An only child is naturally at a disadvantage in his home, because he is an only child. He lacks the lessons which playmates there would give him; the impulses and inspirations which he would receive from their fellowship; the demands on his better nature, and the calls on his self-control and self-denial, which would come from their requirements. Parents who have but one child ought to see to it that the lack in this regard is, in a measure, supplied by the companionships of children from other homes. It is, indeed, a mistake for any parent to attempt the training of his child without the help of child companionships. No child can be so inspiringly and symmetrically trained without, as with, these. Even where there are half a dozen or more children in one family, there is still a need of outside companions for each child, of the same age and wants of that child; for it is not possible for any person to bring himself into the same relations with a child as can be entered into by a child of his own years and requirements.
Because a child’s companionships are so influential, it is the more important that they be closely watched and carefully guided by the child’s parents. In choosing a neighborhood—for a residence or for a summer vacation; in choosing a week-day school; in choosing a Sunday-school, where a choice is open to the parents, the companionships thus secured to their child ought to have prominence in the minds of the parents. And when the neighborhood, and week-day school, and Sunday-school, are finally fixed upon, the responsibility is still upon the parent to see to it that the best available companionships there are cultivated, and the most undesirable ones are shunned, by the child. Neglect or carelessness at this point may be a means of harm to the child for his lifetime. Attention just here may do more for him than were possible through any other agency.
It is a parent’s duty to know who are his child’s companions, and to know the character, and course of conduct, and influence upon his child, of every one of those companions separately. Here is where a parent’s chief work is called for in the matter of guiding and controlling his child’s companionships. A parent must have his child’s sympathy, in order to gain this knowledge; and a parent must give his sympathy to his child, in order to be able to use this knowledge wisely. It may be necessary to keep an open house for these companions, and an open heart and hand to them personally, as it surely is necessary to keep an open ear to the child’s confidences concerning their sayings and doings, if the parent would know all about them that he needs to know. There are parents who do all this for and with their children, as an effective means of guiding those children in their companionships. It is a pity that there are net more who are willing to do it, in view of all that it may be a means of accomplishing for children.
Knowing his child’s companionships, a parent ought to encourage such of them as are worthiest, and discourage such as he cannot approve. He ought to help his child to see the advantages of the one class and the disadvantages of the other, and to regulate his social intimacies according to the standards thus set before him. It will not do for a parent to allow matters in this line to take their own course, and to accept all companionships for his child just as they may come to him. He must feel responsible for his child’s wise selection, from among the number of proffered companions, of those who are to be retained while others are dropped or avoided. And it devolves upon a parent to see to it that his child’s companionships are of growing value to his companions as well as to himself; that his child’s influence over his very playfellows is for their good, while his good is promoted by their association with him. A child’s companionships, like those of older persons, ought to be of advantage to both parties alike, through the very purpose of making them so.
Recognizing the desirableness and importance of companionships for his child, securing the best that are available, learning fully their characteristics and tendencies, aiding in their sifting, and seeking in their steady uplifting, a parent can do effective service in the way of guiding his child in and through that child’s companionships. To neglect this agency of a child’s training, would be to endanger his entire career in life, whatever else were done in his behalf.
XXI.
NEVER PUNISH A CHILD IN ANGER.
Anger is not always wrong. A parent may be angry without sin. And, as a matter of fact, most parents do get angry, whether they ought to or not. Children are sometimes very provoking, and parents are sometimes very much provoked. It is not always wrong to punish a child. A child may need punishing, and it may be a parent’s duty to punish a child accordingly. But it is always wrong for a parent to punish a child in anger; and however great may be the need of a child’s punishing, a parent ought never to administer punishment to a child while angry.
Here is a rule which, strictly speaking, knows no exception; yet, as a matter of fact, probably nine-tenths of all the punishing of children that is done by parents in this world is done in anger. And this is one of the wrongs suffered by children through the wrong-doing of their parents.