who do not have emotional attachment. The child must compare himself with other children. He cannot compare himself to his siblings because all sorts of emotional factors- jealousy, favoritism and others.

Why does my 2 year old always break toys?

Most likely because he wise child. Toys are usually completely uncreative. When he breaks them, he wants to know what's inside.

However, I do not know all the circumstances of the case. If a child is forced to hate himself with spanking and lectures, he will naturally break everything that gets in his way.

How do you get a 15 month old baby to stay away from the stove?

Install a protective screen. But it is better to give the child the opportunity to learn the truth about the stove. Let him burn himself a little.

I find fault with my little daughter over trifles, and you can say that I hate her, but this is not true.

But then you must hate yourself. Trifles are symbols of something important. If you really find fault with trifles, you are an unhappy woman.

What to do with a child who is not eating well?

Don't know. We've never had anything like this in Summerhill. If this happened, I would immediately suspect that the child was demonstrating to his parents. We had a couple of kids who were sent to Summerhill because they refused to eat, but with us they never went hungry.

In severe cases, I would also consider the possibility of the baby remaining emotionally in the breast stage and try bottle feeding. I would also think that the parents were feeding too much great importance and insisted that the child eat what he did not want.

We got acquainted with the views, ideas and practice of A. Neill. They concern the organization of society, schools and family education. Whichever of these vast topics he touched, everywhere he starting point and the focus is on the personality of the child, his well-being and happiness.

For Nill difficult child- this is an unhappy child, and at first it makes him so "difficult" and unhappy mishandling in the family and then at school. Unfortunately, the school, according to Neill, serves the interests not of the child, but of society, but modern society need people “obediently sitting at boring tables, hustling in stores, automatically jumping into the commuter train at 8:30”.

Compulsory subjects, coercion, strict discipline, a system of grades and exams, combined with a disregard for the nature of the child, his interests, aspirations to play, learn and try lead to the “poisoning” of the child by school, and at the same time the desire to learn. It is hard not to agree with the words of the author: “We will never know how much creativity is killed in school classes!»

Unfortunately, most parents themselves are brought up in such conditions, and therefore cannot take the side of the child. They accepted such a structure of society, and agreed with it. As a result, they demand, punish, urge. They are driven by fear for the fate of the child. And what is his fate? Neill poses this question very sharply, and his answers make you think: “My own criterion for success is the ability to work joyfully and live confidently” he writes. And elsewhere his words sound almost like a challenge: "... I am more pleased with the school that produces happy janitors than the one from which neurotic scientists come out."

True, Neill makes a reservation, none of the graduates of the school has yet become a janitor, and many have recovered from neuroses.

So Neil insists on psychological criteria for success and happiness, by the way, not only for a child, but also for an adult, and not on success, which is determined by career and material goods. Position and salary are important, but let's ask ourselves the question: do they (sometimes or often) conflict with life satisfaction? And if so, how do we pay for it? And - more importantly - How do we make a child pay?? Neill shows that the child pays with unhappiness, "difficulty", aggressiveness, insincerity, aversion to learning!

The usual "medicines" for all these troubles in the family and school - punishment, toughening, coercion, increased control do not work, they only exacerbate the situation.

And Neill went in the opposite direction. key concept for the whole system of his views and practical action became "freedom".

"Freedom" for him is by no means a political slogan. There is a lot behind it: life philosophy and beliefs and relationships.

This is, first of all, faith in the child . Belief that he is by nature a good and benign being, that he strives for growth and development.

Trust in the nature of the child is manifested, in particular, in the ability to observe and wait, and not to push him in development. (At this point, the absurd modern “fashion” of teaching babies to read almost from the cradle comes to mind!) The child will definitely develop in the direction in which it is natural for him in terms of temperament and age. It is important not to disturb him!

Neil explains: “To give freedom means to allow a child to live his own life. Only and everything! But the deadly habit of lecturing, shaping, lecturing and rebuking deprives us of the ability to realize the simplicity of true freedom..

Parents are well aware that the "simplicity" of the idea of ​​freedom is not so simple. It is very difficult to give up the usual "reflexes" to teach, shape, push. Behind this is the belief or fear that if you do not force the child to learn, then he will not do anything and will generally stop in development.

Neill's discovery is that this is false! It hasn't been proven. And the opposite truth, according to which free child develops successfully and wants to learn, tested by his forty years of practice!

In essence, in traditional views on upbringing and education, the cause has been replaced by the effect: stubbornness, “laziness”, and the child’s aggressiveness are considered as the root cause and are used as the basis for introducing strict measures. Neill showed in his practice that the situation is exactly the opposite: as soon as strict measures and coercion (real reasons) are removed, the “negative inclinations” of the child gradually disappear.

"In conditions of freedom, he writes, children acquire something almost imperceptible that they did not have before ... they become more and more sincere and friendly and less and less aggressive ”.

So, A. Neill not only anticipated many ideas in almost half a century humanistic psychology. He was among the first who, in working with children, found whole line wonderful practical ways and methods of communication that continued to be developed in psychology and psychotherapy. Now they are known by various names, such as the principle of unconditional acceptance, empathic (active) listening, emotional openness (I-message), sincerity and congruence, constructive conflict resolution techniques, the child's zone of proximal development, and others.

A. Neill rightfully belongs to the place among those humanists who loudly said and continue to tell people that Humanity will save the world!

Instead of an afterword

We got acquainted with the living voices of talented adults who, in their memories and reflections, opened up for us the multifaceted world of a child. Reviving the memory of childhood, they help to better and deeper feel children with their joys and difficulties, complex relationships and experiences along the way. This makes it possible to treat the upbringing of children with greater understanding, to everyday problems living with them and, of course, looking at yourself differently.

On behalf of the readers, I will allow myself to bow low to all the authors of the narratives - who have already left us and are now living - for an invaluable gift to children, parents and everyone who dreams of preserving and passing on to new generations high culture and the spirit of humanity.

Highlighted by quotes

Osorina M.V. The secret world of children in the space of the world of adults. St. Petersburg: "Peter", 1999, 2004. "Speech" (abridged).

Florensky P. To my children. Memories of past days. M., 2004.

Christy A. Autobiography. M., Eksmo, 2007. Per. V. Chemberdzhi.

Excerpts from works M. Tsvetaeva: "My Pushkin".

SPb., 2006, and "Mother and Music". SPb., 2001.

Painting on the wall in the mother's bedroom.

Chukovskaya L. Childhood memories. M., 2007.

Tsvetaeva M. Free passage. Autobiographical prose. SPb., 2001.

Stanislavsky K.S. My Life in Art (1925).

"You wanted it, Georges Dandin!" - a phrase from Molière's comedy "Georges Danden". (Ed.)

Shawl dance (French)

Heyerdahl T. Following in the footsteps of Adam. M., Vagrius, 2001. Per. S. Lugovoi.

Prokofiev S. S. Autobiography. M., Soviet composer, 1973.

Feynman R. Of course you are joking, Mr. Feynman. M., 2001. Per. N. A. Zubchenko, O. L. Tikhodeeva, M. Shifman.

It means economic crisis 1930s in the USA. - (note. per.).

Feynman R. What do you care what others think? M., 2001. Per. N. A. Zubchenko.

Tsvetaeva M. My Pushkin. SPb., 2006.

Schwartz E. L. Vertebrae past days. M., Vagrius, 2008.

Chukovskaya L. Childhood memories. M., 2007.

Vygodskaya G. L., Lifanova T. M. Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky. Life, activity, touches to the portrait. M., Meaning, 1986.

Gita was five years old.

See details about it in my two previous books (note Yu. B. Gippenreiter).

Sister, five years younger than Gita.

bashfulness (French).

"Give him a glass of sweet water" (French).

"Poor man, he's very nervous" (French).

Jung K. Memories, dreams, reflections. M., AST-LTD, 1998.

Zvonkin A.K. Kids and math. Home club for preschoolers. M., 2006.

“I want to make one important remark here. AT further text there will be many more invectives and philippics addressed to the school. I don't want to remove them: that's how I thought then and felt that way. However, a little later I acquired my own - very little - experience in school. I don't mean to say that my point of view has changed drastically; but she got very rich large quantity additional nuances and clearer understanding school problems. These problems are so difficult that today it seems to me almost a miracle that the school manages to solve even a small part of them. At the same time, she is very to a large extent deprived moral support from the side of society. From writers like me, teachers hear nothing but criticism. Alas." (note by A.K. Zvonkin).

The participants of the circle discussed the solution of problems of this type earlier. For example, to add all odd numbers from 1 to 19, you can do this: add 1 + 19; 3 + 17; 5 + 15, etc. Each time we get 20. It remains to understand how many of these 20s will we get? Obviously five. Thus, we get 100 in the answer. Now the reader has the opportunity to quite simply find the sum of odd numbers from 1 to 99 and from 1 to 999, that is, to do what the first grader Dima did, who turned out to be a “double” at school (note by Yu. B. Gippenreiter).

Monsaingeon B. Richter. Diaries. Dialogues. M., 2007. Per. O. Pichugin.

Tsvetaeva M.

Mother and music. SPb., 2001 (abridged).

"Well, just a little more!" (German).

Not in life, but in music (German).

Sats N. Novels of my life. M., Eksmo-press. 2001.

Brilliantly! (English).

Menuhin I. Wanderings. M., 2008. Per. Inna Bernstein.

Names of Yehudi's parents

Report at the conference of teachers "Able and talented children" 1973

Neill A. Summerhill: An education in freedom. M., 2000. Per. E. N. Gusinsky, Yu. I. Turchaninova.

After the death of A. Neill, the school was headed by his daughter, Zoya.

Neill connects the concept of "self-regulation" with parenting in freedom. He contrasts self-regulation with external regulation.

Freedom can be understood as independence from someone or something, and this word carries an independent meaning - freedom from something or someone. Perhaps the idea of ​​freedom has the right to exist only because there is an idea of ​​non-freedom that is opposite to it in meaning. Any terms that have their antonyms make sense only in their pair, which carries the opposite meaning.

In our material world, in which there is nothing eternal, freedom is always limited by conditions, objects, ideas, and therefore a person can free himself from something only in exchange for another lack of freedom. One addiction is replaced by another, sometimes more and, therefore, the feeling of freedom is always transient, it is like a pleasure, which, if not renewed, quickly fades away.

True freedom is realized by a person only when he is freed from all attachments to values. material world and ceases to be dependent on influences lower nature. Some may object by saying that attachments create unity between those who are dependent on each other, or who are attached to each other. The thing is that addictions and attachments can be at different levels, which are perceived differently by a person. Most lowest level makes a person completely unfree, and every step in his life is determined by circumstances that he perceives as violent. For more high level, the impact of reality becomes so insignificant that a person realizes himself free, although he continues to fully interact with this reality. But this kind of understanding of the idea of ​​freedom will be incomplete, since the reality with which a person interacts may have various levels influence on those people who perceive it. The lower the level of vibrations of influence external environment, the more violent it is perceived by a person. Therefore, a person realizes a sense of freedom in himself when he becomes inaccessible to the influence of low vibrations, the reality surrounding him.

The range of vibrations in which the Universe exists, from the highest Divine truth to absolute lies that distort the truth into something opposite, can be conditionally divided into two parts. The lower range of vibrations, the roughest, affects a person from the outside, relying on his ancient animal instincts. The highest range of vibrations of the Divine Truth affects a person from within, raising the level of vibrations of his consciousness, which leads to a change in a person's relationship to the reality surrounding him and to himself. Of course, between these extremes there are transition states which a person walking the spiritual path cannot always realize. The reason for this may be a habit that dulls perception, and a person in this case may be aware of violence as a natural state for him. Another reason may be the masochistic features of a person, which do not allow him to realize the destructive influences of the external environment, which he can perceive as something attractive and even carrying pleasure. There is another important reason, which lies in the social nature of a person, causing him to strive to be like everyone else, which can lead to the formation of destructive preferences.

- Absolute freedom and complete permissiveness

Freedom is a very complex philosophical concept, which in any case will always remain a myth. We will seek a reasonable understanding of FREEDOM, therefore we will immediately call it absolute, that is, ideal freedom for all people. We will first of all proceed from the fact that ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is the absence of any restrictions and constraints, which we can express in words: everything is possible. However, we immediately understand that when everything is possible, we are talking about COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY, if you want licentiousness and self-will. Thus, ABSOLUTE FREEDOM - this is COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY. Although intuitively any person will say that COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY is something not just bad, but sometimes terrible and inhuman. Let's take an existing political system. What kind of freedom do we have in a democratic state? Can we say that there are laws? No. When people recognize money above all values, the law is sold and bought, as well as honor, and dignity, and love, and friendship, as principles and beliefs, stereotypes, knowledge, decency and freedom. But all this is also bought, because each person begins to doubt that it is possible to value anything higher than himself and the benefits that he seems to be worthy of. As a result, people believe that money gives them freedom, but in fact, money brings promiscuity, cynicism and indifference. In addition, they are able to completely change the stereotype of thinking in any person who changes beyond recognition as soon as he becomes the owner of even not very large sums. This happens because the consciousness that concentrates on money sees in them the meaning and benefit for themselves and the body. Therefore, it may neglect previous values ​​if they contradict a new, more convenient form of existence. Modern states arranged so that to live in them
worthy, without having money, it is almost impossible.
A person in such a state becomes dependent on the existing order and is forced to find ways to survive. Exactly what to survive in a society without struggle and constant voltage very difficult and is the cause of increased irritation and exacerbation of egoism. As a consequence, we have the freedom to earn our living. Any methods flourish here, including those that have nothing to do with the concepts of a person, a person, and even an individual. This is COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY. COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY is unlimited freedom from any social and human norms and rules. Here we say that the state and the governing bodies of society are helpless to change anything, moreover, the dependence of the state on the money in the hands of people deprives the state of any meaning. Thus, those who are in power are only forced to defend themselves from the encroachments of those who want to take this power away from them. Let's return to the concepts of ABSOLUTE FREEDOM - COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY. We will call ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, the freedom of a person's consciousness from anything: logic, feelings, instincts, opinions of other people, stereotypes of thinking and selfishness. ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is the freedom to choose and determine the individual's place in society, the freedom to do anything for people, finding impeccable solutions aimed at striving for the perfection of oneself and the people around. Let's go into the contexts of human formations. Capitalism, as a monetary system, gives only the illusion of freedom, because everything depends on money, and some are not free, because they have money, while others, because they do not even have the opportunity to have it. Socialism also gave only the illusion of freedom, firstly, because there was money there too, which caused inequality among people, and secondly, because the state limited freedom, constantly directing people's consciousness to the wrong place. Communism is generally an incomprehensible system. It existed as a goal, but no one had any idea about it. We went to the victory of communism, not knowing where we were going and whom we were defeating. It was an illusion of purpose.
Absolute freedom will be determined by the concept of meaning and general meaning.
Today we have chaos, because everyone invents a meaning for himself and changes it at his own discretion, if conditions change. For example, a person can devote his life to revenge for his murdered father, or maybe skating. Here, the narrowness of consciousness is the result of illiterate upbringing, parents should tell the child the meaning, and society should be interested in parents correctly determining the meaning of their children and comparing it with the general meaning.
The reason for COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY is, of course, a reflex and an incorrect understanding of freedom.

In the existing context, a person considers freedom that he can choose for himself, what is important to him. Some devote their lives entirely to raising children, others to earning money, some spend their years in libraries, some in prisons, and some in monasteries. Can all this be called absolute freedom of choice? Take a man who spends his life in prison. Did he choose this path himself, or was it imposed on him by conditions? Let's consider as freedom such conditions in which any opportunities are available to us. For example, we initially have an apartment in order to live in it, the opportunity to live in isolation, in prison, and we also have access to money and conditions for raising children. Having all this already in stock, we make free choice, and this choice can be considered yours. If we are in a situation where nothing is available to us different reasons, and we understand that all this will never be available also for various reasons, then our choice will depend not on our desires and not on our aspirations, but on the conditions that we have. And here, permissiveness will be those paths that we choose in order to survive in the proposed conditions. And here a person can be infinitely inventive in finding means to achieve his goals, and society will be forced to put up with his ingenuity, adapting, sometimes to absurd and conflicting facts reality. As a result, the lack of freedom of choice is main reason TOTAL PERMISSIBILITY.
But another reason for COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY is that we do not set goals that are also imposed by the situation in which we live. For example, a person can devote his whole life career growth and in this desire to miss their children, due to lack of time for their upbringing. Moreover, he is sure that a career is a more important matter in a person’s life than education, but rather he is sure of this because he manages to be an employee better than to be realized as a parent. And here his self-willed choice is selfish in relation to his own children, for whom he must bear responsibility already because he brought them into the world. Thus, first of all, desires and spiritual impulses make us unfree, that is, the inability to think rationally and control ourselves. Let's go into the context of the person who manages vehicle. He rides alone and is asked for a ride by other people. The driver considers freedom of choice that he is free to choose whether to give them a lift or not. Here, his freedom is limited by selfish feelings and motives that force him to drive by and for a few more minutes mentally logically justify his choice or give him a ride and, giving him a ride, doubt that he is doing the right thing. The brain and consciousness bind us to our stereotype of thinking, which is never completely sure of itself, which means it is never free.
Is it possible to consider the presence of any restrictions in ABSOLUTE FREEDOM. Here we say that ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is reasonable freedom, when a person makes his own will and his own consciousness makes a choice that does not depend on anything but his own mind. If there is reason, then the choice will be reasonable, free and correct. If the choice is selfish, then we will consider it logical and not absolute. And this is PERMISSIBLE. Small child can't do independent choice. In any case, we will have to impose our idea of ​​reality on him. It is necessary to lay in him such a consciousness with which he would be able in the future to make independent decisions that would be reasonable both for himself and for those around him. By making mistakes in education, we run the risk of instilling a distorted understanding of all things in a person, which means that we make him dependent on an incorrect stereotype. In any case, there is no ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, there is only COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY or dependence on an ideal stereotype and absolute consciousness.