Discipline is a delicate topic within the framework of positive parenting. How can one reconcile the concept of discipline with the principles of kindness and mutual respect that are at the heart of this approach? Discipline is often seen as a means of correcting behavior, but in the context of positive parenting, it must be re-evaluated as a tool for teaching and personal development for the child.

Positive discipline, as advocated by Barbara Coloroso in her book Kids Are Worth It!: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline, does not seek to impose strict authority but rather to guide the child toward responsible and respectful behavior. This does not mean the absence of rules, but rather a different way of presenting and applying them. Coloroso explains that effective discipline involves helping children understand the consequences of their actions while providing them with the tools necessary to make wiser choices in the future. This requires giving explanations, being consistent, and maintaining a trusting relationship with the child.

However, it is important to ask: how far can one go with positive discipline without falling into permissiveness? Conversely, when does positive discipline become too strict, risking the trust established with the child? The challenge for parents is to find a balance that respects the child's autonomy while ensuring a structured and secure environment, as emphasized by Jane Nelsen in Positive Discipline. Moreover, one must be careful not to lose the figure of authority, as too much explanation or discussion can quickly lead to children who constantly expect explanations and challenge anything that does not suit them.

It is also essential to consider the long-term effectiveness of positive discipline. Do children raised within this framework develop genuine self-discipline, or do they require constant supervision to maintain appropriate behaviors? Alfie Kohn explores this question in Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason, where he invites parents to reflect on the impact of their disciplinary approach on their children's autonomy and responsibility. This requires flexibility and a willingness to adapt strategies according to the evolving needs of the child.

Finally, positive discipline should be seen as a partnership between parents and children, where both parties work together to develop respectful and responsible behaviors, as explained by Catherine Gueguen in Pour une enfance heureuse: Repenser l’éducation à la lumière des dernières découvertes sur le cerveau. However, in practice, this is no easy task, and one cannot overlook the power dynamics inherent in the parent-child relationship.

References:

• Coloroso, Barbara. Kids Are Worth It!: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline. HarperCollins, 1995.
• Nelsen, Jane. Positive Discipline. Ballantine Books, 1981.
• Kohn, Alfie. Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason. Atria Books, 2005.
• Markham, Laura. Peaceful Parent, Happy Kids: How to Stop Yelling and Start Connecting. TarcherPerigee, 2012.
• Gueguen, Catherine. Pour une enfance heureuse: Repenser l’éducation à la lumière des dernières découvertes sur le cerveau. Robert Laffont, 2015.
• Montessori, Maria. The Montessori Method. Schocken Books, 1964.

Self-esteem in children influences their well-being, academic performance, and interpersonal relationships. Positive parenting offers several tools to strengthen self-esteem, but it is crucial to understand how these tools work and to what extent they are effective.

One of the most commonly used tools is positive reinforcement. According to Carol Dweck, author of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, it is more beneficial to praise efforts rather than results. This approach helps children develop a growth mindset, where challenges are seen as learning opportunities rather than threats or potential punishments. However, it is essential to ask whether this praise is genuine and well-balanced, as excessive flattery can have the opposite effect, creating a dependence on external validation.

Other tools include encouraging autonomy and recognizing personal achievements. For example, allowing a child to make age-appropriate decisions or participate in family tasks can enhance their sense of competence and usefulness. However, it is equally important to consider the following question: Do these practices genuinely strengthen the child's self-esteem, or do they create pressure to meet success standards defined by the parents?

Positive parenting tools must be used thoughtfully and tailored to the individual needs of each child. It is always important to reflect and be attentive to signs of stress or frustration in the child and be ready to adjust the approach accordingly. The goal is to strengthen the child's self-esteem while respecting their pace and unique personality.

References:

• Dweck, Carol S. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House, 2006.
• Nelsen, Jane. Positive Discipline. Ballantine Books, 1981.
• Grolnick, Wendy S. The Psychology of Parental Control: How Well-Meant Parenting Backfires. Psychology Press, 2002.
• Filliozat, Isabelle. Au cœur des émotions de l'enfant. Marabout, 2003.

Positive parenting has gained popularity in recent years as a compassionate and respectful approach to raising children. It advocates for active listening, empathy, and the reinforcement of positive behaviors while rejecting harsh punishments and authoritarian methods. Although this approach seems like an ideal to aspire to for many parents, it raises critical questions about its practical application and its actual effects on children and parents. Despite these criticisms, positive parenting also offers promising perspectives for rethinking the way we educate children.

The Promises of Positive Parenting

Positive parenting is based on the idea that children, like all human beings, need respect, recognition, and support to thrive fully. Instead of focusing on mistakes and undesirable behaviors, this approach encourages parents to value successes and reinforce positive attitudes. The goal is to create an environment where the child feels safe, loved, and capable of growing with confidence in themselves.

Active listening, empathy, and non-violent communication are at the core of this approach. By carefully listening to the needs and emotions of the child, parents can better understand the reasons behind certain behaviors and respond appropriately and constructively. This approach also aims to strengthen the parent-child bond, foster a climate of trust, and encourage autonomy and responsibility. For example, rather than punishing a child for a wrongful act, positive parenting encourages exploring the underlying causes of the act through dialogue and encouragement for personal development.

This approach is also founded on the belief that severe punishments can have long-term negative effects, such as anxiety, rebellion, or low self-esteem.

The Challenges of Implementation

Despite its principles of equality and positivity, positive parenting is not without challenges, which parents often face. One of the main challenges lies in its practical application. Indeed, applying the principles of positive parenting in daily life is not always easy. It requires great patience, constant emotional availability, and sometimes, a re-evaluation of the parents' own automatic responses and educational methods, often inherited from previous generations.

Moreover, positive parenting can sometimes be perceived as unrealistic or overly idealistic. With parents often pressed for time, juggling work, commuting, domestic responsibilities, and social life, it can be challenging to always remain calm and understanding when faced with a child in the middle of a tantrum. The risk is then to feel guilty when failing to apply these principles to the letter, creating a sense of failure in parents who genuinely aspire to do well.

Another significant concern relates to the potential impact on children. Many child development professionals and psychologists fear that the absence of strict discipline may lead to a lack of clear boundaries for the child or even make them incapable of handling frustrations and the demands of the outside world. Although these fears are often unfounded, they raise the question of finding the right balance between kindness and authority. It is inevitable to confront rules and learn to accept them and understand the consequences of transgressions in a society governed by laws and social justice, to learn how to live well together. Many draw a connection between positive parenting and the creation of "little kings," although scientific studies on the subject, which you can find in another article, do not support this.

Towards Realistic Positive Parenting

Despite these challenges, positive parenting offers interesting avenues for rethinking education. Rather than viewing this approach as a rigid set of rules, it can be constructive to adopt it as a flexible framework, adaptable to the realities and constraints of each family. As always, it is a matter of balance, as context cannot be ignored. Some children are more "independent," "rebellious," or "difficult" than others.

Realistic positive parenting does not seek perfection but rather the continuous improvement of family relationships. Parents are human, with their own limitations, and mistakes are an inherent part of the educational process. What matters is moving in the right direction, cultivating listening, empathy, and respect, while being forgiving of oneself and allowing room for not always meeting one's own expectations.

Moreover, this approach can be complemented by other educational methods, creating a balance between kindness and firmness, autonomy and structure. By combining the tools of positive parenting with an approach that does not neglect rules and boundaries, it is possible to create a family environment that is both warm and structured, where the child can thrive while learning to respect others and live in society.

Positive parenting, as we know it today, has its roots in several psychological and educational currents from the 20th century. This concept is heavily influenced by the works of psychologists like Alfred Adler and Rudolf Dreikurs, who emphasized the importance of encouragement, mutual respect, and cooperation in child-rearing. Their approach, known as "positive discipline," was developed in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s. Adler and Dreikurs proposed an alternative to authoritarian educational methods, focusing on fostering responsibility and autonomy in children while maintaining a clear and respectful framework.

In Europe, this approach was popularized by educators like Maria Montessori, whose educational philosophy is based on the idea that children should be treated with respect and encouraged to explore and learn at their own pace. Montessori's theories, combined with the works of Jean Piaget and Carl Rogers, contributed to the spread of the idea that empathy, active listening, and recognizing a child’s emotions are crucial for their development.

Positive parenting was also influenced by the children's rights movement, which gained momentum after World War II, with growing recognition that children have specific rights and must be protected from all forms of violence, including psychological violence. This movement was reinforced by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989, which emphasized children's right to be raised in a loving environment that respects their dignity.

Today, positive parenting is a global concept, adapted and promoted in many countries around the world, thanks to the influence of contemporary psychologists such as Jane Nelsen, who popularized positive discipline in the United States, and Catherine Gueguen, a French pediatrician who explored the effects of kindness on children’s brains. These authors, along with many other voices in the field of child psychology, continue to refine and disseminate the principles of positive parenting, adapting them to modern realities.

References

1. Jane Nelsen (1981). Positive Discipline. New York: Ballantine Books.
2. Alfred Adler (1930). The Science of Living. New York: Allen & Unwin.
3. Rudolf Dreikurs (1964). Children: The Challenge. New York: Dutton.
4. Maria Montessori (1949). The Absorbent Mind. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
5. Catherine Gueguen (2015). Pour une enfance heureuse: Repenser l’éducation à la lumière des dernières découvertes sur le cerveau. Paris: Robert Laffont.
6. UNICEF (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The concept of "becoming yourself" has become an omnipresent mantra in modern culture, especially in the realms of personal development and pop psychology. It is presented as an essential quest for self-knowledge, as well as a path toward authenticity and personal fulfillment. But what does "becoming yourself" really mean? What is its significance? Is it a linear process, a fixed destination, or simply a comforting illusion?

This concept deserves to be critically explored.

The Quest for Authenticity: Myth or Reality?

The idea of becoming yourself is based on the assumption that there exists an "authentic" and deep self, a true essence hidden beneath the layers of our daily existence, shaped by society, the expectations of others, and our own fears. It’s as if you’re wearing a mask in society without even realizing it.

This notion is appealing, not only because it suggests you’re not responsible for supposedly missing out on this self for years, but also because it promises the possibility of freeing yourself from external constraints to reach a form of inner purity. You’re not responsible for missing out on it because, let’s be clear, this narrative isn’t aimed at teenagers!

But is this quest for authenticity really justified? Can we truly unearth a "true" self, unchanging, untouched by the outside world? A self that doesn’t evolve?

Existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre argue that existence precedes essence. In other words, we are not born with a fixed identity; we build it through our choices and actions. From this perspective, becoming yourself wouldn’t be about rediscovering a lost essence but rather about creating your own identity at every moment. This raises an important question: if our "self" is constantly evolving, how can we talk about "becoming yourself" as a final destination?

I often address this issue, particularly when discussing personality-related challenges in making career choices: Do we always present the same image of ourselves to family, colleagues, or strangers we’ve just met? Of course not—many people don’t behave identically in different contexts, and most are fully aware of this.

Isn’t authenticity simply behaving spontaneously? Isn’t that the only real indicator for ourselves? After all, is anyone else truly capable of determining whether we are acting spontaneously?

The "Self" as a Social Construct

It is also crucial to recognize that our identity is, to a large extent, a social construct. Our values, beliefs, and even our desires are shaped by our upbringing, our experiences, and the environment in which we grow up. Thus, the quest for the "self" might be less about discovery and more about fabrication, influenced by cultural norms, family expectations, and the media. This realization could transform the quest for self into a critical reflection on the external influences that shape us, rather than a solitary inward search. And there’s plenty to reflect on…

In this context, becoming yourself could involve distancing yourself from these influences, cultivating the ability to question and consciously select them, and perhaps challenging beliefs as one of the tools, rather than passively absorbing them.

The Fluidity of the "Self"

Another fundamental aspect to consider, which I’ve introduced, is the fluidity of the "self." Contrary to the idea of an immutable core, our identity is dynamic and ever-changing. Every experience, every interaction, every influence alters our thoughts, norms, and habits. Think about how much your life partner might have changed you, for example. Therefore, "becoming yourself" should certainly be interpreted not as an endpoint but as a continuous process, a perpetual journey without a fixed destination. This aligns with the ideas of some contemporary psychologists who view identity as a flow rather than a stable entity.

In this view, seeking to become yourself would mean accepting this fluidity, this impermanence, and freeing yourself from the idea that there is a perfect and final version of ourselves to be attained. The "self" then becomes a work in constant evolution, where the focus is not on reaching a definitive definition, but on remaining open to transformation and adaptation.

The Danger of the Injunction to "Become Yourself"

Finally, it is important to question the injunction to "become yourself" as it is often presented in personal development. This injunction can create immense pressure, leading individuals to believe they must conform to a certain image of authenticity or personal success. This can lead to a form of inner tyranny, where one constantly feels inadequate, never truly "oneself."

Moreover, this quest can distract from the true ethical and existential questions that should guide our lives. Instead of asking, "Who am I really?", it might be more relevant to ask, "What can I do to live a good and just life?" and "What would be the effects, both for me and for those around me?" This perspective shifts the effort of constructing an identity toward action and engagement in the world.

Ah, personal development, that warm and welcoming space where everyone transforms into a devoted mentor, ready to help you achieve wisdom, and why not, the best version of yourself. One could almost believe that the entire world has suddenly agreed on one thing: it's high time to help you get there! But behind this façade of benevolence, could there be a hint of ironic contradiction, or perhaps a touch of subtly disguised manipulation?

The paradise of well-being

Imagine a world where every person you meet genuinely cares about your happiness. If this were the case outside the digital realm, wouldn't it be particularly unsettling? In this universe, life coaches, influencers, and personal development experts proliferate like mushrooms after the rain, each armed with their own mantras and precepts. "Learn resilience," "Eat healthy," "Meditate every morning," and, of course, the ever-present, multi-contextual use of the word "positive."

Even "positive sexuality" has become a concept—how necessary. All these tips and injunctions are offered to you with a disconcerting benevolence, as if your personal fulfillment were the only thing that mattered.

But at its core, what is this flood of well-intentioned advice? Is it truly a selfless quest for your well-being? Or is it a new form of social norm, subtly imposed by those who, under the guise of benevolence, seek to shape your thoughts, habits, and ultimately, your life, in exchange for status and, above all, remuneration that allows them to escape the rat race and work from wherever they want?

After all, there’s no better way to quit your job than by starting your own business in personal services, building an Instagram community around yourself and your universe, with daily advice, courses, and VIP content. Bonus: even without formal training, it’s possible, and you don’t have to worry about Qualiopi certification to sell it. Ultimately, personal development is above all the entrepreneur's paradise.

Benevolent knowledge: a new form of power?

Beneath the smooth surface of personal development lies a subtle game of power. Because yes, by telling you what’s good for you, by explaining how to be happy, to refocus, to find yourself, aren’t the well-being experts, in the most courteous way, exerting a certain form of control? After all, when someone tells you how to think, how to eat, how to act in this or that situation, and how to be, aren’t they subtly imposing a certain worldview?

A worldview filled with biases, beliefs, and preconceived ideas, formalized into commands.

Because you’ll notice that everything is always categorical; you are never presented with the pros and cons, the basis for these tips, the raw data, along with an invitation to question it all and form your own opinion. Encouraging you to think critically isn’t exactly a winning concept; the principle is that followers gather with those who think alike, so this thinking must be guided, it must have its own ideological identity.

"Be yourself," they say, but not too much. You must be yourself... according to their rules. And that’s where the subtlety lies. Personal development doesn’t just give you advice on how to live better according to certain principles; it offers you a neatly packaged version of what life, your life, should be.

The injunction to happiness

This modern chimera that everyone wants to achieve is happiness. For it to become such a widespread obsession, things must really be bad. And if you ever forget that it’s the goal, you’ll be reminded, presented with a neatly circumscribed form of it, and then you’ll have no choice but to compare it with your own considerations or your life, to start evaluating it, possibly leading to some changes. It’s quite a simple mechanism, really.

"You must be happy!" And you must know what it is, be able to identify it, or you might miss it. Happiness has become the ultimate luxury, even though luxury doesn’t lead to it. Personal development then becomes a series of commands: be this, do that, and of course, be spontaneous, be radiant, be natural, but above all, don’t be who you naturally are if it doesn’t fit the standards of happiness or the best version of yourself that is being imposed on you, while letting a nebulous ambiguity linger, because all of this also fits into a context of inclusion, with unique individualities and differences. But what remains for everyone is that you must find your inner path, your true self.

I also recall a time when the trend was: "Don’t change anything, just stay as you are."

Didn’t understand the last paragraph? Neither did I, and yet I wrote it. Perhaps that’s normal—sometimes it’s so contradictory that there’s no logical understanding to be found. The ambiguity and incomprehension of fluctuating concepts are the art of divination; they allow everyone to understand what they want and, above all, to remain in need of these little words that will regularly provide a fragment of reflection on oneself, on life, on relationships, between two episodes of the latest series.

A unique individuality is great, finding oneself, accepting oneself, not changing a thing, becoming better—but isn’t it adaptation that primarily drives evolution? Do all these commands align with adaptation?

Can one truly be oneself when the steps to get there are dictated to you? This obsession with happiness, this imperative of well-being—could it not, ultimately, be a new form of constraint, disguised as benevolent advice?

Yet deep down…

Perhaps true well-being doesn’t lie in this frantic race to become better, happier, more fulfilled? Maybe the key is to accept oneself as one is, with flaws, imperfections, and above all, the inalienable right not to be constantly in pursuit of something better?

Because this consumer society pushes us to always want more, always better, immediately.

All this content can and should make you think, but always use your critical thinking, and take it as avenues to explore further.

And what if, instead of following all this advice, you simply decided not to follow it? What if you chose to live at your own pace, on your own terms, without worrying about what others think is good for you? Perhaps true wisdom lies in this simple rebellion, in this polite but firm refusal to be told how to live, even by those who, of course, want the best for you.

Let’s not forget that the freedom to think, to live as one wishes, and even not to be perfect, is a social and anthropological given.

This syndrome refers to a psychological condition in which a person believes they possess absolute abilities or power, often in an unrealistic or exaggerated manner. This illusion of omnipotence can manifest in various forms, such as an excessive belief in one's ability to control events, other people, or even one's own destiny, without acknowledging the real limits or constraints imposed by reality. It is especially reflected in the individual's perception of the power they have over others, particularly those they are helping or advising.

Characteristics of Omnipotence Syndrome

1. Overestimation of Abilities: A person with this syndrome may believe they are capable of succeeding in everything they undertake, without recognizing the real difficulties or risks involved.
2. Disinhibition of Actions: This belief in one's own omnipotence can lead to risky behaviors or impulsive decision-making, as the person may think they are invulnerable or always able to manage the consequences.
3. Ignorance of Limits: Individuals with this syndrome often have difficulty recognizing their own limits or those of others, which can lead them to impose their will excessively.
4. Disconnection from Reality: Omnipotence syndrome is often associated with a form of denial or distortion of reality, where the person minimizes or ignores obstacles and opposing opinions.

This syndrome can appear in various contexts, particularly among leaders or individuals in positions of power, including those in helping professions. It can also manifest in pathological contexts, such as in certain personality disorders (for example, narcissistic personality disorder) or in manic episodes of bipolar disorder, though this is not the focus of this post.

Omnipotence syndrome can have harmful consequences, both for the individual and for those around them. It can lead to reckless decisions, personal exhaustion, interpersonal conflicts, and in the long term, a loss of self-confidence when real limits inevitably surface. Most importantly, it can result in an excessive influence over the person one is supposed to be helping and supporting.

Personal development, as a discipline aimed at improving quality of life and achieving individual fulfillment, is a rapidly growing field today. As this domain expands, the role of the "knower" becomes central, manifesting through the posture of the one who offers advice and guides others. This posture is intrinsically linked to a dynamic of knowledge and power that affirms, in perceptions, the status of the advisor as an authoritative figure.
When someone gives advice, they implicitly position themselves as an authority or expert in a specific field. This posture is based on the idea that the advisor possesses superior knowledge or deep experience that legitimizes their right to guide others. By offering advice, the individual not only reinforces their image as a competent and informed person but also establishes a power dynamic where the other, the one receiving the advice, is perceived as needing guidance and support. This asymmetry reinforces the perception of the advisor as the "subject supposed to know," a psychoanalytic concept introduced by Lacan, a guide whose words must be followed to achieve a certain level of success or well-being. This dynamic can also feed the advisor’s ego, providing social and personal validation of their competence and status. In this sense, the role of the advisor is not just an act of helping but also an affirmation of self within the social fabric.
When someone positions themselves as a counselor or guide in personal development, they generally do so based on presumed superior knowledge or deep experience. This knowledge, whether academic, experiential, or acquired through specific training, potentially legitimizes the advisor’s right to guide others, without their competence being truly questioned. By offering advice, the knower does not merely share information; they create a power dynamic where they are perceived as a reliable source of wisdom and expertise. This perception is crucial because it establishes an asymmetry between the one who knows and the one who learns, thereby consolidating their status as an "expert."
The one receiving the advice is seen as seeking support, trying to fill a gap or solve a personal problem, searching for certain answers. In this context, the knower presents themselves as a source of solutions. This relationship reinforces the role of the knower, who then becomes an authority to follow, whose ideas carry meaning and can assist in daily life.
The act of giving advice is not neutral; it also reinforces the knower’s self-image. In coaching training, this is referred to as the "syndrome of omnipotence," and I have written an article on this topic to which I refer you for a better understanding, as I cannot delve into it fully each time!
As an advisor, the individual receives social and personal validation of their competence and status. Every piece of advice given, every direction provided, feeds their ego, reinforcing the idea that they are a competent person worthy of being listened to. This validation is twofold: on one hand, it comes from the recognition of others, and on the other, it nurtures the knower’s self-esteem, who sees their role confirmed by the respect and attention of those they guide.
In the context of personal development, the posture of the knower becomes essential not only to establish a relationship of trust with learners but also to ensure the effectiveness of the guidance and the creation of a group united around an ideology and a person. This is the concept of followers. Without this posture of knowledge, the advisor’s credibility is called into question, and the impact of their advice can be greatly diminished. Moreover, in a field where results are often subjective and difficult to measure, the knower must constantly reaffirm their status to maintain their influence and justify their role. This need for legitimacy drives the knower to adopt a posture that is both protective of their authority and essential to the success of their enterprise.
In this sense, the posture of the knower is not only a functional necessity in the context of personal development and its commercial strategy for the survival of their business but also an affirmation of self within the social fabric, essential for maintaining the effectiveness and credibility of their role.