Rules vs. Principles

By Danielle Conger

Recently, while attending the 3^rd Annual Live and Learn Conference, I was fortunate enough to attend an ongoing seminar by Ben Lovejoy on Rules versus Principles. I had heard about a previous year’s presentation by Ben and Sandra Dodd, which got me thinking about this difference. Posted on an online discussion group, the rules/principles debate seemed a deceptively simple semantic argument, but it sunk deep in my brain and refused to let go.

Prior to this initial discussion, I hadn’t thought much about the difference between rules and principles, nor would I have thought it to be a terribly important distinction if pressed. Not that is, until I really began to hash it out in my own mind and found it to be absolutely fundamental to self-directed learning.

If organic learning means believing in a child's innate ability and motivation to learn, offering her the freedom in which to learn and respecting the learning in every moment and method, then organic learning itself is dependent upon a freedom that must extend beyond the mere educational box of schooling. Freedom cannot be compartmentalized--allowed here, unaccepted there--if it is to flourish. Instead, it must be nourished, fed, encouraged and allowed to expand, so it may fully form the individuals that our children are and choose to become.

Freedom, however, does not mean a free-for-all. It does not mean freedom to destroy, hurt, abuse, manipulate or coerce others--a common misconception when first encountering the ideas of self-directed learning or non-coercive parenting. Freedom has both natural and ethical limits. The key is to find those limits rather than imposing arbitrary or coercive ones in their stead. But, how exactly do we find those natural or ethical limits? That's where an exploration of rules vs. principles becomes particularly useful.

Rules are all about authority, hierarchy, rigidity and absolutes. They tend to be top down, reinforcing a power structure that relies upon a "might makes right" mentality--"because I say so," "I'm the parent, that's why," "That's just the way it goes." Rules exist outside the person to whom they are applied. They are externally enforced and prohibit the possibility of question, adaptation or exception.

Rules, laws, regulations, commandments all inherently imply punishment for transgression and silence for challenge. Break a rule, get grounded or spanked. Break a law, get a ticket or go to jail, and so on. More importantly, rules are inherently paradoxical because they are simultaneously absolute and arbitrary.

A parent both chooses the rules and chooses who must follow and when. A dictator makes rules that he is above. Even in a democracy, rules require interpretation, include loopholes and remain inconsistently and opportunely enforced. American jails, for instance, are filled with the racial inconsistencies in the application of American law. Rules and laws operate on the myth of universality while reality consistently reveals the arbitrary nature of their application.

Think about a household rule like “No eating in the bedroom” for instance. A decree like this is phrased as an absolute when it is far more likely an arbitrary restriction that will get thrown out the moment a parent wants ice cream during E.R. or the family wants to share a bowl of popcorn while snuggling in bed and watching a movie. As a rule, “No eating in the bedroom” comes across as an arbitrary absolute—a paradox!

Children sense this internal contradiction and resist its inherent injustice. Of course, countless parenting books hail "consistency" as the key to enforcing rules successfully. In this example, then, a parent would forfeit the family fun of popcorn and a movie and the pleasure of ice cream in her own bed for the sake of consistency. Or worse, she would become sneaky, like so many parents, and enjoy the coveted treat only after the children have been sent to bed, none the wiser. Either way, something is sacrificed: the joy of family bonding or the parent's own ethical standing.

Principles, on the other hand, are about autonomy, mindful living, freedom and flexibility. Principles, rather than being absolute and automatic, demand careful thought and inquiry both to establish and apply. They represent a consensus about rightness, fairness and equity that once agreed upon provide an internal measure of conduct.

If after careful consideration we adopt a principle, we internalize it and thoughtfully apply it to countless situations throughout our life. There is no external threat demanding our adherence, only our own internal sense of right and wrong. Living by principles offers our children both the model of an ethical life and the opportunity to grow as ethical and just individuals within themselves.

Principles can also help simplify our lives. A single sound principle, fully explored and sincerely adopted, alleviates the need for a multitude of rules. Rules proliferate because they are isolated and specific while principles are few, simple and basic, cutting to the ethical origin or foundation of living in the world.

For instance, if we live by the simple principle "cause no harm," we eliminate the need for countless rigid household rules and invite, instead, creative thinking and problem solving. Suppose that a child wants to draw on the walls. If the rule is "no drawing on the walls," the child's choices are severely limited: draw on the wall and get in trouble, or sacrifice her own creative impulse. Or, perhaps a creative child will quickly decide that although walls are off limits, furniture, computer monitors or appliances may not be. One rule rapidly necessitates multiple rules to cover all the possibilities a clever child might imagine.

If the principle is "do no harm," however, that same creative child has a number of different choices, guided by a single principle and limited only by her own imaginative problem solving. Choosing to live by principles, the whole family is able to help brainstorm for creative solutions to her driving desire to draw on a grand scale.

Principle-driven parents might explain that they don’t want paint ruined and the associated expense or labor of repainting. They might offer to put up a chalkboard, poster board, or craft paper, test and find truly washable crayons, donate less-conspicuous wall space to creative expression like a bedroom, closet or basement wall. Throughout this problem solving process, parents act as their children's partners rather than punishers, fostering peace and trust in the relationship and leaving the child’s dreams and creativity intact.

Principles apply to all, not just a few and not just those low down on the hierarchical ladder because they are based on careful thought and consent. As Ben Lovejoy pointed out in his seminar, rules are something to get around by clever thinking whereas principles are guidelines for life. Sound principles, unlike rules, apply to everyone regardless of age or position because they represent the foundation of what's right and fair for all. They demand thought and enable the flexibility necessary to ensure freedom for all family members, not just those “in charge.”

For parents, putting principles in place of rules provides the opportunity to model mindful living, problem solving and respect for others. Principles enable us to forge strong and thoughtful connections with our children as partners rather than adversaries, and they provide the ethical foundation for living mindfully in the world rather than in isolation, coercion or compliance.

Home Back to Articles