radical unschooling & consensual living

[greenlee]

I'd love to hear some voices on the similarities and differences between these two philosophies/practices. Although I've been mothering and radically unschooling for 20 years, I've been a bit isolated from some of the new terminology. Heck, I didn't know how we were living was radical unschooling until a few years ago. :)

[greenlee]

I wanted to add ~ what prompted me to ask this question was a comment on another forum about the difference between radically unschooling and consensual living. In response to someone saying that she couldn't really see how the two ideas were different, this poster said,

"The way I see it, consensual living respects the needs and wants of everyone in the family, whereas RU (the way I've seen it practiced) only respects the needs and wants of the kids."

This prompted me to do some google research and I haven't come up with much. I'd love to hear what others here think about all this.

[Sylvia Toyama]

The way I see it, consensual living respects the needs and wants of everyone in the family, whereas RU (the way I've seen it practiced) only respects the needs and wants of the kids."

****
I think this is a common misconception about radical unschooling, and likely results from people with no boundaries calling what they do radical unschooling. For me, helping my kids recognize that others' needs and wants are valid and need to be respected isn't even about unschooling, it's about responsible parenting.

[Alane]

"I think this is a common misconception about radical unschooling, and likely results from people with no boundaries calling what they do radical unschooling."

Yes, I agree.

Everyone's needs and wants are respected here, and we work to find solutions that everyone is happy with. I'm not a martyr.

I do think though, that, as a parent, I have a bit more responsibility towards them than my kids have towards me. That's why, for instance, I woke up when my infants needed me every two hours instead of sleeping for the 8 hours that *I* needed, yk? As they got older, that didn't translate to them making demands and me jumping to fulfill them, because they acquired a certain about of patience, and consideration for others, naturally. And there are now plenty of things that they do for me as well--it becomes less one-sided as they get older.

I wouldn't let my child hit me, or purposefully break my things, or otherwise mistreat me in the name of RU (well, really, in the name of ANYTHING!) But I have seen discussions where people do this, thinking that it's RU because it's what their kids WANT. That blows my mind. Promoting disrespect for others in no way enters into our way of doing things. (Aside from the fact that I'd have a pretty instinctual response to being hit.)

Violence aside...

There are plenty of things I wouldn't be doing if I didn't have kids--(driving as much as I do, for one thing, lol,) but I don't view it as their needs and wants being respected while mine aren't. I might not *need* to drive for an hour to sit on the side of a skating rink in the cold so my kids can skate, but my needs aren't being trampled either because doing things for my kids is something I want to do and it brings me joy to see them so happy.

I have heard people talk pretty resentfully about "having" to do things for their kids--but they weren't RU. So, maybe part of it is one's viewpoint. I mean, someone once commented to me about how I'd "given up" my career and shook her head at the driving I was willing to do and the expense I was willing to incur on behalf of my kids. To me, it involved neither giving anything up, nor sacrifice because I love this life. I think whenever we look at someone else's life there's the risk of seeing things that the other person just doesn't feel.

Maybe to some people, it looks like only my kids' needs are being met, but not to me.

[Sandra Dodd]

I agree with everything Alane wrote.
As my kids are older, they drive me places. I was post-procedure, sedated the other day and Holly and her boyfriend took great care of me all day.

Marty used to play ice hockey, so I know the sitting by the ice rink, too.

There's a forum kind of like this on which most of the children are babies and the mothers more political. They seem to defend family over children, which doesn't make sense to me. They must think that putting children first is putting parents last, but that's only true if there's an adversarial us-vs.-them in the mix. When I put my children first, I'm being a good mom, and I WANT to be a good mom. If my child is my partner, our team can't be doing well if the child is afraid or unhappy or unattended to.

Sandra

[greenlee]

Thanks everyone!

I very much agree with everyone and I would go so far as to say that when I attend to my child's needs I AM putting myself first. I'm in it for me. It makes ME happy to do the things I do, so I do them. I also appreciate Sandra's insightful comments about an adversarial relationship.

I try not to forego my own needs because we all get so much more out of our day when I'm taking good care of myself. :)

Still, I'm still confused about the two philosophies/practices. How are they different?

[Sandra Dodd]

I'm guessing the phrase "consensual living" is someone's personal territory and she/he isn't an unschooler. To use a phrase like that, such as "Non-coercive parenting" paints the rest of the world with the negative brush. It seems, too, kind of adversarial, like either you're living consensually, or it's nonconsensual. You're living non-coercively (according to the parameters of "NCP") or you're coercive. You're practicing non-violent communication or you're being violent.

It is at least two things: dualistic and cheateristic.

I think "non coercive" aims for each person to act without pressure, but if by "pressure" they include persuasion, I blow the pfffffttth raspberry at that. If someone invites me to a move and sells it so that I really do want to see that movie, I wasn't coerced. If someone takes me to a restaurant I've never been to and I'm a little apprehensive or half wishing they'd decide on the fallback favorite, I haven't been coerced. If our whole family wants to eat pizza but one person asks us to eat elsewhere and eat the pizza another night when he's not there, that's a request we can consider, and if we don't eat pizza it doesn't mean we're undemocratic or that one person strong-armed the rest.

[Rebecca Allen]

Here's an explanation of Consensual Living from the website :

"Consensual living is a process, a philosophy, a mindset by which we seek to live in harmony with our families and community. It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone’s wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties."

There's more info. at the website and also a yahoo discussion group with over 800 members.

The way I see it, many Radical Unschooling families practice Consensual Living (whether or not they use or like the term), but not all Consensual Living families practice Radical Unschooling. It's possible to live consensually and have kids in school.

[Rebecca Allen]

The website address didn't come through, and I didn't get an "edit" button. Apparently I don't know how to link addresses, but here it is...

http://www.consensual-living.com

And here's the yahoo group...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consensual-living/

[John]

"many Radical Unschooling families practice Consensual Living (whether or not they use or like the term), but not all Consensual Living families practice Radical Unschooling"

Interestingly enough, the reading suggestions on the consensual living website include a lot of books about unschooling! Perhaps because school creates conflict for a lot of families.

A lot of families that I know, not consensual living practicing ones, that have kids in school, see school as necessary and their kids must go wether the kids like it or not, or wether the parents like it or not. If they were practicing consensual living and their kids really didn't want to go, I'm not sure how that family would reconcile that with their kids.

The parent's notion that school is necessary will override the kid's desire to not go. That doesn't seem like a very win/win scenario. I imagine that it really helps that homeschooling is a legal option for a lot of people.

I'm more interested in how kids learn and how we can get along in our family and help everyone get their needs met within that context. So, in a sense, what we do, is kid focused! I really don't have a problem with that. From the moment I was married, then pregnant, my life ceased to be about me, and became about us, and when we had our baby, it became very focused on babies and children and how to mesh our lives together.

So, in the OP...
"The way I see it, consensual living respects the needs and wants of everyone in the family, whereas RU (the way I've seen it practiced) only respects the needs and wants of the kids."

I really object to the word "only". We respect the needs and wants of our kids for sure, but without respecting the needs and wants of our partners and each other, we wouldn't be modelling that for our children to learn how to do that for each other and us and for their own eventual partners when they are grown.

[JennyStar]

That was me, Jenny, who wrote that above! I must've been logged on as my husband when I wrote that! I was using a different computer last night!

[Caren]

The consensual living site was started by radical unschoolers who hoped to see the philosophies of radical unschooling being lived out in the world more, by unschoolers, schoolers, people with no kids, etc. You can help make a contentious scene in a restaurant, for example, calmer by using the principles of consensual living, and working to find a solution that would serve everyone.

It's easy to join that yahoo group and get a feel for the discussions that go on there.

It's not adversarial at all. ; )

[greenlee]

Thanks everyone - I appreciate all of this input. I'm so intrigued by Sandra's insight into how and why groups would choose a word to label themselves. It's got to be difficult to come up with a word that represents a philosophy of living...one that does not create any adversary.

I think I am so far out of the loop of modern parents that I get frustrated and confused about the various labels people are using. Back in the 80's what I was doing was considered so radical! After reading forums these days I'm really not sure what I would call myself, and all I know is that everything I do with my kids comes from a deep respect I have for them ....a respect that was present from the moment of birth.