To Spank or Not to Spank
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Spanking, that is the question. Whether it is nobler to use discipline as a teaching moment or to use punishment to let the child know just how angry his behavior has made us. OK, this isn't Shakespeare, and the consequences for hitting a child aren't nearly as difficult to understand.
Let me make this as simple as possible.
When a child is hit, spanked, whenever he does something that displeases the parent he learns several things, one of which is that he must be innately bad. Why else would the parent be so angry and hurtful? Only a bad person gets punished so harshly right?
After a while the child begins to define himself as bad, defective - or deserving of severe, painful treatment from others. When the child defines himself in this way he eventually begins to loose hope that he could ever be "good enough" to be treated differently, and so he takes on this role as his identity.
Once he internalizes the identity of "the bad child" he begins to believe that attempts to behave in an acceptable manner are futile, and he accepts the idea that he isn't capable of behaving in a socially acceptable way - so he stops trying. If he is inherently bad, so be it. If a lifetime of punishment is what is in store for him he accepts it. Attempts to discipline the child become meaningless as he defies the parent in spite of the threat of severe consequences. Harsh treatment is now a given in his life and he is no longer phased by it.
When a parent tells me that spanking a child is a good way to stop unacceptable behavior I cringe. It isn't acceptable, it is only convenient for the parent. Effective parenting is supposed to be all about the child - not about the parent.
Discipline is a way to use the moment to help the child learn right from wrong. And no one can learn effectively when under attack.
Let me make this as simple as possible.
When a child is hit, spanked, whenever he does something that displeases the parent he learns several things, one of which is that he must be innately bad. Why else would the parent be so angry and hurtful? Only a bad person gets punished so harshly right?
After a while the child begins to define himself as bad, defective - or deserving of severe, painful treatment from others. When the child defines himself in this way he eventually begins to loose hope that he could ever be "good enough" to be treated differently, and so he takes on this role as his identity.
Once he internalizes the identity of "the bad child" he begins to believe that attempts to behave in an acceptable manner are futile, and he accepts the idea that he isn't capable of behaving in a socially acceptable way - so he stops trying. If he is inherently bad, so be it. If a lifetime of punishment is what is in store for him he accepts it. Attempts to discipline the child become meaningless as he defies the parent in spite of the threat of severe consequences. Harsh treatment is now a given in his life and he is no longer phased by it.
When a parent tells me that spanking a child is a good way to stop unacceptable behavior I cringe. It isn't acceptable, it is only convenient for the parent. Effective parenting is supposed to be all about the child - not about the parent.
Discipline is a way to use the moment to help the child learn right from wrong. And no one can learn effectively when under attack.
Labels: discipline, punishment, spanking
1 Comments:
I've known a lot of people, even in my church, that say that a little spanking is no big deal. A light swat on the behind is okay. This is when I cringe. Aren't we here to be like Christ? Would Christ spank a child? NEVER! He gave us the best example of how to treat children. If HE wouldn't do it, then neither should we.
commented by 
Jay, 4:05 PM
Jay, 4:05 PM