At first glance Peterson’s advice on discipline seems very different from what we know about Montessori discipline. But is it? Join me as I dive into each expert’s writing on the goal of discipline, the use of punishments, and tactics for effective discipline.
Pin me!
This post contains affiliate links. For more info, see here.
Do you do this too?
Each time I come across a new idea, technique, method, or philosophy that has to do in the slightest with early childhood education, I wonder, “Is this what Maria Montessori was saying? Or is it different? Do I instantly disagree, or does this add to or change my understanding?”
‘Obsessed’ might be the word to describe my level of interest in human development and the strategies related to its nurturing.
Which is why I read Rule 5 of Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos with great attention.
It’s called, “Don’t Let Your Children Do Anything That Makes You Dislike Them,” (unexpected title) and it’s all about the discipline of children.
I overanalyzed it as I read, looking for clues. Does Jordan Peterson agree with Maria Montessori on discipline? Do his ideas add to or change my understanding of human development?
Here is what I found.
Peterson Discipline vs. Montessori Discipline
Jordan Peterson’s Views on Discipline
“Discipline is a careful combination of mercy and long-term judgement.”
-Jordan Peterson
That unexpected chapter title gives away what Peterson says is the goal of discipline: social well-being. “Poorly socialized children have terrible lives.” They need to be liked. Sounds shallow, but he has a point. We’re social creatures, and we can’t be happy if we’re not part of a community. People who are disliked are often rejected by the community. So it’s harder for them to be happy.
And there is more to it than just being liked. “A well socialized child will be introduced to the world by people who are pleased to do so…this will do more for his eventual individuality than any cowardly parental attempt to avoid day to day conflict and discipline.”
Socialization. That’s the goal, before wonder and independence, because it leads to them. And good behavior, learned through discipline, is the key.
Peterson has a few principles to help:
- “Limit the rules.”
- “Use the minimum necessary force.”
There are more, but these two help us understand how Peterson believes parents should discipline their children.
Establish rules, and enforce them.
Can’t argue with that.
Peterson proposes interesting tactics for rule enforcement.
- Intervene immediately. (He believes children need to learn before the age of 4.)
- Teach good behavior with simple steps.
- Use rewards and punishments, using negative emotions mercifully. (Montessori people: Don’t freak out. Keep reading.)
- Battle if necessary.
According to Peterson, “the fundamental moral question is not how to shelter children completely from misadventure and failure, so they never experience any fear or pain, but how to maximize their learning so that useful knowledge may be gained with minimum cost.”
Please pin me!
How Maria Might Agree or Disagree
Generally, I’d say Maria Montessori agrees with Jordan Peterson. Discipline is essential, and it needs to happen early. There are some areas of disagreement; closer inspection will show us where.
Let’s start at the top.
The Goal of Discipline
Peterson believes socialization is more important than independence, but that it helps foster individuality. Montessori believes independence is pretty darn important, so that the child can fulfill his role as part of the community. Seems to me they both agree that the end goal of child-rearing is a whole human being who thrives in a community.
On to the next.
Peterson’s Principles of Discipline
Peterson says, “Limit the rules.” Montessori says, “A child needs freedom within limits.” Here the ideas are compatible. Montessori uses the word ‘limit’ instead of ‘rule’ to help the adults understand how to set these limits/rules. They are not arbitrary, but help the child use her freedom well. The combination of thoughtfully set limits and freedom gives us rules, but not too many.
Peterson says, “Use the minimum necessary force.” Montessori says, “Sweetness, severity, medicine, do not help if the child is mentally hungry.” Here the ideas differ. Montessori believes freely chosen, purposeful activity, within limits, in a good environment, is the cure to character problems in young children. Thus, she definitely disagrees with Peterson’s use of arbitrary punishment, e.g. pinching. Montessori discipline does, however, make use of logical consequences, implemented firmly and consistently by the adult. A logical consequence to poor behavior, e.g. being removed from the playground, could be what Peterson means when he says minimum necessary force, if it is enough to discipline the child. He clearly doesn’t believe a logical consequence is always enough.
On to the tactics.
Tactics: Peterson vs. Montessori
Intervene immediately
Peterson believes in swift intervention, and he stresses the need for children to learn good behavior as much as possible before the age of 4. Here, Montessori would heartily agree. She believes that the years from birth to age 6, “when nature is still busy in the perfecting of many newly formed powers,” are the best for addressing “defects.” If not, these defects will have “an influence…on the developing awareness of right and wrong.”
Immediate intervention applies on a daily basis as well. In my training on Montessori discipline, I learned to intervene immediately and firmly whenever a child was using a material inappropriately, or hurting himself, another child, or the environment. We gave lessons in good behavior and modeled it ourselves. I learned how to give children a kind yet authoritative look that meant, “you should do as I say.”
Teach good behavior with simple steps
Peterson writes about teaching a child to set the table, by first showing him how to hold and carry a plate. (#somontessori) The style may differ slightly, but the idea is the very same. As I mentioned above, there are Montessori lessons on all types of good behavior, from apologizing to blowing one’s nose to closing the door quietly. Likewise, every single Montessori lesson is given by modeling the right way, and breaking it down into simple steps. Montessori teachers don’t cut corners. We show every step, and then let the children give it a try.
Use rewards and punishments, using negative emotions mercifully
Now before you exit outa here because this is so not Montessori, let’s look at a few of Peterson’s examples of effective rewards and punishments.
When your daughter finally opens up to you when you ask about her day, Peterson says, “Pay attention. That’s the reward.” So he’s not necessarily talking about stickers and candy. Similarly, “time out can be an extremely effective form of punishment, particularly if the misbehaving child is welcome as soon as he controls his temper.” So he’s not always talking about pinches and spanks (though he thinks they might be necessary in certain situations.)
In practice, then, Montessori discipline and Peterson discipline might look very similar, but there is a difference. The Montessori method stresses the importance of treating children with respect (e.g. paying attention) regardless of their behavior. It is not a reward. Likewise, a time out is used as a consequence, as I mentioned above.
When it comes to using negative emotions, Peterson isn’t being harsh. On the contrary, he is looking for a more merciful route. “The judgmental and uncaring broader social world will mete out conflict and punishment far greater than that which would have been delivered by an awake parent. You can discipline your child, or you can turn that responsibility over to the harsh, uncaring, judgemental world.” He knows the world is a difficult place, and that suffering is part of every human’s experience. Montessori recognizes this, too. In Montessori classrooms, teachers are kind, but they do not shelter children from the unpleasant realities of life. If someone breaks a material, that’s the end of that material, at least for a good while. There will be no immediate replacement, no matter how much everyone misses it.
I think the biggest difference then is that Peterson advises parents to sometimes inflict negative emotions. The Montessori method permits them as a reality and as a consequence, but doesn’t advise directly causing them.
Battle if necessary
Peterson writes about the time he went to battle with his two-year-old son to make him eat at dinnertime instead of drop food all over the floor. “I prepared for war.” He’s being funny, but he means it. “A patient adult can defeat a two-year-old, hard as that is to believe.” Peterson was firm and kind, and he won. The boy ate his dinner, they took a nap together, and “he liked me a lot better when he woke up than he had before he was disciplined.” So all is well. But Montessori might disagree…
In my training on Montessori discipline, I learned to never engage in a battle of wills. In such a battle, someone has to lose. If I lost, the child would lose respect and trust for me, and would be less likely to obey me later. If the child lost, her own developing will would weaken. Since the will is a gift from God, is what makes us human, and is a necessary component of self-discipline, it’s worth protecting. Instead of battling, I learned to make the objective clear, in a firm, kind and confident voice, before the chance for a fight became possible. Then the child sees it is a good idea to obey, and chooses to do so or face the consequences. This tactic worked well for me, but I am sure there will be times when a battle seem inevitable. So be it, as a last resort.
Quick note from Peterson: “An angry child should sit by himself until he calms down. Then he should be allowed to return to normal life. That means the child wins – instead of his anger.”
What do you think?
There is one more difference between Peterson and Montessori.
Maria Montessori is very scientific and idealistic, for example, “If, at conception and during gestation, at birth and the period following birth, the child has been scientifically treated, he should at three be a model individual.” Nature is on our side, we just need to cooperate.
Peterson, however, sees things a little differently, “But human beings are evil, as well as good, and the darkness that dwells forever in our souls is also there in no small part in our younger selves.”
These views shape their methods of discipline, and the tactics they propose. And now I want to know, what do you think? Which view/method makes more sense to you? Do you think they are all that different? Is it possible to use both? Let’s chat in the comments!
Jean Marie
