Adolescence, the Good Mother and the Good Father
- Jan 30
- 6 min read
Adolescence is the phase in which a human being redraws their inner map. What once seemed self-evident – parental authority, family values, belonging through adaptation – is now examined, disenchanted, and often provocatively challenged¹.
For parents, this frequently feels like a loss of respect, yet it is a necessary developmental step. Adolescents need to develop their own inner authority, and for this to happen, external authority must symbolically lose power².
This is precisely where two forces collide: dignity and power. Dignity wants to be seen, taken seriously, and remain equal in worth. Power wants to ensure safety, order, and responsibility, and often also serves to regulate parental overload³.
When, in this phase, sentences such as “My house, my rules, my money, my rules” become the guiding principle, the developmental field quickly turns into a power field. Belonging and care become conditional on obedience.
In the short term, calm may arise because fear or dependency take effect. In the long term, however, resistance, secrecy, or inner withdrawal often develop, because autonomy is no longer possible as maturation but only as counter-power⁴.
Bodymind perspective: the good mother function and the good father function
In the Bodymind understanding, “the good mother” and “the good father” do not refer to gender, but to two inner functions that adolescents urgently need during adolescence. This functional distinction is also found in attachment theory and developmental psychology, where care and structure are described as complementary regulatory systems⁵.
The good mother function stands for relational safety. It maintains contact when emotions become stormy. It co-regulates instead of counterattacking, offers closeness without enmeshment, and remains present without shaming. Translated into the body, it stays soft in contact even when tension arises. The implicit message is: your dignity is safe, even when your behavior is difficult⁶.
The good father function stands for framework, reality, and protection. It marks risks, names boundaries, and ensures safety and legality. It can say no without humiliation and enact consequences without revenge. Translated into the body, it remains upright, clear, and grounded. The implicit message is: I take responsibility for safety, and I do not misuse my superiority⁷.
Adolescent conflicts escalate particularly when one of these functions is missing. Without the good mother function, correction is experienced as withdrawal of love. Without the good father function, freedom is experienced as indifference. At that point, the issue is no longer primarily rules or behavior, but attachment security and dignity⁸.
Jesper Juul in the context of these conflicts
Jesper Juul was a Danish family therapist and author, internationally known for his relationship-oriented approach to parenting. He founded the familylab network and coined key concepts such as equal dignity, integrity, authenticity, and personal responsibility⁹.
Juul strongly criticized authoritarian, punishment-based upbringing without becoming permissive. His core concern was that adults remain visible, personal, and responsible without violating the dignity of children and adolescents.
Juul shifts the focus from control to personal authority. He accepts that adults have more power, but rejects using that power as a lever. His often-quoted idea that adolescents need parents as sparring partners who offer maximum resistance with minimal harm precisely describes the balance between good mother and good father functions¹⁰. Resistance is allowed; humiliation is not. Clarity is necessary; threat-based logic destroys relationship.
For Juul, rules are a primitive form of leadership when they are meant to replace relationship. He does not reject safety, but warns against organizing safety through fear. Healthy boundaries emerge where adults stand for their own values, feelings, and limits, rather than justifying power economically or hierarchically¹¹.
Thomas Gordon in the context of these conflicts
Thomas Gordon was an American psychologist and a student of Carl Rogers. He developed the Gordon Model and training programs such as Parent Effectiveness Training, Teacher Effectiveness Training, and Youth Effectiveness Training¹².
His approach is humanistic, clearly structured, and grounded in communication psychology. Gordon rejected punishment and reward as tools of behavior control because they replace cooperation with fear or compliance.
Gordon understands adolescent power struggles as the result of win-lose logic. Where parents must win, adolescents must lose – and vice versa. His answer is the no-lose conflict resolution model. Boundaries are not set through threats, but through I-messages and self-responsibility. Adults name what a behavior does to them, which needs are violated, and invite joint problem solving¹³.
For Gordon, a boundary is healthy only if it is not a hidden punishment. He views many so-called consequences critically because they are often constructed to control behavior. For him, this is power in new clothing. Healthy leadership means influence instead of power and creating conditions in which adolescents act out of consideration, not fear¹⁴.
Boundaries, rules, and consequences for safety, family, and legality
There is one area in which parental leadership is not negotiable: where life, physical integrity, non-violence, and legal consequences are at stake. Developmental and legal psychology show that clear parental responsibility in these areas is a protective factor rather than an obstacle to autonomy¹⁵.
Safety rules work when they are framed as protection, not humiliation. They refer to risk, not character. Consequences become protective actions. If violence occurs in the home, separation happens to prevent injury. If substances are dealt or stored, intervention occurs because the entire system is realistically and legally endangered. If someone is intoxicated in public, they are picked up or external help is used – not as a threat, but as a last protective instance¹⁶.
The difference between a power lever and a healthy boundary lies in attitude and language. A power lever says: I control you because I can. A healthy boundary says: I decide my actions because I am responsible. Juul would speak of personal authority; Gordon of influence instead of power¹⁷.
Becky Kennedy in the context of these conflicts
Becky Kennedy is a U.S. clinical psychologist and founder of the Good Inside platform. She is known for her concept of “sturdy leadership,” which combines clear boundaries with emotional connection and rejects punishment, threats, and shaming¹⁸.
In practice, she clearly differentiates between negotiable everyday rules and non-negotiable areas such as safety, family, and legality. Boundaries are formulated as the adult’s own actions, not as control over the child.
Consequences are predictable protective measures, not punishments. Emotions are held without weakening the boundary. This creates leadership without power struggle and aligns well with research on secure attachment trajectories¹⁹.
A Bodymind proposal: a cohabitation agreement with adolescents
A written cohabitation agreement between parents and adolescents requires a regulated state, basic relational willingness on both sides, and clear acknowledgment of parental responsibility for safety, family, and legality. The agreement is not a coercive instrument, but a jointly understood framework, similar to approaches used in systemic family therapy and mediation²⁰.
Such an agreement creates safety and relational calm because requests, boundaries, rules, and consequences are clarified in advance.
Requests imply real choice.
Boundaries describe what adults themselves will do.
Rules concern shared daily life where choice exists.
Consequences are previously agreed protective measures.
The framework tightens when responsibility is lacking and opens again when it is taken²¹.
The difference between the bad and the good father lies in how power is used. The bad father uses power for control, shaming, and enforced obedience. The good father embodies a loving, natural hierarchy. His authority serves protection and orientation, not ego. Hierarchy thus becomes support rather than oppression, and relationship remains intact despite conflict²².
Footnotes and references
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78–106.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
⁵, J. (1988). A Secure Base. London: Routledge.
Schore, A. N. (2012). The Science of the Art of Psychotherapy. New York: Norton.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in Adulthood. New York: Guilford.
Juul, J. (1997). Your Competent Child. London: Piatkus.
Juul, J. (2001). Aggression: Why It’s Important for You and Your Child. London: Piatkus.
Juul, J. (2012). Family Competence. London: Piatkus.
Gordon, T. (1970). Parent Effectiveness Training. New York: Wyden.
Gordon, T. (2000). The New Peoplemaking. New York: Penguin.
Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by Rewards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Moffitt, T. E. (2018). Male antisocial behaviour in adolescence. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 177–186.
APA (2013). Guidelines for the Practice of Parenting Interventions. Washington, DC.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kennedy, B. (2022). Good Inside. New York: Harper Wave.
Siegel, D. J., & Bryson, T. P. (2011). The Whole-Brain Child. New York: Bantam.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive Family Process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Fromm, E. (1976). To Have or To Be? New York: Harper & Row.
Comments