What if the process of social development weren’t so focused on kids making friends and instead on kids finding people? There are all kinds of relationships and experiences that develop social skills, so why put all the eggs in the friends basket, particularly given how narrowly the word gets defined?  What if it were just as important to find mentors, coaches, people to look up to, people to be looked up to by, treasured relatives or neighbors or acquaintances that have a specific way in which they relate to you uniquely?

These might be people who aren’t necessarily your friends, but call you to grow and change as a social being, in different ways.  And there’d be less pressure to Have Lots of Friends.  It wouldn’t mean you didn’t have to find friends, there’d just be less pressure to.  There’d be less emphasis on this one kind of relationship you had to have.  You’d just be out there in the world interacting with people, finding the ones who offered something and to whom you had something to offer.  They might not be the same age, might not be anyone you want to spend a lot of time on the phone with, might not share any interests, might live far away, so you might say you didn’t have a lot of friends, but there you’d be, developing as a social being in spite of it.

I set up a table at the local farmers market today, to invite people to talk about building kids’ lives around who they already are, as an alternative to struggling in programs where they just don’t fit.  I talked to parents, grandparents, kids, former teachers, a physician, and a speech therapist.  I got the impression that people are interested in talking about issues of learning and pathfinding in new ways.

Just before I left, a small group of young adults who’d been working nearby came over to find out what I was up to.  I told them a little about how I work with kids - looking for ways to make it possible for their lives to start right away, not later, after they’ve finished getting ready for life.  Their participation in the conversation was intent and intense, which makes sense.  They’re the ones who are at the place in their lives where these questions and issues are at the forefront whether they want them there or not.

They’re busy figuring out what to do next:  Should they Just Get a Job?  Should they commit to another chunk of education (either because they want what it will offer or because it will mean they don’t have to decide what to do for another couple of years)?  Should they venture down some other less beaten path?

If you know a young person who’s facing this kind of inquiry, I invite you to remember what a gift it can be (particularly from parents, other relatives and trusted adults) to have the chance to talk through such large-looming options without the tangle of judgment and opinion that is so easy to include.  It’s not easy to do, but it’s worth the effort.

And further, it’s worth figuring out how to make sure that other youngers don’t have to wait until they’re out on their own to work through some of the questions of where they might fit, belong, thrive.

* I haven’t mentioned the Teenage Liberation Handbook lately - for anyone who’s interested in pathfinding, and looking for resources to support it at any age, it’s a great reference. And another for the older young folk among us - Jenny Blake’s Life After College blog (helpful with or without college - a reminder that it doesn’t all just fall into place for anyone upon diploma receipt; there’s always figuring and discerning to do).

Every week I meet with parents who are committed to offering their children a level of success and vigor that takes considerable innovation, determination, patience.  I’m always inspired by their willingness to proceed without a map, when it’s so much easier to just follow a well-trodden path.

It’s been a lot of years since I first read Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences; I’ve started reading again from the beginning, with Frames of Mind (1983).  It amazes me that such a compelling argument for widening the scope of what we consider worth recognizing, acknowledging, developing in young people can have brought us such a short distance from where we were when he first published this book.  If you haven’t read it, especially if you’ve got a kid who doesn’t seem compatible with the traditional school offerings of our time, I’d recommend you have a look.

It’s early August, and I’ve started hearing from parents as they gear up for another school year (whether or not their kids will be in school).

When September starts to loom, if it hasn’t been going well (whatever it might be; math last year, getting promised projects done in July, reading, finding the apprenticeship with the right person), it can suddenly feel like time to do something, and quick.

And the doing something can look lots of different ways, and can yield results that are or aren’t what you’re actually after.

Here’s my early August invitation.  Before you take action, get clear with yourself about the what is really important to you when it comes to your kids.  What really matters?  What really matters now, and what will likely matter later?  How do you want things to turn out?

That simple inquiry can profoundly affect the choices you make about what actions to take and what actions to not take.  Actions that are in synch with your actual commitments and values are more likely to move things in the direction you want them to move.

I’m trying to create a practice of not writing about books until I finish reading them, but I’m not particularly patient when it comes to this sort of thing, so I thought I’d just mention that I’m reading The Genius in All of Us, by David Shenk, in case it sounds interesting to anyone else.  So far, I’m learning a lot about how we came to think the way we do about intelligence and what’s possible for humans in general.  Probably compelling reading for anyone with an interest in how and what kids (specific ones or all of them) do in the world. Let me know what you think.

I’m wondering if, for every thing a person is in favor of, it’s necessary to be against something else, or if it’s possible to be for something without a corresponding against.

I’d like to think it’s possible, because it seems as though it would be very good for humanity if that were the case, but as I flip through the various things I’d say I’m in favor of, I’m consistently finding corresponding againsts.

So then I get to thinking about what we do with our againsts.  And our fors, for that matter.  If there does have to be an against for every for, are there ways to manage the againsts that will bring more and less of what we’d like to see around us?