I think there is an interesting paradox that you touch on here. It is that the parents are not wrong that influence exists. They are wrong about which layer the influence operates on.
Kids playing house is part of a developmental feedback system.
The mistake is collapsing that whole process into the visible symbol: role played = identity formed.
That version is simpler because it gives the parent something legible to control. You can intervene on the symbol. You can stop the boy from playing “mother.” But you cannot easily intervene on the deeper developmental process that they are reading.
So the parent tries to protect the child from influence by controlling the symbol, but the symbolic flexibility is part of the development. They interrupt the very process they think they are protecting.
As always you are incredibly perceptive. I wasn't sure anyone would get that. It took my most of my adulthood to process that story and eventually be able to understand the nuance and paradox.
I think there is an interesting paradox that you touch on here. It is that the parents are not wrong that influence exists. They are wrong about which layer the influence operates on.
Kids playing house is part of a developmental feedback system.
The mistake is collapsing that whole process into the visible symbol: role played = identity formed.
That version is simpler because it gives the parent something legible to control. You can intervene on the symbol. You can stop the boy from playing “mother.” But you cannot easily intervene on the deeper developmental process that they are reading.
So the parent tries to protect the child from influence by controlling the symbol, but the symbolic flexibility is part of the development. They interrupt the very process they think they are protecting.
As always you are incredibly perceptive. I wasn't sure anyone would get that. It took my most of my adulthood to process that story and eventually be able to understand the nuance and paradox.