Wi It is a fairly common concern among Montessori parents and critics of the method that Montessori discouraged imaginative play. Willa, whom I deeply respect, rightly questions why this might be in her blog entry. If the purpose of redirecting the child to reality is arbitrary, and based only on the directress’ preferred use of the materials then it is highly inappropriate. Our motivation in teaching should never be to impose our subjective preferences upon the child for no other reason than that we prefer them. But I think Montessori’s opinions about fantasy play stem from deeper observations, whether or not all contemporary Montessorian’s articulate it well.
The authors of Natural Structure address this same issue in their comparison of various early childhood educational methods. They encourage readers to explore the origins of their preconceptions of childhood. "The concept of play and imagination according to Froebel and Montessori is also worth looking at in depth," they believe because Froebel’s theories have become such an integral part of contemporary educational systems. As such they may be influencing our opinions about young children whether we realize it or not. They go on to quote Dorothy Sayers, a classical educator, who describes Froebel’s goal of "breaking down of all distinctions and forms… the flowing together in the universe in one great whole." Indeed many imagination-based early education methods consider themselves to be ‘wholistic’ for this reason. Sayers explains that Montessori tends to be Catholic and latin in origin and "presents a universe with definite and abiding forms, eternally distinct, and distinct from its Creator."
Montessori herself says this: "Adults, even thought they punish or patiently tolerate the errant and unruly actions of these disordered children, actually favor and encourage their fantasies, interpreting them as the creative tendencies of a child’s mind. Froebel invented many of his games to encourage the development of a child’s imagination along these lines… Toys furnish a child with an environment that has no particular goal and , as a consequence, they cannot provide it with any real mental concentration but only illusions…. ‘divided’ children of this sort are regarded, particularly in school, as being highly intelligent, evne if they lack order, neatness, and discipline."
Silvia Dubovoy, PhD has an essay online called Reality, the Most Powerful and Integral Key to the World. She elaborates about the qualities of reality and fantasy and what roles both play in the development of children. She does not forbid fantasy but challenges readers to consider the most optimal timing for introduction of fantasy – generally after the child is well grounded in reality in the second plane of development which roughly occurs between ages 6 and 12. She includes quotes from Plato suggesting we avoid stories that can create the “the presence of falsehood in the soul concerning reality. To be deceived about the truth of things and so to be in ignorance and error and to harbor untruth in the soul is a thing no-one would consent to” (The Republic, Book II). She concludes that "He believed that the stories children hear early in their lives have a profound influence on them."
The belief that runs through her essay is that fantasy play usually occurs in children "who are living stressed lives in constrained environments, full of traffic and pollution; traveling long distances in cars; with working parents that do not have the time to be with them; or with parents that, when they are with their children, besides overprotecting them, are busy with their own complicated life (including the latest cellular telephone or computer). For these children, it is extremely difficult to find work that can engage their attention or concentration." Unfortunately this can be true of homeschoolers as well much as any other segment of the population. Many parents and teachers are dealing with taxing situations that demand their attention. Toys and entertainment are a tempting solution to the time crunch dilemma. She questions whether this is a good longterm option however.
Now at this point it would likely be good to make a distinction. Montessori also believed that fantasy play was more prevalent in children who had developmental difficulties. From my reading I get the impression that while they would redirect the child back to the reality of a situation or a material they wouldn’t and couldn’t force a child to abandon their fantasy play. That the Montessorian would percieve as a natural side effect of the normalization process. It would come on its own. Likewise, the introduction of fantasy stories etc (again in my opinion) would fall under a different category.
Duboyvoy makes a clear distinction between fantasy and imagination as well, a distinction which is critical to the argument and is often blurred among adults today. Imagination is properly defined as Willa did when she says that "..investing of objects with imaginary significance is a rudimentary use of symbolism which is a wonderful human capacity". Dubovoy and other Montessorians would likely concur, though they would tend to believe that this capacity is best developed by ample reality based experiences in the first plane (ages 0-6). This is in line with Sayer’s and other classical educators who consider the early years to be a time of concrete learning followed by the abilty to grasp more abstract thought.
European Montessori School explains it as ‘building imagination with the real’. They assert that ‘imagination can have only a sensorial basis’. They believe that accurate understanding of the qualities of real things is part of the process of ‘collecting from the real world the material for imagination’.
So, lots to chew on here. We have our basic challenge to discern the origin of our opinions on the matter and whether we are in fact basing those opinions upon prevailing cultural norms and/or our personal religious beliefs (and fwiw I would consider the latter to be a justified basis for these opinions regardless of which side of the fence we would then fall upon). Then to make the distinction between early fantasy play and authentic imagination development. Finally to determine how all of this may impact the choices we make in our children’s playthings and pastimes. Ultimately it may be worth considering whether our schedules and use of time is contributing to or hindering our child’s grounding in reality. Hmm. Better go milk a goat on that note!
Starry Sky Journal 
Interesting post Kim. Regarding the Dubovoy article, I am so convicted on this issue because I do see the negative effects of television on little ones, perpetuating fantasy even when the tv is off. I always claim to be against tv but most days it is on for an hour. My oldest did not watch tv until he was three but the others have sat in on shows earlier. I fail miserably in this area. I think that you would have to have no tv at all because it would be difficult to allow the older kids to watch it but the littles to be occupied otherwise.
My children do have a love for work. I have trouble gaining cooperation for the menial jobs, though. Everyone is willing to repair the fence with a hammer and nails but no one want to sweep the floors.
I have encouraged imaginative play, (even in the little ones) for many years, supplying them with costumes, props, etc. for dress up. We also play with little figures, setting up elaborate scenes of army men, doll house figurines or storybook characters, making block houses and forts. I just cannot imagine not playing with toys or no imaginative play before age six.
My kids act out things they hear, mainly from books rather than tv. How would you discourage them from doing so? Would you? I just can’t imagine being able to do it. In theory I could but it would be difficult in reality.
Thanks for addressing this topic. I will look forward to any more thoughts.
I attended a conference awhile back on this topic–it was presented along the lines of creativity vs. imitation. One of the main points that I was able to grasp a little better after the conference was that so much of a child’s “imaginative play” is imitative–acting out characters on TV, etc.
Case in point–I had a student OBSESSED with Disney’s Little Mermaid–she sang the songs and talked about the characters if they were real. One day I asked her if she’d like to look at the Ocean cards I had available. Sure enough, she was learning “real” things about the ocean in no time at all and she was a happier child because of it.
I don’t think it’s a cut and dry issue, after all, who doesn’t enjoy a little escapism now and then? But I think the point is to make available a lot of interesting, grounded in reality types of experiences available to young children.
I have to say, I’ve never heard of or considered these ideas (creative vs imaginative play) before. Could someone point me in the direction of some basic information about these ideas? I know little about Montessori methods, other than they generally like miniature tools and learning games, but I am interested in learning more. I have four children, ages 9 to 6 months, and one in particular (the three year old) almost never plays with toys. Her older sisters by this age were deep into the world of dolls and princesses and would sit for hours with each other or alone (and still do, but with more squabbling). Until now, I felt badly that something was lacking in her imagination, but maybe instead her play-needs are different? Perhaps there is even a link between the older two spending their earlier years in an apartment versus the three year old knowing only the greater freedoms of a house with a large yard? I have been stymied as to why she hasn’t been the same as the older two, but maybe now I can get some ideas on work/play that will interest her. She is very “tactile” and likes being read to, but would rather color on the wall than on paper. She can handle painting with watercolors, but only for about ten or fifteen minutes before getting mischevious and splattering water everywyere, etc. Any ideas would be welcome.
Thanks,
LeeAnn in Lake Stevens, WA