Dear Lisa,

I'm afraid I'm contributing to an off-topic thread, but Attachment Parenting
and Positive Discipline don't mean letting the child have no boundaries
whatever.  The difference between positive discipline and conventional
(coercive) discipline is that in positive discipline we try to discipline by
offering the child our advice, and letting the child make non-serious
mistakes so he can learn from them.  We will still use coercion, including
force if necessary, to protect the child (or others) from serious injury.
There is a farther step, democratic parenting, which I don't understand
well enough to talk about, but which gives the child considerable input to
family structure.  Even that, however, does not give the child free reign.
IMHO children who run wild are reacting against traditional discipline, rather
than the product of a positive or democratic method.

Jonathan

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:52:55 -0400, Lisa Marasco wrote:
>Your question is one that extends beyond cultural lines, and I did not deal
>with this in my first post. I want to express that I recognize that there are
>many other cultures that practice "child-centered" parenting and do so quite
>healthily. In the anglo-saxon community of the U.S., "child-centered" usually
>implies never disciplining children for fear of hurting their psyches.  The
>"child-centered" parenting that I have learned of in other cultures *does*
>discipline the child; for them, "child centered" means that family life tends
>to revolve around activities that enrich and entertain and nurture and teach
>and celebrate children.  These are two *very* different types of
>"child-centered" philosophies.