The Dangers of the "Yes Environment".
The Autonomous Child
Yesterday my plan was to continue with empathic design but with an outdoor focus… but since I wrote that these thoughts have demanded to be written - and as I am doing daily posts this month I want to write it as a kind of flow rather than “musts” - so the outdoor empathic design idea is on pause and maybe it will be tomorrow instead…
Before getting started this is not a post about the idea of creating environments for autonomy is bad… autonomy being the deep down message of “yes environments” - but it is an opportunity to slow down and reflect on what this means, and maybe some of the pitfalls.
Play is the language of autonomy - and with this in mind we should be creating environments for play flow, and not for children to do anything - the word no needs to be a part of a healthy play and learning space - for multiple reasons
children need to be able to say no to things they do not want to do, do not like, or as a response to others doing things that does not respect them
as educators and parents we need to say no when children do things that are potentially dangerous, offensive/disrespectful to others/themselves/nature/property
children need to hear no, experience limits in order to learn how to deal with not getting their own way - possibly adapting or compromising, or simply self regulating and dealing with the disappointment and frustration.
An environment that only says yes does not prepare children for the reality of the world where knowing how to deal with disappointment and frustration is an essential skill. What is important as educators, and parents, is that we are not putting unnecessary “no’s” into the lives of the children in order to convenience ourselves, due to our own bias and fears, or as a way to control and manipulate children.
This means we need to address things like our own view of play that includes risk - is it our own fear that makes us say no or stop, or is it genuinely dangerous based on our knowledge of the child’s capacity, our knowledge of the space and materials and our knowledge of the context, research, and past experience?
Is our “no” appropriate, or is it because the adult wants to save time, or can’t be bothered, or there is a lack of knowledge and trust in the capabilities of the children?
The underlying message of the “yes environment” is that we are carefully designing the space to avoid the adult need to so no. But I think instead we should rephrase this and design the space for play, for flow and for autonomy and that adult interactions are a part of that, and that the word no is too.
On Peter Gray’s substack he has recently been writing about anxiety in children, the ineffectiveness of some therapy programmes and social emotional learning programmes (emphasis on programme - where it is not adapted to actual needs but is a one size fits all attempt at fixing the well-being of children without actually addressing the real problem - the lack of autonomy).
Over ten years ago there was a post written by Peter that caught my attention - about children and the adult desire that their children should be happy, - and an increasing number of young adults seeking psychological help with depression that reflected back on their childhood and considered it a happy one. Peter’s conclusion was that these children’s emotions were so well managed by parents and others to only experience positive emotions as much as possible, and were heavily supported to transition out of negative emotions - and then as adults they did not know how to manage this themselves.
As parents and educators our responsibility is not to ensure happy children but to provide them opportunities to be capable humans who can manage their own emotions. Frustration, disappointment, longing (which I wrote about recently over on Instagram) are essential experiences for children to master, overcome and be in control of - rather than those emotions being in control of them. It takes a whole childhood to master them.
Miriam Beloglovsky writes about the power of yes - and the power of no. It is a post that provides food for thought about how unnecessary no’s close doors to opportunities and possibilities as well as damaging the trust and relationship between children and adults. The power of yes approach, in contrast to the yes environment, can help children practice dealing with a no and finding an alternative. Miriam uses the example of a child wanting to play outside when it is no feasible - instead of a flat out no the adult can offer to play something inside - there is a no, but also a suggestion of there being something else. Eventually we pass on this responsibility to the child - we can point out the non-feasibility (if the child has not noticed) and then ask “what do you think we could do inside instead?” Providing the space for the child to develop the power of yes.
In the Original Learning Approach I use the word joy and make the distinction between joy and happiness.
The opposite of happy is sad. The opposite of joy is depression. And we can experience all our emotions in both a state of joy and depression - life is easier in a state of joy, especially dealing with the negative emotions, and appreciating the positive ones.
What we want for children is to experience joy so that they can master all their emotions. And the fabulous thing about joy is that children access this through play - genuine play, not playful activities which tends to lean to happy children rather than joy-filled children.
So creating spaces for autonomy is what we should be doing. Whether that be play or learning. And in many ways this links with yesterday’s post on empathic design - because if we have created a space that is empathically in tune with the social and emotional needs of the evolving children, and helps them heal from any negative experiences - then our spaces are saying yes -
yes, you are welcome here
yes, you can play here
yes, you can feel safe here
yes, you can feel brave here
yes, you are valued here
yes, you can be curious here
yes, you can be frustrated here
yes, you can be comforted here
so many yes’s - that do not exclude no - because to feel safe, to feel brave, for every child to feel welcome and valued, sometimes a no is vital.
What is important is that we properly reflect on not only our use of no, but also our use of yes to ensure that we are providing equitable spaces. That our yes’s are not bolstering prejudice and bias - that we can say no to exclusion, oppression and other discriminatory behaviours that some children might be testing out in their play. As educators we have the unique opportunity to talk about what the children are playing with the children, using the power of yes approach - providing them with alternative ways to interact inclusively and respectfully with the world.
This is the third in a series of writing every day in September. If you have any requests of topics to write about, or questions, or would like to share your wisdom/reflections/experience on what I have written - then please use the comment button.
So well put - thank you for this piece! Learning that all emotions are valid and supporting children (and ourselves) to be aware, have tools to move through uncomfortable emotions, and choose how we want to be.
Love this piece! Suzanne ! Once again you discard dichotomy and go for synthesis . I talk a lot about setting personal boundaries with children. When we don't set personal boundaries with children, we teach them not to set personal boundaries for themselves. In this way we actually disempower our children if we always say yes to them.