Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Child Abuse or Discipline?
-R
14 Comments:
Wow, Ryan, this is a big one. If you've looked up the definition of "abuse" in the dictionary, you've found that the first definition given is "misuse," which would seem to suggest that physical discipline is not "abuse," strictly speaking.
However, I think that in a theological context, a better source than Webster's would be Carr's "New Dictionary of Pastoral Studies" which notes that the definition of "misuse" has been superceeded in the USA since the 70's and the UK and Europe since the 1980's with a definition that is more like "any deliberate violence." Under this construction, spanking would certainly qualify.
Interestingly, Carr's spectrum of abuse goes from "murder" down to "witholding of love." With a spectrum this wide, I think that the question of what would constitute appropriate Christian discipline is open again.
As a not-yet-father (as are you, Ryan), I may be ruled out of bounds to have an opinion on this matter since I haven't faced the harsh reality of the actual need to discipline an actual child. But perhaps it is also true that those with children are affected by the specificity of their experience. So, let's give each other a break at the outset and hold to our commitment to Christian responsibility as the ground for this debate.
It seems to me that violence among those who have a duty to care for one another (and parent to child is only one example) is counterproductive to Christian principles at best, and outright sinful at worst. Christians who wish to regulate each other's behavior must find positive, rather than negative, ways to influence each other. And to remain Christian, the witholding of love (as Carr acknowledges) is unacceptable.
Tricky problem, no doubt. But anything done in a Christian manner is harder than the same thing done according to the rules of the world. I'd have to side with Prof. P. on this one.
<--Micah.
By 
, at
12:58 PM
I don't think "violence" is as obviously defined as some of the remarks in the post and comment seem to me to suggest.
Is violence merely the application of force? Then I practice violence when hammering a nail. But then hammering a nail is not usually considered vicious (unless it's through the hand of our Lord--and even then, that vicious act is for our redemption).
Is violence then the application of force which violates the physical boundaries of another without their consent? Then my pushing a child out of the way of a speeding car is violence. Yet here again, I would doubtless be lauded as a hero for so doing.
Is violence the application of force which violates the physical boundaries of another without their consent and toward a predetermined end? Well, the pushing of the kid out from in front of the speeding car would fit that depiction.
And I would add that spanking a child would fit the previous description. So why would spanking a child be potentially vicious whereas pushing a kid out from a speeding car virtuous?
Must there be supposed another ingredient? If anger is involved, is it then vicious? I would think so (and thus agree: never spank a child in anger). But what if spanking is the deliberate, rational and calm action (unsolicited surely by the disciplinee) which is intended toward corrective discipline? Why would that be vicious if it's free of anger?
And what if I angrily and forcibly draw an attacker away from his intended victim and subdue him, with force, mind you, but without injury? Does my anger (even a righteous anger at the unjust attack of the defenseless) somehow make this act of violence less salvific and indeed vicious instead of virtuous?
In other words, the definitions (assumed mostly and not very explicit) presuppose some things about the discipline of children and of violence that I think need to be uncovered.
In other words, it's too easy to equate spanking with violence--a connection I'm calling into dispute here.
By 
Benedict Seraphim, at
10:01 PM
While I agree with Dr. Poling, and you Micah, in principle, I just can't call parents who occasionally spank their children as a means of discipline when all other modes of discipline have failed child abusers. Now a parent who spanks their child for reasons other than discipline, or a parent who overabundantly uses spanking as a disciplinary measure, or a non-parent figure who spanks a child for any reason might be a different story. Contrary to Kurt's thought, I guess I don't see spanking as an outdated mode of discipline for a parent to utilize. When it is misused, as Micah has pointed out with the definition he cited, it becomes abuse. From a legal point of view, most state laws that I found stated that "excessive corporal punishment" was against the law, but they differed of what "excessive" meant. All of this of course begs the next question: at what point does an outsider, or anyone of the three of us as future priests, intervene or say something?
-R
Just saw Clifton's comment after I posted my own. Mark down the day and time, I think we agree on this. :)
-R
See, Ryan, sometimes I clean up real good.
By Benedict Seraphim, at
11:16 PM
Hmm...
I think it is impossible for the human heart to punish without anger.
I'm just saying.
By Tripp Hudgins, at
12:31 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0827_040827_punishment.html
it's abuse...whats more you enjoy it.
By , at
12:41 PM
But, Tripp, you're assuming that spanking-as-discipline is punitive. What if it's not punitive but corrective? Or do you have evidence and an argument to show that spanking-as-discipline is necessarily punitive?
By Benedict Seraphim, at
2:32 PM
Anonymous:
The huge problem with the article you point us to is that it is rife with confusion:
Are we talking revenge, discipline, punishment? These things are all distinct, or at least the article does not prove how they are not distinct. As such the article is worthless other than to show that "getting back" at others makes us feel good.
But is spanking "getting back" at our children? Puh-leeze, the article neither argues for nor demonstrates what it already (apparently though confusedly) assumes.
By Benedict Seraphim, at
2:38 PM
Mark:
Hero, but a hero sued in our litigious society. Regrettably you're right.
If you'll look I wasn't making a direct analogy between saving a kid from a car and trying to inculcate in them not to drag the cat around by the tail. Rather I was trying to draw out what is not explicit and only thus far assumed: what is "violence," or what is "abuse"? We think we know and have already begun to opine on this topic, but as the blinkered news article only too well illustrates, our assumptions do not offer a definition upon which to offer an opinion. We engage in gut reactions and then proceed to discriminate and judge.
My point all along is we need to come to terms with what we mean "violence" and "abuse," and then how those relate (or not) to spanking-as-discipline. I tried to offer some possible definitions but then also tried to show how those definitions were not at all helpful since they did not help us distinguish between acts potentially identical in form, though different in matter. But if, in fact, there is no material difference between spanking a kid and saving his life, then either every discipline is potential abuse, or even abuse is potentially life-saving.
I trust you will accept that such a conclusion is ludicrous.
By Benedict Seraphim, at
3:40 PM
As school teacher of almost 40 years I firmly believe that a lack of discipline can be child abuse. Tom
By , at
6:54 PM
Hmm...Explain to me the difference between punative and corrective. I think of them as synonomous....no, that's not it. Why punish if not to correct? I think that punitive measures fall under the corrctive category. They are poor meathods of correcting as they destroy relationships and can break trust, but there you go.
By Tripp Hudgins, at
7:55 PM
Anglobaptist -
I would look at "punitive" as being something that has as its end punishement and "corrective" as being something that has at its end the imparting of knowledge. As such, I would see spanking to have elements of both of those. Psychologists would call this negative reinforcement.
I saw the fire. I put my hand in the fire. I got burned. The next time I see the fire, I will not put my hand in it.
I saw my brother quietly reading in a chair and falling asleep. I walked up to him and slapped him because he was dozing and wouldn't be able to react quickly. My mother caught me and she spanked me. The next time I see my brother dozing in a chair, I'll at least think twice about slapping him (or look around to see if Mom is watching).
The effect of the fire burning my hand was corrective to my behavior, but the fire cannot be a moral agent and thus cannot have a punitive function in this example. The mother in the latter example wants to punish me for being obnoxious, and the punishment involved physical pain, so I think of that the next time I encounter the same situation. Her goal is both punitive and corrective. As Mark and others point out, there may be other ways to accomplish the same dual goal.
-R
Hmm...
Well, I get that much, and effectiveness is a good thing to look for I guess. But is the response to punitive correction a moral response? Does that even matter? I get burned or spanked, it is my reaction to pain that matters. And even if one explains the reason for the punishment (given a child can reason - age specific?), does the punishment fit the morality..."does the punishment fit the crime" is a different quandry. I think we need to ask if the punishment, a punitive smack on the bumm for example, fits the morality one propones.
Hmm. Interesting. This may not rule out punitive methods of correcting a child, but it causes me to think about it differently.
By Tripp Hudgins, at
12:08 PM
