Disciplining your kids takes time and effort, regardless of their various personality styles. While their individual personality style may explain their behavior, it does not excuse it (nor does it relieve you of the responsibility to address it). Understanding the complexity of their personality styles will help you determine the best approaches to take in effectively raising them.Don't lose hope, though, for your efforts won't have to go on forever - only for about the first 18 years of your child's life.
Friday, April 15, 2005
On being "blessed with compliant children"...
In conversation, recently, someone remarked that my wife and I were "blessed with compliant children." The remark was probably motivated by the fact that our children are a slightly better behaved (to put it mildly)than the child of the person who made the remark. Apparently this person believes that a child's behavior is directly tied to whether or not the child is "compliant," which must be, if we were simply lucky enough to be "blessed" with them, purely a matter of their genetics.
My response to her was that if she thinks our kids are compliant, then she needs to spend some time at our house to see how they act throughout an entire day. Now, most of the time, our kids are reasonably well behaved. But there are certainly times when their human self-centeredness shines through and they prove to be difficult (to say the least). Our four year-old, for instance, has recently been putting us through a loop with regards to her direct defiance of direction from either me or my wife. It is taking a lot of effort for us to consistently address such defiance.
But therein is where we find the actual heart of the matter. It's not at all a matter of parents being "blessed with compliant children."
It's a matter of parents applying consistent effort with regards to the discipline of their children.
Child psychologists, such as James Dobson, have described how we all have unique, in-built, personality traits. While anyone's personality is certainly a complex matter, the two general categories that Dobson describes (for children) are known as the "strong-willed" child and the "compliant" child. Yet, I think the whole idea of the "strong-willed" child has been misinterpreted by a great many parents. While Dobson has given us the two categories in the hopes of helping us understand how to discipline each personality style, many parents simply see the "strong-willed" category as the reason (or excuse?) for their child's ill behavior. After all, so they rationalize, they obviously weren't "blessed with a compliant child."
But such thinking misses the point entirely.
If it were merely a matter of chance - that is, whether or not a couple was blessed with a child possessing a certain personality style - then I should consider my wife and me pretty "lucky." After all, it was a 50/50 shot with each kid, and we came out ahead on two shots in a row! That's nothing, however, for there seems to be an endless supply of luck for other couples. Indeed, we have a family in our homeschool group that has nine children (that's right! The number 9. 5 plus 4, 108 divided by 12... NINE). Despite the fact that each one of their nine kids is an individual, they can still be identified as generally fitting within either one of the two broad categories referenced above. Some are compliant and some are strong-willed. But, and here's the kicker, they are all well behaved. Wow! Consider that for a moment - the sheer luck involved in the cards they happened to be dealt.
But is it really probable that these parents defied the odds and were simply "blessed" with nine compliant children?
Let me state what should not have to be stated:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Equating spanking one's children with beatings is an abuse of the English language, and a cheap rhetorical device.
Paul,
I defy you to produce the evidence of Dobson advocating the beating other human beings.
If, by chance, you consider the practice of corporal punishment equivalent to that of beating another human being, then I can see why you're confused. If you are unable to differentiate between the two acts, then please DO NOT ATTEMPT to use any physical means with which to discipline your children. You're misunderstanding of the concept may prove to be too great a risk to take.
Also, I would recommend you do a bit more research on the concept of "discipline," as advocated by Dobson, before you make a blatantly false statement such as, "a man who advocates beating other human beings who won't do what you want them to."
You're equivocating, Paul.
When White slave owners beat their Black slaves in the South, they did not administer two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch. They beat them. Prisoners who were beaten in the Gulag, or at Abu Grahib, were not given a little bit of pain to go a long way. They were beaten.
Words have meanings and context matters. You would do well to use them properly.
As I said before, if you are unable to distinguish between spanking and beating, then I suggest you refrain from using any physical means of discipline.
"Spanking" and "beating" don't differ in their fundamental nature of imparting kinetic energy to another person in order to inflict pain, but they do differ in degree, and also in intent.
Similarly, if one sends their child to bed without dinner one night as punishment, that does not differ from starving someone in the sense that both involve withholding food, but the two differ very much in degree and intent.
Or, one may choose to discipline their child by giving them extra work around the house, which does not differ from slavery in the sense that both involve unpaid involuntary labor, but again, they differ in degree (including duration) and intent.
Failure to recognize the distinction does not erase the distinction. Equivocating is, as I said before, a cheap rhetorical device that does violence to the language. It's an attempt to cast your position in the best possible light, or someone else's position in the worst possible light, rather than honestly evaluating the merits of the positions. You've attempted to substitute emotionally loaded terminology for reasoned discussion, and you've resorted to insulting your ideological opponents ("sick", "perverted", "limited intellect", "denial", etc. - indirect insults, but insults nonetheless) rather than reasoning with them. Such rhetorical nonsense does not benefit any of us.
---
Lest the question be asked: I don't yet have any children, but I likely will in not too many years, and I haven't yet decided what forms of discipline are acceptable (but I have some strong pacifist leanings, which gives the "no spanking" side a foot in the door.) I'm open to discussion, and I'm open to being convinced, but the linguistic games you've tried to play here and the subtle insults you've used do not help your cause, and if you can't move beyond such things they're likely to hurt it.
I'm a seasoned internet debater; I've seen every rhetorical trick in the book (and I even used quite a few of them when I was younger.) I make it a habit to criticize the use of those methods when they make up a substantial part of someone's position. I'm not interested in a contest of debate skills or a battle of rhetorical tricks -- I'm interested honest presentation and evaluation of ideas. (I wrote more about honest debate on my blog so as not to muddy the waters too much here.) In this case, your argument seems to hinge upon your use of loaded language, so I'm going to criticize that, and try to scrape that layer of spin off of your argument so we can talk about the actual substance of your position.
---
The main point I wanted to make with all the examples I gave is this: no matter how loving, mild, and correct your method of discipline, I can come up with emotionally charged, broad terminology to describe it. I can equate spanking to beatings (or violence, which is worse), or sending your kid to bed without supper to starvation, or making them do extra chores to slavery (or servitude), or telling them to behave to verbal abuse, or grounding to imprisonment, just to name a few. Typically, what's actually being done to the child differs significantly both in degree and in intent to what the loaded terminology suggests (but the terms are broad enough to technically apply.) Use of such terminology only serves to demonize those who believe differently.
You ask how hard you have to hit a child before it "counts" as a beating, and the implication you suggest due to the lack of a clear line is that any physical strike that causes pain qualifies as a "beating" and is morally reprehensible. I can play the same game. For example, I could ask how much food you have to deprive your child of before it becomes appropriate to call it "starvation". If you leave them to die, that's obviously morally reprehensible. But if you make your 12-year-old skip dinner, or deny your 8-year-old ice cream for dessert, that hardly deserves to be called "starvation". Even if the word *could* be applied, it's morally quite different to starve a kid to death than to deny him ice cream (and since your original response was about the difference between your morality and Rusty's, you'd do well not to use the ambiguity of the language to mask such moral distinctions.)
On the issue of "*demanding* to be spanked", you're taking that figure of speech awfully literally (and I think you're being far more pedantic about it than you are about your own choice of language.) You're far too quick to insult your ideological opponents, and while that doesn't directly reflect on your position, it does make me slow to trust your judgement. (I don't mean that as an insult, just an honest assessment of why you're doing a poor job of bringing me over to your side.)
---
Misuse of terminology, failure to draw reasonable distinctions, and insulting your ideological opponents are all a part of the form of your argument -- they're all rhetorical devices, and I've spent enough time criticizing them. Again, my hope is that you can move beyond that. What I'm really interested in is the substance -- the underlying ideas behind your position. You did say one thing that I think showed your core idea, and I'm hoping you can clarify it and substantiate it a bit.
You've made the claim that "hitting a child... is wrong." You talked about 15 month old's inability to comprehend the cause of a spanking, though I don't see anything in Rusty's post or in the Dobson quotes you gave to suggest they're talking about a child that young. I see no room for disagreement about hitting a child too young to understand (and I won't quibble over the 15 month figure.) But why is it wrong to give a 6-year-old a good solid whack to the behind if they know they're misbehaving? What sort of discipline and/or punishment would be morally acceptable in that circumstance? More generally, how do I determine what forms of discipline are acceptable? Why is "reason and exercises of authority" OK, and what exactly do you mean by "exercises of authority"?
I totally agree with the point that we don't own our children, and we don't have the right to just do whatever we feel like. But we do have the duty and responsibility to care for them, and that implies we have a responsibility to teach them appropriate behavior. So, what teaching methods should we use in order to fulfill that duty, and why are those the only OK methods?
Paul,
I agree almost entirely with LotharBot, but wanted to add my two cents:
1. You equate spanking with "violence."
That is a nice opinion, but it is merely that. "Loving discipline" is possible, and is not abuse. In fact, I would argue that shouting at your children is more likely abuse because it is done in anger.
Physical spanking done correctly causes no physical harm, and studies have shown (don't make me look them up) that loving consistent discipline seems to create balanced kids, and less psychopaths than other methods, especially those who recieve NO discipline.
However, if we want to get into it, I am sure we could both dig up studies that support our point.
However, I believe that the effectivness of spanking will never be absolutely proven to be 100% effective, nor harmful.
2. Some Spanking is Training, Not Discipline
Many conservatives love the book To Train Up a Child by Pearl. This book is sometimes a little extreme, but it makes the following valid point - before a child has the ability to reason, careful negative physical feedback (like a stroke to the back of the leg with a wooden spoon) helps them realize that there is a consequence to disobedience. This is not abuse, nor is it discipline for disbedience - it is merely training.
For example, when my 12 month old daughter crawls near the fireplace, I tell her in a firm voice "No." But she doesn't listen - she would rather go to the hot glass and put her hand on it. It would be cruel for me to "let her figure it out" by burning herself.
I have often picked her up, redirected her attention, etc., but the fact is, she likes the pretty fire. So Daddy instead says No and inflicts some slight pain on her leg - she doesn't even know I am doing it, but she associates pain with not stopping.
And now, she obeys promptly, for her own safety.
You may find that type of training incomprehensible, but actually, that is how children learn before they can reason, and even after. You know why she doesn't put her fingernails into her eyes anymore? She learned that it hurts!
3. What spanking teaches children
I agree with you that it teaches limits, and that authority should be respected.
Respect is also earned through doing discipline properly, which means
- resorting to spanking only when necessary. there are many methods of discipline
- appealing to reason when necessary
- making punishments fit the "crime"
Etc. But the long and short is, being anti-spanking seems moral and kind, but really, it is foolish - "he who spares the rod hates his child" - which means, at best, they are foolish because they don't realize that they are putting their child at risk by NOT spanking.
If you ever get a strong-willed child, you may change your mind.
We are all against abuse, emotional and physical. But physical discipline, administered correctly, is a valid method which is beneficial to the child. You'll have a hard time proving otherwise.
I used to be a pacifist, until I saw that the nature of man requires both mercy *and* justice. Even wars can be just - just look at wwII. I'm glad somone stopped Hitler by force.
This same nature can be well addressed through physical punishment - but not ONLY that.
I realize I haven't done an overly compelling job here, but I don't have time to do more. Enjoy.
I strongly caution using the OED, which aims to capture real usage but often fails, as a guide to settling a dispute about words' meanings. They list racism as a view that you can take (rather than an attitude), and the view they describe it as is a view that could be empirically provable. That's obviously not what racism is. According to their definition, you're a racist if you think black people have slightly lower intelligence capacities, for whatever reason, but you're not one if you simply hate black people but think they're all as smart as every white person. That's nuts, and the examples they give to support their definition actually conflict with the definition. Dictionaries are a good reference, but they're extremely fallible, and I wouldn't rest any controversial philophical claim on a dictionary entry. Most philosophy professors I know take off points if a student cites a dictionary to support a point.
By the way, Dobson's latest books, even the later editions of books you quote, endorse a completely different view. I'm pretty sure he restricts the ages and contexts of when spanking is appropriate as compared to the original book. I believe this had something to do with more recent research on how children at different ages learn. I don't know the exact details offhand, but you should make sure your information is up-to-date if you want to criticize his views as they really are as opposed to his views as they used to be.
Also, the vagueness of categories does not constitute the lack of a category. It just means the boundaries are vague. We know what red is, when it's a clear example. We also know lots of things that aren't red. Yet there are plenty of things at the boundaries of what looks red. That doesn't mean there isn't a clear distinction between red and pink, say. The argument that there isn't a clear boundary between spanking and beating amounts to the same fallacy, just as it does for real starvation and simply missing a meal.
As for knowing differences between discipline and hate, the young child knows no difference between being locked in their room because they're hated and being locked in their room because the parent loves them. That's a poor argument against spanking, because it rules out any discipline at all of kids who can't tell that difference.
When Dobson said a kid might be asking for a spanking he did not mean it literally. This is a pretty common idiom. Dobson meant that some kids are testing their parents to see if they've grown soft since the last time they acted up. A friend of mine who I'm sure does not spank his son was just telling me about how his son does exactly that every now and then, and I'm sure he'd be happy to describe it in terms of his son asking to be disciplined. You don't need to believe in spanking to use such an idiom, and it's just as appropriate an idiom when you use it for any method of discipline that a child can expect to receive for acting up, spanking included.
While it is true that great discipline of children generally pays off, there are also children that are very very very strong willed.
Some kids have the attitude of "I don't care if you kill me I will not do what you say". And this can happen in families that are very well disciplined. I have seen it. No, it did not happen in my own family but a family that we are very close to. All the other children are obedient and "compliant" and one is "strong willed".
Be grateful, you have been "blessed with compliant children".
Thanks for the clear and concise clarifications Jeremy.
Hi Wayne,
The human psyche is incredibly complex and I'm sure that there are exceptions to the general rule of discipline. Before I would declare a kid very very very strong willed, though, I would want to take a look at how he was disciplined up to about age 3 or 4... for if the balance of power up to that time was tipped in his favor, then it is highly improbable that it will ever tip back in favor of the parents - regardless of their efforts after that time. In other words, if the child establishes that he is in control from the outset, expect the task of disciplining him from childhood through adolescence to be a long, hard, and potentially impossible journey.
Of course, I could be wrong.
;^)
My dad spanked me when I deserved it and, looking back, I thank him for it. It wasn't the spankings that traumatised me; it was the excessive criticism of everything I did and the lack of praise to balance out that criticism.
Yes Irene, words can cut deeper and their effects last much longer.
Post a Comment