As a mother, a Living Connection Facilitator and a Nesting Ambassador, reading the New York Times article, “Did American-Style ‘Gentle Parenting’ Spoil French Children?”, sparks deep reactions within me. Not only because it fails to reflect the reality of French thought, but more importantly because it grossly caricatures the relationship with children and parenting itself.
The Myth of the Media Expert
The article gives prominent space to Caroline Goldman, a child psychologist and holder of a PhD in clinical psychopathology, who is highly visible in French media (notably on France Inter and in the general press). While her audience is real, one can legitimately question the reasons for this media overexposure: Is it an editorial choice to maintain a single, dominant narrative about the place of children in society?
Caroline Goldman relies on a classical psychoanalytic tradition. Yet, it is crucial to recall the foundations of this discipline. Sigmund Freud, its founder, built his theory on concepts that are today largely controversial. Modern neurobiology and cognitive science have also disproven his strictly sexual and trauma-based frameworks. Even more troubling, the history of psychoanalysis is marked by “Freud’s renunciation of the seduction theory,” a documented episode where the father of psychoanalysis chose to abandon the idea that his patients’ neuroses stemmed from real sexual traumas suffered in childhood, preferring instead the hypothesis of fantasies. This initial subjectivity should invite great caution regarding the categorical assertions of certain heirs to this thought.
In her public interventions, Ms. Goldman often adopts a judgmental tone, perceived by many as “anti-child” and lacking benevolence toward parents. Her positions, such as her support for restrictive measures for children on public transport, have sparked waves of indignation among parents, while childless individuals sometimes seemed more inclined to approve them. This fracture reveals a society that, by force of segregating children and parents, loses contact with the reality of childhood, becoming increasingly intolerant of noise, space, and the very presence of the youngest among us.
The False Dilemma: Authoritarianism vs. Laxism
The article opposes a traditional vision, where the child must “be seen and not heard” (going as far as isolation in their room during conflicts), to a supposed “positive parenting.” The problem is that the latter is presented in a caricatured manner: a laxism where the child-king rules without limits or framework.
This dichotomy is a trap. Sending a child to self-regulate alone in their room contradicts current neuroscientific knowledge: children need co-regulation with an adult to soothe their nervous system. Forced isolation can be a source of trauma.
Conversely, education without a framework is no more favorable. Children need clear limits to feel safe and understand social expectations. Confusion often reigns between authority (necessary and structuring) and authoritarianism (based on fear and submission).
The Third Way: The Evolved Nest
There is a middle path, coherent with the biological needs of the child and the teachings of contemporary neurosciences: the Evolved Nest model, theorized notably by psychologist Darcia Narvaez.
This model, inspired by hunter-gatherer societies and the way nature has shaped our development for millennia, proposes a vital balance:
- Benevolence and Limits: Offering unconditional love while establishing a secure framework.
- Community and Alloparents: Moving beyond the isolation of the nuclear family to rediscover an extended community, where several benevolent adults participate in education and setting boundaries.
- Freedom and Nature: Allowing children the space to play freely, in multi-age groups, connected to nature.
- Contact and Regulation: Prioritizing positive touch, avoiding screams and violence, and enabling shared emotional regulation.
This is neither laxism nor authoritarianism. It is an approach that gives meaning to authority: one that protects and guides, rather than one that punishes and excludes.
Restoring the Connection
The difficulty modern parents face in “coping,” in avoiding screaming or punishing, does not stem from a lack of personal authority, but from a lack of community. How can one maintain unconditional love and a just framework when exhausted and isolated?
The challenge is not to choose between two media extremes, but to rebuild this community connection, to reintegrate adolescents into the care of the youngest, and to rediscover this collective intelligence of education. It is this path, transmitted by the Evolved Nest, that offers the most coherent response for child development and parental fulfillment. It is time to move beyond old debates to embrace what truly makes sense for the living.