Sometimes it is difficult for some people not to be impervious to rational argument. At other times, it might be a case where the two sides of an argument are of equivalent value in helping us understand ourselves and the world we live in. Such a case constitutes a fuzzy issue. The issue of the use of corporal punishment in the upbringing of children seems to be highly controversial, with extremists patrolling either side of the continuum. I would locate myself at the point on that line which tends towards the abolition of corporal punishment. I have realised that it is a better logical position to adopt when one does serious thinking about it. Considerations of fairness and advantage had a significant impact on my eventual position. I also thought that it is a case that we are too lazy to either develop alternative disciplinary measures or diligently assess those which already exist.
At one point in time, corporal punishment in schools was disallowed here, but it was apparently experimental. Most schools in Trinidad became chaotic and there were many reports which linked the collapse of order and discipline in the school to the suspension of corporal punishment. To an untrained social scientist, also known as the ordinary fellow, this would indicate that corporal punishment is necessary not only in schools but also essential when raising children. One alternative explanation that I would offer for that is that there was an over-reliance on that method in maintaining order and instilling discipline historically. With the prime method gone, our astute teachers could think of no other ways which would be as effective, because no other way was practised in schools or at home even.
To analyse this issue further, I will provide what I consider is the best defence for that method of discipline. It is not that many people experienced it and turned out alright or that the good Lord sanctioned it. Many have argued that one cannot really reason with children. They begin with the assumption that children are impulsive, irrational and need firm direction. They view corporal punishment as an avenue whereby the authority figure can effectively direct the errant child onto the right path. That in itself is a contentious point, but there is a side to human beings which needs to be controlled. The assumption made about children in that regard is a reflection the hidden impulsive side that we seek to suppress. This seems to be a reasonable defence but to the critical thinker, it remains just one solution to the problem of guiding and directing children. One will be right to wonder if there aren’t other solutions which might be even more effective.
I remember a particular discussion I had with a much older woman about beating children. As a counter argument I told her that a child is able to think and be reasoned with. If a child does something wrong and is unaware, the child can be made to recognise the consequences of the action. This should inform those who beat a child for something the child might be unaware of. I believe that sometimes children do things out of curiosity. Instead of just telling a child not to do something and leaving it at that, we should inform the child of the reasons. That is something that would represent a change from the traditional way of parenting in Trinidad at least. My second point was that even when a child knowingly does something wrong, he might have an idea of what level of punishment is unacceptable. I state that with the knowledge that some parents used to and still abuse their children for anything. This would almost inevitably lead to short-term or long-term resentment as the child could feel unfairly dealt with. This goes for all forms of punishment and not just corporal punishment. I feel that the latter however is a display of physical power and the child may feel taken advantage of. Feelings of helplessness and hurt are typical products of this method.
We need to obviate the reliance on this method quickly, especially as one sensible alternative exists. Some experts have suggested that natural consequences be applied to correct action. For example, if your child breaks your favourite dish, it is better that the child is punished by having to sacrifice his weekly allowance or do extra chores as a consequence. For this to work there must be some known association of action and consequences. The association must also not be random but as directly related to the action as possible. The merit of this approach is that it facilitates understanding on the part of the child. The child would faster attribute the punishment to his own action than to the urge for action or even violence on the part of the authority-figure.
When I was a child, I had feelings, could think and reason and would listen when reprimanded. Sometimes I felt that my parents went overboard even when it came to their reactions to certain bits of information. The optimal situation for a parent-child relationship is one of openness. Feelings and thought must be freely shared and both parties must attempt to exercise understanding. Corporal punishment eliminates this from a relationship when it is executed. Some people may ask me if a three-year old could reason. My answer is that some adults cannot reason but that is no reason to treat them as a lesser being. Corporal punishment is not really just a tap on the wrist in my opinion.
The concept I have used is that of sustained application of force on another’s person, which I feel borders on prehistoric behaviour. At the end of it all, the child must be able to make socially acceptable decisions even when there is no proverbial big stick ahead. I sensed that there was a feeling that in cases where correction or guidance was necessary, corporal punishment was immediately administered. It makes sense as it requires little intellectual effort and might have been a useful stress-beater for some. We must always keep in mind that the child is not a potential fully-human being. The child is a fully human being.
Leave a Reply