Following the [Fallen] Child

On social eaters and cultivating virtue

Photo by John Thomas on Unsplash

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the Montessori mantra “follow the child”. The saying is used in any number of situations - from non-essential tasks like choice of toys and activities to crucial elements of basic human functioning like sleep and food. The gist of it is that children innately know what they need, and our job as adults is to step back, observe, and adjust their environment to facilitate their being able to meet those needs. It’s hard for me to know, without having done deep research into Maria Montessori’s life and work, how much of this application is in line with her intention and how much is a broadening of her philosophy by either researchers or social media. Montessori chose not to trademark or regulate the name or contents of her method, so “Montessori” is often used as the latest crunchy selling point, trying to capitalize on parents’ desires and fears for their children. A lot of things are described as “Montessori”, “Montessori-aligned”, or “Montessori-friendly”. Parents know, if only because it’s in the water, that Montessori = good for my child; vendors know, even if they truly believe that their product will help children, that Montessori-branded items will sell. Thus, the label is applied far beyond merely schools into children’s toys, activities, and lifestyle choices.

But back to following the child. Perhaps its’s a toddler who is interested in putting things inside of other things (the “containment schema”), so the parent chooses to make stacking cups, pouring activities, and baskets available to the child. This, in my mind, is a laudable approach to parenting in general, because it shows that the parent has a personal and intimate knowledge of their child. However, you’ll also see the argument made that children know when they’re tired and how much sleep they need, know when they’re hungry and what foods they need, and the like. The implication (or the explicit conclusion) is that working towards a sleep schedule or “forcing” a child to eat a particular food is an inappropriate way to interact with that child who, if left to his own devices, would sleep when tired, eat nutritious food when offered it, and so forth. In fact, some would go so far as to say that it is precisely the parents’ hyperfocus on a “good” sleep schedule or “good” food that creates issues of poor sleeping, poor nutrition, etc.

Please note: I will focus here on the example of food; however, the same principles can be applied elsewhere in a child’s life.

I have been musing lately on the degree to which we ought to take concupiscence into consideration when “following the child”. While it is true that humans are mammals with specific survival instincts (and I think we would do well to remember this more frequently), it strikes me as naïve to think that animals relying solely on instinct always pursue their best interest - it would take quite the argument to convince me that a dog eating its own waste is somehow for the dog’s own good.

As my elder daughter approaches her second birthday and we spend more and more of our time in social settings with other families, I have had the chance to observe more children of various ages, stages, and personalities. One of the funniest little “quirks” that I’ve noticed in recent months is the phenomenon of social eating (and its twin, jealous eating). My godson, just approaching his first birthday, is the most social eater I’ve ever met. If literally any other human being within his field of vision is eating any food, he too must be eating. It doesn’t matter how much he’s already eaten recently; he has to participate. This behavior isn’t necessarily unique - I see a lot of (well-fed!) children who demand a snack when they see someone else eating. It can be hard to say in any given situation whether this stems from genuine hunger, a desire for community, or simply a jealousy that “they have something I wish I had,” but regardless of the motivation, we regularly see children either (a) asking to eat beyond their physical needs or (b) asking to eat food that is tasty but not nutritious. In my mind, this seems to disprove (or, at least, to prove incomplete) the theory that children, when presented with a nutritious and well-rounded menu of the parents’ choice, will naturally select the variety and quantity of food their body needs, and will not indulge in either too much food generally or too much of one particular type of food. If we accept the truth that the Fall ruptured our relationships with God, others, and self, this makes sense - our ability to know and respect even our own bodily needs is no longer perfect.

In other words, the wide application of “follow the child” seems almost detached from lived experience. It seems to ignore the fact that human beings, from the beginning of our lives, have a tendency to pursue things that are not good for us. As St. Paul says,

For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate… For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Romans 7:15, 18b-19, 21-25

Am I alone in thinking that this reality exists in children too, even children who have not yet reached the age of reason? Certainly, it would be absurd to say that the effects of original sin “kick in” when the child develops the ability to know right from wrong. Rather, the acknowledgement that there is an “age of reason” at all ought to tell us that right and wrong exist outside of ourselves, and that even before we can distinguish between the two, our actions themselves hold moral weight.¹ Thus, I think we can safely assume that “following the child” cannot be the end-all, be-all of parenting wisdom. To be fair, I think that most Montessori educators and parents would agree that following the child does not mean letting the child do whatever they want. There is more nuance than that. But I would take it a step further and say that the child’s desires and instincts are fallen, and thus imperfect. As a result, the child will sometimes pursue things that are not good for him, and our job as parents, relatives, friends, and caregivers is to teach the child to seek and choose the good.

In those early years, it is especially important that parents work to form good and virtuous habits in their children. Precisely because young children cannot reason through right and wrong, the parents’ role is to set the children up for success in their later years by instilling in them the habit of acting rightly. Children can be virtuous (or vicious) before they are rational. To continue with our discussion of food in the life of the child, we need to teach our children to eat and drink in a way that is temperate rather than gluttonous. Of course, we don’t want to cause emotional trauma around food that might lead to an eating disorder down the line. That, I wish, could go without saying. We do, however, need to teach our children to eat colorful foods; to understand why balance is important; to listen to their body for hunger cues but not always to give in to arbitrary whims or cravings.²

I hear a lot said these days along the lines of, “My job as the parent is to present them nutritious food at meal times; their job is to listen to their body and decide what, when, and how much they will eat.” Generally, I agree with this. I think it is a particularly valuable mindset for parents who struggle with anxiety and perfectionism, who might be inclined to fear that they are failing their child if their child doesn’t eat a perfectly balanced diet every day. But, as an extension of this, I sometimes hear, “Never tell your child they’ve eaten too much of something” or “Never deny your children seconds or thirds when they ask.” This is where I feel the principle gets applied too far. If your child can sit and eat an entire carton of blueberries in one sitting, more power to them. But to allow your child to eat, for example, only bread or other carbs all day will lead to constipation. This is an occasion where you know what is best for your child and might have to insist on limiting or diversifying their food intake for the sake of their health, and there is no shame or guilt or sin in that.

Ultimately, Montessori philosophy as it’s widely known today can offer a lot of benefit to Catholic families in its encouragement to parents to get to know their children. Observation requires being present, and presence is a gift to a child that cannot be replaced. Wherever you are able to, by all means give your children opportunities to learn and grow and master skills in their areas of interest. I would even go so far as to advocate that you intentionally give them a place in their first society - your family - by allowing them to take the lead on real tasks in your home, even when they are less efficient than you might desire. The fact is that children are following the adults in their lives to discover, stake out, and grow into their place in society. We cannot endlessly follow one another in circles. In getting to know our children in this unique and personal way, we cannot forget that our children are fallen people in a fallen world. We cannot neglect our duty towards God and our children to give them not only the independence and autonomy and social identity that children crave, but also the virtues and habits that will serve them well for the rest of their lives.³

1. Obviously the moral culpability of a child who has not yet reached the age of reason would differ from that of an adult carrying out the same action. But the fact remains that the action itself carries moral weight.

2. I highly recommend Jennifer Anderson’s work at Kids Eat in Color. She does an excellent job of teaching parents how to balance their children’s diets, introduce new foods for taste- or sensory-sensitive eaters, and use neutral language when discussing food to avoid giving unnecessary value judgements.

3. My husband, who writes over at The Classical Learning Digest, has a LOT of feelings about “independence and autonomy” as a concept from Rousseau that ultimately relies on a false understanding of the human person. I’m choosing not to dive into any of that, but if you’re interested in learning more about that, pop on over to his newsletter and let him know. I’m sure he’d be interested in writing a piece on it.