Trial — The Beginning

Today we will analyze a question we have already touched on before, having presented it as the main principle of upbringing. It concerns giving a child the opportunity to become his own psychologist through discussions that resemble a trial. Children together discuss cases that occur in their lives, try to analyze them, study them, and draw conclusions. We recorded an example of such a discussion on video and selected the most interesting moments from it, so as to talk about them and understand the proposed method even more deeply. In previous programs you explained that the central principle of the method of upbringing is connected with the ability to organize a discussion. I would like to understand how this discussion differs from any other, since teachers and parents arrange many discussions. What is special about this discussion?

There are many methods of conducting discussions. Today teachers have a certain freedom in this area compared to what existed a few years ago. If we want to bring children to a certain state, then we must know its final form both in society and in the child as an element of society. We must know by what means we are doing this: through the environment and the additional forces that we awaken in the group. These forces are contained within human nature, even though they are called upper forces. But they are upper in the same way that in our world there is a gradation of higher or lower between methods or values.

Children always learn from examples, not from what they are told. They do not hear the words but learn only on the basis of the sensations they receive from the environment.

Here a principle appears that is fundamentally different from ordinary upbringing. After all, today we try to give children a good upbringing — not to lie, not to deceive — but in the practice of life…

And we ourselves?

Exactly: in life we sometimes act that way ourselves. Children react very sharply to this discrepancy: you said not to do it, so why do you do it yourself? Very quickly they realize that there is a gap between our upbringing and life. And you are saying that from the outset there must be complete correspondence between what a person knows, does, and lives according to?

A person must know what he is doing. And if he does it, then he cannot demand anything else from the child.

Then he himself fulfills these rules and can teach based on his own impressions?

He does not teach. If the child is in a society, then he absorbs everything from there. It cannot be that he will learn something that is not in the environment. And since we are all egoists, he will surely learn from the environment the worst things, not the best ones — those that are convenient and suit him. Therefore we must constantly raise the environment, elevate it, in order to help the child extract an example even from not very good phenomena.

You mean to say that even if we teach and give our own examples, but there are all sorts of other examples in the environment, then he will absorb them and naturally follow the worse models?

He will absorb the worst example, and this is a problem of all of modern society, not only ours. Today I see in our students — both children and adults — that the world is passing through various states in the form of rises and falls, which used to be characteristic only of people in creative professions, of philosophers, of scientists. Today everyone is beginning to feel the fluctuations of "up and down."

A kind of shaking?

Yes. It must be understood that this is meant to knock us out of our routine and bring us, at last, to the awareness of why and for what purpose this is happening to us, that we are not like animals and beasts, we are human beings — such a state is characteristic of a human being. If during a fall the worst qualities manifest in us, then during a rise we supposedly correct them — this happens to everyone in his private life, and we see what inner upheavals are tearing people apart.

The process is parallel: what a person passes through within himself, society as a whole passes through as well.

Correct. And children absorb our falls faster than our rises. They see our lack of restraint, our irritability, our inability to reach agreement and to yield — the things that happen to a person when he is under conditions of stress, in a fall. These reactions stand out more, they are more understandable to a child, than the inner and more concealed states in which a person is in harmony.

Evil stands out more, and it is easier to reproduce. We also remember it better — as a rule, our memories are more connected with negative impressions.

Undoubtedly, this must be taken into account. And we have already said that if we do not give children a clear example of what a trial is and how to conduct it together with the educators, who must take part in this action, conduct it, and manage it — then the children themselves do not know what to do. For if there is no example, then, following human nature, they will arrange a lynching rather than a trial of justice.

Consequently, the ability to conduct a discussion correctly is a tool, a safeguard for the group? I mean for us.

Yes. In order to form a judicial mechanism in a person, we must carry out such actions among adults, at which children will be present.

They learn.

They learn and are actively present: they ask questions during the trial, clarify the reasons, express their opinion. We ask them questions, drawing them in to be an active part of the action — let us call it not a trial but a discussion or a clarification.

So, a discussion. And you are saying that this has to be taught?

Yes. Here adults and children must be together. We must study everything: invite lawyers of various specialties…

One moment, I want to understand: do children take part in discussions in which adults argue, or only children?

Both children and adults. Do you want to give an example? The example must be active.

Perhaps they can actively take part in discussions only after a certain amount of learning, when they already know what to say so as not to interfere?

They must take this from life. Clarification is a part of life, and just as children are a part of our life, so they must be a part of this process. Do not treat the child as a little one — he is not small, we have already spoken about this.

Not to diminish him.

We relate to the child as to a grown person with a small physical capacity — no more than that.

You once said that one must address his soul, his inner part.

Yes. Quite recently I had a conversation on this topic with my wife — regarding the upbringing of our grandson. She could not solve the problem with his behavior — he was being capricious, doing things out of spite. I said that one must relate to him as to an adult, speak with him the same way one speaks with adults, demand and receive the desired reactions. And he changed immediately — she told me about this some time later.

I can speak with him as with an adult, but if he is not capable of understanding, then he will not be able to do anything.

That cannot be. Many things they perceive well and correctly, and if not, then it no longer pertains to upbringing. If we are speaking about a child of six, then it means that to some degree (by 6% or 26%) he can accept what I have and adapt it to himself. I never look at him as a child — I see in him a learner: he is learning from me how to live, no more than that.

The connections of life?

Yes. And I never say that he is small and limited. One must take some incident in which adults and children participate, even a whole family, and bring it out for open discussion. Children must participate in it freely, as a part more important than the adults. Let them voice their claims, and with their help we will reveal the sore spots in upbringing.

This will be learning for us as well.

After all, when it is said "educate the youth according to his way," then one must know "his way." As it were, I must first study him and, in accordance with this, build my upbringing according to the way that I studied in him. Through his questions and answers he must show me this way, even though he himself does not know it.

As it is said, that "from all my students I have learned."

Exactly so. In the process of all my work with him, I ultimately build a system.

We have prepared several clips. The first episode shows a classic situation: in any discussion it is difficult for children, and for adults too, to grasp the essence of the problem. They jump from one question to another until they settle on the real problem. Besides, they begin to insist on their own opinion, to reinforce their own position.

Here the one who leads the discussion, who manages it, must intervene. We have gathered for a certain amount of time — an hour or two. There are discussions that last a whole day — until the children grow tired. One must see the boundary of fatigue, when they can no longer analyze. Then a break is made. A great deal of time must be devoted to analysis, for this is how a person matures. He explores life in the best, fastest, and most useful way.

Will children want to hold such long discussions?

Of course! They love them. We gather them, announce the question or problem to be discussed, and we do not deviate from it. And if someone does deviate, then there is an observer who stops him and brings him back.

We will see such an example too. We held an hour-long conversation with children, from which we selected several fragments. At the beginning the problem was presented: a conflict between two groups. At the table sat the judges clarifying the incident, among whom was an adult — a lawyer by profession. He led the discussion, and together with him worked two boys and two girls. A little older. We deliberately invited children of similar ages — teenagers from 9 to 12 years old, so that there would be a wide forum. Two groups of girls took turns sitting at the witnesses' table and explaining the situation. And the judges who were conducting the clarification had to help them clarify and understand what exactly had happened, since at first it was difficult for them to concentrate. Gradually, in the process of clarification, they began to move out of the position of "I was offended" or "I got angry" and to speak about the motives of their behavior. In some places it worked out better, in others worse; let us watch and continue the discussion. This is how it begins: the stage of confusion.

"First girl: They call us names, hit us, offend us, deceive us.

Judge: But tell us what happened. Why did they start offending and hitting you?

Second girl: For example, we were riding on the bus, and one of us took a seat, and they started shouting for her to get up. Or we were playing in the room and did not want them to be with us.

Third girl: We did not want them to be with us because an argument started over the roles. We had distributed the roles, and they did not like it, they did not want to play them.

First girl: We already know in advance that if they join, even for a few minutes, something unpleasant will happen. We have already given them the chance to be with us many times. For a day or two it was fine, and then they leave, they cannot fit into our group."

This is the first fragment, in which we saw an attempt to present the problem. It took time to define it clearly enough. This was only possible with the help of the facilitator, who through his questions clarified what was actually bothering them and had caused the problem. Let us watch the second fragment.

"Facilitator: I want to be sure that everyone understands what is being talked about. You distributed the roles, but two girls did not like theirs, even though you thought they were very good roles and wanted to play them yourselves. They tried to play them, but after two minutes they said that it did not suit them.

First girl: They did not say anything, but suddenly they left.

Facilitator: Did you understand that they were not satisfied with the roles?

Second girl: We understood only when the educator came. We changed the roles, but they started shouting at us.

Facilitator: Did they feel that you had taken the role away from them? Before we hear the 'accused,' I want you to think and tell me whether there was a possibility on your part to do this somewhat differently? So that there would be less arguing, fewer clashes, fewer hurt feelings?

First girl: We should have let them choose the role themselves. Then they would have been satisfied.

Third girl: But we did not do anything bad, we politely asked them to leave.

Facilitator: Let us imagine that you are sitting in my place, and the conversation is not about you but about someone else — kids from another school. What would you advise them?

Second girl: I would advise these two girls…

Facilitator: Not them, but you!

Second girl: Us?!

Facilitator: Think about it and then we will talk."

This is the second fragment. How difficult it is to change one's opinion! They spoke about this afterward; we will watch it later. But before that, can you say anything about it?

I would, of course, change this whole process. First of all, the facilitator is a lawyer. But he turns the discussion into a trial — all that is missing are the attributes inherent to a trial.

But parents and teachers in most cases do the same thing: not as professionally as he does, but they look for someone to blame.

Why are the groups of children sitting facing each other? Why does the facilitator sit in the middle, as if separating the disputants? Why must the others be silent while some are speaking? They must be given the full opportunity to speak out, and then the discussion should begin! But first the anger must be gotten rid of.

To pour out the anger in the circle? This could go on for hours! The release of anger takes a great deal of time. Such conversations only tire people out and lead nowhere. When you let children speak out, they entrench themselves in their position and try to convince others that they are right. Then they do not hear anyone.

In that case, one could suggest that they express their feelings in writing.

We made such a preparation, and they wrote down what they wanted to say. In the second half of the conversation we changed the order and gathered everyone into a circle. We suggested that they disconnect from their roles and look at how they had behaved.

If a situation is difficult to perceive, then the order of the discussion must be different. After all, the main problem is that they cannot look at themselves from the outside and judge impartially.

Correct. But this is very difficult to do even for adults! After all, we are speaking about reflection — the ability to look at oneself from the outside.

Of course. Therefore, if we want to bring them to a minimal objectivity — say, 10% objectivity out of the entirely egoistic view — then it must be done differently, in the form of a theatrical performance. The two groups of girls — the "accused" and the "accusers" — become spectators, and their roles are played by "actors."

You are, as it were, changing the roles that existed in reality?

No, I am not changing the roles between them. It is just that now they are looking from the outside at what happened to them — it is presented to them from the stage. This frees them from their own "I": this is no longer me, this does not pertain to me. Let us try to do it this way next time.

And what if we show them how they look when the animal awakens in them? Is that good or not? After all, that is precisely what offends my "I."

That is already a separate lesson, the next stage of upbringing. First to record several such situations on video, and then to show them.

I want to understand: there are two accused…

There are no accused! Everyone must be in the circle. "Accused" means that someone has already defined him as something negative and placed him in a corner. There is no corner, there is a circle — they are sitting incorrectly. And the walls are somehow gloomy, as if in a cellar… This is the study of life, and there is nothing more important. Everything else is secondary. If here we do not give a person the opportunity to speak out, to make a choice, to analyze and understand, then our upbringing is worth nothing.

The very possibility of engaging in this is wonderful. And when you begin to try, you see how difficult it is.

It would be good to engage in such discussions from morning until evening and to sit together in a circle — not one by one and not with a lawyer.

The discussion should be led by a psychologist. Getting ahead of myself, I will say that in the continuation of the discussion the situation changed completely. The kids who spoke from the witnesses' place spoke in a completely different way, especially those who were supposedly the "accused." They were already looking at the situation from the outside.

That is, they already had experience.

It turned out very well.

And when you hear yourself from the outside, it looks completely different from what you had thought.

This is precisely what we will see in the next conversation. A very interesting turn of events awaits us.