From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: 20/20 and Spanking
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:41:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <1dbv74INNstq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
davids@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (David Schwantner) writes:

>[...] semantics are important here. When one person says
>"spanking", they might mean smacking the kid across the face when they are not
>looking. Another person may mean using a small switch to give a stinging 
>sensation on the back of the leg or palm of the hand (with no intention of
>bringing physical damage), and another person may mean turning a child over
>your leg and slapping a child on its bottom until its red.

>You obviously did not have a good experience with spanking, and this experience
>(like most people who have strong opinions on this subject) shapes your image
>of what people are meaning and doing when they talk about spanking. 

This is true, and a very good point.

But you are still oversimplifying, in that you are reducing the act of
spanking to its physical component. Make no mistake: I agree that both
the image and reality of the degree of physical violence involved are very
important considerations, and one must make the kind of distinctions which 
you are making. But having done this, it does not follow that even the
least violent smacking is justifiable.

I won't repeat the arguments which others have already given, which suggest
that smacking is *always* teaching the wrong lesson, and that there are
*always* alternatives: so that the use of smacking is always wrong -- or,
at best, an unfortunate mistake, deriving from a lack of imagination for
alternatives, which itself results from the smacker's own mistaken
upbringing.

My own position (which I fully realise my be too extreme, deriving from
my bitter reactions to my own loveless upbringing) is that there is always
a harmful intention behind even the mildest of physical punishment or
discipline; and that this only escapes notice because the intentions are
not brought to consciousness, but concealed behind habits and thoughtlessly
repeated dogmas.

I'm prepared to be argued out of this belief; and indeed, it is only a 
recently acquired one, and not one which I have held since childhood. I
acquired it by listening to anti-spanking arguments, and finding that I
was unable to answer them -- and that I had been *too* forgiving of my
mother for spanking me. (I had preferred to ignore the physical fact, and
concentrate instead on less tangible emotional factors. I now believe
that it is impossible to separate the emotional from the physical
reality.)

But as you suggest, in general terms, my own particular experience may
be warping my view of the general situation. We shall see; meanwhile,
I'm finding this thread educational.

>Now, to take this thread on a side twist, what do people think about this
>statement (I will leave it un qualified or explained so as to leave it open
>for interpretation 9:-)):

>A parent needs to be a childs external control until they can help the child
>develop its own internal controls.

Very true, I think; but be very careful about what it is that the child
is internalising. Is it a drug, or a poison? (Often the same substance
can be a drug in small doses and a poison in large -- which I suppose
is the best pro-smacking argument that I can imagine, if I allow myself
to play Devil's advocate.)

Also, I'm worried by your use of the word "need" in this context, because
why didn't you write, "A child needs its parent to be ... "?. Be careful
that you are not using control of the child as a substitute for *self*-
control. by re-externalising, in the shape of the actual child, your own
(disowned) internal child. (This could get very psychoanalytical ...)
--
Angus H. Rodgers  (PhD student), | arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk  
Dept. of Computer Science, Queen | [ +44 | 0 ] 71 975 5241   
Mary & Westfield College,  Mile  | "But what is contact? No two points
End Rd., London E1 4NS, England  | are in contact." -- A.N. Whitehead.