Define Rules For Sibling Arguments
Question: Our three children, ages 15, 13, and 11, constantly bicker with one another. We’ve tried talking to them about how important it is to have good relationships with one’s siblings. We’ve tried mediating. We’ve tried punishing. Nothing works. They tell us they don’t like one another, which absolutely breaks our hearts. Do you have any ideas?
Answer Yes, but first, the two of you need to come to grips with the realities of sibling relationships. You need to understand that unlike spouses and friends, siblings do not choose one another. Rather, they are thrown together by “accidents” of birth. Conflict between siblings, therefore, is to be expected. Furthermore, siblings are more likely to have conflict than spouses, and considerably more so than friends, given that friends don’t usually live together. The long and short of all this is you can’t mandate that siblings have affection for one another. The good news is, most siblings put their childhood differences aside as adults and become as close as their personalities will allow.
Whereas parents can’t stop siblings from having conflict, they can take steps to effectively contain the level of conflict. Accomplishing this simply requires that you create and enforce a “No Disturbing the Peace” rule: The children can have conflict, but they must (a) keep it down, (b) not engage in physical aggression of any kind toward one another, and (c) not tattle on one another, even in instances of physical aggression.
On any given day, the first time the rule is broken by any two of the kids (or all three simultaneously), you simply identify the infraction and issue a warning, as in: “You aren’t keeping it down, so I’m giving you your warning for the day.” It’s extremely important that you make no attempt to find out what happened or what they’re arguing about. Nor should you make any effort to mediate the conflict. Just issue the warning and walk away.
If, on that same day, they subsequently violate the rule a second time, you “lower the boom,” which means you confine them to their respective rooms for the remainder of the day. Now, here’s the rub: You confine all three of them to their rooms, regardless of who was involved in the second incident. (A child who was not home when the second incident occurred begins his or her confinement immediately upon returning home.) The children will, of course, protest that this “all or none” policy isn’t fair, in which case you should simply say, “We’re glad you think so. Actually, we’re not trying to be fair. Perhaps, just perhaps, when you guys begin to show respect for our need to have a peaceful home and family, we will be more fair, whatever that means. In the meantime, you will only waste your time if you complain about it.”
This very “unfair” policy forces the children to resolve their conflicts quietly, without force or histrionics. If they don’t, they all pay an equal penalty. There are no villains or victims, just three children in the same boat. And they must learn to paddle this boat cooperatively if they are to stay out of hot water.
Any adults out there in Reader Land who think this is scandalously unjust should consider two things: First, all three siblings have been equally involved in getting the snowball of sibling conflict rolling downhill; therefore, it is entirely just to hold all three responsible for its effect on the family, regardless of who is involved in any given incident. Second, over time, each of the three children will experience the inequity of this policy equally.
What I’m recommending is nothing new. Remember how effective it was when a teacher kept the whole class after school because of the misbehavior of one or two students? It worked, didn’t it? xxxx