The Trial – Continued

We are continuing our conversation about how to properly organize and guide discussions with children. For this purpose we recorded a sample of such a discussion on video, and in the previous program we watched the first episode, where a group of children told about a conflict with another group. In discussing that segment, we noted that it is hard for a child to tell what happened to him, since it involves an emotional conversation within the group about things that matter to everyone. We deliberately chose a case of a quarrel that stirred up and outraged everyone. From this discussion we are trying to draw conclusions of a higher level than a petty quarrel. When a child comes to tell about what stung or offended him, while he himself did not behave in the best way, he does not tell how it all began, how it developed, and how it ended; instead he starts from the most painful point: I was offended, hit, called names, and so on.

That is exactly what stayed with him!

Yes, that is exactly what he feels. When emotions are seething, it is hard to explain how the quarrel even began. So the adult he turns to does not understand at all what happened, and it takes time for the child to calm down and clearly describe the moment before the conflict. Children, like adults, do not like to talk about what they did. And if they do talk, then, as in a movie, they list off the outward actions.

That is exactly what needs to be done! Let us create a film, so that instead of making excuses for his actions, each one recounts them as if giving testimony in court. And then each one will step back from himself and become, to some degree, objective.

He naturally has to be objective and explain his actions. Then he will also be able to draw conclusions and see the situation from the outside. So it turns out the other children act out the incident?

Yes, otherwise it is hard for the child to hear anything, because he is immersed in the situation.

As a rule, he is preoccupied with his own feelings. But won't he treat the situation he sees on stage simply as theater, as a game? Or does he have a role, and he must explain his actions to the actor precisely? So he will have to recall what came first and what came after, since he is transferring it onto the stage…

Don't worry about the children. They know how to enter any state and exit it, since they are far more flexible than we are. If children withstand the constant pressure of our "upbringing," then honor and praise to them and to their power of survival. That is why I would let them play all the roles: themselves, their offender, the judge, and the defender. He can also be an outside observer. That is, he must see the situation from all sides. You did something similar and saw the change: how the children suddenly develop an understanding that a completely different angle of view on this event exists. At first it seems to them that only their own view exists. And suddenly they begin to hear that there are other facts, that someone thinks differently. Why does he think differently? The point is not whether I am right or wrong, but that there is a truth which does not coincide with mine. Yet it too is truth.

And here they run into the problem of interpretation: what the other one felt and how he interpreted it. In the episode we are about to see, the child studies himself. He applies reflection to himself: suddenly I understand that there is something in me, but I do not know how to deal with it.

The child sees his own example from the outside and begins to understand that it is him. He does not like the image, and then, out of having no way out, he begins to judge himself.

To judge, but not to accuse, right?

Of course not. He has played out all the images and understood that everyone has a place in life. Now we only teach what to do with it.

Consequently, our role is to explain these stages? We still have much to learn. Let us watch the next segment. In the first clip there was a conversation with one group, while the other group sat aside and observed. Then it was their turn, and now we will see the explanation of one of the girls from the side of the supposed "accused."

"Girl: We weren't allowed into the room, but is it their room? It offended me very much. I didn't want to quarrel, but if I get worked up, I can't stop myself.

Facilitator: Your thought is clear: you didn't want to, but if your nerves are on edge, you don't control yourself.

Girl: When a volcano erupts, nothing can stop it. It's the same with me. If I flare up, I can't put myself out; I need time to calm down. And they kept irritating me for several days. I tried to pull myself together, but they kept offending me. My friend started to defend me, and they said it served me right.

Facilitator: And why did their words offend you?

Girl: Because I want to be equal to them, not below them. It doesn't matter that I'm younger than they are – I should be equal to them to the same degree, and they don't give me that opportunity. I tried to convince them, but they only egged me on. It's hard for me!

Facilitator: You mean to say that you feel bad, because they make you feel that you are not equal to them?

Girl: Yes."

At the beginning of the conversation, which was not included in the clip, she said that when the girls from the first group were asked what they could advise themselves if they stepped back and looked at the incident from the outside, she had already thought about it. And then she understood that there was something in her, and she described it. Then it continued in the general discussion. A wonderful description, isn't it?

Yes. This is already the beginning of the recognition of evil. She told wonderfully about how anger flares up in her and she cannot stop herself.

There is also an understanding of the process here: she knows it and sometimes calms down on her own, but at times, as she says, it goes on and on! I think she managed with these words to explain what happens to many children, especially boys. How good it is that a person has the ability to see himself from the outside, to determine that I have a problem I cannot cope with! This then makes it possible to hold a group discussion about how we can all together help her. The "view from the outside" is a very important thing.

If we record many such "views from the outside" on video, then it is useful to watch them even without drawing subsequent conclusions: how the children speak, how they behave, how they insist on their opinion simply out of stubbornness, irritation, or a desire to achieve justice. Later they will see that it is not always worth being just. To see oneself from the outside is very hard, but instructive. That is why it is worth doing, and I think that the filming and rehearsals are an important part of the learning.

Is it worth filming such a program again?

Of course. You film a whole program and give it to them to take home – let them watch. And the next day – after they have had their fill of watching themselves – you film them again. And then, comparing the two variants of behavior, you can see what we achieved through viewing alone. After that you can hold a discussion: show both examples and ask what they think about the incident, why it happened this way, how a person reacts, what they felt at home during the first viewing, and so on. There will be those who say they felt nothing! But they themselves will see that they behave differently.

Such a discussion would take a whole school day!

But besides this there is nothing else that needs to be studied from life. Upbringing is everything.

In essence, this is social upbringing.

True. And if in addition to this we devote an hour or two to studying Nature, then that is enough. After 10-12 years of study in school a person comes out with nothing, but this way he will at least be brought up and equipped with the basics of knowledge in various fields. Believe me, these children at the age of 13-14 will be able to enter university. Their IQ will be the highest of all. Perception, an analytical approach, the ability to connect things and see oneself from the outside will give them such inner development that they will enter any faculty and acquire any specialty.

In other words, the discussion demands many skills from the child.

This is the development of the highest degree within the person – the "Human in the person."

The ability to describe a problem, to reflect, to analyze – children learn many things. Fortunately, they can also learn how to behave, and thereby develop.

Alongside this form, I would sometimes create situations in which children act together with adults. Having seen that adults and teenagers also run into various problems and difficulties, they will understand that their activities are serious, helping them to become grown up. This will give value and respect to what we are now passing on to them. They will see that in this way they are cleansing their lives of unnecessary husk. All that will remain for them is to grow above the human level. When, after several years spent in our school, they enter life, they will already be formed. They will master a specialty with ease, because they know how to approach any phenomenon. All that remains is to be a Human in the highest sense. You see how, from a small action lasting an hour or an hour and a half, children are already beginning to enter this process.

I would just like to understand how this discussion differs from the processes of establishing connection accepted in an ordinary school. There too they realized that children do not know how to talk with one another, and they called this problem "building connection." Children are invited to talk with each other and then show what agreement they reached. It is very hard for them to do this.

Of course, because they are not taught this. There the children are obliged to sit together with adults, and the adults must show them their weaknesses. But one must be on the same level as the children: teenagers should be together with the little ones, young people with teenagers, and adults with young people. But the most important thing is the question "why are we doing this?" There is an additional value here that they must receive from us: to us, adults, this is very important. If we are talking about children aged 8-10, then bring several teenagers aged 13-14 into their group, let them work with them. You will see that the younger ones listen to them with their mouths open.

They impress them more than we do.

Of course, because to them we are simply "furniture."

That is why they will agree to think as well.

True. For our part, we must provide them with various means and stimuli in order to affect the children to the maximum. I don't know whether ordinary schools practice role-switching and filming, but we, besides this, also talk about global upbringing. We want to show the children in every case – especially if it is conveyed by older children – that the world is round, connected, not the way we see it. Everyone is together, dependent on one another, and therefore we should relate to ourselves and to the world in this way. If it comes from the older children, then the younger ones will at least hear it and gradually, drop by drop, absorb it. This approach is essentially above them. It is also above us, but this is called the influence of the environment: the environment implants a certain fact in a person.

Because it repeats it all the time?

Both because it repeats it and because it values it. A person accepts a phenomenon respected by the environment as a fact.

We know that this happens with adults too. They accept repeated ideas, even if they are mistaken.

True. That is why in this form we must accustom children to the thought that the world is global.

Do you think that children aged 10-12 can feel a connection with their peers living in other countries and speaking different languages, only because they see them on a monitor screen?

Of course! I have seen how my daughters took in stories shown on television or in the theater. If you show these examples to children through the Internet or television, they will be fully in solidarity with what is happening on the screen.

It is nice to see that everywhere the same thing happens – regardless of language and external circumstances.

One could hold a worldwide discussion around this: who is in solidarity with one group and who with the other. And judge according to a general vote. Thousands would send in their responses.

Responses – that is literally a survey! One could even organize a competition! And have the whole world send in proposals for a solution. Let us watch one more clip.

"Facilitator: Now each of you will try to step out of your role and try to look at the whole situation from the outside. As if it happened not to us, there are no judges, and we are not judging anyone. We simply want to understand what can be taken away from this discussion. I would like you to think about the question of the distribution of roles: what it is, what you were in charge of, whether everyone had a sufficient understanding of what they were supposed to do and why. And second: what is an outburst of anger that is hard to control? Perhaps we can do something so that there are fewer such outbursts? What did we all do wrong?

First girl: Each of us wanted to be in charge of the project.

Facilitator: What is there in us that pushes us to be in charge, to dominate?

Second girl: The sensation that I am better than everyone. It's a desire that is in you.

Facilitator: Is the desire a good one?

Girl: No.

Facilitator: Is it that very desire that made you lose control over yourself? Think about it.

Third girl: I think so, yes. We didn't pay attention to our friend's irritability, and that offended her.

Facilitator: What must we do so that this doesn't happen again?

First girl: We must cooperate and distribute the roles according to preference (as each wishes).

Facilitator: Will cooperation be stronger than our qualities?

Second girl: Yes. We did not take our friends' desires into account."

This discussion continued, and one of the kids suggested switching roles, as we were talking about here. It is nice to see that the atmosphere of the discussion changed fundamentally.

First of all, they are sitting differently – in a circle.

Yes, this form certainly helps: suddenly everyone turns out to be equal, and not the way it is at a table. Besides, as soon as you begin to think about yourself from the outside, you understand the other. And suddenly it turns out that both are right, not just one. When a child describes his inner sensations, you want to help him. And then the atmosphere becomes very pleasant, since they began with mutual accusations. Does the fact that they are sitting in a circle help to change the atmosphere? And if they had sat that way from the start, would there also have been such an effect?

No, it is still worth emphasizing this moment, because we want to know the nature of a human being and correct it. That is why the extreme points need to be highlighted, otherwise what will we learn from? Try afterward to return them to the form in which they began the discussion, sitting at tables! They will resist with all their might! It is worth seeing this! If you have not done it, then try.

Let us take this as an assignment for future programs. Today we talked about how to make a discussion as effective as possible. We need to give children the opportunity to look at themselves from the outside. This is a very important process, and it should be learned. We must talk about why we do this, and involve the older children in cooperation, so that they help the younger ones understand the overall picture of the world in which they find themselves. Children should know that they are engaged in an important matter, because the ability to analyze and discuss is vital for life. We received many useful pieces of advice and options for conducting such discussions, and we will try to apply them.