A Gardening Approach to Parenting: Three main takeaways from A. Gopnik's the Gardener and the Carpenter

When my husband and I were thinking about the nature of our homeschooling structure, we both brought two approaches to the table. I brought forward research and disciplines (think Montessori, Waldorf, Traditional, etc.). But Joel - and he’s always had a strength in this area - brought the intuitive side of things. Joel brought up the arts, what the kids should be exposed to, field trips we could plan: the experience.

The first book I wanted to read was John Holt’s, How Children Learn - and maybe that should have been the starting point. But, I had Gopnik’s The Gardener and the Carpenter, half-read, waiting for me on our shelf. Beyond anything I might teach or model to our young children, I wanted to explore that relationship first: the parent - child relationship. 

This won’t be a book summary as much as an opportunity to highlight key takeaways and Gopnik’s main arguments. I found some chapters more interesting than others, as with any book - but my purpose for this post will not be critique. So, let’s start with some quotes:

“A parent is a kind of carpenter, however, the goal is not to produce a particular kind of product, like a chair, but a particular kind of person.” (p. 4)

“When we garden, on the other hand, we create a protected and nurturing space for plants to flourish.” (p. 18)

Gopnik’s main argument is that modern parenting tends to assume the carpenter position, where we think we can follow a guidebook to raise our children and then expect a very specific outcome. While that may have worked in some (or many) cases, Gopnik argues that parents should take on the role of a gardener: focusing on the environment in which our children can grow and thrive, where the outcomes might be a bit more unexpected.

I could stop writing here, as I found this argument straightforward and easy to agree with. But let’s go into the why with my three key takeaways from the book.

Young brains are meant to explore and old brains are made to exploit (p. 35)

In other words, pre-school aged children (as in prior to formal schooling, which is typically at the age of 6 or 7) are all about discovery and exploration. They ask a million “why” questions - my 4-year old certainly does - and they are taking in the world with all five senses. Then a transition begins to occur around 6 or 7 years old. Now, she doesn’t say that this is an overnight switch that happens. But she calls this phase a time of mastery or exploitation - that is, exploitation of existing skills to apply to other areas and to innovate; to master what they’ve learned in the first 6-7 years. 

In this post, I’ll have to refrain from talking about what age children should learn reading and writing. The more research I’ve done, paired with educated content creators, real life conversations, and my own (positive) experience in a traditional education setting - there is a clear tension on children learning these skills in pre-school versus beginning at age 6 or 7. I myself have no problem teaching my 4 year old phonics and writing, as she clearly shows the desire to learn and practice these skills. But perhaps I also find myself taking my foot off the gas when it comes to this area.

What I am taking away from this, however, is that very young children simply need to explore. As each week of homeschooling goes by, I am finding myself thinking about opportunities for my children to be free to explore and ask questions.

Understanding 2 types of learning: Looking and listening

Gopnik dedicates two chapters, one each to learning by looking and learning by listening. She articulates that different cultures around the world might value, or practice, one more than the other - but her perspective is that there is importance and value to both.

Learning by looking has to do with children watching, observing, and imitating. My 2 year old is really good at this - copying everything her bigger sister does. What I find fascinating is that #2 might copy #1, and then later, even in the absence of her sister, she is able to apply that which she imitated in the correct context - i.e. she learned a reaction and also knows how to use that reaction. 

Learning by listening seems to have more to do with storytelling, “why” questions, and how we (in North America) might learn traditionally: being told instructions to follow, or taught theories and concepts, etc. 

Both are important and both have a place. What I’m taking away from this, however, is more the ‘learning by looking’ piece. I rely on language a lot and my 4-year old’s capacity to communicate is quite high. Joel and I even share stories with our friends and family, book-ended with a “they’re always listening.” But they’re always watching too: not only how I interact and behave, but how I prepare a meal, how I brush my teeth or get ready for the day, what I choose for quiet time (is it my phone, or knitting, or book). 

Why play is important

Our kids were at a Montessori school (which includes pre-school) for about a year - it was a school we actually love and would recommend to others. But, I distinctly remember one day asking my 4 year old, “what did you play today!?” And she said, “huh? We don’t play, mama - we work!” [tangential disclaimer - I know that Montessori said that “play is the work of the child” and that play is actually integral to her philosophy, but this moment made me think about my daughter’s perspective of school and play … please don’t come for me, Montessori parents!].

What Gopnik outlines here is that play is important and that parents/teachers/caregivers can sometimes get in the way of natural play. She brings up three types of play: (1) rough and tumble, which keeps the brain plastic, (2) exploratory, which encourages experimentation and sense-making, and (3) pretend, which helps to develop empathy and perception.

What I’m taking away from this is to not get in the way! I will sometimes make suggestions or set up invitations to play, but if I let the kids (and let’s face it, myself) get over that initial hump of boredom, it enables my kids to explore their interests, imagine worlds, and learn through playing. In the weeks I’ve been homeschooling, this was definitely a hurdle in the first bit, but it has been intriguing to see my kids run downstairs and begin playing right away.

—-

The last thing I’ll leave you with is this:

“Even as adults, humans have the potential for the kind of open-ended curiosity, exploration, and play that is so characteristic of children.” (p. 250).

Beyond the environment Joel and I both hope to provide for our children, there is very much the development of me: the parent and educator/facilitator. I have never felt more challenges to unlearn, relearn, and rewire parts of my brain in order to garden my children. I don’t think it’s about doing the exact opposite of what I learned and I don’t think it’s about replicating it either. But instead, what do my children need at this moment and to equip them for the future? Therefore, how must I continue growing and learning, myself, in order to provide that.

What a wonderful challenge it is! I hope you read (or listen to) this book.