OUR BABIES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 493, 24 October 1928, Page 4

OUR BABIES

By

Hygeia.

Published under the auspices of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Health of Women and Children (Plunket Society). “It is wiser to put up a fence at the top of a precipice than to maintain an ambulance at the bottom/* “WHY MAYN’T 1? —DADDY DOES.” This is a- little article by Miss Muriel which we take the liberty of reprinting from the “Women's Pic- ] torial": — Amusing Babies Iu babyhood the child, observing ! what goes on around him, noting the similarities and differences between the objects of his environment, is ! making preparation for the reasoning jof later life. He begins to see the ] casual connection between things—if something drops it makes a noise, if you hit something hard it hurts you, j and so on. Knowledge of this element- | ary type is the basis of the work that | will make the future man rational and I circumspect in his conduct. The best | service we can render the child in in- j ! fancy therefore is to give him the op- i I portunity to acquire this knowledge. I j We must allow him to experiment as j j far as possible on his own lines, to , | permit him to find out the qualities of j j things first-hand, even if occasionally ; ]he receives a nasty knock for his j j pains. So often we try to “amuse” j | babies, distracting their attention from j ! some object on which they are focuss-1 ing to some object which we want them j to look at —then we tend to ruin thenpowers of concentration and attention even before they are formed. Thus it t is that many a baby's raw material for j later rational thinking is irrevocably j | injured. Native Curiosity The child’s native curiosity is so strong, however, that he usually arrives at “the questioning stage” that dawns at the age of three or four still brimful of the desire to know the why and the what of things. In a child who has never been allowed to concentrate his attention this will not confine itself for long to one object, and he often does not attend long enough to listen to the answers to questions; but every small child is sure to ask them. Why does the wind blow? Why are tables hard? What is hair for? Sometimes he tries to work things out for himself without seeking the aid of a grown-up. A small child of three and a-half was sitting opposite me in the train the other day on the way to Waterloo. She chanced to look out of the window as we crossed Richmond bridge. “Water,” she exclaimed in great excitement. “We’re at Waterloo.” Reasoning of the same type is shown by the little boy who told his mother in all seriousness that butter was made from butterflies. The most obvious link of connection between two objects is seized, and the objects made to stand in the relation between cause and effect. Lack of Knowledge Such remarks, showing us that our child is beginning to think and to reason, should fill us with wonder and happiness. There is nothing wrong with the child’s logic, he merely makes mistakes from lack of knowledge. Take the case of the small boy who, when refused some oatmeal jelly, which was given to his mother because she was “nursing baby,” said indignantly, “l need that jelly. I’s.e nursing Teddy Bear.” Of course, such a remark is distinctly humorous; but we are better employed in helping the child to understand where his mistake lies than in laughing at him. Not only do we confuse the issues for the child by laughing at him, but if he realises his conduct causes amusement he may act up to his new role of buffoon and lose that earnest desire of knowledge which ■is so charmingly characteristic of small children. Parents require great wisdom to deal with children’s questions in such a way that a correct mental attitude may be developed. But even more wisdom, and certainly more character, j is required in helping them to develop moral logic. The only way to help a child to apply logic to matters of con - duct is to show him that there are certain principles on which life is baaed, and which all, growa-up as well us children, must obeju Too often we confuse the child by giving him precept but no example. “Daddy told me 1 ought never to interrupt,” said a little girl of four. “One day he interrupted nre. So I just looked at him—and he sent me away from the table!” This seems to me to illustrate a very common fault in dealing with children. We teach by word of mouth one code of conduct, and the child sees quite a different code in actual practice in the home. The child’s logical mind is quick to observe the discrepancy. He will not learn to be truthful, however much we talk to him about it, if = mother is inconsistent in what she says. He will not learn punctuality, however admirable our discourses on this virtue, if the grown-up members of the family are always late for ; meals. Distinguishing Characteristics j Naturally in details the behaviour of | grown-ups must sometimes differ from j that of children. It would be ridicu- ] lous, for instance, for parents to ->eny themselves such wholesome fruit as strawberries on the grounds that these are not suitable food for a small child; but although details differ, principles do not. The child’s logic is quite clear and strong enough to see whether the parents' trend of life and thought is the sort of trend they tell him they wish him to follow. It is difficult to speak and act always in such a way that our children j learn to live logically and circumspectly, but any efforts iu this direction are well worth while. The power to act and think logically is so well developed in the child we should do ail in our power to help him to retain it.