To Whack or Not to Whack?

I recently had a FB-type debate with a lady on the merits or otherwise of spanking in schools and at home. Of course this is one of those debates like gun-ownership, abortion and capital punishment that have no definitively right answers; nonetheless, these areas are fraught with experts eager to share their insights and opinions with the world at large. Personally, I enjoy debates. It gives me an opportunity to air my views and to hear and consider views that differ from my own. One of the benefits is that in presenting my view I need to re-evaluate my own stand and hence decide if it is still valid for me. Previously unconsidered aspects may shift my point of view.

In theory anyway, this is how it works; the give-and-take of ideas and the thoughtful and courteous consideration of your opponent’s views. In reality it often goes decidedly pear-shaped. An evangelising spirit can easily creep into the proceedings and there is a subtle shift from presenting one’s view to proselytising. When proselytising doesn’t work, the next stage is often name-calling and ridicule (ridicule, of course, says far more about the ridiculer than the one being ridiculed.) But I digress...

The nub of this lady’s argument is that some research indicates that spanking is experienced as traumatic by children (some may say that’s the whole point) and causes lasting damage to the psyche with an increased tendency to violence later on in life. Also, that spanking teaches children that violence is acceptable. The warning is also sounded of a likelihood to develop tendencies similar to those exhibited by the male protagonist in “Fifty Shades”.

One contributor to the debate sanguinely equated a swat on the backside to “lighting a child’s hair on fire” (sic). The lady with whom I was debating was apparently quite overcome by the depth of vision demonstrated by this analogy, while another contributor was apparently unable to discern a difference between disciplining a child and assaulting an annoying adult.

I always feel a little uneasy when interacting with people who see the world, and particularly humans,  in terms of black and white with no shades of grey (no reference to the book intended). These people seem to feel that it is reasonable to place huge segments (or even all) of humanity into neat packages and declare them homogenous. For example, saying that listening to classical music is beneficial for everyone or that all smokers are self-centred. This is taking Behaviourism to a dangerous extreme: in any human, applying stimulus “A” will result in response “B”. From this they extrapolate that applying hand ”A” to backside “B” damages psyche “C”. 

In my opinion, humans are a tad more complex than that.  My viewpoint is that maybe other factors need to be included in the equation. I do not intend to go into detail here of the entire debate (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=615539718472668&set=a.615539685139338.152980.229009330459044&type=1&comment_id=95871323&ref=notif&notif_t=photo_reply&theater if you are really interested). The arguments I tried to raise included the need to prepare our offspring for the real world, teaching boundaries and respect  and other life skills, and especially that our actions have consequences. I also touched on emotional and mental violence (practiced by both adults and children) which is more insidious. And that it is the responsibility of the parent to teach these life skills, not the school-teacher.

Also, it seems to me that if we are on a mission to make our children’s lives as idyllic as possible, then the approach should be holistic. There is much peer-reviewed research that shows correlations between child obesity and adult obesity and disease and hence the need for a healthy diet. There is also tons of research that shows that children of parents who smoke are more likely to become smokers themselves. Tons of research exists that shows beyond doubt that some children are traumatized by witnessing their parents fighting. The effects if divorce are well documented. And of course, your favorite and mine... too much TV and Playstation and X-Box! I could cite many other examples, but I’m sure you get my drift. To latch onto one isolated aspect with a triumphant cry of “Schultz!! I have it!” is to have a rather one dimensional outlook.

Now it seems to me that many parents who condemn spanking are quite happy to justify other forms of abuse when their own “well-being” is on the line. We all know the sort of ingratiating guff that gets trotted out: “he won’t eat unless he has a big mac”, “cigarettes are my only vice”, “it’s her bitchiness that starts the fights – I can’t help it”, “I need a few drinks when I get home just to unwind and the TV keeps them out of my hair” and so and so on ad nauseum. 

So yes, ban spanking but take care of the other business too, including the stuff that may call for some personal involvement and sacrifice.  Don’t send your undisciplined little darlings to school and say “fix please”. And if the danger does indeed exist that a smack on the bum will be a lastingly unhappy experience for the child, perhaps we need to weigh up the pros and cons of that smack - just maybe more good than harm is done and the price paid for a lesson learned early in life can turn out to be a bargain later on. In any event, all actions have both positive and negative aspects. Whichever course of action you follow you can be sure that there will ALWAYS be a price tag.

I raised many of these points during the debate, but I didn’t really get the feeling that I was being heard. Or, indeed, even carefully read. My impression was that my opponent was so intent on kindly helping me to see the error of my ways that she dismissed these other issues as irrelevant distractions. She just allowed me the space so that she could fire her next salvo of URLs.

My outlook after this debate is largely unchanged and not just because of the debating style of my opponent. A point worth remembering is that while you are conditioning your charges (a la Skinner), you are also being conditioned. If you are rewarded by a good result from time-outs and positive reinforcement and such, you are pretty likely to repeat the technique and good for you! But sometimes, when all the “softer” options have failed, something more is needed to extinguish the anti-social behavior. Love isn’t just huggy and fuzzy... sometimes love is a stinging whack on the bum or a metaphorical kick up the backside.

To say that spanking is abusive and bad for all children is as silly as saying that all children will benefit from spanking. There is no “one-size-fits-all” with humans – we are wonderfully diverse and multi-faceted and we all respond to life in our own wonderfully unique way. To treat children as a homogenous mass all with the same needs, emotions, outlook, personality and responses is at best patronizing. 

Our society is built on the premise that those who refuse to behave in a socially acceptable manner will have to face consequences. It is a lesson learnt more easily in childhood than later in life.